Inxsive Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I know some news agencies were a little surprised that Seattle didn't 'Franchise' Hutchinson. They saved less than 600k and opened the door for other teams to dictate the terms of his deal. If they were looking to trade him, I might understand the move but I would think Seattle has every intention of keeping him. Now a team with a high cash flow can come in and make him a really high signing bonus offer. I think in the end Seattle will match anything but without the cost of two 1st round picks you could see multiple teams bid him up. Does anyone think this was a better move than 'Franchising' him and if so why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I think it was a bad move to only transition tag him in order to save about 600k. The franchize tag would have let them at least have a trade option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 The only thing I can think is they couldn't afford the extra 600k or he assured them he'd sign with them on the discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight_on_til_you_have_won Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I don't know, but one team that should jump at the chance to sign him -- the Arizona Cardinals. They're $20 million under the cap and in desperate need of some fresh blood in the OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Orrrrrr, the Eagles who are 19m under the cap, run the same WCO that Hutch already knows, and are one OL from having the most dominant line in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Probably smart, here's why: 1. According to Mike Golic, when you franchise a guard the top five salaries also include all offensive lineman. The left tackles in the league drive the average up significantly. 2. They don't have to average just the top 5 salaries... 3. They average the top ten when the transition tag is placed on a player. 4. The cap number is reduced significantly this way. The drawback of course is that you could lose the guy if you don't match the best offer given to said player. If you don't match, no compensation at all. However, like running backs, guards can be replaced easier than most positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Orrrrrr, the Eagles who are 19m under the cap, run the same WCO that Hutch already knows, and are one OL from having the most dominant line in the league. Orrrrr, the Eagles are to cheap and don't plan on a major move that would cost this much: Heckert said the Eagles probably won't be pursuing big-name free agents during the offseason, mainly because there isn't expected to be much high-end quality in the areas the Eagles need help. Expect them to wait until the first wave of high-priced free agents are gone and then go bargain hunting for functional players who won't be looking for massive deals. http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/99-02052006-608533.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle091 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 whiskeypeet, although I wish that would happen, philly has a way of doing the opposite of what they say when it comes to fa, etc kearse, owens. they said the same thing that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 Probably smart, here's why:1. According to Mike Golic, when you franchise a guard the top five salaries also include all offensive lineman. The left tackles in the league drive the average up significantly. 2. They don't have to average just the top 5 salaries... 3. They average the top ten when the transition tag is placed on a player. 4. The cap number is reduced significantly this way. The drawback of course is that you could lose the guy if you don't match the best offer given to said player. If you don't match, no compensation at all. However, like running backs, guards can be replaced easier than most positions. Well, we already know the difference is less than 600k Doesn't seem very significant in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Large_Ant Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 People are too focused on the money savings. That's not the point. This team just went through three straight years of having to franchise tag Walter Jones because they couldn't get him to sit at the table and bargain. And why would he? He was getting at least a 20% increase every year at a position with relatively low risk. The Seahawks are basically saying "Go find the market". The thing that's not being pointed out here is that they are in the same cap shape as the Eagles. They will match whatever offer they need to to keep a top notch OL in his prime, even if it means losing an elite RB in his twilight. The only way they risk losing Hutchinson is if they decide that they don't want to pay the market price. I like them using the transition tag because it means that one way or the other, the money games end this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Orrrrr, the Eagles are to cheap and don't plan on a major move that would cost this much:Heckert said the Eagles probably won't be pursuing big-name free agents during the offseason, mainly because there isn't expected to be much high-end quality in the areas the Eagles need help. Expect them to wait until the first wave of high-priced free agents are gone and then go bargain hunting for functional players who won't be looking for massive deals. http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/99-02052006-608533.html Want me to find you the quote that Heckert had in 04 before he made Kearse the highest paid DE in NFL history? Its just like the one above. Only the Skins telegraph their personnel moves. :laugh: Yeah, they didn't trade for that pick to take Campbell. Worst kept secret in the NFL. You could learn some tricks from the Eagles on how to run a FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 People are too focused on the money savings. That's not the point. This team just went through three straight years of having to franchise tag Walter Jones because they couldn't get him to sit at the table and bargain. And why would he? He was getting at least a 20% increase every year at a position with relatively low risk.The Seahawks are basically saying "Go find the market". The thing that's not being pointed out here is that they are in the same cap shape as the Eagles. They will match whatever offer they need to to keep a top notch OL in his prime, even if it means losing an elite RB in his twilight. The only way they risk losing Hutchinson is if they decide that they don't want to pay the market price. I like them using the transition tag because it means that one way or the other, the money games end this year. What if the Eagles frontload a contract in a way which guarantees you can either pick Hutchenson or Bernard and Alexander? What would they do then? What if they overpay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Only the Skins telegraph their personnel moves. :laugh: That's bullcrap. Everybody who paid attention knew Reid wanted Westbrook and LJ Smith. They aren't as clever as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Large_Ant Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 What if the Eagles frontload a contract in a way which guarantees you can either pick Hutchenson or Bernard and Alexander? What would they do then?What if they overpay? No brainer. You keep Hutchinson. Bernard shouldn't even be brought up in this conversation. He's a one year wonder that the team will let walk if it even remotely looks like they'd have to overpay (and it does look that way). Alexander is 29 and is reportedly asking to be the highest paid RB in the league. Be sure to pick up some sunscreen on your way to Arizona, Shaun. Arizona is where good RBs go to die. Just ask Emmitt (although he was pretty much dead when he got there). Anyhoo, it's an interesting point that keeps getting thrown around by people who are forgetting the timelines involved. The presumption is that the Eagles would be assuming that Alexander and Bernard are important to the Seahawks and therefore would "frontload" a contract that would make it impossible to sign all three. But if Alexander and Bernard are as hot as everyone thinks they are, then it's very feasible that they could each be signed by other teams before the Eagles even had an opportunity to call Hutchinson's agent. You followin' me? Since free agency starts on March 4, it would mean the soonest the Seahawks would be forced to make a decision on whether or not to match a "poison pill" contract on Hutch would be March 11. By that time, it's very feasible that Alexander and Bernard could have already conducted press conferences with new teams and not even be in the Seahawks picture anymore. If either of those guys are of major importance to the Seahawks, they'll be signed before Hutch and the Eagles even speak. If they're not, then they're not part of the equation and the desire to sign them won't factor at all into the Seahawks decision to retain Hutch or not. If you're thinking the Eagles will really go after Hutch, then you should be praying that the Seahawks spend some cap money in the next few days or it's no contest. The Seahawks are currently at $21 million and the Eagles are just under $16 million. Once the Eagles cut Owens and the Seahawks cut Sharper the numbers will be closer to $24 million and $20 million respectively. Any way you look at it, if they don't make some major signings before free agency, they're poised to match anything the Eagles come with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgunner Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Bad move for the Hawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Bad move for the Hawks.How do you figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.