Big Weirdo Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 This is absolutely ridiculous. I would want this guy but for this much? Hell no. per PFT.com http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm HUTCHINSON OFFER HAS MAJOR POISON PILL A league source tells us that the offer sheet signed by Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson with the Minnesota Vikings contains a poison pill of unprecedented magnitude and significance, which is aimed at preventing Seattle from exercising its right to match the deal, pursuant to the rules applicable to transition players. Apart from a 2006 cap number that exceeds $13 million, the offer sheet contains a provision that makes the entire deal guaranteed if Hutchinson at any point becomes anything other than the highest paid player on the team. From Seattle's perspective, that's a big problem, in light of the Walter Jones contract. If the Seahawks match, Hutchinson's deal could indeed become fully guaranteed from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Wow. I guess it's funny what you can do when you have an owner that wants to spend. I don't know if he's worth that but I guess they think he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santana4prez Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Nice Research:cheers: , that is the weirdest contract i have seen in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 Wow. I guess it's funny what you can do when you have an owner that wants to spend. I don't know if he's worth that but I guess they think he is. This goes beyond just an owner who "wants to spend." This is just ludicrous. What's the cap hit going to be for something like that when the Vikings need to sign Williamson to a huge contract after a big year?? You think he's going to want to have a guard be paid more than him? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 That's hilarious...it pretty much guarantees the offer sheet won't be matched by Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 This goes beyond just an owner who "wants to spend." This is just ludicrous. What's the cap hit going to be for something like that when the Vikings need to sign Williamson to a huge contract after a big year?? You think he's going to want to have a guard be paid more than him? I don't think so. Yeah I shouldn't have said want's to spend, more of isn't afraid to spend. I think it's crazy but I guess they have a plan in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 That's hilarious...it pretty much guarantees the offer sheet won't be matched by Seattle. There is more in the article about how Seattle could potentially work their around that part of the clause but it had too many mentions of the CBA and different articles and provisions. Too much legal **** to read through. I doubt they will be able to match this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidenreich Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Isn't Culpepper paid more than Hutchinson's contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratbert_rizzo Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I'm thinking Culpepper is paid more than Hutchinson. Anyway, Hutchinson is so good that I don't suppose the Vikings would mind his contract becoming guaranteed after a few years because he should be productive for about 6 more years. But that is a weird clause to put in there, but it is smart on the Vikings behalf, especially if they frontload it like they should since they have lots of cap room, the way the Cardinals did to Edge's contract, so in later years the cap hit drops and then you have a productive player making under market value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidenreich Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Couldn't the Seahawks say today that they're not going to match? That would make the contract official, and if Daunte is still on the roster, guarantee Hutchinsons entire contract. Hopefully Seattle has figured this out, and are at least thinking about sticking it to the Vikings like that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 Couldn't the Seahawks say today that they're not going to match? That would make the contract official, and if Daunte is still on the roster, guarantee Hutchinsons entire contract. Hopefully Seattle has figured this out, and are at least thinking about sticking it to the Vikings like that...... The Seahawks have a week to sit on this and digest it. They're not going to just give Hutch up today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboe Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Vikes fan lurker here, first let me say as always the rest of the league is jealous of the Skins FA agressiveness... Now on to this thread. I believe the idea is to keep Seattle from matching. This contract is cap heavy up front (like $13M) but no big deal since we have the space thanks to Red McCombs cheap years. But down the road is only like $5M a year or something. Daunte's contract must not be big enough to trigger the clause. Because the thinking is that after this season the number will be lower not putting us in cap hell, but still loaded enough up front to keep Seattle at bay. And if in 2-3 years someone else is deserving of a higher salary well by then Hutch only has a couple years left on the contract anyway so you roll the dice if you think he is a good risk and write the higher contract thus making Hutch's contract guranteed. In the meantime if something happens with Hutch before that time it is no different than anyone elses non-guranteed contract. I am just amazed that Hutch must really want out of Seattle or really want to be in Minny. That is what surprised me in this deal. He basicly thummed his nose at the Seahawks. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Thanks turboe, makes a little more sense now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Here is an article that gives a little more into the contract and how bad Seattle screwed up in the first place by not franchising him. The trigger in not highest on team just highest on the offensive line. With Walter Jones averaging $7.5 mil this would instantly invoke the $50 mil guarantee if Seattle matches. They are screwed! http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9305826 (This has a few paragraphs on the Skins as well, one teams moving up, one moving down) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratbert_rizzo Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 That Hutchinson deal is quite ingenious. The Vikings have tons of cap room to front load it and they make up that funky clause to boot. This seems awful mean of Hutchinison as the Seahawks could have franchised him but decided to be nice. Look what kind of repayment the Seahawks get for trying to make thier player happy. I don't know why Hutchinson did that. I suppose it was his agent's idea but many players seem to forget that the agent is working for them not the other way around. I kinda feel sorry for the Seahawks here but it doesn't really affect me at all. Just the Vikings being clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigskinbauer Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 that is genious. Talk about a loop hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 There are a lot of Seattle fans getting all spun about this, but I really don't see the big deal. The initial $13 million cap hit is something Seattle can afford, and that was looking like the biggest obstacle. In the contract, $16 million was already guaranteed. After the first year, the contract gets cap friendly (friendlier), and Hutch has at least seven years of great football left in him. If I'm the GM, I'm matching the offer. Plus, that clause might not survive a legal challenge, and if there's one thing Paul Allen has, it's good lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Ya'll forget the Vikes had like $30 million of cap space at the start of FA. They can afford to be stupid like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 That Hutchinson deal is quite ingenious. The Vikings have tons of cap room to front load it and they make up that funky clause to boot. This seems awful mean of Hutchinison as the Seahawks could have franchised him but decided to be nice. Look what kind of repayment the Seahawks get for trying to make thier player happy. I don't know why Hutchinson did that. I suppose it was his agent's idea but many players seem to forget that the agent is working for them not the other way around. I kinda feel sorry for the Seahawks here but it doesn't really affect me at all. Just the Vikings being clever. Don't feel sorry for Seattle! Never trust anyone with an agent. If Seattle wants to play with the big boys they have to be smarter. You know what makes players happy......MONEY! Hutchinson is smart to want to go to another team if he think they will continue to make stupid moves on important players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Don't feel sorry for Seattle! Never trust anyone with an agent. If Seattle wants to play with the big boys they have to be smarter. You know what makes players happy......MONEY! Hutchinson is smart to want to go to another team if he think they will continue to make stupid moves on important players.None of those sentences seem to be in any way related to each other. If I'm reading your other posts correctly, it seem that your sole example of a "stupid move" is not using the franchise tag on Hutch. The Hawks signed Hasselbeck, the signed Walter Jones, they signed Shaun Alexander, and they put the transition tag on Hutch, so it's not like they're letting him just walk away without a second thought. Hutch made a great deal for himself -- good for him! But that by itself doesn't mean Seattle will necessarily let him go.It's still early in the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 None of those sentences seem to be in any way related to each other. If I'm reading your other posts correctly, it seem that your sole example of a "stupid move" is not using the franchise tag on Hutch. The Hawks signed Hasselbeck, the signed Walter Jones, they signed Shaun Alexander, and they put the transition tag on Hutch, so it's not like they're letting him just walk away without a second thought. Hutch made a great deal for himself -- good for him! But that by itself doesn't mean Seattle will necessarily let him go.It's still early in the week. Talon.....Do you still feel not putting the franchise tag on him was the right move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Pretty much, yes. Keep in mind, I was highly upset that they didn't use the franchise tag, when I first heard they used the transition tag. But after a day or two, I read the team's explanations for using the transition tag instead -- it was pretty well thought out, and I have since bought into their reasoning. So even with the Vikings offer, I'm not going to second guess the FO on this. It makes for an expensive contract, but it's just the first of many contracts for elite interior linemen. The Seahawks can still match it, and I think they will. Plus, trusting the FO and not getting spun up saves a lot of emotional stress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinclair Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 That is extremely odd, I have never heard of that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Pretty much, yes. Keep in mind, I was highly upset that they didn't use the franchise tag, when I first heard they used the transition tag. But after a day or two, I read the team's explanations for using the transition tag instead -- it was pretty well thought out, and I have since bought into their reasoning. So even with the Vikings offer, I'm not going to second guess the FO on this. It makes for an expensive contract, but it's just the first of many contracts for elite interior linemen. The Seahawks can still match it, and I think they will. Plus, trusting the FO and not getting spun up saves a lot of emotional stress. At least we've got you from 'Yes' to 'Pretty Much, Yes'. Maybe we can move up to 'No' if they lose him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I guess I'm not getting why this is such a hard thing to overcome. If the entire contract gets guaranteed, doesn't the entire amount get prorated for the length of the contract? That would mean he is getting something like 7.14 mil a year. While it gives them no flexability in the future, they could probably swing it. Of course, thats assuming the Hawks owner wants to pony up 50 mil up front (not that he couldn't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.