UPDATED-Seahawks lose Hutchinson ruling, Seahawks let Vikings take Hutchinson

[Inxsive]

Ouch.....

SEATTLE -- The Seahawks must match the guarantee provision in the $49 million, seven-year deal offered to All-Pro guard Steve Hutchinson by the Minnesota Vikings if the NFC champions want to keep their transition player.

Special master Stephen Burbank, the University of Pennsylvania law professor who serves as the final word in many key contractual disputes, ruled against Seattle, saying a provision guaranteeing all of the $49 million in an offer sheet Hutchinson signed with Minnesota should he not be the team's highest-paid offensive lineman is valid.

"The Seahawks lost," NFL Players' Association general counsel Richard Berthelsen said Monday. The hearing was held in Philadelphia.

The Seahawks had until midnight ET Monday to match the Vikings' offer or lose Hutchinson to Minnesota........

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2377300

UPDATE- Seattle didn't match...

[Eagle091]

ridiculius contract. let me get this joke out of the way... since it was held in philly, I can't believe they let them get away with this being as how philly is so cheap. lol

[ratbert_rizzo]

I'm still not sure why Hutchinson wanted out of Seattle so badly. The money was the same either way but he really seemed to want out of Seattle. Did they treat him that badly or what? Did he actually think Seattle would match and guarantee the whole contract?

[Westbrook36]

Burbank is the judge who awarded TO to Philly 2 years ago.

[Inxsive]

I'm still not sure why Hutchinson wanted out of Seattle so badly. The money was the same either way but he really seemed to want out of Seattle. Did they treat him that badly or what? Did he actually think Seattle would match and guarantee the whole contract?

Well, he did go to school at Michigan. He definitely wanted out, he and his agent specific designed the contract to make it as difficult as possible for them to match. Also, he probably thinks that last year was a fluke and had more to do with a really weak schedule and division. I'm not saying Minnesota is a much better franchise, they have never finished the playoffs with a win either. Seattle is a pretty area but not right for a lot of people. I mean, who wants to get up at 10 am on Sundays to watch football! Seattle still might match. Of course, they could have avoided all this is they just had franchised him, but that would have been a smart move.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I believe they said on Sports Center earlier today that Walter Jones restructured so that his salary would be lower than Hutch's. Essentially, if that is true it means that the Seahawks are going to keep their beloved LG and circumvent the stupid $49 mil guaranteed clause.

[Inxsive]

I believe they said on Sports Center earlier today that Walter Jones restructured so that his salary would be lower than Hutch's. Essentially, if that is true it means that the Seahawks are going to keep their beloved LG and circumvent the stupid $49 mil guaranteed clause.

Did you read the whole article? He ruled the restucturing is irelivant because at the time he signed the contract, Jones was the highest paid lineman.

[hueman]

now walter jones has always seemed like a good teammate and a good guy... but of course, i've only seen bits of him here and there... mostly during SB week

[Fred Jones]

This will hurt the hawks more than it will help the Vikes. I like the move because it weakens a powerful Oline. Let's see what Alexander does without his pro bowl guard.

I want to complain one more time that I am still mad at Marty for taking Gardner over Hutch in the draft.

[gstahl]

I think this ruling is really bad. Basically allows teams to "steal" players by writing contracts the original can't match because the team is structured differently. In this case they wrote a contract that Seattle "physically" can't ever match they can actually even use the same language but the date, in this case, is critical.

So...

How about the contract bacomes fully guaranteed if there is another player on the team with a last name that starts with 'H' (if the originating team has a player with a last name starting with H and the new team does not then the originating team would have to basically sign the player to a fully guaranteed contract where the new team would not.) While is a silly example one can see the possibilities money, position, structure-wise it opens up. Just set up a contract that uses the differences between to the teams to force the originating to basically have a different and rather distastefull contract and you can get the player for free. I can understand contract requirements that the team can meet (and has to meet) but using basically exceptions and special cases to not have to compensate the owning team is a problem.

----

To be clear AFAIK (from reading) the ONLY way Seattle can keep Hutch is to guarantee the entire contract (because of the salary structure at the time the Vikings contract was offered) and Vikings do not have to guarantee the contract. This just seems bad.

BTW, not a bad thing for us as we maybe seeing Seattle in the playoffs again... Hopefully this time at home and this time they will be going home... =)

[Destino]

I think this ruling is really bad. Basically allows teams to "steal" players by writing contracts the original can't match because the team is structured differently. In this case they wrote a contract that Seattle "physically" can't ever match they can actually even use the same language but the date, in this case, is critical.

I agree completely. You are now allowed to go after RFAs by simply writing up documents that are impossible to match, blowing the entire RFA system out of the water.

Stupid ruling.

[HOF44]

He wasn't technicaly a restricted free agent. He was a free agent the team decided to use the transition tag on instead of the franchise tag. They did this to save a half million or so dollars, could have been a little more not sure, but not alot.

In doing this they opened the door for someone to do something like this. Stupid move by the seahawks if they really wanted to keep Hutch.

[Westbrook36]

Where is that Seahawks fan that was in here arguing till he was blue that there was no way a team could design a poison pill contract that Seattle couldn't match?

[dockeryfan]

I enjoy Blue Talon's posts. I would like his take on this.

[Inxsive]

I think this ruling is really bad. Basically allows teams to "steal" players by writing contracts the original can't match because the team is structured differently. In this case they wrote a contract that Seattle "physically" can't ever match they can actually even use the same language but the date, in this case, is critical.

So...

How about the contract bacomes fully guaranteed if there is another player on the team with a last name that starts with 'H' (if the originating team has a player with a last name starting with H and the new team does not then the originating team would have to basically sign the player to a fully guaranteed contract where the new team would not.) While is a silly example one can see the possibilities money, position, structure-wise it opens up. Just set up a contract that uses the differences between to the teams to force the originating to basically have a different and rather distastefull contract and you can get the player for free. I can understand contract requirements that the team can meet (and has to meet) but using basically exceptions and special cases to not have to compensate the owning team is a problem.

----

To be clear AFAIK (from reading) the ONLY way Seattle can keep Hutch is to guarantee the entire contract (because of the salary structure at the time the Vikings contract was offered) and Vikings do not have to guarantee the contract. This just seems bad.

BTW, not a bad thing for us as we maybe seeing Seattle in the playoffs again... Hopefully this time at home and this time they will be going home... =)

Although I don't think the spelling of a players name could be part of a ‘principle clause’ I do understand your concern. I think your talking apples and oranges. The amount a player makes compared to other players is often part of the negotiation. It obviously was used to serve the situation. I think the real issue is how bad Seattle blew this, even if they still match it. This has happened before, Seattle should have known better. I don’t care if they had problems using the franchise tag with Jones, you don’t give control away when you have the power to maintain it, especially with ,not only your best player at a given position, but likely one of the best player in the league at that position. I do think they should separate guards from tackles when it comes to tags, however those are the rules in place and you have to play by them.

[Inxsive]

I enjoy Blue Talon's posts. I would like his take on this.

I imagine we won't get 'Seattle blew it' from him. We'll get 'we're better off without him if he didn't want to play here' or 'it frees up more money to go after other players'. The will have more money to offer Abraham but either I don't think they really want to offer him similar money as Atlanta or he just plain doesn't want to play in Seattle either. Who knows, BT might finally come around and admit Seattle should have franchised him.

[Inxsive]

here is a good perspective from John Clayton;

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=2377427&name=clayton_john&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d2377427%26name%3dclayton_john

[Gilgamesh]

This will hurt the hawks more than it will help the Vikes. I like the move because it weakens a powerful Oline. Let's see what Alexander does without his pro bowl guard.

I want to complain one more time that I am still mad at Marty for taking Gardner over Hutch in the draft.

Amen brother. I am still embarrassed by how much I yelled and cursed at my friends house on that draft day. A sure fire 10 year pro bowler at guard vs a big not so fast possession receiver. What a phenomenal idiot.

[Inxsive]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2377300

The Seahawks decided Monday not to match the seven-year, $49 million offer sheet on Steve Hutchinson, allowing the All-Pro guard to go to the Minnesota Vikings.

The seven-day deadline to match the Vikings' seven-year, $49 million offer sheet expired at midnight ET Monday. The Seahawks did not notify Hutchinson, the Vikings or his agent, Tom Condon, that they were going to match the offer. By letting the deadline pass, Hutchinson became property of the Vikings.

As the deadline was passing, the Seahawks entered serious negotiations with 49ers linebacker Julian Peterson. The Seahawks regained $6.391 million of cap room by letting Hutchinson leave for Minnesota. The $6.391 million represented the one-year tender Hutchinson had as a transition player.

Earlier Monday, the Seahawks lost a ruling with special master Stephen Burbank in which they wanted to make a slight change in the language of the Vikings' offer sheet to avoid having to guarantee the entire $49 million had they matched. Burbank called the adjustment a change in the principle term of the contract and ruled in favor of Hutchinson and the Vikings.

[tsunami001]

I imagine we won't get 'Seattle blew it' from him. We'll get 'we're better off without him if he didn't want to play here' or 'it frees up more money to go after other players'. .

THa'ts what they're sayin on their own forums :laugh: I did not see one person wishing him well, or thanking him for what he's done for them.

[ImmortalDragon]

I agree completely. You are now allowed to go after RFAs by simply writing up documents that are impossible to match, blowing the entire RFA system out of the water.

Stupid ruling.

But for RFAs you still have to give up a draft pick as compensation. This might only be a problem for teams who use the transition tag or RFAs who are tendered for a low round draft pick.

[nonniey]

I agree completely. You are now allowed to go after RFAs by simply writing up documents that are impossible to match, blowing the entire RFA system out of the water.

Stupid ruling.

That's called poison pills and the Redskins do that as well. I don't have problem with it. In this case the Seahawks should have franchised Hutch, they didn't, their fault.

[HOF44]

But for RFAs you still have to give up a draft pick as compensation. This might only be a problem for teams who use the transition tag or RFAs who are tendered for a low round draft pick.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2002825316_hawk24.html

The franchise tender would have been $6.98

The transition tender is $6.39 million

By trying to save $590,000 they lost a great player and received nothing in return.

They were pinching pennies and they got bit. They could have prevented it but chose not to.

[McMetal]

Bob nailed it...they were trying to skate through on the cheap, and then had the nerve to go whining to the NFL when someone actually made the guy a decent offer.

I think it's great they ruled against Seattle. Small market teams are really getting too big for their britches lately. If you're so intent on taking money out of our owner's pocket, how about spending some of it on your team?

[HOF44]

Lets not forget the owner of the Seahawks (Paul Allen) is the 7th richest man in the world. He makes Danny look like a pauper. Go figure. :doh:

http://www.forbes.com/static/bill2005/LIR1217.html?passListId=10&passYear=2005&passListType=Person&uniqueId=1217&datatype=Person