Inxsive Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Why would you be looking for any of those posts from me? You hate Seattle, we get it. If you had a point, I'd be happy to address it. But having to repeat things numerous times for them to finally sink in gets pretty old. I could wish you were less dense, but it's futile and not worth the energy. Those fall in line with multiple post about how much more tax Hutch will be paying in Minnesota. I know he was mean to Seattle and that makes you mad. Maybe you can tell us how much colder it will be there for him and that he will have to spend more money on winter clothes. That $49 mil is just dissapearing isn't it!:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Good grief! Are you that oblivious? Hutch said : Minnesota came at me with a contract that was in the best interest of my family that I decided, hey, you know what, I'm going to take this offer. If Seattle can't match, then they can't match.... It's nice that I came into the league and I played five years of solid, hard football and a team recognized that enough to go out on a limb and give me that kind of money to play for them. Given the fact that he's the one that made it so Seattle couldn't match, that is extremely disingenuous at best. Nevertheless, that's what he said. Now, perhaps you can afford to lose $4 million, but to me that is a significant chunk of change. One might argue that what's a few million when you're making $49M, but the person making that argument would also not be saying that he took $45M in preference to $49M in the best interest of his family, especially when Hutch made the point about the money. You have this annoying habit of assuming what I think and feel. For the record, I'm not mad. I was disgusted, but Hutch is pretty low on my radar now. He's gone, it's a done deal, we've moved on. (That's not to say I won't heartily boo him when he plays against us!) Losing him is a net loss to our line, but the FO has made moves to fill the void and I'm confident that next year's product will not show a significant drop-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 talon,inxsive just likes to pull ppl's chains.............pay him no mind,he thinks he knows it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 talon,inxsive just likes to pull ppl's chains.............pay him no mind,he thinks he knows it all. Skinz1972, back from another suspension or have you not been able to make any of this slow news week racial? As for the Burleson signing, it will be interesting to see what the various talking heads say about this over the next week. Also, lets see if anyone goes after Seattle's restricted kicker with a "playing 4 games in Washington state" clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedmike Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I'm still a little lost on how Seattle didn't get screwed. Maybe I'm missing something! They lost a Pro Bowl guard and haven't done much of anything to sure up the spot. They brought in a WR who has had one decent year. And in doing so, they lost a 3rd rounder. And the only reason they brought in Burleson is because they didn't resign Jurevicius, who I think it should be uncontested- is a far better WR. I would think that it has something to do with getting some cap room. But they just poured money into an aging Strong and that running back that has a knack for getting out of bounds before he gets hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I would think that it has something to do with getting some cap room. But they just poured money into an aging Strong and that running back that has a knack for getting out of bounds before he gets hit. You mean Sideline Shaun??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I'm still a little lost on how Seattle didn't get screwed. Maybe I'm missing something! They lost a Pro Bowl guard and haven't done much of anything to sure up the spot. They brought in a WR who has had one decent year. And in doing so, they lost a 3rd rounder. And the only reason they brought in Burleson is because they didn't resign Jurevicius, who I think it should be uncontested- is a far better WR. Jurevicious signed with the Browns for less money than the Seahawks offered him, because he wanted to return to his hometown and play for his childhood favorite team. We definitely would have prefered to keep him, but what could we do? I certainly don't hold it against him for making that decision, and I wish him all the success in the world. Yes, we signed Burleson because we lost Jurevicious. Our FO obviously concluded he was worth $14M / 4 years and a 3rd round pick, and the fact that he was a Vikink was purely incidental -- although that did allow for the opportunity to do the return-poison-pill maneuver. But who is saying Seattle didn't get screwed? Of course they got screwed. That's what set the stage for this whole mess. But don't make the mistake of combining the two seperate transactions into one transaction. Some people have done that, but only because they're not very bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Jrockster, what the Eagles were trying to do, with the help of their capologist, was to design a contract in terms of dollar amounts that would be difficult for the Seahawks to match. That's not a poison pill (if you think it is, then you don't understand the debate). It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. The next paragraph in the source (that Westbrook posted): "The Eagles, according to the source, could put together the so-called “poison pill contract.” This kind of contract is usually front loaded which makes it hard for the originating team to match. It should be noted that Seattle has around $20 million in cap space which is believed to be more than Philadelphia has at this point." I don't think you understand what a poison pill is...its a contract that has a provision in it making it hard for the other team to match, such as a big first year payoff. And you are an idiot if you think anyone is calling this a win for Seattle. (You might be an idiot anyway. Seattle didn't send Hutch and a third round to MN for Nate. They are two seperate transactions.) He wasn't saying Seattle sent Hutch and a 3rd for Burleson...:doh: It was the net outcome of both transactions. Why so full of vitriol these days, BT? Pissed at the Hutchinson move? I would be. Or are you pissed off at missing out on a Lombardi again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 But don't make the mistake of combining the two seperate transactions into one transaction. Some people have done that, but only because they're not very bright. Hmmmm, sure looks like Seattle is connecting the two or do you think the fact that the 7 years totaling $49 mil is just a coincidence. Seattle hasn't really improved itself, it seems that they are just treading water at best. Lose one player, replace him with someone not as good. Also, where is Seattle shopping for their free agents, the IR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The next paragraph in the source (that Westbrook posted):"The Eagles, according to the source, could put together the so-called “poison pill contract.” This kind of contract is usually front loaded which makes it hard for the originating team to match. It should be noted that Seattle has around $20 million in cap space which is believed to be more than Philadelphia has at this point." I don't think you understand what a poison pill is...its a contract that has a provision in it making it hard for the other team to match, such as a big first year payoff. We seem to be working with two different definitions of "poison pill" -- one is contained in the paragraph describing what the Eagles were contemplating, and the other is what the Vikings (and now the Seahawks) inserted into a contract. Westbrook's point, and mine, is that the Eagles had no intention of doing anything remotely similar to what the Vikings did, even though the term "poison pill" was used to describe it. To structure the salary and bonuses in a contract to make it difficult for a team to match is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and "poison pill" is probably a misnomer. Such a salary structure would apply equally to either team. The Vikings did that, too. They front loaded the offer to make the first year cap hit around $13M. But what they also did is put in a clause that would apply to Seattle but not to themselves, and force Seattle to do more than would have been required of them. (Specifically, Hutch had to be the highest paid lineman on the team, or all $49M would be guaranteed.) That is not what the Eagles were trying to do -- and to claim that they were trying to do the same thing the Vikings did without any supporting evidence other than the words "poison pill" is a lie. At a minimum, it's an unsupported allegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 We seem to be working with two different definitions of "poison pill" -- one is contained in the paragraph describing what the Eagles were contemplating, and the other is what the Vikings (and now the Seahawks) inserted into a contract. Westbrook's point, and mine, is that the Eagles had no intention of doing anything remotely similar to what the Vikings did, even though the term "poison pill" was used to describe it. To structure the salary and bonuses in a contract to make it difficult for a team to match is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and "poison pill" is probably a misnomer. Such a salary structure would apply equally to either team. The Vikings did that, too. They front loaded the offer to make the first year cap hit around $13M. But what they also did is put in a clause that would apply to Seattle but not to themselves, and force Seattle to do more than would have been required of them. (Specifically, Hutch had to be the highest paid lineman on the team, or all $49M would be guaranteed.) That is not what the Eagles were trying to do -- and to claim that they were trying to do the same thing the Vikings did without any supporting evidence other than the words "poison pill" is a lie. At a minimum, it's an unsupported allegation. A poison pill is anything in a contract that would make it hard or impossible for the other team to match. If a team A has 5 million in cap space, and team B signs a player to a contract that pays him 15 million guaranteed this season, that is a poison pill just as much as what the Vikings and Seahawks did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 No it's not. If the salary structure applies equally to team A and team B, then team A could cut players or restructure contracts to make the cap space. The key is that it applies to both teams equally. A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 No it's not. If the salary structure applies equally to team A and team B, then team A could cut players or restructure contracts to make the cap space. The key is that it applies to both teams equally. A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally. Your wrong, he's right. The one the Hawks got burned on is just one type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 No it's not. If the salary structure applies equally to team A and team B, then team A could cut players or restructure contracts to make the cap space. The key is that it applies to both teams equally. A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally. You're thinking too specifically BT, you are incorrect. Poison pills are not an NFL thing, they are a business thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_Pill Poison pill is a term referring to any strategy, generally in business or politics, which attempts to avoid a negative outcome by increasing the costs of the negative outcome to those who seek it. So in my example, team B is looking to increase the negative impact of re-signing the player for team A. As you said, they would have to cut other players or restructure contracts to fit the new contract under the cap. This is, by definition, a poison-pill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 How hard is this? Did I not say we were using more than one definition of "poison pill"? I said: "A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally." Once again for emphasis: A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally. The Eagles did not try to do what the Vikings did do. Do you not understand that? Or do you just disagree? BTW, you really need to curb your reliance on Wikipedia. A resource that anybody can edit is only as good as the edits of all its anonomous users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 How hard is this? Did I not say we were using more than one definition of "poison pill"? I said: "A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally." Once again for emphasis: A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally. Dude...a poison pill is a poison pill...there is only one definition. You can underline, bold and italicize all you want, but what the Vikings did was include a poison-pill in their contract; this is the same thing as any other team that has ever included one in a contract, as the Eagles did for Kearse. The Eagles did not try to do what the Vikings did do. Do you not understand that? Or do you just disagree? Of course they didn't...I don't think they even offered Hutch a contract, did they? If you're referring to the Kearse situation, they offered a poison-pill contract, making it very hard for the Titans to match. Stop trying to backtrack...just man up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 BTW, you really need to curb your reliance on Wikipedia. A resource that anybody can edit is only as good as the edits of all its anonomous users. Curb my reliance on Wikipedia?? :laugh: Man you are reaching! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inxsive Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 How hard is this? Did I not say we were using more than one definition of "poison pill"? I said: "A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally." Once again for emphasis: A poison pill, as used by the Vikis, does not impact both teams equally. The Eagles did not try to do what the Vikings did do. Do you not understand that? Or do you just disagree? BTW, you really need to curb your reliance on Wikipedia. A resource that anybody can edit is only as good as the edits of all its anonomous users. LOL, I think he is saying that there is only one definition and that they all fall under it, that's the point. Also, why are you criticizing him for looking up a definition, yo're the guy who looked up the tax code in Minnesota, and calculated how much Hutch is losing by not staying in Seattle! :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I just posted an example of them using one, and you say NEVER NEVER NEVER? EDIT: You are right, they do not "contstantly" use them. This, however, is because they rarely go after free-agents (or more specifically, free-agents who need poison pill contracts). You posted a speculative article of what the Eagles MIGHT do and use that as your proof? :laugh: They've never signed a restricted FA in the Andy Reid era so you are 100 percent wrong. See what happens when you try to bash the Eagles in a thread that has nothing to do with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I gotta agree with JRock, just because its a new and inventive poison pill does not take away from the fact that it is a poison poll. Gotta give Ziggy props on this one, it was creative as hell. The skins had a player this year they did not want to lose for nothing, dockery. They tendered him the highest offer for a restricted free agent. Now unless a team wants to give up a first they won't bother. Just a tiny bit more money saved us tons of headaches. It can be avoided, don't be cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 The next paragraph in the source (that Westbrook posted):"The Eagles, according to the source, could put together the so-called “poison pill contract.” This kind of contract is usually front loaded which makes it hard for the originating team to match. It should be noted that Seattle has around $20 million in cap space which is believed to be more than Philadelphia has at this point." I don't think you understand what a poison pill is...its a contract that has a provision in it making it hard for the other team to match, such as a big first year payoff. You have hit an all time low if you seriously try to use a speculative article on what someone thought the Eagles MIGHT do as your evidence when you made a 100 percent false statement. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 You posted a speculative article of what the Eagles MIGHT do and use that as your proof? :laugh:They've never signed a restricted FA in the Andy Reid era so you are 100 percent wrong. See what happens when you try to bash the Eagles in a thread that has nothing to do with them? It doesn't only apply to restricted free-agents. It applies to any free-agent player who is willing to let their original team match any contract offers. :doh: And it was YOUR article!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Good grief, you're as dense as Inxsive. Tell me what's wrong with this sentence: A resource that anybody can edit is only as good as the edits of all its anonomous users. Regarding the definition of "poison pill" (or anything else for that matter) -- languages fluctuate with use. With the advent of the Hutch contract, "poison pill" has a specific, football related meaning of a clause that unequally impacts teams. While it might also have a more generic, business related definition similar to the one you quoted from Wikipedia, it now has the more specific definition. To use the term equally to describe what the Vikings did and what the Eagles did, without drawing the distinction, is just stupid or ignorant. I suppose you think "gay" means happy... By the way, go check Wikipedia again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Dude...a poison pill is a poison pill...there is only one definition. You can underline, bold and italicize all you want, but what the Vikings did was include a poison-pill in their contract; this is the same thing as any other team that has ever included one in a contract, as the Eagles did for Kearse. Kearse was a UFA. Are you really seeing how many incorrect things you can post in one thread!?!? Seriously, just give it up, jrock. You are taking a serious hit in one thread simply by trying to contend your original statement was right when it was 100 percent wrong. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 My point stands -- the Eagles have never done what the Vikings did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.