Oh my god...Seahawks offer to Burleson 7yrs 49mil 5.25 S.B.

[Westbrook36]

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:

Oh, I get it. You are proven 100 percent wrong so now you try to state that any FA can fall under these terms. I mean, I guess you can say that if the Eagles sign a guy because they have more money than the team that they are taking him from, then it is a poison pill contract. :doh:

If I were you, I'd just admit I was wrong by never coming in this thread again....but that's just me. :laugh:

[Westbrook36]

My point stands -- the Eagles have never done what the Vikings did.

The Eagles have never signed a RFA under Reid so they have never had to formulate a creative contract which made it difficult for the other team to match.

[BlueTalon]

My point still stands!

[BlueTalon]

From Wikipedia:

Poison pill began as a reference to literal poison pills (often glass vials of cyanide salts) carried by various spies throughout history, and by Nazi leaders in WWII. Spies could take such pills when discovered, eliminating any possibility that they could be interrogated for the enemy's gain. It has since become 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.

and

In professional sports, a poison pill is a component of a contract, which one team offers a player, that makes it difficult or impossible for another team (which has the right of first refusal) to match. While it can often refer to a salary structure or clause that would effect all teams equally, it has taken on a new specific meaning of a clause that has unbalanced impact. For example, in March 2006, the Minnesota Vikings offered Steve Hutchinson, an offensive guard on the Seattle Seahawks, a 7 year, $49 million contract of which $16 million was guaranteed. This contract offer had two poison pills in it. One was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had an offensive lineman with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks' opportunity to match the contract offer. In the wake of this contract offer, similar clauses have appeared in other contract offers, and the term poison pill has come to be more closely identified with the asymetrical-impact clause.

Gee, I wonder how that got there...

...but since it's there, it must be correct, right jrockster?

[jrockster21]

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:

Holy frigging Christ, you and BlueTalon should start the "I'm so hardheaded my head could break through iron" club. It doesn't matter that Kearse was a UFA...the term "poison-pill" does not only apply to RFAs...:doh: If Kearse gave Tennessee an opportunity to match the contract the Eagles gave him, then it was a poison-pill. :doh:

WB -- I don't know if its because I caught you in so many lies, but why such blatant hatred against me lately? Seriously? Is this all due to the Seattle game? Give it up, man. You're the one losing credibility by following me around and trying to make me look bad, just like your pal WeaponXDawkins. :doh: I'm getting pretty sick of it, personally.

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.

Wikipedia is edited by thousands of people. If a non-factual statement is found, it will soon be edited out and removed. But whatever, you obviously think you're the smartest guy in the room, and arguing with you is like trying to persuade a brick wall to get out of my way.

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...

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Where do you think the term poison pill came from??? You can argue that about any single word in the English dictionary if you wanted to...

By the way, go check Wikipedia again.

If you really think you've proven your point by deleting a sentence from the definition and adding your own, then you're a lost cause. :doh:

[jrockster21]

Oh, I get it. You are proven 100 percent wrong so now you try to state that any FA can fall under these terms. I mean, I guess you can say that if the Eagles sign a guy because they have more money than the team that they are taking him from, then it is a poison pill contract. :doh:

That's not what I said. Any FA who is giving his original team a chance to match his contract, or RFA who's team has the chance despite his wishes can receive a poison-pill contract. Its not hard, WB...get a clue and figure it out.

[Westbrook36]

I guess the Giants signed Pierce last year with a "poison pill" contract since they gave him more money than the Skins were willing to give. I guess the Vikings did the same thing with Smoot.

jrock, I have no desire to follow you around threads. For awhile, you were researching every statement I made in any thread for its validity. Truce?

[BlueTalon]

But whatever, you obviously think you're the smartest guy in the room, and arguing with you is like trying to persuade a brick wall to get out of my way.

It's not a hard claim to make with guys like you in the room.

By the way, stubbornness is only a virtue if you're right. And you calling other people "stubborn" is quite amusing.

[Inxsive]

Found this definition:

BlueTaloning- The act of rationalizing any poor effort by a sports team that includes losing important free agents, choking in the big game and NEVER being the champs. This is demonstrated by showing how bad that departing players life will be away from his team, saying that player was a meanie and didn't play fair, and blaming the ref's.

[jrockster21]

I guess the Giants signed Pierce last year with a "poison pill" contract since they gave him more money than the Skins were willing to give. I guess the Vikings did the same thing with Smoot.

You said the key phrase: "more money than the Skins were willing to give." The Skins didn't match Pierce's contract because they couldn't, they didn't match because they didn't want to pay him more than Washington. You of all people should know that the Skins could have given Pierce the contract he wanted. They chose not to.

Now, if the Skins had not cared about MW's contract, and really wanted Pierce back, but the Giants offered a contract to Pierce that the Skins would have had a tough time agreeing to, then yeah, that would have been a poison-pill contract.

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but the term "poison-pill" was not created to describe RFA contracts. It has been around in the business world for decades.

jrock, I have no desire to follow you around threads. For awhile, you were researching every statement I made in any thread for its validity. Truce?

Truce...as long as you stop use lies to prove your arguments. :nana:

[jrockster21]

It's not a hard claim to make with guys like you in the room.

By the way, stubbornness is only a virtue if you're right. And you calling other people "stubborn" is quite amusing.

Proven wrong so you resort to insults...great tactics. I used to have your back around here...not anymore.

BlueTaloning- The act of rationalizing any poor effort by a sports team that includes losing important free agents, choking in the big game and NEVER being the champs. This is demonstrated by showing how bad that departing players life will be away from his team, saying that player was a meanie and didn't plat fair, and blaming the ref's.

Don't forget: 2. The act of editing a Wikipedia entry to try and justify your point.

3. The act of throwing around personal insults when losing an argument.

Actually, #3 is also Westbrookizing as well...

[HOF44]

The first time I ever heard the term poison pill used was when companies would structure themselves so that they could not be hostily taken over without alot of cost for the company trying to do the hostile takeover.

[jrockster21]

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.

How about trying to edit this resource:

Parcells signs New England's best player, running back Curtis Martin, to a $36 million poison-pill contract that Kraft has no hope of matching.

(link)

Wait...a poison-pill contract in 2002? What's your defense for that one, BT? You gonna call me retarded now?

[jrockster21]

And wait, BT...what's this? A "poison-pill" contract in the NBA too???

Please don't believe 97 percent of the trade rumors you hear about Wally Szczerbiak. Folks neglect to tell you that Wally World now has a "poison pill" contract by virtue of signing that $63 million extension before training camp.

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/aldridge_david/1499153.html

[tr1]

And wait, BT...what's this? A "poison-pill" contract in the NBA too???

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/aldridge_david/1499153.html

Touche! Match and game, Jrockster77...

WB, Talon...hang it up, fellas...

[BlueTalon]

Proven wrong so you resort to insults...great tactics. I used to have your back around here...not anymore.

Where did you prove me wrong? (And where did you have my back?)

And if you don't like insults, try being a little less cuastic in your debates, and don't open yourself up to them.

(link)

Wait...a poison-pill contract in 2002? What's your defense for that one, BT? You gonna call me retarded now?

If you want. You're retarded. Feel better? In that linked story, there is no mention of what the poison pill is in the "$36 million poison-pill contract." If all it was was an expensive contract, then it was pretty indiscriminant poison.

Man, I must have done something to push your buttons, the result is quite spectacular. But it looks like you got the idea in your head somehow that I think there is only one definition for "poison pill" or that I think the term originated with the Hutch contract. How did you get that idea? Is there any way I can convince you otherwise? I freely admit that there is more than one use of the term poison pill, and that the term has existed for a long time.

Will you admit that the term has taken on a specific meaning with regard to clauses that affect one team differently than another team? and that the Hutch-type poison pill is unrelated to the vast majority of previous sports contracts' poison pills? and that what the Vikings did is different than what the Eagles have ever done?

I'm with Westy, I'm up for a truce if you are.

[tr1]

Just an observation...usually the army that is losing asks for a truce....

[jrockster21]

If you want. You're retarded. Feel better? In that linked story, there is no mention of what the poison pill is in the "$36 million poison-pill contract." If all it was was an expensive contract, then it was pretty indiscriminant poison.

That is the poison pill...the amount of money. :doh:

Will you admit that the term has taken on a specific meaning with regard to clauses that affect one team differently than another team?

No...that is an incorrect statement. The Hutch deal affected both teams the same way; it just happens that the Hawks have a higher paid lineman. But the ramifications are the same for both teams; Seattle could not match the contract.

and that the Hutch-type poison pill is unrelated to the vast majority of previous sports contracts' poison pills? and that what the Vikings did is different than what the Eagles have ever done?

You are right that Hutch's contract is original. The Eagles have never put that specific language into a contract (to my knowledge). The Eagles have utilized a poison-pill contract in the past, however, when signing Jevon Kearse.

You aren't talking about the contract itself, you are talking about the language within the contract.

[Westbrook36]

Just an observation...usually the army that is losing asks for a truce....

Some people don't enjoy just posting stuff with the desire to piss others off.

[tr1]

Some people don't enjoy just posting stuff with the desire to piss others off.

WB...are you doing a self-analysis? Easy, man.

[skinz1972]

these poison pills are bad for the game

[speedmike]

Who gives a flying hell what the definition of a poison pill is? You guys use two different definitions- who cares. Here's what everyone should really take away from this thread.

1. The Seahawks FO tried to get back at Minnesota for taking away a pro-bowl guard, and in that endeavor, they succeeded.

2. The rest of the NFL took a royal dump on the Seahawks as a team. All they did was downgrade at WR and O-line.

3. Why doesn't Westbrook have a clown avatar? I've seen him in other threads actually posting meaninful things. On here, all he's doing is ****ing and moaning. This thread wasn't even intended to be about the Eagles at all!

[Jumbo]

Found this definition:

BlueTaloning- The act of rationalizing any poor effort by a sports team that includes losing important free agents, choking in the big game and NEVER being the champs. This is demonstrated by showing how bad that departing players life will be away from his team, saying that player was a meanie and didn't play fair, and blaming the ref's.

I've been reading this thread, and I have found the back-n-forth between jrock & BT a great, and spirited at times "stubborn" dicssusion of the type that is fun to have on this site. They are banging heads but at a pretty civil level and each are diligently presenting their case. I have my own stance and am informed on this matter, but have found it perfectly satisfying to read their discusssion, and even pick up some new details on the topic.

jrock is a bro, and a great and often very animated poster on the site, and for my money, Blue Talon is the type of guy from another team (Tom, the Giants Fan is the standard-bearer) that is quite welcome and generally brings a lot to the table. If you read BT's history, whether you agree with his opinions are not, he is consistently informed, articulate and respectful of the board and its members.

Not to be offensive, but you have added nothing but pesky and dismissive one-liners with little meanigful content and often cast in the manner of someone who is mocking their betters. BTW, I obsevre the Seattle team fairly closely, and your remarks to not add to your credibility. I have faith in you as a Redskins fan that you can do better than this, amigo.

[tr1]

The "poison pill" euphemism wasn't created in context to the NFL.

To narrow it's use for that soley is dumb.

When two parties are interested in a third entitiy, either party can offer a poison pill...a device that the other party finds prohibitive in going forward to woo the third entity.

It's been happening since the dawn of man. The euphemism has been more closely tied to business hostile takeovers than rfa.

It works in a number of contexts.

jrock is not wrong...to criticize him is dumb.

-

[BlueTalon]

The "poison pill" euphemism wasn't created in context to the NFL.

To narrow it's use for that soley is dumb.

:doh: Can you acept the fact that by insisting that there is a new specific context for the term, I am not trying to invalidate all previous uses and definitions? I'm not. Really.

But you and jrockster seem to be incapable of either acknowledging the specific context of the term as it has been used in the last month, or distinguishing it from previous uses of the term. Jrockster has expressly stated that he sees no difference between an expensive contract (which he calls a poison pill, but I do not) and a contract with a clause that has asymetrical impact, such as requiring one team to guarantee all $49M because of what someone else makes or does (which I call a poison pill).

I'd be willing to bet that if you hear the term used in a sports news show within the next month, it will refer to a clause in a contract a la Vikings/Seahawks, and not to something that is merely an expensive contract.

these poison pills are bad for the game

With poison pills as defined by me in the Vikings/Seahawks context (in which teams are held to different standards based on what other people on the team do or earn), I absolutely agree with you.

With poison pills in the everywhere-else, jrockster/tr1-defined expensive-contract sense (in which all teams are impacted equally and simply have to match one team's high salary offer), I don't agree. That's just the market place at work.

In the Hutch scenerio, the Vikings offer -- minus the BT-defined poison pill -- would have simply been an unprecedented contract for an interior lineman. Either the Seahawks match or they don't, but either way Hutch makes his $49M. If he goes to MN and single-handedly turns the team into a playoff contender, the values of elite interior linemen go up accordingly, and the next Hutch/Bently contract could very well be higher, because the value of the Hutch deal had proven itself. On the other hand, if the Hutch deal has the effect of draining resources they could otherwise have used to shore up other areas of their team, it will have proven that the cost/benefit ratio wasn't worth it,

But with the poison pill, that effect is skewed. With the bidding effectively removed from the process, it's impossible to tell if it's a true market process or if one team is just psychotic.

I'm sorry, that respose is a bit cumbersome. But jrockster's and tr1's unwillingness/inability to acknowledge a new context-specific use of the term "poison pill", and failure to distinguish it from the more generic business sense of the term, forced me into it.

Oh, and Jumbo, thanks!