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

[Inxsive]

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.

First of all, starting off with "not to be offensive" is kinda funny. Either you are or are your not. That said, I'm not offended. I think everybody here has the right to say what they like, within reason, as long as they own it. If you get suspended for what you write, then take it like a man and don’t whine about it.(this is directed at you Skinz1972). Any personal attack has been a response to one directed at me. If I attack a team I try and include why I am doing so and use facts and links. I've had issues with BlueTalon and Skinz1972 and I'm not alone. Feel free to look back at previous threads. Sometimes tone is hard to pick up online but I have fun here, I never post anything because I’m angry, I’m always smiling. Sure, I like to push buttons, but if someone is writing something I disagree with, I’m going to respond the same way as if I was in person. if someone only wants hugs then I suggest maybe a gymnastics board for that person, although I hear they can be pretty cut throat.

As for Seattle, This is one of the teams I focus on. I lived in Washington at one point and I think we all keep an eye on teams that we were around at one point of our lives despite being a die hard Skins fan. One thing about the people in that area, they seems to think that it is the best place in the world to live while at the same time they know that the rest of the country always has a little chuckle whenever they mention it. The people aren’t any nicer or friendlier than anyplace else in the country, they just like to act that way. In regards to football, the Hawks fans seem to think that if all things are equal that a player would obviously want to play there. That’s arrogance is hilarious, especially with what has transpired this offseason.

Finally, I have added more than just ‘one-liners’ and if you disagree with what I say, please show me where I’m wrong. I can make mistakes and if you can show me where my facts were incorrect then I’ll be glad to own up to them. I’ll be waiting.

[Jumbo]

My opening intended to be straight, not funny. I believe you can say some critical things even using some fairly direct language wihtout meaning to be offensive. That doesn't seem too complex a concept. If I wanted to offend you, I would leave little doubt. But I would try to remember the rules and guidelines, even so.

My response is brief, and I do know your posts. This content of this one, IMO, when you break it down, simply reflects what I said about what you're bring to the table in this thread.

Your opinions about Seattle, the population, and your allusions to intimate knowledge of how the rest of the country thinks, reflect you may have an axe to grind that I don't care about, nor had commented on.

Again, I specifically referred to the content and attitude of your posts in this thread, and said in clear fashion why.

I'm glad you're not angry, but then that too wasn't a matter I raised. Like you said, you like to push buttons at times--fine---and the one (or two) liners I referred to obviously were just the ones in this thread. I didn't call them angry, just dismissive of some good content from another poster. And not on the same level as the dialogue you were buzzing around. Thus "pesky".

There's nothing needed to be shown to you, there's nothing for you to be waiting for. As for any more converation on this, feel free of course and I will read it, but if more is desired from me I'd prefer doing it in PM so it doesn't distract from the thread

[Whiskeypeet]

By the way, I did the math on the state taxes. It's going to cost him $3,846,500. By doing what he did, his $49M contract became a $45M contract. In Seattle, he'd have kept the whole $49M.

I just wonder if he knew that when he signed the offer, or if he was/will be surprised by it afterward.

Jrock is the man around here but IMO BT is on to something here. At least in my exprience I can't recall previously seeing this particular type of poinson pill in player contracts.

While offering a player more $$ than his current team can afford may well represent a poison pill the clauses in Hutch's contract exceed such a simplicity.

Anyway, as far as the state tax thing BT your figures aren't factually correct.

First off, he wouldn't have "kept the whole $49M" if he had stayed in Seattle. I know its splitting hairs but from a tax standpoint you are overlooking federal taxes.

Second, and more to you point, the entire contract wouldn't be subject to MN imcome tax. Specifically, the bonuses he receives this year while a resident of Washington state would not, in their entirety, be reported on his MN return. Not sure off the top of my head what those actual bonuses were.....

[BlueTalon]

Well, the Federal taxes apply everywhere, so that's not a factor between teams -- but you're right, I did overlook them when I made that statement. Technically, it's more like he'd keep the whole $49M after federal taxes in Seattle, whereas he'll lose close to $4M more in additional taxes in MN.

But I disagree with your second point. He's getting his bonus checks from the Vikings, which is a MN organization. I don't know how MN withholding works, but I can't imagine that the State of Minnesota would pass up the opportunity to tax several million dollars paid by a MN organization to a MN resident simply because his moving trucks hadn't arrived yet. By the end of the year, he will have been a MN resident for well over half of the year. And in the interview he did after Seattle didn't match, he said he wanted to get to MN as quickly as possible, so he might actually be in MN when he receives his bonus.

But even if you are right, his MN tax hit would be somewhere around $3M, which is still a significant sum. (Well, it is to me, anyway.)

[Whiskeypeet]

But I disagree with your second point. He's getting his bonus checks from the Vikings, which is a MN organization. I don't know how MN withholding works, but I can't imagine that the State of Minnesota would pass up the opportunity to tax several million dollars paid by a MN organization to a MN resident simply because his moving trucks hadn't arrived yet. By the end of the year, he will have been a MN resident for well over half of the year. And in the interview he did after Seattle didn't match, he said he wanted to get to MN as quickly as possible, so he might actually be in MN when he receives his bonus.

But even if you are right, his MN tax hit would be somewhere around $3M, which is still a significant sum. (Well, it is to me, anyway.)

You latter point is all that really matters. Hutch would have paid less income tax had he stayed with the Hawks.

As for the former I would imagine Hutch will file a part year MN resident return. He would include on that return 100% of all wages he earned while working in Minnesota (i.e. all wages for the days he is physically working in the state). As for the bonuses, which I assume are allready paid, they would be sourced to Minnsota to the extent earned in Minnesota. In this case I'm guessing Hutch's tax adivsors will tell him to take the position that the initial bonuses were earned, and paid, in the state of Washington. Consequently there will be no MN state tax on that portion of the contract.

[BlueTalon]

It looks like we're both guessing. I'll be interested to find out how that eventually plays, though I don't know if that information would ever be made public. And I'll likely forget about it by that time, anyway.

[tr1]

A little perspective...

Tough Match For Seahawks

The seven-year, $49 million contract offer sheet that guard Steve Hutchinson, the Seattle Seahawks' transition player, has signed with the Minnesota Vikings contains an unusual provision. If Hutchinson is not the highest-paid offensive lineman on his team, his entire contract becomes guaranteed.

The Seahawks, by naming Hutchinson their transition player, allowed Hutchinson to test free agency but gave themselves the right to retain him by matching any offer sheet from another club. Condon and the Vikings have made things difficult on the Seahawks, however, given that Seattle signed left tackle Walter Jones last year to a seven-year, $52.5 million deal.

Such a provision in a contract offer when a player's current team has the right to retain the player by matching the deal is known as a "poison pill" and is designed to discourage a club from matching the offer. This one appears to be creating a bitter taste indeed for the Seahawks.

Under NFL rules, the Seahawks are required to match all the "principal terms" of the Vikings' offer to retain Hutchinson. The question is whether that provision qualifies. The Seahawks could consult with the NFL Management Council, the labor negotiating arm of the league office, to try to determine that. But even following the Management Council's advice is not a sure thing, as the New York Jets found out a few years ago.

In 2003, the Redskins were in the process of conducting an offseason raid on the Jets' roster in which they signed wide receiver Laveranues Coles, guard Randy Thomas and kicker John Hall. The Redskins signed Morton, then a restricted free agent, to a five-year, $7.945 million offer sheet. The poison pill in the Redskins' offer to Morton was a clause in the contract to void the final two seasons of the deal, making it a three-year contract that would be cumbersome on his team's salary cap. The Redskins hoped the Jets wouldn't match the offer.

The Jets did match it, but only after consulting with the Management Council and being told the voidable-years clause was not a principal term that had to be matched for the club to retain Morton. So the Jets matched the other terms of the contract but not that clause. Agent Leigh Steinberg, Morton's representative, objected and the players' union filed a grievance on Morton's behalf. The case was heard by Bloch, who ruled that the Jets had improperly matched the offer and awarded Morton to the Redskins.

What the Jets should have done is matched the entire offer and then challenged the voidable-years clause before an arbitrator, or matched everything in the offer except the voidable-years clause but included a side letter with Morton's contract saying they intended to match all principal terms and were failing to match the voidable-years clause only because it was their understanding that it wasn't a principal term. If they'd done that, they might have lost the voidable-years tussle and been forced to add that to Morton's contract, but they probably wouldn't have lost Morton to the Redskins.

The Morton case gives the Seahawks a clear roadmap if they want to retain Hutchinson but don't think they should have to match every provision in the Vikings' offer. They can consult with the league office. But even if they're told they don't have to match something in the offer, they'd better put it down in writing that they intend to match all principal terms and are leaving something out only because they've been advised it's not a principal term of the offer.

Q: When he did go to the Jets were you surprised at all that a team would let that type of guy go?

B: At that point in time the way that the collective bargaining rules were, and it happened with other players in the league as well, the restricted free agents could get a contract from another team and then the team that they were on had the opportunity to match that contract. But at that point in time you could put basically a poison pill in there that effectively the team who had the player couldn’t match. That is in essence what happened with that contract and it happened with several other players in the league too in 1995, 1996, and 1997 in that range. Then the league closed the door on that, not the league but the collective bargaining agreement, the players association and management council got together and they closed the door on that so it eliminated the poison pill if you will that could be put into a contract. So was I surprised that the contract wasn’t matched? No because the way the contract was structured it would have been almost impossible to match. If that same contract was presented to another player today I think it would be a lot easier for the team to match it and retain the player then it would have been in 1997.

http://originwww.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=GeneralNewsDetail&id=6090&type=general&PID=5324&PCID=41

[jrockster21]

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.

What are you talking about? Its your refusal to to acknowledge that poison-pills have been in use in the NFL since free-agency and the salary cap that is the problem! I've said from the beginning that the Hutchinson contract was a poison-pill contract. That is not being disputed.

You are just so dead-set on being right, you can't see the forest through the trees.

[jrockster21]

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.

BT has offered up his fair share of insults in this thread.

[jrockster21]

Jrock is the man around here but IMO BT is on to something here. At least in my exprience I can't recall previously seeing this particular type of poinson pill in player contracts.

Noone is suggesting that this is not a unique contract. It has the effect of hitting Seattle's salary cap in such a way that they would not be able to match the offer. This is the definition of a poison-pill. Other examples that have been used before in contracts are large signing bonuses or large base salaries, making a player too big of a hit on the salary cap.

While offering a player more $$ than his current team can afford may well represent a poison pill the clauses in Hutch's contract exceed such a simplicity.

Again, it was a unique and very inventive use of the poison-pill concept, to be sure. Nobody is arguing that. BT wants to believe that this is some incredibly new idea that has never been used before, which is simply not true. Maybe he's just upset over the Hawks FO's terribly incompetent handling of the entire thing, I don't know. Maybe he's upset that the team just made it to the superbowl but one of the best players on the team still wants to abandon ship. :whoknows:

[BlueTalon]

Hey tr1, thanks for posting that!

In the first section, it isn't clear in the green font what would have triggered the voidable last two years of that contract. In other words, this five year contract will become a three year contract if... and the "if" is never stated. It just explains the impact. But it does tend to bolster my earlier point that the poison pill is a clause within the contract, and not the contract itself.

The Hutch-type asymetrical-impact clause may not be new, as something like it was used at least with Wolford, and perhaps with Morton in this example. But it appears that every time something like it has been tried, the management and the union got together to stamp it out, whereas they consistantly do nothing about contract offers with salary structures designed to be unpalatably rich for the team holding the rights. In other words, they consider a Hutch-type poison pill to be poison, but they don't consider a jrockster-type poison pill to be poison.

Anyway, thanks again for posting that.

[jrockster21]

Hey tr1, thanks for posting that!

In the first section, it isn't clear in the green font what would have triggered the voidable last two years of that contract. In other words, this five year contract will become a three year contract if... and the "if" is never stated. It just explains the impact. But it does tend to bolster my earlier point that the poison pill is a clause within the contract, and not the contract itself.

The Hutch-type asymetrical-impact clause may not be new, as something like it was used at least with Wolford, and perhaps with Morton in this example. But it appears that every time something like it has been tried, the management and the union got together to stamp it out, whereas they consistantly do nothing about contract offers with salary structures designed to be unpalatably rich for the team holding the rights. In other words, they consider a Hutch-type poison pill to be poison, but they don't consider a jrockster-type poison pill to be poison.

Anyway, thanks again for posting that.

:doh: Are you serious?

Of course the poison-pill is part of the contract. I'm not sure what you think I was saying...that there was the contract, and then a completely separate document labled "poison-pill" or something? :doh:

But whatever...you obviously have no intention of even considering for a second that you are wrong, so I'm not even going to bother anymore. Have fun with the whole hardheaded thing!

[BlueTalon]

Of course the poison-pill is part of the contract. I'm not sure what you think I was saying...that there was the contract, and then a completely separate document labled "poison-pill" or something?

But whatever...you obviously have no intention of even considering for a second that you are wrong, so I'm not even going to bother anymore. Have fun with the whole hardheaded thing!

Man, if there was ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black, it's you calling me hard headed! Do you think you're not stubborn?

If you didn't try so hard to twist what I say, we might actually communicate. You said previously that an expensive contract was by itself, in its entirety, a poison pill. I disagreed, saying that a poison pill was not the whole contract, but a clause within the contract. And then you said... that?

I think our disagreement stems my insistance that there is a qualitative difference between asymetrical Hutch-type clauses and universally applicable salary structures, and your refusal to acknowledge any such qualitative difference. I also contend that in light of the Vikings/Hutch deal, when sports-news people use the term "poison-pill", they will use it in a similar way to refer to clauses having unequal impact on teams, rather than just the salary structure. And you'll probably disagree with that, too, if for no other reason than I said it.

And you're free to do that, of course. But if you're going to be calling me hard-headed, have enough integrity to apply the label to yourself as well.

[HOF44]

Couldn't you argue that an offer structured a way that would put one team over the cap while not putting the other over the cap would have "asymetrical-impact" on the teams. It would be affecting one team in a way its not affecting the other. So to argue on those grounds against this trade, I believe would be incorrect.

I would be really interested to hear the logic the special master used to determine this was kosher. I think the reason it was allowed is it is of potential financial benefit to the player. I think that if it had been written to keep the seahawks from matching but would be of no possible benefit to the player it would have been disallowed.

I mean if the vikings ever pay a olineman more than Hutch his contract is guarenteed. Thats nice to have in your contract. I just think it was a brilliant contract written by the vikings to take advantage of the fact he was not franchised.

[BlueTalon]

jrockster has argued that. I disagree with the argument. A team is free to make whatever adjustments they need to make -- restructuring contracts, cutting players, whatever, to make cap room for themselves. But teams make choices about what players they want and how much they are going to pay them (I note the many cap threads at the stadium a few weeks ago as examples), setting themselves up for situations like this. If Team A has limited cap room and Team B wants to make an offer to Team A's RFA, it's perfectly legitimate to try to out-bid Team A with a contract that is difficult to match -- as long as the terms apply equally to Team B. Think of it as an auction -- bidding high is fine if you want what is being auctioned. In the end, whoever wins the bidding will pay that price. But no auction would allow bids that require more from one person than from another.

The logic the SM used was that it is a principle clause if the player requests it. There is probably more to it, but that was key. Your point about financial benefit to the player has me scratching my head. Of course a $49M guarantee would be a financial benefit. Just as a $49M guarantee would be a financial benefit to Burleson. But both of those contracts include language specifically designed to keep the other team from matching, meaning that the guarantee would be triggered by someone else's pay or the state or the color of uniforms or whatever.

The question now is will they fix it.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I have a pretty good feeling that any clause dependant on WHERE you play when it comes to guaranteeing the contract will be thrown out by an arbitrator. That clearly makes the contract one-sided (the additional terms really only apply to one team) and is entirely unfair. However, I can understand why it is a bit harder to get rid of the clause that guarantees the contract if another position player is paid less... because that theoretically could have a huge impact on both teams (i.e. Shaun Alexander is forced into retirement and the Seahawks are forced to drastically overpay a new, un-proven RB or else suffer from their own poison pill).

The whole cutthroat, back-stubbing nature of these kinds of clauses is quit entertaining...

[tr1]

Hey tr1, thanks for posting that!

In the first section, it isn't clear in the green font what would have triggered the voidable last two years of that contract. In other words, this five year contract will become a three year contract if... and the "if" is never stated. It just explains the impact. But it does tend to bolster my earlier point that the poison pill is a clause within the contract, and not the contract itself.

The Hutch-type asymetrical-impact clause may not be new, as something like it was used at least with Wolford, and perhaps with Morton in this example. But it appears that every time something like it has been tried, the management and the union got together to stamp it out, whereas they consistantly do nothing about contract offers with salary structures designed to be unpalatably rich for the team holding the rights. In other words, they consider a Hutch-type poison pill to be poison, but they don't consider a jrockster-type poison pill to be poison.

Anyway, thanks again for posting that.

:laugh: :laugh:

Now that's a stretch.... :doh:

[Shotgunner]

Seattle better hope he works out. Burleson may get all that money

and go back to the pipe!

[HOF44]

BT,

You made the papers!! Your Wiki edit is being used by somebody.

This is actualy not a bad article.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/miller/264429_miller27.html

In their contract offer to Vikings receiver Nate Burleson last week -- a seven-year, $49 million deal that, not-coincidentally, is nearly identical to the one that whisked guard Steve Hutchinson away to the Vikings -- the Seahawks inserted their own "asymmetrical-impact clause," a phrase culled from Wikipedia's definition of "poison pill."

Now wether I think your right or wrong, this is damn funny!

[Whiskeypeet]

BT,

You made the papers!! Your Wiki edit is being used by somebody.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/miller/264429_miller27.html

In their contract offer to Vikings receiver Nate Burleson last week -- a seven-year, $49 million deal that, not-coincidentally, is nearly identical to the one that whisked guard Steve Hutchinson away to the Vikings -- the Seahawks inserted their own "asymmetrical-impact clause," a phrase culled from Wikipedia's definition of "poison pill."

Now wether I think your right or wrong, this is damn funny!

You have got to be kidding me. :laugh: :laugh:

[zoony]

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.

Now you're just coming off as petty.

JRock obviously pushed you into a corner, now you've lowered yourself to calling him dense and making the argument about wikipedia.

Nice job with that.

.....

[Westbrook36]

Well, not taking sides, but anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source is not being honest to the discussion. The point he is making is that anyone can update it. I can, you can, jrock can, anyone can. So how can you post it as a "source"?

[Inxsive]

My opening intended to be straight, not funny. I believe you can say some critical things even using some fairly direct language wihtout meaning to be offensive. That doesn't seem too complex a concept. If I wanted to offend you, I would leave little doubt. But I would try to remember the rules and guidelines, even so.

I know your intent was intended to be straight, that’s why I found it funny. I liken it to a guy saying I don’t mean to be violent right before he shoots you.

My response is brief, and I do know your posts. This content of this one, IMO, when you break it down, simply reflects what I said about what you're bring to the table in this thread.

Your opinions about Seattle, the population, and your allusions to intimate knowledge of how the rest of the country thinks, reflect you may have an axe to grind that I don't care about, nor had commented on.

My opinion is based on living and visiting out there. Also, my job with the government has a lot of traveling throughout the country and I get to talk to a lot of people in various areas.

Again, I specifically referred to the content and attitude of your posts in this thread, and said in clear fashion why.

I'm glad you're not angry, but then that too wasn't a matter I raised. Like you said, you like to push buttons at times--fine---and the one (or two) liners I referred to obviously were just the ones in this thread. I didn't call them angry, just dismissive of some good content from another poster. And not on the same level as the dialogue you were buzzing around. Thus "pesky"

Despite pushing buttons I also included specific facts. You certainly said that I was just dismissive. Do you call disagreeing with someone and explaining why dismissive?

There's nothing needed to be shown to you, there's nothing for you to be waiting for. As for any more converation on this, feel free of course and I will read it, but if more is desired from me I'd prefer doing it inPM so it doesn't distract from the thread.

I expected this response. I called you out to say where I was wrong in my facts and you couldn’t. As for the sending your response privately, I would have been glad to do so, but since you called me out here, here it will stay. If you wish to further this in a PM feel free but at the very least I will post my response here.

Finally, everybody here has their own style and personality, just because it isn’t one you would personally use doesn’t mean I or anyone else here doesn’t have the right to be different that your ideal. That’s not a very liberal position from such a liberal state.

One last thing, I’d like to congratulate my George Mason Patriots for doing what the Washington Huskies couldn’t do in beating the top favored team in the country.

[BlueTalon]

BT,

You made the papers!! Your Wiki edit is being used by somebody.

This is actualy not a bad article.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/miller/264429_miller27.html

In their contract offer to Vikings receiver Nate Burleson last week -- a seven-year, $49 million deal that, not-coincidentally, is nearly identical to the one that whisked guard Steve Hutchinson away to the Vikings -- the Seahawks inserted their own "asymmetrical-impact clause," a phrase culled from Wikipedia's definition of "poison pill."

Now wether I think your right or wrong, this is damn funny!

That's hilarious! Thanks for pointing that out. :laugh:

[AzSkinsFan63]

The Poison pill has gotten way out of hand..

Our posion pill to Laverneous Coles affected both teams the same way..the contract was voidable after 2 or 3 years..The Jets did not want to match that.

It was still voidable for us if he was still here also.

a poison pill that only affects one team is rediculious and any arbitrator with an ounce of integrity and kowledge of any kind should know this..

Hutchinson's poison pill was ludicrious and Seattle proved a heck of a point by doing this.