Pot calling the Kettle Black-Min whines about poison pill

[gureski]

I can't believe this response from the Vikings regarding the Burleson deal...

(full article is at: http://www.startribune.com/510/story/343970.html )

"There is a vast difference between our deal and Burleson's," said Rob Brzezinski, Vikings vice president of football operations. "The Hutchinson deal is of legitimate benefit to the player. He has a contract with us where it could vest; the Seattle deal is a total sham, and the trigger is a sham."

end quote

Someone tell me how what the Seahawks did was any different then what the Vikings did? They put a B.S. clause into the contract that made it impossible for the original team to match the deal. That's it. Bottom line. Both sides had a B.S. clause in the deal that created a situation where the original team had no choice but to let the player go.

I continue to believe the arbitrator erred in allowing the Vikings deal to stand. It set up a situation where the Seahawks were forced to pay Hutchinson more then the Vikings were going to pay him and therefore, that's not giving a team the right to 'match' an offer. It circumvents the entire cap system that is in place with rights of first refusal negotiated into the system. And here, in the end, are the guys who opened the can of worms crying in their beer about getting it stuck back to them? I say way to go Seattle.

[Scott Campbell]

I think the Seattle move further highlights the hole in the current rules, and I expect the NFL to move quickly to close that loophole.

[gureski]

Sad thing is that, unless I"m mistaken, they have to negotiate a fix to this with the Union and the Union will use it as a negotiating chip. The more I learn about this last labor deal the more I'm afraid of what was done to the system. (not that it caused this situation....I'm just making that statement)

[FavreChild]

It's still hilarious....

(until it happens to us. :neutral: )

[packrulz]

I think Seattle one upped the queens because the queens would have to pay Burleson $49 mil to keep him but the Seahawks only have to pay him around $14.5 mil. Hee-hee.

[Rastak]

I think Seattle one upped the queens because the queens would have to pay Burleson $49 mil to keep him but the Seahawks only have to pay him around $14.5 mil. Hee-hee.


Except the Vi kings get a 3rd and Seattle got squat. It was Seattles own fault for not franchising someone they didn't want to lose. I'm not sure why but Minnesota was begging someone to take Burleson for a 3rd.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It's true Minnesota got the better end of the deal. It's not true that a late 3rd round pick is good value for Burleson. Of course, I'd expect Rastak would stick up for the Vikings on this. Personally, I think it's indefensible. I would think only complete homer Viking fans would think this was good for the league.

And you are right on this Gureski. For Minnesota to whine that the Hawks poison pill went over the line, but there's did not, is complete horseshit. Hell, why wouldn't Seattle get them back?

[Partial]

edit: read the article. Nevermind.

2 mil a year for 7 years. Not bad!!

[Rastak]

It's true Minnesota got the better end of the deal. It's not true that a late 3rd round pick is good value for Burleson. Of course, I'd expect Rastak would stick up for the queens on this. Personally, I think it's indefensible. I would think only complete homer queen fans would think this was good for the league.

And you are right on this Gureski. For Minnesota to whine that the Hawks poison pill went over the line, but there's did not, is complete horseshit. Hell, why wouldn't Seattle get them back?Ok Harvey....

1) Where did I say it was good value for Burleson? Nowhere because I don't believe it is. They had a logjam at receiver and THEY obviously felt a 3rd was good enough compensation.

2) I don't think poison pills are good for the league and never said it was. I thought Seattle's was over the top but basically it is the same thing, it just looked rediculous.

3) Seattle didn't "get them back". As I've stated a 100 times, when you tender a guy at a level you are saying "here's what WE think is fair compensation" (damn I sound like my pal woodbuck there). They had all
the cap space in the world to tender him higher and didn't for a reason.



Until this is addressed by the league and the union teams should franchise guys they don't want to lose and tender RFA's properly.

[Patler]

I think there is a big difference between these two situations.

Hutchinson's total contract is a "fair" and "reasonable" one that either team would pay if he stays healthy. The Vikings will pay it all. It is not backloaded. In fact it is quite frontloaded. Seattle was placed in a situation of having to guarantee payments that MN fully intends to pay, unless something bad happened to Hutchinson. All it did was put a risk factor into the Seattle deal that MN does not have.

Burleson's deal was structured to put MN in a position of having to guarantee payments that Seattle has absolutely no intention of ever paying. It is an extremely backloaded contract. Burleson will never see most of the value of that contract. He knows it and Seattle knows it.

These are very different uses of guarantees, and the Seattle one was a very cheap retaliation, nothing more than that. MN outsmarted Seattle with Hutchinson, after Seattle tried to get by with a cheaper tender.

[Patler]

I think there is a big difference between these two situations.

Hutchinson's total contract is a "fair" and "reasonable" one that either team would pay if he stays healthy. MN will pay it all. It is not backloaded. In fact it is quite frontloaded. Seattle was placed in a situation of having to guarantee payments that MN fully intends to pay, unless something bad happened to Hutchinson. All it did was put a risk factor into the Seattle deal that MN does not have.

Burleson's deal was structured to put MN in a position of having to guarantee payments that Seattle has absolutely no intention of ever paying. It is an extremely backloaded contract. Burleson will never see most of the value of that contract. He knows it and Seattle knows it.

These are very different uses of guarantees, and the Seattle one was a very cheap retaliation, nothing more than that. MN outsmarted Seattle with Hutchinson, after Seattle tried to get by with a cheaper tender.

[Scott Campbell]

These are very different uses of guarantees, and the Seattle one was a very cheap retaliation, nothing more than that. MN outsmarted Seattle with Hutchinson, after Seattle tried to get by with a cheaper tender.


I disagree. They were the essentially the same maneuver. MN tendered an offer that would have forced a greater burden upon Seattle if they chose to match for Hutch. Seattles deal took the same concept and highlighted the absurdity of the loophole. In the end, both the home teams lost their players because of deals structured that circumvented the home team advantage built into the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the spirit of the rule within the CBA was violated, and the loophole should and probably will be closed.

[motife]

The Vikes offer to Steve Hutchinson was malicious and deceptive. It amazed me the Seahawks didn't appeal it on those grounds alone.

VIKES CATCH LEAGUE'S IRE

A league source tells us that the recent ownership meetings in Florida featured a storm of resentment directed at the delegation representing the Minnesota Vikings.

The reason for the discontent was the poison pilled offer sheet that the Vikings presented to former Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson three weeks ago. The NFL ultimately attempted to challenge the offer on behalf of the Seahawks.

"Everyone was talking about the group of people with more balls and ego than brains," said one source, in reference to the four men who run the organization: owner Zygi Wilf, V.P. of player personnel Fran Foley, V.P. of football operations Rob Brzezinski, and head coach Brad Childress.

"This group is on everyone's sh-t list," added the source. "League office, other teams, owners, personnel people."

The league office also isn't pleased, we're told, with the involvement of former management council employee Dave Blando in the crafting of the offer sheet that prevented the Seahawks from matching. Blando now works as a cap guy for the Vikings, and the thinking is that Blando had a key role in coming up with the term that would have made all of Hutchinson's seven-year, $49 million contract fully guaranteed if the Seahawks had matched.

Wilf bought the Vikings less than a year ago. Childress was hired days after the conclusion of the 2005 season to replace Mike Tice, who was fired minutes after a season-ending win over the Bears. Foley joined the organization not long thereafter from San Diego, where he had served as the director of pro personnel. Brzezinski has been with the team for seven years.

[Scott Campbell]

"Everyone was talking about the group of people with more balls and ego than brains," said one source, in reference to the four men who run the organization: owner Zygi Wilf, V.P. of player personnel Fran Foley, V.P. of football operations Rob Brzezinski, and head coach Brad Childress.

"This group is on everyone's sh-t list," added the source. "League office, other teams, owners, personnel people."



Ahhhhh.....that's the part that really warms my heart. Queens - the slimey underbelly of the NFL.

[Patler]

These are very different uses of guarantees, and the Seattle one was a very cheap retaliation, nothing more than that. MN outsmarted Seattle with Hutchinson, after Seattle tried to get by with a cheaper tender.


I disagree. They were the essentially the same maneuver. MN tendered an offer that would have forced a greater burden upon Seattle if they chose to match for Hutch. Seattles deal took the same concept and highlighted the absurdity of the loophole. In the end, both the home teams lost their players because of deals structured that circumvented the home team advantage built into the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the spirit of the rule within the CBA was violated, and the loophole should and probably will be closed.

It was no more burden on Seattle than on MN. It was only greater risk. That is totally different than the Burleson situation, because Seattle has no intention of paying all that money to Burleson. MN does intend to pay Hutchinson.

[Scott Campbell]

It was no more burden on Seattle than on MN.

Sure it was. Seattle had Walter Jones signed to a contract that would have triggered the guarantee. MN did have that burden.

You don't see league sources being quoted about being ticked with the Seahawks. They blame this on the Vikings.

[Scott Campbell]

It was no more burden on Seattle than on MN. It was only greater risk.


Greater risk = greater burden.

[Patler]

It was no more burden on Seattle than on MN.

Sure it was. Seattle had Walter Jones signed to a contract that would have triggered the guarantee. MN did have that burden.

You don't see league sources being quoted about being ticked with the Seahawks. They blame this on the queens.

That's why I said it was more risk on Seattle. Financial burden was the same. Both teams intend to pay the full contract, one would be obligated to immediately. The contract was mostly frontloaded and MN expects to pay the whole thing. Seattle has more risk because of the guarantee, risk that Hutchinson can't play out the contract.

Burleson deal - Seattle has no intention to pay the full contract. Its extremely backloaded, like Wahles was in GB only even more so. MN would be obligated to pay the full contract.

These are very different situations.

[HarveyWallbangers]

"That's why I said it was more risk on Seattle. Financial burden was the same. Both teams intend to pay the full contract, one would be obligated to immediately. The contract was mostly frontloaded and MN expects to pay the whole thing. Seattle has more risk because of the guarantee, risk that Hutchinson can't play out the contract.

Burleson deal - Seattle has no intention to pay the full contract. Its extremely backloaded, like Wahles was in GB only even more so. MN would be obligated to pay the full contract.

These are very different situations."

I completely disagree. It does not matter one iota whether the financial burden was possibly the same. (I say possibly because it's a longshot that Hutchinson plays out this contract. He'll be 34-35 when the contract is complete.) The point IS the risk. Both contracts were written so that neither matching team would have taken the risk to match. Both contracts had the intent to make it impossible for the matching team to match the contract because of the guarantees. Whether Seattle cuts Burleson after 4 years and Minnesota keeps Hutchinson for all 7 years (unlikely) is irrelevant.

[Patler]

Both contracts were written so that neither matching team would have taken the risk to match. Both contracts had the intent to make it impossible for the matching team to match the contract because of the guarantees. Whether Seattle cuts Burleson after 4 years and Minnesota keeps Hutchinson for all 7 years (unlikely) is irrelevant.

Teams do that all the time, attempt to structure a deal the other team can't match. In the past it has been done with current year costs to pry a player away from a team with cap limitations. The only difference this year is that it was structured long term.

[MJZiggy]

Were these types of poison pills used in the past though? I don't remember anything like this being used before (either that or I haven't been paying attention).

[Patler]

The difference is this:

Hutchinsons is a legitimate contract through its entire length.
Burlesons was a bogus contract with fantam years.

[Scott Campbell]

Were these types of poison pills used in the past though? I don't remember anything like this being used before (either that or I haven't been paying attention).


This is the first one that was used to circumvent the spirit of the CBA.

[MJZiggy]

Let me rephrase the question: In the past, it's always about how they can structure the money for the current year so the original team can't match, have they ever used terms like guaranteeing the whole contract or worrying about where a player plays or if he's the highest paid before?

[HarveyWallbangers]

The difference is this:

Hutchinsons is a legitimate contract through its entire length.
Burlesons was a bogus contract with fantam years.

What does that matter?

There's no way any team is going to guarantee $49M in the NFL. Guys get injured. There isn't a chance in hell that ANY team would guarantee that for ANY player. That is the point. You don't think the dollars that Seattle threw at the end of the deal had anything to do with trying to send a message to Minnesota (ironic that it matched Hutch's deal spot on)? The guarantee part is what made it a poison pill--not how much money was associated with the contract.

You aren't a V1king fan by chance? If you were, it would be really obvious (offended by the change of V1kings to queens and the defending them on Hutchinson poison pill--which is absolutely indefensible).

[Patler]

The difference is this:

Hutchinsons is a legitimate contract through its entire length.
Burlesons was a bogus contract with fantam years.

What does that matter?

There's no way any team is going to guarantee $49M in the NFL. Guys get injured. There isn't a chance in hell that ANY team would guarantee that for ANY player. That is the point. You don't think the dollars that Seattle threw at the end of the deal had anything to do with trying to send a message to Minnesota (ironic that it matched Hutch's deal spot on)? The guarantee part is what made it a poison pill--not how much money was associated with the contract.

You aren't a V1king fan by chance? If you were, it would be really obvious (offended by the change of V1kings to queens and the defending them on Hutchinson poison pill--which is absolutely indefensible).

Nope, life long Packer fan, if that matters.

The greatest portion of Hutchinson's contract is already virtually guaranteed. With the signing and roster bonuses in the first three to four years combined with the salaries those years, it covers a substantial portion of the contract value. Even if he were hurt early this year, a player of his calibre would be given many seasons to get back on the field. There is vitually no chance, absent his untimely death like Kory Stringer, that the first four years of that contract will not be paid, and that covers a huge part of it. By then, the remaining three years will be cheap, or at least reasonable.

Finaincially, if it was only the "guarantee", Seattle should have matched. I think they did not match because the player obviously wanted to leave, and they did not want a lockerroom issue on a contending team.

[Scott Campbell]

There is vitually no chance, absent his untimely death like Kory Stringer, that the first four years of that contract will not be paid, and that covers a huge part of it.


Virtually no chance? What if he's injured?

[Scott Campbell]

Finaincially, if it was only the "guarantee", Seattle should have matched. I think they did not match because the player obviously wanted to leave, and they did not want a lockerroom issue on a contending team.


I disagree here too. I thought they didn't match because they lost the ruling at arbitration. I think they tried to restructure Walter Jones contract so that it wouldn't trigger the guarantee, but the arbitrator ruled against them - something about the Walter Jones contract terms being considered at the time the offer was signed.

They were trying to match. At least that's how I remember it.

[Patler]

There is vitually no chance, absent his untimely death like Kory Stringer, that the first four years of that contract will not be paid, and that covers a huge part of it.


Virtually no chance? What if he's injured?

As I said, even if he is injured he will be given years to get back on the field because of who he is. The elite left tackle picked by the Texans in the expansion draft (whose name eludes me at the present) had a huge contract for three years from them and never played a down. He was not released for 3 years, and counted a big part of their cap for those years.

The same would happen for Hutchinson. They would keep him on injured reserve for years before letting him go.

[Scott Campbell]

The same would happen for Hutchinson. They would keep him on injured reserve for years before letting him go.

That's interesting speculation, but what makes you so sure? The Vikings have way more money tied up in Hutch than the Texans had in Tony Boselli. And your Texans point could be used to prove that they should have given up on him earlier instead of wasting all their money. Career ending injuries aren't that unusual in the NFL.

In that scenario, the Vikings will have the lattitude under the agreement to cut the guy. The Seahawks wouldn't have that same lattitude. With the amount of money involved, I consider that substantially different terms that create a burden in Seattle that don't exist in MN.

The Vikings went looking to circumvent the home field free agency advantage created by the CBA. And now the rest of the league is reported to be angry with them.

But it looks like I'm not going to convince you. And you haven't convinced me.

[Guiness]

Bizarre as it seems after reading this thread, I think I agree with a lot of what both HW and SRF are saying.

Minnesota's deal for Hutch at least has the potential of being fulfilled. If (Yes, that's a big if) he is healthy, continues to play at a high level, etc, he'll see all those years.

No way Burleson plays out his deal. He isn't, and never will be a $10mil/year player. Like Moulds, he goes out with the bathwater after 4yrs.

Seattle should've properly tendered him. Franchise the guy for crying out loud!

BUT, I think Seattle did this purposely to highlight the absudity of the loophole. IMO their point, as much as getting Burleson, was to point out to others who were on the fence that something has to be done about this.

Teams that were saying 'this could nvr happen to us' saw the SeaChicken's deal, and realized everyone was vulnerable. For this, the league should thank Seattle.

[Scott Campbell]

Seattle should've properly tendered him. Franchise the guy for crying out loud!

Agreed. Seattle could have avoided the whole thing if they didn't try to get so cute with their tag just to save a few bucks.

[Guiness]

yes, but they just followed the status quo. Until this year, teams got away with that.

Lookit what the Pack did with Kamp in '05. Undertendered, and they knew it.

[motife]

Let me rephrase the question: In the past, it's always about how they can structure the money for the current year so the original team can't match, have they ever used terms like guaranteeing the whole contract or worrying about where a player plays or if he's the highest paid before?

hi ziggy,

There has never been anything as blatantly, malevolently poison pill structured as the Vikings offer. Teams in the past have tried to make it difficult for the other team to match financially, but both teams had the same guarantees, the same average per year, etc. So it would have been the same financial burden for the matching team as the one that made the offer.

The Vikings admitted this was unprecedented when asked saying something like, "If it doesn't say in the rules we can't do it, than we can do it."

There was a precedent that the matching term could delete, or not match, "extraneous" parts of the contract not deemed principal to its terms, i.e. the principal part is number of years, amount of money, everything else is incidental.

There was surprise the Seahawks didn't contest on those grounds, that is was extraneous to the deal. What they contested was whether Walter Jones was paid more than Hutchinson at the time of the offer or the time of the match, which gave tacit agreement to the poison pill being legitamate. The special master ruled they had to match the terms existing at the time of the offer, which was NOT the problem.

Many were and still are flabbergasted at the Vikings predatory, non-collegial offer. It was not at all in the spirit of the partnership of 32 owners partnering together in the same league and has essentially wrecked the league to an extent.

The poison pill was not only in their contract, but in the taste it left in other owners mouths towards Minnesota and what lies in the future. "This is business," they Vikings answer. Bullcrap.

I hope the represcussions to the Vikings are long lasting. The intent here was particularly malicious. The precedent, if followed, would mean "restricted free agency", the "transition tag" and "franchising" are meaningless. That's what Tagliabue means by "not in the spirit of the CBA".

If upheld, any team will automatically be assured of getting the RFA, Transition, or Franchise player they give an offer to by putting ridiculous, extraneous clauses in the offer.

The precedent has made the minimum amount of structure in the league chaos. When the Vikings went to the brink on this, they basically said to hell with league structure. It's really breathtaking what a**h*les these guys are.

[Scott Campbell]

When the Vikings went to the brink on this, they basically said to hell with league structure. It's really breathtaking what a**h*les these guys are.


Well when you put it like that, it's like poetry to my ears. The only thing that could be better is if it was revealed that the Bears where secretly in cahoots with the Vikes.

[Scott Campbell]

I hope the represcussions to the Vikings are long lasting.


Yeah, me too. I'd love it if they had a bunch of their draft picks stripped away like the Twolves did when they tampered with Joe Smith. Though I highly doubt that would happen because they weasled their way officially inside the rulebook by way of a technicality. I expect their repercussions to be of the unofficial kind, and sometimes those can be worse.

[MJZiggy]

Thank you, Motife. That was just what I was looking for.

Why do I get the feeling Hutch is going to get the crap pounded out of him this season...?

[Patler]

Thank you, Motife. That was just what I was looking for.

Why do I get the feeling Hutch is going to get the crap pounded out of him this season...?

Among players, Hutchinson will be a hero. They HATE the franchise and transition tags. They hate RFA.

[MJZiggy]

You make a valid point.

[Scott Campbell]

Thank you, Motife. That was just what I was looking for.

Why do I get the feeling Hutch is going to get the crap pounded out of him this season...?

Among players, Hutchinson will be a hero. They HATE the franchise and transition tags. They hate RFA.


Agreed. None of the backlash will make it's way onto the field.

[MJZiggy]

I wish it would. I'd like watching other teams beat up on Minny.

[gureski]

Some people are missing the big picture here.

Forget debating all these details and opinions. The bottom line is that due to the way the Vikings set their clause in that contract to Hutchinson, Seattle was being FORCED to guarantee 100% of the contract IMMEDIATELY. That's endgame right there. That's the entire point right there. Don't go beyond it. Minnesota didn't have to guarantee the entire deal at any time during the life of the deal. Seattle would've had to guarantee the entire dollar amount from day one to match the deal! That's not splitting hairs there! That's the problem and that's why it wasn't a legitmate offer. It was a sly B.S. clause that stuck a knife into the integrity of the system. It doesn't matter if the deal is realistic and Minny may pay the entire deal. In the end they don't have to. The Seahawks were the team that was supposed to have a built in advantage to keep the player. The Vikings dirty offer not only took away that advantage with a clause, it set up a disadvantage in its' place!

The Seahawks were supposed to have the right of first refusal but thanks to the Vikings B.S. clause, they would've had to pay the entire deal IMMEDIATELY and regardless circumstance. The Vikings will NEVER have to do that. That's the difference right there! In a sport where there are no guaranteed contracts you can't ask a team to make someone the highest paid player at their position ...oh...AND GUARANTEE the entire contract too just to keep the player. Oh yeah...but the team offerring the deal doesn't have to guarantee it. Just the team that was supposed to have the right of first refusal. Do you not see how insane that is?

It doesn't matter if you think you'll have the player for the life of the deal anyway or if you thougth you'd cut that player in 3 years... the bottom line is that YOU STILL HAVE THAT OPTION. Every team under every contract has the OPTION of not having to pay the entire deal! It's protection! The only true protection the teams have! The Vikings, to the delight of the NFLPA, have shown agents the way around the NFL's system. Don't think for a milisecond that agents are foaming at the mouth right now thinking of ways to utilize this to their advantage. Someone mentioned restricted free agents...just think what this does to that now? The few built in tools for teams to keep their home grown talent are gone and its' all thanks to the V ikings and their B.S. offer. They have no leg to stand on in this situation with Burleson. They deserve to lose him and I think the Seahawks made their offer ridiculous on purpose to force the league to act on fixing the situation.

Again though....the terrible thing is that they'll need the union to go along with any fix of this situation. They can't just snap their fingers and make it go away.

[motife]

they'll need the union to go along with any fix of this situation. They can't just snap their fingers and make it go away.

It eliminated all 3 mechanisms to develop talent in the CBA, the RFA's committed to a team for 4 years, the transition tag, and the franchise tag.

The "right to match" with all three mechanisms means nothing now that the Vikings have gone nuclear with the Hutchinson deal's poison pill offer and it went unchallenged.

All any team has to do is put ridiculous provisions in the contract offer so the whole thing is guaranteed for the matching team, and they get the player, (minus compensating draft picks depending on the tender made for the RFA's or two firsts for franchised players.)

The NFLPA defended the poison pill, so good luck trying to get them to agree to oppose it now.

The only solution now would be for the NFL to ostrazcize any team that makes similar malevolent offers in the future. The Vikings have really screwed the NFL for the future. I hope they're happy.

[MJZiggy]

I wonder if they've thought of the fact that it screwed RFA & transition up for them in the future too...

[HarveyWallbangers]

I doubt it, ziggy. They and their fans were too busy praising themselves for how brilliant they are. You know, they worked the system to get a great player. You know that, right? You also know that Hutchinson + 3rd round pick is much better than Burleson, right?

[MJZiggy]

Yes...and what good does that do them next year when they have a RFA they'd like to hang onto?