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. )

[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.