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.