Pot calling the Kettle Black-Min whines about poison pill

[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.