PDA

View Full Version : Hutchinson F'd us!


Joe Seahawk
03-13-2006, 11:20 PM
Why would he pull this shit.. :shake:

High stakes gambling: free agent style


By Adam Schefter
Special to NFL.com


(March 13, 2006) -- Start fitting Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson for a Minnesota Vikings.

The $50 million offer sheet that Hutchinson signed Sunday with the Vikings includes a provision dictating that he be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team this season -- or the entire $50 million contract becomes fully guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet. Well, Seattle offensive tackle Walter Jones averages $7.5 million per year, while Hutchinson's contract pays him an average of $7 million per year.

The Vikings made Steve Hutchinson an offer that will be tough for the Hawks to match.
So if Seattle matched Hutchinson's offer sheet, it not only would have to figure out how to squeeze in this year's $13-million-plus salary-cap figure, but it also would have to guarantee a whopping $50 million to Hutchinson, making it the richest cash contract in NFL history by a cool $15 million.

As it is, Hutchinson will be the fourth highest paid offensive linemen in football, behind only Jones, Orlando Pace and Jonathan Ogden.

The deal, devised by Hutchinson's agent Tom Condon, makes it exceedingly difficult for the Seahawks to match. One person involved in the composition of the offer sheet predicted the Seahawks cannot match it; the ramifications would be way too severe.

Seattle is said to be miffed not at the contract, but at Hutchinson's actions. As an act of good faith, the Seahawks opted to slap Hutchinson with the "transition" tag instead of the "franchise" tag, enabling the guard to solicit a deal that would be the best gauge of his market value. Seattle opted against the franchise tag only because it did not want to disenfranchise Hutchinson the way so many players slapped with the franchise tags are.

In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming. Now, the overwhelming chances are, Hutchinson is gone.

Seattle does have one other option, but it is highly risky. It can match the offer sheet and appeal the terms of the offer sheet to the NFL's Management Council. A Special Master would hear the appeal and if it ruled against the Seahawks, Seattle would be obligated to pay Hutchinson $50 million.

It's probably a gamble the Seahawks cannot afford to take.

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9305826

Dunit35
03-13-2006, 11:23 PM
It looks like Hutchinson did not want to stick around with Seattle.

Frazod
03-13-2006, 11:23 PM
Uh, remember we're Chiefs fans. Hutchinson f#cked YOU.

Look on the bright side, though - he didn't f#ck you nearly as bad as the refs in Super Bowl. :)

HMc
03-13-2006, 11:24 PM
Clever.

Joe Seahawk
03-13-2006, 11:25 PM
Uh, remember we're Chiefs fans. Hutchinson f#cked YOU.

Look on the bright side, though - he didn't f#ck you nearly as bad as the refs in Super Bowl. :)

Yeah, well I'm tired of getting f#cked!


f#ck it!

;)

Mr. Laz
03-13-2006, 11:26 PM
ouch ... i'm sorry joe




















not really ... but i tried ROFL

Frazod
03-13-2006, 11:27 PM
FWIW, nobody here is a Tom Condom fan. He's a low rent Rosenhaus and generally a team-wrecking douche.

Joe Seahawk
03-13-2006, 11:28 PM
This is f#cked up.. First Joe Jureviscous takes LESS money to sign with f#ckin Cleveland, Then Hutch bends us over and f#cks us after we, in good faith let him establish his market value..

f#ck you Hutch!

unlurking
03-13-2006, 11:28 PM
FWIW, nobody here is a Tom Condom fan. He's a low rent Rosenhaus and generally a team-wrecking douche.
Bullseye

alanm
03-13-2006, 11:29 PM
Because when it comes right down to it none of these guys are about team. Their loyalty belongs to whom ever coughs up the $$$$.
Here endeth the lesson. :)

HMc
03-13-2006, 11:29 PM
Well it looks like he established his market value, and the hawks either can't or won't match it. So where's the problem?

Joe Seahawk
03-13-2006, 11:31 PM
Well it looks like he established his market value, and the hawks either can't or won't match it. So where's the problem?

We can match the offer so He'll still get as much as he would in Minnesota, except for this.. This is where he ****ed us..

The $50 million offer sheet that Hutchinson signed Sunday with the Vikings includes a provision dictating that he be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team this season -- or the entire $50 million contract becomes fully guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet. Well, Seattle offensive tackle Walter Jones averages $7.5 million per year, while Hutchinson's contract pays him an average of $7 million per year.

alanm
03-13-2006, 11:35 PM
Look at it this way Joe. You'll have the satisfaction of watching Minnesota go into cap hell in a couple of years. And getting to watch Hutch lead the parade to the unemployment line. :)

Sfeihc
03-13-2006, 11:35 PM
The seabags could have put the franchise tag instead of the transition tag on Hutch and no one could have signed him to an offer sheet they would have had to trade for him from and most likely the price would be a 1st and a 3rd round draft pick. The franchise tag would have cost the seabags 600k more than the transition tag.
That's the way Gil Brandt explained it on Sirius NFL Radio

HMc
03-13-2006, 11:36 PM
We can match the offer so He'll still get as much as he would in Minnesota, except for this.. This is where he ****ed us..

The $50 million offer sheet that Hutchinson signed Sunday with the Vikings includes a provision dictating that he be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team this season -- or the entire $50 million contract becomes fully guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet. Well, Seattle offensive tackle Walter Jones averages $7.5 million per year, while Hutchinson's contract pays him an average of $7 million per year.

So offer him 7.6 million.

Don't try and tell me that you can't up the ante on these offer sheets, i won't believe you.

tk13
03-13-2006, 11:47 PM
So offer him 7.6 million.

Don't try and tell me that you can't up the ante on these offer sheets, i won't believe you.
It's not the 7.6 million a year that'd be killer... it'd be guaranteeing the entire contract. NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. Doing that for a $50 million dollar contract would be a salary cap nightmare.

Cave Johnson
03-14-2006, 12:32 AM
So offer him 7.6 million.

Don't try and tell me that you can't up the ante on these offer sheets, i won't believe you.

I'll step up to bat. I don't think you can go above offer sheets. It's either match or don't match. If you could, why would this be ingenious?

Joe Seahawk
03-14-2006, 12:50 AM
The contract could possibly say the entire 50 mil is guaranteed if the QB's name rhymes with Masslebeck..

the entire 50 mil is guaranteed if there are more than 2 starbucks per city block.

the entire 50 mil is guaranteed if...

Fruit Ninja
03-14-2006, 01:36 AM
Money talks, bullshit walks. I would have done the same.

Mr. Laz
03-14-2006, 01:55 AM
you can f**k with him back ...


restructure walter jones contract to lower his number by 1 million.... just change a million of into signing bonus so it pro-rated.

then match the offer


you don't have to pay him more ... you workaround the contract clause.

Short Leash Hootie
03-14-2006, 02:09 AM
NFL contracts are getting more and more insane every year.

The Seahawks could restructure Jones' contract, but he'd have to agree to that.

How creative though, I must say.

Chiefs fans know one thing about transition tags, they're worthless. We lost Tait and got no compensation. Our biggest problem in 2004 were all those penalties from our RT (and our defense sucked, of course.)

CHENZ A!
03-14-2006, 02:44 AM
NFL contracts are getting more and more insane every year.

The Seahawks could restructure Jones' contract, but he'd have to agree to that.

How creative though, I must say.

Chiefs fans know one thing about transition tags, they're worthless. We lost Tait and got no compensation. Our biggest problem in 2004 were all those penalties from our RT (and our defense sucked, of course.)


Tait = Taint, he never wanted to be a Chief.

Short Leash Hootie
03-14-2006, 02:51 AM
Tait = Taint, he never wanted to be a Chief.
I understand that, but in the NFL, you really have no choice, unless you're T.O.

If we would've franchised him, he would've been a Chief, and I don't think he would've complained.

However, I don't think he was worth the franchise tag.

CHENZ A!
03-14-2006, 02:54 AM
I understand that, but in the NFL, you really have no choice, unless you're T.O.

If we would've franchised him, he would've been a Chief, and I don't think he would've complained.

However, I don't think he was worth the franchise tag.

Tait hated us from day 1 because of Carl, and I was never sorry to see him go because I don't think he has heart.

alanm
03-14-2006, 03:53 AM
Tait = Taint, he never wanted to be a Chief.
Certainly not after Freeman whacked him upside the head. :$2500:

CHENZ A!
03-14-2006, 03:57 AM
Certainly not after Freeman whacked him upside the head. :$2500:

apparently he's good enough to play in Europe... But not better tham Siavii;s bitch ass???

StcChief
03-14-2006, 06:57 AM
If Seattle loses the NFL appeal because they signed the deal....too bad.

Oh Paul Allen (M$ co-founder) and owner has 50M in his coach cushions.

Adept Havelock
03-14-2006, 07:08 AM
Aww. How sad. It's life in the NFL. If Hutchinson wanted to be a Seahawk, he'd be a Seahawk.

He puts money before "team". So be it.

Seattle Seahawks='94 Chargers? (j/k)

Amnorix
03-14-2006, 07:23 AM
Looks like Hutchinson really did NOT want to go back to Seattle. Whether he had issues with his coaches, teammates, the location, who knows?

That said, I disfavor poison pills in free agency. Parcells used one on the Patriots in stealing CuMar away, and that's certainly not been forgotten.

HemiEd
03-14-2006, 07:32 AM
Looks like Hutchinson really did NOT want to go back to Seattle. Whether he had issues with his coaches, teammates, the location, who knows?

That said, I disfavor poison pills in free agency. Parcells used one on the Patriots in stealing CuMar away, and that's certainly not been forgotten.

This really reminds me of the Chicago Bears/John Tait deal. Damn I was pissed, he was not worth that much money. They knew the Chiefs could not match it.

I do not understand why teams use the transition tag anyway, why do they not just go ahead and franchise them?

HMc
03-14-2006, 07:38 AM
It's not the 7.6 million a year that'd be killer... it'd be guaranteeing the entire contract. NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. Doing that for a $50 million dollar contract would be a salary cap nightmare.

I'm aware of that.

But the point is that the clause is invoked if he isn't the highest paid lineman on "his" team. Pay him more than whoever is on 7.5 (whoever it was) and you don't have to guarantee the contract.

Or maybe im on the wrong track.

HMc
03-14-2006, 07:42 AM
I'll step up to bat. I don't think you can go above offer sheets. It's either match or don't match. If you could, why would this be ingenious?

Good point on the ingenuity, i don't have an answer.

It still strikes me that beating an offer would be considered as good as matching it.

patteeu
03-14-2006, 07:50 AM
I'll step up to bat. I don't think you can go above offer sheets. It's either match or don't match. If you could, why would this be ingenious?

I think you can if the player is willing to play ball. First, you'd have to match the offer sheet and then the player would have to agree to tear up that contract and sign a new one. But, you'd have to trust the player who just screwed you, so that's an issue.

AirForceChief
03-14-2006, 07:53 AM
you can f**k with him back ...


restructure walter jones contract to lower his number by 1 million.... just change a million of into signing bonus so it pro-rated.

then match the offer


you don't have to pay him more ... you workaround the contract clause.

My thought exactly...give Jones some other compensation options, but lower his salary over the next year or two.

cdcox
03-14-2006, 08:11 AM
Before too much blame/credit is heaped on Hutch/Condon, consider that perhaps the Vikings were anxious to formulate a deal that would be tough for the Seahawks to match. They might have thrown some extra $ into the contract if Hutch would agree to the guarantee stipulation. I doubt they worked out the whole deal and then at the last second Condon said, "hey, lets add this additional clause to stick it to Seattle."

jspchief
03-14-2006, 08:32 AM
Wonder if Brian Waters is cussing the extension he just signed.

sedated
03-14-2006, 08:34 AM
50 million for a guard?

be glad he's gone, no guard is worth that much.

Cave Johnson
03-14-2006, 09:09 AM
I think you can if the player is willing to play ball. First, you'd have to match the offer sheet and then the player would have to agree to tear up that contract and sign a new one. But, you'd have to trust the player who just screwed you, so that's an issue.

Normally, you're right. But realistically, there's no way Hutchinson or any other player would tear up a completely guaranteed contract.

That said, the Vikes are crazy to hand out this kind of money. Although I hope the Seahawks match so they're less likely to re-sign Bernard.

patteeu
03-14-2006, 09:58 AM
Normally, you're right. But realistically, there's no way Hutchinson or any other player would tear up a completely guaranteed contract.

That said, the Vikes are crazy to hand out this kind of money. Although I hope the Seahawks match so they're less likely to re-sign Bernard.

Basically I agree with you that it's probably not realistic, but it wouldn't really be a matter of Hutchinson choosing between the guaranteed money or the reworked contract, it would be a choice between the Vikings non-guaranteed contract and a reworked, more lucrative non-guaranteed contract from the Seahawks. Any agreement with Hutchinson to tear up that guaranteed money contract would have to be worked out before you matched the offer as a precursor to tearing the contract up and signing the new one.

Joe Seahawk
03-14-2006, 10:01 AM
There is some talk up here that the Highest paid clause in the contract is not a "principal term", which is all the Seahawks are required to match.

It could go to a special master arbitrator (Richard Bloch)

Brock
03-14-2006, 10:24 AM
It's the Vikings misfortune that they're willing to pay that kind of money to a guard, not the C-hawks.