What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Tagliabue comments on Sea vs Vikings grudge match (1 Viewer)

Sweetness_34

Footballguy
The quote of the day came from Tagliabue, when asked about Seattle and Minnesota's ongoing free-agency feud, in which both teams have signed one another's players to an offer sheet and inserted "poison pill'' clauses that make it virtually impossible to match: "The mind of creative people has no limits. But it's not in the spirit of the deal [the collective bargaining agreement], and we will be talking to Gene [upshaw, the players union chief] about it.''

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...meetings/1.html

:popcorn:

PS: Sorry if this is a HONDA but I did not see it anywhere

 
The quote of the day came from Tagliabue, when asked about Seattle and Minnesota's ongoing free-agency feud, in which both teams have signed one another's players to an offer sheet and inserted "poison pill'' clauses that make it virtually impossible to match: "The mind of creative people has no limits. But it's not in the spirit of the deal [the collective bargaining agreement], and we will be talking to Gene [upshaw, the players union chief] about it.''

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...meetings/1.html

:popcorn:

PS: Sorry if this is a HONDA but I did not see it anywhere
This is the first I've heard it. Something definitly needs to be done about this. I'm a Vikings fan, and I was excited as hell when I heard that they got Hutch in the arbitration ruling. But I admit, this kind of dealing is a bit underhanded and cheap.

I figured the NFL would put provisions against this sort of behavior, but apparantly deals can include any and every possible stipulation.

If they don't fix it, this could get out of hand in a hurry.

 
I'm a Vikings fan, and I was excited as hell when I heard that they got Hutch in the arbitration ruling. But I admit, this kind of dealing is a bit underhanded and cheap.
Ditto. It's not quite cheating, but awfully close.
 
I hope they take action because this has gotten out of hand. Right now only the Vikings and Seahawks are involved but give this a year and it'll be chaos.

Saturday or later would be fine.

 
I wonder what kind of action can be taken, exactly. The CBA's a done deal, and there's nothing in there to stop poison pills. I don't see the union being very cooperative in amending the agreement to appease the owners.

I hate it too, but just wonder what can be done.

 
I wonder what kind of action can be taken, exactly. The CBA's a done deal, and there's nothing in there to stop poison pills. I don't see the union being very cooperative in amending the agreement to appease the owners.

I hate it too, but just wonder what can be done.
I think that it would be easy to amend the rules. Basically, the poison pill just prevents the original team from matching the offer. The player themselves is still going to get the amount of money that the new team wanted to pay him, but the new team is throwing in things that could never be matched.I have no issue at all with teams structuring contracts that another team can't match because of large signing bonuses, etc. If the original team is in a worse salary cap position and cannot match, then tough. The only issue I have is with silly clauses that basically turn a 4 year $12 million deal into a 7 year $49 million deal because the original team isn't really matching the same contract.

By the way, I also have no problem with the Vikings and Hutch because they saw a loophole and exploited it. I just don't like the spirit of it and think it would be better to just close the loophole.

 
By the way, I also have no problem with the Vikings and Hutch because they saw a loophole and exploited it. I just don't like the spirit of it and think it would be better to just close the loophole.
"No problem with...don't like the spirit of...." Isn't this a contradiction? :confused:
 
It appears that the Seahawk fans are not just some bitter fans and have a good reason to be upset with the Hutch issue.

When the Commish comes out and says its a problem and needs to be fixed, then there is an issue.

 
I think that every team could use the same poison pill the Seahawks used to get Burleson.

Basically say that if a player plays > 3 games in a particular state, then the contract is guaranteed.

In short, every transition and even franchise player can be obtained that way. And since now the players know about it too, they will play hard ball with their own teams to force them to transition/franchise them only to get a better deal thanks to some poison pill like this which is impossible to match against.

 
I think that every team could use the same poison pill the Seahawks used to get Burleson.

Basically say that if a player plays > 3 games in a particular state, then the contract is guaranteed.

In short, every transition and even franchise player can be obtained that way. And since now the players know about it too, they will play hard ball with their own teams to force them to transition/franchise them only to get a better deal thanks to some poison pill like this which is impossible to match against.
The franchise player's team will still get 2 1st round picks as compensation, and the same for RFAs, they will get the designated round, but nothing for transition players.
 
So the next contract that is signed, when the Jets sign someone from the Cowboys (for instance), will have language in it that says:

"In addition to getting three million dollars to play for the Jets, we will guarantee that:

1. You will get to wear a green and white uniform in all your games; and,

2. Half of your games will be played within 100 miles of New York City."

Match that, Cowboys!

They'd better get some language in the agreement that doesn't allow for poison pills.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the next contract that is signed, when the Jets sign someone from the Cowboys (for instance), will have language in it that says:

"In addition to getting three million dollars to play for the Jets, we will guarantee that:

1. You will get to wear a green and white uniform in all your games; and,

2. Half of your games will be played within 100 miles of New York City."

Match that, Cowboys!

They'd better get some language in the agreement that doesn't allow for poison pills.
:goodposting: They might as well get rid of "the right to match".

 
Fallout continued Monday from the Vikings' unprecedented offer sheet to guard Steve Hutchinson. Facing a barrage of concern from owners and executives, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue vowed to close the "poison pill" loophole that helped Hutchinson jump from Seattle to the Vikings last week.

Tagliabue said the clause, which would have forced the Seahawks to guarantee all $49 million of Hutchinson's contract in order to retain him, was "not in the spirit" of the league's collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeff Lurie called it "a very troubling matter," while Indianapolis Colts President Bill Polian said "historically it has not been done."

In response, the architect of the provision passionately defended his motives and revealed he has been urging the league to address the loophole. In a rare interview, Rob Brzezinski, the Vikings vice president of football operations, discounted the notion of allowing unwritten rules to govern contract negotiations.

"The 'spirit' of anything is subjective," said Brzezinski, part of the Vikings delegation here at the annual league meetings.

"All we can operate on is what's in black and white," he added. "What we did was clearly within the rules. We weren't in any way trying to be antagonistic or create issues in the system. We were simply trying to do what was in the best interest of the Vikings. This is an exceptional player, and we were in a competitive situation."

Brzezinski said he has discussed the matter "at length" with league officials in recent years, pointing out the myriad ways to craft an unfavorable offer sheet for transition players and restricted free agents. In Hutchinson's case, Brzezinski inserted a clause that would be triggered if he was not the team's highest-paid offensive lineman in 2006.

The clause was written specifically to inhibit the Seahawks, who already were paying left tackle Walter Jones more than Hutchinson was set to receive; the Vikings faced no such predicament. The language was upheld March 20 by special master Stephen Burbank, who ruled that it was legal under the terms of the CBA.

During a news conference Monday, Tagliabue said the NFL erred by not closing the loophole during negotiations for a CBA extension earlier this month. He said he will discuss the matter next week with Gene Upshaw, executive director of the Players Association, and said: "These issues ... need to be addressed."

"I think it's not what was contemplated [in the CBA]," he added. "The minds of creative people know no limit. As time goes by, an unlimited mind creates new innovations. But it's not in the spirit of the deal. So we will address that."

A wide swath of league officials joined Tagliabue in suggesting the Vikings violated what amounted to a gentleman's agreement. They said the original team of a transition player should only have to match terms that the new team would pay.

"We've always said that offer sheets had to be on a level playing field," Polian told the Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune. "It ought to cost you as much as it costs me. In this particular case, it's obviously not the case. It's intrinsically and historically unfair."

Said Lurie: "I don't like to see that kind of thing. I don't think it's good for football when a terrific young player like Steve Hutchinson gets involved in a poison-pill contract where a team that drafted him and invested in him [finds it] impossible to proceed. That was not the spirit ... at all. It's a shame. I hate to see that."

Carolina Panthers General Manager Marty Hurney was among a minority who seemed unconcerned by the circumstances.

"When you make a decision to put a transition tag," he said, "you make that decision with all the alternatives in mind. That's what you weigh out when you make decisions like that. You need to know everything that can happen."

The issue has left Brzezinski defending his otherwise pristine record as one of the NFL's most well-regarded executives.

"Throughout my career," he said, "I've always operated in what's been in the best interest of the NFL and the system. I hope my own personal track record would indicate that. I think in this case, we had what we deemed an exceptional, unique player, and my interest had to be first and foremost to the Vikings and our owner."

The Seahawks responded to Hutchinson's contract by signing Vikings receiver Nate Burleson to an offer sheet that included two similar poison pills. Brzezinski acknowledged Burleson's deal "was a shot across our bow," but said he never intended for the Hutchinson issue to start a war between franchises.

In fact, Brzezinski said, a Seahawks official has told him they would not have matched Hutchinson's contract even without the poison pill.

"So setting all this controversy aside," Brzezinski said. "Seattle wasn't harmed. There is an issue out there, and it's been brought to everybody's attention, but in this case there does not appear to be any harm because they wouldn't have matched anyway."
Link :popcorn:

 
By the way, I also have no problem with the Vikings and Hutch because they saw a loophole and exploited it. I just don't like the spirit of it and think it would be better to just close the loophole.
"No problem with...don't like the spirit of...." Isn't this a contradiction? :confused:
I don't think so, not in my mind. Maybe my wording doesn't explain it well enough.I guess I look at it this way. If I was the arbitrator, I would have ruled the same way. The Vikings did nothing wrong according to the current CBA. If I was the NFL Commissioner, I would work on removing the ability to put in poison pills that made the contract values different to different teams, in effect altering the CBA. Does that make sense?

 
By the way, I also have no problem with the Vikings and Hutch because they saw a loophole and exploited it. I just don't like the spirit of it and think it would be better to just close the loophole.
"No problem with...don't like the spirit of...." Isn't this a contradiction? :confused:
I don't think so, not in my mind. Maybe my wording doesn't explain it well enough.I guess I look at it this way. If I was the arbitrator, I would have ruled the same way. The Vikings did nothing wrong according to the current CBA. If I was the NFL Commissioner, I would work on removing the ability to put in poison pills that made the contract values different to different teams, in effect altering the CBA. Does that make sense?
Even if its not in the CBA, it goes against the "spirit of the CBA"
 
Carolina Panthers General Manager Marty Hurney was among a minority who seemed unconcerned by the circumstances."When you make a decision to put a transition tag," he said, "you make that decision with all the alternatives in mind. That's what you weigh out when you make decisions like that. You need to know everything that can happen."
 
Carolina Panthers General Manager Marty Hurney was among a minority who seemed unconcerned by the circumstances.

"When you make a decision to put a transition tag," he said, "you make that decision with all the alternatives in mind. That's what you weigh out when you make decisions like that. You need to know everything that can happen."
Said Lurie: "I don't like to see that kind of thing. I don't think it's good for football when a terrific young player like Steve Hutchinson gets involved in a poison-pill contract where a team that drafted him and invested in him [finds it] impossible to proceed. That was not the spirit ... at all. It's a shame. I hate to see that."
"We've always said that offer sheets had to be on a level playing field," Polian told the Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune. "It ought to cost you as much as it costs me. In this particular case, it's obviously not the case. It's intrinsically and historically unfair."
"I think it's not what was contemplated [in the CBA]," he added. "The minds of creative people know no limit. As time goes by, an unlimited mind creates new innovations. But it's not in the spirit of the deal. So we will address that."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carolina Panthers General Manager Marty Hurney was among a minority who seemed unconcerned by the circumstances.

"When you make a decision to put a transition tag," he said, "you make that decision with all the alternatives in mind. That's what you weigh out when you make decisions like that. You need to know everything that can happen."
Said Lurie: "I don't like to see that kind of thing. I don't think it's good for football when a terrific young player like Steve Hutchinson gets involved in a poison-pill contract where a team that drafted him and invested in him [finds it] impossible to proceed. That was not the spirit ... at all. It's a shame. I hate to see that."
"We've always said that offer sheets had to be on a level playing field," Polian told the Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune. "It ought to cost you as much as it costs me. In this particular case, it's obviously not the case. It's intrinsically and historically unfair."
"I think it's not what was contemplated [in the CBA]," he added. "The minds of creative people know no limit. As time goes by, an unlimited mind creates new innovations. But it's not in the spirit of the deal. So we will address that."
In fact, Brzezinski said, a Seahawks official has told him they would not have matched Hutchinson's contract even without the poison pill.

"So setting all this controversy aside," Brzezinski said. "Seattle wasn't harmed. There is an issue out there, and it's been brought to everybody's attention, but in this case there does not appear to be any harm because they wouldn't have matched anyway."
Your service... :lmao:
 
One Pill Makes You Larger...

The NFL is apparently taking the “we said, they said” argument between the Vikings and Seahawks seriously at the owners meetings in Orlando – from Commissioner Paul Tagliabue on down.

In a press conference at the meetings, Tabliabue said that some bud-nipping is needed in this situation, which forced the Seahawks hand a little more than a week ago with Steve Hutchinson and will likely force the Vikings to do the same later this week with Nate Burleson.

"I think these issues raised by offer sheets by Seattle and Minnesota need to be addressed," Tagliabue said. "I think it's not what is contemplated. ... We will be addressing it with the players' association. I will be talking to Gene (Upshaw) about it next week."

Seattle coach Mike Holmgren, who has sat in the middle of the debate as head coach – but no longer general manager – of the Seahawks, didn’t mince his words when asked his opinion on the matter by ESPN. He put more of the blame at the doorstep of agents that are looking for better deals for their players than he did with the Vikings front office, which devised the Hutchinson “poison pills” that made extremely difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer even if they wanted to.

"I think the poison pill business stinks," Holmgren said. "That's too bad in our opinion. I think something has to be done about it. To my way of thinking, you compete like crazy on the field and the rules are in place contractually. I don't like the idea of agents dictating to us what they are going to do."

Eagle owner Jeff Lurie spoke to the matter, siding with the conventional wisdom among many of the power brokers in the NFL that the Vikings overstepped the bounds of fair play by taking the transition tag and offer sheet language to a new level.

"I don't think it's good for football," Eagles owner Jeff Lurie said. "The Seahawks lose a terrific young player like Steve Hutchinson. That was not the spirit of restricted free agency at all and wasn't in the spirit of the designations. It's a shame. The whole idea of the designation system in a salary cap with unfettered free agency, you at least know there are one or two players internally that you will have."

Tagliabue said that he intends to speak to Upshaw about the issue in hopes of resolving the matter before more teams attempt the same strategy in future years. Some owners and general managers are convinced that what the Vikings did with the Hutchinson contract has effectively made the transition tag moot as long as they can create language like what the Vikings – and later the Seahawks – did to make matching virtually impossible. While the Vikings argued otherwise (and won in a ruling made by a league-appointed special master), Tagliabue believes that what was negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement didn’t include the type of actions that have been taken over the last couple of weeks by either the Vikings or Seahawks.

"I think it's not what was contemplated [in the CBA]," Tagliabue said. "The minds of creative people know no limit. As time goes by, an unlimited mind creates new innovations. But it's not in the spirit of the deal. So we will address that."

WEDNESDAY NOTES

* Zygi Wilf arrived at the owners meetings Tuesday.

* One of the priorities on Wilf’s agenda is, at a minimum, to maintain the current G-3 program that provides low-interest loans to teams to build new stadiums. In a best case scenario, Wilf would like to see the system expanded to provide more money to teams looking to build new stadiums. Under the current system, of the $280 million in private money that the Vikings would put into the proposed Anoka County stadium, $185 million of that would come from Wilf and his partners and $95 million would come from G-3 financing. Wilf would like to see the system expanded so that up to or even a little more than 50 percent of the private financing could be accessed from G-3 funds – citing the dramatic increase in the cost of building new stadiums. When the owners and players union were at an impasse in talks earlier this year, Upshaw threatened to insist that the G-3 program be scrapped completely.

* The league may announce the preseason schedule as early as today, but one game that is likely to be on the Vikings schedule is a home game vs. the Raiders on national TV. It would mark the Metrodome return of Randy Moss. Considering that Moss was traded and never asked out of Minnesota, it will be interesting to see how fans react to him when he is announced or catches a pass. Seeing as how many thrills he gave Vikings fans, it would be unfortunate to see him booed. He didn’t ask to leave the Vikings. He was shipped out at Red McCombs' insistence.

* Vikings capmaster Rob Brzezinski said at the owners meetings that he was told that, even without the clauses put in Hutchinson's contract that, because of the high salary amount, the Seahawks weren't going to match anyway. That seems to smack in the face of the move the Seahawks attempted to add a year to Walter Jones' contract to give them the ability
I have been very vocal of my opinion on this, but to highlight my points of contention:1) The CBA encompasses 'matched offers' and requires that contract offers to transition players must have the same principle; meaning the scheduled money to paid must be the same for the team making the offer and the team willing to match the offer. However, I think a provision has to be included to require the guaranteed money to be the same and the amortization of the agreed upon money has to be same.

2) But I also don't think what the Seahawks did was 'in the spirit of the Transition Tag' or the CBA either. When a team like the Seahawks have plenty of cap space (24 million), why in the world would they need a mechanism like a transition tag? So if the league does away with the Poison Pill cluases, I can see teams abusing the transition tag in the same way agents are abusing the poison pill.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way, I also have no problem with the Vikings and Hutch because they saw a loophole and exploited it. I just don't like the spirit of it and think it would be better to just close the loophole.
"No problem with...don't like the spirit of...." Isn't this a contradiction? :confused:
I don't think so, not in my mind. Maybe my wording doesn't explain it well enough.I guess I look at it this way. If I was the arbitrator, I would have ruled the same way. The Vikings did nothing wrong according to the current CBA. If I was the NFL Commissioner, I would work on removing the ability to put in poison pills that made the contract values different to different teams, in effect altering the CBA. Does that make sense?
Even if its not in the CBA, it goes against the "spirit of the CBA"
I understand, but let me take a quote out of your post right after this one.
"I think it's not what was contemplated [in the CBA]," he added. "The minds of creative people know no limit. As time goes by, an unlimited mind creates new innovations. But it's not in the spirit of the deal. So we will address that."
To me, this says exactly what I am thinking. You can't reverse what the Vikings did as there were no rules against. What the Vikings did, however, exposed a loophole that needs to be addressed so that after 2006, a team won't be able to do what the Vikings did.The "spirit" of something is fine and dandy, but the NFL is still a business and if the Vikings can improve their franchise with something that is not against the rules, then they have every right to do so. The NFL also has every right now that someone was "creative" to close the loophole in the CBA.

 
To me, this says exactly what I am thinking. You can't reverse what the Vikings did as there were no rules against. What the Vikings did, however, exposed a loophole that needs to be addressed so that after 2006, a team won't be able to do what the Vikings did.

The "spirit" of something is fine and dandy, but the NFL is still a business and if the Vikings can improve their franchise with something that is not against the rules, then they have every right to do so. The NFL also has every right now that someone was "creative" to close the loophole in the CBA.
I agree.The loophole existed, Rob Bryzinski is on record saying he has taken measures to make the league aware of these loopholes prior to this offseason; but nothing was done about it. At this point, the cat is out of the bag and somebody was going to get screwed; if Bryzinski did not do this than maybe it was the Vikings who got screwed at a later date.

As a Viking fan, I have to say it feels much better to be the screwer than the screwee. I am really warming up to this new regime and the "Triangle of Authority".

FYI - I am still bitter how the Vikings got screwed by the league two years in a row in the NFL draft. :rant:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top