The Poison Pill (1 Viewer)

[DoctorDetroit]

This is interesting to me on many levels so I thought I'd throw it out there. With the signing of Steve Hutchinson this week by the Vikings, and the ruling from an arbitrator that the contract was within standards how will this affect future contracts? Even with a reworked Walter Jones contract the arbitrator ruled that Seattle was out of bounds, and Minnesota was clearly within them.

To me the buyer has all the built in advantages here just by crafting the contract around what they know of the other team’s situation. I think it's possible you will see some very strange offers with some very strange principal terms for the rest of this season, and next year as well. It certainly offers the fans more to talk about but how comfortable are you when thinking about how it may affect your team?

If you think this will be a rare occurrence then I guess you say as much but I believe this has opened up a can of worms that will affect every team at some point in the next few years. A few questions I'd ask are:

How will this affect teams decision bodies when determining whom to franchise and whom to transition?

How will restricted free agents be handled? Will teams be more likely to be aggressive with the players on their teams fearing a poison pill offer?

What can teams do to protect players they want to keep from this kind of scenario?

Will teams request the NFL to begin keeping tighter control of information and dollar amounts in contracts?

Those are just a few questions. I'm sure all of you have a few more.

 

[BlueOnion]

What can teams do to protect players they want to keep from this kind of scenario?

Sign them to prior to March 1st when the team has the exclusive rights to negotiate a new deal with the player; ala Shaun Alexander.

 

[David Yudkin]

I mentioned in the Hutchinson thread that IMO players that want out will come up with creative ways to get away from their original team.

For example, if Torry Holt were transitioned last year (this is hypothetical) and he added a poison pill clause that he had to be the highest paid WR on his team or he would be due a $25 million bonus on the spot--knowing full well that Isaac Bruce was getting $9 million--he'd be gone and the Rams couldn't do anything about it.

Since the arbitrator ruled that the conditions for the original team had to be met AT THE TIME THE OFFER SHEET WAS SIGNED, the Ramd COULDN'T retain him because they would go way over the salary cap by having to pay him the huge bonus.

It's like shooting fish in a barrell--all an agent or a new team needs to do is come up with SOMETHING or SOME PRE-EXISTING situation to exploit and the guy will be free to go AND THE ORIGINAL TEAM COULD DO NOTHING to stop it.

IMO, that clearly strays from the intent of the transition tag system.

 

[bostonfred]

For people who may not be aware of the poison pill Dr. D is talking about, the Vikings included a provision in Hutchinson's contract that guarantees all $49 million of the contract if he is not the highest paid offensive lineman on the team. This would have been unmatchable by the Seahawks who need to pay Walter Jones, too.

This is only unique because of the specific poison pill. I remember when the Jets made an offer for Curtis Martin, Parcells had intimate knowledge of the Patriots' cap, and had built the contract to be unmatchable. Ten years later, Martin's still on the Jets.

I think the "poison pill" aspect of this is interesting. On the one hand, should the Vikings be able to manipulate the system like this? On the other hand, I bet Hutchinson likes the idea of having $49 million guaranteed. That wouldn't be a clause he'd want to give up, nor should an arbitrator force him to if the Seahawks decide to match the core contract.

In the end, I think you have to allow players to negotiate what they want, and you have to enforce the rule that the original team must match the whole contract. It certainly was a creative move (even if it was in a contact that should have been unmatchable on size alone). You're right about the message this sends, but in the long run, while this rewards creativity, the bigger aspect is it encourages teams to resign their top players before they hit the market, instead of relying on the franchise or transition tags, and from the players' perspective and probably the fans', that seems like a good thing.

 

[bostonfred]

I mentioned in the Hutchinson thread that IMO players that want out will come up with creative ways to get away from their original team.

For example, if Torry Holt were transitioned last year (this is hypothetical) and he added a poison pill clause that he had to be the highest paid WR on his team or he would be due a $25 million bonus on the spot--knowing full well that Isaac Bruce was getting $9 million--he'd be gone and the Rams couldn't do anything about it.

Since the arbitrator ruled that the conditions for the original team had to be met AT THE TIME THE OFFER SHEET WAS SIGNED, the Ramd COULDN'T retain him because they would go way over the salary cap by having to pay him the huge bonus.

It's like shooting fish in a barrell--all an agent or a new team needs to do is come up with SOMETHING or SOME PRE-EXISTING situation to exploit and the guy will be free to go AND THE ORIGINAL TEAM COULD DO NOTHING to stop it.

IMO, that clearly strays from the intent of the transition tag system.

That's the owners' argument. The arbitrator's decision clearly favors the player, which seems to be a trend right now.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think the "poison pill" aspect of this is interesting. On the one hand, should the Vikings be able to manipulate the system like this? On the other hand, I bet Hutchinson likes the idea of having $49 million guaranteed. That wouldn't be a clause he'd want to give up, nor should an arbitrator force him to if the Seahawks decide to match the core contract.

But the Seahawks could not match the contract as written. Walter Jones' contract was almost $1.5 million a year more than Hutchinson's deal would have been.So TO MAKE Hutchinson the highest paid OL they would have had to pay him $10 million more than the Vikings offer ($1.5M x 7 years). Or they could re-sign Hutchinson and have to give him $49 million guaranteed. The problem I have with this is that Minnesota does not have to do either one . . .- They don't have to pay him $8.5 million a year like SEA would have had to.- They don't have to guarantee him $49 million like SEA would have had to.Therefore the two contracts are not "the same" and thus the matching element is slanted.Similarly, if Hutchinson ever got hurt or needed to be cut, SEA could not realistically cut him. They would take the biggest cap hit EVER if they did so. If Hutchinson went down this year, to cut him would count $49 million against the cap THIS YEAR. So they would be forced to keep him FOR YEARS before they could realistically release him.This to me distorts the fabric that the system was put together to try to do.

 

[Carnifex]

For example, if Torry Holt were transitioned last year (this is hypothetical) and he added a poison pill clause that he had to be the highest paid WR on his team or he would be due a $25 million bonus on the spot--knowing full well that Isaac Bruce was getting $9 million--he'd be gone and the Rams couldn't do anything about it.

Actually, it is my understanding that this type of thing is NOT allowed.From an ESPN article:

The league thought they had closed a loophole in the transition-player process in 1993. The Indianapolis Colts signed Will Wolford, Buffalo's transition player, to an offer sheet that included a clause guaranteeing he be the team's highest-paid offensive player.

The Bills already had quarterback Jim Kelly as their highest-paid offensive player. They argued the clause violated the collective bargaining agreement. An arbiter said it did not. The Bills declined to match the offer sheet, and Wolford signed with the Colts to become their highest-paid offensive player.

After that decision, the league and the union amended the CBA. It now states that no team attempting to match an offer sheet for one of its transition players can be required by a Wolford-like clause to pay that player more than what the offering team would pay him.

Yet as Hutchinson's saga exposed, that revision may need to be revised again.

The Viking just found a new loophole: That guarenteed money doesn't affect the "value" of the contract, even though we all know it does.

 

[BlueOnion]

This to me distorts the fabric that the system was put together to try to do.

The transition tag distorts the fabric of free agency. I am not disagreeing with you David nor do I think you are wrong, it just depends on what side of the fence a fan is on.

 

[David Yudkin]

This to me distorts the fabric that the system was put together to try to do.

The transition tag distorts the fabric of free agency. I am not disagreeing with you David nor do I think you are wrong, it just depends on what side of the fence a fan is on.

Hey, my life won't change no matter what the NFL does. As a side effect of rulings like this, I suspect teams will elect to avoid using transition tags on players they really want to keep. I generally side with the players, as owners typically go from "dirty, filthy, roteen stinking rich" and drop down to "ungodly wealthy" when they "lose" revenue to players.Seattle had no realistic way to match the Vikings offer, which to me seems a bit unfair. Props to the Vikes and Hutchinson's agent for being creative enough to beat the system. That's the part that bothers me, as their never really was a level playing field on this one.

 

[BlueOnion]

This to me distorts the fabric that the system was put together to try to do.

The transition tag distorts the fabric of free agency. I am not disagreeing with you David nor do I think you are wrong, it just depends on what side of the fence a fan is on.

Hey, my life won't change no matter what the NFL does. As a side effect of rulings like this, I suspect teams will elect to avoid using transition tags on players they really want to keep. I generally side with the players, as owners typically go from "dirty, filthy, roteen stinking rich" and drop down to "ungodly wealthy" when they "lose" revenue to players.Seattle had no realistic way to match the Vikings offer, which to me seems a bit unfair. Props to the Vikes and Hutchinson's agent for being creative enough to beat the system. That's the part that bothers me, as their never really was a level playing field on this one.

I agree with the bolded part above. but without the bolded part being a possibility entering free agency, what incentive does any team (especially the Vikings) have to spend day 2 of free agency with Steve Hutchinson and lock up 10 to 15 million of their free agency money for day 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of free agency; full well knowing the Seahawks have a lot of cap space and every intention to match any offer?Hutchinson would be the big loser here as he would have to come back to Seattle with his tail between his legs and say, "Well I didn't get any offers (or any good offers). I guess I am willing to take whatever you want to offer me."

 

[GroveDiesel]

IMO, that ruling was a bad ruling. It basically said that it was ok because it was attached to guaranteed money and guaranteed money is a principal part of a contract under the CBA.

Under that ruling, I'm not sure that teams even have to be in any way creative. They could just insert a clause that says "If there is a player named (insert name of player on other team), a $50M guaranteed roster bonus is immediately due" and under that ruling it would be legitimate since it deals with guaranteed money. It essentially makes the transition and RFA tags worthless.

 

[bostonfred]

I think the "poison pill" aspect of this is interesting. On the one hand, should the Vikings be able to manipulate the system like this? On the other hand, I bet Hutchinson likes the idea of having $49 million guaranteed. That wouldn't be a clause he'd want to give up, nor should an arbitrator force him to if the Seahawks decide to match the core contract.

But the Seahawks could not match the contract as written. Walter Jones' contract was almost $1.5 million a year more than Hutchinson's deal would have been.So TO MAKE Hutchinson the highest paid OL they would have had to pay him $10 million more than the Vikings offer ($1.5M x 7 years). Or they could re-sign Hutchinson and have to give him $49 million guaranteed. The problem I have with this is that Minnesota does not have to do either one . . .

- They don't have to pay him $8.5 million a year like SEA would have had to.

- They don't have to guarantee him $49 million like SEA would have had to.

Therefore the two contracts are not "the same" and thus the matching element is slanted.

Similarly, if Hutchinson ever got hurt or needed to be cut, SEA could not realistically cut him. They would take the biggest cap hit EVER if they did so. If Hutchinson went down this year, to cut him would count $49 million against the cap THIS YEAR. So they would be forced to keep him FOR YEARS before they could realistically release him.

This to me distorts the fabric that the system was put together to try to do.

But the Vikings still have to abide by this agreement, too. It's not like they wrote in a clause that says "And if he has to play a home game in Seattle, he gets a $100 million bonus". The Vikings may not have a guy with a higher salary than Hutch on the roster right now, but if they ever did, Hutch would get a huge payday.Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation. Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

 

[bostonfred]

IMO, that ruling was a bad ruling. It basically said that it was ok because it was attached to guaranteed money and guaranteed money is a principal part of a contract under the CBA.

Under that ruling, I'm not sure that teams even have to be in any way creative. They could just insert a clause that says "If there is a player named (insert name of player on other team), a $50M guaranteed roster bonus is immediately due" and under that ruling it would be legitimate since it deals with guaranteed money. It essentially makes the transition and RFA tags worthless.

There are several players in the NFL that have contracts that say they must be the highest paid at their position on their team or in the NFL. It's a valid clause to have in a player's contract. I'm not aware of any NFL players who have a clause in their contract that says "I get a lot of extra money if I ever have to play with player X", although McNabb and Garcia may have considered it.

 

[BlueOnion]

IMO, that ruling was a bad ruling. It basically said that it was ok because it was attached to guaranteed money and guaranteed money is a principal part of a contract under the CBA.

Under that ruling, I'm not sure that teams even have to be in any way creative. They could just insert a clause that says "If there is a player named (insert name of player on other team), a $50M guaranteed roster bonus is immediately due" and under that ruling it would be legitimate since it deals with guaranteed money. It essentially makes the transition and RFA tags worthless.

You did not understanding the ruling. The ruling was "principle of contract was that 49 million dollars should be payed to player", whether Seattle or Minnesota were obtained the rights of the contract, the scheduled money to be paid by the club to the player never changed.The counter-argument you need to be making is, NFL franchises are contratually obliged to keep their player's salary under the annual salary cap, so the principle amount in a contract is just as important as how the money is to be transferred (accounting wise). I am sure Seattle would have had no problem matching the contract if they were obligated to operate under the salary cap rules.

 

[GroveDiesel]

This to me distorts the fabric that the system was put together to try to do.

The transition tag distorts the fabric of free agency. I am not disagreeing with you David nor do I think you are wrong, it just depends on what side of the fence a fan is on.

Hey, my life won't change no matter what the NFL does. As a side effect of rulings like this, I suspect teams will elect to avoid using transition tags on players they really want to keep. I generally side with the players, as owners typically go from "dirty, filthy, roteen stinking rich" and drop down to "ungodly wealthy" when they "lose" revenue to players.Seattle had no realistic way to match the Vikings offer, which to me seems a bit unfair. Props to the Vikes and Hutchinson's agent for being creative enough to beat the system. That's the part that bothers me, as their never really was a level playing field on this one.

I agree with the bolded part above. but without the bolded part being a possibility entering free agency, what incentive does any team (especially the Vikings) have to spend day 2 of free agency with Steve Hutchinson and lock up 10 to 15 million of their free agency money for day 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of free agency; full well knowing the Seahawks have a lot of cap space and every intention to match any offer?Hutchinson would be the big loser here as he would have to come back to Seattle with his tail between his legs and say, "Well I didn't get any offers (or any good offers). I guess I am willing to take whatever you want to offer me."

I didn't really debate you on this before, but I think that history proves you wrong. You're basically saying that the transition tag never benefits the player and that no team would ever have any incentive to make an offer to a transition player. This is obviously false and players have been signed away. This was somewhat of a unique case because the Seahawks had as much or more money than every other team. Usually that is not the case. Normally another team would come in that has more money and make an offer that the other team could not afford dollar-wise straight up.

 

[crowe1130]

Out of curiosity since I missed the original part of this news, is there any chance this can negatively impact the Vikings singing other high-cost linement in the near future? Is the "highest OL on the team" clause applicable just at the time of signing, or does it guarantee Hutch will be the highest-paid Viking OL for the life of the contract?

I'm guessing it's just for the first year?

 

[David Yudkin]

Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation. Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

Because Minnesota could CHOOSE to sign a higher paid OL (or not if they didn't want to spring for the entire Hutchinson contract). Seattle COULD NOT choose to do ANYTHING with regard to their OL. The Hawks already Jones at the time Hutchinson signed, and the arbitrator ruled that everything froze at the time he signed the offer sheet.In essence, Seattle--with no knowledge of the offer sheet terms--would have had to restructure or release Jones BEFORE the offer sheet was signed (again, not knowing what the numbers or particulars were). Once Hutchinson signed the offer sheet, Seatle was not allowed to change anything.So Minnesota gets the option of choice while Seattle does not. Seattle HAD to fork over ALL OF THE $49 million or could not keep Hutchinson. Minnesota gets the option to keep him for a year or two and then cut him FOR A HIGHER PRICED OL if they wanted to. Seattle could NEVER have that option.

 

[GroveDiesel]

IMO, that ruling was a bad ruling. It basically said that it was ok because it was attached to guaranteed money and guaranteed money is a principal part of a contract under the CBA.

Under that ruling, I'm not sure that teams even have to be in any way creative. They could just insert a clause that says "If there is a player named (insert name of player on other team), a $50M guaranteed roster bonus is immediately due" and under that ruling it would be legitimate since it deals with guaranteed money. It essentially makes the transition and RFA tags worthless.

You did not understanding the ruling. The ruling was "principle of contract was that 49 million dollars should be payed to player", whether Seattle or Minnesota were obtained the rights of the contract, the scheduled money to be paid by the club to the player never changed.The counter-argument you need to be making is, NFL franchises are contratually obliged to keep their player's salary under the annual salary cap, so the principle amount in a contract is just as important as how the money is to be transferred (accounting wise). I am sure Seattle would have had no problem matching the contract if they were obligated to operate under the salary cap rules.

Ok, my example was a bad example. What a team could do though, is insert a clause guaranteeing the entire contract if a player of X name is on the team. I don't see any reason why a team could not do that under this ruling.

 

[David Yudkin]

Out of curiosity since I missed the original part of this news, is there any chance this can negatively impact the Vikings singing other high-cost linement in the near future? Is the "highest OL on the team" clause applicable just at the time of signing, or does it guarantee Hutch will be the highest-paid Viking OL for the life of the contract?

I'm guessing it's just for the first year?

I believe it is a life of the contract clause, meaning that he has to be the highest paid for all 7 years.

But a ruling against the NFC champions would require them to also match a provision in the offer that states if Hutchinson is not the team's highest-paid offensive lineman at any time after the first year of the contract, the final six years of the deal becomes guaranteed.

LINK

 

[BlueOnion]

This to me distorts the fabric that the system was put together to try to do.

The transition tag distorts the fabric of free agency. I am not disagreeing with you David nor do I think you are wrong, it just depends on what side of the fence a fan is on.

Hey, my life won't change no matter what the NFL does. As a side effect of rulings like this, I suspect teams will elect to avoid using transition tags on players they really want to keep. I generally side with the players, as owners typically go from "dirty, filthy, roteen stinking rich" and drop down to "ungodly wealthy" when they "lose" revenue to players.Seattle had no realistic way to match the Vikings offer, which to me seems a bit unfair. Props to the Vikes and Hutchinson's agent for being creative enough to beat the system. That's the part that bothers me, as their never really was a level playing field on this one.

I agree with the bolded part above. but without the bolded part being a possibility entering free agency, what incentive does any team (especially the Vikings) have to spend day 2 of free agency with Steve Hutchinson and lock up 10 to 15 million of their free agency money for day 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of free agency; full well knowing the Seahawks have a lot of cap space and every intention to match any offer?Hutchinson would be the big loser here as he would have to come back to Seattle with his tail between his legs and say, "Well I didn't get any offers (or any good offers). I guess I am willing to take whatever you want to offer me."

I didn't really debate you on this before, but I think that history proves you wrong. You're basically saying that the transition tag never benefits the player and that no team would ever have any incentive to make an offer to a transition player. This is obviously false and players have been signed away. This was somewhat of a unique case because the Seahawks had as much or more money than every other team. Usually that is not the case. Normally another team would come in that has more money and make an offer that the other team could not afford dollar-wise straight up.

I think we are on the same page when the situation entails a club without a lot of cap money trying to retain a coveted player; others teams have an incentive to work with the player because they may believe they can just outspend the original club. But this incentive was stripped of the other 31 clubs because Seattle had so much cap space available to match an offer.Edited the reason this situation is unique is because the Seahawks had plenty of cap space and elected not to spend it on Hutchinson prior to March 1. So one could make a case that Seattle was abusing the spirit of the transition tag as well.

 

[GroveDiesel]

IMO, that ruling was a bad ruling. It basically said that it was ok because it was attached to guaranteed money and guaranteed money is a principal part of a contract under the CBA.

Under that ruling, I'm not sure that teams even have to be in any way creative. They could just insert a clause that says "If there is a player named (insert name of player on other team), a $50M guaranteed roster bonus is immediately due" and under that ruling it would be legitimate since it deals with guaranteed money. It essentially makes the transition and RFA tags worthless.

There are several players in the NFL that have contracts that say they must be the highest paid at their position on their team or in the NFL. It's a valid clause to have in a player's contract. I'm not aware of any NFL players who have a clause in their contract that says "I get a lot of extra money if I ever have to play with player X", although McNabb and Garcia may have considered it.

Just because you're not aware of one doesn't mean that it can't be done. I was never aware of any poison pill clauses like the one the Vikings inserted, and yet it was done and ruled legitimate. Unless there's a specific rule in the CBA that says that a contract can't be drawn up with a clause like that I don't see why it can't be done.

 

[bostonfred]

Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation.  Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

Because Minnesota could CHOOSE to sign a higher paid OL (or not if they didn't want to spring for the entire Hutchinson contract). Seattle COULD NOT choose to do ANYTHING with regard to their OL. The Hawks already Jones at the time Hutchinson signed, and the arbitrator ruled that everything froze at the time he signed the offer sheet.In essence, Seattle--with no knowledge of the offer sheet terms--would have had to restructure or release Jones BEFORE the offer sheet was signed (again, not knowing what the numbers or particulars were). Once Hutchinson signed the offer sheet, Seatle was not allowed to change anything.

So Minnesota gets the option of choice while Seattle does not. Seattle HAD to fork over ALL OF THE $49 million or could not keep Hutchinson. Minnesota gets the option to keep him for a year or two and then cut him FOR A HIGHER PRICED OL if they wanted to. Seattle could NEVER have that option.

I understand why it sucks for Seattle, and that's the strongest argument for why the Seahawks shouldn't have to match that aspect of the offer sheet.On the other hand, if you remove a potentially lucrative clause from the player's contract, then the player gets screwed. The intent of the transition tag from the player's perspective is that the contract gets matched, not that the conrtact gets kind of matched but not the parts the team didn't want to match.

If your only issue with this is that we unfreeze the date, saying that if the offer sheet gets signed with the Vikings on Monday, the Seahawks can restructure Jones on Tuesday, and then match on Wednesday, then I agree. But if you're proposing that the original team doesn't have to match the whole contract, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

 

[David Yudkin]

Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation.  Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

Because Minnesota could CHOOSE to sign a higher paid OL (or not if they didn't want to spring for the entire Hutchinson contract). Seattle COULD NOT choose to do ANYTHING with regard to their OL. The Hawks already Jones at the time Hutchinson signed, and the arbitrator ruled that everything froze at the time he signed the offer sheet.In essence, Seattle--with no knowledge of the offer sheet terms--would have had to restructure or release Jones BEFORE the offer sheet was signed (again, not knowing what the numbers or particulars were). Once Hutchinson signed the offer sheet, Seatle was not allowed to change anything.

So Minnesota gets the option of choice while Seattle does not. Seattle HAD to fork over ALL OF THE $49 million or could not keep Hutchinson. Minnesota gets the option to keep him for a year or two and then cut him FOR A HIGHER PRICED OL if they wanted to. Seattle could NEVER have that option.

I understand why it sucks for Seattle, and that's the strongest argument for why the Seahawks shouldn't have to match that aspect of the offer sheet.On the other hand, if you remove a potentially lucrative clause from the player's contract, then the player gets screwed. The intent of the transition tag from the player's perspective is that the contract gets matched, not that the conrtact gets kind of matched but not the parts the team didn't want to match.

If your only issue with this is that we unfreeze the date, saying that if the offer sheet gets signed with the Vikings on Monday, the Seahawks can restructure Jones on Tuesday, and then match on Wednesday, then I agree. But if you're proposing that the original team doesn't have to match the whole contract, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

IMO, all this was kosher by me if the league let Seattle alter their roster TO MEET the demands of the offer sheet. So the terms and conditions should take effect at the time the original team MATCHES the offer sheet--not when the player signed it. So in essence they get a week to fix things to comply with the offer sheet. I don't think anyone involved would complain if that were the case.

 

[bostonfred]

IMO, that ruling was a bad ruling.  It basically said that it was ok because it was attached to guaranteed money and guaranteed money is a principal part of a contract under the CBA. 

Under that ruling, I'm not sure that teams even have to be in any way creative.  They could just insert a clause that says "If there is a player named (insert name of player on other team), a $50M guaranteed roster bonus is immediately due" and under that ruling it would be legitimate since it deals with guaranteed money.  It essentially makes the transition and RFA tags worthless.

There are several players in the NFL that have contracts that say they must be the highest paid at their position on their team or in the NFL. It's a valid clause to have in a player's contract. I'm not aware of any NFL players who have a clause in their contract that says "I get a lot of extra money if I ever have to play with player X", although McNabb and Garcia may have considered it.

Just because you're not aware of one doesn't mean that it can't be done. I was never aware of any poison pill clauses like the one the Vikings inserted, and yet it was done and ruled legitimate. Unless there's a specific rule in the CBA that says that a contract can't be drawn up with a clause like that I don't see why it can't be done.

Your hypothetical contract would have to pass two hurdles - the original hurdle of whether that's a valid contractual clause per the CBA, which may or may not be true, and the second hurdle of whether the original team would have to match it, which may or may not be ruled. That doesn't mean it can't be done, nor am I certain that it shouldn't be allowed. It just means that this ruling alone does not mean that your hypothetical would also work.

 

[bostonfred]

Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation.  Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

Because Minnesota could CHOOSE to sign a higher paid OL (or not if they didn't want to spring for the entire Hutchinson contract). Seattle COULD NOT choose to do ANYTHING with regard to their OL. The Hawks already Jones at the time Hutchinson signed, and the arbitrator ruled that everything froze at the time he signed the offer sheet.In essence, Seattle--with no knowledge of the offer sheet terms--would have had to restructure or release Jones BEFORE the offer sheet was signed (again, not knowing what the numbers or particulars were). Once Hutchinson signed the offer sheet, Seatle was not allowed to change anything.

So Minnesota gets the option of choice while Seattle does not. Seattle HAD to fork over ALL OF THE $49 million or could not keep Hutchinson. Minnesota gets the option to keep him for a year or two and then cut him FOR A HIGHER PRICED OL if they wanted to. Seattle could NEVER have that option.

I understand why it sucks for Seattle, and that's the strongest argument for why the Seahawks shouldn't have to match that aspect of the offer sheet.On the other hand, if you remove a potentially lucrative clause from the player's contract, then the player gets screwed. The intent of the transition tag from the player's perspective is that the contract gets matched, not that the conrtact gets kind of matched but not the parts the team didn't want to match.

If your only issue with this is that we unfreeze the date, saying that if the offer sheet gets signed with the Vikings on Monday, the Seahawks can restructure Jones on Tuesday, and then match on Wednesday, then I agree. But if you're proposing that the original team doesn't have to match the whole contract, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

IMO, all this was kosher by me if the league let Seattle alter their roster TO MEET the demands of the offer sheet. So the terms and conditions should take effect at the time the original team MATCHES the offer sheet--not when the player signed it. So in essence they get a week to fix things to comply with the offer sheet. I don't think anyone involved would complain if that were the case.

I can agree with that.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

For example, if Torry Holt were transitioned last year (this is hypothetical) and he added a poison pill clause that he had to be the highest paid WR on his team or he would be due a $25 million bonus on the spot--knowing full well that Isaac Bruce was getting $9 million--he'd be gone and the Rams couldn't do anything about it.

Actually, it is my understanding that this type of thing is NOT allowed.From an ESPN article:

The league thought they had closed a loophole in the transition-player process in 1993. The Indianapolis Colts signed Will Wolford, Buffalo's transition player, to an offer sheet that included a clause guaranteeing he be the team's highest-paid offensive player.

The Bills already had quarterback Jim Kelly as their highest-paid offensive player. They argued the clause violated the collective bargaining agreement. An arbiter said it did not. The Bills declined to match the offer sheet, and Wolford signed with the Colts to become their highest-paid offensive player.

After that decision, the league and the union amended the CBA. It now states that no team attempting to match an offer sheet for one of its transition players can be required by a Wolford-like clause to pay that player more than what the offering team would pay him.

Yet as Hutchinson's saga exposed, that revision may need to be revised again.

The Viking just found a new loophole: That guarenteed money doesn't affect the "value" of the contract, even though we all know it does.

I'll bet there are a lot of loopholes and that is my worry. There are some very industrious people on both sides of the ball here and it really could make things very interesting both short and long term. Whether it's a good kind of interesting just depends on your perspective, and how your team is capitalizing on it.

 

[BlueOnion]

Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation.  Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

Because Minnesota could CHOOSE to sign a higher paid OL (or not if they didn't want to spring for the entire Hutchinson contract). Seattle COULD NOT choose to do ANYTHING with regard to their OL. The Hawks already Jones at the time Hutchinson signed, and the arbitrator ruled that everything froze at the time he signed the offer sheet.In essence, Seattle--with no knowledge of the offer sheet terms--would have had to restructure or release Jones BEFORE the offer sheet was signed (again, not knowing what the numbers or particulars were). Once Hutchinson signed the offer sheet, Seatle was not allowed to change anything.

So Minnesota gets the option of choice while Seattle does not. Seattle HAD to fork over ALL OF THE $49 million or could not keep Hutchinson. Minnesota gets the option to keep him for a year or two and then cut him FOR A HIGHER PRICED OL if they wanted to. Seattle could NEVER have that option.

I understand why it sucks for Seattle, and that's the strongest argument for why the Seahawks shouldn't have to match that aspect of the offer sheet.On the other hand, if you remove a potentially lucrative clause from the player's contract, then the player gets screwed. The intent of the transition tag from the player's perspective is that the contract gets matched, not that the conrtact gets kind of matched but not the parts the team didn't want to match.

If your only issue with this is that we unfreeze the date, saying that if the offer sheet gets signed with the Vikings on Monday, the Seahawks can restructure Jones on Tuesday, and then match on Wednesday, then I agree. But if you're proposing that the original team doesn't have to match the whole contract, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

IMO, all this was kosher by me if the league let Seattle alter their roster TO MEET the demands of the offer sheet. So the terms and conditions should take effect at the time the original team MATCHES the offer sheet--not when the player signed it. So in essence they get a week to fix things to comply with the offer sheet. I don't think anyone involved would complain if that were the case.

I think Hutchinson would. Certainly he wouldn't complain about it after signing the contract with Minnesota, but if this precedent was set prior to free agency this season, I suspect Hutchinson would have an issue with such a clause because it would discourage teams from negotiating with him.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation.  Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

Because Minnesota could CHOOSE to sign a higher paid OL (or not if they didn't want to spring for the entire Hutchinson contract). Seattle COULD NOT choose to do ANYTHING with regard to their OL. The Hawks already Jones at the time Hutchinson signed, and the arbitrator ruled that everything froze at the time he signed the offer sheet.In essence, Seattle--with no knowledge of the offer sheet terms--would have had to restructure or release Jones BEFORE the offer sheet was signed (again, not knowing what the numbers or particulars were). Once Hutchinson signed the offer sheet, Seatle was not allowed to change anything.

So Minnesota gets the option of choice while Seattle does not. Seattle HAD to fork over ALL OF THE $49 million or could not keep Hutchinson. Minnesota gets the option to keep him for a year or two and then cut him FOR A HIGHER PRICED OL if they wanted to. Seattle could NEVER have that option.

I understand why it sucks for Seattle, and that's the strongest argument for why the Seahawks shouldn't have to match that aspect of the offer sheet.On the other hand, if you remove a potentially lucrative clause from the player's contract, then the player gets screwed. The intent of the transition tag from the player's perspective is that the contract gets matched, not that the conrtact gets kind of matched but not the parts the team didn't want to match.

If your only issue with this is that we unfreeze the date, saying that if the offer sheet gets signed with the Vikings on Monday, the Seahawks can restructure Jones on Tuesday, and then match on Wednesday, then I agree. But if you're proposing that the original team doesn't have to match the whole contract, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

However, in this case that is not true. Hutchinson would not have been "screwed" at all no matter how the arbitrator decided because what he got from Minnesota is what Seattle WOULD HAVE matched. But since the contract was structured in a way that Seattle could not realistically match, there was never anyway Hutchinson was going to get a better payday. This poison pill stuff only helps a player who really wants to move for one reason of the other. I don't think it helps them get any more financially in the long run and that isn't likely to change. It's less about the player and more about the teams.That is an acrimonious post transaction bit that made me laugh. They (people here and in the media) said if the Seahawks would win the arbitration hearing, Hutch would be mad because Walter Jones screwed him out of 36 million. No, that is completely incorrect. If the arbitrator would have ruled in the Seahawks favor Hutch would be in Seattle making the same money he is now getting from Minnesota.

Good points here about the manner in which these should be handled though. The point of the contract being active on the day that it is signed is one of the bigger points of contention for me because as others so notably pointed out, Seattle never had a chance to match in this case. Good stuff here.

 

[bostonfred]

Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation.  Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

Because Minnesota could CHOOSE to sign a higher paid OL (or not if they didn't want to spring for the entire Hutchinson contract). Seattle COULD NOT choose to do ANYTHING with regard to their OL. The Hawks already Jones at the time Hutchinson signed, and the arbitrator ruled that everything froze at the time he signed the offer sheet.In essence, Seattle--with no knowledge of the offer sheet terms--would have had to restructure or release Jones BEFORE the offer sheet was signed (again, not knowing what the numbers or particulars were). Once Hutchinson signed the offer sheet, Seatle was not allowed to change anything.

So Minnesota gets the option of choice while Seattle does not. Seattle HAD to fork over ALL OF THE $49 million or could not keep Hutchinson. Minnesota gets the option to keep him for a year or two and then cut him FOR A HIGHER PRICED OL if they wanted to. Seattle could NEVER have that option.

I understand why it sucks for Seattle, and that's the strongest argument for why the Seahawks shouldn't have to match that aspect of the offer sheet.On the other hand, if you remove a potentially lucrative clause from the player's contract, then the player gets screwed. The intent of the transition tag from the player's perspective is that the contract gets matched, not that the conrtact gets kind of matched but not the parts the team didn't want to match.

If your only issue with this is that we unfreeze the date, saying that if the offer sheet gets signed with the Vikings on Monday, the Seahawks can restructure Jones on Tuesday, and then match on Wednesday, then I agree. But if you're proposing that the original team doesn't have to match the whole contract, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

However, in this case that is not true. Hutchinson would not have been "screwed" at all no matter how the arbitrator decided because what he got from Minnesota is what Seattle WOULD HAVE matched. But since the contract was structured in a way that Seattle could not realistically match, there was never anyway Hutchinson was going to get a better payday. This poison pill stuff only helps a player who really wants to move for one reason of the other. I don't think it helps them get any more financially in the long run and that isn't likely to change. It's less about the player and more about the teams.That is an acrimonious post transaction bit that made me laugh. They (people here and in the media) said if the Seahawks would win the arbitration hearing, Hutch would be mad because Walter Jones screwed him out of 36 million. No, that is completely incorrect. If the arbitrator would have ruled in the Seahawks favor Hutch would be in Seattle making the same money he is now getting from Minnesota.

Good points here about the manner in which these should be handled though. The point of the contract being active on the day that it is signed is one of the bigger points of contention for me because as others so notably pointed out, Seattle never had a chance to match in this case. Good stuff here.

I understand what you're saying - that the Vikings clearly have no intention to sign another offensive lineman for more than Hutchinson. And that's why it seems to target Seattle. But it's not - and cannot be - the arbitrator's place to decide whether it's likely that the Vikings would sign another offensive lineman to such a contract in the future. This is a clause in the contract that is perfectly valid for a player to request, and an arbitrator should not be able to line item veto things from a contract because it disadvantages the player's original team.

If the contract stated that this must be true on the day of the offer sheet signing only, then I can understand an arbitrator ruling that the clause offers no material value to the player in the Vikings contract and therefore must not be matched. But if the clause has a deadline any time into the future, then that clause has value to the player. We might disagree on how much that value is, but because we cannot place an actual dollar value on it, we cannot expect an arbitrator to simply strike it from the contract.

I do understand why David's talking about the backdating of the clause to the date that he signs with his team, though. Because the player does not get paid until the accepted offer sheet has been approved and the contract has been signed, there is no material loss by the player if the Seahawks renegotiated Jones' contract during their approval window and before the actual contract was signed. The only loss that could be argued is that the Seahawks would be able to keep Hutchinson off the market for the full ten days, but that was already their right per the CBA and the rules of the transition tag.

 

[BlueOnion]

I am losing more and more respect for Seattle the more I read about this.

 

[bostonfred]

I am losing more and more respect for Seattle the more I read about this.

 

[John 14:6]

Out of curiosity since I missed the original part of this news, is there any chance this can negatively impact the Vikings singing other high-cost linement in the near future?  Is the "highest OL on the team" clause applicable just at the time of signing, or does it guarantee Hutch will be the highest-paid Viking OL for the life of the contract? 

I'm guessing it's just for the first year?

I believe it is a life of the contract clause, meaning that he has to be the highest paid for all 7 years.

But a ruling against the NFC champions would require them to also match a provision in the offer that states if Hutchinson is not the team's highest-paid offensive lineman at any time after the first year of the contract, the final six years of the deal becomes guaranteed.

LINK

I wonder if that link's correct. Everything I've been hearing on MN radio is that it's only for 2006. This is really important for us with Bryant McKinnie and Matt Birk on the team.

 

[BlueOnion]

I am losing more and more respect for Seattle the more I read about this.

The way I see it is this. The owners and the NFLPA agreed on a CBA in 1993 to include free agency but also include a salary cap. There were some sticky points that needed to be ironed out, such as franchises wanting to retain certain marquee players and players still wanting to get their fair market value. So one of the facets added to the CBA was the transition tag (franchise tag, RFA et al as well).My belief in the spirit of the transition tag...

After reviewing what happen with Hutchinson, I believe the spirit of the transition tag was for it to act as an arbitration process. Such as, if the Seahawks wanted to retain a Hutchinson for a price that fit under their salary cap restriction and Hutchinson wanted a price that was outside the Seahawks salary cap restriction; a third party (Vikings) would decide the player's market value. At which point, the player's proposed new contract would clearly put the team over or under the salary cap restriction and the decision for the original team to match the offer would be evident by their salary cap situation.

So if this is the case (not saying it is) for the spirit of the transition tag, the Seahawks were operating outside the spirit of the transition tag. Prior to free agency, there was no question Seattle could afford Hutchinson and and there was no question Seattle wanted to sign Hutchinson. This thing should never have gone as far as the transition tag process (or in my words, an arbitration process)...unless Seattle felt they could work the transition tag process in such away it favored them.

What Seattle intended to do was strong arm Hutchinson by putting the transition tag on him and Seattle also wanted to strong arm the arbitrator (the other 31 teams) by making it known they had the money to match any offer and the intent to much almost any offer Hutchinson received.

What I think Seattle wanted to do was put on this 'good Samaritan hat' and tell Hutchinson, go get whatever you think is a fair market value contract. Then using their salary cap space, they wanted to discourage other teams from negotiating in good faith with Hutchinson. After which, Hutchinson would be forced to return to the Seahawk management with minimal or no interest from other teams.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think Hutchinson would. Certainly he wouldn't complain about it after signing the contract with Minnesota, but if this precedent was set prior to free agency this season, I suspect Hutchinson would have an issue with such a clause because it would discourage teams from negotiating with him.

This is exxactly what I was referring to when I said that the Hutchinson deal, as written and as enforced, does not really meet with the intent of the transition tag.The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could. but it also was intended to allow the original team the option to match or decline the offer. It was not intended as a get out of jail free card for a play to unilaterally decide he wanted off of his original team. He is not an unrestricted free agent--which is why he was transition tagged in the first place.From a financial perspective, there would be no negative impact at all whether the got the contract he got from Minnesota or Seattle had the Seahawks had the time to rework Walter Jones' deal.The transition tag was meant to benefit the team in terms of maintaining rights to players and was not intended to be a sly way to becoming an UFA.

 

[cstu]

IMO, that ruling was a bad ruling. It basically said that it was ok because it was attached to guaranteed money and guaranteed money is a principal part of a contract under the CBA.

Under that ruling, I'm not sure that teams even have to be in any way creative. They could just insert a clause that says "If there is a player named (insert name of player on other team), a $50M guaranteed roster bonus is immediately due" and under that ruling it would be legitimate since it deals with guaranteed money. It essentially makes the transition and RFA tags worthless.

I think you missed the point. The reason the contract was allowed was that the Wolford rule stated that teams couldn't be required to pay more because of the salaries of the players on the team. The loophole is that guaranteeing the contract doesn't increase the monetary value of the contract, at least in principle since they are assuming that the Vikings will let Hutch play out his entire contract and end up paying the entire $49 million.

 

[BlueOnion]

The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could.

I am really starting to disagree with this sentiment. I believe the idea behind the transition tag was to allow a player to explore the market and try to get a bigger payday then he could with his original team.The fact that Seattle had a lot of cap space, every intention to match a Hutchinson offer and no offer on the table puts Seattle outside the spirit of the transition tag - in my opinion.

 

[GroveDiesel]

IMO, that ruling was a bad ruling. It basically said that it was ok because it was attached to guaranteed money and guaranteed money is a principal part of a contract under the CBA.

Under that ruling, I'm not sure that teams even have to be in any way creative. They could just insert a clause that says "If there is a player named (insert name of player on other team), a $50M guaranteed roster bonus is immediately due" and under that ruling it would be legitimate since it deals with guaranteed money. It essentially makes the transition and RFA tags worthless.

I think you missed the point. The reason the contract was allowed was that the Wolford rule stated that teams couldn't be required to pay more because of the salaries of the players on the team. The loophole is that guaranteeing the contract doesn't increase the monetary value of the contract, at least in principle since they are assuming that the Vikings will let Hutch play out his entire contract and end up paying the entire $49 million.

I addressed that flaw in my argument later in the thread. I simply omitted the roster bonus part and instead substituted guaranteed contract based on a player of a certain name being on the team.

 

[cstu]

IMO, all this was kosher by me if the league let Seattle alter their roster TO MEET the demands of the offer sheet. So the terms and conditions should take effect at the time the original team MATCHES the offer sheet--not when the player signed it. So in essence they get a week to fix things to comply with the offer sheet. I don't think anyone involved would complain if that were the case.

That's the big issue I have with the ruling.

 

[Spike]

Hutchinson "negotiated" a deal that has a potentially very favorable stipulation.  Why should he be forced to give it up just because the Seahawks don't think it's fair?

Because Minnesota could CHOOSE to sign a higher paid OL (or not if they didn't want to spring for the entire Hutchinson contract). Seattle COULD NOT choose to do ANYTHING with regard to their OL. The Hawks already Jones at the time Hutchinson signed, and the arbitrator ruled that everything froze at the time he signed the offer sheet.In essence, Seattle--with no knowledge of the offer sheet terms--would have had to restructure or release Jones BEFORE the offer sheet was signed (again, not knowing what the numbers or particulars were). Once Hutchinson signed the offer sheet, Seatle was not allowed to change anything.

So Minnesota gets the option of choice while Seattle does not. Seattle HAD to fork over ALL OF THE $49 million or could not keep Hutchinson. Minnesota gets the option to keep him for a year or two and then cut him FOR A HIGHER PRICED OL if they wanted to. Seattle could NEVER have that option.

I understand why it sucks for Seattle, and that's the strongest argument for why the Seahawks shouldn't have to match that aspect of the offer sheet.On the other hand, if you remove a potentially lucrative clause from the player's contract, then the player gets screwed. The intent of the transition tag from the player's perspective is that the contract gets matched, not that the conrtact gets kind of matched but not the parts the team didn't want to match.

If your only issue with this is that we unfreeze the date, saying that if the offer sheet gets signed with the Vikings on Monday, the Seahawks can restructure Jones on Tuesday, and then match on Wednesday, then I agree. But if you're proposing that the original team doesn't have to match the whole contract, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

IMO, all this was kosher by me if the league let Seattle alter their roster TO MEET the demands of the offer sheet. So the terms and conditions should take effect at the time the original team MATCHES the offer sheet--not when the player signed it. So in essence they get a week to fix things to comply with the offer sheet. I don't think anyone involved would complain if that were the case.

Talk about the agent for a player (in this case it would be Walter Jones' agent) having a team over a barrel!

 

[GroveDiesel]

The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could.

I am really starting to disagree with this sentiment. I believe the idea behind the transition tag was to allow a player to explore the market and try to get a bigger payday then he could with his original team.The fact that Seattle had a lot of cap space, every intention to match a Hutchinson offer and no offer on the table puts Seattle outside the spirit of the transition tag - in my opinion.

I disagree of your assesment of the intent of the Seahawks. If they wanted to lock down Hutchinson and not give him any ability to get a large contract or negotiate with another team, they would have placed the franchise tag on him. The difference in the cost to them was relatively small and would have insured that Hutchinson remained in Seattle. $600K to them was virtually meaningless. No, I think that it is more likely that they wanted to let him see what his market value was while not having to do actual contract negotiations themselves. That way he'd get a contract he wanted without any bad blood between he and the Seahawks that inevitably crops up during contract negotiations.

 

[bostonfred]

I think Hutchinson would. Certainly he wouldn't complain about it after signing the contract with Minnesota, but if this precedent was set prior to free agency this season, I suspect Hutchinson would have an issue with such a clause because it would discourage teams from negotiating with him.

This is exxactly what I was referring to when I said that the Hutchinson deal, as written and as enforced, does not really meet with the intent of the transition tag.The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could. but it also was intended to allow the original team the option to match or decline the offer. It was not intended as a get out of jail free card for a play to unilaterally decide he wanted off of his original team. He is not an unrestricted free agent--which is why he was transition tagged in the first place.

From a financial perspective, there would be no negative impact at all whether the got the contract he got from Minnesota or Seattle had the Seahawks had the time to rework Walter Jones' deal.

The transition tag was meant to benefit the team in terms of maintaining rights to players and was not intended to be a sly way to becoming an UFA.

But the player has the right to use whatever tools are available to them to a contract. If the player sees value in a clause that lets him have his entire contract guaranteed, then good for him. The spirit of the transition tag rule is a little less clear on a team seeing value in putting that clause in there, and being willing to offer more money in return for that clause. But while you're welcome to suspect that that's the case, the fact that there is no evidence of quid pro quo consideration for Hutchinson's willingness to put that clause in, and the fact that the clause unquestionably provides some inherent value to the player, makes it impossible for the arbitrator to rule against it.

On the other hand, if the player accepted something of no inherent value in his contract, like "if the coach's birthday is on 1/17/58, the whole contract becomes guaranteed", the arbitrator could easily strike it.

 

[BlueOnion]

The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could.

I am really starting to disagree with this sentiment. I believe the idea behind the transition tag was to allow a player to explore the market and try to get a bigger payday then he could with his original team.The fact that Seattle had a lot of cap space, every intention to match a Hutchinson offer and no offer on the table puts Seattle outside the spirit of the transition tag - in my opinion.

I disagree of your assesment of the intent of the Seahawks. If they wanted to lock down Hutchinson and not give him any ability to get a large contract or negotiate with another team, they would have placed the franchise tag on him. The difference in the cost to them was relatively small and would have insured that Hutchinson remained in Seattle. $600K to them was virtually meaningless. No, I think that it is more likely that they wanted to let him see what his market value was while not having to do actual contract negotiations themselves. That way he'd get a contract he wanted without any bad blood between he and the Seahawks that inevitably crops up during contract negotiations.

Fair enough, you offer some good insight and I can accept it on good faith.But if it is, I have a real issue with the bolded part because it basically puts the Seahawks in an automatic win situation at the expense of either Hutchinson or a third party team. Basically, Seattle told Hutchinson, "Good luck getting a team to negotiate with you early in free agency when money is plentiful. And if a team is stupid enough to negotiate with you, then we are simply going to match the offer."

I think this is way outside the spirit of the transition tag.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could.

I am really starting to disagree with this sentiment. I believe the idea behind the transition tag was to allow a player to explore the market and try to get a bigger payday then he could with his original team.The fact that Seattle had a lot of cap space, every intention to match a Hutchinson offer and no offer on the table puts Seattle outside the spirit of the transition tag - in my opinion.

I disagree of your assesment of the intent of the Seahawks. If they wanted to lock down Hutchinson and not give him any ability to get a large contract or negotiate with another team, they would have placed the franchise tag on him. The difference in the cost to them was relatively small and would have insured that Hutchinson remained in Seattle. $600K to them was virtually meaningless. No, I think that it is more likely that they wanted to let him see what his market value was while not having to do actual contract negotiations themselves. That way he'd get a contract he wanted without any bad blood between he and the Seahawks that inevitably crops up during contract negotiations.

Right on the money.

 

[bostonfred]

The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could.

I am really starting to disagree with this sentiment. I believe the idea behind the transition tag was to allow a player to explore the market and try to get a bigger payday then he could with his original team.The fact that Seattle had a lot of cap space, every intention to match a Hutchinson offer and no offer on the table puts Seattle outside the spirit of the transition tag - in my opinion.

I disagree of your assesment of the intent of the Seahawks. If they wanted to lock down Hutchinson and not give him any ability to get a large contract or negotiate with another team, they would have placed the franchise tag on him. The difference in the cost to them was relatively small and would have insured that Hutchinson remained in Seattle. $600K to them was virtually meaningless. No, I think that it is more likely that they wanted to let him see what his market value was while not having to do actual contract negotiations themselves. That way he'd get a contract he wanted without any bad blood between he and the Seahawks that inevitably crops up during contract negotiations.

Fair enough, you offer some good insight and I can accept it on good faith.But if it is, I have a real issue with the bolded part because it basically puts the Seahawks in an automatic win situation at the expense of either Hutchinson or a third party team. Basically, Seattle told Hutchinson, "Good luck getting a team to negotiate with you early in free agency when money is plentiful. And if a team is stupid enough to negotiate with you, then we are simply going to match the offer."

I think this is way outside the spirit of the transition tag.

What else would the transition tag do?

 

[BlueOnion]

The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could.

I am really starting to disagree with this sentiment. I believe the idea behind the transition tag was to allow a player to explore the market and try to get a bigger payday then he could with his original team.The fact that Seattle had a lot of cap space, every intention to match a Hutchinson offer and no offer on the table puts Seattle outside the spirit of the transition tag - in my opinion.

I disagree of your assesment of the intent of the Seahawks. If they wanted to lock down Hutchinson and not give him any ability to get a large contract or negotiate with another team, they would have placed the franchise tag on him. The difference in the cost to them was relatively small and would have insured that Hutchinson remained in Seattle. $600K to them was virtually meaningless. No, I think that it is more likely that they wanted to let him see what his market value was while not having to do actual contract negotiations themselves. That way he'd get a contract he wanted without any bad blood between he and the Seahawks that inevitably crops up during contract negotiations.

Fair enough, you offer some good insight and I can accept it on good faith.But if it is, I have a real issue with the bolded part because it basically puts the Seahawks in an automatic win situation at the expense of either Hutchinson or a third party team. Basically, Seattle told Hutchinson, "Good luck getting a team to negotiate with you early in free agency when money is plentiful. And if a team is stupid enough to negotiate with you, then we are simply going to match the offer."

I think this is way outside the spirit of the transition tag.

What else would the transition tag do?

As I said above, the transition tag is to act as an arbitration process between the player and the orignal team when there is a difference of opinion in regards to the player's fair market value. At which point, the original team's respective salary cap restrictions would dictate if the player's fair market value could or could not fit under the cap.The fact that Seattle had 24 million dollars in cap space available entering free agency and no offer on the table to Hutchinson leads me to believe Seahawks were not interested in using the transition tag as an arbitration process; instead I think they were intending to abuse it at somebody else's expense.

 

[BlueOnion]

I am still thinking about this (in great depth) and would like to get back to Doctor Detroit's original question. Here are my thoughts:

1)The scope of the contract agreed upon

Currently, the CBA [transition tag] dictates that the principle amount of the contract (total money) has to be the static (Wolford\Colts rule) which I am fine with. But I also believe how the principle money in the contract is to be paid to the player also has to be static for both teams (making what the Vikings did wrong).

2) Usuage of the Transition Tag

But if my above recommendation is incorporated, it only fixes half which is broken. I also think it is greatly unfair to the player if the team applying the transition tag is allowed to do so if they have plenty of cap space available and every intention to match the player best offer. It seems somewhat puzzling why a team would do this because we are talking about a marquee player; the team wants to retain the player, has the resources to retain the player but for whatever reason opts not to offer the player a contract and let him explore the market. I think something along the lines should also be implemented;

If a team wants to put a transition tag on a player, they must have less cap space available in the current year than the highest paid player in the league for the designated player's respective position.

For instance, Lets imagine Seattle wanted to put the transition tag on Hutchinson. For Seattle to do this, their available cap space would have to be less than Alan Faneca's [assuming he is the highest paid guard in the league] average annual salary in his contract.

Not 100% on the details, but the spirit of item #2 would be to prevent teams from using the transition tag on a player while leveraging their available cap space against the other 31 teams to discourage the other 31 teams from negotiating with the player in good faith.

Of course item #2 is completely contigent on item #1 being passed; the principle of the contract has to be the same as well as how the entire principle amount is to be amortized against the salary cap for the life of the contract.

 

[mad sweeney]

This to me distorts the fabric that the system was put together to try to do.

The transition tag distorts the fabric of free agency. I am not disagreeing with you David nor do I think you are wrong, it just depends on what side of the fence a fan is on.

Hey, my life won't change no matter what the NFL does. As a side effect of rulings like this, I suspect teams will elect to avoid using transition tags on players they really want to keep. I generally side with the players, as owners typically go from "dirty, filthy, roteen stinking rich" and drop down to "ungodly wealthy" when they "lose" revenue to players.Seattle had no realistic way to match the Vikings offer, which to me seems a bit unfair. Props to the Vikes and Hutchinson's agent for being creative enough to beat the system. That's the part that bothers me, as their never really was a level playing field on this one.

I agree with the bolded part above. but without the bolded part being a possibility entering free agency, what incentive does any team (especially the Vikings) have to spend day 2 of free agency with Steve Hutchinson and lock up 10 to 15 million of their free agency money for day 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of free agency; full well knowing the Seahawks have a lot of cap space and every intention to match any offer?Hutchinson would be the big loser here as he would have to come back to Seattle with his tail between his legs and say, "Well I didn't get any offers (or any good offers). I guess I am willing to take whatever you want to offer me."

In an Adam Shefter articla a few days back he said the Seahawks FO was mad that "in good faith" they used the trans instead of frans tag so he could negotiate with other teams and get a good view of his market value. They could've franchised him and he would'nt be able to check it out. And while negotiating "in good faith" with the Vikes (which the Hawks didn't have to let him do with the other tag) he had a clause that made the offer unmatchable. The mistake made is in using good faith with sleazeball agents like the Postons, Rosenpenis and Condon etc...

 

[David Yudkin]

My only concern with Onion's premise is that a team can (and likely will) utilize the franchise tag that would pay someone as a Top 5 player (or the 20% increase rule)and not have to consider the highest paid player at all.

I suspect teams may abandon the transition tag altogether and just franchise players instead. In this case, it would not have cost them much more per year than the transition take would have (if it only involved the required salaries set forth by the league--Top player vs. a Top 10 player).

 

[bostonfred]

The idea behind it was to allow the player to explore the market and try to get the biggest payday he could.

I am really starting to disagree with this sentiment. I believe the idea behind the transition tag was to allow a player to explore the market and try to get a bigger payday then he could with his original team.The fact that Seattle had a lot of cap space, every intention to match a Hutchinson offer and no offer on the table puts Seattle outside the spirit of the transition tag - in my opinion.

I disagree of your assesment of the intent of the Seahawks. If they wanted to lock down Hutchinson and not give him any ability to get a large contract or negotiate with another team, they would have placed the franchise tag on him. The difference in the cost to them was relatively small and would have insured that Hutchinson remained in Seattle. $600K to them was virtually meaningless. No, I think that it is more likely that they wanted to let him see what his market value was while not having to do actual contract negotiations themselves. That way he'd get a contract he wanted without any bad blood between he and the Seahawks that inevitably crops up during contract negotiations.

Fair enough, you offer some good insight and I can accept it on good faith.But if it is, I have a real issue with the bolded part because it basically puts the Seahawks in an automatic win situation at the expense of either Hutchinson or a third party team. Basically, Seattle told Hutchinson, "Good luck getting a team to negotiate with you early in free agency when money is plentiful. And if a team is stupid enough to negotiate with you, then we are simply going to match the offer."

I think this is way outside the spirit of the transition tag.

What else would the transition tag do?

As I said above, the transition tag is to act as an arbitration process between the player and the orignal team when there is a difference of opinion in regards to the player's fair market value. At which point, the original team's respective salary cap restrictions would dictate if the player's fair market value could or could not fit under the cap.The fact that Seattle had 24 million dollars in cap space available entering free agency and no offer on the table to Hutchinson leads me to believe Seahawks were not interested in using the transition tag as an arbitration process; instead I think they were intending to abuse it at somebody else's expense.

So you're saying that teams should only use the transition tag when they can barely afford to keep the player, whose market value we supposedly don't know? That doesn't really make sense.

 

[BlueOnion]

In an Adam Shefter articla a few days back he said the Seahawks FO was mad that "in good faith" they used the trans instead of frans tag so he could negotiate with other teams and get a good view of his market value. They could've franchised him and he would'nt be able to check it out. And while negotiating "in good faith" with the Vikes (which the Hawks didn't have to let him do with the other tag) he had a clause that made the offer unmatchable.

The mistake made is in using good faith with sleazeball agents like the Postons, Rosenpenis and Condon etc...

Either Adam Shefter or the Seattle FO is a complete idiot. How did they expect this to go down?

Minnesota Vikings FO - "Hello Steve, how are you doing today? Do you want to talk contract?"

Steve Hutchinson - "Yes I do. Glad you called."

Minnesota Vikings FO - "Do you want to be a Seattle Seahawk or do you want to be a Minnesota Viking?"

Steve Hutchinson - "Does it matter?"

Minnesota Vikings FO - "Yeah, because Seattle has 24 million dollars available in cap space so if agree on a contract with no poison pill, we suspect they are going to match it."

Steve Hutchinson - "Well I want to ensure the contract has no poison pill and Seattle have an opportunity to match the offer."

Minnesota Vikings FO - [click]

scooby doo alternative ending

...

Minnesota Vikings FO - "Do you want to be a Seattle Seahawk or do you want to be a Minnesota Viking?"

Steve Hutchinson - "I could not care less about Seattle or if they match the offer."

Minnesota Vikings FO - "Fantastic, lets talk money. How much money do you want?"