The Poison Pill (1 Viewer)

[Keg]

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

as if they wouldnt cut him or trade him if they knew they were gonna pay someone more then himI am neither a sea or minn homer but i think this ruling set a BAD PRECEDENT

very very bad and you will see certain owners and/or AGENTS(i will not mention any names) that will take advantage of the loop hole

 

[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.

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.

Well if they are going to transition tag a player, the team has already indicated that think the player is one of the best in the league at his position. So using the highest paid player at the position is a good starting point in establishing a ball-park figure for what the player is worth...in my opinion.And the only (legit and in good faith) reason I can imagine a team not being able to pay the designated player premium money (relative to his position) is the imposed salary cap restriction. So tying these two things together makes sense to me.

 

[BlueOnion]

I am neither a sea or minn homer but i think this ruling set a BAD PRECEDENT

very very bad and you will see certain owners and/or AGENTS(i will not mention any names) that will take advantage of the loop hole

Okay, well I have been arguing the other side. But I am willing to concede your opinion is legit, provided that you also acknowledge what Seattle did sets an equally bad precedent. They made no offer to Hutchinson, slapped him with the transition tag and had 24 million in available cap space; thus creating a vacuum in the market for Hutchinson and driving off all possible suitors.Quite possibly, if Minnesota did not come up with the poison pill, then no team would have negotiated with Hutchinson, knowing Seattle is waiting in the bushes with 24 million in cap space available.

The most likely scenario (if Minnesota did not do what they did) would have nobody making any legit offers to Hutchinson and Hutchinson would have been forced to return to Seattle with his tail between his legs; basically with no leverage and a take-it-or-leave offer from Seattle.

 

[bostonfred]

I am neither a sea or minn homer but i think this ruling set a BAD PRECEDENT

very very bad and you will see certain owners and/or AGENTS(i will not mention any names) that will take advantage of the loop hole

Okay, well I have been arguing the other side. But I am willing to concede your opinion is legit, provided that you also acknowledge what Seattle did sets an equally bad precedent. They made no offer to Hutchinson, slapped him with the transition tag and had 24 million in available cap space; thus creating a vacuum in the market for Hutchinson and driving off all possible suitors.Quite possibly, if Minnesota did not come up with the poison pill, then no team would have negotiated with Hutchinson, knowing Seattle is waiting in the bushes with 24 million in cap space available.

The most likely scenario (if Minnesota did not do what they did) would have nobody making any legit offers to Hutchinson and Hutchinson would have been forced to return to Seattle with his tail between his legs; basically with no leverage and a take-it-or-leave offer from Seattle.

I agree with what you're saying, but that's exactly what the transition tag is for. The whole point of that tag is that it offers the player a one year deal at a salary equal to the top ten players at their position as a fallback, and allows other teams to deal with them, but always with the specter of the original team matching. The fact that the Seahawks chose to use the transition tag basically said, instead of paying you the more lucrative one year contract of the franchise tag, we're going to gamble a little and let you test the market. I don't have any problem with the Seahawks doing that, any morethan I have a problem with Hutchinson negotiating for the biggest contract he can get.

The only question is whether the kind of clause Minny put in their offer should be legal. And in this case, I think the answer is yes.

 

[bostonfred]

I wonder if the arbitrator could have ruled that the Seahawks had to make sure that Hutchinson was the highest paid offensive lineman on EITHER the Vikings OR the Seahawks, since either condition would technically be a match to the offer Minny made.

Then, since they were substantively matching the offer at the time of the signing, they could renegotiate with Walter Jones to make sure that Hutchinson came in under Jones' first year value.

 

[David Yudkin]

I am neither a sea or minn homer but i think this ruling set a BAD PRECEDENT

very very bad and you will see certain owners and/or AGENTS(i will not mention any names) that will take advantage of the loop hole

Okay, well I have been arguing the other side. But I am willing to concede your opinion is legit, provided that you also acknowledge what Seattle did sets an equally bad precedent. They made no offer to Hutchinson, slapped him with the transition tag and had 24 million in available cap space; thus creating a vacuum in the market for Hutchinson and driving off all possible suitors.Quite possibly, if Minnesota did not come up with the poison pill, then no team would have negotiated with Hutchinson, knowing Seattle is waiting in the bushes with 24 million in cap space available.

The most likely scenario (if Minnesota did not do what they did) would have nobody making any legit offers to Hutchinson and Hutchinson would have been forced to return to Seattle with his tail between his legs; basically with no leverage and a take-it-or-leave offer from Seattle.

If no one gave Hutchinson an offer, worst case scenario was that he played for one year in Seattle at the average salary of the Top 10 players at his position OR at a rate of pay equal to a 20% increase over his 2005 salary. The only difference between a transition tag and a franchise tag is one uses average salaries of the Top 5 players while the other uses Top 10 players. IIRC, the differnece for Hutchinson would have been like $500K.And I disagree that having a lot of cap space by default would serve as a reason for other suitors not to consider him. If someone really wanted him, they could offer him a big contract and either have gotten him or force Seattle's hand to burn off a big chunk of their surplus cap room.

Remember, all teams had an extra $17 million in cap money vs. last year, so EVERY team should have had money under the cap, and on the dawn of free agency this year, each team AT A MINIMUM had to have $7 million (the difference between $102M and $95) after having to conform to the lesser number in the labor negotiations. That's part of what's fueling the free agent frenzy we have seen the past few weeks.

If a team offered Hutchinson $12 million a year with no poison pill provision, do you think Seattle would have matched it? I don't.

 

[BlueOnion]

If no one gave Hutchinson an offer, worst case scenario was that he played for one year in Seattle at the average salary of the Top 10 players at his position OR at a rate of pay equal to a 20% increase over his 2005 salary. The only difference between a transition tag and a franchise tag is one uses average salaries of the Top 5 players while the other uses Top 10 players. IIRC, the differnece for Hutchinson would have been like $500K.

Okay, but this is considerably less than what the market was willing to pay him and Seattle was (intentionally or unintentionally) driving down the market because of their available cap space.

And I disagree that having a lot of cap space by default would serve as a reason for other suitors not to consider him. If someone really wanted him, they could offer him a big contract and either have gotten him or force Seattle's hand to burn off a big chunk of their surplus cap room.

So how does this benefit the other team (The Vikings). It doesn't. If anything it hurts the team because they end up having a good chunk [13 million or so] of their free agent money frozen for a good part of the first week of free agency. This is insentive not to pursue a transtition tagged player.

Remember, all teams had an extra $17 million in cap money vs. last year, so EVERY team should have had money under the cap, and on the dawn of free agency this year, each team AT A MINIMUM had to have $7 million (the difference between $102M and $95) after having to conform to the lesser number in the labor negotiations. That's part of what's fueling the free agent frenzy we have seen the past few weeks.

If a team offered Hutchinson $12 million a year with no poison pill provision, do you think Seattle would have matched it? I don't.

This incident is not unique to this year, it could happen any year so the extra money this year really isn't part of the equation.

 

[David Yudkin]

My point about this year was that there were 31 other franchises with money to spend, so this was not the greast offseason to pursue a transition-tagged player. The market is the market, as they say, and that's just how things worked out.

In hindsight, I bet the Hawks would rather have just franchised him and still have a ton of cap room other than losing him without getting anything back.

Maybe they should have used the Plan B franchise tag (forget the official name or designation), the one where they could have matched the offer or receive 2 first round picks if they elected not to match.

 

[Blood Farmer]

Seattle should have just moved Jones to fullback. Let him play RB on the goal line and move him to OT the rest of game. Hence ..... instant FB.

 

[BlueOnion]

My point about this year was that there were 31 other franchises with money to spend, so this was not the greast offseason to pursue a transition-tagged player.  The market is the market, as they say, and that's just how things worked out.

In hindsight, I bet the Hawks would rather have just franchised him and still have a ton of cap room other than losing him without getting anything back.

Maybe they should have used the Plan B franchise tag (forget the official name or designation), the one where they could have matched the offer or receive 2 first round picks if they elected not to match.

I agree a 100% and although I respect the Seahawks and I believe they had the best intentions a team could have (for themselves and Hutch), I think the whole scenario could best be associated with the following hypothetical situation:From your wife....

Because you are my husband and I trust you so much, I want to do something for you.  Have this $500 and I want you to spend the evening at Uncle Joe's Go-Go Bar.  Find out what and how much $500 will get you.  Then come back home, give me the $500 and I will do whatever the dancers would be willing to do for that $500.

However, when you returned your wife got upset that you spent the $500.

 

[bostonfred]

Seattle should have just moved Jones to fullback. Let him play RB on the goal line and move him to OT the rest of game. Hence ..... instant FB.

Jones, who is franchised more than Applebee's, probably wouldn't want to change positions.

 

[railman305]

I don't understand how teams like SEA. and NE can make these specific poison pills restricting a players play to certain state specific requirements or if pay exceeds highest RB which would make the backloaded contracts then guarenteed and thus make it impossible for teams to match contracts,

Aren't they going to do something to address this, it seems insane to me to be able to make a contract that specific. It gives a huge advantage to the teams throwing out the offer, seattle can not fire back with a tender saying if he plays a game in min. his contract will be gaurenteed, seems dead wrong to me.

Teams could make insane type pills I can't think of any good example, but it seems like they can just make up any poison pill with some ridiculous requirement and make it impossible for teams to match the contract.

 

[BlueOnion]

I suspect they are going to do something. They passed the Wolford (sp??) rule to ensure matched offers encapsulate the same amount of money (principle). It would only make sense that the next step would be to ensure the amortization of the principle in the contract (against the salary cap) is the same for both teams.

But I also suspect they address the parameters of the transition tag because I think what Seattle attempted (most likely not intentionally) to do to Hutchinson was not in good faith either.

 

[slimflop]

Some good insight here

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...hl=Poison+Pills

 

[DoctorDetroit]

:HONDA:

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't understand how teams like SEA. and NE can make these specific poison pills restricting a players play to certain state specific requirements or if pay exceeds highest RB which would make the backloaded contracts then guarenteed and thus make it impossible for teams to match contracts,

Aren't they going to do something to address this, it seems insane to me to be able to make a contract that specific. It gives a huge advantage to the teams throwing out the offer, seattle can not fire back with a tender saying if he plays a game in min. his contract will be gaurenteed, seems dead wrong to me.

Teams could make insane type pills I can't think of any good example, but it seems like they can just make up any poison pill with some ridiculous requirement and make it impossible for teams to match the contract.

They did address it in the Hutch case. As long as the dollar amounts don't change, you can put whatever stipulation you want. How can they turn around and say differently after their decision earlier this week?And I still don't know that what they "did" to Hutch. Even after reading the other threads. They couldn't reach a deal so they (Seattle and Hutch) tested the market to gauge his true value, which they did. Poor Hutch, Seattle didn't franchise him at $6+mil for 1 year and instead let him work a deal for 7 years, setting him up for life. What a bunch of jerks those Seahawks are.

 

[Pat Patriot]

What NE contract are you referring to?

 

[BlueOnion]

What a bunch of jerks those Seahawks are.

For myself, I really cannot determine if what Seattle did was intentionally or not.

 

[snorlax]

I didn't see this one before, and it's funny that I used a lot of the same words in my post. I'd like to see this discussion continue with the revelation of the Burleson contract, focusing of course on poison pills and what the NFL should do more than the transition tag, since I don't see the issue there. Perhaps that should be for the other thread or maybe a third thread whose existence I am not yet aware of. I just don't know how you can allow these things to continue, and I don't think they should've allowed Hutchinson's in the first place.

 

[snorlax]

My point about this year was that there were 31 other franchises with money to spend, so this was not the greast offseason to pursue a transition-tagged player. The market is the market, as they say, and that's just how things worked out.

In hindsight, I bet the Hawks would rather have just franchised him and still have a ton of cap room other than losing him without getting anything back.

Maybe they should have used the Plan B franchise tag (forget the official name or designation), the one where they could have matched the offer or receive 2 first round picks if they elected not to match.

I'm pretty sure what you are referring to is the franchise tag. If a team places the franchise tag on a player, that player signs an offer sheet with another team, and the original team chooses not to match that offer, the original team receives two first round picks as compensation. That's why it almost never happens.