This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I thought I heard that the difference bewteen frnachishing him and transitioning him was like $500,000.There was an artilce in the Seattle Times that mentioned last year's franchise tag for OL carried a $7.4 million price tag, but it is not clear if that was just for guards.
Perhaps I'm missing the part where Seattle should be looked at as victims, or be entitled to be mad at Hutch for any reason. Hutchinson used every bit of leverage available to him to extract the very best contract he could negotiate. The transition tag is a lazy man's tool to let some other schlep do his negotiating for him, hoping to wind up matching something less than he might otherwise agree to pay. The franchise tag is the "you'll never be the top paid at your position nor attract serious interest from other teams" tool. Instead of using either of these tools, they might have used their own common sense to determine Hutchinson's market value, and made Hutchinson an offer like the one presented him by the Vikes. Is there any question he would have accepted a front loaded $49M offer to become the highest paid at his position with his existing team? By saying they intended to match it (other than the pill), they implicitly acknowledged they could have agreed to those terms negotiating directly with Hutchinson. However, they opted for tools over good faith negotiation and a little work, and it burned them. The Seahawks absolutely did not transition tag him "for his own good." They were overconfident that they could match any offer that came along, and they probably assumed the market would be somewhat depressed since they were in a cap position to match practically any offer, so most teams wouldn't waste time pursuing Hutch. They have no one to be mad at but themselves.
Could they be saying this to save face after making what turned out to be a bad move? Sure. That's believable.Could they, after having alienated two of their star players through their use of the franchise tag, decided they'd try a different way to let the player go establish what his fair market price is, but still give them an opportunity to match? Yeah, that's very believable too. Unless you have firsthand knowledge of the matter as it unfolded, I don't see how you can be "absolutely" sure what they did or didn't do.
I'm referring to the following year. I believe that there would have been a huge escalation in the following year if they had to franchise him in two consecutive years.The logic was that if they used the franchise tag on his this year he would have forced that on the Seahawks the next year as well forcing them to either pay him a ton or letting him go as an unrestricted free agent.
The new franchise rules mandate that teams can franchise the same player two years in a row (still Top 5 pay or a 20% pay increase, whichever is bigger) similar to other years. But if a team wants to franchise the same guy three years in a row, the payout would then be as a Top 5 QB no matter position the player plays.
Link? I'll let you in on a little secret: Your arguments are the weak. Offer something (evidence, testimonials, links, etc.) to any conversation you are in and maybe someone might think you know something. Or maybe they won't. Hard to say really.
Hutch is a great player and although he left the Hawks on this note, I wish him the best, as he was a cornerstone for the Hawks.
I have followed him for the last nine years being both a Michigan and Seahawks fan. I wish him well, just not too well when it comes to wins and loses.
, lineman like Hutch are far and few between, but I wish him the best of luck, and the Vikes and Hawks in the playoffs could be interesting 
Yes, it is 20% premium for using the franchise tag twice in a row. Seattle didn't expect Hutch to receive such a huge contract
You are missing the point because nowhere does it say that Seattle is a victim or did anything for "his own good". It's easy to get confused when you make things up. In good faith and for his own good are two different things. Clearly they were at an impasse in contract talks and they needed a solution. Perhaps, like in the Jones Saga, they felt that the franchise tag would ruin future talks and make next years talks that much harder. Maybe they and Condon "agreed" to use it to prove to either side what Hutch's value was worth. And I can't imagine that Reinfeldt and Ruskell used the tag without envisioning a scenario where Hutch was gone. They use the frans tag and there's always resentment over it because he can't negotiate with other teams and has no long term security if he gets injured. They absdolutely can be mad at Hutch and his agent since all they had to do was franchise him and he was theirs. Instead they let him try and get as much money as he could and were prepared to match it. It's no different than if Hutch was miffed had they used the franchise tag.
Two quick points:
BigJim is more than capable of defending himself, but I want to point out exactly what you are not acknowledging, and it pertains to the bolded part above.Sure Seattle agreed to let Hutchinson negotiate with other teams, but they did so having every intention of matching an offer sheet, the security of having 24 million in available cap space and the security of knowing they would be guaranteed the right to match any offer Hutchinson received. Seattle appears to have all their bases covered and Hutchinson appears to have all his bases covered. The only thing the two parties were missing was a third party to have an equal interest in Hutchinson and for this third party to be oblivious to the securities Seattle was retaining (intention to match and resources to match). However, as long as the other 31 teams were aware of Seattle's securities (intention to match and resources to match), which they did, how was Hutchinson (more pointedly his agent) going to generate interest in him?
Two quick points:
(1) The clear impression given by Shefter, assuming you believe it, is the Hawks were "miffed" having this happen when they had altruistic reasons for transition tagging him. In other words, they felt wronged after doing right by him. Ridiculous. The felt it would be a smart fiscal move to transition him rather than simply offering him a monster contract themselves, and it backfired.
(2) Talks were not "at an impass" (talk about making things up). According to Hutchinson, talks never really even took place. In Hutchinson's own words: "The truth of the matter is I wanted to have a contract extension done before last season, certainly before the tag deadline. The Seahawks were either unwilling or unwanting to give me that contract. I wanted to get something done before the season started because I wanted to be able to concentrate on the season and there wasn't really any real communication or real negotiations that took place before the season started. That was the end of that."
From dictionary.com: A situation that is so difficult that no progress can be made; a deadlock or a stalemate
If that's not an impasse, I don't know what is. There was no progress to be made in his negotiations. Tell me how that's made up.
good faith: Compliance with standards of decency and honesty
altruism: Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
As you can see, good faith is not equal to altruism. I'm not trying to paint the Hawks as philanthropic saints in the matter, despite your false interpretations. It was a business decision, with inherent risks, that didn't go in their favor and they were unhappy with the way it was achieved. They could've just as easily franchised him and he'd be the miffed one. The fact that they were willing to pay what the Viqueens were willing to pay shows that they concured in his market value, which they could not have done if he were franchised and unable to negotiate with other teams. If not, they'd have another yearly battle with a top lineman who's career is continuously threatened by injury without a long term deal.
I would recommend looking up definitions before you reply. And I'm still trying to figure out where you got the "his own good" and the victim status. But I guess you wouldn't have any arguments if you didn't make things up.
Seattle had to know that by putting the transition tag on Hutchinson that it was inconceiveable any team would even negotiate with them. They play the same game as every other NFL franchise out there; there is no incentive to approach a transition tagged player if the team retaining the tagged player has every intention of matching any offer and have the resources to do it.I half-way surmise that the Seahawks' FO was sitting around in big lounge chairs and they nearly choked on their drinks when they heard Hutchinson had signed a contract on day 2 of free agency; completely flabergasted that another team would even challenge them and their 24 million in cap space. I wouldn't be suprised if they smiled and then whispered, "Suckers" as they swigged another drink.
You do realize that just typing 8 paragraphs worth of hostile words doesn't make you right. Being unwilling or unwanting to give someone a fair contract is absolutely not an impasse. Not having communication prior to a dealine is not an impasse. An impasse would be the Seahawks saying he's worth no more than $X and Hutch saying he won't accept a dime less than $Y. They didn't negotiate seriously with him, and instead chose to slap him with a tag to let the market determine what they'd need to pay him. You call that good faith impasse, and I say you don't have the slightest bit of foundation for saying that. It's using a tool to do work for you that you'd prefer not do for yourself.And BTW- My words "his own good" and "victims" are my own, and no ones elses, impression of the Shefter report. Clearly it was a woe is me position on how Hutch and his agent wronged them when they were trying to do right by him by transitioning him instead of really f'ing him over with a different tag. If that isn't plain as day to you, fine. Have a nice day.
I still believe the Seahawks were fully aware that their available cap space (24 million) and public intention to retain Hutchinson would scare off suitors. At which point, Seattle would have more leverage in negotiations; "So you got to test the market and nobody was interested <_< " [slide paper across table] "So what do you think of these numbers now?"
You are vastly underrating Ruskell and Reinfeldt if those are your thoughts on the matter.
I actually thought I was giving them more credit than they deserved. Just two weeks ago I thought they were bamboozled by the Vikings and were completely flaberghasted by what happen. But after the posion pill came to light and the details about how the transition tag works did I start to put 2 and 2 together. I believe Seattle had formulated the perfect plan to sign Hutchinson and it was more fool proof than the franchise tag...and it would cost them significantly less.
I love how you speak with such certainty that you actually know how it played out.
You don't know how it played out behind the scenes though. You are saying the Hawks were hustling Hutch, when maybe Hutch was asking for too much money in the first place. Maybe Hutch/agent asked to be transitioned to go find a deal but they wanted to hustle the Hawks and get outta there, and hence the poison pill clause. You are acting as if a contract like that was so far out of the realm that Seattle must not have thought of it and were dumb for using the transition tag.You have no clue how it really went down, so you can quit acting like you were actually part of the process and know first hand the thinkings of Hutch/agent and the Seattle FO. Your comments are all based on your own speculation.
You're clearly incapable of looking at facts and seeing them for what they are so I'm done with you.
Of course they are. My question is, can you dispute the logic? I am open to your opinion on the matter.From my perspective, here is what I believe to be facts;
I would dispute the logic of your strong speculation that the other 31 teams have no incentive to negotiate with Hutchinson. The Vikings were willing to pay Hutchinson top end money above even what the franchise tag would have brought him. If they felt he was worth it and offer him that contract what are the two results that are possible? A) They end up with him as Seattle really wasn't willing to match any price. B) Seattle matches and has to pay what you think the guy was worth, which removes more money that otherwise will be used to compete against you for other free agents.The only downside is the time they spend negotiating with him. Now others have already talked about who is going to spend the first 2 days of free agency talking with a player someone else has said they are going to match, and you mention "in the month of March" which I assume is an allusion to this as well. But that really doesn't play a role in this. Hutchinson's window to negotiate with teams is not the first few days, or just March. He has until the tender has to be signed. So there is no reason that teams can't choose to negotiate with him right away, or pursue other guys they may feel more likely to get and come back to him when they miss out on them.Either way, Hutchinson, like John Tait, Takeo Spikes, Kyle Brady, etc, did get a chance to test the market despite the transition tag. You can make a very valid point that yes, he may find less on the market than if he was a UFA. I stress "may" though, because history has shown other transition players did find market value... and the money the Vikings offered him shows that Hutchinson himself found market value.I really don't want to get in the middle of this argument, but neither side really can make an argument that I can see that discludes the other from possibility, or even both from having happened at once. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle of both of you. I would think the Seahawks knew there is more than one way it could play out. Seattle brass very likely thought to themselves, "At worst, he gets a huge offer and we still have to match, but we create some goodwill that we didn't use the franchise tag and keep him from negotiating because of the 2 1st round picks. At best, he tests the market and doesn't find as much interest and so we end up paying the transition amount."
Which was a pretty big downside, Minnesota missed out on Dexter Jackson. If there was no poison pill I would have greatly questioned why Minnesota would spend their time chasing Hutchinson when Dexter was a sure thing. (Not saying Dexter Jackson = Steve Hutchinson).
Well if we are going to bring John Tait, Takeo Spikes and Kyle Brady into the question, we will also need to look at the available cap space their respective original teams had.
I really question if Seattle honestly thought that Hutchinson could get a huge contract offer from another club. It is debateable, I can acknowledge that.
No, I get your point. You aren't getting that it has nothing to do with this.You keep basing your argument that Seattle acted as they did because no team would even negotiate with Hutch because he's a Tranny (NTTIAWWT). It's going to affect how they negotiate with him, what priority they put talking to him vs talking to other players.
Teams can deal with more than one player at a time very easily. Seattle has had FAs going in and out of Seattle and even negotiated with Rocky Bernard and Julian Peterson while dealing with the Hutchinson issue. Its not as if a team has to only focus on Hutch for the whole time and ignore all other FAs, it doesn't work like that. FOs can multitask and juggle FAs.
This is exactly what I speak of. There are probably a lot more details to this scenario than you think.
