Vikes Sign Hutchinson to Offer Sheet (1 Viewer)

[BigJim®]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson.  Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team.  This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

 

[BigJim®]

From Clayton:

LINK

Seahawks in no position to lose Hutchinson: Even if the cap number is $13 million on Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson's $49 million offer sheet, Seattle has no choice but to match it. He's one of their best players.

Two arguments will come up in the first few days of thinking, but only a mistake by Seattle would cause it to let Hutchinson go for no compensation. First, the Seahawks have $17 million of cap room and Hutchinson is already on the books for $6.3 million because of the transition tag. They can make up the $7 million cap difference by restructuring a couple of contracts.

Second, the Seahawks can argue $7 million a year is too much for a guard. That's a bogus argument. While it's true that $7 million is a lot for that position, the only reason he will make $7 million is because the Seahawks screwed up by putting a transition tag on him, letting the Vikings negotiate the contract. Hutchinson would have made $1 million less if he negotiated from a franchise tag. As one of their best players, they can't let him go. Don't compound a mistake by making another, particularly when you can manipulate the cap with $17 million of room and five-year proration of contracts.

In other words, Clayton has less information than PFT on the story. Shocker.

 

[Maelstrom]

From Clayton:

LINK

Seahawks in no position to lose Hutchinson: Even if the cap number is $13 million on Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson's $49 million offer sheet, Seattle has no choice but to match it. He's one of their best players.

Two arguments will come up in the first few days of thinking, but only a mistake by Seattle would cause it to let Hutchinson go for no compensation. First, the Seahawks have $17 million of cap room and Hutchinson is already on the books for $6.3 million because of the transition tag. They can make up the $7 million cap difference by restructuring a couple of contracts.

Second, the Seahawks can argue $7 million a year is too much for a guard. That's a bogus argument. While it's true that $7 million is a lot for that position, the only reason he will make $7 million is because the Seahawks screwed up by putting a transition tag on him, letting the Vikings negotiate the contract. Hutchinson would have made $1 million less if he negotiated from a franchise tag. As one of their best players, they can't let him go. Don't compound a mistake by making another, particularly when you can manipulate the cap with $17 million of room and five-year proration of contracts.

In other words, Clayton has less information than PFT on the story. Shocker.

It's also from his Sunday blog, while the PFT stuff is from today. Someone asked for a Clayton link regarding the cap info, and since I had one, I posted it. Wasn't trying to start a p*ssing match between people about PFT / Clayton, so please don't go there.

 

[GroveDiesel]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Why in God's name didn't Seattle franchise Hutchinson? That was a boner of epic proportions - all it did, by not providing for compensation were Hutchinson to sign elsewhere, was give other teams a free ticket to load up a contract like the Vikes did. Teams wouldn't be floating an "unmatchable" deal if they knew up fron they were going to have to part with a first and third round draft pick as part of the bargain. Now, Seattle, having saved a whopping $600K (or whatever it was) in their tender for the transition tag, rather than franchise tag, are going to end up paying him more per season (and if the Poison Pill holds up, WAY more) than they would have under the franchise tag anyway.

Baffling move by Seattle.

 

[BigJim®]

From Clayton:

LINK

Seahawks in no position to lose Hutchinson: Even if the cap number is $13 million on Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson's $49 million offer sheet, Seattle has no choice but to match it. He's one of their best players.

Two arguments will come up in the first few days of thinking, but only a mistake by Seattle would cause it to let Hutchinson go for no compensation. First, the Seahawks have $17 million of cap room and Hutchinson is already on the books for $6.3 million because of the transition tag. They can make up the $7 million cap difference by restructuring a couple of contracts.

Second, the Seahawks can argue $7 million a year is too much for a guard. That's a bogus argument. While it's true that $7 million is a lot for that position, the only reason he will make $7 million is because the Seahawks screwed up by putting a transition tag on him, letting the Vikings negotiate the contract. Hutchinson would have made $1 million less if he negotiated from a franchise tag. As one of their best players, they can't let him go. Don't compound a mistake by making another, particularly when you can manipulate the cap with $17 million of room and five-year proration of contracts.

In other words, Clayton has less information than PFT on the story. Shocker.

It's also from his Sunday blog, while the PFT stuff is from today. Someone asked for a Clayton link regarding the cap info, and since I had one, I posted it. Wasn't trying to start a p*ssing match between people about PFT / Clayton, so please don't go there.

I'm not "going there" but gee whiz it sure is easy for Clayton to declare what Seattle "has no choice but to" do without knowing full specific terms of the contract, addressing possibility that the Vikes were astute enough to plant a poison pill, and/or even acknowledging that the information basing his strong conclusion was not complete.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Why in God's name didn't Seattle franchise Hutchinson? That was a boner of epic proportions - all it did, by not providing for compensation were Hutchinson to sign elsewhere, was give other teams a free ticket to load up a contract like the Vikes did. Teams wouldn't be floating an "unmatchable" deal if they knew up fron they were going to have to part with a first and third round draft pick as part of the bargain. Now, Seattle, having saved a whopping $600K (or whatever it was) in their tender for the transition tag, rather than franchise tag, are going to end up paying him more per season (and if the Poison Pill holds up, WAY more) than they would have under the franchise tag anyway.

Baffling move by Seattle.

I am sure Ruskell and Co. know what they are doing. You honestly think they didn't think of any of this before choosing which tag to place on Hutch?

I am sure Ruskell and Co. were prepared for a huge contract with a poison pill. This is no surprise to them and probably wanted to get the negotiating over and done with, instead of dragging it on like Walter Jones every year.

 

[BigJim®]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson.  Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team.  This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

I appreciate your attempt to address the question, but I disagree with your 2 main points. First, you are right that reports are Seattle can handle the cap implications of a standard contract which only forces a team to recognize a pro-ration of guaranteed bonuses and recognize non-guaranteed salaries on a future dates as they pass milestone dates. I have yet to see any assessment of how an immediately guaranteed $49 mil contract will impact year 1. The Vikes likely know they don't need to figure out the year 1 impact to themselves since Hutch would absolutely be their highest paid player this season, but how it impacts Seattle due to Alexander/W.Jones contracts is unquestionably more severe since they now need to figure in typically ungaranteed amounts, prorated or otherwise.

Second, I don't see how the Vikes would ever count $8M-$9M annually even if they triggered the guaranteed provision in a future year. They are reportedly recognizing at least $13M in year one, which would leave at most $36M left to be recognized over the final 6 seasons. That's $6M per season just using common sense, so I can't see how you came up with $8M-$9M for annual cap impacts.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Why in God's name didn't Seattle franchise Hutchinson? That was a boner of epic proportions - all it did, by not providing for compensation were Hutchinson to sign elsewhere, was give other teams a free ticket to load up a contract like the Vikes did. Teams wouldn't be floating an "unmatchable" deal if they knew up fron they were going to have to part with a first and third round draft pick as part of the bargain. Now, Seattle, having saved a whopping $600K (or whatever it was) in their tender for the transition tag, rather than franchise tag, are going to end up paying him more per season (and if the Poison Pill holds up, WAY more) than they would have under the franchise tag anyway.

Baffling move by Seattle.

Two lines of thought: One is that Seattle would have had to pony up some 8.3 million next year to franchise him and figured that if they franchised him this year, there was no way they would be able to sign him to a long term deal. They were going to have to pay a hefty first year salary regardless so let the market determine that price and with all the CBA stuff, they knew they would likely get more room to re-sign him. Plus the whole Walter Jones thing, tehy don't want to go through that again. Two is the fact that they drafted Chris Spencer with their #1 pick last year and they have the best #6 lineman in pro football in Floyd Womack. So they would try to save on Hutchinson and if they didn't they would let him fly.

I don't think this was a boneheaded move to the degree that they were trying to play it perfectly and maybe it just didn't work out perfectly. To me they have put the organization in the best position long-term but this does pose a few questions for the upcoming season. But to me with or without Hutchinson they still will have one of the best if not the best line in pro football.

Who knows. I heard all this crap right here about how Alexander's numbers were padded by his line but I don't hear anything now about how it's possible Steve Hutchinson may be a little more valuable playing next to THE BEST LINEMAN IN PRO FOOTBALL, BAR NONE. Maybe the Seahawks thought this all out.

 

[tarheel23]

Waiting for a confirmation of the "poison pill" from more than one source.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

I appreciate your attempt to address the question, but I disagree with your 2 main points. First, you are right that reports are Seattle can handle the cap implications of a standard contract which only forces a team to recognize a pro-ration of guaranteed bonuses and recognize non-guaranteed salaries on a future dates as they pass milestone dates. I have yet to see any assessment of how an immediately guaranteed $49 mil contract will impact year 1. The Vikes likely know they don't need to figure out the year 1 impact to themselves since Hutch would absolutely be their highest paid player this season, but how it impacts Seattle due to Alexander/W.Jones contracts is unquestionably more severe since they now need to figure in typically ungaranteed amounts, prorated or otherwise.

Second, I don't see how the Vikes would ever count $8M-$9M annually even if they triggered the guaranteed provision in a future year. They are reportedly recognizing at least $13M in year one, which would leave at most $36M left to be recognized over the final 6 seasons. That's $6M per season just using common sense, so I can't see how you came up with $8M-$9M for annual cap impacts.

Either way...if its not impossible for the Vikings, then it isn't impossible for the Hawks.

 

[BigJim®]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson.  Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team.  This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

I appreciate your attempt to address the question, but I disagree with your 2 main points. First, you are right that reports are Seattle can handle the cap implications of a standard contract which only forces a team to recognize a pro-ration of guaranteed bonuses and recognize non-guaranteed salaries on a future dates as they pass milestone dates. I have yet to see any assessment of how an immediately guaranteed $49 mil contract will impact year 1. The Vikes likely know they don't need to figure out the year 1 impact to themselves since Hutch would absolutely be their highest paid player this season, but how it impacts Seattle due to Alexander/W.Jones contracts is unquestionably more severe since they now need to figure in typically ungaranteed amounts, prorated or otherwise.

Second, I don't see how the Vikes would ever count $8M-$9M annually even if they triggered the guaranteed provision in a future year. They are reportedly recognizing at least $13M in year one, which would leave at most $36M left to be recognized over the final 6 seasons. That's $6M per season just using common sense, so I can't see how you came up with $8M-$9M for annual cap impacts.

Either way...if its not impossible for the Vikings, then it isn't impossible for the Hawks.

Sorry, I can't help being amused by your blind confidence. Hey, we're all homers to someone here but this is far from an "as simple as that" issues if the Vikes won't possibly need to guarantee the whole contract year 1 while Seattle does. Obviously this contract *currently* impacts Seattle differently than it impacts the Vikes. You can say they will renegotiate with Alexander/W.Jones but that doesn't mean it's easily done. You know, surprisingly enough Minnesota also pays someone to figure out how to use the cap to land the players they target. As confident as you are that the Hawks didn't get caught off guard, I'm equally confident the Vikes didn't put hundreds of man hours into signing a transition player, their #1 target, to a deal which would be matched. If the poison pill is easily matched they've really wasted quite a bit of time an energy here, wouldn't you agree?

 

[GroveDiesel]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

I appreciate your attempt to address the question, but I disagree with your 2 main points. First, you are right that reports are Seattle can handle the cap implications of a standard contract which only forces a team to recognize a pro-ration of guaranteed bonuses and recognize non-guaranteed salaries on a future dates as they pass milestone dates. I have yet to see any assessment of how an immediately guaranteed $49 mil contract will impact year 1. The Vikes likely know they don't need to figure out the year 1 impact to themselves since Hutch would absolutely be their highest paid player this season, but how it impacts Seattle due to Alexander/W.Jones contracts is unquestionably more severe since they now need to figure in typically ungaranteed amounts, prorated or otherwise.

Second, I don't see how the Vikes would ever count $8M-$9M annually even if they triggered the guaranteed provision in a future year. They are reportedly recognizing at least $13M in year one, which would leave at most $36M left to be recognized over the final 6 seasons. That's $6M per season just using common sense, so I can't see how you came up with $8M-$9M for annual cap impacts.

Maybe I'm missing something here.Typically NFL contracts have 4 different components. There's the signing bonus, the salaries for each season, incentives to be earned and roster bonuses.

Signing bonuses are automatically guaranteed so those aren't at issue. The rest are not guaranteed.

So please explain how guaranteeing the contract can create a larger cap hit in year one for one team than the other. Do the incentives accelerate to year one if they are guaranteed? I was under the impression that if incentives were turned into guaranteed money that they could be spread over 6 years?

And they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup. You pay low base salaries at the beginning of the contract and then the base salaries accelerate greatly at the end of the contract. Since those salaries aren't guaranteed the team then cuts the player and takes the remaining signing bonus as a cap charge. If those later years are guaranteed though, the team has no choice but to retain the player.

 

[reg]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson.  Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team.  This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

I appreciate your attempt to address the question, but I disagree with your 2 main points. First, you are right that reports are Seattle can handle the cap implications of a standard contract which only forces a team to recognize a pro-ration of guaranteed bonuses and recognize non-guaranteed salaries on a future dates as they pass milestone dates. I have yet to see any assessment of how an immediately guaranteed $49 mil contract will impact year 1. The Vikes likely know they don't need to figure out the year 1 impact to themselves since Hutch would absolutely be their highest paid player this season, but how it impacts Seattle due to Alexander/W.Jones contracts is unquestionably more severe since they now need to figure in typically ungaranteed amounts, prorated or otherwise.

Second, I don't see how the Vikes would ever count $8M-$9M annually even if they triggered the guaranteed provision in a future year. They are reportedly recognizing at least $13M in year one, which would leave at most $36M left to be recognized over the final 6 seasons. That's $6M per season just using common sense, so I can't see how you came up with $8M-$9M for annual cap impacts.

Maybe I'm missing something here.Typically NFL contracts have 4 different components. There's the signing bonus, the salaries for each season, incentives to be earned and roster bonuses.

Signing bonuses are automatically guaranteed so those aren't at issue. The rest are not guaranteed.

So please explain how guaranteeing the contract can create a larger cap hit in year one for one team than the other. Do the incentives accelerate to year one if they are guaranteed? I was under the impression that if incentives were turned into guaranteed money that they could be spread over 6 years?

And they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup. You pay low base salaries at the beginning of the contract and then the base salaries accelerate greatly at the end of the contract. Since those salaries aren't guaranteed the team then cuts the player and takes the remaining signing bonus as a cap charge. If those later years are guaranteed though, the team has no choice but to retain the player.

I believe there is a roster bonus instead of a signing bonus. Roster bonus gets accelerated to that current year vs spread over the life of contract like a normal signing bonus.Edit: his contract states a RB for this current year, not down the line.

 

[cstu]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

 

[cstu]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Typically NFL contracts have 4 different components. There's the signing bonus, the salaries for each season, incentives to be earned and roster bonuses.

Signing bonuses are automatically guaranteed so those aren't at issue. The rest are not guaranteed.

So please explain how guaranteeing the contract can create a larger cap hit in year one for one team than the other. Do the incentives accelerate to year one if they are guaranteed? I was under the impression that if incentives were turned into guaranteed money that they could be spread over 6 years?

And they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup. You pay low base salaries at the beginning of the contract and then the base salaries accelerate greatly at the end of the contract. Since those salaries aren't guaranteed the team then cuts the player and takes the remaining signing bonus as a cap charge. If those later years are guaranteed though, the team has no choice but to retain the player.

It wouldn't change the cap, only make it nearly impossible to cut or trade. Basically his salary would be guaranteed and he would get the money even if he wasn't on the team. Think of it as mandatory roster bonuses.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

***Ding Ding Ding***If this is true, it is clear indication that the player wants nothing to do with returning to Seattle. The whole point is to not have the offer matched in the next 7 days, then do whatever it takes to be a Good Viking once the week has passed.

 

[BigJim®]

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

First I've heard of this. I doubt they need to if they are ok with guaranteeing the final 6 years after the huge cap hit is behind them. If they are confident in the player, $6M per season for 6 remaining years is not unfathomable to guarantee.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

I doubt you can do that. What the point of putting the poison pill in the contract if the team can just change it right away?I am going to pay Hutch ONE ZILLION dollars....oh no team can match...he's ours.....now time to restucture.

If the Vikes could do that, so could the Hawks.

 

[cstu]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

I doubt you can do that. What the point of putting the poison pill in the contract if the team can just change it right away?I am going to pay Hutch ONE ZILLION dollars....oh no team can match...he's ours.....now time to restucture.

If the Vikes could do that, so could the Hawks.

There are no rules about when a player can restructure. The main point is that the contract has to be one that Hutchinson would want to change. The Vikings will likely exchange the guarantee clause for some easily obtainable incentives (Pro Bowl) and Hutchinson will agree to it.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

***Ding Ding Ding***If this is true, it is clear indication that the player wants nothing to do with returning to Seattle. The whole point is to not have the offer matched in the next 7 days, then do whatever it takes to be a Good Viking once the week has passed.

I don't see that.If Hutch wanted nothing to do with the Hawks, then get the Vikings to make the deal literally impossible for the Hawks to match with all the Viking salary cap space and then restructure right after.

This deal is great for Hutch, so why not do what the Hawks wanted you to do when they placed the transition tag on you and find your market value. Thats what he has done, but doesn't mean he doesn't want to be a Hawk.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

I doubt you can do that. What the point of putting the poison pill in the contract if the team can just change it right away?I am going to pay Hutch ONE ZILLION dollars....oh no team can match...he's ours.....now time to restucture.

If the Vikes could do that, so could the Hawks.

There are no rules about when a player can restructure. The main point is that the contract has to be one that Hutchinson would want to change. The Vikings will likely exchange the guarantee clause for some easily obtainable incentives (Pro Bowl) and Hutchinson will agree to it.

And so why wouldn't he do that with the Hawks then, and thereby signing him and not having a poison pill contract?It works both ways.

Unless he actually wants to leave Seattle, then your comment has merit.

 

[cstu]

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

***Ding Ding Ding***If this is true, it is clear indication that the player wants nothing to do with returning to Seattle. The whole point is to not have the offer matched in the next 7 days, then do whatever it takes to be a Good Viking once the week has passed.

I don't see that.If Hutch wanted nothing to do with the Hawks, then get the Vikings to make the deal literally impossible for the Hawks to match with all the Viking salary cap space and then restructure right after.

This deal is great for Hutch, so why not do what the Hawks wanted you to do when they placed the transition tag on you and find your market value. Thats what he has done, but doesn't mean he doesn't want to be a Hawk.

If the Seahawks do match the offer it's means that they have already discussed it with Hutchinson and that he wants to stay in Seattle. If he wants to be gone, he's gone.

 

[GroveDiesel]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

I doubt you can do that. What the point of putting the poison pill in the contract if the team can just change it right away?I am going to pay Hutch ONE ZILLION dollars....oh no team can match...he's ours.....now time to restucture.

If the Vikes could do that, so could the Hawks.

Agreed. Maybe you can in fact do this, but something tells me that that's precisely the reason it would never be approved by an arbitrator. And what would the Vikings do if Hutchinson then refused to re-do the deal anyway? I'm just really doubting the veracity of this story.

 

[massraider]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson.  Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team.  This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

I doubt you can do that. What the point of putting the poison pill in the contract if the team can just change it right away?I am going to pay Hutch ONE ZILLION dollars....oh no team can match...he's ours.....now time to restucture.

If the Vikes could do that, so could the Hawks.

There are no rules about when a player can restructure. The main point is that the contract has to be one that Hutchinson would want to change. The Vikings will likely exchange the guarantee clause for some easily obtainable incentives (Pro Bowl) and Hutchinson will agree to it.

You know what's better than an easily obtainable clause? Guaranteed money. Which seems to be easily attainable for Hutch, by just showing up for work, and waiting (If the poison pill is true). If Hutch's agent has a guaranteed contact on the table, and renegotiates it away, he should be fired.More to the point: What does Hutch gain by renegotiating once the deal is signed?

 

[jason12vb]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

I doubt you can do that. What the point of putting the poison pill in the contract if the team can just change it right away?I am going to pay Hutch ONE ZILLION dollars....oh no team can match...he's ours.....now time to restucture.

If the Vikes could do that, so could the Hawks.

The signing bonus is due when the player signs....in this case I'm sure the roster bonus is also due at the time of the signing as well. Once a player signs his deal they are free to renegotiate all they want. Feel free to give someone one zillion dollars, but the signing obnus is not negotiable and depending on when the roster bonus is to be paid you had better be prepared to accept it.

 

[BigJim®]

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him.  Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

***Ding Ding Ding***If this is true, it is clear indication that the player wants nothing to do with returning to Seattle. The whole point is to not have the offer matched in the next 7 days, then do whatever it takes to be a Good Viking once the week has passed.

I just don't see it. Why would Hutchinson want away from Seattle, a Superbowl contender, so badly that he'd do this? It's not like he's trying desparately to get away from a loser. To me, the guaranteed clause has enormous value to him, and it's far more likely IMHO that it's what got him to consider leaving the Seahawks in the first place. No player could ignore the potential of what may amount to a 7-year guaranteed contract in an industry where they never are. I just don't see him deciding to give back this guarantee unless he gets handsomely compensated for doing so.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson. Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team. This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

I doubt you can do that. What the point of putting the poison pill in the contract if the team can just change it right away?I am going to pay Hutch ONE ZILLION dollars....oh no team can match...he's ours.....now time to restucture.

If the Vikes could do that, so could the Hawks.

There are no rules about when a player can restructure. The main point is that the contract has to be one that Hutchinson would want to change. The Vikings will likely exchange the guarantee clause for some easily obtainable incentives (Pro Bowl) and Hutchinson will agree to it.

You know what's better than an easily obtainable clause? Guaranteed money. Which seems to be easily attainable for Hutch, by just showing up for work, and waiting (If the poison pill is true). If Hutch's agent has a guaranteed contact on the table, and renegotiates it away, he should be fired.More to the point: What does Hutch gain by renegotiating once the deal is signed?

freedom from seattle.

 

[massraider]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson.  Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team.  This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

You're missing the point - this contract is only so that the Vikings can get him. Once he's a Viking they will restructure the deal and remove that clause.

I doubt you can do that. What the point of putting the poison pill in the contract if the team can just change it right away?I am going to pay Hutch ONE ZILLION dollars....oh no team can match...he's ours.....now time to restucture.

If the Vikes could do that, so could the Hawks.

There are no rules about when a player can restructure. The main point is that the contract has to be one that Hutchinson would want to change. The Vikings will likely exchange the guarantee clause for some easily obtainable incentives (Pro Bowl) and Hutchinson will agree to it.

You know what's better than an easily obtainable clause? Guaranteed money. Which seems to be easily attainable for Hutch, by just showing up for work, and waiting (If the poison pill is true). If Hutch's agent has a guaranteed contact on the table, and renegotiates it away, he should be fired.More to the point: What does Hutch gain by renegotiating once the deal is signed?

freedom from seattle.

He already got that by signing the deal. So why should he renegotiate?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

freedom from seattle.

He would be free, regardless. He could be free and not renegotiate, so I fail to see your point.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

From Hugh Millen, shedding some light on the poison pill clause.....

The contract doesn't guarantee him to be the highest-paid PLAYER on his team, it guarantees him to the highest paid OFFENSIVE LINEMAN on his team.

I would still like clarification on what the 1st year number is and what the clause pertains too? Is it for only the 1st year, for the whole contract in salary, or everything combined?I would also like to hear if that is acceptable to put in contracts and will be approved by the NFL.

 

[cstu]

Let me just clear up what is going on here:

1) Hutchinson has agreed to a deal with the Vikings that he knows will be hard for the Seahawks to match since they already have a higher paid player on the OL (Walter Jones). Most likely he has already worked it out with the Vikings that after he's on the team he will sign a new deal that will substitute the guarantee clause for extra money through incentives. This is not really a huge issue right now since the Vikings don't have any OL who are likely to get more money than Hutchinson.

2) The Seahawks can match the offer if they can get Hutchinson to agree to restructure after he is back with them. This mainly depends on which team Hutchinson wants to play for since the money will be the same and the option is up to him.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Let me just clear up what is going on here:

1) Hutchinson has agreed to a deal with the Vikings that he knows will be hard for the Seahawks to match since they already have a higher paid player on the OL (Walter Jones). Most likely he has already worked it out with the Vikings that after he's on the team he will sign a new deal that will substitute the guarantee clause for extra money through incentives.

2) The Seahawks can match the offer if they can get Hutchinson to agree to restructure after he is back with them. This mainly depends on which team Hutchinson wants to play for since the money will be the same and the option is up to him.

I agree.He can restucture with whatever team he actually wants to play for.

I am skeptical that the Vikes can put a clause like that in the contract. It makes no sense why the Hawks should be punished for having a better lineman than Minny, which is basically what it boils down too. It seems stupid to bring in comparisons to other positions when the comparatives are not even the same. The NFL is asking for trouble is these types of clauses are OKed.

From Seattle board...

For example last year, TE Bubba Franks was a transition tag player. What if we were to sign him with a clause saying that if he isn't the highest paid guy with the initials BF (Brett Favre), all of his contract is guaranteed including a 500% pay increase. That would make it virtually impossible for Green Bay to match and it would all be because of a nit picky clause.

 

[BigJim®]

PFT is reporting that there is a major poison pill in the offer the Vikings made to Hutchinson.  Apparently there is a clause that will automatically guarantee the contract if Hutchinson is not the highest paid player on the team.  This would kill the Seahawks since Walter Jones has a larger contract and would instantly guarantee the entire contract if they matched.

That sounds like the dumbest thing I have heard. Is it just for this year, or is it throughout his whole contract?If its just for this year, then that isn't a problem, if its for the entire contract, then you are saying that Minny's highest paid player for the next 7 years will be a Guard? LOL

I'll admit that I don't know everything there is to know, but this analysis seems odd. If this story is true, they are absolutely not saying their highest paid player will be a guard for the life of the contract. They are saying they will guaratee the entire contract if he isn't. So, it may be that they know he won't be the highest paid player this season when the front loaded contract would have the largest impact on counting everything guaranteed, but treating the contract as fully guaranteed in year 2 if they sign another elite FA it is manageable since at that point the remaining years are cap friendly. On the other hand, if Shaun Alexanders contract is slightly bigger than Hutchinson's, Seattle would immediately need to guarantee the whole chalupa in a way that is unmanageable in year 1. I just don;t think anyone knows enough about this to call it a stupid move, or suggest the Vikes *need* to leave him the highest paid player on the team.

Well, from what I understand, Seattle can pretty much handle any year 1 amount that the Vikings throw out there. Plus, year 1 is essentially guaranteed anyway. It's not like anyone has any intention of cutting Hutchinson in 6 months. Same with year 2. Any salary amounts in year 2 are essentially guaranteed anyway. The years where it become tricky are at the end of the contract. So I actually do think that a clause like that would hamstring the Vikings as well. Either an OG is going to be your highest paid player, or you're going to be guaranteeing probably $8-9M a year in the last years of the contract to sign someone else.

I appreciate your attempt to address the question, but I disagree with your 2 main points. First, you are right that reports are Seattle can handle the cap implications of a standard contract which only forces a team to recognize a pro-ration of guaranteed bonuses and recognize non-guaranteed salaries on a future dates as they pass milestone dates. I have yet to see any assessment of how an immediately guaranteed $49 mil contract will impact year 1. The Vikes likely know they don't need to figure out the year 1 impact to themselves since Hutch would absolutely be their highest paid player this season, but how it impacts Seattle due to Alexander/W.Jones contracts is unquestionably more severe since they now need to figure in typically ungaranteed amounts, prorated or otherwise.

Second, I don't see how the Vikes would ever count $8M-$9M annually even if they triggered the guaranteed provision in a future year. They are reportedly recognizing at least $13M in year one, which would leave at most $36M left to be recognized over the final 6 seasons. That's $6M per season just using common sense, so I can't see how you came up with $8M-$9M for annual cap impacts.

Maybe I'm missing something here.Typically NFL contracts have 4 different components. There's the signing bonus, the salaries for each season, incentives to be earned and roster bonuses.

Signing bonuses are automatically guaranteed so those aren't at issue. The rest are not guaranteed.

So please explain how guaranteeing the contract can create a larger cap hit in year one for one team than the other. Do the incentives accelerate to year one if they are guaranteed? I was under the impression that if incentives were turned into guaranteed money that they could be spread over 6 years?

And they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup. You pay low base salaries at the beginning of the contract and then the base salaries accelerate greatly at the end of the contract. Since those salaries aren't guaranteed the team then cuts the player and takes the remaining signing bonus as a cap charge. If those later years are guaranteed though, the team has no choice but to retain the player.

My point is the contract itself, and how it is structured, will decide what must be recognized as a whole and what must be recognized In a pro-rated manner. For example, if a 2007 roster bonus immediately became guaranteed in 2006, it could force it to be immediately recognized (as a whole) in 2006. If the Vikes were smart, they inserted a 2007 roster bonus they know they do not need to recognize this year, but Seattle would (if Hutch is not their highest paid player). That's my only point; you don't know the immediate impact of guaranteed amounts unless you know specifically what they are.On your point that "they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup" that is generalization beyond reason. It is true that many contracts are backloaded, but that is because teams do not have the cap space to front load. Since McCombs was so cheap, he left the Vikes with plenty of cap room to frontload deals which are actually cap friendly in future years. That's why they have paid Winfield/Smoot/Sharper immediately recognized roster bonuses as opposed to pro-rated signing bonuses used by other teams. The Vikes can easily honor these deals in future years because the big cap impacts are behind them. That's why it makes no sense to assume they are backloading this deal. They clearly aren't.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

freedom from seattle.

He would be free, regardless. He could be free and not renegotiate, so I fail to see your point.

If he really didn't want seattle to match it, I would assume there was a prearranged discussion with the vikings of how to keep the deal from being matched given the seahawks cap space. Because of the space the seahawks have, they couldn't do it with year-one cap space alone without crippling the Vikings as well. Instead they had to find a clause that would kill the Hawks, but not the Vikings. They would have to agree to include the clause, but then presumably also agree to remove it once seattle didn't match it. If that was the agreement and then they decide not to take it back out, the agent would probably be blackballed from ever negotiating with another team (except maybe seattle ) But Hutch would still get his guarantee once the vikes hit that condition. Maybe the vikings never expect to pay anyone enough to hit that clause, but I think it's as least as likely they (both sides) agreed to put it in temporarily just to keep the deal from being matched.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Let me just clear up what is going on here:

1) Hutchinson has agreed to a deal with the Vikings that he knows will be hard for the Seahawks to match since they already have a higher paid player on the OL (Walter Jones).  Most likely he has already worked it out with the Vikings that after he's on the team he will sign a new deal that will substitute the guarantee clause for extra money through incentives.

2) The Seahawks can match the offer if they can get Hutchinson to agree to restructure after he is back with them.  This mainly depends on which team Hutchinson wants to play for since the money will be the same and the option is up to him.

I agree.He can restucture with whatever team he actually wants to play for.

I am skeptical that the Vikes can put a clause like that in the contract. It makes no sense why the Hawks should be punished for having a better lineman than Minny, which is basically what it boils down too. It seems stupid to bring in comparisons to other positions when the comparatives are not even the same. The NFL is asking for trouble is these types of clauses are OKed.

From Seattle board...

For example last year, TE Bubba Franks was a transition tag player. What if we were to sign him with a clause saying that if he isn't the highest paid guy with the initials BF (Brett Favre), all of his contract is guaranteed including a 500% pay increase. That would make it virtually impossible for Green Bay to match and it would all be because of a nit picky clause.

I need an MBA and a new abacus to figure out what has been said here. This is quite an amazing string of events and I still don't think we know for sure anything outside of the obvious. I want to see more on this poison pill stuff and also find out what the NFL might do if someone renegotiated a contract within 365 days of signing.

 

[GroveDiesel]

freedom from seattle.

He would be free, regardless. He could be free and not renegotiate, so I fail to see your point.

If he really didn't want seattle to match it, I would assume there was a prearranged discussion with the vikings of how to keep the deal from being matched given the seahawks cap space. Because of the space the seahawks have, they couldn't do it with year-one cap space alone without crippling the Vikings as well. Instead they had to find a clause that would kill the Hawks, but not the Vikings. They would have to agree to include the clause, but then presumably also agree to remove it once seattle didn't match it. If that was the agreement and then they decide not to take it back out, the agent would probably be blackballed from ever negotiating with another team (except maybe seattle ) But Hutch would still get his guarantee once the vikes hit that condition. Maybe the vikings never expect to pay anyone enough to hit that clause, but I think it's as least as likely they (both sides) agreed to put it in temporarily just to keep the deal from being matched.

If they did indeed have an agreement with the agent like that and the NFL found out, then not only would the contract be automatically voided, but the Vikings would be looking at serious consequences. You can only have one deal in place at a time, you can not make contingency deals.

 

[GregR_2]

If they did indeed have an agreement with the agent like that and the NFL found out, then not only would the contract be automatically voided, but the Vikings would be looking at serious consequences. You can only have one deal in place at a time, you can not make contingency deals.

Exactly

 

[BigJim®]

freedom from seattle.

He would be free, regardless. He could be free and not renegotiate, so I fail to see your point.

If he really didn't want seattle to match it, I would assume there was a prearranged discussion with the vikings of how to keep the deal from being matched given the seahawks cap space. Because of the space the seahawks have, they couldn't do it with year-one cap space alone without crippling the Vikings as well. Instead they had to find a clause that would kill the Hawks, but not the Vikings. They would have to agree to include the clause, but then presumably also agree to remove it once seattle didn't match it. If that was the agreement and then they decide not to take it back out, the agent would probably be blackballed from ever negotiating with another team (except maybe seattle ) But Hutch would still get his guarantee once the vikes hit that condition. Maybe the vikings never expect to pay anyone enough to hit that clause, but I think it's as least as likely they (both sides) agreed to put it in temporarily just to keep the deal from being matched.

If they did indeed have an agreement with the agent like that and the NFL found out, then not only would the contract be automatically voided, but the Vikings would be looking at serious consequences. You can only have one deal in place at a time, you can not make contingency deals.

The NFL offices need to review and approve any contractual agreement.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Why in God's name didn't Seattle franchise Hutchinson?  That was a boner of epic proportions - all it did, by not providing for compensation were Hutchinson to sign elsewhere, was give other teams a free ticket to load up a contract like the Vikes did.  Teams wouldn't be floating an "unmatchable" deal if they knew up fron they were going to have to part with a first and third round draft pick as part of the bargain.  Now, Seattle, having saved a whopping $600K (or whatever it was) in their tender for the transition tag, rather than franchise tag, are going to end up paying him more per season (and if the Poison Pill holds up, WAY more) than they would have under the franchise tag anyway.

Baffling move by Seattle.

Two lines of thought: One is that Seattle would have had to pony up some 8.3 million next year to franchise him and figured that if they franchised him this year, there was no way they would be able to sign him to a long term deal. They were going to have to pay a hefty first year salary regardless so let the market determine that price and with all the CBA stuff, they knew they would likely get more room to re-sign him. Plus the whole Walter Jones thing, tehy don't want to go through that again. Two is the fact that they drafted Chris Spencer with their #1 pick last year and they have the best #6 lineman in pro football in Floyd Womack. So they would try to save on Hutchinson and if they didn't they would let him fly.

I don't think this was a boneheaded move to the degree that they were trying to play it perfectly and maybe it just didn't work out perfectly. To me they have put the organization in the best position long-term but this does pose a few questions for the upcoming season. But to me with or without Hutchinson they still will have one of the best if not the best line in pro football.

Who knows. I heard all this crap right here about how Alexander's numbers were padded by his line but I don't hear anything now about how it's possible Steve Hutchinson may be a little more valuable playing next to THE BEST LINEMAN IN PRO FOOTBALL, BAR NONE. Maybe the Seahawks thought this all out.

That's the only way it makes sense - if they were prepared to let him walk. Transition tagging him rather than franchise tagging him was basically an invitation to other teams to break out their heavy artillery. I think his agent let him know that and that's why he worked with the Vikings to negotiate a deal that Seattle would choke on.The Vikings are also taking a risk here. They now cannot sign anyone for over $7m per under any circumstances unless they want to guarantee this entire contract, which is risky. If that happens, and Hutchinson destroys his knee a week later, they're on the hook for $50 million to a guy who will never play again.

 

[GroveDiesel]

My point is the contract itself, and how it is structured, will decide what must be recognized as a whole and what must be recognized In a pro-rated manner. For example, if a 2007 roster bonus immediately became guaranteed in 2006, it could force it to be immediately recognized (as a whole) in 2006. If the Vikes were smart, they inserted a 2007 roster bonus they know they do not need to recognize this year, but Seattle would (if Hutch is not their highest paid player). That's my only point; you don't know the immediate impact of guaranteed amounts unless you know specifically what they are.

On your point that "they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup" that is generalization beyond reason. It is true that many contracts are backloaded, but that is because teams do not have the cap space to front load. Since McCombs was so cheap, he left the Vikes with plenty of cap room to frontload deals which are actually cap friendly in future years. That's why they have paid Winfield/Smoot/Sharper immediately recognized roster bonuses as opposed to pro-rated signing bonuses used by other teams. The Vikes can easily honor these deals in future years because the big cap impacts are behind them. That's why it makes no sense to assume they are backloading this deal. They clearly aren't.

The problem is that the CBA governs what can be pro-rated and what has to be paid upfront. A team can't just say "well, this 2008 roster bonus will be treated as pro-rated money unless it becomes guaranteed before that in which case it's due immediately and all cap charges will accelerate to that year." The CBA governs how certain money is allocated against the cap. I'm fairly certain that a future roster bonus that is converted to guaranteed money can be spread out over the remainder of the contract. I understand what you're saying as far as an immediate roster bonus, but that would mean that the particular "guaranteed money poison pill" we're discussing would be pointless. If the Vikings are going to pay him so much upfront already with a roster bonus that Seattle couldn't match, why have a provision that would actually make it easier for them to match? The roster bonus is an immediate cap charge while the guaranteed money could be spread out over the life of the contract.

I do not discount that the Vikings actually have a provision that makes it nearly impossible for Seattle to match, I just don't think that it's the one that PFT says. I think that it's more likely that they simply have a large immediate roster bonus due.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

freedom from seattle.

He would be free, regardless. He could be free and not renegotiate, so I fail to see your point.

If he really didn't want seattle to match it, I would assume there was a prearranged discussion with the vikings of how to keep the deal from being matched given the seahawks cap space. Because of the space the seahawks have, they couldn't do it with year-one cap space alone without crippling the Vikings as well. Instead they had to find a clause that would kill the Hawks, but not the Vikings. They would have to agree to include the clause, but then presumably also agree to remove it once seattle didn't match it. If that was the agreement and then they decide not to take it back out, the agent would probably be blackballed from ever negotiating with another team (except maybe seattle ) But Hutch would still get his guarantee once the vikes hit that condition. Maybe the vikings never expect to pay anyone enough to hit that clause, but I think it's as least as likely they (both sides) agreed to put it in temporarily just to keep the deal from being matched.

If they did indeed have an agreement with the agent like that and the NFL found out, then not only would the contract be automatically voided, but the Vikings would be looking at serious consequences. You can only have one deal in place at a time, you can not make contingency deals.

Teams talk about "agreeing to renegotiate" all the time. There are several cases where players are not allowed to perform certain types of renegotiations until a certain time, but they reach agreement ahead of time. I think John St. Clair was this case. For some reason, the Bears couldn't resign him to a new deal in the offseason under his current contract. But they cut him and signed him to a long term deal the next day. Sure he was a free agent and could have shopped himself around to anyone, but Nudge, Nudge, Wink, wink, say no more, he signed a long term deal with his old team. You don't think there was an agreement in place already?None of it is binding, and like I said, if Hutch wanted to be a hardass he could stick to his deal as written and the Vikes couldn't do anything to him except eventually cut him once the cap hit wasn't too bad..

 

[Franknbeans]

No way Seattle will match this offer, if they do their done signing any players this year, and will have to redo some contracts of existing players just to sign their draft picks.  It appears the Vikes have out foxed the Hawks

Not even remotely close. Read Clayton's latest on it. Seattle will match this contract quite easily, actually. And they will. Very soon. End of story.

Got a link?

from MMQBI think the Vikings' offer sheet for Steve Hutchinson is obviously incredible -- seven years, $49 million, making him by far the highest-paid guard in NFL history -- but I also think there's not a poison pill in there for Seattle. My guess is the Seahawks will match. The best contract for a guard previously: the $5.4 million average that Carolina gave Mike Wahle last year in free agency. This beats it by $1.6 million a year. And though I think Hutchinson would like to go, it makes sense for Seattle to match. I realize paying an interior lineman so much isn't normally prudent, but think of the great running game Seattle has. It's predicated on the left side of the line being great, with Walter Jones and Hutchinson leading the way for Shaun Alexander. Imagine, to keep that symphonic running game intact you've got to pay six percent of your salary cap to one of the three players. To me, it's a no-brainer. With $14 million in guaranteed money in the first 12 months of the deal and the ability to spread it over a long period for cap purposes, I think it's a manageable contract for Seattle.

 

[reg]

freedom from seattle.

He would be free, regardless. He could be free and not renegotiate, so I fail to see your point.

If he really didn't want seattle to match it, I would assume there was a prearranged discussion with the vikings of how to keep the deal from being matched given the seahawks cap space. Because of the space the seahawks have, they couldn't do it with year-one cap space alone without crippling the Vikings as well. Instead they had to find a clause that would kill the Hawks, but not the Vikings. They would have to agree to include the clause, but then presumably also agree to remove it once seattle didn't match it. If that was the agreement and then they decide not to take it back out, the agent would probably be blackballed from ever negotiating with another team (except maybe seattle ) But Hutch would still get his guarantee once the vikes hit that condition. Maybe the vikings never expect to pay anyone enough to hit that clause, but I think it's as least as likely they (both sides) agreed to put it in temporarily just to keep the deal from being matched.

If they did indeed have an agreement with the agent like that and the NFL found out, then not only would the contract be automatically voided, but the Vikings would be looking at serious consequences. You can only have one deal in place at a time, you can not make contingency deals.

The NFL offices need to review and approve any contractual agreement.

Brrrrrzinski should ask McHale for some info on how to get around those pesky league offices.

 

[cstu]

No way Seattle will match this offer, if they do their done signing any players this year, and will have to redo some contracts of existing players just to sign their draft picks. It appears the Vikes have out foxed the Hawks

Not even remotely close. Read Clayton's latest on it. Seattle will match this contract quite easily, actually. And they will. Very soon. End of story.

Got a link?

from MMQBI think the Vikings' offer sheet for Steve Hutchinson is obviously incredible -- seven years, $49 million, making him by far the highest-paid guard in NFL history -- but I also think there's not a poison pill in there for Seattle. My guess is the Seahawks will match. The best contract for a guard previously: the $5.4 million average that Carolina gave Mike Wahle last year in free agency. This beats it by $1.6 million a year. And though I think Hutchinson would like to go, it makes sense for Seattle to match. I realize paying an interior lineman so much isn't normally prudent, but think of the great running game Seattle has. It's predicated on the left side of the line being great, with Walter Jones and Hutchinson leading the way for Shaun Alexander. Imagine, to keep that symphonic running game intact you've got to pay six percent of your salary cap to one of the three players. To me, it's a no-brainer. With $14 million in guaranteed money in the first 12 months of the deal and the ability to spread it over a long period for cap purposes, I think it's a manageable contract for Seattle.

The Vikings would not go through all of the trouble to work out a deal with Hutch if they knew it was a deal Seattle could match.

 

[Franknbeans]

No way Seattle will match this offer, if they do their done signing any players this year, and will have to redo some contracts of existing players just to sign their draft picks.  It appears the Vikes have out foxed the Hawks

Not even remotely close. Read Clayton's latest on it. Seattle will match this contract quite easily, actually. And they will. Very soon. End of story.

Got a link?

from MMQBI think the Vikings' offer sheet for Steve Hutchinson is obviously incredible -- seven years, $49 million, making him by far the highest-paid guard in NFL history -- but I also think there's not a poison pill in there for Seattle. My guess is the Seahawks will match. The best contract for a guard previously: the $5.4 million average that Carolina gave Mike Wahle last year in free agency. This beats it by $1.6 million a year. And though I think Hutchinson would like to go, it makes sense for Seattle to match. I realize paying an interior lineman so much isn't normally prudent, but think of the great running game Seattle has. It's predicated on the left side of the line being great, with Walter Jones and Hutchinson leading the way for Shaun Alexander. Imagine, to keep that symphonic running game intact you've got to pay six percent of your salary cap to one of the three players. To me, it's a no-brainer. With $14 million in guaranteed money in the first 12 months of the deal and the ability to spread it over a long period for cap purposes, I think it's a manageable contract for Seattle.

The Vikings would not go through all of the trouble to work out a deal with Hutch if they knew it was a deal Seattle could match.

We will soon see. These are the same Vikings who had trouble getting their draft pick made in time, no?

 

[cstu]

Why in God's name didn't Seattle franchise Hutchinson? That was a boner of epic proportions - all it did, by not providing for compensation were Hutchinson to sign elsewhere, was give other teams a free ticket to load up a contract like the Vikes did. Teams wouldn't be floating an "unmatchable" deal if they knew up fron they were going to have to part with a first and third round draft pick as part of the bargain. Now, Seattle, having saved a whopping $600K (or whatever it was) in their tender for the transition tag, rather than franchise tag, are going to end up paying him more per season (and if the Poison Pill holds up, WAY more) than they would have under the franchise tag anyway.

Baffling move by Seattle.

Two lines of thought: One is that Seattle would have had to pony up some 8.3 million next year to franchise him and figured that if they franchised him this year, there was no way they would be able to sign him to a long term deal. They were going to have to pay a hefty first year salary regardless so let the market determine that price and with all the CBA stuff, they knew they would likely get more room to re-sign him. Plus the whole Walter Jones thing, tehy don't want to go through that again. Two is the fact that they drafted Chris Spencer with their #1 pick last year and they have the best #6 lineman in pro football in Floyd Womack. So they would try to save on Hutchinson and if they didn't they would let him fly.

I don't think this was a boneheaded move to the degree that they were trying to play it perfectly and maybe it just didn't work out perfectly. To me they have put the organization in the best position long-term but this does pose a few questions for the upcoming season. But to me with or without Hutchinson they still will have one of the best if not the best line in pro football.

Who knows. I heard all this crap right here about how Alexander's numbers were padded by his line but I don't hear anything now about how it's possible Steve Hutchinson may be a little more valuable playing next to THE BEST LINEMAN IN PRO FOOTBALL, BAR NONE. Maybe the Seahawks thought this all out.

That's the only way it makes sense - if they were prepared to let him walk. Transition tagging him rather than franchise tagging him was basically an invitation to other teams to break out their heavy artillery. I think his agent let him know that and that's why he worked with the Vikings to negotiate a deal that Seattle would choke on.The Vikings are also taking a risk here. They now cannot sign anyone for over $7m per under any circumstances unless they want to guarantee this entire contract, which is risky. If that happens, and Hutchinson destroys his knee a week later, they're on the hook for $50 million to a guy who will never play again.

The deal is apparently that he has to be the highest paid OL, not just any player. The Vikings are very unlikely to sign an offensive lineman who will cost more than $7M a year. If they really wanted someone they could sign a guy for $6.9M a year and a larger bonus.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

No way Seattle will match this offer, if they do their done signing any players this year, and will have to redo some contracts of existing players just to sign their draft picks. It appears the Vikes have out foxed the Hawks

Not even remotely close. Read Clayton's latest on it. Seattle will match this contract quite easily, actually. And they will. Very soon. End of story.

Got a link?

from MMQBI think the Vikings' offer sheet for Steve Hutchinson is obviously incredible -- seven years, $49 million, making him by far the highest-paid guard in NFL history -- but I also think there's not a poison pill in there for Seattle. My guess is the Seahawks will match. The best contract for a guard previously: the $5.4 million average that Carolina gave Mike Wahle last year in free agency. This beats it by $1.6 million a year. And though I think Hutchinson would like to go, it makes sense for Seattle to match. I realize paying an interior lineman so much isn't normally prudent, but think of the great running game Seattle has. It's predicated on the left side of the line being great, with Walter Jones and Hutchinson leading the way for Shaun Alexander. Imagine, to keep that symphonic running game intact you've got to pay six percent of your salary cap to one of the three players. To me, it's a no-brainer. With $14 million in guaranteed money in the first 12 months of the deal and the ability to spread it over a long period for cap purposes, I think it's a manageable contract for Seattle.

The Vikings would not go through all of the trouble to work out a deal with Hutch if they knew it was a deal Seattle could match.

They probably know Seattle can match it, but this deal at least makes Seattle think twice about it.Minny is going to have to live with the contract if Seattle doesn't match it, so its not as if they can offer an infinite amount.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

No way Seattle will match this offer, if they do their done signing any players this year, and will have to redo some contracts of existing players just to sign their draft picks.  It appears the Vikes have out foxed the Hawks

Not even remotely close. Read Clayton's latest on it. Seattle will match this contract quite easily, actually. And they will. Very soon. End of story.

Got a link?

from MMQBI think the Vikings' offer sheet for Steve Hutchinson is obviously incredible -- seven years, $49 million, making him by far the highest-paid guard in NFL history -- but I also think there's not a poison pill in there for Seattle. My guess is the Seahawks will match. The best contract for a guard previously: the $5.4 million average that Carolina gave Mike Wahle last year in free agency. This beats it by $1.6 million a year. And though I think Hutchinson would like to go, it makes sense for Seattle to match. I realize paying an interior lineman so much isn't normally prudent, but think of the great running game Seattle has. It's predicated on the left side of the line being great, with Walter Jones and Hutchinson leading the way for Shaun Alexander. Imagine, to keep that symphonic running game intact you've got to pay six percent of your salary cap to one of the three players. To me, it's a no-brainer. With $14 million in guaranteed money in the first 12 months of the deal and the ability to spread it over a long period for cap purposes, I think it's a manageable contract for Seattle.

The Vikings would not go through all of the trouble to work out a deal with Hutch if they knew it was a deal Seattle could match.

I think they would if it puts Seattle in a bad position. I'm still waiting to hear another source on this poison pill stuff which I think is a bit shaddy on the information front.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Why in God's name didn't Seattle franchise Hutchinson?  That was a boner of epic proportions - all it did, by not providing for compensation were Hutchinson to sign elsewhere, was give other teams a free ticket to load up a contract like the Vikes did.  Teams wouldn't be floating an "unmatchable" deal if they knew up fron they were going to have to part with a first and third round draft pick as part of the bargain.  Now, Seattle, having saved a whopping $600K (or whatever it was) in their tender for the transition tag, rather than franchise tag, are going to end up paying him more per season (and if the Poison Pill holds up, WAY more) than they would have under the franchise tag anyway.

Baffling move by Seattle.

Two lines of thought: One is that Seattle would have had to pony up some 8.3 million next year to franchise him and figured that if they franchised him this year, there was no way they would be able to sign him to a long term deal. They were going to have to pay a hefty first year salary regardless so let the market determine that price and with all the CBA stuff, they knew they would likely get more room to re-sign him. Plus the whole Walter Jones thing, tehy don't want to go through that again. Two is the fact that they drafted Chris Spencer with their #1 pick last year and they have the best #6 lineman in pro football in Floyd Womack. So they would try to save on Hutchinson and if they didn't they would let him fly.

I don't think this was a boneheaded move to the degree that they were trying to play it perfectly and maybe it just didn't work out perfectly. To me they have put the organization in the best position long-term but this does pose a few questions for the upcoming season. But to me with or without Hutchinson they still will have one of the best if not the best line in pro football.

Who knows. I heard all this crap right here about how Alexander's numbers were padded by his line but I don't hear anything now about how it's possible Steve Hutchinson may be a little more valuable playing next to THE BEST LINEMAN IN PRO FOOTBALL, BAR NONE. Maybe the Seahawks thought this all out.

That's the only way it makes sense - if they were prepared to let him walk. Transition tagging him rather than franchise tagging him was basically an invitation to other teams to break out their heavy artillery. I think his agent let him know that and that's why he worked with the Vikings to negotiate a deal that Seattle would choke on.The Vikings are also taking a risk here. They now cannot sign anyone for over $7m per under any circumstances unless they want to guarantee this entire contract, which is risky. If that happens, and Hutchinson destroys his knee a week later, they're on the hook for $50 million to a guy who will never play again.

The deal is apparently that he has to be the highest paid OL, not just any player. The Vikings are very unlikely to sign an offensive lineman who will cost more than $7M a year. If they really wanted someone they could sign a guy for $6.9M a year and a larger bonus.

That makes a lot more sense. I thought the original post specified he had to be their highest paid PLAYER, which would be rough.