Vikes Sign Hutchinson to Offer Sheet (1 Viewer)

[fridayfrenzy]

I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

Yeah, and if Seattle had done this I'm sure you'd unable to see how the NFL could overturn it. Perspective is everything.

Nope, I would see how this deal is unfair for any team.

seems fine to me. I'd be very surprised if it was not allowed.

Not acocridng to Sando..

The more I hear, the more I tend to think the poison-pill stuff is not a factor, and that the first-year cap hit is in that $8.585 million range. But I'm also wondering if the Seahawks could promise not to match in exchange for compensation. Things are a bit confusing now as the league comes out of the new labor agreement.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/

 

[Raskell5]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

It will be the same for both teams. If Hutch is ever not the highest paid OL on the Vikes he gets guaranteed fully. Nice deal for him and his family.

The contract only says that he has to be the highest on the team in 2006...not ever. Could the Seahawks get Jones to restructure and make 6.99999 million for this coming season??

No, Jones just redid his contract. He can't do anything again for a year. He's stuck with it till 2007.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

It will be the same for both teams. If Hutch is ever not the highest paid OL on the Vikes he gets guaranteed fully. Nice deal for him and his family.

The contract only says that he has to be the highest on the team in 2006...not ever. Could the Seahawks get Jones to restructure and make 6.99999 million for this coming season??

No, Jones just redid his contract. He can't do anything again for a year. He's stuck with it till 2007.

He signed in 2005. Why can't he restructure his contract right now?

 

[BigJim®]

I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

Yeah, and if Seattle had done this I'm sure you'd unable to see how the NFL could overturn it. Perspective is everything.

Nope, I would see how this deal is unfair for any team.

seems fine to me. I'd be very surprised if it was not allowed.

Not acocridng to Sando..

The more I hear, the more I tend to think the poison-pill stuff is not a factor, and that the first-year cap hit is in that $8.585 million range. But I'm also wondering if the Seahawks could promise not to match in exchange for compensation. Things are a bit confusing now as the league comes out of the new labor agreement.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/

Well, your source here has proven himself to not know jack about anything. Seattle absolutely cannot, as he suggests, ask for or get anything not to match.Article XX, Section 5 incorporates by reference Article XIX, Section 3(h), which says that "[t]here may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club's decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal." This means that the Seahawks can't ask the Vikings for anything of value not to match the offersheet.

"...the poison pill stuff is not a factor." I'm sure that is why a capologist inserted it, so it wouldn't be a factor. How about we revisit these great arguments in 6 days or so.

 

[homebrumiester]

By Adam SchefterSpecial to NFL.com QUOTE]Seattle does have one other option, but it is highly risky. It can match the offer sheet and appeal the terms of the offer sheet to the NFL's Management Council. A Special Master would hear the appeal and if it ruled against the Seahawks, Seattle would be obligated to pay Hutchinson $50 million. It's probably a gamble the Seahawks cannot afford to take.

I for one as a Hawk fan don't want to risk losing this battle. I say let him go

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

Yeah, and if Seattle had done this I'm sure you'd unable to see how the NFL could overturn it. Perspective is everything.

Nope, I would see how this deal is unfair for any team.

seems fine to me. I'd be very surprised if it was not allowed.

Not acocridng to Sando..

The more I hear, the more I tend to think the poison-pill stuff is not a factor, and that the first-year cap hit is in that $8.585 million range. But I'm also wondering if the Seahawks could promise not to match in exchange for compensation. Things are a bit confusing now as the league comes out of the new labor agreement.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/

Well, your source here has proven himself to not know jack about anything. Seattle absolutely cannot, as he suggests, ask for or get anything not to match.Article XX, Section 5 incorporates by reference Article XIX, Section 3(h), which says that "[t]here may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club's decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal." This means that the Seahawks can't ask the Vikings for anything of value not to match the offersheet.

That is from the new CBA?

 

[BigJim®]

I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

Yeah, and if Seattle had done this I'm sure you'd unable to see how the NFL could overturn it. Perspective is everything.

Nope, I would see how this deal is unfair for any team.

seems fine to me. I'd be very surprised if it was not allowed.

Not acocridng to Sando..

The more I hear, the more I tend to think the poison-pill stuff is not a factor, and that the first-year cap hit is in that $8.585 million range. But I'm also wondering if the Seahawks could promise not to match in exchange for compensation. Things are a bit confusing now as the league comes out of the new labor agreement.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/

Well, your source here has proven himself to not know jack about anything. Seattle absolutely cannot, as he suggests, ask for or get anything not to match.Article XX, Section 5 incorporates by reference Article XIX, Section 3(h), which says that "[t]here may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club's decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal." This means that the Seahawks can't ask the Vikings for anything of value not to match the offersheet.

That is from the new CBA?

I'm guessing a general concept such as this would not have changed. I certainly wouldn't assume it did. They didn;t rewrite the whole thing. I guess we'll see in 6 days, won't we.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

Yeah, and if Seattle had done this I'm sure you'd unable to see how the NFL could overturn it. Perspective is everything.

Nope, I would see how this deal is unfair for any team.

seems fine to me. I'd be very surprised if it was not allowed.

Not acocridng to Sando..

The more I hear, the more I tend to think the poison-pill stuff is not a factor, and that the first-year cap hit is in that $8.585 million range. But I'm also wondering if the Seahawks could promise not to match in exchange for compensation. Things are a bit confusing now as the league comes out of the new labor agreement.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/

Well, your source here has proven himself to not know jack about anything. Seattle absolutely cannot, as he suggests, ask for or get anything not to match.Article XX, Section 5 incorporates by reference Article XIX, Section 3(h), which says that "[t]here may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club's decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal." This means that the Seahawks can't ask the Vikings for anything of value not to match the offersheet.

That is from the new CBA?

I guess we'll see in 6 days, won't we.

My point is that Sando was questioning that idea because there is a new CBA. It doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[ratpfink]

I don't think there is a "new" CBA. They extended the existing CBA, and reworked some of the details in it. Or at least that's what nflpa.org has me thinking.

 

[pigskin pimp]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

It will be the same for both teams. If Hutch is ever not the highest paid OL on the Vikes he gets guaranteed fully. Nice deal for him and his family.

The contract only says that he has to be the highest on the team in 2006...not ever. Could the Seahawks get Jones to restructure and make 6.99999 million for this coming season??

I can see it now. Seattle's management approaches Jones."Hey, Wally, let's re-do your contract again. Take $500,001 less this year, screw your teammate out of $36 million in guaranteed money, and we'll add that $500,001 plus a little extra onto 2007 as a roster bonus."

 

[fridayfrenzy]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

It will be the same for both teams. If Hutch is ever not the highest paid OL on the Vikes he gets guaranteed fully. Nice deal for him and his family.

The contract only says that he has to be the highest on the team in 2006...not ever. Could the Seahawks get Jones to restructure and make 6.99999 million for this coming season??

I can see it now. Seattle's management approaches Jones."Hey, Wally, let's re-do your contract again. Take $500,001 less this year, screw your teammate out of $36 million in guaranteed money, and we'll add that $500,001 plus a little extra onto 2007 as a roster bonus."

Makes no difference cause he wouldnt see it in Minny either. Its just a clause to ensure Seattle doesn't match.It appears Hutch doesnt want to go back to Seattle, beccause his agent is the one that supposedly coined the poison pill clause. That can only mean he doesn't want to be back and as such, can't see Ruskell matching an offer for a player that doesn't want to be there.

 

[JMon348]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

It will be the same for both teams. If Hutch is ever not the highest paid OL on the Vikes he gets guaranteed fully. Nice deal for him and his family.

The contract only says that he has to be the highest on the team in 2006...not ever. Could the Seahawks get Jones to restructure and make 6.99999 million for this coming season??

I can see it now. Seattle's management approaches Jones."Hey, Wally, let's re-do your contract again. Take $500,001 less this year, screw your teammate out of $36 million in guaranteed money, and we'll add that $500,001 plus a little extra onto 2007 as a roster bonus."

Makes no difference cause he wouldnt see it in Minny either. Its just a clause to ensure Seattle doesn't match.It appears Hutch doesnt want to go back to Seattle, beccause his agent is the one that supposedly coined the poison pill clause. That can only mean he doesn't want to be back and as such, can't see Ruskell matching an offer for a player that doesn't want to be there.

bro i understand that you want to keep hutch and all but some of your arguments are ..................face it the best guard in the nfl will now be a viking

 

[fridayfrenzy]

bro i understand that you want to keep hutch and all but some of your arguments are ..................face it the best guard in the nfl will now be a viking

First off, I fully support the FOs' decision on Hutch, one way or another it is going to suck for the Hawks. Either they lose Hutch, or they pay a hefty sum. My arguments aren't about keeping Hutch, its about the offer sheet signed. What is the matter with my argument that the clause is completely unfair? Like I said before, the clause essentially makes it a different deal for each team and Seattle isn't having to match the Vikings, but essentially do alot more. I just don't see how that is fair and under good spirit of the CBA.

If you don't agree with me, then so be it, but my argument is completely valid and if the Hawks are wanting Hutch, then they are no doubtedly looking into the fairness of that clause as well.

Heck, on NFL.com, they mention how the Hawks could put forward a grievance about the clause, so I am not out to lunch.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

"Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season

Walter Jones' base salary for 2006 is 2 million plus the pro-rated signing bonus.If in fact Hutch is set to make 5.85 million in salary plus pro-rated sining bonues, then what am I missing with this poison pill clause?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

"Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season

I like Adam but I think he made a mistake when discussing this situation on the NFL network earlier tonight. He said if the Seahawks matched the offer sheet, they'd have to pay Hutchinson $50 million in cash right away. However, just because the money is guaranteed doesn't mean they have to pay it all right away. That didn't make much sense to me.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

"Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season

I like Adam but I think he made a mistake when discussing this situation on the NFL network earlier tonight. He said if the Seahawks matched the offer sheet, they'd have to pay Hutchinson $50 million in cash right away. However, just because the money is guaranteed doesn't mean they have to pay it all right away. That didn't make much sense to me.

Why is this situation so cloudy?Are the terms of the contract usually not released? I just don't see how no one knows whats going on and why no one is releasing the proper information with certainty.

Right now, everyone is going on heresay.

 

[encaitar]

"Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season

I like Adam but I think he made a mistake when discussing this situation on the NFL network earlier tonight. He said if the Seahawks matched the offer sheet, they'd have to pay Hutchinson $50 million in cash right away. However, just because the money is guaranteed doesn't mean they have to pay it all right away. That didn't make much sense to me.

Well, actually it probably does mean that most would have to be paid out right away. If the contract states that the now "guaranteed" contract must be paid as a signing bonus then that money would be due to Hutch now. It would be prorated over the next five years minus the roster bonus which would also hit this year, but it would be paid in cash now. (not something an owner is likely to jump on board with)

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

"Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season

I like Adam but I think he made a mistake when discussing this situation on the NFL network earlier tonight. He said if the Seahawks matched the offer sheet, they'd have to pay Hutchinson $50 million in cash right away. However, just because the money is guaranteed doesn't mean they have to pay it all right away. That didn't make much sense to me.

Well, actually it probably does mean that most would have to be paid out right away. If the contract states that the now "guaranteed" contract must be paid as a signing bonus then that money would be due to Hutch now. It would be prorated over the next five years minus the roster bonus which would also hit this year, but it would be paid in cash now. (not something an owner is likely to jump on board with)

guaranteed money doesn't have to come in the form of a signing bonus though. if what you are saying is correct, then they should report it that way when talking about the clause. otherwise, just saying "the entire contract would be guaranteed" is misleading.

 

[encaitar]

"Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season

I like Adam but I think he made a mistake when discussing this situation on the NFL network earlier tonight. He said if the Seahawks matched the offer sheet, they'd have to pay Hutchinson $50 million in cash right away. However, just because the money is guaranteed doesn't mean they have to pay it all right away. That didn't make much sense to me.

Well, actually it probably does mean that most would have to be paid out right away. If the contract states that the now "guaranteed" contract must be paid as a signing bonus then that money would be due to Hutch now. It would be prorated over the next five years minus the roster bonus which would also hit this year, but it would be paid in cash now. (not something an owner is likely to jump on board with)

guaranteed money doesn't have to come in the form of a signing bonus though. if what you are saying is correct, then they should report it that way when talking about the clause. otherwise, just saying "the entire contract would be guaranteed" is misleading.

That's true that it just might be guaranteed in the sense that they pay him no matter what happens. However, if he breaks his back next year and can no longer play football, all of his guaranteed money (at that point, about 35 million) would be due immediately and would hit the cap immediately. More likely this is what is true of the contract and why it is such a risk to the Seahawks.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

The collective-bargaining agreement states a team must match the "principal terms." Whether those provisions constitute principal terms is going to be subject to clarification. Hutchinson's agent did not return a message and the Seahawks declined to comment on the offer sheet.

So what this means is that we don't even know if this contract fits the "principal terms" bill and the Seahawks are likely seeking clarification on that. This contract, this story, and this converstation has a ton of twists and turns and I don't think we are going to know anything until the Seahawks, the Vikings, or the Hutchinson party release more info. I want to concentrate on the NCAA Tournament and I get this. Thanks Steve!

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

 

[NoCheese]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

Ya know, this whole Hutchinson offer sheet deal is a fiasco. If the league allows the poison pill, they cannot and WILL NOT match. If the poison pill is ruled "unconstitutional", they will match. I can't see how these reporters can claim to know the answer to an unprecedented scenario which is still unfolding. It all hinges on the bleeping poison pill. When will people get that? I hear these reports they're leaning toward matching when Walter Jones CAN'T restructure his deal, so ALL $49 million would be GUARANTEED (to a guard, not Peyton Manning) There is less than a 1% chance they match if the poison pill is allowed. Rant over.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

Ya know, this whole Hutchinson offer sheet deal is a fiasco. If the league allows the poison pill, they cannot and WILL NOT match. If the poison pill is ruled "unconstitutional", they will match. I can't see how these reporters can claim to know the answer to an unprecedented scenario which is still unfolding. It all hinges on the bleeping poison pill. When will people get that? I hear these reports they're leaning toward matching when Walter Jones CAN'T restructure his deal, so ALL $49 million would be GUARANTEED (to a guard, not Peyton Manning) There is less than a 1% chance they match if the poison pill is allowed. Rant over.

First of all....It remains to be seen if this poison pill clause actually exists on the offer sheet. No one has ever ackowledged it as fact yet.Second...why can't Walter Jones restructure his contract? Not that he would just so his teammate makes less money, but why CAN'T he?

 

[cstu]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

Ya know, this whole Hutchinson offer sheet deal is a fiasco. If the league allows the poison pill, they cannot and WILL NOT match. If the poison pill is ruled "unconstitutional", they will match. I can't see how these reporters can claim to know the answer to an unprecedented scenario which is still unfolding. It all hinges on the bleeping poison pill. When will people get that? I hear these reports they're leaning toward matching when Walter Jones CAN'T restructure his deal, so ALL $49 million would be GUARANTEED (to a guard, not Peyton Manning) There is less than a 1% chance they match if the poison pill is allowed. Rant over.

First of all....It remains to be seen if this poison pill clause actually exists on the offer sheet. No one has ever ackowledged it as fact yet.Second...why can't Walter Jones restructure his contract? Not that he would just so his teammate makes less money, but why CAN'T he?

Wouldn't Seattle have matched already if it doesn't exist?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

Ya know, this whole Hutchinson offer sheet deal is a fiasco. If the league allows the poison pill, they cannot and WILL NOT match. If the poison pill is ruled "unconstitutional", they will match. I can't see how these reporters can claim to know the answer to an unprecedented scenario which is still unfolding. It all hinges on the bleeping poison pill. When will people get that? I hear these reports they're leaning toward matching when Walter Jones CAN'T restructure his deal, so ALL $49 million would be GUARANTEED (to a guard, not Peyton Manning) There is less than a 1% chance they match if the poison pill is allowed. Rant over.

First of all....It remains to be seen if this poison pill clause actually exists on the offer sheet. No one has ever ackowledged it as fact yet.Second...why can't Walter Jones restructure his contract? Not that he would just so his teammate makes less money, but why CAN'T he?

Wouldn't Seattle have matched already if it doesn't exist?

You think a 13 million cap hit is just something you can decide in a couple of days? Even if it doesn't have the poison clause, it still is a tough decision to make and I can't recall many teams not taking the full 7 days to match.

This is all while having visits with Abraham, Peterson, signing Warrick and Rocky Bernard.

 

[NoCheese]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

Ya know, this whole Hutchinson offer sheet deal is a fiasco. If the league allows the poison pill, they cannot and WILL NOT match. If the poison pill is ruled "unconstitutional", they will match. I can't see how these reporters can claim to know the answer to an unprecedented scenario which is still unfolding. It all hinges on the bleeping poison pill. When will people get that? I hear these reports they're leaning toward matching when Walter Jones CAN'T restructure his deal, so ALL $49 million would be GUARANTEED (to a guard, not Peyton Manning) There is less than a 1% chance they match if the poison pill is allowed. Rant over.

First of all....It remains to be seen if this poison pill clause actually exists on the offer sheet. No one has ever ackowledged it as fact yet.Second...why can't Walter Jones restructure his contract? Not that he would just so his teammate makes less money, but why CAN'T he?

My understanding (can't remember where I read it) is that since he restructured his contract last year, he can't do it again. Not sure if it's fact or fiction, but the individual who told me was adamant that you couldn't restructure within a year of a previous restructure, or something to that effect.

 

[ratpfink]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

Ya know, this whole Hutchinson offer sheet deal is a fiasco. If the league allows the poison pill, they cannot and WILL NOT match. If the poison pill is ruled "unconstitutional", they will match. I can't see how these reporters can claim to know the answer to an unprecedented scenario which is still unfolding. It all hinges on the bleeping poison pill. When will people get that? I hear these reports they're leaning toward matching when Walter Jones CAN'T restructure his deal, so ALL $49 million would be GUARANTEED (to a guard, not Peyton Manning) There is less than a 1% chance they match if the poison pill is allowed. Rant over.

First of all....It remains to be seen if this poison pill clause actually exists on the offer sheet. No one has ever ackowledged it as fact yet.Second...why can't Walter Jones restructure his contract? Not that he would just so his teammate makes less money, but why CAN'T he?

My understanding (can't remember where I read it) is that since he restructured his contract last year, he can't do it again. Not sure if it's fact or fiction, but the individual who told me was adamant that you couldn't restructure within a year of a previous restructure, or something to that effect.

I believe it's correct that you can only re-do a contract once a year, but Jones signed his deal in mid-February of '05.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

Ya know, this whole Hutchinson offer sheet deal is a fiasco. If the league allows the poison pill, they cannot and WILL NOT match. If the poison pill is ruled "unconstitutional", they will match. I can't see how these reporters can claim to know the answer to an unprecedented scenario which is still unfolding. It all hinges on the bleeping poison pill. When will people get that? I hear these reports they're leaning toward matching when Walter Jones CAN'T restructure his deal, so ALL $49 million would be GUARANTEED (to a guard, not Peyton Manning) There is less than a 1% chance they match if the poison pill is allowed. Rant over.

First of all....It remains to be seen if this poison pill clause actually exists on the offer sheet. No one has ever ackowledged it as fact yet.Second...why can't Walter Jones restructure his contract? Not that he would just so his teammate makes less money, but why CAN'T he?

My understanding (can't remember where I read it) is that since he restructured his contract last year, he can't do it again. Not sure if it's fact or fiction, but the individual who told me was adamant that you couldn't restructure within a year of a previous restructure, or something to that effect.

I believe it's correct that you can only re-do a contract once a year, but Jones signed his deal in mid-February of '05.

ProofWalter Jones CAN restructure his contract if he wishes. That being said, I can't see Jones changing his contract so that his teammate would earn less money. If Jones was going to so, he woudl run it by Hutch first, and if he/agent supposedly put the poison pill clause in the contract, I can't really see Hutch telling Jones its OK to restructure.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

"It now looks like the Seahawks are leaning towards matching the offer sheet that Steve Hutchinson signed with the Vikings. The team has until Monday to make its decision, but if it were made today, it would be match! "

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9300482

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Schefter just reported on Total Access that the Hawks are leaning towards matching the offer for Hutch.

Ya know, this whole Hutchinson offer sheet deal is a fiasco. If the league allows the poison pill, they cannot and WILL NOT match. If the poison pill is ruled "unconstitutional", they will match. I can't see how these reporters can claim to know the answer to an unprecedented scenario which is still unfolding. It all hinges on the bleeping poison pill. When will people get that? I hear these reports they're leaning toward matching when Walter Jones CAN'T restructure his deal, so ALL $49 million would be GUARANTEED (to a guard, not Peyton Manning) There is less than a 1% chance they match if the poison pill is allowed. Rant over.

First of all....It remains to be seen if this poison pill clause actually exists on the offer sheet. No one has ever ackowledged it as fact yet.Second...why can't Walter Jones restructure his contract? Not that he would just so his teammate makes less money, but why CAN'T he?

My understanding (can't remember where I read it) is that since he restructured his contract last year, he can't do it again. Not sure if it's fact or fiction, but the individual who told me was adamant that you couldn't restructure within a year of a previous restructure, or something to that effect.

I believe it's correct that you can only re-do a contract once a year, but Jones signed his deal in mid-February of '05.

ProofWalter Jones CAN restructure his contract if he wishes. That being said, I can't see Jones changing his contract so that his teammate would earn less money. If Jones was going to so, he woudl run it by Hutch first, and if he/agent supposedly put the poison pill clause in the contract, I can't really see Hutch telling Jones its OK to restructure.

 

[BlueOnion]

"It now looks like the Seahawks are leaning towards matching the offer sheet that Steve Hutchinson signed with the Vikings. The team has until Monday to make its decision, but if it were made today, it would be match! "

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9300482

Not buying it, I will believe it when I see it.

 

[Funkley]

The disappointment for me as a Viking fan during free agency is that I've never doubted for a moment that Seattle would match the Hutchinson offer. You don't sign Alexander to that contract and then let an All Pro guard walk away for nothing.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

'HAWKS WILL MATCH MOST OF OFFER SHEETA league source tells us that the Seattle Seahawks plan to match the seven-year, $49 million offer sheet signed by guard Steve Hutchinson. On Sunday, the Vikings and Hutchinson reached agreement on the deal, which includes a cap number of more than $13 million in 2006 and a poison pill provision that will make the full contract guaranteed if Hutchinson is not the highest paid member of the team's offensive line.The Seahawks, however, will not match this provision, which would result automatically in a full guarantee of the Hutchinson deal, due to the long-term contract signed a year ago by left tackle Walter Jones. Instead, the Seahawks will take the position that the guarantee is not a "Principal Term" of the offer, and that the term need not be matched in order to permit the Seahawks to retain their 2006 transition player.Under the relevant provisions of the CBA, a provision guaranteeing the contract appears to be a "Principal Term." The Seahawks, however, might be able to argue that, as a procedural matter, a guarantee provision only is a "Principal Term" if the guarantee is reflected by a modification or addition to the offer sheet made by the player. Indeed, Article XIX, Section 3(e)(ii) seems to indicate that a guarantee becomes a "Principal Term" only if the player asks for the guarantee, and if the new team agrees.The battle could, in the end, elevate form over substance, with the Seahawks arguing that the Vikings proposed the guarantee in order to defeat Seattle's ability to match the offer, and the Vikings arguing that it wasn't their idea and that Hutchinson and his agent asked for the guarantee.Regardless, there most likely will be a battle, similar to the legal brouhaha that unfolded three years ago between the Redskins and the Jets regarding the rights to Chad Morton. In that case, the Jets failed to match one of the provisions of the offer sheet. Arbitrator Richard Bloch found that the unmatched provision was a "Principal Term," which meant that the Jets had not matched the offer, which meant that the Redskins received the rights to Morton.This time around, the Seahawks are willing to take their chances as to the question of whether the guarantee is a "Principal Term." If they prevail, the Seahawks keep Hutchinson, without the guarantee. If the Seahawks lose, the Vikings will be awarded Hutchinson, with the potential guarantee in place (but with the guarantee meaningless since Hutchinson will be the highest paid offensive lineman on the team). Per Article XIX, Section 4 of the CBA, the arbitrator will be required to resolve the dispute within 10 days after the grievance is filed.The Seahawks will receive no compensation for Hutchinson, if they fail to match the offer sheet.Our initial impression? If the terms of the CBA are applied literally, and if there is sufficient evidence that Hutchinson asked for the guarantee, the Seahawks will lose. But if the arbitrator looks beneath the surface, he or she will realize that the guarantee has little or no chance of being activated if Hutchinson lands in Minnesota, especially if the reports that it applies only in 2006 are accurate. Under that scenario, the arbitrator could be inclined to find that the Seahawks had matched all of the "Principal Terms" that had any realistic bearing on his status with the Vikings.

Thank you and good night. This is an awesome move by the Hawks. It should be interesting to hear how the arbitrator rules.

 

[Sea Bass]

If Seattle does plan to match I would wait until the last possible moment. If the Vikes want to manipulate the spirit of the rules in Hutch's contract, why can't we make them wait and make it more difficult for them as they pursue every FA on the planet?

 

[Preacher 1]

'HAWKS WILL MATCH MOST OF OFFER SHEET

A league source tells us that the Seattle Seahawks plan to match the seven-year, $49 million offer sheet signed by guard Steve Hutchinson. On Sunday, the Vikings and Hutchinson reached agreement on the deal, which includes a cap number of more than $13 million in 2006 and a poison pill provision that will make the full contract guaranteed if Hutchinson is not the highest paid member of the team's offensive line.

The Seahawks, however, will not match this provision, which would result automatically in a full guarantee of the Hutchinson deal, due to the long-term contract signed a year ago by left tackle Walter Jones. Instead, the Seahawks will take the position that the guarantee is not a "Principal Term" of the offer, and that the term need not be matched in order to permit the Seahawks to retain their 2006 transition player.

Under the relevant provisions of the CBA, a provision guaranteeing the contract appears to be a "Principal Term." The Seahawks, however, might be able to argue that, as a procedural matter, a guarantee provision only is a "Principal Term" if the guarantee is reflected by a modification or addition to the offer sheet made by the player. Indeed, Article XIX, Section 3(e)(ii) seems to indicate that a guarantee becomes a "Principal Term" only if the player asks for the guarantee, and if the new team agrees.

The battle could, in the end, elevate form over substance, with the Seahawks arguing that the Vikings proposed the guarantee in order to defeat Seattle's ability to match the offer, and the Vikings arguing that it wasn't their idea and that Hutchinson and his agent asked for the guarantee.

Regardless, there most likely will be a battle, similar to the legal brouhaha that unfolded three years ago between the Redskins and the Jets regarding the rights to Chad Morton. In that case, the Jets failed to match one of the provisions of the offer sheet. Arbitrator Richard Bloch found that the unmatched provision was a "Principal Term," which meant that the Jets had not matched the offer, which meant that the Redskins received the rights to Morton.

This time around, the Seahawks are willing to take their chances as to the question of whether the guarantee is a "Principal Term." If they prevail, the Seahawks keep Hutchinson, without the guarantee. If the Seahawks lose, the Vikings will be awarded Hutchinson, with the potential guarantee in place (but with the guarantee meaningless since Hutchinson will be the highest paid offensive lineman on the team). Per Article XIX, Section 4 of the CBA, the arbitrator will be required to resolve the dispute within 10 days after the grievance is filed.

The Seahawks will receive no compensation for Hutchinson, if they fail to match the offer sheet.

Our initial impression? If the terms of the CBA are applied literally, and if there is sufficient evidence that Hutchinson asked for the guarantee, the Seahawks will lose. But if the arbitrator looks beneath the surface, he or she will realize that the guarantee has little or no chance of being activated if Hutchinson lands in Minnesota, especially if the reports that it applies only in 2006 are accurate. Under that scenario, the arbitrator could be inclined to find that the Seahawks had matched all of the "Principal Terms" that had any realistic bearing on his status with the Vikings.

Thank you and good night. This is an awesome move by the Hawks. It should be interesting to hear how the arbitrator rules.

Please...it's patently obvious to everyone (but you, apparently) that Hutchinson and his agent helped devise the poison pill strategy, thereby activating the "principal terms" of the contract. Of course the Seahawks are going to challenge it, what do they have to lose? It's a no-brainer to challenge it, it's HIGHLY unlikly that they'll win the challenge.

 

[Captain Blowhard]

If I'm a Viking fan, I'm praying the Seahawks do match and win in arbitration.

That contract is completely and totally assinine.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Thank you and good night.

This is an awesome move by the Hawks. It should be interesting to hear how the arbitrator rules.

Please...it's patently obvious to everyone (but you, apparently) that Hutchinson and his agent helped devise the poison pill strategy, thereby activating the "principal terms" of the contract. Of course the Seahawks are going to challenge it, what do they have to lose? It's a no-brainer to challenge it, it's HIGHLY unlikly that they'll win the challenge.

What do they have to lose?? Ummm, geting a player that doesn't even want to play in Seattle at a HUGE amount? The contract is huge enough without the clause in it. Ruskell et al. would not pursue matching the contract (minus the clause) if Hutch does not even want to come back to Seattle.

How the heck do you know that its "HIGHLY UNLIKELY" that the Hawks win in arbitration? Do you have advanced in the knowledge of the CBA and legal matters?

 

[Preacher 1]

If I'm a Viking fan, I'm praying the Seahawks do match and win in arbitration.

That contract is completely and totally assinine.

Seriously, what difference does it make if it's an asinine contract? It's not like the Vikings will take the money saved and go get another free agent...even if the Hutchinson deal goes through, they're still millions below the cap.If the deal is voided, it's just another 13 million or so in Zigi's pocket, and a team that's going to be worse than last year's by a decent margin...

 

[Preacher 1]

Thank you and good night.

This is an awesome move by the Hawks. It should be interesting to hear how the arbitrator rules.

Please...it's patently obvious to everyone (but you, apparently) that Hutchinson and his agent helped devise the poison pill strategy, thereby activating the "principal terms" of the contract. Of course the Seahawks are going to challenge it, what do they have to lose? It's a no-brainer to challenge it, it's HIGHLY unlikly that they'll win the challenge.

What do they have to lose?? Ummm, geting a player that doesn't even want to play in Seattle at a HUGE amount? The contract is huge enough without the clause in it. Ruskell et al. would not pursue matching the contract (minus the clause) if Hutch does not even want to come back to Seattle.

How the heck do you know that its "HIGHLY UNLIKELY" that the Hawks win in arbitration? Do you have advanced in the knowledge of the CBA and legal matters?

I've got as much knowledge of the CBA as you do, virtually none...however, I do have good reading comprehension skills. The source that you quote says that if Hutchinson asked for the clause, which he obviously did since he signed the deal, and his agent is listed as being an architect of it as well, it'll likely go in the favor of the Vikings.And as far as the Seahawks not wanting Hutchinson back, it's damn near irrelevant if they do or not...it'll tie up one of the few teams that have millions left to spend, thereby leaving the 'Hawks a chance to get some of the pie.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Thank you and good night.

This is an awesome move by the Hawks. It should be interesting to hear how the arbitrator rules.

Please...it's patently obvious to everyone (but you, apparently) that Hutchinson and his agent helped devise the poison pill strategy, thereby activating the "principal terms" of the contract. Of course the Seahawks are going to challenge it, what do they have to lose? It's a no-brainer to challenge it, it's HIGHLY unlikly that they'll win the challenge.

What do they have to lose?? Ummm, geting a player that doesn't even want to play in Seattle at a HUGE amount? The contract is huge enough without the clause in it. Ruskell et al. would not pursue matching the contract (minus the clause) if Hutch does not even want to come back to Seattle.

How the heck do you know that its "HIGHLY UNLIKELY" that the Hawks win in arbitration? Do you have advanced in the knowledge of the CBA and legal matters?

I've got as much knowledge of the CBA as you do, virtually none...however, I do have good reading comprehension skills. The source that you quote says that if Hutchinson asked for the clause, which he obviously did since he signed the deal, and his agent is listed as being an architect of it as well, it'll likely go in the favor of the Vikings.And as far as the Seahawks not wanting Hutchinson back, it's damn near irrelevant if they do or not...it'll tie up one of the few teams that have millions left to spend, thereby leaving the 'Hawks a chance to get some of the pie.

So you have virtually no knowledge of the CBA, yet you are proclaiming it "highly unlikely" that the Seahawks claim will be upheld? Ok then.Most of all the news coming out about the Hutch offer and the poison pill clause is all based on one article written by a rumour mill site. I am not saying it isn't true, but nothing concrete has been said about the offer.

If the clause does exist, and Hutch signed it, it still isn't certain that means he wants out of Seattle for sure, but maybe he told his agent to get him the most guaranteed money he can.

All I am saying, is that no one really knows anything about the situation as it seems to be very hush hush right now, so to say that the Hawks will lose the arbitration, or that Hutch wants out, or that it even contains a poison pill clause is all specualtion at this point.

But going off the info in the article above, I agree with what the Hawks are doing and think its smart.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

If Seattle does plan to match I would wait until the last possible moment. If the Vikes want to manipulate the spirit of the rules in Hutch's contract, why can't we make them wait and make it more difficult for them as they pursue every FA on the planet?

I am a Viking fan, and I have no doubt this is what they are going to do...and so would every single one of us!! It is how the game is played, and I LOVE IT!!!

 

[DoctorDetroit]

UPDATE:

Seahawks | Hutchinson's fate delayed Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:34:00 -0800 Gregg Bell, of the Associated Press, reports the future fate of Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson will be decided by an arbitration process. That will delay the Sunday deadline, March 19, for the team to match an offer to Hutchinson by the Minnesota Vikings. The NFL Players Association said Friday, March 17, that the league has filed a claim on behalf of the Seahawks contending a clause in the offer sheet Hutchinson signed with the Vikings last weekend circumvents the league's labor contract. The clause in question would guarantee Hutchinson the entire contract sum if Hutchinson is not the team's highest-paid offensive lineman. NFL spokesman Michael Signora confirmed that the NFL had filed the case. Richard Berthelsen, general counsel for the NFLPA, said the union will argue against the Seahawks' and league's claims. "They say the clause circumvents our collective bargaining agreement. It is our belief that it does not," Berthelsen said. Berthelsen said the union's interpretation of the issue is that the clause is permitted by the CBA because it is a "principal term" of the agreement.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

SEATTLE -- The Seahawks' hopes of keeping All-Pro guard Steve Hutchinson will be decided by an arbitration process.

Steve

Hutchinson

That will delay the Sunday deadline for the team to match an offer to Hutchinson by the Minnesota Vikings.

The NFL Players Association said on Friday that the league has filed a claim on behalf of the Seahawks contending a clause in the offer sheet Hutchinson signed with the Vikings last weekend circumvents the league's labor contract. That would mean that Seattle does not have to match that clause to keep Hutchinson, who is designated as their transition player.

The clause in question would guarantee Hutchinson the entire contract sum if Hutchinson is not the team's highest-paid offensive lineman.

Richard Berthelsen, general counsel for the NFLPA, said the union will argue against the Seahawks' and league's claims.

"They say the clause circumvents our collective bargaining agreement. It is our belief that it does not," Berthelsen said Friday.

The special master will determine during a Saturday telephone conference call if the labor agreement gives him jurisdiction in the case. The league claims it does, Berthelsen said.

NFL spokesman Michael Signora confirmed that the NFL had filed the case.

Berthelsen said if the special master determines he has jurisdiction, he will hold a hearing on Monday in Philadelphia. If not, the case will fall to a non-injury grievance arbiter, who will convene a hearing.

Either way, a decision would come after the Sunday deadline by which the Seahawks have to match Minnesota's offer.

Hutchinson signed a $49 million, seven-year offer sheet with Minnesota last Sunday. It included $16 million guaranteed. The Seahawks believe that is all they have to match.

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

Such a provision is likely a deal breaker. All-Pro left tackle Walter Jones is Seattle's highest-paid offensive linemen, and would remain so even if the Seahawks matched the Hutchinson offer.

Jones, a six-time Pro Bowler, received $54.5 million -- with up to $20 million in a signing bonus and incentives -- over seven years to remain a Seahawk last April.

Berthelsen said the union's interpretation of the issue is that the clause is permitted by the CBA because it is a "principal term" of the agreement.

That is defined in the contract as salary, incentives and individual league honors -- plus "any modifications of and additions to the terms ... requested by the free agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non-compensation terms [including guarantees, no-cut, and no-trade provisions] ..."

The league and the Seahawks are contending that last point.

In 1993, the first year of unrestricted free agency in the NFL, the Indianapolis Colts signed Will Wolford, Buffalo's transition player, to an offer sheet that included a clause that guaranteed he be the team's highest-paid offensive player.

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

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

 

[DoctorDetroit]

SEATTLE -- The Seahawks' hopes of keeping All-Pro guard Steve Hutchinson will be decided by an arbitration process.

Steve

Hutchinson

That will delay the Sunday deadline for the team to match an offer to Hutchinson by the Minnesota Vikings.

The NFL Players Association said on Friday that the league has filed a claim on behalf of the Seahawks contending a clause in the offer sheet Hutchinson signed with the Vikings last weekend circumvents the league's labor contract. That would mean that Seattle does not have to match that clause to keep Hutchinson, who is designated as their transition player.

The clause in question would guarantee Hutchinson the entire contract sum if Hutchinson is not the team's highest-paid offensive lineman.

Richard Berthelsen, general counsel for the NFLPA, said the union will argue against the Seahawks' and league's claims.

"They say the clause circumvents our collective bargaining agreement. It is our belief that it does not," Berthelsen said Friday.

The special master will determine during a Saturday telephone conference call if the labor agreement gives him jurisdiction in the case. The league claims it does, Berthelsen said.

NFL spokesman Michael Signora confirmed that the NFL had filed the case.

Berthelsen said if the special master determines he has jurisdiction, he will hold a hearing on Monday in Philadelphia. If not, the case will fall to a non-injury grievance arbiter, who will convene a hearing.

Either way, a decision would come after the Sunday deadline by which the Seahawks have to match Minnesota's offer.

Hutchinson signed a $49 million, seven-year offer sheet with Minnesota last Sunday. It included $16 million guaranteed. The Seahawks believe that is all they have to match.

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

Such a provision is likely a deal breaker. All-Pro left tackle Walter Jones is Seattle's highest-paid offensive linemen, and would remain so even if the Seahawks matched the Hutchinson offer.

Jones, a six-time Pro Bowler, received $54.5 million -- with up to $20 million in a signing bonus and incentives -- over seven years to remain a Seahawk last April.

Berthelsen said the union's interpretation of the issue is that the clause is permitted by the CBA because it is a "principal term" of the agreement.

That is defined in the contract as salary, incentives and individual league honors -- plus "any modifications of and additions to the terms ... requested by the free agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non-compensation terms [including guarantees, no-cut, and no-trade provisions] ..."

The league and the Seahawks are contending that last point.

In 1993, the first year of unrestricted free agency in the NFL, the Indianapolis Colts signed Will Wolford, Buffalo's transition player, to an offer sheet that included a clause that guaranteed he be the team's highest-paid offensive player.

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

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

Good stuff Frenzy.

 

[cstu]

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

The Vikings are offering the same amount of money, only guaranteed vs. un-guaranteed. Maybe the CBA will be amended after this, but it appears legal as it stands now.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

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

The Vikings are offering the same amount of money, only guaranteed vs. un-guaranteed. Maybe the CBA will be amended after this, but it appears legal as it stands now.

Well, that still factors into how much the player is "paid". The clause with Seattle means Hutch will be "paid" more than the Vikings have too. Because the entire deal is guaranteed, that means that every cent will count against the cap at some point, whereas if there are other bonuses or incentives in the contract, those could never hit the cap because they are not guaranteed and it is not 100% that they will be achieved.I see your point as well though. Whether its $49 million guaranteed or not, it is the same number of each contract.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

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

The Vikings are offering the same amount of money, only guaranteed vs. un-guaranteed. Maybe the CBA will be amended after this, but it appears legal as it stands now.

But Seattle would pay more. That's the point. If Seattle matches they will have to pay some 19 million more in guaranteed money. So according to this, it does seem to fall into the same category as Wolford's contract.

 

[cstu]

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

The Vikings are offering the same amount of money, only guaranteed vs. un-guaranteed. Maybe the CBA will be amended after this, but it appears legal as it stands now.

But Seattle would pay more. That's the point. If Seattle matches they will have to pay some 19 million more in guaranteed money. So according to this, it does seem to fall into the same category as Wolford's contract.

No, it's not more, it's the same assuming the Vikings would keep him for the duration of the contract. It'll be difficult for an arbitrator to decide that the Vikings are planning on cutting him before the contract is up.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

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

The Vikings are offering the same amount of money, only guaranteed vs. un-guaranteed. Maybe the CBA will be amended after this, but it appears legal as it stands now.

But Seattle would pay more. That's the point. If Seattle matches they will have to pay some 19 million more in guaranteed money. So according to this, it does seem to fall into the same category as Wolford's contract.

No, it's not more, it's the same assuming the Vikings would keep him for the duration of the contract. It'll be difficult for an arbitrator to decide that the Vikings are planning on cutting him before the contract is up.

Yes, but if the offer includes any bonuses or incentives that are pending in the future, then there is the possiblity they will never be met and since its all guaranteed for the Hawks, then they are paying more.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

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

The Vikings are offering the same amount of money, only guaranteed vs. un-guaranteed. Maybe the CBA will be amended after this, but it appears legal as it stands now.

But Seattle would pay more. That's the point. If Seattle matches they will have to pay some 19 million more in guaranteed money. So according to this, it does seem to fall into the same category as Wolford's contract.

Not it's not more, it's the same assuming the Vikings would keep him for the duration of the contract.

I disagree but you are one of the more knowledgeable folks on this board. I'm not a lawyer and I don't remember getting Hutch's contract faxed to me so I'll defer my argument until this goes to the NFL.