Vikes Sign Hutchinson to Offer Sheet (2 Viewers)

[Maelstrom]

I think the difference between Wolford's contract and this one is that Wolford's guaranteed he be the highest paid player on offense, therefore the Bills would have had to jump up HIS salary to match Kelly's, which was higher than what the Colts were offering in the contract.

In this case, the NUMBERs (guaranteed or not) are the same numbers, and will not change no matter which team he ends up on (and I make no claim to know how the ruling will end up.)

You could (and Seattle will) argue that the fact that one is guaranteed and the other isn't makes a similar difference, but the fact is that the numbers themselves remain the same as the contract is written regardless which team he is on.

All bonuses and such are considered by the NFL as likely to be earned (remember how teams use that to "rollover" salary cap money?) Regardless of whether they are realistically going to be earned or not, from the NFL's point of view they will be considered likely to be earned until the point they are not earned.

 

[Preacher 1]

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.

Well it would have been a good point if that's all that the article said...here's the rest of the argument from the article, the part that Frenzy edited off to make his point appear to be stronger...

In Hutchinson's case, Berthelsen said, the contract value would not change if the poison-pill clause is triggered. The guaranteed money would increase from $16 million to $49 million.

"This is not a case involving changing financial terms," Berthelsen said. "It's about a guarantee, and that's a principal term."

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Um, what the heck are you talking about, I copy and pasted the article.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5422256

Be a dear and show me where your quote is in the article.

 

[Sea Bass]

If cotract the Vikes wrote was legal then I congratulate them on a shrewd move. If not, I would hope that a penalty phase follows.

 

[cstu]

If cotract the Vikes wrote was legal then I congratulate them on a shrewd move. If not, I would hope that a penalty phase follows.

This is the reason why the transition tag is rarely used. I'm really wondering if the Seahawks were naive enough to think no one would attempt a contract like this. I knew they were in trouble the second they decided to use the transition tag instead of the franchise tag since Hutch is a premier player and the urge to figure out a way to get him is just too high.

 

[Sea Bass]

"Maybe" the NFL and the Seahawks know more about the legalities of the contract than the people on this board. The Hawks "could" have realized that a move of this type isn't legal.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

If cotract the Vikes wrote was legal then I congratulate them on a shrewd move. If not, I would hope that a penalty phase follows.

It is just a contract, why would a contract be "illegal?" Either the NFL allows it or they don't, the "penalty phase" would be the Vikings not getting Hutch.

 

[cstu]

"Maybe" the NFL and the Seahawks know more about the legalities of the contract than the people on this board. The Hawks "could" have realized that a move of this type isn't legal.

Maybe if they really wanted to keep Hutch they shouldn't have taken the chance that they'd win a legal decision. I'm sure Buffalo didn't expect to lose Wolford the way they did - the Seahawks should have learned from the Wolford decision not to expect an arbitrator to save them. The rules will likely be changed after this, but it doesn't help the Seahawks now.

 

[mad sweeney]

If cotract the Vikes wrote was legal then I congratulate them on a shrewd move. If not, I would hope that a penalty phase follows.

This is the reason why the transition tag is rarely used. I'm really wondering if the Seahawks were naive enough to think no one would attempt a contract like this. I knew they were in trouble the second they decided to use the transition tag instead of the franchise tag since Hutch is a premier player and the urge to figure out a way to get him is just too high.

Ruskell and Reinfeldt are extremely good at what they do. They came in and cleaned up the FA mess last year, including getting Jones finally signed long term. Reinfeldt is league wide recognized as a cap guru. I would be EXTREMEY surprised if they were surprised by any of this and/or overlooked the threat of losing Hutch with the transition tag vs franchise. I think they have a very good plan and wouldn't be challenging this clause if they didn;t think they were in the right on it. They may end up being ruled against, but to think these extremely savvy FO personnel somehow screwed up by not using th efranchise tag without due consideration is pretty silly.

 

[Sea Bass]

agreed!

 

[cstu]

If cotract the Vikes wrote was legal then I congratulate them on a shrewd move. If not, I would hope that a penalty phase follows.

This is the reason why the transition tag is rarely used. I'm really wondering if the Seahawks were naive enough to think no one would attempt a contract like this. I knew they were in trouble the second they decided to use the transition tag instead of the franchise tag since Hutch is a premier player and the urge to figure out a way to get him is just too high.

Ruskell and Reinfeldt are extremely good at what they do. They came in and cleaned up the FA mess last year, including getting Jones finally signed long term. Reinfeldt is league wide recognized as a cap guru. I would be EXTREMEY surprised if they were surprised by any of this and/or overlooked the threat of losing Hutch with the transition tag vs franchise. I think they have a very good plan and wouldn't be challenging this clause if they didn;t think they were in the right on it. They may end up being ruled against, but to think these extremely savvy FO personnel somehow screwed up by not using th efranchise tag without due consideration is pretty silly.

I'm absolutely sure they are savvy, however right now it looks like they screwed up. They dangled Hutch like bait in front of a bunch of hungry teams, knowing that it would likely be up to an arbitrator to decide if they get to keep him.Believe me, if they win in arbitration I will give them all the credit in the world. They obviously know the rules inside and out and if they took the risk then they must have felt very good about their odds in arbitration.

 

[mad sweeney]

If cotract the Vikes wrote was legal then I congratulate them on a shrewd move. If not, I would hope that a penalty phase follows.

This is the reason why the transition tag is rarely used. I'm really wondering if the Seahawks were naive enough to think no one would attempt a contract like this. I knew they were in trouble the second they decided to use the transition tag instead of the franchise tag since Hutch is a premier player and the urge to figure out a way to get him is just too high.

Ruskell and Reinfeldt are extremely good at what they do. They came in and cleaned up the FA mess last year, including getting Jones finally signed long term. Reinfeldt is league wide recognized as a cap guru. I would be EXTREMEY surprised if they were surprised by any of this and/or overlooked the threat of losing Hutch with the transition tag vs franchise. I think they have a very good plan and wouldn't be challenging this clause if they didn;t think they were in the right on it. They may end up being ruled against, but to think these extremely savvy FO personnel somehow screwed up by not using th efranchise tag without due consideration is pretty silly.

I'm absolutely sure they are savvy, however right now it looks like they screwed up. They dangled Hutch like bait in front of a bunch of hungry teams, knowing that it would likely be up to an arbitrator to decide if they get to keep him.Believe me, if they win in arbitration I will give them all the credit in the world. They obviously know the rules inside and out and if they took the risk then they must have felt very good about their odds in arbitration.

What I'm saying is that when they decided to use the trans tag on Hutch, they went into it prepared to lose him. That it was a definite possibility. Maybe they knew Condon would want too much and they'd never be able to get a deal done so they let another team do it for them. Could be a ton of reasons. I am not prepared to say they screwed up by not franchising him. They may lose him, sure, but it's no more than a step in the plan.

 

[AB in DC]

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.

Credit to the Seahawks for getting two bites at the apple here.

 

[AB in DC]

I copy and pasted the article.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5422256

It's an AP article...Fox Sports probably edited it themselves. Happens with a lot of pieces coming off the wire. Or the AP sent a later version with the new quote.:nothingtoseehere:

 

[Preacher 1]

Um, what the heck are you talking about, I copy and pasted the article.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5422256

Be a dear and show me where your quote is in the article.

Here ya go, cupcake...

The NFL is challenging a key portion of the Vikings' unprecedented contract offer to guard Steve Hutchinson, the league and its players' union said Friday. The matter will be decided Monday in an arbitration hearing.

Hutchinson's current team, the Seattle Seahawks, instigated the dispute two days before it was required to match or pass on the Vikings' seven-year, $49 million offer sheet. According to Richard Berthelsen, general counsel of the NFL Players Association, the Seahawks are arguing the legality of a so-called "poison pill" clause that requires Hutchinson to have the highest average annual salary of any offensive lineman on his team in 2006.

If another player has a higher figure, the clause guarantees the entire $49 million contract, making it one of the richest deals in league history. The stipulation was inserted by Hutchinson's agent, Tom Condon, and agreed to by the Vikings, as a tool to prevent the Seahawks from matching the offer -- which is their right under the NFL's rules for transition players.

The clause conceivably would trigger if Seattle matches because Hutchinson's $7 million annual average would fall short of Seahawks left tackle Walter Jones, who receives an average of $7.5 million annually. It would not apply to the Vikings, whose highest-paid lineman is center Matt Birk (about $4.2 million).

The NFL's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requires the original team to match all "principal terms" of an offer sheet; the Seahawks will argue that the poison pill does not qualify.

Berthelsen will represent Hutchinson and the Vikings at 9:30 Central time Monday morning in Philadelphia before special master Stephen Burbank, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. A ruling is expected shortly thereafter. Berthelsen said Friday the clause is "clearly" a principal part of the contract and said the situation does not apply to a 1993 precedent involving offensive lineman Will Wolford.

"There should be no dispute about that," he said.

An NFL spokesman would not detail the league's position, and the Seahawks declined to comment. The Vikings also declined to comment. Condon did not return a phone message.

According to Berthelsen, the CBA requires the Seahawks to match the clause. Article XIX, Section II of the CBA defines principal terms as salary, bonus incentives and certain noncompensation terms -- including "guarantees, no-cut and no-trade provisions."

"It clearly states you have to match a guarantee," Berthelsen said. "And that's what this is."

The Seahawks might try to argue that such guarantees are no longer allowed under a 1994 CBA revision sparked by Wolford's move from Buffalo to Indianapolis. Wolford, the Bills' transition player, signed a three-year, $7.65 million offer sheet with the Colts.

The deal included a clause that Wolford must be the team's highest-paid offensive player. He qualified for that distinction in Indianapolis, but in Buffalo, quarterback Jim Kelly was earning more. In order to match, Buffalo would have had to raise the overall value of Wolford's offer sheet.

The Bills lost the case in arbitration and did not match Wolford's contract. Afterward, the NFL and the union agreed that offer sheets for transition players no longer could require the matching team to raise the overall value.

In Hutchinson's case, Berthelsen said, the contract value would not change if the poison-pill clause is triggered. The guaranteed money would increase from $16 million to $49 million.

"This is not a case involving changing financial terms," Berthelsen said. "It's about a guarantee, and that's a principal term."

http://www.startribune.com/510/story/314728.html

 

[norseman9375]

"Maybe" the NFL and the Seahawks know more about the legalities of the contract than the people on this board. The Hawks "could" have realized that a move of this type isn't legal.

"Maybe" the NFL Players Association and the Vikings know more about the legalities of the contract than the Seahawks and the NFL. The reality is that if it was that clear cut it probably wouldn't be going to arbitration. Both teams have done what they need to here. The Vikings have made an offer that is difficult for the Seahawks to match, and the Seahawks are trying to get the part that makes it hard to match thrown out. Neither team should have expected for the other to do anything different. There is not going to be any penalties here. One team is going to get Hutchinson, and one isn't.

 

[massraider]

I think the Seahawks only shot is that the clause is only for 2006.

This, to me, might be the only thing that violates the "spirit" of the CBA, as I think the offer sheet is in compliance with the CBA.

But by stipulating that he need only be the highest paid O-lineman for only one season, that kind of reeks of the Vikings trying to have thieir cake and eat it too.

What I mean:

Let's say, for argument, that it wasn't a poison pill, and Condon actually negotiated this clause. Any knucklehead with a GED knows that Hutch was gonna be their highest paid lineman in 2006, guarantee clause or not. So there'd be no reason to negotiate such a clause.

If the player or agent was to negotiate a clause like that, it'd be that if Hutch was passed by anyone on the O-line (McKinnie), the balance of his deal would be guaranteed.

By making this strictly a one year clause, it makes it obvious that the Vikes had no intention of ever coming close to putting themselves in a position to guarantee his deal.

Having said all that, I still think it's a weak argument. It's based on assumption, and I would be real surprised if the Hawks won this arbitration.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

I think the Seahawks only shot is that the clause is only for 2006.

This, to me, might be the only thing that violates the "spirit" of the CBA, as I think the offer sheet is in compliance with the CBA.

But by stipulating that he need only be the highest paid O-lineman for only one season, that kind of reeks of the Vikings trying to have thieir cake and eat it too.

What I mean:

Let's say, for argument, that it wasn't a poison pill, and Condon actually negotiated this clause. Any knucklehead with a GED knows that Hutch was gonna be their highest paid lineman in 2006, guarantee clause or not. So there'd be no reason to negotiate such a clause.

If the player or agent was to negotiate a clause like that, it'd be that if Hutch was passed by anyone on the O-line (McKinnie), the balance of his deal would be guaranteed.

By making this strictly a one year clause, it makes it obvious that the Vikes had no intention of ever coming close to putting themselves in a position to guarantee his deal.

Having said all that, I still think it's a weak argument. It's based on assumption, and I would be real surprised if the Hawks won this arbitration.

This is a good point. The thing is if the arbitrator rules in the Seahawks favor do they throw the whole thing out and start over so the Vikings can make it a clause that applies every year? I think that would only be fair to the Vikings in this case. I'm a Seahawks fan but if the arbitrator does in fact rule that the poison pill is not in good faith in this case, shouldn't they have to start from square one? I'm just throwing this out there as an added bit of contention that is possible.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think the Seahawks only shot is that the clause is only for 2006.

This, to me, might be the only thing that violates the "spirit" of the CBA, as I think the offer sheet is in compliance with the CBA.

But by stipulating that he need only be the highest paid O-lineman for only one season, that kind of reeks of the Vikings trying to have thieir cake and eat it too.

What I mean:

Let's say, for argument, that it wasn't a poison pill, and Condon actually negotiated this clause. Any knucklehead with a GED knows that Hutch was gonna be their highest paid lineman in 2006, guarantee clause or not. So there'd be no reason to negotiate such a clause.

If the player or agent was to negotiate a clause like that, it'd be that if Hutch was passed by anyone on the O-line (McKinnie), the balance of his deal would be guaranteed.

By making this strictly a one year clause, it makes it obvious that the Vikes had no intention of ever coming close to putting themselves in a position to guarantee his deal.

Having said all that, I still think it's a weak argument. It's based on assumption, and I would be real surprised if the Hawks won this arbitration.

This is a good point. The thing is if the arbitrator rules in the Seahawks favor do they throw the whole thing out and start over so the Vikings can make it a clause that applies every year? I think that would only be fair to the Vikings in this case. I'm a Seahawks fan but if the arbitrator does in fact rule that the poison pill is not in good faith in this case, shouldn't they have to start from square one? I'm just throwing this out there as an added bit of contention that is possible.

Sounds to me the way they've said it is that if they rule the clause is not a principle term then the Seahawks get him since they will have matched all the principle terms. I don't see a re-do in it, of course I also know nothing about it at the NFL level. If it is a principle term, then the Hawks failed to match the offer and the Viqueens get him. If it is NOT a principle term then the Vikes made an offer and the Hawks matched it so they keep Hutch. That's just they waY isee it from the wording that's been used so far.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Um, what the heck are you talking about, I copy and pasted the article.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5422256

Be a dear and show me where your quote is in the article.

Here ya go, cupcake...

The NFL is challenging a key portion of the Vikings' unprecedented contract offer to guard Steve Hutchinson, the league and its players' union said Friday. The matter will be decided Monday in an arbitration hearing.

Hutchinson's current team, the Seattle Seahawks, instigated the dispute two days before it was required to match or pass on the Vikings' seven-year, $49 million offer sheet. According to Richard Berthelsen, general counsel of the NFL Players Association, the Seahawks are arguing the legality of a so-called "poison pill" clause that requires Hutchinson to have the highest average annual salary of any offensive lineman on his team in 2006.

If another player has a higher figure, the clause guarantees the entire $49 million contract, making it one of the richest deals in league history. The stipulation was inserted by Hutchinson's agent, Tom Condon, and agreed to by the Vikings, as a tool to prevent the Seahawks from matching the offer -- which is their right under the NFL's rules for transition players.

The clause conceivably would trigger if Seattle matches because Hutchinson's $7 million annual average would fall short of Seahawks left tackle Walter Jones, who receives an average of $7.5 million annually. It would not apply to the Vikings, whose highest-paid lineman is center Matt Birk (about $4.2 million).

The NFL's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requires the original team to match all "principal terms" of an offer sheet; the Seahawks will argue that the poison pill does not qualify.

Berthelsen will represent Hutchinson and the Vikings at 9:30 Central time Monday morning in Philadelphia before special master Stephen Burbank, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. A ruling is expected shortly thereafter. Berthelsen said Friday the clause is "clearly" a principal part of the contract and said the situation does not apply to a 1993 precedent involving offensive lineman Will Wolford.

"There should be no dispute about that," he said.

An NFL spokesman would not detail the league's position, and the Seahawks declined to comment. The Vikings also declined to comment. Condon did not return a phone message.

According to Berthelsen, the CBA requires the Seahawks to match the clause. Article XIX, Section II of the CBA defines principal terms as salary, bonus incentives and certain noncompensation terms -- including "guarantees, no-cut and no-trade provisions."

"It clearly states you have to match a guarantee," Berthelsen said. "And that's what this is."

The Seahawks might try to argue that such guarantees are no longer allowed under a 1994 CBA revision sparked by Wolford's move from Buffalo to Indianapolis. Wolford, the Bills' transition player, signed a three-year, $7.65 million offer sheet with the Colts.

The deal included a clause that Wolford must be the team's highest-paid offensive player. He qualified for that distinction in Indianapolis, but in Buffalo, quarterback Jim Kelly was earning more. In order to match, Buffalo would have had to raise the overall value of Wolford's offer sheet.

The Bills lost the case in arbitration and did not match Wolford's contract. Afterward, the NFL and the union agreed that offer sheets for transition players no longer could require the matching team to raise the overall value.

In Hutchinson's case, Berthelsen said, the contract value would not change if the poison-pill clause is triggered. The guaranteed money would increase from $16 million to $49 million.

"This is not a case involving changing financial terms," Berthelsen said. "It's about a guarantee, and that's a principal term."

http://www.startribune.com/510/story/314728.html

FYI...that is not the same article as I posted.You say I editted out some of the article, when that isn't the case at all. If you are going to accuse someone of something, make sure you are know what you are talking about. Thanks in advance.

 

[Preacher 1]

Um, what the heck are you talking about, I copy and pasted the article.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5422256

Be a dear and show me where your quote is in the article.

Here ya go, cupcake...

The NFL is challenging a key portion of the Vikings' unprecedented contract offer to guard Steve Hutchinson, the league and its players' union said Friday. The matter will be decided Monday in an arbitration hearing.

Hutchinson's current team, the Seattle Seahawks, instigated the dispute two days before it was required to match or pass on the Vikings' seven-year, $49 million offer sheet. According to Richard Berthelsen, general counsel of the NFL Players Association, the Seahawks are arguing the legality of a so-called "poison pill" clause that requires Hutchinson to have the highest average annual salary of any offensive lineman on his team in 2006.

If another player has a higher figure, the clause guarantees the entire $49 million contract, making it one of the richest deals in league history. The stipulation was inserted by Hutchinson's agent, Tom Condon, and agreed to by the Vikings, as a tool to prevent the Seahawks from matching the offer -- which is their right under the NFL's rules for transition players.

The clause conceivably would trigger if Seattle matches because Hutchinson's $7 million annual average would fall short of Seahawks left tackle Walter Jones, who receives an average of $7.5 million annually. It would not apply to the Vikings, whose highest-paid lineman is center Matt Birk (about $4.2 million).

The NFL's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requires the original team to match all "principal terms" of an offer sheet; the Seahawks will argue that the poison pill does not qualify.

Berthelsen will represent Hutchinson and the Vikings at 9:30 Central time Monday morning in Philadelphia before special master Stephen Burbank, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. A ruling is expected shortly thereafter. Berthelsen said Friday the clause is "clearly" a principal part of the contract and said the situation does not apply to a 1993 precedent involving offensive lineman Will Wolford.

"There should be no dispute about that," he said.

An NFL spokesman would not detail the league's position, and the Seahawks declined to comment. The Vikings also declined to comment. Condon did not return a phone message.

According to Berthelsen, the CBA requires the Seahawks to match the clause. Article XIX, Section II of the CBA defines principal terms as salary, bonus incentives and certain noncompensation terms -- including "guarantees, no-cut and no-trade provisions."

"It clearly states you have to match a guarantee," Berthelsen said. "And that's what this is."

The Seahawks might try to argue that such guarantees are no longer allowed under a 1994 CBA revision sparked by Wolford's move from Buffalo to Indianapolis. Wolford, the Bills' transition player, signed a three-year, $7.65 million offer sheet with the Colts.

The deal included a clause that Wolford must be the team's highest-paid offensive player. He qualified for that distinction in Indianapolis, but in Buffalo, quarterback Jim Kelly was earning more. In order to match, Buffalo would have had to raise the overall value of Wolford's offer sheet.

The Bills lost the case in arbitration and did not match Wolford's contract. Afterward, the NFL and the union agreed that offer sheets for transition players no longer could require the matching team to raise the overall value.

In Hutchinson's case, Berthelsen said, the contract value would not change if the poison-pill clause is triggered. The guaranteed money would increase from $16 million to $49 million.

"This is not a case involving changing financial terms," Berthelsen said. "It's about a guarantee, and that's a principal term."

http://www.startribune.com/510/story/314728.html

FYI...that is not the same article as I posted.You say I editted out some of the article, when that isn't the case at all. If you are going to accuse someone of something, make sure you are know what you are talking about. Thanks in advance.

So Sorry, my bad for adding relevant information...you clearly posted from an already edited piece...my apologies.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

Hey, OT from the bickering about articles, but I'm just curious... does anyone know for sure WHY Seattle went with a transition tag instead of a franchise tag on Hutch? The Seahawks are a pretty well runned organization, so even though it's looking like it was a mistake, I'm sure there had to be a pretty good reason for it?

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Hey, OT from the bickering about articles, but I'm just curious... does anyone know for sure WHY Seattle went with a transition tag instead of a franchise tag on Hutch? The Seahawks are a pretty well runned organization, so even though it's looking like it was a mistake, I'm sure there had to be a pretty good reason for it?

It's been covered here and in the Seahawks thread.

 

[J-Money]

Hey, OT from the bickering about articles, but I'm just curious... does anyone know for sure WHY Seattle went with a transition tag instead of a franchise tag on Hutch? The Seahawks are a pretty well runned organization, so even though it's looking like it was a mistake, I'm sure there had to be a pretty good reason for it?

my guess is the combination of SA's, Hasselback's, and Jones' contracts wouldn't make it feasible. How long could you keep a team together with 2 Franchised OLmen?

 

[mad sweeney]

Hey, OT from the bickering about articles, but I'm just curious... does anyone know for sure WHY Seattle went with a transition tag instead of a franchise tag on Hutch? The Seahawks are a pretty well runned organization, so even though it's looking like it was a mistake, I'm sure there had to be a pretty good reason for it?

Last year Reinfeldt came in and immediately fixed the 3 year franchise drama with Jones, then signed Hass in time to use the tag on SA, who they were not ready to guage long term terms with yet. He and Ruskell handles the FA system last year masterfully. I'm sure the use of the trans tag was a calculated move, knowing full well that there were teams out there that would try and take him. Maybe it was an agreement between team and agent, maybe they don't want another Jones saga, could be any number of reasons. But they knew when they went trans on him that he could be gone. Now they know his true market value, and they're willing to pay him that dough. If the clause goes through, then they lose him and move on. I would like to know why, but I would be very shocked if this was some sort of ploy that went wrong on them. It's like playing a Hold 'em hand and folding with nothing, then seeing you'd have a full house on the flop. You didn't make a mistake in doing it, but you didn't win either. Reinfeldt and Ruskell know what they're doing and if he goesm then it wasn't meant to be.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

It'll all be over with right away

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2375444

Arbiter to hear Hutchinson dispute Monday

By Len Pasquarelli

ESPN.com

One way or another, Steve Hutchinson is going to be the richest guard in NFL history, and one of the highest paid offensive linemen at any position.

Steve Hutchinson

Hutchinson

But where Hutchinson plays in 2006 and beyond, and which team gets to sign his $49 million in paychecks over the next seven years, is still a matter of debate.

And one that could be settled in a Monday arbitration session in Philadelphia.

It was determined this weekend that "special master" Stephen Burbank, the University of Pennsylvania law professor who serves as the final word in many key contractual disputes, has jurisdiction over a claim filed on Friday by the Seattle Seahawks about the seven-year contract Hutchinson signed with the Minnesota Vikings last Sunday.

Burbank will convene a Monday hearing, and his resolution of the case, which all sides hope is a fairly expeditious one, likely will determine if Hutchinson stays in Seattle or moves on to the Vikings. Both teams prefer a quick ruling so they can move on with their offseason plans.

At issue is a so-called "poison pill" clause that the Vikings included in the contract. It stipulates that Hutchinson must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team after the first year of the contract and that, if he isn't, the entire contract becomes guaranteed. The provision is a difficult one for the Seahawks, who have the right to match the Minnesota offer, because offensive tackle Walter Jones is the team's highest paid lineman and would be even if Hutchinson were on the Seattle roster.

Less than 2 percent of NFL contracts are fully guaranteed and those are usually limited to quarterbacks or other players at skill positions. Having to guarantee Hutchinson's contract would break new ground.

Seattle representatives at the hearing will contest that the guarantee provision in the contract is not a principal term of the deal. They will argue that the Seahawks should be able to match the financial terms of the contract, and to retain Hutchinson, who was designated a transitional player last month. Hutchinson and the Vikings, who will be primarily represented by NFL Players Association attorneys, will contest that the clause is a valid one and is not an attempt to circumvent the collective bargaining agreement.

Indications are that the Seahawks are prepared to match the seven-year, $49 million contract, assuming they are not bound by the provision guaranteeing the contract. Although the deal carries a 2006 salary cap charge of about $13 million, Seattle has sufficient cap space to absorb such a huge hit, and still have room to make other offseason moves. What the Seahawks hope to avoid is having to guarantee the entire contract.

If Burbank rules in favor of Hutchinson, a three-time Pro Bowl performer regarded by many as the top guard in the league, the Seahawks may decide not to match the offer. In that scenario, Hutchinson, a first-round pick in the 2001 draft, would play for Minnesota, and the Seahawks would not receive any draft-choice compensation from the Vikings.

 

[cstu]

Hey, OT from the bickering about articles, but I'm just curious... does anyone know for sure WHY Seattle went with a transition tag instead of a franchise tag on Hutch? The Seahawks are a pretty well runned organization, so even though it's looking like it was a mistake, I'm sure there had to be a pretty good reason for it?

my guess is the combination of SA's, Hasselback's, and Jones' contracts wouldn't make it feasible. How long could you keep a team together with 2 Franchised OLmen?

As long as you have an owner willing to spend money and manipulate the cap the way the Redskins do.

 

[Gopher State]

I think the Seahawks only shot is that the clause is only for 2006.

This, to me, might be the only thing that violates the "spirit" of the CBA, as I think the offer sheet is in compliance with the CBA.

But by stipulating that he need only be the highest paid O-lineman for only one season, that kind of reeks of the Vikings trying to have thieir cake and eat it too.

What I mean:

Let's say, for argument, that it wasn't a poison pill, and Condon actually negotiated this clause. Any knucklehead with a GED knows that Hutch was gonna be their highest paid lineman in 2006, guarantee clause or not. So there'd be no reason to negotiate such a clause.

If the player or agent was to negotiate a clause like that, it'd be that if Hutch was passed by anyone on the O-line (McKinnie), the balance of his deal would be guaranteed.

By making this strictly a one year clause, it makes it obvious that the Vikes had no intention of ever coming close to putting themselves in a position to guarantee his deal.

Having said all that, I still think it's a weak argument. It's based on assumption, and I would be real surprised if the Hawks won this arbitration.

 

[BlueOnion]

I think the Seahawks only shot is that the clause is only for 2006.

This, to me, might be the only thing that violates the "spirit" of the CBA, as I think the offer sheet is in compliance with the CBA.

But by stipulating that he need only be the highest paid O-lineman for only one season, that kind of reeks of the Vikings trying to have thieir cake and eat it too.

What I mean:

Let's say, for argument, that it wasn't a poison pill, and Condon actually negotiated this clause. Any knucklehead with a GED knows that Hutch was gonna be their highest paid lineman in 2006, guarantee clause or not. So there'd be no reason to negotiate such a clause.

If the player or agent was to negotiate a clause like that, it'd be that if Hutch was passed by anyone on the O-line (McKinnie), the balance of his deal would be guaranteed.

By making this strictly a one year clause, it makes it obvious that the Vikes had no intention of ever coming close to putting themselves in a position to guarantee his deal.

Having said all that, I still think it's a weak argument. It's based on assumption, and I would be real surprised if the Hawks won this arbitration.

Or the player and agent want to ensure his current team (the Seahawks) don't match the offer because he doesn't want to be there. Thus throwing out the clause may expose the player to returning to said team.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I think the Seahawks only shot is that the clause is only for 2006.

This, to me, might be the only thing that violates the "spirit" of the CBA, as I think the offer sheet is in compliance with the CBA.

But by stipulating that he need only be the highest paid O-lineman for only one season, that kind of reeks of the Vikings trying to have thieir cake and eat it too.

What I mean:

Let's say, for argument, that it wasn't a poison pill, and Condon actually negotiated this clause. Any knucklehead with a GED knows that Hutch was gonna be their highest paid lineman in 2006, guarantee clause or not. So there'd be no reason to negotiate such a clause.

If the player or agent was to negotiate a clause like that, it'd be that if Hutch was passed by anyone on the O-line (McKinnie), the balance of his deal would be guaranteed.

By making this strictly a one year clause, it makes it obvious that the Vikes had no intention of ever coming close to putting themselves in a position to guarantee his deal.

Having said all that, I still think it's a weak argument. It's based on assumption, and I would be real surprised if the Hawks won this arbitration.

Or the player and agent want to ensure his current team (the Seahawks) don't match the offer because he doesn't want to be there. Thus throwing out the clause may expose the player to returning to said team.

Here is ablurb from the Seattle board concerning Clayton saying that Hutch does like it in Seattle....

I would imagine some of you are listening as well, but some of you probably aren't, so I thought I'd share what I heard between 9 and 9:45 this AM from Clayton on KJR.

Clayton has said a few times already this AM that Hutch loves it here, this thing is not personal, it's just business. He is not looking to flee. That doesn't make the "poison pill" feel any better, but let's get over the idea that Hutch doesn't want to be here and is dreaming of playing in purple! He's really dreaming of a 7 year deal.

He also went on to speculate much like Schefter did last night, that the Hawks very well could come away with two of the three names mentioned right now when it's all said and done - Hutch, Abraham and Peterson.

He's also said a lot about Abraham, didn't catch all of it but nothing really new, other than he DID say that he doesn't think the Falcons are going to sweeten their offer in any way and that the Jets are going to continue to play hard-ball.

Finally, he quickly said that based on the Wolford case and the changing of the language to the CBA after that case, that he believes the Seahawks will prevail in arbitration.

 

[BlueOnion]

I think the Seahawks only shot is that the clause is only for 2006.

This, to me, might be the only thing that violates the "spirit" of the CBA, as I think the offer sheet is in compliance with the CBA.

But by stipulating that he need only be the highest paid O-lineman for only one season, that kind of reeks of the Vikings trying to have thieir cake and eat it too.

What I mean:

Let's say, for argument, that it wasn't a poison pill, and Condon actually negotiated this clause. Any knucklehead with a GED knows that Hutch was gonna be their highest paid lineman in 2006, guarantee clause or not. So there'd be no reason to negotiate such a clause.

If the player or agent was to negotiate a clause like that, it'd be that if Hutch was passed by anyone on the O-line (McKinnie), the balance of his deal would be guaranteed.

By making this strictly a one year clause, it makes it obvious that the Vikes had no intention of ever coming close to putting themselves in a position to guarantee his deal.

Having said all that, I still think it's a weak argument. It's based on assumption, and I would be real surprised if the Hawks won this arbitration.

Or the player and agent want to ensure his current team (the Seahawks) don't match the offer because he doesn't want to be there. Thus throwing out the clause may expose the player to returning to said team.

Here is ablurb from the Seattle board concerning Clayton saying that Hutch does like it in Seattle....

I would imagine some of you are listening as well, but some of you probably aren't, so I thought I'd share what I heard between 9 and 9:45 this AM from Clayton on KJR.

Clayton has said a few times already this AM that Hutch loves it here, this thing is not personal, it's just business. He is not looking to flee. That doesn't make the "poison pill" feel any better, but let's get over the idea that Hutch doesn't want to be here and is dreaming of playing in purple! He's really dreaming of a 7 year deal.

He also went on to speculate much like Schefter did last night, that the Hawks very well could come away with two of the three names mentioned right now when it's all said and done - Hutch, Abraham and Peterson.

He's also said a lot about Abraham, didn't catch all of it but nothing really new, other than he DID say that he doesn't think the Falcons are going to sweeten their offer in any way and that the Jets are going to continue to play hard-ball.

Finally, he quickly said that based on the Wolford case and the changing of the language to the CBA after that case, that he believes the Seahawks will prevail in arbitration.

I have to give Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt that he is a man of some intelligence and if he wanted to leave a possibility of staying in Seattle, he would have nixed the poison pill in the contract.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

I think the Seahawks only shot is that the clause is only for 2006.

This, to me, might be the only thing that violates the "spirit" of the CBA, as I think the offer sheet is in compliance with the CBA.

But by stipulating that he need only be the highest paid O-lineman for only one season, that kind of reeks of the Vikings trying to have thieir cake and eat it too.

What I mean:

Let's say, for argument, that it wasn't a poison pill, and Condon actually negotiated this clause. Any knucklehead with a GED knows that Hutch was gonna be their highest paid lineman in 2006, guarantee clause or not. So there'd be no reason to negotiate such a clause.

If the player or agent was to negotiate a clause like that, it'd be that if Hutch was passed by anyone on the O-line (McKinnie), the balance of his deal would be guaranteed.

By making this strictly a one year clause, it makes it obvious that the Vikes had no intention of ever coming close to putting themselves in a position to guarantee his deal.

Having said all that, I still think it's a weak argument. It's based on assumption, and I would be real surprised if the Hawks won this arbitration.

Or the player and agent want to ensure his current team (the Seahawks) don't match the offer because he doesn't want to be there. Thus throwing out the clause may expose the player to returning to said team.

Here is ablurb from the Seattle board concerning Clayton saying that Hutch does like it in Seattle....

I would imagine some of you are listening as well, but some of you probably aren't, so I thought I'd share what I heard between 9 and 9:45 this AM from Clayton on KJR.

Clayton has said a few times already this AM that Hutch loves it here, this thing is not personal, it's just business. He is not looking to flee. That doesn't make the "poison pill" feel any better, but let's get over the idea that Hutch doesn't want to be here and is dreaming of playing in purple! He's really dreaming of a 7 year deal.

He also went on to speculate much like Schefter did last night, that the Hawks very well could come away with two of the three names mentioned right now when it's all said and done - Hutch, Abraham and Peterson.

He's also said a lot about Abraham, didn't catch all of it but nothing really new, other than he DID say that he doesn't think the Falcons are going to sweeten their offer in any way and that the Jets are going to continue to play hard-ball.

Finally, he quickly said that based on the Wolford case and the changing of the language to the CBA after that case, that he believes the Seahawks will prevail in arbitration.

I have to give Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt that he is a man of some intelligence and if he wanted to leave a possibility of staying in Seattle, he would have nixed the poison pill in the contract.

Players hire agents and tell tehm to get the most money. I think people read too much into this. There was no reason he wanted or needed out of Seattle he just wanted as much money as he could get. PERIOD.

 

[BlueOnion]

Players hire agents and tell tehm to get the most money. I think people read too much into this. There was no reason he wanted or needed out of Seattle he just wanted as much money as he could get. PERIOD.

Agents work for the players and I believe players should be held accountable for the actions of their agents.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Players hire agents and tell tehm to get the most money.  I think people read too much into this.  There was no reason he wanted or needed out of Seattle he just wanted as much money as he could get.  PERIOD.

Agents work for the players and I believe players should be held accountable for the actions of their agents.

I try to put myself in his shoes and my conclusion is: pay me. Who knows what is going on. I'm just glad it's over tomorrow!

 

[Sea Bass]

I believe that Hutch would be just as happy to stay as he would return to the midwest. This offer gave him his best contract as well as the potential to make more.

The agent served his player well.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Players hire agents and tell tehm to get the most money. I think people read too much into this. There was no reason he wanted or needed out of Seattle he just wanted as much money as he could get. PERIOD.

Agents work for the players and I believe players should be held accountable for the actions of their agents.

I agree that Hutch knew full well what the clause meant, but that does not mean he does not like Seattle, or has ill thoughts towards the Seahawks. By inserting this clause, it was a method for the Vikings to actually be able to get Hutch and for Hutch to make a lot of coin.

Maybe Hutch and his agent put forth this poison pill clause so that the Vikings went ahead with the offer because there was no use in making an offer to just have the Hawks match it. Why would the Vicking do all the negotiating for Hutch to have the Hawks reap the rewards. As you can see, this clause is the only thing holding the Hawks back from matching, so it will make Hutch a lot of money in the end, but I do not think it maens Hutch wants out of Seattle.

 

[BlueOnion]

Players hire agents and tell tehm to get the most money. I think people read too much into this. There was no reason he wanted or needed out of Seattle he just wanted as much money as he could get. PERIOD.

Agents work for the players and I believe players should be held accountable for the actions of their agents.

I agree that Hutch knew full well what the clause meant, but that does not mean he does not like Seattle, or has ill thoughts towards the Seahawks. By inserting this clause, it was a method for the Vikings to actually be able to get Hutch and for Hutch to make a lot of coin.

Maybe Hutch and his agent put forth this poison pill clause so that the Vikings went ahead with the offer because there was no use in making an offer to just have the Hawks match it. Why would the Vicking do all the negotiating for Hutch to have the Hawks reap the rewards. As you can see, this clause is the only thing holding the Hawks back from matching, so it will make Hutch a lot of money in the end, but I do not think it maens Hutch wants out of Seattle.

I could buy this, it would make a lot of sense.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

PLEASE, PLEASE BE OVER TODAY.

I don't even care what happens at this moment, I just want it to be over. It's like a holiday dinner with the family!

 

[fridayfrenzy]

PLEASE, PLEASE BE OVER TODAY.

I don't even care what happens at this moment, I just want it to be over. It's like a holiday dinner with the family!

I doubt its done today. Its only getting heard today.

 

[Vikes Fan]

I heard on the radio that it is believed it will be decided today and the deadline for Seattle is Midnight (Eastern) tonight.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I heard on the radio that it is believed it will be decided today and the deadline for Seattle is Midnight (Eastern) tonight.

The deadline for Seattle to do what?

 

[Arm Chair Express]

I heard on the radio that it is believed it will be decided today and the deadline for Seattle is Midnight (Eastern) tonight.

The deadline for Seattle to do what?

Match Minny's offer!

 

[Vikes Fan]

I heard on the radio that it is believed it will be decided today and the deadline for Seattle is Midnight (Eastern) tonight.

The deadline for Seattle to do what?

Match Minny's offer!

Yes, to match.

 

[AB in DC]

From last week:

AND ONE MORE TIME,

The last three pages of argument is based on this poison pill idea that has only been reported by PFT and hasn't been confirmed or even mentioned by anyone else. This might all just be a bunch of

Time to bump all those PFT threads again?

 

[Franknbeans]

from MMQB...

There's a lot at stake in Steve Hutchinson's hearing before a special master in Philadelphia today, not the least of which is a huge precedent in guaranteed contracts.

The stat first: The biggest guarantee of a contract previously in NFL history is the $35 million in guaranteed money in Peyton Manning's 2005 deal with the Colts. If Hutchinson wins his case and the Seahawks match the offer sheet Hutchinson signed with the Vikings seven days ago, his entire seven-year contract would be guaranteed -- $49 million. It'd be the biggest guaranteed contract in NFL history.

One of the clauses in his seven-year, $49 million deal with the Vikings -- designed as a poison pill by agent Tom Condon so Seattle would have to swallow very hard before matching -- is that Hutchinson's entire contract be guaranteed if he is not the highest-paid offensive lineman on his team. Currently, Seattle left tackle Walter Jones is one of three NFL offensive linemen averaging more than $7 million a year. Seattle is arguing that this is not a principal term of the contract -- in other words, it's an unnatural clause inserted simply to make it impossible for Seattle in good conscience to match.

Seattle would certainly match a deal with $16 million in guaranteed money, but it'd be a tough pill to swallow to guarantee that kind of deal at a position where torn ACLs are not uncommon. If Hutchinson gets hurt badly in year one or year two, that'd be a huge anchor on the Seahawks' salary cap.

and

2. I think you might be wondering why Steve Hutchinson, the best guard in football, seems so intent on breaking out of Seattle. I am, too. I hear it has something to do with the fact that he felt he'd been assured that his contract, in its last year in 2005, would be addressed sometime last year. It wasn't. So he went into talks with Minnesota thinking, Let's make a deal that will find me a new home. I know there's a lot of stuff happening around the NFL right now, but let me tell you something -- this is a very big deal as it relates to the balance of power in the league. Hutchinson out of Seattle would take a very big bite out of Shaun Alexander's effectiveness. All you fantasy football players who love Alexander and his gazillion annual touchdowns? Get ready for a decline if Hutchinson goes to Minnesota.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

From last week:

AND ONE MORE TIME,

The last three pages of argument is based on this poison pill idea that has only been reported by PFT and hasn't been confirmed or even mentioned by anyone else.  This might all just be a bunch of 

Time to bump all those PFT threads again?

You work at PFT or something?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

-- this is a very big deal as it relates to the balance of power in the league. Hutchinson out of Seattle would take a very big bite out of Shaun Alexander's effectiveness. All you fantasy football players who love Alexander and his gazillion annual touchdowns? Get ready for a decline if Hutchinson goes to Minnesota.

Maybe they are unaware that Seattle has 3 other pro-bowl blockers and has Womack to fill the void if they don't bring in a FA replacement, like Ashworth from the Patriots.Put any guard in the league beside Walter Jones, and they suddenly get a little better.

I am not trying to take anythign away from hutch, as he is awesome, but Hutch is not the sole reason for the Seahawks success.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

From Sando's blog:

Mar 20, 2006 11:35 am

New twist in Hutchinson situation

Seahawks LT Walter Jones has redone his contract with the team so that his average per year declines beneath the $7 million average offered to LG Steve Hutchinson by the Vikings. Some of you have asked recently if I thought that would happen. I said I did not think it would. I was wrong. My understanding is that Jones added one year to his deal at a base salary of $1 million. This extra year will void in the end, but for now it lowers the average. The team then converted his 2006 roster bonus ($2 million) to signing bonus. That affects his cap number this year but not the average (I'm not immediately sure why that was done, but it was done). I'm also told that the special master intends to make a ruling by this afternoon, and that the issue being debated is a little different than we thought. The disputed clause in the Hutchinson offer sheet would guarantee the full $49 million contract if Hutchinson were not the highest-paid offensive lineman on his team in 2006. The question, in light of Jones redoing his deal, is whether Hutchinson had to be the highest-paid guy for every day of the league year (Jones would have been paid more for part of this year, up until he redid his deal). Hope that helps. This is a developing story. Stay tuned.

 

[massraider]

That is some big news right there. If the Vikes won because of a technicality like that, that would be silly, IMO.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

That is some big news right there. If the Vikes won because of a technicality like that, that would be silly, IMO.

Do you think Walter Jones would redo his deal if that was the case? Seems to me they looked at the contract and made the Jones adjustment based on the information they had. Who knows. This will over be over soon.