Vikes Sign Hutchinson to Offer Sheet (1 Viewer)

[Mungo Burrows]

The problem I have with this is if a team has two top players at the same position and the lower paid one becomes a free agent, he can now sign an offer sheet for $1 less than the other guy and force his original team to guarantee his contract or let him go.

This will invariably lead to other almost impossible to meet clauses (if not the highest paid player at his position, he automatically gets a $25 million bonus, etc.). Not a good idea in my book, as it gives the original team almost no chance of retaining the player.

That is only true if the signing team doesn't have someone already signed with a higher salary. I agree that this ruling will lead to abuse. It really strikes me as another mechanism to ensure parity in the NFL. Teams that do not have the high priced talent will be in a much better position to get transition tag players. That makes using the transition tag a very risky proposition for any team.

Not just transition tags, but RFA's as well, although at least there, teams get draft picks as return and a potential disincentive to the offering team. I would expect every RFA, transition and any other "matchable" offer sheet to have $25M+ salary in the last year of the deal and some guarantee clause that only applies for the original team and will not kick in for the team making the offer. The offering team will renegotiate or cut the player before that year comes along, but the original team will be forced to guarantee it.The ability to match any type of offer just went out the window. Because there is no compensation for transition players, it is effectively dead as a way to restrict player movement. It's either franchise or UFA.

 

[norseman9375]

What makes you think they should get a benefit from using the transition tag?

What do you think the point of the transition tag is?

It is to make sure the player gets the most money he can.

OMG. Do you really believe that? I've got way too much respect for you to believe that you're being honest here.The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players. If the idea was for a player to maximize their earning power there would simply be unrestricted free agency.

I think you need to seriously go back and re-evaluate.

Please don't ban me shick!But I disagree and I will acknowledge it is a little slippery. Seattle had exclusive rights to sign Hutch (for a good period of time prior to free agency) and they didn't get it done, so there has to be a risk of losing a player by putting a transition tag on him.

Maybe maximizing earning power was a bit to liberal for me to say. But if what you say was true ("The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players."), then what leverage does Hutchinson have in getting himself a deal? The transition tag would simply be a, "Well you can try to drum up some interest in a contract, but in the end it is our decision to retain you for that contract." This sounds good for the Seahawks and good for Hutch. But what incentive do other teams have to give Hutchinson a fair-market deal.

It sounds to me that people want the transition tag = franchise tag and I disagree with this.

It sounds to me like you don't know what you're talking about.

It's really a matter of perspective. Teams see it as a way keep players if they so choose, while players will look at it as a way to get a big paycheck. I agree that the offer sheet Hutchinson signed didn't really give the Hawks a chance to match, but no one should have expected the Vikings to make it easy for them. It's pretty obvious to me that the Seahwks made a mistake. By matching the offer the Vikings gave Hutchinson, they showed they were willing to match any offer regardless of price. So why didn't they offer him a similar deal? They probably could have gotten him to sign for a little less, and if he wouldn't take it they could have franchised him and worked out a deal later. It looks like they were hoping that the transition tag would scare the rest of the teams away so they could have Hutchinson on a one year deal for much less than what they would have to pay him if they signed him to a deal for his market value.

 

[BlueOnion]

What makes you think they should get a benefit from using the transition tag?

What do you think the point of the transition tag is?

It is to make sure the player gets the most money he can.

OMG. Do you really believe that? I've got way too much respect for you to believe that you're being honest here.The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players. If the idea was for a player to maximize their earning power there would simply be unrestricted free agency.

I think you need to seriously go back and re-evaluate.

Please don't ban me shick!But I disagree and I will acknowledge it is a little slippery. Seattle had exclusive rights to sign Hutch (for a good period of time prior to free agency) and they didn't get it done, so there has to be a risk of losing a player by putting a transition tag on him.

Maybe maximizing earning power was a bit to liberal for me to say. But if what you say was true ("The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players."), then what leverage does Hutchinson have in getting himself a deal? The transition tag would simply be a, "Well you can try to drum up some interest in a contract, but in the end it is our decision to retain you for that contract." This sounds good for the Seahawks and good for Hutch. But what incentive do other teams have to give Hutchinson a fair-market deal.

It sounds to me that people want the transition tag = franchise tag and I disagree with this.

It sounds to me like you don't know what you're talking about.

Well I can say is if the Vikings were not allowed to put the poison pill in there, I think it would have been unlikely they would have taken the time to talk to Hutchinson about a deal. The Seahawks had plenty of cap space and the Vikings had plenty of money to spend on free agents.It would hardly make sense for a team to give Hutchinson the time and day (especially at the beginning of free agency) knowing Seattle could\would match the offer.

If the meaing of the transition tag is what most are promoting in here (a right for the said team to retain their player), then it would be unlikely Hutchinson would have gotten fair market value.

I admit it is somewhat disengenious when a team (vikings) can make a contract in which Seattle cannot match. But I think it is disengenious for a team (seahawks) to let Hutchinson negotiate a deal on the open market with a dark cloud (seahawks cap space) hanging over his head.

Personally, I think transition tags and franchise tags should be done away with.

 

[BlueOnion]

The problem I have with this is if a team has two top players at the same position and the lower paid one becomes a free agent, he can now sign an offer sheet for $1 less than the other guy and force his original team to guarantee his contract or let him go.

This will invariably lead to other almost impossible to meet clauses (if not the highest paid player at his position, he automatically gets a $25 million bonus, etc.). Not a good idea in my book, as it gives the original team almost no chance of retaining the player.

Teams have exclusive rights to negotiate with their own players from the close of season to the beginning of free agency. Not sure how much more of an advantage a team needs.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I thought that the "poison pill" was thrown in there by Hutch and his agent and not the Vikings.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

What makes you think they should get a benefit from using the transition tag?

What do you think the point of the transition tag is?

It is to make sure the player gets the most money he can.

OMG. Do you really believe that? I've got way too much respect for you to believe that you're being honest here.The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players. If the idea was for a player to maximize their earning power there would simply be unrestricted free agency.

I think you need to seriously go back and re-evaluate.

Please don't ban me shick!But I disagree and I will acknowledge it is a little slippery. Seattle had exclusive rights to sign Hutch (for a good period of time prior to free agency) and they didn't get it done, so there has to be a risk of losing a player by putting a transition tag on him.

Maybe maximizing earning power was a bit to liberal for me to say. But if what you say was true ("The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players."), then what leverage does Hutchinson have in getting himself a deal? The transition tag would simply be a, "Well you can try to drum up some interest in a contract, but in the end it is our decision to retain you for that contract." This sounds good for the Seahawks and good for Hutch. But what incentive do other teams have to give Hutchinson a fair-market deal.

It sounds to me that people want the transition tag = franchise tag and I disagree with this.

The transition tag is a lesser degree Franchise tag. It allows the player to negotiate with other teams and get his market value and allow the original team to match. The problem with the franshie tag is that the player and agent never get to negotiate with other team to find out how much they are really worth.This ruling makes it useless as now the offer will just be targetteed at every team so that the offer can not be matched.

But for the bolded part to happen, teams first have to believe they can work out a contract in such a way the original team cannot match it. Without this insentive, why would teams want to take the time to negiotiate with the player and lock up a good portion of there free agency money for the first week of free agency on a player they may or may not get?

Because the offering team can still offer more than market value for the player and have the original team not think its worth it. If Seattle thinks Hutch is worth 7 million a year and the Vikings offer 8 million a year, then the Hawks will not match, but making an offer that does not even allow the original team to match makes the tag useless.

why? the seahawks can still match

They aren't just matching...they have to exceed the offer made by the Vikings.

 

[norseman9375]

What makes you think they should get a benefit from using the transition tag?

What do you think the point of the transition tag is?

It is to make sure the player gets the most money he can.

OMG. Do you really believe that? I've got way too much respect for you to believe that you're being honest here.The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players. If the idea was for a player to maximize their earning power there would simply be unrestricted free agency.

I think you need to seriously go back and re-evaluate.

Please don't ban me shick!But I disagree and I will acknowledge it is a little slippery. Seattle had exclusive rights to sign Hutch (for a good period of time prior to free agency) and they didn't get it done, so there has to be a risk of losing a player by putting a transition tag on him.

Maybe maximizing earning power was a bit to liberal for me to say. But if what you say was true ("The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players."), then what leverage does Hutchinson have in getting himself a deal? The transition tag would simply be a, "Well you can try to drum up some interest in a contract, but in the end it is our decision to retain you for that contract." This sounds good for the Seahawks and good for Hutch. But what incentive do other teams have to give Hutchinson a fair-market deal.

It sounds to me that people want the transition tag = franchise tag and I disagree with this.

The transition tag is a lesser degree Franchise tag. It allows the player to negotiate with other teams and get his market value and allow the original team to match. The problem with the franshie tag is that the player and agent never get to negotiate with other team to find out how much they are really worth.This ruling makes it useless as now the offer will just be targetteed at every team so that the offer can not be matched.

But for the bolded part to happen, teams first have to believe they can work out a contract in such a way the original team cannot match it. Without this insentive, why would teams want to take the time to negiotiate with the player and lock up a good portion of there free agency money for the first week of free agency on a player they may or may not get?

Because the offering team can still offer more than market value for the player and have the original team not think its worth it. If Seattle thinks Hutch is worth 7 million a year and the Vikings offer 8 million a year, then the Hawks will not match, but making an offer that does not even allow the original team to match makes the tag useless.

why? the seahawks can still match

They aren't just matching...they have to exceed the offer made by the Vikings.

They have to match the contract, not the money the Vikings will end up paying him from that contract. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

 

[BlueOnion]

I thought that the "poison pill" was thrown in there by Hutch and his agent and not the Vikings.

This is what is so 'cheeky'. Hutch can only get another team interested in negotiating with him if he can sell the team on the premise that 'he wants to be a Viking and doesn't want to be a Seahawk.' At which point, the Vikings take him seriously, but then hold him to it. I will ackowledge to others I am arguing with here that it is very 'cheeky', but the rules are the rules. The Seahawks had a lot of cap space, so if a poison pill is not an option then the market demand for Hutchinson goes way down.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

They aren't just matching...they have to exceed the offer made by the Vikings.

They have to match the contract, not the money the Vikings will end up paying him from that contract. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

Same thing. Having all 49 million guaranteed is no where near the same contract that the Vikings will be signing.

It was a sneaky clause put in there and not only that, but the Hawks were declined in re-wrking Jones' deal. I give all the credit to the Vikings, but the contact was not the same for either team.

 

[mozzy84]

don't hate the player hate the game.

 

[norseman9375]

They aren't just matching...they have to exceed the offer made by the Vikings.

They have to match the contract, not the money the Vikings will end up paying him from that contract. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

Same thing. Having all 49 million guaranteed is no where near the same contract that the Vikings will be signing.

It was a sneaky clause put in there and not only that, but the Hawks were declined in re-wrking Jones' deal. I give all the credit to the Vikings, but the contact was not the same for either team.

If it was the same thing Hutchinson would be staying in Seatle. Again, it might not be fair, but that was the ruling.

 

[Gopher State]

If it was the same thing Hutchinson would be staying in Seatle. Again, it might not be fair, but that was the ruling.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Poor Seahag fans...first the SB and now this!!!!!!

 

[BlueOnion]

Poor Seahag fans...first the SB and now this!!!!!!

Somebody help this guy out and explain to him what this is.

 

[BigJim®]

What makes you think they should get a benefit from using the transition tag?

What do you think the point of the transition tag is?

It is to make sure the player gets the most money he can.

OMG. Do you really believe that? I've got way too much respect for you to believe that you're being honest here.The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players. If the idea was for a player to maximize their earning power there would simply be unrestricted free agency.

I think you need to seriously go back and re-evaluate.

Please don't ban me shick!But I disagree and I will acknowledge it is a little slippery. Seattle had exclusive rights to sign Hutch (for a good period of time prior to free agency) and they didn't get it done, so there has to be a risk of losing a player by putting a transition tag on him.

Maybe maximizing earning power was a bit to liberal for me to say. But if what you say was true ("The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players."), then what leverage does Hutchinson have in getting himself a deal? The transition tag would simply be a, "Well you can try to drum up some interest in a contract, but in the end it is our decision to retain you for that contract." This sounds good for the Seahawks and good for Hutch. But what incentive do other teams have to give Hutchinson a fair-market deal.

It sounds to me that people want the transition tag = franchise tag and I disagree with this.

You were closer to the truth than you are being given credit. While Shick is right that this is a provision that also is intended to ensure a team a fair shake to keep key players, the NFLPA would not have agreed to it if there wasn't something in it for those key players. That 'something' is the competitive interest of other teams setting what amounts to a market driven price tag. Teams wanting to get another team's key player bad enough will tend to overpay him in a way they hope will not be matched. It's undeniable that allowing 31 teams to set the market the key player's skill commands, as opposed to simply leaving him in negotiating in a vacuum with a team competing against nobody, is going to result in more money for the key player. Poison pill aside, there's just no way Hutchinson would have been offered a frontloaded $49M deal had Hutch been dealing with the Seahawks and the Seahawks only.

 

[Kleck]

Poor Seahag fans...first the SB and now this!!!!!!

You do a disservice to the class that is the Rooney family and their organization.

 

[kwille]

The NFL sure has turned into a year-round soap-opera.

 

[Barry]

Poor Seahag fans...first the SB and now this!!!!!!

You do a disservice to the class that is the Rooney family and their organization.

and you take things way too serious.

 

[Kleck]

Poor Seahag fans...first the SB and now this!!!!!!

You do a disservice to the class that is the Rooney family and their organization.

and you take things way too serious.

When in doubt its always good schtick to play the "you care more than i do" card.

 

[Barry]

Poor Seahag fans...first the SB and now this!!!!!!

You do a disservice to the class that is the Rooney family and their organization.

and you take things way too serious.

When in doubt its always good schtick to play the "you care more than i do" card.

read again the reply you made to Stillers jr . Seriously.

 

[seahawk 17]

Hawks to let Hutchinson go

Hours after losing a ruling by an arbitrator, the Seahawks apparently have decided to let a deadline pass to match a rich offer sheet to offensive lineman Steve Hutchinson, who will become a Minnesota Viking. Details shortly.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/

 

[supermark_28]

so seahawks insiders what does losing hutch REALLY mean to SA #'s ??

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

Hawks to let Hutchinson go

Hours after losing a ruling by an arbitrator, the Seahawks apparently have decided to let a deadline pass to match a rich offer sheet to offensive lineman Steve Hutchinson, who will become a Minnesota Viking. Details shortly.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/

 

[Steve in Minneapolis]

I can't believe this went our way... I am thrilled...

This alone could help Brad go from starting 12 games to 14...

 

[JMon348]

so seahawks insiders what does losing hutch REALLY mean to SA #'s ??

 

[seahawk 17]

Hawks let Hutchinson go

By DANNY O'NEIL

P-I REPORTER

KIRKLAND -- Midnight arrived three hours early in Seattle, and the Seahawks stayed silent as Monday's 9 p.m. deadline to match the offer for Steve Hutchinson passed.

And that's how Hutchinson became a member of the Minnesota Vikings in what was a quiet end to a busy day. It began with an arbitration hearing in Philadelphia and ended with Seattle facing the decision of making Hutchinson the largest guaranteed money commitment in NFL history or watching him walk away without compensation.

Not that Seattle didn't try to alter that outcome. The Seahawks restructured Walter Jones' contract last week, and the NFL requested an arbitration hearing on Seattle's behalf. That hearing was held Monday with the central issue being whether the Seahawks still had to guarantee the full sum of Hutchinson's seven-year, $49 million offer since Hutchinson was now the highest-paid lineman.

Stephen Burbank is a University of Pennsylvania law professor, who is the special master, which is an arbitrator provided for in the NFL's collective-bargaining agreement.

Burbank ruled that Seattle's request to introduce language altered a principal term of the offer sheet, said NFC spokesman Michael Signora. The layman's translation: Renegotiating Jones' contract last week didn't take the Seahawks off the hook. If they wanted to keep Hutchinson by matching the Vikings' deal, they were responsible for paying the whole $49 million. Seattle was given until 9 p.m. Pacific to decide.

When the deadline passed, Hutchinson became a Viking and the Seahawks got an additional $6.3 million in salary-cap space with Hutchinson off the books. Floyd Womack figures to be first in line to move to left guard, and Seattle now has more than $20 million of salary-cap spending room.

The results are easy enough to describe. Detailing the route to the outcome is a lot trickier because of a provision in the offer sheet Hutchinson signed with Minnesota on March 12. The seven-year, $49 million deal included a provision that Hutchinson be the highest-paid lineman on the team or the sum of the contract was guaranteed. He would have been the highest-paid in Minnesota, but not in Seattle because where Jones signed a seven-year, $54.5 million contract last year.

The provision in effect of requiring the Seahawks to guarantee all of Hutchinson's contract while the Vikings were responsible for $16 million of guaranteed money.

The presumption was the validity of the provision would be the primary issue at Monday's arbitration hearing. It wasn't.

"They tried to argue an interpretation that would have kept the deal from being guaranteed," said Richard Berthelsen, lead counsel for the NFL Players Association.

Seattle had restructured Jones' contract last week, which made Hutchinson the highest-paid lineman on the team. Berthelsen said Seattle's argument was that if Hutchinson was the highest-paid lineman at any point in the 2006 NFL year that the contract did not have to be guaranteed. Based on that interpretation, the Seahawks sought to modify the wording of the provision.

Berthelsen said the NFL Players Association's interpretation was Hutchinson had to be the highest-paid lineman from the time he signed the offer sheet through the end of the year or the contract was guaranteed. Berthelsen said the interpretation was what both the Vikings and Hutchinson's agent said was the intention of the provision.

Burbank ruled Seattle had to match the original offer-sheet terms, meaning Seattle would have to guarantee all $49 million if it chose to match because Hutchinson was not the highest-paid lineman at the beginning of the period specified in the offers sheet.

For comparison's sake, Peyton Manning's record contract included a $34.5 million signing bonus in 2004. Michael Vick's contract reportedly has $37 million in guaranteed bonuses.

Tom Condon, Hutchinson's agent, did not return a message after the decision. He was asked by the Associated Press if Hutchinson wanted to leave the Seahawks.

"Not at all. I think that there wasn't any reason for him to leave Seattle," Condon said. "Nevertheless, Minnesota really stepped out for him."

Seattle could have designated Hutchinson the franchise player in February. A team must forfeit two first-round draft picks if it signs away another team's franchise player, which is usually a prohibitively high price for any team.

It would have cost Seattle about $600,000 more to make Hutchinson the franchise player, but short-term savings wasn't the motivation. The Seahawks had pegged Hutchinson's value closer to the $6.4 million that would go to a transition player than the nearly $7 million that would have gone to him as the franchise player. The Seahawks' decision was based on their belief the franchise-player figure set the bar too high in negotiations for a long-term contract.

Turns out, Minnesota was willing to go that high and then a little bit more with a contract that ranks fourth among offensive lineman in terms of pay and first among all guards.

ROLL CALL: No sign of progress in the Seahawks' pursuit of defensive end John Abraham, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Abraham's agent said the three-time Pro Bowler wants to play for the Falcons, not the Seahawks. Seattle would need to agree to a long-term contract with Abraham before finishing a trade with the Jets ... Tackle Tom Ashworth of New England is scheduled to visit the Seahawks this week.

 

[Raskell5]

 

[-OZ-]

How much does this really hurt the transition tag concept?

I doubt many teams put this clause in unless they limit it like Minnesota did to OL, while the losing team has an elite player at that position. You could make it more general, but that limits your ability to sign a high priced FA later.

Or, let's say an elite RT became available next year and Minnesota wanted to sign him, he wants more than Hutch. Can Minnesota renegotiate Hutch's contract, removing the pill?

Either way, Seattle had a long time to renegotiate before Hutch hit the market, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[Franknbeans]

I think the bigger story in all of this is that Hutch wanted out of Seattle, for whatever reason. It will be interesting to hear his take when this blows over.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

What makes you think they should get a benefit from using the transition tag?

What do you think the point of the transition tag is?

It is to make sure the player gets the most money he can.

OMG. Do you really believe that? I've got way too much respect for you to believe that you're being honest here.The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players. If the idea was for a player to maximize their earning power there would simply be unrestricted free agency.

I think you need to seriously go back and re-evaluate.

Please don't ban me shick!But I disagree and I will acknowledge it is a little slippery. Seattle had exclusive rights to sign Hutch (for a good period of time prior to free agency) and they didn't get it done, so there has to be a risk of losing a player by putting a transition tag on him.

Maybe maximizing earning power was a bit to liberal for me to say. But if what you say was true ("The purpose of the transition tag is so teams have the ability to keep their players."), then what leverage does Hutchinson have in getting himself a deal? The transition tag would simply be a, "Well you can try to drum up some interest in a contract, but in the end it is our decision to retain you for that contract." This sounds good for the Seahawks and good for Hutch. But what incentive do other teams have to give Hutchinson a fair-market deal.

It sounds to me that people want the transition tag = franchise tag and I disagree with this.

You were closer to the truth than you are being given credit. While Shick is right that this is a provision that also is intended to ensure a team a fair shake to keep key players, the NFLPA would not have agreed to it if there wasn't something in it for those key players. That 'something' is the competitive interest of other teams setting what amounts to a market driven price tag. Teams wanting to get another team's key player bad enough will tend to overpay him in a way they hope will not be matched. It's undeniable that allowing 31 teams to set the market the key player's skill commands, as opposed to simply leaving him in negotiating in a vacuum with a team competing against nobody, is going to result in more money for the key player. Poison pill aside, there's just no way Hutchinson would have been offered a frontloaded $49M deal had Hutch been dealing with the Seahawks and the Seahawks only.

even if the Seahawks were to match an offer for a transition free agent, the Vikings could still damage a competitor by forcing them to pay a player more than his market value. With a salary cap in place, there is still plenty of incentive in place for a competing team to try and drive up the contract of a transition player. With the transition tag, Hutchinson got a bigger contract than he would have otherwise (benefits the player)...the Seahawks got a chance to match the deal he signed to retain him (better for the Seahawks than if he were just an unrestricted free agent)...and the Vikings were able to sign a player they desperately wanted, although it certainly wasn't as cheap as it would have been otherwise (Vikings should benefit here, but the Seahawks may also benefit b/c it was their competitor who was forced to overspend here and now Seattle has a lot of money available to spend elsewhere). Seems to work out alright for all involved, although I'm guessing the Seahawks wish they had used the franchise tag or tried harder to sign him to an extension earlier.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Or, let's say an elite RT became available next year and Minnesota wanted to sign him, he wants more than Hutch. Can Minnesota renegotiate Hutch's contract, removing the pill?

I believe the pill only referred to 2006 salary, so it wouldn't be in effect for 2007.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

I think the bigger story in all of this is that Hutch wanted out of Seattle, for whatever reason. It will be interesting to hear his take when this blows over.

Why does this have to be a conspiracy? Why do you want it to be a conspiracy? He wanted more money, his agent got him the best contract you could possibly get for a player who plays a low impact position, and he left. Why do some fans always have to know what kind of kool aid their players like and if they are good swimmers? I love my job but I'd leave it if I was offered a great contract and a promotion to a place I would like to live more than the one I live in now (maybe closer to family). Everything is a conspiracy, nothing is ever black and white any more.

Maybe he wanted out because he wanted more money. Maybe because he'd always be second fiddle to Walter Jones. Maybe he likes fat chicks dressed in purple.

 

[Carnifex]

I think the bigger story in all of this is that Hutch wanted out of Seattle, for whatever reason. It will be interesting to hear his take when this blows over.

Seattle had the choice to use either the Franchise Tag or the Transition Tag on him. They chose to use the tag which carries a lower dollar value on the one year tender. I could see how a player would take this as a slap in the face and take advantage of the situation. This might not be the case, but it certainly could be.

 

[Carnifex]

As a Viking fan I am very pleased with this signing as it fills one of the glaring holes on this team.

As a realist, however, I can say that the contract that was drawn up was bull____. It was basicly two differant contracts, one for Seattle and one for Minnesota. The dollar value was the same, but making it all guaranteed for one team and not the other circumvents the spirit of the transition tag.

I am guessing that the NFL will step in prior to the free agency period next year and draw up some new rules about this.

 

[BlueOnion]

I am guessing that the NFL will step in prior to the free agency period next year and draw up some new rules about this.

All this would do is prevent players (like Hutch) from getting fair market value.

 

[Preacher 1]

As a Viking fan I am very pleased with this signing as it fills one of the glaring holes on this team.

As a realist, however, I can say that the contract that was drawn up was bull____. It was basicly two differant contracts, one for Seattle and one for Minnesota. The dollar value was the same, but making it all guaranteed for one team and not the other circumvents the spirit of the transition tag.

I am guessing that the NFL will step in prior to the free agency period next year and draw up some new rules about this.

I doubt it...they just signed a long extension of the CBA, so unless the players union agrees (and that's not likely, since they'll make more money the way things are now), the CBA stays in place just the way that it is.Despite all of the hand-wringing and the theories of why Seahawk managment did what they did, the likely explanation is the simplest one...they tried to save 600 grand, they messed up and it backfired on them. I doubt that they'll make the mistake again.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

I am guessing that the NFL will step in prior to the free agency period next year and draw up some new rules about this.

All this would do is prevent players (like Hutch) from getting fair market value.

How so? Hutch isn't making any more money in Minnesota than he would have in Seattle.

 

[BlueOnion]

I am guessing that the NFL will step in prior to the free agency period next year and draw up some new rules about this.

All this would do is prevent players (like Hutch) from getting fair market value.

How so? Hutch isn't making any more money in Minnesota than he would have in Seattle.

Well, lets go back to the beginning of free agency. Seattle places the transition tag on Hutch prior to free agency. Seattle has a lot of cap space and is assured the right to match any offer Hutch receives in the free agent market... Knowing this...what team in their right man would want to take a very valuable day (a day early in the free agent signing period) to work out a contract with Hutch and lock up their available free agency money for free agent days 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 while Seattle waits to match an offer in which they clearly have the resources to do and had made a public intention to match?

Basically, Seattle is telling Hutch he can negotiate with every team but then Seattle goes out and scares off all the possible 31 suitors.

What I am saying is that the contract offer Hutch got from the Vikings would have never happened if the following statement (which I originally replied to) went into effect.

I am guessing that the NFL will step in prior to the free agency period next year and draw up some new rules about this.

 

[Banger]

Seattle played with fire and got burned. If he was so important (which he apparently was) they could've/should've negotiated a contract last year or could've franchised him and this whole situation would've been avoided. They used their cap room and transition tag as leverage thinking that teams wouldn't bid knowing that they would be matched by Seattle. Seattle tried to save a few $'s when they had plenty to spend and were outsmarted. They have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Chester Taylor fans

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Poor Seahag fans...first the SB and now this!!!!!!

You do a disservice to the class that is the Rooney family and their organization.

I am sympathizing with your team and fans, no need to lash out.I'm sure Seattle will be just fine without Hutch.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I am guessing that the NFL will step in prior to the free agency period next year and draw up some new rules about this.

All this would do is prevent players (like Hutch) from getting fair market value.

How so? Hutch isn't making any more money in Minnesota than he would have in Seattle.

Well, lets go back to the beginning of free agency. Seattle places the transition tag on Hutch prior to free agency. Seattle has a lot of cap space and is assured the right to match any offer Hutch receives in the free agent market... Knowing this...what team in their right man would want to take a very valuable day (a day early in the free agent signing period) to work out a contract with Hutch and lock up their available free agency money for free agent days 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 while Seattle waits to match an offer in which they clearly have the resources to do and had made a public intention to match?

Basically, Seattle is telling Hutch he can negotiate with every team but then Seattle goes out and scares off all the possible 31 suitors.

What I am saying is that the contract offer Hutch got from the Vikings would have never happened if the following statement (which I originally replied to) went into effect.

I am guessing that the NFL will step in prior to the free agency period next year and draw up some new rules about this.

So basically your argument boils down to "the transition tag has never ever benefited a player until now." I find that very difficult to believe. Most teams choose not to use the transition tag precisely because they get nothing in return if the player leaves. It does absolutely no harm to a team to sign a guy to an offer sheet. If they get him they paid him what they think he's worth, if they don't they lose only time.IMO, this ruling sets a very dangerous precedent. The only thing that seemed to matter is that the clause was tied to guaranteed money. So there's nothing to prevent a team from writing any clause they want. I could say "If the team has a player named Brad Johnson on their roster, the entire contract immediately becomes guaranteed." Since the clause is tied to guaranteed money, this ruling says that it's legitimate. This has worked out for Hutchinson, but I don't think you're going to see a team use the transition tag on even somewhat important players ever again. Overall this is going to hurt the better players. The franchise tag means instant free agency death for the player. Once tagged with the franchise tag, the player isn't going anywhere. The Seahawks were apparently providing Hutchinson with the opportunity to make some more money and he stabbed them in the back. The Seahawks were stupid to treat him that fairly and I'm sure learned a valuable lesson.

 

[BigJim®]

Seattle played with fire and got burned. If he was so important (which he apparently was) they could've/should've negotiated a contract last year or could've franchised him and this whole situation would've been avoided. They used their cap room and transition tag as leverage thinking that teams wouldn't bid knowing that they would be matched by Seattle. Seattle tried to save a few $'s when they had plenty to spend and were outsmarted. They have no one to blame but themselves.

While I feel a little more empathy because the poison pill was groundbreaking and it may have been a prudent fiscal plan going in...

 

[BlueOnion]

Once tagged with the franchise tag, the player isn't going anywhere. The Seahawks were apparently providing Hutchinson with the opportunity to make some more money and he stabbed them in the back. The Seahawks were stupid to treat him that fairly and I'm sure learned a valuable lesson.

I hear you. In short there were 3 parties involved (Seahawks, Vikings, Hutchinson) and one of them was going to get screwed.I don't think Hutch stabbed the Seahawks in the back at all, he did whatever he could to get a team to offer him a contract. If Hutch doesn't sell the Vikings on the concept of 'He doesn't want to be in Seattle, he wants to be in Minnesota', then Minnesota doesn't take the time to offer Hutch a contract. But once Hutch makes this sell, the poison pill is going to get put in the contract.

The Seahawks were certainly naive.

FYI - The Vikings could have opted to pursue Dexter Jackson on that Sunday (who has in Cinncinati and getting the full court press) because safety is also a big need position; however the Vikings felt good that they could offer a contract to Hutch which would make Hutch happy and make it almost impossible for the Seahawks to match.

 

[Franknbeans]

I think the bigger story in all of this is that Hutch wanted out of Seattle, for whatever reason.  It will be interesting to hear his take when this blows over.

Seattle had the choice to use either the Franchise Tag or the Transition Tag on him. They chose to use the tag which carries a lower dollar value on the one year tender. I could see how a player would take this as a slap in the face and take advantage of the situation. This might not be the case, but it certainly could be.

I also read somewhere that Seattle had said they were going to give Hutch a new contract a while ago (maybe last summer) and since they didn't, Hutch got pissed and then they transitioned him on top of that. From what I read, Seattle didn't want to risk alienating him by franchise tagging him which leads me to believe that they knew Hutch wanted out of Seattle.

 

[Bizkiteer]

LOL, now can he play all five OL positions at one time, then maybe Minny will be able to move the ball!

 

[Franknbeans]

I think the bigger story in all of this is that Hutch wanted out of Seattle, for whatever reason.  It will be interesting to hear his take when this blows over.

Why does this have to be a conspiracy? Why do you want it to be a conspiracy? He wanted more money, his agent got him the best contract you could possibly get for a player who plays a low impact position, and he left. Why do some fans always have to know what kind of kool aid their players like and if they are good swimmers? I love my job but I'd leave it if I was offered a great contract and a promotion to a place I would like to live more than the one I live in now (maybe closer to family). Everything is a conspiracy, nothing is ever black and white any more.

Maybe he wanted out because he wanted more money. Maybe because he'd always be second fiddle to Walter Jones. Maybe he likes fat chicks dressed in purple.

I just thought it was interesting. Never mentioned a conspiracy theory. It just makes sense that we won't know what his true rationale was for making this move until we hear it from him. I think what is becoming clear is that he wanted out. Why?... only Hutch knows.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think the bigger story in all of this is that Hutch wanted out of Seattle, for whatever reason. It will be interesting to hear his take when this blows over.

Seattle had the choice to use either the Franchise Tag or the Transition Tag on him. They chose to use the tag which carries a lower dollar value on the one year tender. I could see how a player would take this as a slap in the face and take advantage of the situation. This might not be the case, but it certainly could be.

From Adam Shefter: "Seattle is said to be miffed not at the contract, but at Hutchinson's actions. As an act of good faith, the Seahawks opted to slap Hutchinson with the "transition" tag instead of the "franchise" tag, enabling the guard to solicit a deal that would be the best gauge of his market value. Seattle opted against the franchise tag only because it did not want to disenfranchise Hutchinson the way so many players slapped with the franchise tags are."

 

[glock]

Chester Taylor fans

 

[Kleck]

Seattle opted against the franchise tag only because it did not want to disenfranchise Hutchinson the way so many players slapped with the franchise tags are."

This might not be the real reason. I might have had more to do with the probability of having to franchise him the following year as well and the dollar amount that would have been. From what I understand it would have been a huge dollar figure. However, I don't know the specifics and might be wrong about that.