FlaHawker 24 Posted March 22, 2006 Don't be suprised to see the Seahawks add a poison pill of their own in a contract offer to Nate Burleson of Minnesota. Burleson is a RFA but the NFLPA Attorney has said that poision pills could also be used in RFA contract negotions. The Vikings and Hutchinson may have opened a Pandora's Box that will not be good for the league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 570 Posted March 22, 2006 I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL and NFLPA agreed to close the loophole after this offseason. Because, honestly, yes it is bad for the league. And yes, I want it closed, even if it did benefit the Vikes this time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted March 22, 2006 eh, Burleson is someone the Vikes might just let go. They have Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, and re-claimed KRob off the garbage heap and turned him around. Were I the Vikes, I'd be looking to deal Burleson. ...to the Niners. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bammbamm 0 Posted March 22, 2006 to tell you the truth, hawker, i wouldn't expect anything else from the seahawks. the vikes opened up a can of worms with the contract to hutchinson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted March 22, 2006 the vikings have sown bad karma on this one. it will bite them in the ass at some point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted March 22, 2006 the vikings have sown bad karma on this one. it will bite them in the ass at some point. I don't know how much more bad stuff can happen to them. Karma would just be piling on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Black Label Society Posted March 22, 2006 I don't know how much more bad stuff can happen to them. Karma would just be piling on. AMEN BRUTHA!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted March 22, 2006 Don't be suprised to see the Seahawks add a poison pill of their own in a contract offer to Nate Burleson of Minnesota. Burleson is a RFA but the NFLPA Attorney has said that poision pills could also be used in RFA contract negotions. The Vikings and Hutchinson may have opened a Pandora's Box that will not be good for the league. It would be interesting to see what kind of poison pill they could use. Also I'm not sure how much adding Burleson would really benefit the Seahawks. This could turn out to be a case of hurting onesself in an attempt to get revenge on someone else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smol0028 0 Posted March 23, 2006 I might be wrong but I thought the "poison pill" was thought up and requested by Hutch and his Agent?? I think he just wanted out of Seattle and it's their own fault for not doing what they needed (signing him to a long term deal earlier or fanchise taggin him) Football is a business to these players and the Seahawks were dumb to honestly think that a player who felt unwanted would just hang around and only "test the water in FA" but not actual leave. Shame on them (the seahawks) for not using their heads!! 1 more thing....why would the seahawks want a player that doesn't want to be there???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted March 23, 2006 Football is a business to these players and the Seahawks were dumb to honestly think that a player who felt unwanted would just hang around and only "test the water in FA" but not actual leave. Shame on them (the seahawks) for not using their heads!! 1 more thing....why would the seahawks want a player that doesn't want to be there???? Perhaps you are right, and IMO there is no question they messed up by not franchising him. But living in Seattle I heard absolutely no rumblings that Hutchinson felt unwanted or was otherwise unhappy with the Seahawks until after he signed the offer sheet with Minnesota. So he may have caught the Seahawks by surprise with that one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smol0028 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Perhaps you are right, and IMO there is no question they messed up by not franchising him. But living in Seattle I heard absolutely no rumblings that Hutchinson felt unwanted or was otherwise unhappy with the Seahawks until after he signed the offer sheet with Minnesota. So he may have caught the Seahawks by surprise with that one. Whether he made it known or not...he didn't want to be there anymore and I wouldn't want him on my team if he didn't want to be there....let him go and let people who want to be on the team in. Plus I think they did get back, as much as they could, with the Vikings by dragging it out soooo frickin long. What I have heard was that the seahawks never came back to Hutch saying they were looking to match the offer and if they were really serious about it they would have restructed Jones' contract sooner to make it work....I think they had no intention of matching it and just wanted the Vikings, Hutch, and the Vikings fans to sit and wonder what was going to happen........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
culboarder11 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Whether he made it known or not...he didn't want to be there anymore and I wouldn't want him on my team if he didn't want to be there....let him go and let people who want to be on the team in. Plus I think they did get back, as much as they could, with the Vikings by dragging it out soooo frickin long. What I have heard was that the seahawks never came back to Hutch saying they were looking to match the offer and if they were really serious about it they would have restructed Jones' contract sooner to make it work....I think they had no intention of matching it and just wanted the Vikings, Hutch, and the Vikings fans to sit and wonder what was going to happen........ You sir are a moron and look to be wrong on just about everything you have posted in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smol0028 0 Posted March 23, 2006 You sir are a moron and look to be wrong on just about everything you have posted in this thread. You are just bitter that he wanted off of your team....how can I be wrong in saying that the man didn't want to be there....he wouldn't put the clause in a contract or signed an offer sheet with a clause like that it if he wanted to stay!!!!! I think the Seahawks do a crappy job making their players feel wanted because they drag out contract negotiations....Alexander should have been signed sooner than he was......Jones should have been signed sooner than he was....Hutch should have been signed and not given the transition tag!!!! I like the seahawks...not my number one team but I would definatley say in my top 3 favorites and I want them to do well like they did last year....but why do they try and F around with their star players like that?? Just sign them....make them feel like they want them to stay????? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fightklub 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Let the Vikings have Hutch with his ridiculous contract. No one player is worth that kind of money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 570 Posted March 23, 2006 Let the Vikings have Hutch with his ridiculous contract. No one player is worth that kind of money. Well, Seattle was willing to invest about 100 million into the left side of their offensive line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smol0028 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Let the Vikings have Hutch with his ridiculous contract. No one player is worth that kind of money. The seahawks seem to think that Peterson is worth that kind of money?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uubeee 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Back on topic here....... Is Burleson even worth working out some kind of poison pill? He's decent, but not outstanding. And even with a poison pill, being a RFA, Seattle would have to give up a draft pick anyhoo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 570 Posted March 23, 2006 Back on topic here....... Is Burleson even worth working out some kind of poison pill? He's decent, but not outstanding. And even with a poison pill, being a RFA, Seattle would have to give up a draft pick anyhoo. Year before last he looked very good. Last year he had to deal with injuries and Culpepper sucking. I have no idea what kind of poison pill the Seahawks would come up. He doesn't deserve to be the highest paid on either team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted March 23, 2006 And even with a poison pill, being a RFA, Seattle would have to give up a draft pick anyhoo. Good point. He was a third round pick, so I think they'd have to give up a 3rd rounder. (Anyone know if that is correct?) Do we even know that the Vikings would miss Burleson if he were gone? With the new coaching staff and the crummy season he had last year, I have to wonder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 570 Posted March 23, 2006 Good point. He was a third round pick, so I think they'd have to give up a 3rd rounder. (Anyone know if that is correct?) Do we even know that the Vikings would miss Burleson if he were gone? With the new coaching staff and the crummy season he had last year, I have to wonder. Yeah, it'd be a 3rd. And I have no idea what the current coaches think of him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coryjagfan28 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Man, this is gonna suck, only being able to come up with part of a story, but didnt this happen before? the "poison pill"? I want to say it was between Buffalo and Indy, during Bills SB runs. An Olineman was signed to the colts, and it was stated he would have to be the highest paid player on his team. The colts had no one with a high dollar contract so it didnt matter, but the Bills still had Reed, Thurman, Kelly, Smith and such, so they had to let the olineman go anyone else remember that? cory Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted March 23, 2006 Man, this is gonna suck, only being able to come up with part of a story, but didnt this happen before? the "poison pill"? I want to say it was between Buffalo and Indy, during Bills SB runs. An Olineman was signed to the colts, and it was stated he would have to be the highest paid player on his team. The colts had no one with a high dollar contract so it didnt matter, but the Bills still had Reed, Thurman, Kelly, Smith and such, so they had to let the olineman go anyone else remember that? cory I heard something about that on NFL radio but I don't know the details. I think that was the case where they put in the rule that you can't have a poison pill that changes the amount of money a team gets depending on which team signs them. Unfortunately that rule wasn't thought through quite enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 570 Posted March 23, 2006 I heard something about that on NFL radio but I don't know the details. I think that was the case where they put in the rule that you can't have a poison pill that changes the amount of money a team gets depending on which team signs them. Unfortunately that rule wasn't thought through quite enough. The Viking's poison pill didn't change how much Hutchinson got, just how his pay was structured. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartassBoiler 0 Posted March 23, 2006 The Viking's poison pill didn't change how much Hutchinson got, just how his pay was structured. Yeah, I thought the only thing was the amount of guaranteed money, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 570 Posted March 23, 2006 Yeah, I thought the only thing was the amount of guaranteed money, right? Right. If he signed with Minne, it'd be about 15 million. If he signed with Seattle, it would all be guarenteed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kraziness 0 Posted March 23, 2006 1. Hutch = Boozer and Seattle was dumb to do what they did, but they thought that things were in good faith. They should have made sure they were on the same page with Hutch. Either they're dumb for not knowing what he was going to do, or Hutchinson is a Boozer-like jerk for straight out lying to them. 2. Just saying "poison pill" doesn't mean that Burleson would get the same type of deal Hutch got, nobody would pay him #1 WR money guaranteed, but the idea is that now people realize they can get creative in another way. Baseball has been doing it for years, basketball was, until the new contract system (which, incidentally, I think is how all leagues should be- max contracts, pay skales). 3. The Viking's commitment to Hutch is nowhere near what Seattle's would have been, it isn't gauranteed to Minny. It isn't that bad of a commitment from Minny's side. He get's paid a lot, but they can restructure or cut at any point... the issue is that for Seattle to keep him, there would have been on wiggle room, they'd be on the hook for 7 mill per for the next 7 years. Done deal, no cutting, not renegotiating. This is why Seattle could afford Peterson but not Hutch, it's not gauranteed to JP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davebg 0 Posted March 23, 2006 But living in Seattle I heard absolutely no rumblings that Hutchinson felt unwanted or was otherwise unhappy with the Seahawks until after he signed the offer sheet with Minnesota. So he may have caught the Seahawks by surprise with that one. I had read that SEA had given his a verbal commitment to get a deal done by a certain time and when they didn't he told his agent to get him out of there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seVen_S 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Could the Hawks with Burleson's request sign him to like 10 mil for two years and say he must be the highest paid rec on the team? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
culboarder11 0 Posted March 23, 2006 I had read that SEA had given his a verbal commitment to get a deal done by a certain time and when they didn't he told his agent to get him out of there. Where did you read that? A message board where a friend of Hutchinson's agent's 2nd cousin posted some info?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davebg 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Where did you read that? A message board where a friend of Hutchinson's agent's 2nd cousin posted some info?? I want to say I read it in CNNSI's Truth & Rumors section last week. Either that your your mom had it tattooed right above her ass crack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted March 23, 2006 I want to say I read it in CNNSI's Truth & Rumors section last week. Either that your your mom had it tattooed right above her ass crack. Come on now! You are not being excellent to each other! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites