Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31
  1. #16
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,442
    Rep Power
    77

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    I am 100% with AV on this one. To me, its a pure freedom of contract issue. Bottom line, the rule is you much match the offer, not just the price. Offers have many, many different terms and conditions in them, why would anyone be offended by the fact that a smart guy thought up a clause that made it better for the vikings and harder for seattle. The teams involved have nothing to do with it, i would say the same thing if one of the rams were involved. You dont get to pick and choose which terms you like, that is not the rule.

    There is precedent for this already. If the master had ruled in the other direction, then he would be setting precedent. Will wollford was signed to an offer sheet that said he had to be the highest paid offensive player on the team. buffalo didnt match because jim kelly was making more money. same hearing, same ruling.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel



  2. #17
    tanus is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    you guys are missing my point. there was no way for seattle to match without having to fully guarantee the entire contract. the vikings would not have to fully guarantee the contract. yet somehow thats fair and identical?

    even with walter jones resructuring his contract to make Hutchinson the highest paid offensive linemen on the team seattle still would have had to fully guarantee the contract because there was a point in the 2006 season where Hutchinson would have not been the highest paid offensive linemen, therefore kicking in the clause that guaranteed the contract.

    if you guys really think its ok to make up clauses that are impossible for other teams to match, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. i still dont see how you guys can convince yourselves that the contracts are truly identical when it is physically impossible for one team to sign a player to the same terms as another team. please explain this to me.

  3. #18
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,000
    Rep Power
    164

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    The terms were the same for either team. The difference is each team's respective circumstances. That's true in any negotiation.

  4. #19
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by tanus
    i still dont see how you guys can convince yourselves that the contracts are truly identical when it is physically impossible for one team to sign a player to the same terms as another team. please explain this to me.
    Again, Seattle would be signing Hutch to the SAME TERMS as Minnesota would if they matched the offer.

    The terms of the contract indicate that the contract is guaranteed if Hutch isn't the top lineman. Those terms apply to BOTH TEAMS. For Minnesota, Hutch would be the top paid lineman, thus his contract wouldn't be guaranteed. The terms are the same, but the situation for the teams is not.

    You make it sound like there are two different contracts on the table. The contract is the exact same. There's just a clause that changes the type of payment in a certain situation.

    Maybe you can explain how it's not fair? Because the Seahawks still could have matched the offer, even though you continue to claim it's impossible for some reason. It's not as if the Vikings put in a clause that says "Seattle cannot match this offer" or anything. They just didn't want to, and not wanting to do something doesn't make it unfair.

    It's a pretty smart negotiating strategy, one that Hutch likely wouldn't have agreed to if he really wanted to stay in Seattle, and it's going to make teams think twice about putting the transition tag on their best players, which they should be doing anyways.

  5. #20
    tanus is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    lets see here, Minnesota gets him for 7 years and 49 million not guaranteed and can fully guarantee it if they somehow want to but Seattle's only option is for 7 years and 49 million fully guaranteed.

    Seattle has no way to avoid the fully guaranteed option.

    yep, seems the same to me.

    who cares if hutch wants to be in seattle or not? that has no bearing on this discussion.

  6. #21
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,442
    Rep Power
    77

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    Tanus, here is another example of what nick and av are saying. The fact that the money is the same to both teams doesnt mean that it has the same percentage cap impact to both teams. Lets say matching would have caused hutch to constitute for arguments sake 75% of seattles available cap dollars whereas only 50% of minnesotas available cap dollars. The effect of the same terms of a contract is not the same for both teams.

    Furthermore, and again, it was only impossible for seattle to match if they didnt want to guarantee the money. The fact that seattle would have had to guarantee the money today and not minnesota cuts both ways. What is minnesota going to do when their stud offensive tackle insists on getting paid more than a guard and believe me that will happen at some point. They have put themselves in a box as well. The effect on seattle is immediate, the effect on minnesota will always be there as well and its going to be especially difficult on the vikes as the cap goes up. They could be in a position where they wind up having to guarantee the contract themselves anyway as offensive tackle money continues to go up.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  7. #22
    tanus is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    I believe the clause is only for 2006 and also rumors have been swirling any way that Hutchinson has verbally agreed to restructure anyway after this year.

    But, you guys are still not getting my point. Either I am not explaining myself correctly or you guys are misreading. Whatever the case, I'm tired of repeating myself so I'm done here.

  8. #23
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by tanus
    But, you guys are still not getting my point. Either I am not explaining myself correctly or you guys are misreading. Whatever the case, I'm tired of repeating myself so I'm done here.
    No, I'm pretty sure we get your point. We just don't agree with it.

  9. #24
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,442
    Rep Power
    77

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    We can certainly agree to disagree, this was actually an interesting debate. The idea that hutch has verbally agreed to restructure later would be very very offensive to me since that would suggest that someone really was circumventing the rule and that isnt fair to seattle. If the clause is only for 2006, i stand corrected on that point tanus.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  10. #25
    tanus is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    ok, hypothetical situation here.

    lets say that in addition to this clause there was also another thing added to the contract that not only guaranteed the entire contract but also added a 10 million dollar guaranteed roster bonus for 2006 if hutchinson was not the highest paid offensive lineman at any time during the 2006 season.

    would you guys still think the contracts were identical given the fact that minnesota would not have to pay the 10 million dollar roster bonus, but seattle would have no choice but to pay the roster bonus? according to you guys, it would be the same contract, but it would not be the same terms because of a clause that was impossible for one team to avoid.

    now, im not 100% sure how legal this is or whatever but i think it helps get my point across. and whats to stop teams from doing something similar to this scenario in the future? its a loophole that needs to be closed immediately otherwise the tags and restricted free agents go right out the window.

  11. #26
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,442
    Rep Power
    77

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    How are you defining "At any time during the 06 season?"

    If the language you are referring to would give seattle the chance to restructure walter jones' contract, it wouldnt bother me at all.

    Tanus, are you an attorney by any chance? Your advocacy skills for your position are quite admirable.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  12. #27
    tanus is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    I am that farthest thing from an attorney, lol. My ex-gf was in law school, so that must be it. I'm a computer engineer.

    GC, you bring up a good point about Walter Jones' contract. In fact, the Seahawks did restructure Jones' contract so that Hutchinson would be the highest paid offensive lineman. However, it was determined, from what I have read, that it didn't matter because there would have been a point in the 2006 season where Hutchinson would have not been the highest paid offensive lineman. When this date is I am not exactly sure, but it is in the past so there is nothing the Seahawks can do to avoid it.

    Now, if it was he had to be the highest paid offensive lineman from the time Seattle officially matched the offer until the end of the 2006 season, I would have absolutely 0 problems with the contract as it would give Seattle a fair chance to get the same deal that the Vikings were getting with Hutchinson. However, this isnt the case and is my main complaint with this type of contract clause.

  13. #28
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,442
    Rep Power
    77

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    The ruling was that the walter jones restructuring didnt matter since it happened after the offer sheet was signed.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  14. #29
    tanus is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    ok, so how then is seattle supposed to avoid that clause? it makes no sense. are they supposed to guess? lol whats the point of giving them 7 days to match it?

  15. #30
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Seahawks lose on ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by tanus
    would you guys still think the contracts were identical
    Again, you make it sound as if there are two deals on the table - one for Minnesota, and one for Seattle. If I gave you a copy of the deal Minnesota agreed to and one the Seahawks had to decide on matching, you'd find that they are the EXACT SAME CONTRACT. That's really what this boils down to.

    The only problem is that contract stipulates conditions that Minnesota would not have to deal with but Seattle would, and again, I think it's a great way to acquire a transition player who is one of the best at his position. You make the deal as hard as possible for the opposing team to match. The Vikings did that. I see absolutely no problem with this.

    Again, Seattle wouldn't be dealing with this if they'd dished out the extra $600K for the franchise tag. This is the price clubs pay when they choose to only transition tag their best players.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •