Seahawks retaliate for Hutchinson signing

[Draftnik]

By signing Viking RFA WR Nate Burleson.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2383020

The poison pill clause about playing 5 or more games in Minnesota is poetic justice for the Walter Jones PP Minn gave Hutch, but it opens a huge can of worms. Somebody could tender Ike a sheet with a clause about # of games in PA. Sea inserted the RB clause as a backup. The NFL and NFLPA need to huddle and eliminate these ridiculous PPs.

[Draftnik]

Wow, this state based poison pill thing could get ugly:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

I bet the other NFL owners are happy they let some idiot known as Zigi Wolf into their little clique.

[ExPatriatePen]

When Draftnik first posted about this a week ago I thought the title of his post was a big 'over the top'... seems he was pretty much 'spot on' now.

http://www.letsgopens.com/scripts/phpBB ... php?t=1494

From that post:

I sure hope Tags puts a stop to this. Contracts like this could work to undermine the system.

[Draftnik]

My 2 favorite remaining UFA WRs also are gone and going to be gone:

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1143270646181200.xml&coll=1

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=410813

[Daniel]

By signing Viking RFA WR Nate Burleson.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2383020

The poison pill clause about playing 5 or more games in Minnesota is poetic justice for the Walter Jones PP Minn gave Hutch, but it opens a huge can of worms. Somebody could tender Ike a sheet with a clause about # of games in PA. Sea inserted the RB clause as a backup. The NFL and NFLPA need to huddle and eliminate these ridiculous PPs.

The funniest thing is that the Vikings will be paying Hutchinson until he is a 36 year old offensive lineman. I wonder how effective he will be at 36. The Seahawks will be paying a 31 year old wide receiver after 7 years. I think the Vikings will get screwed on this deal by guaranteeing so much money for a 29 year old offensive lineman for so long.

Seattle also replaced Hutchinson with Aysworth for $13 million.

[Fast B]

The funniest thing is that the Vikings will be paying Hutchinson until he is a 36 year old offensive lineman. I wonder how effective he will be at 36. The Seahawks will be paying a 31 year old wide receiver after 7 years. I think the Vikings will get screwed on this deal by guaranteeing so much money for a 29 year old offensive lineman for so long.

Well, this is the NFL, so a 7-year deal doesn't actually mean they have to pay him for all 7 of those years. I don't know offhand how much of that contract is guaranteed, but I'd bet they can release him or restructure after 2 or 3 years.

Same for the Seahawks - I think Burleson is only guaranteed $5 million or so, which is a little more palatable than $49 mil.

[ExPatriatePen]

The funniest thing is that the Vikings will be paying Hutchinson until he is a 36 year old offensive lineman. I wonder how effective he will be at 36. The Seahawks will be paying a 31 year old wide receiver after 7 years. I think the Vikings will get screwed on this deal by guaranteeing so much money for a 29 year old offensive lineman for so long.

Well, this is the NFL, so a 7-year deal doesn't actually mean they have to pay him for all 7 of those years. I don't know offhand how much of that contract is guaranteed, but I'd bet they can release him or restructure after 2 or 3 years.

Same for the Seahawks - I think Burleson is only guaranteed $5 million or so, which is a little more palatable than $49 mil.

Yeah... can someone explain this to me? I feel as though I'm pretty 'up' on the NFL but I've never understood what benefit it is to either team or player for these - lets say - Seven year contracts that have no reasonable expectation of going more than - say - five years... Whats up with that?

[Goalie]

Yeah... can someone explain this to me? I feel as though I'm pretty 'up' on the NFL but I've never understood what benefit it is to either team or player for these - lets say - Seven year contracts that have no reasonable expectation of going more than - say - five years... Whats up with that?

Lets say a player signs a 5 year contract for a total of $15 million. Under normal math he would count $3 million per year against the teams salary cap. In reality though the amount paid per year is negotiated by the player and the team. For example it could $500,000 the first year, $1 million the next, $2 million the third year $4.5 million the 4th year and $7 million in the final year. The backloaded contract allows the team to have more room to work under the cap in the initial years and when the big money years kick in the can either release the player or renogitiate the deal.

The benefit to the player comes in with the signing bonus. Take the same contract as above and add in a $5 million dollar signing bonus which is the guaranteed money paid up front part of the deal. The team however gets to spread that signing bonus out over the length of the contract. So while the player gets five million up front it only affects his cap value $1 million per year.

The team and the player both know the contract will never be fully realized in nearly all cases. However both parties get what they want, the player in the form of the signing bonus and the team in the form of salary cap relief.

Now it gets a lot more complicated than that in salary cap terms when a player is released or signs an extension. You can spend weeks reading up on that if you want and that is why teams have salary cap gurus to spend sleepless nights thinking about this kind of stuff. Hope that helps you understand the situation a little better.

[Goalie]

Wow, this state based poison pill thing could get ugly:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

I bet the other NFL owners are happy they let some idiot known as Zigi Wolf into their little clique.

I see you enjoy that website as well, a lot of good information on that site.

The poison pill thing is going to get out of hand if it already has not and the NFL needs to step in because it basically is going to make a mockery of signing restricted free agents to offer sheets.

[ExPatriatePen]

Yeah... can someone explain this to me? I feel as though I'm pretty 'up' on the NFL but I've never understood what benefit it is to either team or player for these - lets say - Seven year contracts that have no reasonable expectation of going more than - say - five years... Whats up with that?

Lets say a player signs a 5 year contract for a total of $15 million. Under normal math he would count $3 million per year against the teams salary cap. In reality though the amount paid per year is negotiated by the player and the team. For example it could $500,000 the first year, $1 million the next, $2 million the third year $4.5 million the 4th year and $7 million in the final year. The backloaded contract allows the team to have more room to work under the cap in the initial years and when the big money years kick in the can either release the player or renogitiate the deal.

The benefit to the player comes in with the signing bonus. Take the same contract as above and add in a $5 million dollar signing bonus which is the guaranteed money paid up front part of the deal. The team however gets to spread that signing bonus out over the length of the contract. So while the player gets five million up front it only affects his cap value $1 million per year.

The team and the player both know the contract will never be fully realized in nearly all cases. However both parties get what they want, the player in the form of the signing bonus and the team in the form of salary cap relief.

Now it gets a lot more complicated than that in salary cap terms when a player is released or signs an extension. You can spend weeks reading up on that if you want and that is why teams have salary cap gurus to spend sleepless nights thinking about this kind of stuff. Hope that helps you understand the situation a little better.

Yeah thanks goalie... I kind of figured that much out. But what still confuses me is that when a player is released the team has to take the unrealized remaining portion of the annualized signing bonus THAT year right?

So given your example, if the player is released after two years, the team takes a 3 million hit that year on the salary cap right? Ouuuch. I still think it's just a way for teams to forstall the inevitable, and in doing so, the price they eventually pay is even higher.

Hey, but as you point out, guys are making a living out of this stuff now.

[Goalie]

Yeah... can someone explain this to me? I feel as though I'm pretty 'up' on the NFL but I've never understood what benefit it is to either team or player for these - lets say - Seven year contracts that have no reasonable expectation of going more than - say - five years... Whats up with that?

Lets say a player signs a 5 year contract for a total of $15 million. Under normal math he would count $3 million per year against the teams salary cap. In reality though the amount paid per year is negotiated by the player and the team. For example it could $500,000 the first year, $1 million the next, $2 million the third year $4.5 million the 4th year and $7 million in the final year. The backloaded contract allows the team to have more room to work under the cap in the initial years and when the big money years kick in the can either release the player or renogitiate the deal.

The benefit to the player comes in with the signing bonus. Take the same contract as above and add in a $5 million dollar signing bonus which is the guaranteed money paid up front part of the deal. The team however gets to spread that signing bonus out over the length of the contract. So while the player gets five million up front it only affects his cap value $1 million per year.

The team and the player both know the contract will never be fully realized in nearly all cases. However both parties get what they want, the player in the form of the signing bonus and the team in the form of salary cap relief.

Now it gets a lot more complicated than that in salary cap terms when a player is released or signs an extension. You can spend weeks reading up on that if you want and that is why teams have salary cap gurus to spend sleepless nights thinking about this kind of stuff. Hope that helps you understand the situation a little better.

Yeah thanks goalie... I kind of figured that much out. But what still confuses me is that when a player is released the team has to take the unrealized remaining portion of the annualized signing bonus THAT year right?

So given your example, if the player is released after two years, the team takes a 3 million hit that year on the salary cap right? Ouuuch. I still think it's just a way for teams to forstall the inevitable, and in doing so, the price they eventually pay is even higher.

Hey, but as you point out, guys are making a living out of this stuff now.

This is where the June 1st cut rule comes into play. If a player is cut after June 1st the remainder of the signing bonus is spread out over two seasons. If $1 million would be left instead of that $1 million coming due immediately the team saves $500,000 in the initial year against the cap.

[ExPatriatePen]

This is where the June 1st cut rule comes into play. If a player is cut after June 1st the remainder of the signing bonus is spread out over two seasons. If $1 million would be left instead of that $1 million coming due immediately the team saves $500,000 in the initial year against the cap.

Makes it a little less painful I guess.

Thanks again.

[Goalie]

This is where the June 1st cut rule comes into play. If a player is cut after June 1st the remainder of the signing bonus is spread out over two seasons. If $1 million would be left instead of that $1 million coming due immediately the team saves $500,000 in the initial year against the cap.

Makes it a little less painful I guess.

Thanks again.

The strategy of signing bonus led to a lot of debate and hold in the new CBA according to many insiders. "Cash over cap" which basically equates to money being paid in signing/guaranteed bonuses that are being paid in the specific year even though only a portion of that counts against the cap in that year. This is why Washington and other big money owners are able to constantly run up against the cap and still be able to sign players each and every year. The Redskins may be spending $130 million this year even though their "Cap" number is under the cap number for that year.

Small market owners can not spend on par with the larger market owners and wanted to cap the "Cash over Cap" amount that could be spent that led to a lot of the disagreement between the two camps.

The beauty of the cap in my opinion is the way teams decide to attack it. The Steelers for instance are not going to mortgage the future to take one shot at a Super Bowl. Teams like the Ravens and others have taken their shot over a one or two year period and experienced the consequences of that in future years. Both strategies can work as both the Ravens and Steelers have a Super Bowl recently but the system does allow everyone to compete provided they have good smart football management in place.

[ExPatriatePen]

The strategy of signing bonus led to a lot of debate and hold in the new CBA according to many insiders. "Cash over cap" which basically equates to money being paid in signing/guaranteed bonuses that are being paid in the specific year even though only a portion of that counts against the cap in that year. This is why Washington and other big money owners are able to constantly run up against the cap and still be able to sign players each and every year. The Redskins may be spending $130 million this year even though their "Cap" number is under the cap number for that year.

I must be dense... wouldn't the chickens come home to roost eventually?

The beauty of the cap in my opinion is the way teams decide to attack it. The Steelers for instance are not going to mortgage the future to take one shot at a Super Bowl. Teams like the Ravens and others have taken their shot over a one or two year period and experienced the consequences of that in future years. Both strategies can work as both the Ravens and Steelers have a Super Bowl recently but the system does allow everyone to compete provided they have good smart football management in place.

But that's just it isn't it... if you mortgage the future for one big shot (Ravens) you can't be consistantly competitive (Steelers)

[Draftnik]

The funniest thing is that the Vikings will be paying Hutchinson until he is a 36 year old offensive lineman. I wonder how effective he will be at 36. The Seahawks will be paying a 31 year old wide receiver after 7 years. I think the Vikings will get screwed on this deal by guaranteeing so much money for a 29 year old offensive lineman for so long.

Seattle also replaced Hutchinson with Aysworth for $13 million.

Hutchinson's deal is not fully guaranteed. I think his total guarantees are $10M-$16M. $49M would have been fully guaranteed in Seattle since Walter Jones' deal averaged more than $7M. That was the poison pill. Hutch had to be the highest paid lineman on his team or the deal became fully guaranteed. That is how Minn screwed Seattle to start this whole mess. Jones subsequently lowered his Cap number, but that is another story.

[Daniel]

No, they don't have to pay the whole seven years. However, the cap hit would be huge if the Vikings don't get to year 6 or so. I bet they renegotiate and Hutchinson ends up getting about a 10 year deal to save cap money later.

[Daniel]

No, it isn't. However, what are the cap numbers in 2007, 08, 09, etc. Lets say $16 mil is guaranteed, leaving $33 mil for the unguaranteed part. $16 million is over $2 mil per year just in bonus money. It would be interesting to see how the $33 mil plays out, but that is an average of just under $5 mil per year. I imagine it escalates over the life of the contract. Therefore, in year 5, Hutchinson could cost $10 mil against the cap (theoretically). If he gets released, he counts $4 mil against the cap, or $2 mil for 2 years. (Of course the math is best guess).

I just think having whacked out cap figures for a 29 year old offensive lineman is ludicrious.

[jdev28]

Nate Burleson is so overrated. I think the joke is on the seahawks.

[Fast B]

Nate Burleson is so overrated. I think the joke is on the seahawks.

Considering that less than $6 million of Burleson's deal is guaranteed, I think Paul Allen will be sleeping just fine.

[PensFanBryan]

By signing Viking RFA WR Nate Burleson.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2383020

The poison pill clause about playing 5 or more games in Minnesota is poetic justice for the Walter Jones PP Minn gave Hutch, but it opens a huge can of worms. Somebody could tender Ike a sheet with a clause about # of games in PA. Sea inserted the RB clause as a backup. The NFL and NFLPA need to huddle and eliminate these ridiculous PPs.

This is not likely to happen with Ike. Compensation for Ike is a 1st round draft choice. It says it in the article that Viking might have been able to avoid this if they would have qualified Burleson for more than 750K (3rd round compensatory pick).

[ExPatriatePen]

Did anyone else hear that after signng in Dallas, Mike Vanderjagt is having a hard time selling his home in Indy?

Turns out it's way way off to the right in Indianapolis, not even close

[Draftnik]

This is not likely to happen with Ike. Compensation for Ike is a 1st round draft choice. It says it in the article that Viking might have been able to avoid this if they would have qualified Burleson for more than 750K (3rd round compensatory pick).

I know. There are 3 levels of RFA tenders. The highest is a 1st & 3rd (~ $2M I think), the second is ~ $1.5M (Ike) and the 3rd is the 4th year minimum ~ $600K which reverts to the original round the player was drafted (Burleson). A 1st round pick for a budding shutdown corner like Ike is relatively low IMO. There isn't a draftable CB this year that could step in and have an immediate impact like Ike plus he is still very young.