most important development in Steelers' offseason IMO

Post by **Draftnik** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:56 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2377065

Regardless of whether or not a ruling comes down in the legality of Hutchinson's highest paid lineman on his team clause, the price the Steel will have to pay to retain Alan Faneca when he deal is up went up exponentially.

ville5 · Post by **ville5** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:51 pm

Seattle has lost the ruling. They must guarantee $49 million to keep Hutch.

(Did I read that right?) And that ain't gonna happen.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

ExPatriatePen · Post by **ExPatriatePen** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:30 am

ville5 wrote:
Seattle has lost the ruling. They must guarantee $49 million to keep Hutch. (Did I read that right?) And that ain't gonna happen.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

From the article:

"The Seahawks lost," NFL Players Association general counsel Richard Berthelsen said.

Geeze, where have we heard that before?

Stoosh · Post by **Stoosh** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:55 am

I'm sure that Seahawks fans will find some way to blame this one on the officials as well.

Seriously, though...I'm going to have to check up and see what guys like Clayton and Pasquarelli say on it. But I've got to wonder what giving this kind of guaranteed money to a guard will do for other positions. Let's just say I'm looking ahead a year or two to the day that Ben Roethlisberger starts thinking about an extension.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though...doesn't Minnesota now have to guarantee that same money to Hutchinson over the life of the deal?

Stoosh · Post by **Stoosh** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:58 am

"Correct me if I'm wrong, though...doesn't Minnesota now have to guarantee that same money to Hutchinson over the life of the deal?"

I'll answer my own question here....

"The Vikings will have to guarantee only $10 million of the $49 million because they don't have an offensive lineman making more than Hutchinson." - From the ESPN.com article announcing the ruling on Hutchinson.[/quote]

ville5 · Post by **ville5** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:06 am

"The Vikings will have to guarantee only $10 million of the $49 million because they don't have an offensive lineman making more than Hutchinson." - From the ESPN.com article announcing the ruling on Hutchinson.

I don't know if this was a calculated move by Minny or not. If so, was a smart/slimeball move all in one. There was no way Seattle's gonna pay more guaranteed money than Manning got from Indy. That was around $35 million IIRC.
Is it to early for this?

ExPatriatePen · Post by **ExPatriatePen** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:14 am

Stoosh wrote:
"The Vikings will have to guarantee only $10 million of the $49 million because they don't have an offensive lineman making more than Hutchinson." - From the ESPN.com article announcing the ruling on Hutchinson.

I don't get it... why do they have to guarantee anything? Unless that 10 mil is a signing bonus.

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

Post by **Draftnik** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:27 am

ExPatriatePen wrote:
Stoosh wrote:
"The Vikings will have to guarantee only $10 million of the $49 million because they don't have an offensive lineman making more than Hutchinson." - From the ESPN.com article announcing the ruling on Hutchinson.
I don't get it... why do they have to guarantee anything? Unless that 10 mil is a signing bonus.

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

The $10M is signing and roster bonuses. Guaranteeing the total contract was a poison pill against the Seahawks since LT Walter Jones averaged $7.5M before his deal was restructured yesterday.

Either way this deal averages $7M for Hutchinson and smashes new ground in terms of compensation for guards in the NFL. This type of contract was previously only given to left tackles in terms of offensive linemen. The price the Steel will have to pay to retain Faneca when his deal is up skyrocketed. I'm surprised Bouchette isn't all over this. This is huge news in Steeler land.

ville5 · Post by **ville5** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:18 pm

Kicksave wrote:
ville5 wrote:
Is it to early for this?

Drinking your own pee?

No. But if that icon makes you think of MY pee, you have serious problems my friend.

DelPen · Post by **DelPen** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:43 pm

Draftnik wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:
Stoosh wrote:
"The Vikings will have to guarantee only $10 million of the $49 million because they don't have an offensive lineman making more than Hutchinson." - From the ESPN.com article announcing the ruling on Hutchinson.
I don't get it... why do they have to guarantee anything? Unless that 10 mil is a signing bonus.

I sure hope Tags puts a stop to this. Contracts like this could work to undermine the system.
The $10M is signing and roster bonuses. Guaranteeing the total contract was a poison pill against the Seahawks since LT Walter Jones averaged $7.5M before his deal was restructured yesterday.

Either way this deal averages $7M for Hutchinson and smashes new ground in terms of compensation for guards in the NFL. This type of contract was previously only given to left tackles in terms of offensive linemen. The price the Steel will have to pay to retain Faneca when his deal is up skyrocketed. I'm surprised Bouchette isn't all over this. This is huge news in Steeler land.

Then they better try and draft a stud guard in the 1st round this year. I don't think you can ever draft too many linemen because if you can't provide pass protection and open up holes it doesn't matter who your QB, WR or RB's are. Best example is Houston, they have very good players in QB, WR and RB but their O-line sucks hence the team sucks.

Post by **Sam's Drunk Dog** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:21 pm

Two interesting FAs for 2007 are Max Starks and Troy Polamalu according to the PG.

ExPatriatePen · Post by **ExPatriatePen** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:25 pm

Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:
Two interesting FAs for 2007 are Max Starks and Troy Polamalu according to the PG.

Troy isn't an issue, the club will give him the 'franchise tag' if they have too... Max is the one I'm worried about. I agree with the previous poster, it doesn't matter how good the rest of your team is, if you don't have an offensive line, you ain't going anywhere.