Seattle and Minnesota slap fighting over Burleson

[Victor]

Seattle signs Nate Burleson to $49 million offer
Seattle, in revenge for the signing of Steve Hutchinson, signed Nate Burleson to an offer sheet with similar 'poison pills'.
Judd Zulgad, Star Tribune

The Seattle Seahawks and Vikings just don't seem to be able to play nice.
Four days after losing Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson to the Vikings, the Seahawks fired back Friday by signing restricted free-agent receiver Nate Burleson to a seven-year, $49 million offer sheet. If those numbers look familiar that is because they are identical to what Hutchinson received in his offer.

The difference is guaranteed money. While Hutchinson's contract had $16 million guaranteed, Burleson's guaranteed money is $5.25 million and the contract is structured so it likely will be redone after three or four seasons.

Evidently upset that the Vikings would not accept a third-round pick in a trade for Burleson -- Minnesota wanted a second-rounder -- Seattle inserted two "poison pills" guaranteeing the entire $49 million if Burleson plays a certain number of games in the state of Minnesota, or if his average per year exceeds the average of the highest-paid running back on the team. That's not going to happen in Seattle, which has NFL MVP Shaun Alexander.

The Vikings, of course, used a "poison pill" to make it all but impossible for Seattle to retain Hutchinson. Having had a special master rule in their favor Monday in regard to the contract language used in the Hutchinson deal, it seems unlikely the Vikings will challenge the Seahawks' offer.

Neither the Vikings nor Seahawks commented Friday.

Minnesota will have seven days to decide whether to match or lose Burleson and acquire the Seahawks' third-round pick in next month's draft. Seattle's selection is low in the round because it advanced to the Super Bowl but would give the Vikings five choices in the first three rounds, meaning Minnesota would have plenty of ammunition to try to move up.

For Burleson, this gives him the opportunity to go home. The 24-year-old, a multisport star at O'Dea High School, was named the Seattle Athlete of the year in 1999.

The Vikings surprised some March 2 by extending the lowest possible qualifying offer to Burleson. The tender was worth $712,000 and would result in the team getting a draft pick equal to the round in which Burleson was selected. Shortly thereafter, he changed agents and hired Ken Sarnoff. Burleson visited the Seahawks last week.

Taken with 71st pick overall in 2003, Burleson appeared to come into his own in 2004. He led Vikings wide receivers with 68 catches for 1,006 yards with nine touchdowns. Expected to become the team's No. 1 receiver last season, Burleson struggled with injuries and finished with 30 catches for 328 yards and a touchdown in 12 games.

Without Burleson, the Vikings depth chart at receiver would include Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, Koren Robinson and Troy Williamson. Koren Robinson played for the Seahawks before joining the Vikings last September.

The back-and-forth between the Vikings and Seattle began March 12 when Minnesota extended an offer sheet to Hutchinson, who had been designated the Seahawks' transition player. That gave Seattle the right to match any offer, but the Vikings inserted a clause that Hutchinson's contract would become guaranteed if he was not the highest-paid offensive lineman on his team at the time of the offer. Thus triggering Seattle's use of its own "poison pills."

[ncjmirabile]

Seattle signs Nate Burleson to $49 million offer
Seattle, in revenge for the signing of Steve Hutchinson, signed Nate Burleson to an offer sheet with similar 'poison pills'.
Judd Zulgad, Star Tribune

The Seattle Seahawks and Vikings just don't seem to be able to play nice.
Four days after losing Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson to the Vikings, the Seahawks fired back Friday by signing restricted free-agent receiver Nate Burleson to a seven-year, $49 million offer sheet. If those numbers look familiar that is because they are identical to what Hutchinson received in his offer.

The difference is guaranteed money. While Hutchinson's contract had $16 million guaranteed, Burleson's guaranteed money is $5.25 million and the contract is structured so it likely will be redone after three or four seasons.

Evidently upset that the Vikings would not accept a third-round pick in a trade for Burleson -- Minnesota wanted a second-rounder -- Seattle inserted two "poison pills" guaranteeing the entire $49 million if Burleson plays a certain number of games in the state of Minnesota, or if his average per year exceeds the average of the highest-paid running back on the team. That's not going to happen in Seattle, which has NFL MVP Shaun Alexander.

The Vikings, of course, used a "poison pill" to make it all but impossible for Seattle to retain Hutchinson. Having had a special master rule in their favor Monday in regard to the contract language used in the Hutchinson deal, it seems unlikely the Vikings will challenge the Seahawks' offer.

Neither the Vikings nor Seahawks commented Friday.

Minnesota will have seven days to decide whether to match or lose Burleson and acquire the Seahawks' third-round pick in next month's draft. Seattle's selection is low in the round because it advanced to the Super Bowl but would give the Vikings five choices in the first three rounds, meaning Minnesota would have plenty of ammunition to try to move up.

For Burleson, this gives him the opportunity to go home. The 24-year-old, a multisport star at O'Dea High School, was named the Seattle Athlete of the year in 1999.

The Vikings surprised some March 2 by extending the lowest possible qualifying offer to Burleson. The tender was worth $712,000 and would result in the team getting a draft pick equal to the round in which Burleson was selected. Shortly thereafter, he changed agents and hired Ken Sarnoff. Burleson visited the Seahawks last week.

Taken with 71st pick overall in 2003, Burleson appeared to come into his own in 2004. He led Vikings wide receivers with 68 catches for 1,006 yards with nine touchdowns. Expected to become the team's No. 1 receiver last season, Burleson struggled with injuries and finished with 30 catches for 328 yards and a touchdown in 12 games.

Without Burleson, the Vikings depth chart at receiver would include Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, Koren Robinson and Troy Williamson. Koren Robinson played for the Seahawks before joining the Vikings last September.

The back-and-forth between the Vikings and Seattle began March 12 when Minnesota extended an offer sheet to Hutchinson, who had been designated the Seahawks' transition player. That gave Seattle the right to match any offer, but the Vikings inserted a clause that Hutchinson's contract would become guaranteed if he was not the highest-paid offensive lineman on his team at the time of the offer. Thus triggering Seattle's use of its own "poison pills."

I hope the NFL management does something with this whole "poison pill"
thing. It seems like someone could put into the contract if a FA's team ever had a player with the intials J.E., T.B., J.N., or J.U. then their entire contract is guaranteed.

[watermock]

Too much money but I have no clue who they would throw to.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

I think its hillarious

[BroncoInferno]

A $7 million average salary for Burleson? That is absurd. Seattle is loading up for this season. They better hope they deliver, because their cap situation is going to get ugly in a year or two.

[yavoon]

A $7 million average salary for Burleson? That is absurd. Seattle is loading up for this season. They better hope they deliver, because their cap situation is going to get ugly in a year or two.

buerlson will not make an average of 7 million. its backloaded on the contract to make it look like hutchinson's deal to make a point. buerlson actually has a 4 year deal w/ 5 million of guarenteed money.

[BroncoInferno]

buerlson will not make an average of 7 million. its backloaded on the contract to make it look like hutchinson's deal to make a point. buerlson actually has a 4 year deal w/ 5 million of guarenteed money.

Even so, that point still stands. Seattle is spending like drunken sailors. It looks great on paper, but the philosophy more often than not results in disappointment and long term cap problems.

[yavoon]

Even so, that point still stands. Seattle is spending like drunken sailors. It looks great on paper, but the philosophy more often than not results in disappointment and long term cap problems.

no they aren't. yah a 4 year deal for a good #2 w/ 5 million in guarentees, those drunken bastards!

this is like some weird sick reaction to denver passing on players that the forum needs to consider anyone who has signed as a free agent at anytime this year to be overpaying and in cap trouble later.

[BroncoInferno]

Spending close to $40 million in bonuses in a single offseason is absolutely spending like drunken sailors, and they will have to account for it cap-wise in future seasons. Plus, there are very few examples of this sort of free spending approach working. I can't think of a single example of a team taking this kind of approach and having it result in success.

[yavoon]

Spending close to $40 million in bonuses in a single offseason is absolutely spending like drunken sailors, and they will have to account for it cap-wise in future seasons. Plus, there are very few examples of this sort of free spending approach working. I can't think of a single example of a team taking this kind of approach and having it result in success.

baltimore ravens, tampa bay buccaneers, oakland raiders, and dare I say denver broncos have all experienced success by being far over the cap, which right now the seahawks AREN'T EVEN OVER THE CAP.

[Popps]

49 mil for Burelson?!?!

Is this article from The Onion or something?

[BroncoInferno]

baltimore ravens, tampa bay buccaneers, oakland raiders, and dare I say denver broncos have all experienced success by being far over the cap, which right now the seahawks AREN'T EVEN OVER THE CAP.

Did any of those teams spend money in a single offseason with the magnitude that the Seahawks or Redskins of past offseasons have? No.

[BritBronco Maniac]

I'm not convinced many people who posted above actually bothered to read the article.

The headline figures are what the Vikings would have ended up paying due to the 'poison pill' clauses. Seattle will have to pay a much more reasonable figure. That being said, it will only look good value if he can reproduce 2004, not 2005!

The whole scenario is pretty funny, but slightly worrying.
Should these clauses really be allowed? Imagine if the Jets had put a clause in the Putz's contract about playing games in Denver

[yavoon]

Did any of those teams spend money in a single offseason with the magnitude that the Seahawks or Redskins of past offseasons have? No.

if u consider the cap is 30-40% larger now than it was then then yes.

and signing bonuses mean crap if the owner has the cash.

[Killericon]

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

Gamne, set, and match.

[BroncoInferno]

if u consider the cap is 30-40% larger now than it was then then yes.

Give me an example where a team spent relatively the same as Seattle has this season or the Redskins have in past seasons who have had success with the approach. None of those teams you mentioned ever have. YTou are simply wrong to state otherwise. They've made a signing or two here and there, but nothing like what Seattle has done, even taking into account cap increases.

and signing bonuses mean crap if the owner has the cash.

Wrong. Signing bonus money is what ties you to the cap. Base salaries are not guarenteed and can be moved off your cap, but you must account for the bonus money.

[yavoon]

Give me an example where a team spent relatively the same as Seattle has this season or the Redskins have in past seasons who have had success with the approach. None of those teams you mentioned ever have. YTou are simply wrong to state otherwise. They've made a signing or two here and there, but nothing like what Seattle has done, even taking into account cap increases.



Wrong. Signing bonus money is what ties you to the cap. Base salaries are not guarenteed and can be moved off your cap, but you must account for the bonus money.

baltimore ravens, oakland raiders, tampa bay buccaneers all went way over the cap to achieve their success. I really dont know what more u want? ur just being an inane moron to think that this is somehow different than the loading up those teams did in hopes of achieving success. I dont know if ur trying to argue ur way out of a loophole or something but its stupid, the idea of spending heavily to win now is not new, it wasn't ****ing invented this off season. so get over it.

and infact I'd even say there is no reason to believe that the seattle seahawks future cap situation will look nearly as bad as any of the teams mentioned. so in many ways its possible the seahawks are acting completely reasonably. its not like u know much as u didnt even know that buerlson's contract was infact not worth 7 million a year.

[CBF1]

BI and Yavoon.... you both fight like old married ladies. Who cares, Burleson is a Seahawk now, Seattle is not in cap hell and this poison pill shiat is pretty funny.

[BroncoInferno]

baltimore ravens, oakland raiders, tampa bay buccaneers all went way over the cap to achieve their success. I really dont know what more u want? ur just being an inane moron to think that this is somehow different than the loading up those teams did in hopes of achieving success. I dont know if ur trying to argue ur way out of a loophole or something but its stupid, the idea of spending heavily to win now is not new, it wasn't ****ing invented this off season. so get over it.

and infact I'd even say there is no reason to believe that the seattle seahawks future cap situation will look nearly as bad as any of the teams mentioned. so in many ways its possible the seahawks are acting completely reasonably. its not like u know much as u didnt even know that buerlson's contract was infact not worth 7 million a year.

No one is talking about being over the cap and then getting under the cap to make moves. I'm talking about spending a lot of money in a single offseason and the results that that method reaps. It has never been a successful strategy in the cap era. Never. Maybe the Seahawks will buck the trend. They certainly look good on paper, but so have some of Synder's free spending teams, only to watch their seasons go up in flames. Yes, some teams have had success with one or two big signings in a single offseason, but signing 4-6 players to large contracts in one offseason....doesn't work, hasn't worked, period. And if you can't see that, then I am not the 'inane moron' here.

[fontaine]

The whole scenario is pretty funny, but slightly worrying.
Should these clauses really be allowed? Imagine if the Jets had put a clause in the Putz's contract about playing games in Denver

Great question.

I'd imagine doing things of that nature (poison pills in RFA contracts) is akin to pooping on your own doorstep (unless you're Al Davis and incontinent, where you really have no choice but to strap on the track suit and man diapers so that you can fudge your huggies at any point in time without warning - doorstep or not).

Can you say that Seattle/Minny will be doing any talking for draft day trades? I can't see it.

The Jets could have put those provisions into Putz's contract but why jeopardize the relationship between two high profile organisations over some two bit player?

[fontaine]

BI and Yavoon.... you both fight like old married ladies. Who cares, Burleson is a Seahawk now, Seattle is not in cap hell and this poison pill shiat is pretty funny.

I'm gonna have to quote Homer Simpson on you and say:
"Shut up and let them fight!"
:)

[-Slap-]

I'm not convinced many people who posted above actually bothered to read the article.

Gee, people just started shooting off their mouths without bothering to check out any of the facts?

That hardly ever happens around here.

[SkinRamon]

baltimore ravens, tampa bay buccaneers, oakland raiders, and dare I say denver broncos have all experienced success by being far over the cap, which right now the seahawks AREN'T EVEN OVER THE CAP.
Excellent points. The Ravens had to gut their team after they failed to defend their title in 2001 and still made the playoffs in 2003. Ask any fan and they'd tell you it was worth it. Same with the Bucs, they were basically hog tied for a couple years after their title and having to wait for Simms to develop. But it was worth it to have that ring.

And isn't it worth your back to back titles to have gone through that little Dark Age that followed?

That's Seattle's approach this year. That's been the Redskins approach. If they can win this year or next, if it means they have a decline in 3-4 years, why the hell not?

[BroncoInferno]

Excellent points. The Ravens had to gut their team after they failed to defend their title in 2001 and still made the playoffs in 2003. Ask any fan and they'd tell you it was worth it. Same with the Bucs, they were basically hog tied for a couple years after their title and having to wait for Simms to develop. But it was worth it to have that ring.

And isn't it worth your back to back titles to have gone through that little Dark Age that followed?

That's Seattle's approach this year. That's been the Redskins approach. If they can win this year or next, if it means they have a decline in 3-4 years, why the hell not?

You are missing the point. The point is that the 'spend like crazy in a single offseason' approach does not result in success. The Ravens did not spend a ton of money the offseason prior to their championship. Yes, teams in cap trouble have found ways to get under and compete; that is a seperate issue from what I'm talking about.

[fontaine]

You are missing the point. The point is that the 'spend like crazy in a single offseason' approach does not result in success. The Ravens did not spend a ton of money the offseason prior to their championship. Yes, teams in cap trouble have found ways to get under and compete; that is a seperate issue from what I'm talking about.

Well, the Ravens drafted very well in guys like Lewis, Ed Reed, Ogden, Mcallister etc who were critical in that super bowl win.

I see what you're saying, especially after the recent success new england had without having to sign top dollar free agents in their superbowl runs. But there are teams out there that are willing to spend whatever it takes to win with mixed results. The steelers also draft well and don't go overboard with FA.

[BroncoInferno]

Well, the Ravens drafted very well in guys like Lewis, Ed Reed, Ogden, Mcallister etc who were critical in that super bowl win.

I see what you're saying, especially after the recent success new england had without having to sign top dollar free agents in their superbowl runs. But there are teams out there that are willing to spend whatever it takes to win with mixed results. The steelers also draft well and don't go overboard with FA.

Well, sure, but drafting well is not the same as the 'spend like crazy' approach. I'm not sure you can even say the results are mixed. Can you think of an example where a team signed 4-6 guys to hefty contracts in one offseason and did not have a relatively disappointing season follow?

[yavoon]

You are missing the point. The point is that the 'spend like crazy in a single offseason' approach does not result in success. The Ravens did not spend a ton of money the offseason prior to their championship. Yes, teams in cap trouble have found ways to get under and compete; that is a seperate issue from what I'm talking about.

no its pretty much the same issue, sorry.

[yavoon]

Well, sure, but drafting well is not the same as the 'spend like crazy' approach. I'm not sure you can even say the results are mixed. Can you think of an example where a team signed 4-6 guys to hefty contracts in one offseason and did not have a relatively disappointing season follow?

not only are u wrong on the theme and the point but u r also probably wrong on the particulars, atleast considering seattle.

seattle had two very good players of its own entering free agency this year, they handed out two very large contracts. it so happens that they paid alexander/peterson instead of alexander/hutchinson. but what have they done besides keep basically the same level of talent they had with their large signings?

ur theory holds zero water in so many ways its even starting to amaze me.

[Rascal]

Minny deserves whatever comes to them over this for that BS they pulled with the poison pill.

But a third and hutchinson for Burleson is a good deal in the end.

[BroncoInferno]

not only are u wrong on the theme and the point but u r also probably wrong on the particulars, atleast considering seattle.

seattle had two very good players of its own entering free agency this year, they handed out two very large contracts. it so happens that they paid alexander/peterson instead of alexander/hutchinson. but what have they done besides keep basically the same level of talent they had with their large signings?

ur theory holds zero water in so many ways its even starting to amaze me.

What's amazing is how you try to demonstrate mental superiority over others through such childish syntax, and you can't even grasp a fairly simple point. You have yet to provide an example of a team who signed 4-6 players in a single offseason to relatively hefty contracts and had a successful season follow. You gave an example of cap strapped teams digging out of hole and doing relatively well, but that wasn't and isn't my main point. Sorry if you are unable to grasp that.

[yavoon]

What's amazing is how you try to demonstrate mental superiority over others through such childish syntax, and you can't even grasp a fairly simple point. You have yet to provide an example of a team who signed 4-6 players in a single offseason to relatively hefty contracts and had a successful season follow. You gave an example of cap strapped teams digging out of hole and doing relatively well, but that wasn't and isn't my main point. Sorry if you are unable to grasp that.

thats still one of the dumbest assertions I've seen. ur main point is a weak attempt to hide behind any real salient cause and effect. its not that I can't grasp ur point, infact i've said several times how stupid ur point is. It is a childish immaterial attempt. What do u want me to do? find a team w/ two high priced free agents on the market who end up signing two players to high priced free agent contracts? I mean that doesn't sound like much of a splurge to me! hell the broncos actually added talent for their superbowl run the seahawks are just swapping talent.

u have no case, no point, and no hope. giveup.

[BroncoInferno]

thats still one of the dumbest assertions I've seen. ur main point is a weak attempt to hide behind any real salient cause and effect. its not that I can't grasp ur point, infact i've said several times how stupid ur point is. It is a childish immaterial attempt. What do u want me to do? find a team w/ two high priced free agents on the market who end up signing two players to high priced free agent contracts? I mean that doesn't sound like much of a splurge to me! hell the broncos actually added talent for their superbowl run the seahawks are just swapping talent.

u have no case, no point, and no hope. giveup.

Between their own free agents and outside free agents, Seattle has doled out roughly $40 million in bonuses. Until you can find me a team that has taken this relative open wallet approach and been successful, you have no case, no point, no hope. Give up.

[yavoon]

Between their own free agents and outside free agents, Seattle has doled out roughly $40 million in bonuses. Until you can find me a team that has taken this relative open wallet approach and been successful, you have no case, no point, no hope. Give up.

except ur point is hopelessly irrelevant to any cause and effect in real life. all u have left is posturing which doesn't leave me much to do in response.

[BroncoInferno]

except ur point is hopelessly irrelevant to any cause and effect in real life. all u have left is posturing which doesn't leave me much to do in response.

=D

[yavoon]

=D

:)