What's going on in Seattle/Minny

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:32 pm

This is officially the dumbest/funniest thing I have seen between 2 NFL Franchises.

You all know how the Vikings "bought" :roll:

G Steve Hutchinson from Seattle for 49 Million, and if Seattle matched it, all Hutchinson's money had to be guarenteed. Well Seattle didn't match to offer so the Vikings "bought" him.

Well now the stupid Seahawks shelled out some payback by giving that same offer to fricken Nate Burleson. And the Vikings didn't match so now Seattle has to pay Nate Burleson and his one touchdown 49 Million Dollars ROTFALMAO

First off, if you're going to shell out 50 Million bucks on a WR, you might as well get someone worth it like Reggie Wayne or someone, but come on, Nate Burleson If I'm Nate Burleson, I'm like "Score!" and that is just what he said...

"This is a dream come true for Nate," his agent, Ken Sarnoff, said."

Second, these two stupid Franchises are acting like little kids, and I'm loving it!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2392289

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:47 pm

It's tit for tat. Or the battle of the dumbest contrct clause. This can't be good for the teams that tender players (thinking they can let some other team set the market for the player then match it).
The Vikes added a clause that will guaranteed the whole contract that they offered Hutchinson. The clause said Hutch would have to be the highest paid lineman on the team or the entire contract was guaranteed (most of it would have counted against the cap this year). Seattle is the only team with a O-line back more than what he was offered so this was a contract that any team could have match other than Seattle.

Seattle's offer to Nate guarantees the whole $49M if he plays more than 5 games in the state of Minn. during any year of the contract.

I wonder why "the Danny" didn't think of this

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:32 pm

Knowing the NFL - they'll do something to not allow these "poison pills" into contracts next year.

Punu · Post by **Punu** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:16 am

seacocks picked up another one of thier WR's.... didnt they?

Redskins Rule · Post by **Redskins Rule** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:47 am

Dude! Where have I been? I totally didn't know this was going on! But like you I'm lovin it!!!

And it looks like the Seahawks shafted themselves with this nate burleson deal! Unless, of course, he ends up doing for them what Santana Moss did for us last year. But, whatever happens this is freakin hilarious!

hkHog · Post by **hkHog** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:09 am

And people say we overpayed for Randle El.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:43 pm

Redskins Rule wrote:Dude! Where have I been? I totally didn't know this was going on! But like you I'm lovin it!!!

And it looks like the Seahawks shafted themselves with this nate burleson deal! Unless, of course, he ends up doing for them what Santana Moss did for us last year. But, whatever happens this is freakin hilarious!

Considering Seattle will never play 5 games in the state of Minn. and Nate will never make more than S. Alexander. Seattle is only guaranteeing the signing bonus of $5M