2006 NFL Offseason Thread

[jeff061]

From a Borges article at the Boston Globe:

Speaking of Owens, here's a sample of what you get if you sign him: On his website, he was asked if he preferred a one-year deal with a Super Bowl contender or a longer-term contract with a rebuilding team. Reply? ''DOESN'T MATTER. JUST GETTING TIRED OF JEALOUS TEAMMATES!!! BUT I'M BETTER PREPARED IF THAT HAPPENS . . . WILL B READY 2 BALL OUT THIS YEAR!!"

Yeah, looks like he's come a long way .

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Prediction: Most of the Cowboy fans that are whining now will be lining up to tongue Owens' sack 12 months from now. Same as happened with Joe Gibbs and the Red4skins fans that were calling for his head 12 months ago.

We need to pool our money together to make sure Jeeber gets his new Owens jersey. Those are HOT!!!!


Accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Check, Money Order, or cold hard cash!
Operators are standing by at www.dallascowboys.com to take your money NOW!

[JeeberD]

[Cringer]

And I thought it was bad when Jim McMahon became a backup Packer QB. This does seem to be worse in some way to me.

[JPhillips]

Bengals make a couple of small moves today. They decline to match the Texans' offer to Kevin Walter and they sign Antonio Chatman.

Losing Walter hurts as he might have the best hands on the team, but he was never going to be more than a 4th WR and special teamer for the Bengals. I hope he shines as the Texans' 3rd WR.

I don't know much about Chatman, but he's slated to be the punt returner. He'll almost have to be an upgrade over Ratliff and now Ratliff can focus on developing as a corner.

[Julio Riddols]

I read that Chatman works out with Chad and T.J. Houshmandzadeh in the offseason, so he makes good sense there, and is said to have only dropped 1 pass with 49 catches last season as a backup for the Packers. I think that is pretty good output, and he could wind up being a Warrick-like slot receiver for us on 3rd down.

[ISiddiqui]

It's the Giants and Dolphins traded CBs:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2375948


The Miami Dolphins continued their aggressive approach to upgrading their starting lineup by reaching a four-year, $12 million deal with Giants cornerback Will Allen. Included in the deal are guarantees of $5 million.

	Allen

Allen, 27, a five-year starter with the Giants, gives the Dolphins a corner who can also help on run support.


Allen picked the Dolphins over the Seattle Seahawks on Sunday. The Seahawks made a competitive bid that in some ways had a better structure than the Dolphins' offer, but Allen decided to stay on the East Coast instead of moving west. The Kansas City Chiefs also had Allen in for visit.


A native of Syracuse, N.Y., Allen attended Syracuse University and has been on the East Coast all his life. The Giants selected him in the first round of the 2001 draft, 22nd overall.


The signing with the Dolphins was a little ironic because they cut Sam Madison to open the starting job Allen has a chance to earn. Madison ended up signing with the Giants and taking Allen's place on their roster.

The Dolphins also reached a $1.5 million a year agreement with Chargers tight end Justin Peelle. The length of the contract wasn't known.

[Cringer]

Enjoy Chatman. I think it is a mistake for the Packers to let him walk.

He is a small guy, and a pretty decent return man. I think he is also a better receiver then given credit for being. At one point you could tell Favre was choosing to go to him last season, which means Favre had trust in him to make plays. Favre doesn't do that with everyone (despite the stats last year).

Chatman stepped up in a bad situation and performed well last year.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Enjoy Chatman. I think it is a mistake for the Packers to let him walk.

He is a small guy, and a pretty decent return man. I think he is also a better receiver then given credit for being. At one point you could tell Favre was choosing to go to him last season, which means Favre had trust in him to make plays. Favre doesn't do that with everyone (despite the stats last year).

Chatman stepped up in a bad situation and performed well last year.

Agreed on all counts. He's a player.

[JPhillips]

I didn't realize that Chatman was a RFA but the Packers didn't make an offer. As good as his return stats were that's really strange.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I didn't realize that Chatman was a RFA but the Packers didn't make an offer. As good as his return stats were that's really strange.

For some reason the Packers told him early on that they would not make him an offer. I don't know why. Thompson has made me ease up on him a little lately by resigning some guys I like (Kampman, Green, Henderson), but I just don't like some of his moves, like this one.

[stevew]

I can see why they didnt keep Chatman. Since he was undrafted, they would have had to tender him on the 1.75 million(or so) first round compensation tender. And he's probably not worth that much. Had he been a 4th or 5th round pick, they could have tendered him for roughly 700K and kept the right to match, or get compensation.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by stevew

Since he was undrafted, they would have had to tender him on the 1.75 million(or so) first round compensation tender.

Is that rule for real? That's pretty messed up.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Is that rule for real? That's pretty messed up.

There are 3 compensatory tenders, AFAIK. The lowest compensates you with a pick from the same round as the guy was originally drafted in. This is usually for players drafted in the 3rd round or below, and pays something like 700K this year. To compensate yourself a first rounder for a restricted FA, you offer the mid tender of around 1.7, and for a first and 3rd round compensation, you tender slightly over 2 million.

I think the Packers could have still tried to resign him, but because of the fact that they weren't willing to go with the midlevel tender, he wasn't bound to them at all. To clarify, if they wanted him to remain a restricted FA, they would have to make that 1.7 millionish offer.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by stevew

There are 3 compensatory tenders, AFAIK. The lowest compensates you with a pick from the same round as the guy was originally drafted in. This is usually for players drafted in the 3rd round or below, and pays something like 700K this year. To compensate yourself a first rounder for a restricted FA, you offer the mid tender of around 1.7, and for a first and 3rd round compensation, you tender slightly over 2 million.

I think the Packers could have still tried to resign him, but because of the fact that they weren't willing to go with the midlevel tender, he wasn't bound to them at all. To clarify, if they wanted him to remain a restricted FA, they would have to make that 1.7 millionish offer.

That's not exactly true. They could have offered him teh loewest tender, and in doing so, he would have remained an RFA that could be signed away by another team for no compensation, but the Packers would still have retained the right to match any contract offer, just like for any RFA.


-Anxiety

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

That's not exactly true. They could have offered him teh loewest tender, and in doing so, he would have remained an RFA that could be signed away by another team for no compensation, but the Packers would still have retained the right to match any contract offer, just like for any RFA.


-Anxiety

Okay, that makes sense as well.

[GrantDawg]

PRO FOOTBALL
Abraham caught in trade triangle
DE wants to play for Falcons, but Jets agree to Seahawks deal

By STEVE WYCHE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/20/06 Defensive end John Abraham is intent on playing for the Falcons, his agent, Tony Agnone, confirmed Sunday. The contract agreement he reached Friday with Atlanta and his word are his bond.
But Abraham might not have the final say.
The New York Jets, who own the three-time Pro Bowl selection's rights, have thwarted Abraham's relocation by treating the Falcons' trade offer of a second-round draft pick as insufficient. Instead, the Jets have agreed to trade him to the Seattle Seahawks for a first-round draft choice, and that decision has left Abraham "not happy," according to Agnone.
In a brief e-mail to the Journal-Constitution, Agnone said there had been no developments in the saga over the weekend. He added that there have been no new contract talks between Abraham and the Seahawks, and that Abraham is intent on suiting up for the Falcons.
Atlanta officials said they would not stop their pursuit of Abraham, who has 53 1/2 career sacks and would bolster a defensive line in dire need of a pass-rushing end from the right side. Whether that means they'll have to sweeten their offer to the Jets remains to be seen.
The remarks from Abraham's agent were the first since his
client was placed in football purgatory Friday afternoon.
The tricky part of this scenario is that for any trade to be consummated, Abraham must come to contract terms with the team for which he would play. At the same time, the Jets have the right to get the best compensation possible, which Seattle has offered — 31st overall selection in the April 29-30 draft. The Falcons' second-rounder is the 47th pick overall.
The sign-and-trade stipulation is a result of the Jets designating Abraham, a free agent, their "franchise player," which means they hold his rights for a season unless he's traded.
New York, which is shifting to a 3-4 scheme that would make Abraham an awkward fit, does not have to trade Abraham and could make him play under a one-year contract worth $8.3 million.
Though things were quiet over the weekend, the Falcons confirm talks are expected to resume as soon as today.

[GrantDawg]

This whole Abraham thing is interesting. It seems like the Jets are under the eight-ball if they have a player that doesn't fit their new scheme yet they have to pay $8.3 million. Seattle made the best trade offer, but the Jets are powerless to make the trade without Abraham's agreement, and he claims he only wants to play for Atlanta. If Abraham holds to his "Falcon's only" stance, the Jets have to give, don't they? (Of course, I hope they do).

[Cringer]

Atlanta just needs to except a trade of Abraham and Ramsey for Shaub and a 6th round pick. (not a real offer that I have heard of, but is from guys playing GM on NFL Radio the other day and I think it sounds reasonable.)

[stevew]

The Jets wanted Shaub and a 2nd rounder, but then they traded for Ramsey. If they wanted to get roughly equal value to the 31st selection, the Jets could trade their 2nd round pick and Abraham to the Falcons for the Falcons 1st and 4th round selections. Obviously one side or the other or both don't want to come to that agreement.

[Ksyrup]

Sounds to me like Abraham should have played his cards closer to the vest in terms of wanting to end up in Atlanta, since he simultaneously gave the Jets an incentive to hold out for more from the Falcons AND made it more difficult for his chosen team to trade for him on even terms.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by stevew

The Jets wanted Shaub and a 2nd rounder, but then they traded for Ramsey. If they wanted to get roughly equal value to the 31st selection, the Jets could trade their 2nd round pick and Abraham to the Falcons for the Falcons 1st and 4th round selections. Obviously one side or the other or both don't want to come to that agreement.

I don't think the Falcons are willing to part with that first round pick. Further, why should they? If Abraham really refuses to go to any other team, a second round pick is more than generous. I thought giving them Shaub would have been overpaying. Maybe a 2nd and 5th is about all I'd be willing to give for Abraham, even if that means Seattle gets him.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Sounds to me like Abraham should have played his cards closer to the vest in terms of wanting to end up in Atlanta, since he simultaneously gave the Jets an incentive to hold out for more from the Falcons AND made it more difficult for his chosen team to trade for him on even terms.

?

The Jets do not need him or want him.
He is the final arbiter of where he goes.
He says he'll only go to the Falcons.

Given those facts, how does that give the Jets the ability to hold out for more from the Falcons? They can either trade him or pay a bunch of money to a player that doesn't fit their system and doesn't want to be there.

[Cringer]

Sad to see Nall go but I figured it would happen. Glad it is not to the Vikings though. BTW, there is some speculation Nall started looking elsewhere because (beng close friends with Favre and having just gone on a hunting trip with him) the he thinks Favre will not be back. He hasn't actually said anything though, just more Favre speculation.

Hope Nall can win the starting job.

Bills add Nall to starting quarterback derbyBy Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com


Further signaling their intentions of throwing open the starting quarterback job for offseason competition, the Buffalo Bills have added a third candidate to the mix, reaching agreement with unrestricted free agent Craig Nall on a three-year contract.


Nall

The four-year veteran played his entire career in Green Bay and, despite appearing in just six games with no starts, was well regarded by Packers coaches and by personnel officials from other teams as well. The financial details of the three-year contract were not immediately available.

Nall, 26, is expected to compete with Buffalo holdovers Kelly Holcomb and J.P. Losman for the starting spot. Losman was the team's first-round choice in the 2004 draft, but there is a new staff and a revamped football structure in Buffalo, and general manager Marv Levy and coach Dick Jauron don't have the same loyalties to him as their predecessors did.

The journeyman Holcomb was signed as a free agent last year and he and Losman split the starts, with eight each. One of the holdover quarterbacks could be released or traded, although Jauron has indicated they would enter camp even on the depth chart and the starter would be determined in the summer.

A fifth-round pick in the 2002 draft, Nall played sparingly, and spent most of his tenure with the Packers as the No. 3 quarterback. But the former Northwestern (La.) State star has good size and a strong arm and, if he plays up to the potential some scouts feel he possesses, he could be a factor in the Bills' competition for the starting job.

First-year Packers coach Mike McCarthy had hoped to retain Nall, but the veteran wanted an opportunity to play, and felt the Buffalo situation offered him that. In Green Bay, whether Brett Favre returns or not for 2006, the Packers have 2005 first-round choice Aaron Rodgers, the perceived heir, on the roster.

In his six regular-season appearances, Nall completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards, with four touchdown passes and no interceptions, for a passer efficiency rating of 139.4. He has five rushes for five yards. Nall also played for the Scottish Claymores in the spring of 2003 and led the NFL Europe League in passing.

[Ksyrup]

The Jets hold his rights. They can continue to press for more, and at the very least, play chicken with the Falcons. If they've got the intestinal fortitude, they'll force the Falcons to up the offer. It just depends on how committed they are to it. If I was the Jets, I'd put the screws to him.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The Jets hold his rights. They can continue to press for more, and at the very least, play chicken with the Falcons. If they've got the intestinal fortitude, they'll force the Falcons to up the offer. It just depends on how committed they are to it. If I was the Jets, I'd put the screws to him.

And if I'm the Falcons, I'd call their bluff. They are in the weaker position since the Falcons can just use the money on other needs, but the Jets are stuck with a huge contract for a player that doesn't fit.

[rkmsuf]

right but knowing Abraham isn't going to seattle kills any chance the falcons give up a #1 for him.

Falcons hold all the cards since they don't have to do anything Jets kind of have to move this guy.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And if I'm the Falcons, I'd call their bluff. They are in the weaker position since the Falcons can just use the money on other needs, but the Jets are stuck with a huge contract for a player that doesn't fit.

Indeed. Abraham doesn't want to go with Hawks or anyone else, meaning he won't do a sign and trade, meaning the Jets have to cough up the dough for a guy that won't fit in their system. On the other hand, he will do a sign and trade to the Falcons.

I think the Jets end up dealing Abraham for a 2nd and 5th in the end.

[Bee]

What's the chances this is more of a power play by Abraham to get a bigger contract from Seattle? I'm sure it's true that he'd rather be close to South Carolina, but how many athletes refuse more money (assuming Seattle steps up and makes a better contract offer than Atlanta was offering)?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bee

What's the chances this is more of a power play by Abraham to get a bigger contract from Seattle? I'm sure it's true that he'd rather be close to South Carolina, but how many athletes refuse more money (assuming Seattle steps up and makes a better contract offer than Atlanta was offering)?

There is a strong possibility there. It is also possible that Seattle knew they weren't going to pay Abraham what he wants, and the offer of the 1st was just to screw up the deal with the Falcons. Lots of behind-the-scenes possibilities.

[dawgfan]

I guess we'll find out about the Hutchinson decision later today, but if I'm the Seahawks and we win the arbitration case, I'd talk to the Vikings and see what they'd be willing to trade to get Hutch. It seems like maybe Hutch doesn't want to be in Seattle that much, and the Seahawks could certainly use that money that would be tied up with him to land Julian Peterson and perhaps wave enough money at John Abraham to get him to change his mind.

[Travis]

I'd be very surprised if the Seahawks don't bring Hutch back if they win the ruling. Heck, I still hope they match even if they don't win the ruling. Keeping that line together is worth much more to the team than adding an expensive guy who may not bring his A game with him (Abraham) or a guy coming off a subpar year due to injury (Peterson).

Adding Abraham would pretty much necessitate moving Fisher while Peterson would at least be stepping into a hole (that could be addressed in the first or second round of the draft potentially), but there's nobody on the roster or in the draft that Seattle would have a shot at that could come close to stepping into Hutchinson's role, let alone the chemistry he has with Jones which makes them both that much better.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It seems like maybe Hutch doesn't want to be in Seattle that much

I haven't been able to follow this situation as closely as I'd like...what makes you say this?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I haven't been able to follow this situation as closely as I'd like...what makes you say this?

I'm still trying to track down the articles intimating this, but I've seen reports that indicate Hutch wasn't all that happy with the Seahawks leading up him signing the offer sheet with Minnesota. I also think his willingness to sign that offer sheet with the poison pill included is a sign that he wasn't all that interested in the Seahawks being able to match it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Travis

I'd be very surprised if the Seahawks don't bring Hutch back if they win the ruling. Heck, I still hope they match even if they don't win the ruling. Keeping that line together is worth much more to the team than adding an expensive guy who may not bring his A game with him (Abraham) or a guy coming off a subpar year due to injury (Peterson).

Adding Abraham would pretty much necessitate moving Fisher while Peterson would at least be stepping into a hole (that could be addressed in the first or second round of the draft potentially), but there's nobody on the roster or in the draft that Seattle would have a shot at that could come close to stepping into Hutchinson's role, let alone the chemistry he has with Jones which makes them both that much better.

Hutch is a fantastic guard, but when you have Walter Jones on your outside shoulder you're going to look better than you really are.

What's the bigger difference - the dropoff from Hutch to Pork Chop at LG or the gain in adding guys like Julian Peterson, Nate Burleson, John Abraham, Ty Law, etc? Keeping Hutch (if we win the arbitration) puts a crimp on spending this year as it sounds like he counts for $13M against the cap this year.

I'd at least talk to Minnesota to see what they'd offer in return for Hutch in case we win the arbitration.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Cringer

For some reason the Packers told him early on that they would not make him an offer. I don't know why. Thompson has made me ease up on him a little lately by resigning some guys I like (Kampman, Green, Henderson), but I just don't like some of his moves, like this one.

McCarthy has said that he wants bigger receivers, so that might be why. Still, I wish they would've re-upped with Chatman. He can play.

Originally Posted by Cringer

Sad to see Nall go but I figured it would happen. Glad it is not to the Vikings though. BTW, there is some speculation Nall started looking elsewhere because (beng close friends with Favre and having just gone on a hunting trip with him) the he thinks Favre will not be back. He hasn't actually said anything though, just more Favre speculation.

I had heard exactly the opposite - that Nall was leaving because he thought Favre would be back. Nall wanted the opportunity to start, but with Favre back that wouldn't happen. With Favre gone, he would've gotten to compete with Rodgers, which would've been more attractive to Nall. Or so I'd read somewhere (I can't remember where).

Interesting that everybody wants to read something into Nall's signing though.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Hutch is a fantastic guard, but when you have Walter Jones on your outside shoulder you're going to look better than you really are.

What's the bigger difference - the dropoff from Hutch to Pork Chop at LG or the gain in adding guys like Julian Peterson, Nate Burleson, John Abraham, Ty Law, etc? Keeping Hutch (if we win the arbitration) puts a crimp on spending this year as it sounds like he counts for $13M against the cap this year.

I'd at least talk to Minnesota to see what they'd offer in return for Hutch in case we win the arbitration.

I agree. He's a great player, but considering the rest of the line I think they'd be better off filling in with a lesser quality player there and addressing needs in other areas.

[Travis]

Jones at LT, 'nuff said. Hutch at LG, as said by Jones, makes both of them better. They're at the point where they hardly communicate presnap because they're comfortable enough with each other's games to know what the other will do, almost an o-line version of Manning/Harrison.

At center you have Tobeck, who's still playing well but gets in trouble against bigger, stronger tackles. Under him is Chris Spencer, a guy who supposedly has all the tools, but needs to grow and learn, hopefully quickly as I can't imagine Tobeck has more than a year or two left in him.

At right guard we have a nice big question mark. Keep Hutch and you can likely pencil in Pork Chop at this spot. Chris Gray did a nice job last year, but would be better suited to backing up. One downside to starting Floyd is that while he looks like he could become a very accomplished every down player, he was invaluable as a backup at pretty much both guard and tackle positions.

RT has Locklear who came out of nowhere last year to be very good. Looks promising, with some off the field problems. Again, any problems here last year and Womack would have been inserted.

Seahawks have a great looking line, with a nice combination of youth and experience, with a potentially nice hand off going on at the center position. While Jones absolutely dominates during the passing game, Hutchinson is the one absolutely blowing people up in the running game. I think Walter is the best LT in football, but I think Hutch is good enough to make Walter better than he is as well. The two have developed into a pairing that elevates both their play, and while we'd still have a very good line without him, it would affect depth, drafting strategy, play calling and a lot of other areas that had been taken for granted last year.

One reason I think it's been said that Hutch may want out is because it was his agent and not the Vikings that introduced the poison pill into the contract. This after the Seahawks transition tagged him so that he'd get an offer that both sides figured would establish his fair market value comes across like a stab in the back (my pardons to Shaun Alexander) in the process.

As for the question of filling other areas, that's definitely valid. But would losing Hutchinson leave us with a bigger hole at guard than we have at DE? We have two starter calibre guys at DE, though neither is necessarily the pass rusher you'd like.

We need another outside linebacker, and if you don't get a pass rusher at DE this offseason, probably a trait you'd like in whoever they get to add to Tatupu and Hill (though Hill looks pretty good on the blitz). Peterson would seem to fit this to a "T", but there are a lot of questions as to whether or not you'd be getting the player you pay for, or just the name. It's possible that they could draft a guy in the first 3 rounds to fill out that last linebacker position (or at least provide some stiff competition in camp for it).

Personally, I think our #2 CB situation is more dire (would have preferred Dyson to Herndon, he just seemed to get beat way too often) as well as special teams. If Warrick was resigned to do return duty rather than Williams, then fine, we can wait and see, but returns, punting and coverage cost us a lot of yards last year. And this offense, behind the best left side in football, consistently (until the Superbowl of course) ate up those yards. Imagine how successful they could have been starting at the 35 or 40 yard line rather than inside their own 15 all year.

There seem to be some good quality corners still on the market (and at least they seem to be looking at them even though they lost out on Allen), but trading for a second tier pass rushing DE or signing a potential breakout or bust LB doesn't seem like good justification to lose a top 3 guard to me.

[dawgfan]

Valid points. I guess my issue is do we want to establish a new benchmark for G pay if the guy doesn't really want to be here, especially when we could use that money to fill other holes?

I'd have two conversations - one with Hutch to see if he still wants to play in Seattle, and the other with Minnesota to see what they'd offer for him in a trade so you know what your options are.

Losing Hutch would have a chain reaction effect on the line, no question. But there's no reason we couldn't draft a G to add to our depth, and I'm still not convinced that the dropoff from Hutch to Womack would be huge.

[Travis]

In the hearing this morning before Special Master Stephen Burbank, the Seahawks announced that they had re-worked the contract of left tackle Walter Jones, which would make Hutchinson the highest paid offensive lineman on the team as it currently stands. But, the players association spokesman has argued that the NFL calendar year began March 11 and the change in salary cap after the NFL fiscal year began.

Heh, this is kind of funny. Not sure how the contract is laid out or how long Jones would be paid less than Hutchinson, but good on the Seahawks for at least throwing a curveball at the Vikings. Whether or not it works is a different story I guess.

[Suburban Rhythm]

The way this is being reported on ESPN now...Hutchinson will remain in Seattle.

Seattle is claiming to have added an 8th, voidable year to Walt Jones' deal, making his yearly pay about $6.81 mil, so it would have been less than the average of $7 mil per Hutchinson would make under the Vikings offer sheet.

So, even if the provision is upheld, the Seahawks would be off the hook from guaranteeing the total amount of the deal.

At least for now...who knows 3-4 years down the road if they try restructuring either or both of those guys.

[stevew]

This move guarantees a repeat title in the 'Burgh.

Steelers | L. Mays signed
Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:28:25 -0800
Steelers.com reports the Pittsburgh Steelers have signed free agent WR Lee Mays (Steelers) to a one-year contract. Financial terms of the deal were not released.

There you go Jeebs, a Miner with a job. Mays is like a case of Herpes, just when you think he's gone, and you won't see him again, he flares up out of nowhere.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by stevew

This move guarantees a repeat title in the 'Burgh.

Steelers | L. Mays signed
Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:28:25 -0800
Steelers.com reports the Pittsburgh Steelers have signed free agent WR Lee Mays (Steelers) to a one-year contract. Financial terms of the deal were not released.

There you go Jeebs, a Miner with a job. Mays is like a case of Herpes, just when you think he's gone, and you won't see him again, he flares up out of nowhere.

Any word what Chris Doering is up to nowadays?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Valid points. I guess my issue is do we want to establish a new benchmark for G pay if the guy doesn't really want to be here, especially when we could use that money to fill other holes?

I'd have two conversations - one with Hutch to see if he still wants to play in Seattle, and the other with Minnesota to see what they'd offer for him in a trade so you know what your options are.

Losing Hutch would have a chain reaction effect on the line, no question. But there's no reason we couldn't draft a G to add to our depth, and I'm still not convinced that the dropoff from Hutch to Womack would be huge.

Can't make a trade - the CBA prevents the offering of compensation to prevent a guy being matched. That being said, Seattle really should have just franchised the guy - but oh well.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The Lions have signed UFA guard/tackle Rex Tucker (St. Louis) to a three year deal.

http://www.detroitlions.com/press_re...&top=1&level=2

A necessary move. The Lions are sorely lacking any sort of depth up front. Their offensive line is horrible. Not sure if this will help much or if Rex was just brought in for depth. Based on my recollection of the Ram's o-line, I reckon it will be the latter.

[Travis]

One further note in the arguement to keep Hutchinson. I don't doubt Porkchop could do a heckuva job at LG, but there'd be a dropoff there from Hutch, as well as creating a dropoff at RG. That was our weakest spot on the line last year, and one I thought they'd have Womack step up and fill this season. Move him to LG and you're now looking for a new answer at RG which would likely result in a dropoff from what Womack would have provided there.

So instead of an increase in the playing level at one spot, you'd have a potential drop off at two spots. With a defense like Seattle's, keeping them off the field through good ball control offense is probably better for them than adding a Peterson or Abraham. Keep them fresh and watch them cause some havoc.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Brian Vogel

The way this is being reported on ESPN now...Hutchinson will remain in Seattle.

Seattle is claiming to have added an 8th, voidable year to Walt Jones' deal, making his yearly pay about $6.81 mil, so it would have been less than the average of $7 mil per Hutchinson would make under the Vikings offer sheet.

So, even if the provision is upheld, the Seahawks would be off the hook from guaranteeing the total amount of the deal.

What I'm hearing now is that the Special Master ruling was that Hutchinson would have to be the highest paid as of the signing date on the offer sheet, so even with the resturcturing of Jones Seattle would still need to guarantee the whole $49 million.

[Travis]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AjxdVV5NJWxfF7Q5ignUR1GW2bYF?slug=ap-seahawks-hutchinson&prov=ap&type=lgns

SEATTLE (AP) -- The Seahawks must match the guarantee provision in the $49 million, seven-year deal offered to All-Pro guard Steve Hutchinson by the Minnesota Vikings if the NFC champions want to keep their transition player.

An attorney for the NFL's players' union confirmed Monday that a special master ruled against Seattle, saying a provision guaranteeing all of the $49 million in an offer sheet Hutchinson signed with Minnesota should he not be the team's highest-paid offensive lineman is valid.

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

League spokesman Michael Signora said Monday evening that the Seahawks had until midnight (EST) Monday EST to match the Vikings offer or lose Hutchinson to Minnesota.

Berthelsen attended a two-hour hearing Monday morning in Philadelphia on the matter.

The Vikings' seven-year offer, which Hutchinson signed on March 12, included $16 million guaranteed. It would be the richest deal ever given to a guard. And Monday's ruling means it just got richer.

The Seahawks had argued Monday morning that because they have recently re-negotiated Pro Bowl left tackle Walter Jones' $54.5 million, seven-year contract by adding an eighth, voidable year, Jones' team-best lineman deal now has an annual value below that of Hutchinson's offer.

After the re-negotiation, Jones' annual base salary would dip to $6.81 million -- just below Hutchinson's $7 million annual average if Seattle matched Minnesota's offer. The Seahawks argued Monday morning, they should not have to guarantee the rest of Hutchinson's new deal.

Berthelsen said special master Stephen Burbank did not elaborate in his ruling.

But Berthelsen said the decision validated the NFLPA's stance that the conditions at the time Hutchinson signed the offer sheet with the Vikings are the conditions Seattle must match -- meaning Hutchinson wasn't the highest-paid Seahawks linemen then, so Seattle must guarantee all $49 million of the Vikings' deal to match it.

"They wanted to put in additional language to make it from any point from now until the end of the 2006 league year," Berthelsen said. "That is contrary to the intent of the wording that was in the contract.

"And the special master agreed."

The Seahawks did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

3 Strikes for the Seahawks on this one

1: Transition Tagging him instead of Franchising. Try to show a little fairness to let a guy go after a big payday while basically assuring him that you'll match it no matter the contract

2: Special Master rules in favor of the poison pill put in by Hutchinson's agent

3: Special Master rules that the Seahawks restructuring of Jones' contract, while done prior to the ruling, had to be done prior to Hutchinson signing the contract offer from Minnesota for the clause to kick in.

Here's hoping that McKinnie resigns for $7.1 a year when his contract comes up and the Vikings are forced to live with this contract rather than redoing his deal at that time. No way Seattle should be forced to match it and hand over $49 million if the Vikings can turn around and redo the deal once it looks like one of their linemen will want more per season.

[mckerney]

I'll be glad if this works out for the Vikings, but I'd be shocked if this kind of move isn't outlawed by the NFL in the very near future.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Can't make a trade - the CBA prevents the offering of compensation to prevent a guy being matched. That being said, Seattle really should have just franchised the guy - but oh well.

It appears to be a moot point now since the arbiter doubly screwed the Seahawks, but there's no reason, had the Seahawks matched the offer for Hutch, that they then couldn't have turned around and traded him.