Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes

jamf · 03-24-2006, 09:57 PM

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

Oh man what a great tactic! wtf why didnt dannyboy think of this first?

dan_snyder69 · 03-24-2006, 10:10 PM

Wow. We are witnessing the beginnings of a real viscious rivalry here! Do they play each other next season?

Master4Caster · 03-24-2006, 10:29 PM

I say new Vikings owner Zygi "triangle of authority" Wilf is going to tank his team. First losing Culpepper and this.

That Guy · 03-24-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master4Caster

I say new Vikings owner Zygi "triangle of authority" Wilf is going to tank his team. First losing Culpepper and this.

not standing in the way of the randy moss trade didn't help either. He said he wanted to keep him, but obviously he wasn't loud enough.

GTripp0012 · 03-24-2006, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

not standing in the way of the randy moss trade didn't help either. He said he wanted to keep him, but obviously he wasn't loud enough.

He didn't officially own the team when moss was traded.

That Guy · 03-24-2006, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

He didn't officially own the team when moss was traded.

I know, but as the buyer he definately had an ear to talk to. He could have offered a couple million more if randy was on the roster or whatnot.

That Guy · 03-24-2006, 10:56 PM

the only think stupider (yeah, its a made up word, what you gonna do?) than signing julian peterson at 8$mill a year is signing burleson at 7$mill a year.

i have NO idea what they're thinking, but they could have gotten peterson and burleson for less and also gotten good players earlier on if they didn't wait so long to start making calls.

MTK · 03-25-2006, 12:00 AM

wow, talk about overpaying for a player, the media would have a freaking field day if the Skins were the one signing Burleson

mooby · 03-25-2006, 12:51 AM

i agree. No way Nate Burleson is worth 49 million. Who'd you rather have, Nate Burleson or Steve Hutchinson? Like Matty said, if this was the redskins, every media outlet would be talking about how they overpaid, but since it's not, it goes virtually unmentioned.

STPainmaker · 03-25-2006, 01:44 AM

I like Burleson. I think we paid a lot for a #2 receiver also.

That Guy · 03-25-2006, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STPainmaker

I like Burleson. I think we paid a lot for a #2 receiver also.

30mill or 49mill though... there's such a huge difference there.

STPainmaker · 03-25-2006, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

30mill or 49mill though... there's such a huge difference there.

True. But how much will he actually see of that 49 million. I'm not sure of all the details of the contract.

amorentz · 03-25-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STPainmaker

True. But how much will he actually see of that 49 million. I'm not sure of all the details of the contract.

In reality it is a 4 year $14.4m contract with $3.5m signing bonus. The last three years are just dummy years to make the guaranteed contract too unwieldy to match.

wilsowilso · 03-25-2006, 02:01 AM

Do any of you guys get the feeling that most of us if not every single Warpath member could be the GM of an NFL team? I mean this is some seriously difficult strategy to comprehend. The good thing is that this would never play out against us, because our great owner would up the ante to very very angry money levels. Sounds like a junior high turf war?

DCopper04 · 03-25-2006, 02:36 AM

I can't see those contract conditions being allowed if the Vikings were to contest this. If they are allowed, then it would drastically change how the restricted free agent system works. Whenever one team wanted to sign another team's player, they could simply put a fat bonus into the contract that is triggered if the player plays a certain number of games in a certain state. No team would ever be able to match an offer sheet. I think those poison pills are more of an "f-you" tactic than anything else. Seattle is probably betting that the sheer size of the contract is enough to scare away the Vikings.

03-24-2006, 09:57 PM	#1
jamf Pro Bowl Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Diego Ca Posts: 5,348	Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2383020 Oh man what a great tactic! wtf why didnt dannyboy think of this first?

03-24-2006, 10:29 PM	#3
Master4Caster Special Teams Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: DC area Posts: 374	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes I say new Vikings owner Zygi "triangle of authority" Wilf is going to tank his team. First losing Culpepper and this. __________________ Master4Caster http://runningredskins.blogspot.com http://mvn.com/nfl-redskins

03-24-2006, 10:56 PM	#7
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,620	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes the only think stupider (yeah, its a made up word, what you gonna do?) than signing julian peterson at 8$mill a year is signing burleson at 7$mill a year. i have NO idea what they're thinking, but they could have gotten peterson and burleson for less and also gotten good players earlier on if they didn't wait so long to start making calls.

03-25-2006, 12:00 AM	#8
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,832	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes wow, talk about overpaying for a player, the media would have a freaking field day if the Skins were the one signing Burleson __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

03-25-2006, 12:51 AM	#9
mooby Hug Anne Spyder Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 20,577	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes i agree. No way Nate Burleson is worth 49 million. Who'd you rather have, Nate Burleson or Steve Hutchinson? Like Matty said, if this was the redskins, every media outlet would be talking about how they overpaid, but since it's not, it goes virtually unmentioned.

03-24-2006, 10:10 PM	#2
dan_snyder69 Camp Scrub Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: maryland & south carolina Posts: 92	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes Wow. We are witnessing the beginnings of a real viscious rivalry here! Do they play each other next season? __________________ Moving to the South only has one drawback: No FedEx Field!

03-25-2006, 01:44 AM	#10
STPainmaker Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 524	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes I like Burleson. I think we paid a lot for a #2 receiver also. __________________ REDSKINS FOR LIFE BEEETCH!!!!

03-25-2006, 02:01 AM	#14
wilsowilso Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Los Angeles Age: 52 Posts: 2,841	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes Do any of you guys get the feeling that most of us if not every single Warpath member could be the GM of an NFL team? I mean this is some seriously difficult strategy to comprehend. The good thing is that this would never play out against us, because our great owner would up the ante to very very angry money levels. Sounds like a junior high turf war?

03-25-2006, 02:36 AM	#15
DCopper04 Camp Scrub Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 59	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes I can't see those contract conditions being allowed if the Vikings were to contest this. If they are allowed, then it would drastically change how the restricted free agent system works. Whenever one team wanted to sign another team's player, they could simply put a fat bonus into the contract that is triggered if the player plays a certain number of games in a certain state. No team would ever be able to match an offer sheet. I think those poison pills are more of an "f-you" tactic than anything else. Seattle is probably betting that the sheer size of the contract is enough to scare away the Vikings.

Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes

Locker Room Main Forum