Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes

RedskinPete · 03-25-2006, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCopper04

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.

It will and has been with what the Vikings did with the Hutchinson deal! That oked it this week. The Hawks put more salt in the wound yes and yes it was a big F-you! This kind of thing has open all kinds of doors! So will the Owners try to make changes to stop this kind of war? You know the players will not and must love this!!!

dmek25 · 03-25-2006, 06:05 AM

man,you want to talk about overpaying?burleson is a fine player,but we actually over payed alittle but 49 million,wow

GTripp0012 · 03-25-2006, 10:41 AM

If we had signed Lloyd to an offer sheet, the 49ers could have matched, but we wouldn't have had to give up a third. He's probably gonna get a large deal anyway, so I don't know why we just didn't give him one comparable to the deal the Hawks gave Burleson.

RedskinPete · 03-25-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If we had signed Lloyd to an offer sheet, the 49ers could have matched, but we wouldn't have had to give up a third. He's probably gonna get a large deal anyway, so I don't know why we just didn't give him one comparable to the deal the Hawks gave Burleson.

IF the Redskins Has did what the Vikings or Hawks did man you would have never heard the end of it! Danny would have been the Bonds of the NFL! But nothing will be said about the hot war going on between the Hawks and Vikings. Both teams will be given a pass and the owners will never a word about what they are doing!

That Guy · 03-25-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If we had signed Lloyd to an offer sheet, the 49ers could have matched, but we wouldn't have had to give up a third. He's probably gonna get a large deal anyway, so I don't know why we just didn't give him one comparable to the deal the Hawks gave Burleson.

cause then we'd have to give the 49ers a 1st rounder, which we don't have, so we couldn't have made a deal in the first place.

Pocket$ $traight · 03-25-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

man,you want to talk about overpaying?burleson is a fine player,but we actually over payed alittle but 49 million,wow

I am guessing that the contract is back loaded. The 49 million number was used in spite. Also, only 5.25 is guaranteed which is really what matters. They could drop him after a year or two and it wouldn't hurt that bad.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-25-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamf

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

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

He did. We signed all the people that the Bears wanted.

It's called keep-away.

Pocket$ $traight · 03-25-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

He did. We signed all the people that the Bears wanted.

It's called keep-away.

There were no poison pills in those deals.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-25-2006, 01:36 PM

Well, if that really is the case. Good for the Seahawks. Let your pride and egos get in the way of what's good for your team.

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.

GTripp0012 · 03-25-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

cause then we'd have to give the 49ers a 1st rounder, which we don't have, so we couldn't have made a deal in the first place.

Good point.

Dirtbag59 · 03-25-2006, 08:14 PM

Wait how does anyone consider this payback. First the Vikings take away half of the reason that the Seahawks were so effective running left then the Seahawks overpay a reciever the Vikings didn't want anymore. If anything the Vikings just hit the Seahawks with a nice one-two punch

GTripp0012 · 03-25-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Wait how does anyone consider this payback. First the Vikings take away half of the reason that the Seahawks were so effective running left then the Seahawks overpay a reciever the Vikings didn't want anymore. If anything the Vikings just hit the Seahawks with a nice one-two punch

Yeah, but ya know, at least the Hawks proved that they won't be outdicked by anyone.

Pocket$ $traight · 03-25-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Wait how does anyone consider this payback. First the Vikings take away half of the reason that the Seahawks were so effective running left then the Seahawks overpay a reciever the Vikings didn't want anymore. If anything the Vikings just hit the Seahawks with a nice one-two punch

They didn't overpay and it was the Vikings #1 guy. You don't think that hurt them? Now they are a K-Rob cocktail away from Marcus Robinson being the go to guy.

03-25-2006, 06:05 AM	#17
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 63 Posts: 10,672	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes man,you want to talk about overpaying?burleson is a fine player,but we actually over payed alittle but 49 million,wow __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

03-25-2006, 10:41 AM	#18
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 37 Posts: 15,994	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes If we had signed Lloyd to an offer sheet, the 49ers could have matched, but we wouldn't have had to give up a third. He's probably gonna get a large deal anyway, so I don't know why we just didn't give him one comparable to the deal the Hawks gave Burleson.

03-25-2006, 01:36 PM	#24
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,264	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes Well, if that really is the case. Good for the Seahawks. Let your pride and egos get in the way of what's good for your team. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-25-2006, 08:14 PM	#27
Dirtbag59 Naega jeil jal naga Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland Age: 40 Posts: 14,750	Re: Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes Wait how does anyone consider this payback. First the Vikings take away half of the reason that the Seahawks were so effective running left then the Seahawks overpay a reciever the Vikings didn't want anymore. If anything the Vikings just hit the Seahawks with a nice one-two punch __________________ "It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice." - Scooter "I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now." - FRPLG

Payback: Seahawks signed Burlseson from Vikes

Locker Room Main Forum