Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:26 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2483
Aros wrote:
He got pissed off when Ruskell and co. allowed him to test the market as a RFA instead of sign him to a huge contract or at least give him the franchise tag. He felt betrayed and thus celebrated the whole poison pill aspect of his contract with the Vikings.


This.


Hutch's departure had nothing to do with poison pills, it had everything to do with Ruskell and Holmgren screwing up the "transitional" tag.

They thought they could just let Hutch shop around, then transition tag him if a long term deal wasn't struck, and save the franchise tag for Alexander or Hasselbeck. Oops.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:05 am 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
Posts: 10261
Location: Vancouver, WA
Aros wrote:
.............Ruskell was an idiot..........

Yes, yes he was (and not just when it came to his dealings with Hutchinson).
.
.
.
.
.
Timmmaaaaaaaay!!

_________________
From the white sands
To the canyon lands
To the redwood stands
To the barren lands

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:49 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am
Posts: 2888
Sgt. Largent wrote:

Hutch's departure had nothing to do with poison pills, it had everything to do with Ruskell and Holmgren screwing up the "transitional" tag.

I disagree.

Hutch's departure had EVERYTHING to do with the poison pill offer sheet that Minnesota put together.

Minnesota put together an offer sheet that stated that Hutchinson had to be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team.

In order for the Seahawks to match that offer, they would have had to pay Hutchinson more money than they were paying Walter Jones... and that made absolutely no sense.

Ruskill underestimated Minnesota's creativity in their poison pill offer sheet. The NFL reviewed it and upheld it... but owners all agreed that poison pill offer sheets would never happen again.

That's the way that I remember it. Minnesota basically screwed us... and Hutchinson took the money and ran.

_________________
EastCoastHawksFan posted... "Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made." (March 18, 2014)

Moved to Seattle in 1980. Hawks fan for 34 years and counting.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:06 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2483
onanygivensunday wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:

Hutch's departure had nothing to do with poison pills, it had everything to do with Ruskell and Holmgren screwing up the "transitional" tag.

I disagree.

Hutch's departure had EVERYTHING to do with the poison pill offer sheet that Minnesota put together.

Minnesota put together an offer sheet that stated that Hutchinson had to be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team.

In order for the Seahawks to match that offer, they would have had to pay Hutchinson more money than they were paying Walter Jones... and that made absolutely no sense.

Ruskill underestimated Minnesota's creativity in their poison pill offer sheet. The NFL reviewed it and upheld it... but owners all agreed that poison pill offer sheets would never happen again.

That's the way that I remember it. Minnesota basically screwed us... and Hutchinson took the money and ran.



It should have never got to the point of Minnesota "screwing us." If Ruskell would have just stepped up and gave Hutch a nice long term contract like he deserved, then the poison pill never would have been an issue.

Again, Hutch's departure was about him being pissed at the Hawks not giving him the contract he thought he deserved, and not about the poison pill. Like other's have said, Hutch didn't have to sign the contract with Minnesota, he signed it because they gave him the contract that Seattle should have.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:09 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8836
Location: Granite Falls, WA
Hutchinson wanted Walter Jones money and quite honestly, well.... He wasn't Walter Jones.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:11 pm 
* NET Sage *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 4371
Tech Worlds wrote:
Hutchinson wanted Walter Jones money and quite honestly, well.... He wasn't Walter Jones.


He was the best interior guard in football for quite some time and deserved his contract.

Ruskell was just an incompetent jackass

_________________
February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:16 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8836
Location: Granite Falls, WA
Hasselbeck wrote:
Tech Worlds wrote:
Hutchinson wanted Walter Jones money and quite honestly, well.... He wasn't Walter Jones.


He was the best interior guard in football for quite some time and deserved his contract.

Ruskell was just an incompetent jackass


Meh. He didn't deserve left tackle money. Regardless. Our issue wasn't letting him go, it was not replacing him.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:18 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm
Posts: 3189
Tech Worlds wrote:
Because Hutch is and was a total douchebag. Plain and simple.

TRUTH ^


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:27 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm
Posts: 3189
Sgt. Largent wrote:
onanygivensunday wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:

Hutch's departure had nothing to do with poison pills, it had everything to do with Ruskell and Holmgren screwing up the "transitional" tag.

I disagree.

Hutch's departure had EVERYTHING to do with the poison pill offer sheet that Minnesota put together.

Minnesota put together an offer sheet that stated that Hutchinson had to be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team.

In order for the Seahawks to match that offer, they would have had to pay Hutchinson more money than they were paying Walter Jones... and that made absolutely no sense.

Ruskill underestimated Minnesota's creativity in their poison pill offer sheet. The NFL reviewed it and upheld it... but owners all agreed that poison pill offer sheets would never happen again.

That's the way that I remember it. Minnesota basically screwed us... and Hutchinson took the money and ran.



It should have never got to the point of Minnesota "screwing us." If Ruskell would have just stepped up and gave Hutch a nice long term contract like he deserved, then the poison pill never would have been an issue.

Again, Hutch's departure was about him being pissed at the Hawks not giving him the contract he thought he deserved, and not about the poison pill. Like other's have said, Hutch didn't have to sign the contract with Minnesota, he signed it because they gave him the contract that Seattle should have.

mONEY OVER ALL ELSE MATTERED the most TO fuTCH.
Do you think he makes it into the HOF?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:34 pm 
* NET Radish *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
Posts: 18023
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Don't put this on Mike Holmgren, he was pissed when he found out they had transitioned him. He was on vacation and prior to leaving he and Ruskell got together and the agreement was to pin Hutch down so he couldn't leave and work out a deal.

He first found out Ruskell had done it differently in the newspapers.

:141847_bnono:

_________________
Image
The SuperB owl ladys have left the building with our thanks.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:04 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:35 pm
Posts: 312
Didn't we go after Nate Burleson from Minn after that with a poisoned offer sheet? I think I read somewhere that the offer stated something like if Burleson played more than 5 games in the State of Minnesota his entire contract became guaranteed.

I like Nate but would rather have kept Hutch. At least we got some sort of revenge though, petty as it was.

Edit, yep found it:

Quote:
The offer sheet stated that the entire $49 million would be guaranteed if Burleson played five games, in one season, in the state of Minnesota, or if his average per year exceeded the average of all running backs on the team combined.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Burleson

More about this debacle:

Quote:
Seattle retaliated, though, by signing Minnesota wide receiver Nate Burleson to an offer sheet containing a similar ploy. Because of this controversy, the NFL banned the use of "poison pills".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hutc ... ootball%29


Last edited by Dreo on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:14 pm 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9561
Location: Monroe, WA
Tech Worlds wrote:
Hasselbeck wrote:
Tech Worlds wrote:
Hutchinson wanted Walter Jones money and quite honestly, well.... He wasn't Walter Jones.


He was the best interior guard in football for quite some time and deserved his contract.

Ruskell was just an incompetent jackass


Meh. He didn't deserve left tackle money. Regardless. Our issue wasn't letting him go, it was not replacing him.

QFT. My problem with the whole Futch fiasco was not so much losing him, but why couldn't we find a decent replacement? Sure, we probably couldn't easily find another all-world guard, but somebody competent would have been nice. I was kind of a Ruskell supporter before this happened. This is when it really came out about how badly our personnel decisions were going.

Our O-line has not been the same since then. It is coming around a bit under Cable, but it's still a bit of a work in progress all these years later.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:21 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:03 pm
Posts: 996
Location: Mudbone's rumpus room
So much misplaced rage and blame. Sigh...

Y'all can be mad all you want at Ruskell for the Transition Tag strategy. But the simple fact is this: In a non-corrupt league, it would have worked! That's a straight-up fact, and it matters.

The ruling of the so-called "Special Master" was clearly counter to the spirit of the league's own rules. There's no way the Poison Pill contract should have been allowed to stand. Holmgren has said as much in several interviews, if you listen closely. How do we know this? Simple. They outlawed these types of deals after the tit-for-tat stuff with the Burleson deal that made the situation clear. Not only was there no real way to anticipate such nonsense, there was surely no way to anticipate that the NFL would let it stand.

Ruskell was trying to be clever and pinch a few pennies. But that's what you do with the salary cap, right? And that few hundred k here or there is the difference between a practice squad guy and a quality special teams guy. Those are the types of differences that turn Super Bowl caliber teams into multiple Super Bowl teams.

Of course it never would have got there at all if Hutchinson wasn't so weirdly irrational and b!tchy about it. Nonetheless, be mad at the right people, the ones who actually had the power to act properly and who chose not to: the suits in the league's corporate offices.

_________________
"I have a Super Bowl ring, and I would gladly show that to him. And if he doesn’t have time to come see it, tell him he can Google it." -- Doug Baldwin


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:47 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm
Posts: 613
It's not like we would have won a SB if Hutch re-signed. His departure accelerated the removal of Ruskell and the implementation of an actually successful sports culture. We should be thanking Hutch.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:49 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:07 pm
Posts: 1426
Sgt. Largent wrote:
It should have never got to the point of Minnesota "screwing us." If Ruskell would have just stepped up and gave Hutch a nice long term contract like he deserved, then the poison pill never would have been an issue.

Again, Hutch's departure was about him being pissed at the Hawks not giving him the contract he thought he deserved, and not about the poison pill. Like other's have said, Hutch didn't have to sign the contract with Minnesota, he signed it because they gave him the contract that Seattle should have.


That is not correct at all. HawknPeppa is absolutely correct. Hutch's agent told our front office when we tried to extend him during the 2005 offseason that his client wanted to test the free agent market in 2006. Ruskell basically gave Hutch what he wanted in the ability to test the market and we got screwed by Hutch, his agent and the Vikings. If Hutch's revisionist history after he signed with the Vikings is to be believed, why did his agent never come to us during the 2005 season or before free agency began and tell our front office that his client had changed his mind and was willing to start up contract talks? I have been the most vocal on this site about Hutch never wanting to be a Seahawk in the first place as when he was receiving his jersey on the draft stage he looked like someone had just kicked his dog, and I stand by that claim. Sure, he played like a professional while he was here, but as soon as he had a chance to get back to the midwest he practically ran out of the PNW.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:49 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:32 pm
Posts: 33
Location: Seattle, WA
scutterhawk wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
onanygivensunday wrote:
I disagree.

Hutch's departure had EVERYTHING to do with the poison pill offer sheet that Minnesota put together.

Minnesota put together an offer sheet that stated that Hutchinson had to be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team.

In order for the Seahawks to match that offer, they would have had to pay Hutchinson more money than they were paying Walter Jones... and that made absolutely no sense.

Ruskill underestimated Minnesota's creativity in their poison pill offer sheet. The NFL reviewed it and upheld it... but owners all agreed that poison pill offer sheets would never happen again.

That's the way that I remember it. Minnesota basically screwed us... and Hutchinson took the money and ran.



It should have never got to the point of Minnesota "screwing us." If Ruskell would have just stepped up and gave Hutch a nice long term contract like he deserved, then the poison pill never would have been an issue.

Again, Hutch's departure was about him being pissed at the Hawks not giving him the contract he thought he deserved, and not about the poison pill. Like other's have said, Hutch didn't have to sign the contract with Minnesota, he signed it because they gave him the contract that Seattle should have.

mONEY OVER ALL ELSE MATTERED the most TO fuTCH.
Do you think he makes it into the HOF?


7-time All-Pro, I say he absolutely makes it into the HOF. He is undoubtedly one of the best interior linemen to ever play the game and the Seattle/Minnesota fiasco was one of the key factors in establishing the value of a top Guard in the NFL.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:16 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:32 pm
Posts: 33
Location: Seattle, WA
BASF wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
It should have never got to the point of Minnesota "screwing us." If Ruskell would have just stepped up and gave Hutch a nice long term contract like he deserved, then the poison pill never would have been an issue.

Again, Hutch's departure was about him being pissed at the Hawks not giving him the contract he thought he deserved, and not about the poison pill. Like other's have said, Hutch didn't have to sign the contract with Minnesota, he signed it because they gave him the contract that Seattle should have.


That is not correct at all. HawknPeppa is absolutely correct. Hutch's agent told our front office when we tried to extend him during the 2005 offseason that his client wanted to test the free agent market in 2006. Ruskell basically gave Hutch what he wanted in the ability to test the market and we got screwed by Hutch, his agent and the Vikings. If Hutch's revisionist history after he signed with the Vikings is to be believed, why did his agent never come to us during the 2005 season or before free agency began and tell our front office that his client had changed his mind and was willing to start up contract talks? I have been the most vocal on this site about Hutch never wanting to be a Seahawk in the first place as when he was receiving his jersey on the draft stage he looked like someone had just kicked his dog, and I stand by that claim. Sure, he played like a professional while he was here, but as soon as he had a chance to get back to the midwest he practically ran out of the PNW.


That's not exactly right though. The Seahawks WERE offering him an extension all the way up to free agency, but only for $6m a year. Hutch wanted more like $7m, but the Seahawks were following conventional wisdom on Guard salaries and didn't want to pay him $7m. The reason they applied the Transition Tag wasn't so much that they were trying to pinch pennies that year. Applying the Franchise Tag would have given him just about $7m, which would have weakened their position the following year in negotiations. Tagging him as Transition would have kept his salary at about $6.4m, which was closer to the $6m number that they wanted for him. I think that is what angered Hutch enough to allow the poison pill. He felt like the Seahawks didn't value him as a top guard in the NFL and were basically giving him their final offer. When the Vikings gave him the number he wanted, he made sure he was going to a team that really wanted him there and the Vikings were all too eager to oblige with the "poison pill".

EDIT: Danny O'neil lays all of this out pretty clearly in a 2009 Times article: http://seattletimes.com/html/dannyoneil ... eil18.html


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:19 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm
Posts: 1141
onanygivensunday wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:

Hutch's departure had nothing to do with poison pills, it had everything to do with Ruskell and Holmgren screwing up the "transitional" tag.

I disagree.

Hutch's departure had EVERYTHING to do with the poison pill offer sheet that Minnesota put together.

Minnesota put together an offer sheet that stated that Hutchinson had to be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team.

In order for the Seahawks to match that offer, they would have had to pay Hutchinson more money than they were paying Walter Jones... and that made absolutely no sense.

Ruskill underestimated Minnesota's creativity in their poison pill offer sheet. The NFL reviewed it and upheld it... but owners all agreed that poison pill offer sheets would never happen again.

That's the way that I remember it. Minnesota basically screwed us... and Hutchinson took the money and ran.


You're forgetting that Jones restructured his deal to make Hutchinson the highest paid linemen on the team, however the pill said at the time of the contract Hutch needed to be the highest paid linemen making Jones restructuring moot.

Whoever said they transitioned him so they could franchise Hass/Alexander that's not true, you can only franchise OR transition a player, you can't franchise AND transition another a player.

Had they franchised Hutch and Minnesota wanted him bad enough we would of at least got a 1st round pick out of it.

I think the Hawks would have been much better off continuing with Maurice Morris/Hutch then they were with Mike Wahle/Shaun Alexander and all the bums we plugged in at left guard for the next few years after that.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:49 am 
* Gangnameister *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 11111
Location: PoCompton, BC Canada
Dreo wrote:
Didn't we go after Nate Burleson from Minn after that with a poisoned offer sheet? I think I read somewhere that the offer stated something like if Burleson played more than 5 games in the State of Minnesota his entire contract became guaranteed.

I like Nate but would rather have kept Hutch. At least we got some sort of revenge though, petty as it was.

Edit, yep found it:

Quote:
The offer sheet stated that the entire $49 million would be guaranteed if Burleson played five games, in one season, in the state of Minnesota, or if his average per year exceeded the average of all running backs on the team combined.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Burleson

More about this debacle:

Quote:
Seattle retaliated, though, by signing Minnesota wide receiver Nate Burleson to an offer sheet containing a similar ploy. Because of this controversy, the NFL banned the use of "poison pills".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hutc ... ootball%29


I always really liked Burleson and was happy to have him. But every time I looked at him, in the back of my mind I couldn't help but think of him as the consolation prize in the Steve Hutchinson sweepstakes.

_________________
I <3 Nunchucks


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:55 am 
* Report Button *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 9923
The transition tag was the right business decision. It allowed a market price to be set, in a situation where there wasn't one. No one knew what an elite guard was worth then. So, the Seahawks wanted an idea of his value on the market...less they risk overpaying. Hutch went back on his word on allowing the Seahawks to match, most likely.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:14 pm 
* NET Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am
Posts: 3883
I just logged in to add that most importantly... The aftermath in the days leading up to the arbitration hearing are what led me to coin the name "Futch", which I think is the only cool thing I ever did on this board and will always assure that I get proper credit for. We all have our
Moment of brilliance in our lives. Unfortunately that is as close as I'll ever get. :)

_________________
Image
R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten
1/12/39 - 8/7/08


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:48 pm 
* Report Button *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 9923
SharkHawk wrote:
I just logged in to add that most importantly... The aftermath in the days leading up to the arbitration hearing are what led me to coin the name "Futch", which I think is the only cool thing I ever did on this board and will always assure that I get proper credit for. We all have our
Moment of brilliance in our lives. Unfortunately that is as close as I'll ever get. :)


I would say, keep trying to achieve that moment of brilliance. It'll happen, some time.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atradees, Coxal, Google [Bot], hawksincebirth, MichaelHawk70, slipwax, Smellyman, Starrman44 and 71 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.