Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:59 pm
  • I saw his new twitter name https://twitter.com/poisonpill76
    @PoisonPill76 and i've read conflicting articles, some say our GM was to cheap to pay him others say hutch wanted to leave.
    WHy did he leave?
    User avatar
    Axx
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2539
    Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:37 pm


  • He didn't HAVE to sign that poisoned offer sheet. He signed it cause he wanted to stick it to the businessman.

    Ruskell wasn't smart enough to franchise him or give him his $$$ and left a bad taste in Hutch's mouth.
    Idle vaporings of a mind diseased
    Image
    User avatar
    VaporHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1521
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am
    Location: Seattle


  • 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.

    At least, that is how I remember it going down.

    Ruskell was an idiot for not signing Hutch to a huge extension.
    Image

    "The Seahawks showed today that they regarded me highly and I appreciate that, and I will continue to show how much I regard Paul Allen and the Seattle Seahawks with my play." - Richard Sherman
    User avatar
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 7889
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
    Location: Just 6 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • To his credit, he knows he screwed up major, and had this to say...

    The Seahawks reached their first Super Bowl under Ruskell, but they also lost All-Pro guard Steve Hutchinson for no compensation, a mistake that Ruskell jokingly told his wife he didn't want to follow him for eternity.

    "Let's look at that will again," he told her, "and it says burial, but let's go for cremation so they won't be able to write, 'Here lies the man that lost Hutch' on my tombstone."


    http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2 ... awk04.html
    Image

    "The Seahawks showed today that they regarded me highly and I appreciate that, and I will continue to show how much I regard Paul Allen and the Seattle Seahawks with my play." - Richard Sherman
    User avatar
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 7889
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
    Location: Just 6 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • The fact that Rusky didn't see the value we had in that offensive line, or the value of linemen in general baffles me.
    Image
    User avatar
    SNDavidson
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1437
    Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:22 pm


  • Ruskell/Reinfeldt thought they were doing a Hutch a favor by allowing him to test the market using the Transition Tag.. initially not a bad idea because so many players got pissed off when slapped with the franchise tag.. Well, not franchising Hutch pissed him off to the point where he felt disrespected and left..

    The only other person nearly as pissed off as Hutch was Holmgren when he found out that Hutch was transitioned.. Coincedentally, Hutch is the last person in the NFL to given the transition tag.
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2497
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


  • Barthawk wrote:Ruskell/Reinfeldt thought they were doing a Hutch a favor by allowing him to test the market using the Transition Tag.. initially not a bad idea because so many players got pissed off when slapped with the franchise tag.. Well, not franchising Hutch pissed him off to the point where he felt disrespected and left..

    The only other person nearly as pissed off as Hutch was Holmgren when he found out that Hutch was transitioned.. Coincedentally, Hutch is the last person in the NFL to given the transition tag.


    That's exactly right. All of it.
    Image

    "The Seahawks showed today that they regarded me highly and I appreciate that, and I will continue to show how much I regard Paul Allen and the Seattle Seahawks with my play." - Richard Sherman
    User avatar
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 7889
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
    Location: Just 6 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • It wasn't that Ruskell/Reinfeldt were too cheap to pay him, they were following a more conventional logic that said guards don't make tackle money. Steve was a special kind of guard and he knew it, and the application of the Transition Tag (which paid him the average of the top 10 guards in the league and gave him more freedom to "shop around") rather than the Franchise Tag (top 5 average and much more restrictive) made him feel like the Seahawks felt he wasn't valuable enough to them. The "poison pill" that the Vikings put in were 2 conditions that the Vikings could meet and the Seahawks couldn't that, if violated, would guarantee him the full $49m of their contract offer. The Seahawks were forced into a position where they had to let him go.
    benbu75
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:32 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • Barthawk wrote:Coincedentally, Hutch is the last person in the NFL to given the transition tag.

    No, he's not. Max Starks (2008) and David Akers (2011) have received it more recently.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


  • Aros wrote:
    Barthawk wrote:Ruskell/Reinfeldt thought they were doing a Hutch a favor by allowing him to test the market using the Transition Tag.. initially not a bad idea because so many players got pissed off when slapped with the franchise tag.. Well, not franchising Hutch pissed him off to the point where he felt disrespected and left..

    The only other person nearly as pissed off as Hutch was Holmgren when he found out that Hutch was transitioned.. Coincedentally, Hutch is the last person in the NFL to given the transition tag.


    That's exactly right. All of it.


    One other point to remember is that this was shortly after three straight seasons where the Seahawks could not reach an agreement with Walter Jones and had to franchise him. Ruskell understandably did not want to risk getting into the same situation with Hutchinson. Unfortunately--as is the case with most of his tenure here--Ruskell was reactive instead of proactive. He thought Seattle would be able to match any offer Hutch would get and thus avoid the possibility of franchising Hutch multiple times and got caught flat-footed when the Vikings slipped the poison pill into Hutch's contact.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1138
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • People sure are cutting Mr. Poisonpill76 there a whole lot of slack for acting like a jackass in response to the perceived slight. Say what you will about Ruskell's mistake, and it was a huge one, Hutchinson was still a prick, and I think it shows in his new nickname.
    User avatar
    jkitsune
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2091
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:12 pm


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    Aros wrote:
    Barthawk wrote:Ruskell/Reinfeldt thought they were doing a Hutch a favor by allowing him to test the market using the Transition Tag.. initially not a bad idea because so many players got pissed off when slapped with the franchise tag.. Well, not franchising Hutch pissed him off to the point where he felt disrespected and left..

    The only other person nearly as pissed off as Hutch was Holmgren when he found out that Hutch was transitioned.. Coincedentally, Hutch is the last person in the NFL to given the transition tag.


    That's exactly right. All of it.


    One other point to remember is that this was shortly after three straight seasons where the Seahawks could not reach an agreement with Walter Jones and had to franchise him. Ruskell understandably did not want to risk getting into the same situation with Hutchinson. Unfortunately--as is the case with most of his tenure here--Ruskell was reactive instead of proactive. He thought Seattle would be able to match any offer Hutch would get and thus avoid the possibility of franchising Hutch multiple times and got caught flat-footed when the Vikings slipped the poison pill into Hutch's contact.


    I think he also thought Hutch was a little too big for his britches and that this was some "tough love" to teach Hutch a lesson that Guards are the 2nd tier of the offensive line and should be paid as such.
    benbu75
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:32 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • jkitsune wrote:People sure are cutting Mr. Poisonpill76 there a whole lot of slack for acting like a jackass in response to the perceived slight. Say what you will about Ruskell's mistake, and it was a huge one, Hutchinson was still a prick, and I think it shows in his new nickname.



    As an old expression used to go...."Two wrongs don't make a right". IMHO....both men were in the wrong! Both men had egos like King Kong! Consequently both men "lost"...the Seahawks and the city of Seattle, however, lost the most.
    Bigpumpkin
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
    Location: Puyallup, WA USA


  • Bigpumpkin wrote:
    jkitsune wrote:People sure are cutting Mr. Poisonpill76 there a whole lot of slack for acting like a jackass in response to the perceived slight. Say what you will about Ruskell's mistake, and it was a huge one, Hutchinson was still a prick, and I think it shows in his new nickname.



    As an old expression used to go...."Two wrongs don't make a right". IMHO....both men were in the wrong! Both men had egos like King Kong! Consequently both men "lost"...the Seahawks and the city of Seattle, however, lost the most.

    I really don't think Ruskell's decision was an ego thing. He thought he was negotiating in good faith, which isn't smart when dealing with the contracts of elite players. It was a miscalculated risk, although I thought it made a lot of sense at the time to let Hutch try to establish his own market value.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


  • Rat wrote:
    Bigpumpkin wrote:
    jkitsune wrote:People sure are cutting Mr. Poisonpill76 there a whole lot of slack for acting like a jackass in response to the perceived slight. Say what you will about Ruskell's mistake, and it was a huge one, Hutchinson was still a prick, and I think it shows in his new nickname.



    As an old expression used to go...."Two wrongs don't make a right". IMHO....both men were in the wrong! Both men had egos like King Kong! Consequently both men "lost"...the Seahawks and the city of Seattle, however, lost the most.

    I really don't think Ruskell's decision was an ego thing. He thought he was negotiating in good faith, which isn't smart when dealing with the contracts of elite players. It was a miscalculated risk, although I thought it made a lot of sense at the time to let Hutch try to establish his own market value.



    Both of them could have used a good dose of intelligence!
    Bigpumpkin
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
    Location: Puyallup, WA USA


  • They both acted like tools. The Hawks touched base with Hutch about extending him before the season was over. His agent's very words were Hutch 'intended to test the waters in free agency' In light of that, Ruskell decided that the franchise tag might result in a prolonged holdout, so he opted for the transition tag, so Hutch could test free agency, as he said he wanted to do, and the Hawks would have the right to match any offer. This approach worked well for one of our guys prior to Hutch (I forget who exactly), but Hutch #sigh!# viewed the lack of the Franchise tag as disrespect. There was also input from our salary cap guy (Reinfieldt), so i think that's where the perceived slight may have come from.

    Hutch is still very much to blame for allowing the poison pill into the deal. Had that not been there, the Hawks would have matched anything the Vikings offered. They even went as far as reworking Big Walt's contract in order satifsfy the conditions of the poison pill, but the 'arbitrator' decided the Hawks couldn't do that 'after the fact' which is really fishy because intent of the transition tag includes allowing the incumbent team to match offers from other teams.

    For that arbitrator to allow language in the contract that basically said Hutch's salary from the Seahawks had to satisfy the conditions of the poison pill before anybody had a chance to even read it is completely ridiculous.

    The vikings sleasy ownership and GM suffered a lot of backlash from the league for making the transition tag basically worthless. From my understanding, the new transition tag terms have been revised, so as not to allow that type of under-handed activity.
    User avatar
    HawKnPeppa
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2510
    Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:01 pm


  • Because Hutch is and was a total douchebag. Plain and simple.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9072
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Tech Worlds wrote:Because Hutch is and was a total douchebag. Plain and simple.


    I'll agree with this.

    And add that Ruskell was an incompetent GM.
    Driver of the PC/JS Super Bowl wagon since 2010
    Image
    Sherman looks like a ballet master in grand jeté –
    a trash-talking, dreadlocked Baryshnikov suspended
    impossibly above the turf – pro football's paean to
    wanton human destruction slips into the sublime.
    User avatar
    TDOTSEAHAWK
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2931
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 pm
    Location: Hamilton


  • The loss of Hutch was huge. When they signed SA to that big contract instead of Hutch I was furious. They could have kept them both if they worked it right.
    Eh... Whatever...
    User avatar
    loafoftatupu
    I'M JIMMY!
     
    Posts: 5243
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
    Location: Auburn, WA


  • It was so stupid on Ruskell's part because the difference between the transition tag and the franchise was really small as I recall: well under $1 million. The transition tag provided barely any protection as we all saw. Because Ruskell got cute and tried to penny pinch with one of the best players in the league, the team got burned. Of course, Hutch didn't have to sign a poison pill contract but he did.
    User avatar
    Missing_Clink
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2386
    Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:53 am


  • 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.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2735
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:05 am
  • 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
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10749
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: Why couldn't hutch stay with Seattle?
Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:49 am
  • 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)

    your World Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3004
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


  • 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.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2735
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Hutchinson wanted Walter Jones money and quite honestly, well.... He wasn't Walter Jones.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9072
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • 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
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 4643
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • 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
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9072
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Tech Worlds wrote:Because Hutch is and was a total douchebag. Plain and simple.

    TRUTH ^
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3337
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • 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?
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3337
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • 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
    Getting ready for some football
    User avatar
    The Radish
    * NET Radish *
     
    Posts: 18369
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
    Location: Spokane, Wa.


  • 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:

    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:

    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.
    User avatar
    Dreo
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 316
    Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:35 pm


  • 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
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 9906
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


  • 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
    User avatar
    VivaEfrenHerrera
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 997
    Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:03 pm
    Location: Mudbone's rumpus room


  • 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.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 624
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


  • 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
    User avatar
    BASF
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:07 pm


  • 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.
    benbu75
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:32 pm
    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
    benbu75
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 33
    Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:32 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • 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.
    WestcoastSteve
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1141
    Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm


  • 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:

    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:

    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.
    So you're admitting I'm a celeb...
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11192
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


  • 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.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9924
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • 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
    User avatar
    SharkHawk
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 3883
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


  • 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.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9924
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm




It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:12 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information