Putting a bow on the Hutchinson debate for hawk fans
by Joshua Kasparek on Nov 19, 2009 5:24 PM PST
Email
PrintThe sad truth hawk fans, no matter how much you imagine Hutch is a hall of fame player and a playmaker and a flashy player with mean streak, if he had signed an extension with this team we aren't in the position to say we'd be a good running team with him. He had attempted to negotiate during the 2005 season with John Clayton reporting that he was asking for around 8 million a year with a bonus that was hefty. The Hawks declined knowing they had some more needs.
Another reason I look at the Hawks hesitation to sign him to big money is the condition of the offensive line. Robbie's sudden retirement which was fast approaching, Walter turning 32 and Chris Gray one or two years from retirement. When you look at Hutch's game, he's clearly awesome down field, but scouts had effectively said against big tackles he tended to struggle to generate push. He struggled against Dallas and the Steelers, and the Redskins when they ran a 5 man front in the NFC championship game. He never allowed penetration much in the run, but also was rated a C- by most scouts in the league, especially against stunts or twists in pass protection Sounds like an 8 million dollar guard to you right?
The problem with the Hutchinson debate is he's always had some kind of serious talent around him that helps him do what he does best and that's charge down field and slam linebackers into safeties, but in the event he didn't or couldn't do that, the running game often stalled in Seattle, Alan Faneca or Larry Allen were better fits as crushers, guys who could open holes at the line of scrimmage consistently Hutch at the time wasn't capable of that.
So in the end, at best we franchise him and had one more year with his skill set. Then lose him, or we sign him to a big deal and let Alexander Walk, Tobeck retire, Gray get old and Walter become an injury aged tackle. I don't doubt Hutch's total skill set, I just question his skill outside of 2006 where he's clearly above everyone else in skill set and the pressure is on him to succeed.
We can argue leadership, or semantics, but in the end, The franchise tag simply adds one and done, and the 8 million dollar salary says we want to be able to keep a young team, or line together, which Seattle didn't really have.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Seriously?
Rosterbation: Fanposts containing logical, supported and novel roster moves are accepted, even endorsed. Fanposts that propose farfetched trades, signings, schemes or that endorse exhausted topics (ie Michael Vick, Mike Holmgren, the officiating of Super Bowl XL, etc) are not allowed.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
I don't see the problem with his post.
It seems his point is that we should just forget about the whole Hutch issue.
As much as we'd like to stick our heads in the sands,
the Seahawks fanbase as a whole is not willing to let those dogs lie.
Yes, but the fieldgulls community seems
pretty atypical of the fanbase as a whole. Fire David Ruskell!
Seems appropriate to me
We play the ’Vikes this weekend and the web is awash in Hutch stories. Adrian Peterson laughed at us about it just a day or two ago. David Wyman posted about it. There is a big pic of him on the front of this very website.
I thought this presented a different perspective.
The web is awash with Hutch stories
from people who can’t fricking let it go already
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Nov 19, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions
I think even Ruskell would admit not franchising was a mistake
The majority of franchised players sign eventually sign contracts with their team. And should that have failed, Seattle could have traded Hutch for a draft pick. Really, there is simply no excuse.
Also, while I agree that 7-8 million for a good guard is pricey, Hutch is one of, or perhaps the only guard who could actually earn that paycheck. He’s the greatest guard of his generation, and comparing him to other guards is a waste of time, honestly.
The problem with the Hutchinson debate
is that fans have re-imagined the story in a dozen ways that never actually happened.
What happened is the Seahawks tried to sign Hutch to a multi-year deal and he refused, then paid his agent to create a way for him to escape from Seattle. He did not want to be here.
The franchise tag was the Seahawks’ strategy to try to re-sign Hutch to a lucrative multi-year deal. He was refusing to negotiate, so they put the transition tag on him specifically to lure another team to make him a multi-year offer he would accept. The Seahawks knew they would have the rights to match that offer once it was signed and voila! they would have accomplished their elusive goal – signing Hutch for multi-years.
They simply had not anticipated Hutch’s agent would insert a “guaranteed money” poison pill in the contract, and they never anticipated that the league would allow that contract to stand.
The Seahawks had a strategy to keep Hutch, and they worked it hard, but they got burned. They did not simply let him go.
Bottom line: Hutch made it clear he did not want to play in Seattle. Good riddance. Now let’s go knock him on his a$$.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Nov 19, 2009 8:46 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
and, of course I meant to type "the transition tag" was their strategy
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
The real villian here was always the NFL
The whole “poison pill” thing that Hutch got in his contract was always a crock, as it required Seattle to have a time machine. Hutch had to be the highest paid OL player when the contract was signed, a condition Seattle didn’t know about until after the fact and wasn’t allowed to fix. It was a ludicrous clause that clearly could not be legally applied. The point of the transition tag was to allow Seattle to match the Viking’s offer, something the poison pill didn’t allow them to do. If the conditions are different for Seattle than they are for the Vikings (or require the violation of physics), how can the word “match” be legitimately used?
The clause basically said that if you were the Seattle Seahawks you had to pay Hutch more than if you were the Vikings. That doesn’t qualify as a “match” under any definition I’ve ever heard.
Whoever the mediator was for the NFL was clearly an idiot, and Seattle should have sued to have his interpretation over-ruled. Bottom line: we lost a hall-of-fame, first round LG for nothing.
The Vikings were allowed to steal our player, and the NFL was a willing accomplice.
Yes
The NFL is a club run by 32 groups of millionaires. These guys know how to buy off a judge or change a rule when they want to. The Seahawks got burned by a corrupt system which they (perhaps naively) assumed would give them a fair ruling.
I know of only one other similar poison pill clause ever approved in the NFL, and that was in 1993. If teams thought this clause was legal and appropriate, why isn’t it used more often?
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
No disrespect,
I’m going to have to call bs on this part:
What happened is the Seahawks tried to sign Hutch to a multi-year deal and he refused, then paid his agent to create a way for him to escape from Seattle. He did not want to be here.
First, no one on any side of this issue has ever claimed to my knowledge that the poison pill was actually Hutchinson’s idea, much less that he paid his agent to make it happen.
Hutchinson cleared the air about what went down a couple years ago. Basically the short of it was that the Seahawks barely talked to him during the 2005 season (which even the Seahawks FO admitted was true), he felt even before FA hit that he wasn’t “wanted” by the Seahawks. Their top offer was $6 mil per (allegedly topping out at 7/42). He wanted $7 mil per. In Hutch’s own words, he said he was very surprised to not be franchised and said to himself “I guess they don’t want me.” Minnesota immediately offered the contract he wanted, and signed it WITH knowledge of the pill. He admitted to knowing of the pill, but basically didn’t care at that point because he felt bridges had been burned.
Hutch DID want to stay in Seattle but he put his ego first. He wanted to be paid more than he wanted to be a Seahawk, and I’m sure the frustrations he experienced with Reinfeldt and Ruskell made him ambivalent once he actually hit FA.
I remember right after XL happened, there was a very under-reported story about how Hutch met with Walter Jones and somberly told him that he thought they had played their last game together (the story noted the Hutch did not seem the least bit happy about parting ways). I didn’t put much stock in it at the time, but I can see now he was referring to negotiations that were a total failure and he knew it.
Possibly.
But who cares. Two eye witnesses, one car wreck. Both have different perception of the events. Doesn’t much matter who was right or wrong, the car is still totaled either way.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 19, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
Insurance companies, the legal system would care
I don’t care if people hate Hutch, I just want people to get the facts right.
Hutch's agent, Tom Condon is reported to have written the poison pill into the contract.
“no one on any side of this issue has ever claimed to my knowledge that the poison pill was actually Hutchinson’s idea, much less that he paid his agent to make it happen.”
Actually this has been reported. Hutch’s agent Tom Condon asked for the clause. The only reason that would happen is because Hutch did not want the Seahawks to succeed in matching and keeping him under contract.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
This is untrue, sorry
I researched this. I found two blogs (both with a big axe to grind against Hutch) that cited Condon writing the pill, but neither linked any evidence and I found no official news outlet supporting this claim.
John Clayton of ESPN reported just the opposite, that the pill was written by Vikes VP Rob Brezinski:
Clearly, Tagliabue is disturbed by the problem. So are front offices across the league because this was a significant loss for the NFL teams. If transition tags and restricted free agency can be worked around so easily, it hurts the ability of teams to keep young players in their prime. Vikings vice president Rob Brezinski, who wrote the poison pills in Hutchinson’s deal, clearly looked beleaguered as he arrived at the owners meetings in Orlando.
“It’s not something we like to talk about,” Brezinski said.
His peers weren’t happy [because the transition tag was now useless, among other things]
If you think about it, the story of Condon writing the pill never made sense to begin with. The pill did nothing to earn Hutch more money. Hutch was angry with the Seahawks precisely because he wanted to stay in Seattle but they hardly gave him the time of day. But what Hutch wanted the most was his money. Rather than being bitter, wouldn’t it actually be sweet redemption to force Tim Ruskell to pay you every penny you told him you were worth after he busted your balls?
By contrast, the Vikings had every reason to create a pill, because without some kind of trick they would have never actually managed to sign Hutchinson. They would have been wasting their time and been nothing more than a mediator for Hutch and Seattle. So obviously, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for them to offer an “honest”, matchable contract at all in the first place. If I had found that your story was true and that it really was Hutch’s idea and not Minnesota’s, I would have been pretty stunned just by the baffling logic of it.
"he wanted to stay in Seattle... But what Hutch wanted the most was his money"
That makes no sense whatsoever.
The Seahawks offered Hutchinson 6.38M guaranteed, more than the Vikings offered him. The Seahawks also offered him a long-term contract (amount unknown). Point being, Hutchinson could have taken MORE money AND stayed in Seattle.
Hutchinson took LESS guaranteed money from the Vikings and left. He clearly wanted OUT.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
and the argument that Hutch was justifiably mad at not being able to get an extension in 2004?
is a weak sauce of an argument on Hutchinson’s part. The Seahawks did not negotiate with ANY of their signed players before the year their contracts were up. That was the team policy and they treated all players the same. The Seahawks other free agent players didn’t get mad and leave because of this.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Is this true?
I wasn’t aware of this. Is this the deal we brought into arbitration? Or what was offered before free agency?
by jacobstevens on Nov 24, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
I'm sure Hutch and his agent didn't like being talked to in 2005
but I think the Seahawks deserve a pass on that. 16 free agents, including Hasselbeck, Walter Jones, and Shaun Alexander. When we re-signed Alexander in 2006, there was a good case to not re-sign him, or not to re-sign him to a large or long contract.
But in 2005, he was still in his prime. Happened to turn in his career year. Hutchinson was probably the best at his position, and was younger than the other three. But come on, get in line. If he couldn’t have the perspective to recognize that those three situations were more immediately at hand, all three were more important positions, two of the three were better at their position than he was at his, and that ultimately they would have to take precedence, not to mention the other 16 players to figure out what to do, free agency and the draft to address, that’s pretty self-centered perspective.
by jacobstevens on Nov 20, 2009 5:17 PM PST up reply actions
Could not have said it better,
For people who know what actually happened it seems pretty clear that the blame is squarely on Hutch and his agent. Screw Adrian peterson, he’s clueless.
by TrueHawkForLife on Nov 20, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions
I'd say this post is unnecessary.
But I was listening to KJR today and Softy was going on and on about how Ruskell should’ve been fired just for Hutch leaving. All I could think was, “It’s been 4 years! Let it go!” Too bad the people that should read this won’t or would just ignore the facts and continue their war cry.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
I'm also saying I liked this post by the way.
Just too bad it’s probably the wrong place for it.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
by Hopefulmsfan on Nov 20, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions
Wait, We Lost Steve Hutchinson?
I liked the post as well. It presents an interesting question regarding the value of a guard. It would be better to have him then to not have him, but I wonder if the money would have provided as much return in wins as we spent, other than the obvious awesomeness of fearsome bearded destruction.
Why didn't we?
I don’t understand why we didn’t offer him MORE money than the Vikings. They offered a $49/7 year deal. Why not offer a $50/7? Then our offer would be better and he’d want to sign with us. Maybe it would have taken a bit more cash , but it didn’t seem like there was no way around the poison pill.
Because hutch would have to be paid more than Walter Jones
Or his contract would be entirely guaranteed. Walter’s Salary that year was 9.7 million dollars plus roster bonuses, there was no way in hell the hawks could match that.
by Joshua Kasparek on Nov 22, 2009 11:44 PM PST reply actions
Right.
and also, didn’t the Seahawks actually state (whether genuine or not, I dunno) that they would match that highest-paid lineman clause, by restructuring Walter’s contract? Which seemed to me as much poison-pill loopholing, but as valid, as the Vikings’ poison pill, and something I questioned whether Hutchinson was worth, but in the end the arbitrator said no they couldn’t do that, because to match the Vikings they would have had to apply it to the lineman salary structure at the time the Vikings made their offer. Something that I thought was, well, completely arbitrary, I couldn’t see the reasoning in that. That above all made me feel the Seahawks got screwed.
But oh well. He was a big loss, but we could have overcome it, we had a lot of opportunity to overcome it. Not everything turned up aces for us, and so we didn’t.
by jacobstevens on Nov 24, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
