Tom Cable interviewed for 49ers' coaching job?

[Anointed One]

in the last 3 drafts they have drafted over 7 Olineman 5 of those were 1st to 4th round picks which NORMALLY become starters. They have 2 players out of those that are starting quality ( Britt/Ifedi ). They have placed some capital on the position and have failed. I find it so funny that so many of you say " well they don't give him anything to work with" "They don't spend the money". BS The Oline has had more players drafted than any other position when talking about the first 4 rounds than any other position on the team and yet we got almost nothing to show for it. There is an issue and it can't be 100% Scouting.

I believe it was last year or the year before when Carroll said Cable has the final say on Olineman when drafting. End of Story!

First of all... The 1-4th round example is a bit of a reach... How many 4th round picks become instant starters? We had ZERO 3rd round picks...

During that time, we had a 1st round, 2nd round and (2) 4th round picks... 3 of those 4 are starters... 75% of the players are starting and seem to be the core of our OL ... Not a bad ratio...

 

[chf]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know the clause was there when he signed. That's why these players have agents. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the players out there don't actually read the contracts they are signing.

When it comes to picking up stakes and moving to a new franchise? Sorry, not buying it. At the very least you ask about it, or read the newspapers, or watch ESPN.

 

[Uhsplit]

in the last 3 drafts they have drafted over 7 Olineman 5 of those were 1st to 4th round picks which NORMALLY become starters. They have 2 players out of those that are starting quality ( Britt/Ifedi ). They have placed some capital on the position and have failed. I find it so funny that so many of you say " well they don't give him anything to work with" "They don't spend the money". BS The Oline has had more players drafted than any other position when talking about the first 4 rounds than any other position on the team and yet we got almost nothing to show for it. There is an issue and it can't be 100% Scouting.

I believe it was last year or the year before when Carroll said Cable has the final say on Olineman when drafting. End of Story!

I'm not looking for the link, but I say prove your statement.

 

[blstoker]

When it comes to picking up stakes and moving to a new franchise? Sorry, not buying it. At the very least you ask about it, or read the newspapers, or watch ESPN.

These guys aren't necessarily hired for these franchises because they are steeped in legal knowledge. That's why they hire people to handle the negotiations, the contracts and all that jazz.

As for asking about it, why would he ask? Why would he even think that the contract would possibly have a clause in it that was like that? It wasn't exactly common practice at the time for contracts to include that. That's why it was so controversial. I have never seen anything that ties Hutch to the poison pill. His agent, yes, but not Hutch himself. So, unless Hutch specifically asked for that clause to be in the contract - then I just look at him as a free agent player that we weren't able to keep.

 

[chf]

These guys aren't necessarily hired for these franchises because they are steeped in legal knowledge. That's why they hire people to handle the negotiations, the contracts and all that jazz.

As for asking about it, why would he ask? Why would he even think that the contract would possibly have a clause in it that was like that? It wasn't exactly common practice at the time for contracts to include that. That's why it was so controversial. I have never seen anything that ties Hutch to the poison pill. His agent, yes, but not Hutch himself. So, unless Hutch specifically asked for that clause to be in the contract - then I just look at him as a free agent player that we weren't able to keep.

Because the poison pill clause was all over the news specifically BECAUSE it had never been done before.

"Hey, I'm going to get you to FA, without Seattle matching, and there's going to be a shit ton of media attention coming your way about it, because I'm an evil genius.'

Whatever, that's what I pay you for, just let me know where to show up for work. I'll be in the back lifting.

Again, not buying it. If it hadn't been a new technique never seen before in history, sure.

Futch gave the Hawks the big ol' middle finger in the most public way possible.

So much so that Seattle got in a pissing match with the Vikes, and tried to do the same thing back.

 

[blstoker]

Because the poison pill clause was all over the news specifically BECAUSE it had never been done before.

"Hey, I'm going to get you to FA, without Seattle matching, and there's going to be a shit ton of media attention coming your way about it, because I'm an evil genius.'

Whatever, that's what I pay you for, just let me know where to show up for work. I'll be in the back lifting.

Again, not buying it. If it hadn't been a new technique never seen before in history, sure.

Futch gave the Hawks the big ol' middle finger in the most public way possible.

So much so that Seattle got in a pissing match with the Vikes, and tried to do the same thing back.

You aren't showing that Hutch had anything to do with the poison pill being in the contract, or that he even knew about it at the time of signing the offer sheet. All you're proving is that it still pisses you off and that in hindsight it should have been obvious. Show me proof, and I'll change my opinion. Otherwise, it's just another free agent we had to let go because we couldn't afford to pay him.

 

[chf]

You aren't showing that Hutch had anything to do with the poison pill being in the contract, or that he even knew about it at the time of signing the offer sheet. All you're proving is that it still pisses you off and that in hindsight it should have been obvious. Show me proof, and I'll change my opinion. Otherwise, it's just another free agent we had to let go because we couldn't afford to pay him.

I don't think that Hutch has ever come out and said, 'Hey you know what, my ego was hurt, and I went too far, and I regret it.' So yeah, I'm 100% reading between the lines. Hutch isn't a stupid guy. The idea that he'd let an agent make decisions about him and his future without even telling him about it, just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Happened a long time ago, I've actually got no issue with Futch waving the 12 flag. If they want to kiss and make up, that's cool.

But don't ask me to believe that a guy who was regarded as one of the top players at his position in the NFL just left his future 100% in someone else's hands.

Again, it wasn't like this was just a fine print maneuvering. This was nuclear war. Never been done before. After Seattle played tit-for-tat with Burleson, the NFL outlawed poison pill contracts. It actually changed the NFL landscape.

This was loud noisy, and VERY public. It was all over the news media, not just sports media, but regular news too, particularly in Washington.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine that a lawyer would be pretty hesitant to go nuclear if his client hadn't at least been given the details. Sounds like something that could get you in pretty hot water as an agent. Dotting I's and crossing t's in the fine print? Sure. Declaring nuclear war on the NFL, the Seahawks, and the way contracts were written?

Yeah, doesn't pass the logic test.

 

[Uhsplit]

This is the story of what happened.
Hutch was pissed that Ruskell hit him with the transitional tag instead of a long term contract as he let the league establish Hutch's value so Ruskell could match. Hence, the poison pill was created. I have no idea who gets the credit for the pill, but you can bet for damn sure Hutch knew what he was signing and was in agreement with the pill.
The Rise and Fall of Tim Ruskell: The Steve Hutchinson Saga

 

[blstoker]

This is the story of what happened.
Hutch was pissed that Ruskell hit him with the transitional tag instead of a long term contract as he let the league establish Hutch's value so Ruskell could match. Hence, the poison pill was created. I have no idea who gets the credit for the pill, but you can bet for damn sure Hutch knew what he was signing and was in agreement with the pill.
The Rise and Fall of Tim Ruskell: The Steve Hutchinson Saga

I've been searching for days to see if there has been anything that showed that Hutchinson did this to Seattle on purpose, and I can't find anything. Even quotes at the time of the signing indicated that Hutchinson wanted to come back to Seattle, even after signing the offer sheet.

Even if he did it to spite Ruskell, I really don't care. Hutch was great for Seattle, and Ruskell could have handled the situation better. All reports were that Seattle was willing to cover the $7mil per year, it was the guaranteed money that shut it down. Ruskell got cute with his All Pro guard and lost.

 

[Uhsplit]

I've been searching for days to see if there has been anything that showed that Hutchinson did this to Seattle on purpose, and I can't find anything. Even quotes at the time of the signing indicated that Hutchinson wanted to come back to Seattle, even after signing the offer sheet.

Even if he did it to spite Ruskell, I really don't care. Hutch was great for Seattle, and Ruskell could have handled the situation better. All reports were that Seattle was willing to cover the $7mil per year, it was the guaranteed money that shut it down. Ruskell got cute with his All Pro guard and lost.

I agree with you completely. As usual.

 

[chf]

I've been searching for days to see if there has been anything that showed that Hutchinson did this to Seattle on purpose, and I can't find anything. Even quotes at the time of the signing indicated that Hutchinson wanted to come back to Seattle, even after signing the offer sheet.

Even if he did it to spite Ruskell, I really don't care. Hutch was great for Seattle, and Ruskell could have handled the situation better. All reports were that Seattle was willing to cover the $7mil per year, it was the guaranteed money that shut it down. Ruskell got cute with his All Pro guard and lost.

Heh, no. Again, this had NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. In hindsight, sure Ruskell should have used the higher transition designation, but he wasn't doing anything that any other GM doesn't do on a yearly basis (let the market set the cost for a good player.

The part that made us unique, is that we had Walt to pay too, and thus the poison pill worked. We would have owed more guaranteed money to Futch, than Peyton Manning was owed.

Futch was an excellent fucking player, but he wasn't Peyton Manning.

 

[blstoker]

Heh, no. Again, this had NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. In hindsight, sure Ruskell should have used the higher transition designation, but he wasn't doing anything that any other GM doesn't do on a yearly basis (let the market set the cost for a good player.

The part that made us unique, is that we had Walt to pay too, and thus the poison pill worked. We would have owed more guaranteed money to Futch, than Peyton Manning was owed.

Futch was an excellent fucking player, but he wasn't Peyton Manning.

I didn't say that Ruskell should have seen it coming, I said he was out-maneuvered. He used a transition tag instead of a franchise tag and it bit him (and the Hawks) in the butt. Had he been willing to fork out the $7 million for the franchise tag instead of letting another team do his negotiating for him, then this situation doesn't happen.

The poison pill was just one part of the contract that Minnesota used to ensure that Seattle wouldn't match. Of course having Walt made it impossible for Seattle to enact it, as I am sure it was written specifically because of what Walt's contract status was. The other thing they did was front load the contract a huge amount in hopes that Seattle couldn't cover year 1 on their salary cap. Hutch's first season was $13 million against the cap - nearly twice what it would have been had the Hawks just franchised him (which was nearly as high as Manning's cap hit that year).

Minnesota outmaneuvered Seattle in this contract, and in such a way that Seattle leveled a complaint to the NFL, trying to nullify the poison pill provision. Seattle lost, and Hutch became a Viking. All this would have been avoided had Hutch been franchised - and it would have cost Seattle less than it had cost Minnesota that year.

 

[chf]

I didn't say that Ruskell should have seen it coming, I said he was out-maneuvered. He used a transition tag instead of a franchise tag and it bit him (and the Hawks) in the butt. Had he been willing to fork out the $7 million for the franchise tag instead of letting another team do his negotiating for him, then this situation doesn't happen.

The poison pill was just one part of the contract that Minnesota used to ensure that Seattle wouldn't match. Of course having Walt made it impossible for Seattle to enact it, as I am sure it was written specifically because of what Walt's contract status was. The other thing they did was front load the contract a huge amount in hopes that Seattle couldn't cover year 1 on their salary cap. Hutch's first season was $13 million against the cap - nearly twice what it would have been had the Hawks just franchised him (which was nearly as high as Manning's cap hit that year).

Minnesota outmaneuvered Seattle in this contract, and in such a way that Seattle leveled a complaint to the NFL, trying to nullify the poison pill provision. Seattle lost, and Hutch became a Viking. All this would have been avoided had Hutch been franchised - and it would have cost Seattle less than it had cost Minnesota that year.

How was he supposed to not be out-maneuvered? That's the whole point. There was no precedent for this kind of shit, and there wasn't afterward because the NFL outlawed it.

He let the market set Futch's value, because Futch was a guard. G's don't make as much as T's. and Futch was jealous of Walt money.

It's not like they were low-balling him. They essentially said, 'The highest contract you can get out there in the free-market, get it, and we'll match.' Why is that letting them do his negotiating? He's saying, 'I'll pay you better than the BEST offer you get.' It's highly complimentary.

But he wanted T money.

And the rub with the poison pill was the guaranteed money.

Let me use this silly analogy.

There's a super-soaker neighborhood water fight at the neighborhood park. One of the other people brings a H+K assault rifle. And uses it on the people with squirt guns.

That's what Minnesota did.

Because Futch was PIIIIIIISED that Walt made so much more than he did.

 

[blstoker]

How was he supposed to not be out-maneuvered? That's the whole point. There was no precedent for this kind of shit, and there wasn't afterward because the NFL outlawed it.

He let the market set Futch's value, because Futch was a guard. G's don't make as much as T's. and Futch was jealous of Walt money.

It's not like they were low-balling him. They essentially said, 'The highest contract you can get out there in the free-market, get it, and we'll match.' Why is that letting them do his negotiating? He's saying, 'I'll pay you better than the BEST offer you get.' It's highly complimentary.

But he wanted T money.

And the rub with the poison pill was the guaranteed money.

Let me use this silly analogy.

There's a super-soaker neighborhood water fight at the neighborhood park. One of the other people brings a H+K assault rifle. And uses it on the people with squirt guns.

That's what Minnesota did.

Because Futch was PIIIIIIISED that Walt made so much more than he did.

No, he said I will match the best you can get, not pay you better than the best you can get. Ruskell didn't want to "overpay" for their All Pro guard, so he let the market set the benchmark with the thought that no matter what it was he'd match it. Hutch got his "tackle money" and they would have matched - so paying him tackle money wasn't the issue. Walter Jones isn't the issue. The issue is that Ruskell opened the door for Hutch to leave, and Minnesota kicked it in.

Of course the rub in the poison pill was the guaranteed money - as that was the only way that Minnesota could "guarantee" that Seattle wouldn't match the offer. With the way Seattle react to it, it was evident that even the $13 million cap hit in 2006 wasn't going to stop them from matching.

Yes, it wasn't uncommon for GMs to do what Ruskell did (especially Ruskell), but it was only a matter of time before someone found a way to get around this strategy. Minnesota did, and it was found that it didn't violate the rules of the time. It isn't surprising that this happened to Ruskell, as he was set in his ways and did things exactly the way he always did, to the point that he ran the team into the ground just a few years after this.

 

[chf]

No, he said I will match the best you can get, not pay you better than the best you can get. Ruskell didn't want to "overpay" for their All Pro guard, so he let the market set the benchmark with the thought that no matter what it was he'd match it. Hutch got his "tackle money" and they would have matched - so paying him tackle money wasn't the issue. Walter Jones isn't the issue. The issue is that Ruskell opened the door for Hutch to leave, and Minnesota kicked it in.

Of course the rub in the poison pill was the guaranteed money - as that was the only way that Minnesota could "guarantee" that Seattle wouldn't match the offer. With the way Seattle react to it, it was evident that even the $13 million cap hit in 2006 wasn't going to stop them from matching.

Yes, it wasn't uncommon for GMs to do what Ruskell did (especially Ruskell), but it was only a matter of time before someone found a way to get around this strategy. Minnesota did, and it was found that it didn't violate the rules of the time. It isn't surprising that this happened to Ruskell, as he was set in his ways and did things exactly the way he always did, to the point that he ran the team into the ground just a few years after this.

The only way they could kick it in was the poison pill. That's it. They KNEW Seattle would match any normal offer. The ENTIRE amount was guaranteed because of the pill. AGAIN, more than the amount guaranteed to future HOF QB Peyton Manning.

We're just going round and round here.

You can find Ruskell guilty of all kinds of things, no need to make stuff up about him not being omniscient.

It wasn't found that it didn't violate the rules, because the NFL OUTLAWED it.

An arbitrator ruled against the Seahawks to overturn it.

There was no way that kind of bullshit was going to stand because it would have blown any kind of salary control out of the water for EVERY NFL team.

Of course it was 'surprising' that it happened to Ruskell, just as it would have been surprising had it happened to ANY football GM.

There was no spirit of the law going on there. It was a bush league bullshit move, and the NFL squashed it from every being repeated again, ever.

No WAAAAY can we retroactively punish Ruskell for not being omniscient. How about we hang him for drafting smurf DB's or something else he was actually guilty of?

He AGAIN, was actually paying a compliment to Futch. Saying, 'Don't care what kind of deal you negotiate, we'll match.'

Minnesota bringing a slug thrower to a watergun fight notwithstanding.

 

[blstoker]

The only way they could kick it in was the poison pill. That's it. They KNEW Seattle would match any normal offer. The ENTIRE amount was guaranteed because of the pill. AGAIN, more than the amount guaranteed to future HOF QB Peyton Manning.

We're just going round and round here.

You can find Ruskell guilty of all kinds of things, no need to make stuff up about him not being omniscient.

It wasn't found that it didn't violate the rules, because the NFL OUTLAWED it.

An arbitrator ruled against the Seahawks to overturn it.

There was no way that kind of bullshit was going to stand because it would have blown any kind of salary control out of the water for EVERY NFL team.

Of course it was 'surprising' that it happened to Ruskell, just as it would have been surprising had it happened to ANY football GM.

There was no spirit of the law going on there. It was a bush league bullshit move, and the NFL squashed it from every being repeated again, ever.

No WAAAAY can we retroactively punish Ruskell for not being omniscient. How about we hang him for drafting smurf DB's or something else he was actually guilty of?

He AGAIN, was actually paying a compliment to Futch. Saying, 'Don't care what kind of deal you negotiate, we'll match.'

Minnesota bringing a slug thrower to a watergun fight notwithstanding.

1) I never said Ruskell should have been omniscient or that he should have known it was going to happen. I don't know where you're thinking that I said that he should have foreseen this. I agree that this wasn't ever done before, as the facts state that it hadn't. So, there's no reason to keep including it in your posts, cause I don't disagree that it was the first time this had happened.

2) The arbitrator ruled against Seattle in this case because it didn't violate the collective bargaining agreement. There is no such thing as "spirit of the law" in contract law. Ruskell was using a tried and true exploitation of the CBA, and Minnesota outmaneuvered him by exploiting the CBA better than Ruskell did. That's usually how innovative things happen - it wouldn't be innovative if everyone was already doing it. Now, this particular maneuver would have rendered huge portions of the CBA contract rules obsolete, so it was outlawed 6 years later with the new CBA, but it isn't Minnesota's fault if they found a loophole that gave them a future hall of fame player.

3) There's no need to retroactively punish Ruskell for anything, as you've already pointed out, the dude has plenty wrong with his entire tenure. The poison pill isn't Ruskell's fault, what is his fault is the actions that led him to allow an All-Pro on his team, that he supposedly wanted to keep, to negotiate with another team instead of negotiating with the player himself. I don't care how often it had been tried, it's the height of arrogance that one may think that opening that door could never come back to hurt you.

4) Why would Hutch getting the transition tag applied to him be seen as a compliment? He just watched Seattle treat Walter Jones like he was one play away from obsolete for Hutch's entire career, so why would he want to be treated the same way, especially since instead of franchising him like they did Jones - they transitioned him (the difference is 1 year fully guaranteed and 1 year no guaranteed)? According to reports, Hutch was asked to be patient while Alexander was taken care of and then he'd get taken of. But, when it came time to take care of Hutch, they gave him a one year deal with no guaranteed money with another promise that if he could find something better then they'd match that. Why should he feel like a promise by Ruskell was worth anything after that? To use my own analogy - it's like everyone being promised a huge Christmas bonus, see everyone else get what they were promised and you get a holiday ham.

5) Despite your hate for Hutchinson, he didn't do anything wrong, even if he had specifically come up with the poison pill and demanded it be part of the contract - which I have serious doubts he did. These players have a short time to make money so blaming them for negotiating a contract for themselves when their own team refused to negotiate with them is unfair. None of this happens if Ruskell negotiates with Hutchinson himself, and it's feasible that Hutch signs a similar deal with the Hawks, if not a slightly less lucrative one. So, yes, I blame the Seahawks for losing one of their best players without trying to seriously negotiate with him themselves.

 

[chf]

I don't hate Hutch, I just want him to wear what he did.

I keep bringing up the omniscient thing, because you seem to be saying that Ruskell screwed the pooch on his negotiations with Futch on this.

I can't agree with that.

No guaranteed money? Christmas ham? He was telling him 'You get the biggest offer for a G in history, and I'll match it.'

That's some ham. Can I have some of that ham? Please?

Ruskell had plenty of mistakes and issues. This was not one. Futch wanted out, because he was jealous of Walt's money, and he got out. They weren't letting him go without that nuclear pill.

 

[blstoker]

I don't hate Hutch, I just want him to wear what he did.

I keep bringing up the omniscient thing, because you seem to be saying that Ruskell screwed the pooch on his negotiations with Futch on this.

I can't agree with that.

No guaranteed money? Christmas ham? He was telling him 'You get the biggest offer for a G in history, and I'll match it.'

That's some ham. Can I have some of that ham? Please?

Ruskell had plenty of mistakes and issues. This was not one. Futch wanted out, because he was jealous of Walt's money, and he got out. They weren't letting him go without that nuclear pill.

What Seattle offered was a transition tag. $6.3 million, 1 year deal with 0 guaranteed money. That was the offer, cause that's what the transition tag was worth if Hutch couldn't find a better deal. If you have a link that actually shows that Seattle offered him a better deal, I'd be interested in that.

You keep saying that giving Hutch the transition tag means that Ruskell was communicating this great deal for Hutch, but obviously he didn't. Cause, for Ruskell to be sending that message, Hutch couldn't have received it that way and acted the way you assume, then he obviously didn't feel like Ruskell was giving him some sort of gift deal - especially since the deal he eventually signed paid him Walter Jones money. So, in the end, Ruskell thought that $600,000 in savings and giving up 2 potential extra first round picks was supposed to send a positive message to Hutchinson about the Seahawks desire to keep him? All that it really did was let Hutch walk and let Minnesota draft Adrian Peterson.

To be honest, I have heard of very few players who have taken being franchised or transitioned the way you are saying Hutchinson should take it. I don't think it's reasonable to think that he should be pleased to be treated in a way that no one is really all that pleased to be treated that way.

Let's look at what Minnesota was offering. 7 years, 49 million with 16 million guaranteed that was realistically 34 million over 4 years as it would cost more to cut or trade him than to pay him for the first 4 years of his deal. Now, compare that with Seattle not even sitting down to discuss a new contract with him, and offering a 1 year deal without guaranteed money. So, even if he wanted out of Seattle, can you blame him - since obviously Minnesota apparently wanted him more than Seattle did?

 

[chf]

What Seattle offered was a transition tag. $6.3 million, 1 year deal with 0 guaranteed money. That was the offer, cause that's what the transition tag was worth if Hutch couldn't find a better deal. If you have a link that actually shows that Seattle offered him a better deal, I'd be interested in that.

You keep saying that giving Hutch the transition tag means that Ruskell was communicating this great deal for Hutch, but obviously he didn't. Cause, for Ruskell to be sending that message, Hutch couldn't have received it that way and acted the way you assume, then he obviously didn't feel like Ruskell was giving him some sort of gift deal - especially since the deal he eventually signed paid him Walter Jones money. So, in the end, Ruskell thought that $600,000 in savings and giving up 2 potential extra first round picks was supposed to send a positive message to Hutchinson about the Seahawks desire to keep him? All that it really did was let Hutch walk and let Minnesota draft Adrian Peterson.

To be honest, I have heard of very few players who have taken being franchised or transitioned the way you are saying Hutchinson should take it. I don't think it's reasonable to think that he should be pleased to be treated in a way that no one is really all that pleased to be treated that way.

Let's look at what Minnesota was offering. 7 years, 49 million with 16 million guaranteed that was realistically 34 million over 4 years as it would cost more to cut or trade him than to pay him for the first 4 years of his deal. Now, compare that with Seattle not even sitting down to discuss a new contract with him, and offering a 1 year deal without guaranteed money. So, even if he wanted out of Seattle, can you blame him - since obviously Minnesota apparently wanted him more than Seattle did?

They were willing to pay him at the top of scale for Guard money. So let's not rewrite history and pretend that they were being mean poopy-heads and low-balling him. Were they low-balling him as a tackle? Absofrigginlutely. Sadly he wasn't a tackle.

Salary cap is what it is. Should we have given Bennett 12 million per when he wanted to re-negotiate? Should we have given in and re-written Kam's deal when the team policy was not to do that?

Teams make these decisions every year. And every year players feel disrespected and get pissed about it. Sadly the cap exists though, and as fans we'd be apoplectic if they gave in every time and gave players what they thought they were worth, if it meant not being able to sign FA's and their own draftees.

Walt got taken care of first. That HAD to happen. Walt was Walt. SA was up next. You think they WEREN'T going to sit down and take care of Futch after he's played that one season at the transition tag? Of COURSE they were. J+H in front of Alexander were the staple of the Seahawks O.

But whatever the exact reason was, that wasn't good enough for Hutchinson.

He wanted out, and the ONLY way he was going to get out was what shitty shenanigans that Minny cooked up.

In HINDSIGHT, should they have tagged him at the upper level so that Minny would have balked at the two 1st rounders? Of COURSE.

But again, there was no reason for our GM to think he had to do that. Except in hindsight.

Keeping costs under control (even for star players like Kam) is a huge part of what NFL front offices do. Thus the whole 'capologist' designation. Ruskell was trying to do that, just like EVERY OTHER league GM does.

Somebody came to the poker table with aces up their sleeve and a derringer in their pocket.

That wasn't Ruskell's fault, nor could he have known that.

In hindsight AGAIN though, maybe Ruskell did them a favor. G's don't make T money for a reason. What did Minny ever win with Futch? Zip.

 

[blstoker]

They were willing to pay him at the top of scale for Guard money. So let's not rewrite history and pretend that they were being mean poopy-heads and low-balling him. Were they low-balling him as a tackle? Absofrigginlutely. Sadly he wasn't a tackle.

Salary cap is what it is. Should we have given Bennett 12 million per when he wanted to re-negotiate? Should we have given in and re-written Kam's deal when the team policy was not to do that?

Teams make these decisions every year. And every year players feel disrespected and get pissed about it. Sadly the cap exists though, and as fans we'd be apoplectic if they gave in every time and gave players what they thought they were worth, if it meant not being able to sign FA's and their own draftees.

Walt got taken care of first. That HAD to happen. Walt was Walt. SA was up next. You think they WEREN'T going to sit down and take care of Futch after he's played that one season at the transition tag? Of COURSE they were. J+H in front of Alexander were the staple of the Seahawks O.

But whatever the exact reason was, that wasn't good enough for Hutchinson.

He wanted out, and the ONLY way he was going to get out was what shitty shenanigans that Minny cooked up.

In HINDSIGHT, should they have tagged him at the upper level so that Minny would have balked at the two 1st rounders? Of COURSE.

But again, there was no reason for our GM to think he had to do that. Except in hindsight.

Keeping costs under control (even for star players like Kam) is a huge part of what NFL front offices do. Thus the whole 'capologist' designation. Ruskell was trying to do that, just like EVERY OTHER league GM does.

Somebody came to the poker table with aces up their sleeve and a derringer in their pocket.

That wasn't Ruskell's fault, nor could he have known that.

In hindsight AGAIN though, maybe Ruskell did them a favor. G's don't make T money for a reason. What did Minny ever win with Futch? Zip.

I haven't rewritten history. History says that the Seahawks offered him a 1 year deal with $0 in guaranteed money. Is this incorrect? No. It is a fact. There is no wiggle room for debate in this - it is a fact. The numbers are there, they are not that difficult to look up.

Also, the issue at hand wasn't the 2006 season - even with a $0 guarantee - it was about a long term solution. I don't know what the Seahawks would have done in 2007, and neither do you. History tells us that Walter Jones was franchised 3 straight years (and held out each year) before he got his long term deal - a situation that Hutch may not have wanted to go through - especially since when they franchised Walt he was given a fully guaranteed 1 year deal - something that Hutch was not given.

Top paid guards did, in fact, get paid as much or more than top paid tackles. Larry Allen making 8.5 million a year is one example. So, it's not exactly unheard of for player of Hutchinson's caliber to ask for better compensation. Seattle (according to rumors at the time) wanted to pay $5 million a year, while Hutch wanted $7 million (if you notice, Walt was given $7.5 a year - so Hutch wasn't seeking "Jones money", he was seeking a little less). Minnesota's success with Hutch is irrelevant to the topic at hand - especially since Seattle didn't have much more success while paying Hutch significantly less than what Minnesota paid him (and having another HoF lineman next to him).

You have read a whole lot into the situation, imposing your own view on it. What cannot be denied is:

1) Seahawks used the transition tag - 1 year 6.3 million 0 guaranteed + right to first refusal

2) Minnesota offered a much better deal that spanned over half a decade

3) Whether Hutch knew about the stipulations in the contract or not - Seattle did not match the offer. Whether Hutch was upset or not at Seattle is irrelevant - as is any supposed implied promise that Seattle would match. If there was an implied promise that Seattle would match the best deal that Hutch got - then Hutch proved they would not stand to that promise, as they did in fact not match the deal.

4) Deal did not break rules of the CBA and Minnesota won arbitration as the stipulations in the contract applied to them as well. NFL changed rules in the next CBA to prevent similar issues - but the "poison pill" did not keep the Seahawks from matching - they made that choice on their own.