Tom Cable interviewed for 49ers' coaching job?

[JMR]

Wasn't there also some sort of crap in that contract about "games played in the state of Washington?"

 

[chf]

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.

I enjoy discussing stuff with you, you're a good solid poster, I think we mostly agree on stuff, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Am I bringing some baggage to the discussion? Probably, I'm human just like anyone else. I call him Huck Futchinson for a reason.

Where I disagree is that you aren't doing the exact same.

You've listed a bunch of 'facts' above, and I'm not disagreeing with any of them. Just like you're not disagreeing with my facts about how the NFL outlawed poison pill contracts after the Burleson retaliation.

Your fact about Minnesota offering longer term, sure, but then without the PP, Seattle would have just matched that, and everybody would have been happy (assuming that it wasn't Futch who didn't have his shorts in a bind).

My whole argument hinges on that the team wasn't being unreasonable or even a LITTLE unusual with how they dealt with Hutch. As you so ably put it above they used the tag 3 years running on Walt, who was basically Mr. Seahawk since the days of Largent.

Walt didn't have HIS agent pull bullshit shenanigans. Hutchinson did.

That's a fact too (you can say you BELIEVE that he didn't know) and again we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Like I say, I'm not holding some huge grudge about it. I didn't have problem one with him putting up the 12 flag. I just want to be real about what happened, and what role HE played in it. That's it.

Dunno why you're opposed to that, but since we're not disagreeing on the facts at all, there's nothing really more to say. You want to paint him as the victim in all this, and I simply can't agree with that. He was wearing his big-boy pants through all of it.

Even though he hasn't said boo publicly, I'm imagining he must have said SOMETHING behind the scenes to the organization, or else this wouldn't have happened.

Now if you want to discuss an all-time Seahawk who DID get bent over without lube by the team, let's talk Kenny Easley.

 

[chf]

Wasn't there also some sort of crap in that contract about "games played in the state of Washington?"

Yes, it totally violated any 'spirt of the law' standard.

 

[Screamin12th]

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...

and normally 1-4th round picks on the OLINE! are starters or quality Back-ups we have neither THAT was my point. They HAVE used resources to improve the line and have not done so. Someone was saying you can't make a good oline out of nothing. Well we have been SPENDING picks on the oline but still have Nothing. We got a bunch of 3rd string type players other than Britt And Ifiedi. Britt as the starting RT was better than anyone we had playing RT this year also.

 

[Screamin12th]

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

It was in a Seahawks Town hall video. There was a thread saying that Carroll threw Cable under the bus by saying that. lol

 

[blstoker]

Wasn't there also some sort of crap in that contract about "games played in the state of Washington?"

No, that was Seattle's reaction in the Nate Burleson contract. His contract became fully guaranteed if he played 5 or more games in Minnesota in any season.