VD holdout?

[burrrton]

This was a good thread until someone couldn't resist hijacking it to push their political views.

Don't even know who got your panties in a wad, but yeah, SO surprising a contract holdout might bring up a moral discussion of the righteousness of doing so (especially in the offseason), huh, 4ever?

[HumanCockroach]

Burton, I'm attempting to be fair in this conversation, and have allowed you to call me adolescent and juvenile, but I fear if I continue down this road any further with you, there can be nothing but bad feelings, or general argument, and so I bow out, you're welcome to continue debating the moral honesty and ethics of the uber wealthy and the merits of them,I know my life experiences simply do NOT jive with yours, and as such, I will post AGAIN good for you, but that doesn't change anything for me, or my family, or really ANYONE else I know or interact with on a day to day basis.

[RiverDog]

Vernon Davis is skipping 9ers OTA's and is reportedly seeking to rework the 6 year 43 million dollar deal he signed in 2010. Now thats a team oriented guy for you! Meanwhile Seattle has guys accepting huge pay cuts below market value to acquire more talent. Its good to be a Hawks fan.....Fun to watch that hair fire smoldering down in the Bay area.

Well, we did have Golden Tate, whom after saying he'd take a home town discount, spurned us for a greener pasture in Detroit. This is just standard business practice, and all teams have to deal with it, including us. Since we're coming off a SB season, we don't have to deal with it to the same degree that other teams do this year as players want that ring and being that we're the favorites to win it all again in 2014, we have a distinct advantage in that regard, but so would the Raiders or Browns if they happened to be the defending SB champs.

Tate was a very productive, tough and durable punt returner and very good reciever. He would block like a mack truck too, all for a relatively low paycheck. And he was a free agent. I'll miss him.He made some plays, but with Stafford and Megatron he will be a star in Detroit. I don't blame the guy.Plus he needed to get away from Ashley:-)

Davis on the other hand has 2 years left on a deal that pays him 7 million + per year. And if he has a brain he understands the dire cap situation and Kaepernics looming contract.
My point is it highlights the glaring difference between Seattle and Frisco in terms of sacrifice for a common goal

And RD I beg to differ on the impact of winning a Super Bowl. A year after winning it all the Ravens were a train wreck of arrests, Flacco doing a face plant after signing a 120 million dollar deal. Rice dissapearing on the field. The Giants went down the toilet after their last SB win.Its been the same for a lot of teams, which is why the Patriots were the last team to repeat ten years ago.

Seattle has a different vibe. I think guys have really bought in. The Hawks might be better this year.

The Ravens had a large roster turnover, lost a good part of their core. With the exception of Tate, we really haven't lost any players of any consequence. The Giants were an anomaly, only having gone 9-7 during the regular season (we beat them decisively back there that season). We aren't like either of those teams. We've won 24 regular season games in the past two seasons. That's quite different than the teams of the recent past. I'm not forecasting a Hawk dynasty just yet, quite the contrary, I feel our division will prevent us from becoming such, but as you said, this team has a lot different feel to it than either the Ravens or the Giants.

[Futureite]

I'll chime in. Not sure exactly what VD wants, but he does recognize how valuable he is to our tean. He may be the best blocking TE in the league. We love the power run game. In fact, JH kicked a FG V the Panthers instead of going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 because, according to him, with VD injured on that series they could not run the heavy package that thdy wanted to. So, he is leveraging his position right now. He knows he is getting older and his earning potential will never be better.

All teams go through this. I don't want to get into another silly argument, but the Hawks had a couple players that wanted to be paid at a certain rate. And yes, I understand that they weren't under contract at the time. But to steal a phrase from one of them, "there are no discounts". Every team has guys like Brady and Bowman who renegotiate or take pay cuts to help the team, and others like Vernon who constantly want more. It's not really a team culture thing but a human nature thing. When you have 53 guys, you are going to get all types.

[Eaglehawk]

They'll work out a new deal.
Davis wants to stay, and the 49ers can't really afford to lose him.
It's SB or bust for SF right now.
3 straight years of being a bride's maid, and some of their cornerstone pieces aren't getting any younger.

+1

[burrrton]

Burton, I'm attempting to be fair in this conversation, and have allowed you to call me adolescent and juvenile

So am I, HC, and while I know it's still insulting, I chose my words carefully and tried to not call *you* any of those things- just the arguments and attitudes.

You may think that's a distinction without a difference, but I feel there *is* a difference.

you're welcome to continue debating the moral honesty and ethics of the uber wealthy

This, I think, is representative of what I view as the problem.

I don't feel there is one grand moral paradigm of the "uber wealthy", while you and others seem to think their morality can be discussed as a group.

We can all find arguably undeserving people among the "uber rich", but the vast, vast majority came about it honestly as far as anyone knows, and I can see no reason to begrudge them their success.

It seems to me to be an entirely artificial construct that some being appallingly rich is something to lament. I just don't get it.

[RiverDog]

I'll chime in. Not sure exactly what VD wants, but he does recognize how valuable he is to our tean. He may be the best blocking TE in the league. We love the power run game. In fact, JH kicked a FG V the Panthers instead of going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 because, according to him, with VD injured on that series they could not run the heavy package that thdy wanted to. So, he is leveraging his position right now. He knows he is getting older and his earning potential will never be better.

All teams go through this. I don't want to get into another silly argument, but the Hawks had a couple players that wanted to be paid at a certain rate. And yes, I understand that they weren't under contract at the time. But to steal a phrase from one of them, "there are no discounts". Every team has guys like Brady and Bowman who renegotiate or take pay cuts to help the team, and others like Vernon who constantly want more. It's not really a team culture thing but a human nature thing. When you have 53 guys, you are going to get all types.

I agree. I don't see VD's (BTW love those initial... seems appropriate for San Francisco) holdout as some sort of indictment about the Niners organization. Every team has players with varying priorities. And I can't say as I blame VD. It's easy for us to say that he should be taking a discount... it isn't our money.

[briwas101]

I have no problem with players trying to get paid what they think they are worth. It is simply up to the GM to learn to say no.

If a player wants more than you think he's worth then just say no. Its as simple as that. Players can ask for as much as they want but it doesnt mean they have to get it.

[Futureite]

I'll chime in. Not sure exactly what VD wants, but he does recognize how valuable he is to our tean. He may be the best blocking TE in the league. We love the power run game. In fact, JH kicked a FG V the Panthers instead of going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 because, according to him, with VD injured on that series they could not run the heavy package that thdy wanted to. So, he is leveraging his position right now. He knows he is getting older and his earning potential will never be better.

All teams go through this. I don't want to get into another silly argument, but the Hawks had a couple players that wanted to be paid at a certain rate. And yes, I understand that they weren't under contract at the time. But to steal a phrase from one of them, "there are no discounts". Every team has guys like Brady and Bowman who renegotiate or take pay cuts to help the team, and others like Vernon who constantly want more. It's not really a team culture thing but a human nature thing. When you have 53 guys, you are going to get all types.

I agree. I don't see VD's (BTW love those initial... seems appropriate for San Francisco) holdout as some sort of indictment about the Niners organization. Every team has players with varying priorities. And I can't say as I blame VD. It's easy for us to say that he should be taking a discount... it isn't our money.

Ya that's why I try not to get to attached to these guys and instead choose to view them as entertainers. They are bound to disappoint you sooner or later. You just hope the majority of guys on your team are there for the right reasons.

[briwas101]

I'll chime in. Not sure exactly what VD wants, but he does recognize how valuable he is to our tean. He may be the best blocking TE in the league. We love the power run game. In fact, JH kicked a FG V the Panthers instead of going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 because, according to him, with VD injured on that series they could not run the heavy package that thdy wanted to. So, he is leveraging his position right now. He knows he is getting older and his earning potential will never be better.

All teams go through this. I don't want to get into another silly argument, but the Hawks had a couple players that wanted to be paid at a certain rate. And yes, I understand that they weren't under contract at the time. But to steal a phrase from one of them, "there are no discounts". Every team has guys like Brady and Bowman who renegotiate or take pay cuts to help the team, and others like Vernon who constantly want more. It's not really a team culture thing but a human nature thing. When you have 53 guys, you are going to get all types.

I agree. I don't see VD's (BTW love those initial... seems appropriate for San Francisco) holdout as some sort of indictment about the Niners organization. Every team has players with varying priorities. And I can't say as I blame VD. It's easy for us to say that he should be taking a discount... it isn't our money.

Ya that's why I try not to get to attached to these guys and instead choose to view them as entertainers. They are bound to disappoint you sooner or later. You just hope the majority of guys on your team are there for the right reasons.

As fans we SHOULDN'T get too attached to players.

Some are never good (like Curry), some are only good before they become Hawks, some are good for a few seasons and then leave, some are good for a few seasons and then decline (Lofa), and every once in a while you get a really good player that sticks around (Walt).

There are a hell of a lot more Currys than Walts, and there are plenty of guys that only stick around a few years.

I think its better to be a fan of the team than of the individual players. Being a fan of the team more than the individuals also allows fans to have a better grasp on reality as far as salary cap and cuts are concerned.

[kalibane]

You're a real glass is half empty kind of person aren't you?

[Futureite]

You're a real glass is half empty kind of person aren't you?

You're a real glass is half empty kind of person aren't you?

No, I agree with BriWas101. I am glass 0% full with respect to things I cannot control. I do not bother worrying about them. I am glass 100% full if it is something within my power to change.

[kalibane]

You're not getting my point Future. Everything Birwas posts is couched in worst case scenario expectations and hand wringing. I'm damn near a cynic and I'm not even as negative as he is. My point as it relates to this thread is there is no reason why you can't be fans of individual players as well as the team. It doesn't prevent you from being realistic.

I'm kind of a fan of Golden Tate and yet I completely understand why he was not offered more money and why he chose to go to Detroit. Better yet I'm a huge fan of Richard Sherman and even though he ultimately resigned, I was thinking for the last few months that he'd ask for too much and end up leaving as a FA. I don't even have a problem with Steve Hutchinson. You don't have to feel betrayed just because a business decision leads to a player you like going a different direction from the team you like.

[RiverDog]

You're not getting my point Future. Everything Birwas posts is couched in worst case scenario expectations and hand wringing. I'm damn near a cynic and I'm not even as negative as he is. My point as it relates to this thread is there is no reason why you can't be fans of individual players as well as the team. It doesn't prevent you from being realistic.

I'm kind of a fan of Golden Tate and yet I completely understand why he was not offered more money and why he chose to go to Detroit. Better yet I'm a huge fan of Richard Sherman and even though he ultimately resigned, I was thinking for the last few months that he'd ask for too much and end up leaving as a FA. I don't even have a problem with Steve Hutchinson. You don't have to feel betrayed just because a business decision leads to a player you like going a different direction from the team you like.

I've been accused of being a glass half empty fan, too, so I have to stick up a little for briwas. He's entitled to his opinion and needn't be harassed about his style. He's part of the 12th man brotherhood just like the rest of us.

The problem I had with Hutch is the same one I had with Alex Rodriguez when he left, ie he lied to his fans and to his teammates about what his priorities were. My anger had little to do with them taking the money and running.

[burrrton]

Yeah, I had no problem with Tate leaving, nor Giaco, Red, Griffey, etc.

Arod was worse because, as RD said, he stated over and over and over and over again that it was *not* about the money, it was never going to be about the money, he didn't care about the money... then he obviously simply chased the money.

Would any of us have turned down a paycheck like that, which is what Rome and all the other meatheads who didn't start paying attention until he left used to charge Seattle fans upset with him? Of course not- but I sure as h3ll wouldn't have been saying it wasn't about money to try to assuage my fans ahead of time, either.

Hutch was an entirely different case because him leaving was *not* about the money. We were going to pay him the Vikings' ridiculous amount.

However, Hutch was butthurt that SEA didn't decide to irresponsibly blow the guard scale to bits themselves, so he put in the PP, giving SEA the middle finger with no chance to match the offer, which they had announced their intent to do.

Hope you enjoyed your $$ and watching us get 3 playoff wins to your 1 before retirement, Hutch. Dick.

[HumanCockroach]

I don't know Griffey didn't play that all innocent either ( though the M's did get some decent sort of return on him) Griffey as I remember limited the team they could deal with to a couple ( which kind of sucked) to one ( the Reds only) wasn't that he was demanding the trade, it was that he hand cuffed them where they could trade him, making the potential return less, and essentially making himself a FA before he was.

A Rod was worse ( though the M's at the time made a fair offer, and the Rangers in their infinite wisdom at the time continued to bid against themselves) but Griffey wasn't a saint in his move as I remember.

[Futureite]

You're not getting my point Future. Everything Birwas posts is couched in worst case scenario expectations and hand wringing. I'm damn near a cynic and I'm not even as negative as he is. My point as it relates to this thread is there is no reason why you can't be fans of individual players as well as the team. It doesn't prevent you from being realistic.

I'm kind of a fan of Golden Tate and yet I completely understand why he was not offered more money and why he chose to go to Detroit. Better yet I'm a huge fan of Richard Sherman and even though he ultimately resigned, I was thinking for the last few months that he'd ask for too much and end up leaving as a FA. I don't even have a problem with Steve Hutchinson. You don't have to feel betrayed just because a business decision leads to a player you like going a different direction from the team you like.

I hear what you're saying. I defend our team's guys too and naturally, I am a bigger fan of a couple more than others. But I also understand that I don't really know any of them. I always want what is best for the team. That is why I don't worry about legal issues, contract issues, etc. I just analyze what they do on.the field and how they perform. We are all human though and we obviously get attached to our players. My asian friend at work rarely watches football and his view is that a lot of the Seahawk/49er players are friends off the field. He believes that the only real hate is between the fans. I thought it waa an interesting take and one angle that goes to show yes, sometimes we do get too attached to these guys.

[burrrton]

Griffey wasn't a saint in his move as I remember.

Yeah, thinking back, you're right.

I guess I just still couldn't get too upset about it despite it being less than "ideal" from a fan's perspective.

[burrrton]

He believes that the only real hate is between the fans.

Which only confirms what you said: he doesn't watch the NFL.

[HumanCockroach]

Wait, I thought the Niners fans didn't dislike us, or view this team as any sort of rivalry? I guess Thomas and Baldwin etc could have been acting when Obama spoke of the Niners, didn't look that way to me, and there certainly has been rumblings from FA's that they would never sign with the Niners ( Tate and Browner both claimed interest that was quickly rebuked, but that could have been just words, can't really tell when players say stuff like that).... maybe, but I would put the odds in there is a general dislike between teams.

[Futureite]

He believes that the only real hate is between the fans.

Which only confirms what you said: he doesn't watch the NFL.

Actually I tend to agree with him. These guys may hate each other on the field, but off of it many of them have either played together in the NFL (Cox, Lockette, Robinson, Harper etc) or college or have hung out at various engagements. It's the fans that take it to another level most of the time.

[kalibane]

Maybe it wasn't about the money for Arod, until the Rangers offered that patently ridiculous amount of money. Arod did turn down arbitration repeatedly which would have gotten him a lot more money while he was with the Mariners and gotten him to Free Agency quicker. Who knows? Arod has shown a lack of self awareness so I'd believe anything at this point but at the time I looked at it the same way I see Tate leaving. Would he rather stay? Sure, but when someone is willing to grossly overpay you then it becomes too much money to walk away from. I went and looked it up because I forgot the exact discrepancy. The Mariners were offering a deal that could potentially be worth 92 million over 5 years (18.4 per year). The Rangers deal was 10 years for 250 million. That's a seven million per year difference and 160 million guarnteed overall. If anyone actually stays in Seattle given that situation they probably represent less than a percent of the overall population.

I still fault Ruskell with the Hutch thing. I think Hutch did give the finger on the way out the door but while that may not have been how I handled it, I understand and I don't think it had anything to do with the fans. Hutch was hands down the best Offensive Guard in the league. He was clearly on a path for the Hall of Fame. He repeatedly tried to get an extension done with the Hawks before his deal was up. Ruskell, kept putting his deal on the back burner, brushing he and his agent off, forcing him into Free Agency where he never wanted to be then went back on his agreement with Holmgren and transitioned him instead of franchising him like an idiot.

Now the tag is where the motivation came from for the poison pill. If he plays under the transition tag he gets paid well under market value. Not just the value he saw for himself beyond the traditional market for guards but he'd be significantly behind Guards who were far inferior to him. But other teams typically don't like working on deals for tansitioned players because they know that really they are just negotiating for the team holding the tag. So his agent comes up with the idea for the poison pill in order to get the Vikings to negotiate a fair market (above market if you believe) deal. It wasn't so much that Hutch wanted to make sure the Seahawks couldn't match because he's so mad at them. It's that if the Seahawks have a way to match the Vikings never come to the table with a serious offer to begin with and Hutch is stuck playing under the transition tag or holding out. The poison pill is a means to an end.

The fact that Ruskell was willing to match the deal, in fact was desperate to match the deal (blowing out the Guard salary scale in the process) is what really made the process so stupid.

If Ruskell really thought Guards weren't worth that much he'd have just let him walk and stick to his principles. But he made a foolish bet that no other teams would be willing to pay a premium for a Guard. His bluff got called and he was left looking completely foolish, caught in a Gambit of his own construction.

I see this as a GM outsmarting himself and not much more. It sucked for us because Hutch was a great player but we were just collateral damage. At the end of the day though, the GM watched a HOF player walk away from the franchise in the prime of his career over two completely arbitrary principles. It was short sighted and arrogant. And in any industry, that's not how you treat people who's contribution to your company you greatly value. Ruskell paid the price for that.

[Futureite]

Wait, I thought the Niners fans didn't dislike us, or view this team as any sort of rivalry? I guess Thomas and Baldwin etc could have been acting when Obama spoke of the Niners, didn't look that way to me, and there certainly has been rumblings from FA's that they would never sign with the Niners ( Tate and Browner both claimed interest that was quickly rebuked, but that could have been just words, can't really tell when players say stuff like that).... maybe, but I would put the odds in there is a general dislike between teams.

Again, something I never said. Never said we didn't view it as "any sort" of a rivalry. I said the level of hate was disproportionate. Sorry if it ticks you off dude but these teams were not good enough at the same time for a long enough period to stoke any sort of the rivalry or "hate" that exists up there for us. I know firsthand that many Washingtonians cannot stand Californians, for any number of reasons. I've never met a single California native that gives a crap if someone is from Washington. There is obviously more to this than football.

To quote our radio guys before the NFCCCG, "we hate them, but they really HATE us up there". They were all noting it and laughing about it, questioning why.

Maybe it's getting to that level now, but these things take time. Rest assured you are officially hated by 31 other fanbases too at the moment, so enjoy it while it lasts.

[burrrton]

It's the fans that take it to another level most of the time.

Well, sure, but in this case, I think there is a lot of legitimate animosity between the players.

Of course it's not universal- some players have played with each other before and so on- and yeah, the fans' "hate" goes to another level entirely because we tend to identify with the uniform, not the name on the back of it, but there *is* a lot of dislike there.

To think otherwise is to ignore what's said in the press (by the players).

[burrrton]

If anyone actually stays in Seattle given that situation they probably represent less than a percent of the overall population.

As I said, I agree- of course any sane person would take that.

The point, though, is that you don't tell everyone you *won't* do that then expect them to continue to admire you when you (expectedly) go back on it.

Now the tag is where the motivation came from for the poison pill. If he plays under the transition tag he gets paid well under market value.

He was asking for a contract that blew up the scale for offensive guards. We can debate how dedicated Ruskell was to resigning him, and we can debate whether Ruskell should have just caved and blown up the scale himself, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say "We're going to make you the highest paid OG in the league, but we can't give you money that makes the best left tackles in the league jealous."

Ruskell, according to reports, applied the transition tag to allow Hutch to see what other teams were willing to pay, something he insisted on doing at that point, with the understanding that the Hawks would then match it. He *didn't* F-tag him because that would have eliminated the possibility of exploring other teams' offers (and there was no guarantee he was going to suddenly become Mr. HappyGoLucky with it anyway).

Again, not that unreasonable, although your point about the PP being necessary for the Vikes to make a true offer is reasonable.

Again, I'm not going to say Ruskell did everything perfectly, and he certainly f'd up not consulting Holmgren, but Hutch left because he felt insulted like a jilted girlfriend, not because Ruskell gave him the finger.

But he made a foolish bet that no other teams would be willing to pay a premium for a Guard.

It wasn't just a premium. It was more like a flanker asking for QB money IIRC.

[Futureite]

It's the fans that take it to another level most of the time.

Well, sure, but in this case, I think there is a lot of legitimate animosity between the players.

Of course it's not universal- some players have played with each other before and so on- and yeah, the fans' "hate" goes to another level entirely because we tend to identify with the uniform, not the name on the back of it, but there *is* a lot of dislike there.

To think otherwise is to ignore what's said in the press (by the players).

Ya I do think there is dislike between the teams. They are both good now so they have the natural drive to win. I think "hate" with respect to fanbases comes more with geographical or social rivalry. For example, it's in my blood to hate the Dodgers because I cannot stand everything Socal. Socal is politically, socially the extreme opposite of Norcal - similar to eastern and western WA. My theory is that Washingtonians have always hated anything CA, due to the increase in population, crime and real estate values Calfornians have brought to Seattle. They view us as coming into their hometown and driving down its quality of life. Naturally, they hate our teams with a passion.

But as to the players, hell, Sherman is from Compton. A lot of these guys are from CA or have mutual friends with our guys. I agree that the teams do not like each other. I just don't think it's anywhere near the level that the fanbases bring it to.

[kalibane]

I don't see how you can say it's only debateable what Ruskell did and didn't do and say definitively that the reason why Hutch left was just because he was having a tantrum and wanted to stick it to Seattle on the way out. That may be your perception but you are stating it as a fact.

There is a reason why the transition tag isn't used very often. Alex Mack was considered the best center in the league last year yet only one team had any interest in him once he was transition tagged. Why? Because of exactly what happened. Jacksonville works out a contract... a contract that was actually above market value and Cleveland still matched. No one wants to waste their time negotiating for someone else's benefit.

Hutch never gets the offer he got from Minnesota without a way to make it doubtful in the Viking's minds that Seattle doesn't match. Enter the poison pill. There is no real debate about how dedicated Ruskell was to resigning Hutch. It's documented. Hutch's agent approached Ruskell multiple times before heading into the last year of his contract. It's on record that Ruskell had a lassaiz-faire attitude. That may not have been specific to Hutch, as Ruskell seemed to lack a sense of urgency in resigning anyone until they actually were about to hit the open market. Maybe he just had time management issues but what's clear and on the record is he felt he had plenty of time to negotiate a deal so extending Hutch before the deal was up wasn't a priority. Then when the season started he cutoff negotiations altogether because he has a policy against negotiating during the year.

I'm sure that Ruskell wasn't keen on setting a new market for Guards but ultimately he proved he was willing to. So what that really shows you is that he's not a forward thinker. I would have respected him much more if he hadn't tried so hard to match the deal. At least then he would have just misjudged the value of the position. The truth though is that he understood how important Hutch was to the Hawks, but decided to bet that he wasn't worth as much to the 31 other teams. And the sad thing is if he would have engaged in serious negoatiations in the year before he deal was up he would have come in more expensive than he would have preferred but cheaper than the deal he tried to match.

[RiverDog]

I don't know Griffey didn't play that all innocent either ( though the M's did get some decent sort of return on him) Griffey as I remember limited the team they could deal with to a couple ( which kind of sucked) to one ( the Reds only) wasn't that he was demanding the trade, it was that he hand cuffed them where they could trade him, making the potential return less, and essentially making himself a FA before he was.

A Rod was worse ( though the M's at the time made a fair offer, and the Rangers in their infinite wisdom at the time continued to bid against themselves) but Griffey wasn't a saint in his move as I remember.

Griffey, indeed, wasn't all that innocent. Him and Randy Johnson both. They both started just going through the motions in their final seasons, completely unprofessional IMO. We ended up with a pretty good exchange for Griffey. Mike Cameron gave us a lot of thrills there for a few years, a virtual highlight reel in center field.

I'm not sure who was worse, Ruskell for being a dope by trying to save a few pennies by using the TT on Hutch vs. the FT or Hutch and his agent that duped hin into thinking he just wanted to see what he could get on the free market and the Hawks would sign whatever contract he brought back.

[burrrton]

That may be your perception but you are stating it as a fact.

Then just add "IMO" after everything I say.

I think Ruskell's wisdom at various points can be debated, but no matter what scenario you embrace, he was still trying to make Hutch the highest-paid guard in history, and take his pay *far* out of line with virtually any other lineman in the league.

In hindsight, yeah, maybe he should have been willing to take it even *farther* out of whack, but that hardly seems like a solid argument in favor of giving Hutch a pass for telling the organization to f*ck themselves, which he did.

[edit]

IMO.

he felt he had plenty of time to negotiate a deal so extending Hutch before the deal was up wasn't a priority.

They tried to get an extension done a few times before they got to the final year.

But yeah, once they got there, Ruskell seemed to want to wait. That's hardly unprecedented, though, while Hutch's reaction seems to be a bit bizarre for a grown man.

And the sad thing is if he would have engaged in serious negoatiations in the year before he deal was up he would have come in more expensive than he would have preferred but cheaper than the deal he tried to match.

Agreed, and definitely an indictment of Ruskell's handling of Hutch.

[burrrton]

Want to put this in its own post so it doesn't get lost in my rambling:

My over-arching point on Hutch is this:

Ruskell made attempts to keep Hutch. Ruskell was willing to pay an extraordinary amount for him as an OG.

There are valid criticisms of his timing, of his dedication to getting the deal done here and there, of his judgment of the end value of an All-Pro guard. I'm not a Ruskell fan.

But what you can't say (IMO) is that his attempts to keep Hutch were overly feeble, the work of someone who didn't give a cr*p if Hutch stayed or not, but that's the attitude that Hutch held- that he was insulted and on and on and blah blah. Complete prima donna territory (asking to make virtually the same iirc as the first-ballot-hall-of-fame tackle next to him).

There's no need to defend that.

[kalibane]

I just don't see that Hutch didn't have a right to be insulted.

I also do think Ruskell's attempts were overly feeble and again it's not Hutch specific it just spoke to his ability as a GM overall. It's one of the biggest problems I always had with the Ruskell front office and it's brought into focus even more when contrasting it with the current front office. His sense of urgency with resigning his own players was lacking and it set the franchise back time after time. Ruskell had to use a tag to retain one of his own players every single year he was with Seattle.

It kept Seattle's cap situation in grid lock year after year. And additionally instead of searching out players that could help in Free Agency they were busy wasting their time trying to resign their own players until the tag deadline that prevents them from negotiating until August. Trufant is probably the best/worst example. He was never one of the top 5 corners in the league. He's a great guy. He grew up and went to college locally and didn't want to leave. There is no reason why it ever should have gotten to the point that he had to be tagged. Contrast that with now... where just about every core player has been extended before their contract is up which allows them the time and cap flexibility to get a Michael Bennett and a Cliff Avril, to work out a trade for Percy Harvin.

I know you aren't a Ruskell fan... few are at this point. I'm just saying that the way Ruskell ran the organization had a lot more to do with how Hutch left than a lot of people care to think IMO. One of the reasons why he didn't have time to negotiate with Hutch is because he let Alexander and Hass hit free agency at the same time instead of extending at least one of the players he had no intentions of letting walk. Then of course that built on itself when they absolutely had to extend Alexander the following offseason because they promised not to tag him again which led to Hutch being put on the back burner because Ruskell figures he can just use a tag on Hutch. All dominoes falling on one another and it culminated in the Hutch fiasco.

[burrrton]

I also do think Ruskell's attempts were overly feeble

If making multiple attempts to sign a guy, and offering to make him (at least at some point) the highest paid player at his position in the history of the league, is "overly feeble" to you, so be it.

I just don't see it.

I'm just saying that the way Ruskell ran the organization had a lot more to do with how Hutch left than a lot of people care to think IMO.

Agreed. The question is whether getting OMG INSULTED over the way the GM ran the org is reasonable when he was treated largely like everyone else.

You want to leave because you don't like it? Fine. You think it's a badly run org? Fine. Go.

But don't tell everyone you just got slapped in the face and spat on because the GM didn't show enough interest in getting you signed in the timeframe you desired (or whatever his beef was at various points). There *were* attempts made, and the contracts offered were *not* slaps in the face by any measure in place before the Vikes took dynamite to the scale.

Hutch had a point (he was the best guard in the league), but Ruskell's position wasn't in left field at the time, either (he was still a guard).

[HumanCockroach]

Holmgren actually clarified this on KJR not that long ago. It wasn't that the money wasn't enough, or that he had issues with staying in Seattle. According to Holmgren, Hutch was told specifically, that he would be locked into Seattle the next season, with either a long term deal, or the franchise tag ( something that was clarified between he and Ruskfool before hutch and holmgren left) Ruskfool didn't value guards, and decided without anyone else directly involved to let hutch 'test' the market, to set his 'value' thinking he would get a low value, thus making the original Seahawks offer seem huge. At that point Ruskfool allowed Hutch to see what his true value in the league was, opening the door for him to leave to save a few million ( or so Ruskfool thought).

Hutch wasn't insulted until Ruskfool showed how much "value" a guard was to him, ultimately Hutch was insulted because he had been lied to, not because of the money. Which personally I understand.

[kalibane]

From what I read Burrton all the attempts at working on an extension prior to him becoming a free agent were Hutch's people coming to Ruskell and while Ruskell induldged in premiliminaries it never got serious because Ruskell kept putting Hutch on the back burner.

This is my understanding of the timeline. They came to Ruskell first after the 2004 season threw some figures around but Ruskell put Hutch on the back burner because both Hass and SA were about to become UFAs. So they start working on contracts for SA and Hass and aren't getting anywhere so they tag Alexander (promising not to franchise him again) and focus on Hass. They get a deal for Hass done. Hutch's people come back to reinitiate negotiations and they start. Then training camp closes. And there isn't any animosity in the negotiations at this point. Ruskell shuts down negotiations because "We don't negotiate during the season but we'll deal with it after the season", which is exactly what Hutch wanted to avoid. Then after the season is over Hutch again gets put on the back burner because Ruskell has to focus on "MVP" Alexander first. And when Hutch came in above what Ruskell wanted to pay he was like "screw it, we'll just tag you and let someone else figure out your market value".

You're talking about a HOFer in waiting barring injury or a precipitous drop, the best in the business at what you do, and this is the effort you see from the other side of the table. I'm not even saying that Ruskell meant to have it happen this way but you still need to be cognizant of the perception you are creating with your actions. If I was in Hutch's position I would have been beyond pissed too. And I'd be thinking, "I'm playing at the highest level possible now and I can't get respect from this guy... what's going to happen when I start to decline?, How can I trust this guy is going to do right by me then when I'm at my absolute peak value and he's not willing to take the time now?". "I've been trying for over a year to start working on a deal and we have made zero progress, always the otherside breaking off negotiations."

The dollar amount isn't what makes it feeble. Shaun Alexander got a contract for much more than he was worth. But part of the reason why he got so overpaid is because up to the point Ruskell was backed into a corner by Alexander winning the MVP his attempts to negotiate with him were feeble as well. He just never put the proper effort into resigning his own that he should have. Just like it took Ruskell getting backed into a corner with the Vikings' offer sheet before he stepped up to the plate with Hutch. And Hutch happened to be a guy who got kind of passed over several times for different reasons (intentional or not) during the process. That's going to create a lot of resentment.

[burrrton]

I'll kinda address this step by step because I think we're largely on the same page, minus how reasonable we think each decision was:

They came to Ruskell first after the 2004 season threw some figures around but Ruskell put Hutch on the back burner because both Hass and SA were about to become UFAs.

From what I remember it was a bit more than "throwing around figures", but either way, does this seem all that unreasonable considering Hutch was asking for a scale-destroying contract for guards?

And there isn't any animosity in the negotiations at this point. Ruskell shuts down negotiations because "We don't negotiate during the season but we'll deal with it after the season", which is exactly what Hutch wanted to avoid.

So Hutch wanted to avoid it- so what? Ruskell didn't negotiate mid-season with *anybody*. You can criticize that rule, but it's rather common and Hutch can't pretend he was "disrespected" because of it any more than anyone else on the team.

Then after the season is over Hutch again gets put on the back burner because Ruskell has to focus on "MVP" Alexander first. And when Hutch came in above what Ruskell wanted to pay he was like "screw it, we'll just tag you and let someone else figure out your market value".

I think Ruskell should have been paying more attention to Hutch, but considering Alexander was essentially a "must sign" at that point and was obviously going to cost a bundle, how is this unexpected?

------------------

You guys are simply expounding on the details, and while I agree it's pretty easy to characterize it poorly, I think it would be pretty easy to make it sound a bit more reasonable if I was inclined to defend the guy (Ruskell).

The point remains, though- Hutch left for no other reason than he felt "dissed" after a rather ordinary, if a bit drawn out, set of negotiations that ended up showing a franchise QB and MVP running back took precedence over a guard.

That obviously seems reasonable to you guys. I don't see it.

[HumanCockroach]

Find the pod cast from Holmgren on it. Hutch left because Russkfool LIED to him, end of story.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-nfl- ... e-holmgren

Since Holmgren had first hand knowledge, I'll trust his story in the matter. Pretty funny that he could have thrown Russkfool under the bus to Allen, but decided against it ( especially since he lied to both Hutch and Him)..

[burrrton]

I''ll give that a listen. If he truly flat-out lied to him*, it's the first I've heard it.

*Beyond the typical "he said he would f-tag him!" type stuff.

[edit]

HC, that discussion backs up what I've been saying- Hutch was crying that he was T-tagged after being told he would be F-tagged.

Holmgren even said he talked to Hutch after hearing about the PP contract and asked him why in the h3ll he signed it, asked him why he didn't call him because they'd have matched the amount. Hutch said he got pressured to sign right away by his agent blah blah.

So yeah, Holmgren told him he would be F-tagged and he wasn't, and that's what Hutch sh*t the bed about.

It was stupid of Ruskell to not talk it over with Holmgren, and so on, but in the end, Hutch gave us the finger because he was butthurt about getting a different tag applied than he was expecting.

[HumanCockroach]

Obviously your idea of a lie, and mine is different.

[burrrton]

Obviously your idea of a lie, and mine is different.

It's not so much that he wasn't technically "lied" to (that's debatable btw*)- it's whether it rises to the level of something to be so upset about that you give the organization the finger, which is the whole point of my criticism.

We've known the whole time Hutch thought the F-tag was coming. When it didn't, he lost it.

*Ruskell lied to Holmgren (told him he was going to apply F-tag but did not do so), Holmgren didn't lie to Hutch (Holmgren genuinely thought the F-tag would be applied and had no reason to believe otherwise).

[HumanCockroach]

Obviously your idea of a lie, and mine is different.

It's not so much that he wasn't technically "lied" to (that's debatable btw*)- it's whether it rises to the level of something to be so upset about that you give the organization the finger, which is the whole point of my criticism.

We've known the whole time Hutch thought the F-tag was coming. When it didn't, he lost it.

*Ruskell lied to Holmgren (told him he was going to apply F-tag but did not do so), Holmgren didn't lie to Hutch (Holmgren genuinely thought the F-tag would be applied and had no reason to believe otherwise).

I don't think Hutch cared who was doing the lying, and really this is a techniquality Ruskfool lied to Holmgren AND Allen, and Holmgren relayed that info.I've quit jobs after being lied to, so I'm just not going to critisise a guy for telling lying his bosses to f off for doing so. I know your possibly in the opinion that people should just accept what those bosses say or do, but there are plenty that don't.