VD holdout?

[burrrton]

I've quit jobs after being lied to

If the lie is "You're going to get the job with the corner office", and they give it to the boss's kid instead, you're justified. I'd quit, too.

If the lie is "Your new offer will be coming on Friday", but it doesn't go through until Saturday, you're an idiot for quitting.

The nature of the lie matters, and if "Your money will come via the T-tag instead of the F-tag" rises to the level of giving an org the middle finger for you, so be it.

Again, I just don't see it.

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.

You're the one that's admitted your past experiences cause you to paint all bosses/rich people/billionaires with the same brush, so don't project that characterization on me.

[Eaglehawk]

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

+1

VD may be in technical breach, but the 49ers have to make their move now. As a poster said, they need him, so I doubt they will show him the door, although they could.

[HumanCockroach]

I've quit jobs after being lied to

If the lie is "You're going to get the job with the corner office", and they give it to the boss's kid instead, you're justified. I'd quit, too.

If the lie is "Your new offer will be coming on Friday", but it doesn't go through until Saturday, you're an idiot for quitting.

The nature of the lie matters, and if "Your money will come via the T-tag instead of the F-tag" rises to the level of giving an org the middle finger for you, so be it.

Again, I just don't see it.

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.

You're the one that's admitted your past experiences cause you to paint all bosses/rich people/billionaires with the same brush, so don't project that characterization on me.

No this isn't akin to you're going to get a corner office on Friday but it's on Saturday, this is akin to saying I'm going to pay you x amount of dollars to make you one of the highest in your field because your that damn good, and receiving a raise that pays yosignificantly below that, and below what another employer is willing to pay you. Pretty huge stretch on your part in that regar. ( by the way since your thinking I just quit jobs willy nilly, my situation was at a review, I was told that they couldn't give me the raise I deserved, but if I could hang on for another year, that the raise I should have received, PLUS a hefty raise from that year, AND a promotion would be forth coming, after proceeding to average between 100 and 120 hours a week for the year, I was told at my following review, which magically stretch out an extra three months, that not only would I not be receiving last years raise, I would not be promoted, nor would I would be receiving even a small raise for that year. Seemed justified to me, but hey, I suppose I was just being selfish).

As for the characterisation, the word POSSIBLY was used, and it was in regards to THIS thread, as you have now admitted multiple times that "you just don't see it". What do you think Sherman, Thomas,Wilson, Lynch or ANY other star you care to name do if the club decides to pay them in the top ten, when they told him they would pay him at the VERY top of the league? Smile and say thank you very much? According to your position, that is EXACTLY what you are saying. But you know horse water whatever. Sorry you can't grasp that messing with someone's money ( or "respect" in NFL TERMS) would receive a FU response, but that is indeed your point of view, and your welcome to it, obviously Hutch, didn't share that view. I'm only saying I don't blame him for feeling slighted. The question I have, is why do you?

[burrrton]

No this isn't akin to you're going to get a corner office on Friday but it's on Saturday, this is akin to saying I'm going to pay you x amount of dollars to make you one of the highest in your field because your that damn good, and receiving a raise that pays yosignificantly below that, and below what another employer is willing to pay you.

Wrong. Did you listen the podcast you linked??

He was going to make the same no matter which team he signed with. You *can* say maybe he didn't know that for sure, but if he would have taken the entirely reasonable step of calling the guy he had a good relationship with to ask "what the hell", he *would* have known that for sure.

He said he liked Holmgren. Holmgren said he liked him. But it was too much f*cking trouble for Hutch to make a phone call to talk to Holmey before signing a controversial contract that would give his former team a big "F*CK YOU" and change the rules of the league all by itself (against what he did)??

I say that's odd, and Holmgren agrees.

( by the way since your thinking I just quit jobs willy nilly, my situation was at a review, I was told that they couldn't give me the raise I deserved, but if I could hang on for another year, that the raise I should have received, PLUS a hefty raise from that year, AND a promotion would be forth coming, after proceeding to average between 100 and 120 hours a week for the year, I was told at my following review, which magically stretch out an extra three months, that not only would I not be receiving last years raise, I would not be promoted, nor would I would be receiving even a small raise for that year. Seemed justified to me, but hey, I suppose I was just being selfish)

??

I *didn't* think you quit jobs willy-nilly- my examples were merely meant to illustrate a difference between two "lies" that could be told, one that would be obviously silly to quit over.

Not sure how that threw you for a loop. I'll make my point more clear next time.

What do you think Sherman, Thomas,Wilson, Lynch or ANY other star you care to name do if the club decides to pay them in the top ten, when they told him they would pay him at the VERY top of the league?

Not sure.

According to your position, that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

What are you talking about?

They offered him "top of the league" money, just not "blow up the scale" money (early offers, according to reports).

Then they said they'd put him average of the top 5 (the F-tag- not sure why this was viewed as a step up, but apparently it was in Hutch's eye- you know, for respect).

Then he got average of the top 10 (the T-tag), but reasonable people might think it'd be obvious for him to have made a phone call before signing IN WHICH HE'D HAVE FOUND OUT HE WAS GOING TO BE PAID EXACTLY WHAT HE ACCEPTED FROM ANOTHER TEAM (according to *your* link).

The question I have, is why do you?

Because I have an idea how rational people respond when millions of dollars are on the line and you've stated a desire to remain with a team.

Sorry, bro, but while Ruskell made missteps and Holmgren has good reason to think Ruskell a boob (as do I), Hutch left for the simple reason he was butthurt that he got a different tag than he was told he'd get (with maybe the added insult of being treated like every other player in the league leading up to that).

[HumanCockroach]

What are you talking about. Hutch was TOLD he would be Franchise tagged ( ie make the average of the top. Salaries in the league PLUS 10%) and then was transition tagged instead ( which is I think top ten, and significantly LESS than the franchise tag, or long term deal).... there is where he said F you ( and just for clarity sake, a stipulation in the contract also stated he had to make 10% more than ANY lineman on the roster, something the Seahawks had to settle, because even AT the same amount Jones was still making more, necessitating Jones to rework his contract.and STILL wouldn't have been approved because he had to make 10% more than any lineman ON the team, ie, re working his contract wasn't going to fly with the league, which CHANGES your assumption that it "was the same money either way" because of THAT stipulation, not the no play in Seattle one, he would have had to been paid FAR more than what Minnesota paid him) Basically Hutch "quit" because he didn't receive as good of an offer, was told he wasn't going to get what he was told he was, and at THAT point he was willing to sign a contract that made it impossible to re sign with Seattle. Only AFTER he was jerked around, did he do that, not some sort of pointless FU as you continue to insist.

He in essence was told you are going to get a raise this size, and then was told, well no, actually it is this size which is significantly LESS. Maybe you wouldn't be upset about being told that, I would be, and have been.

( also to clarify, the poison pill clause was used after Hutch, by Seattle, in essence Russkfool trading Hutch for Burleson.)

[burrrton]

which CHANGES your assumption that it "was the same money either way" because of THAT stipulation

Stop BS'ing. He was told he wasn't going to get what he wanted (he was going to have to wait another year being F-tagged instead of getting a big contract paying him tackle money), but with a phone call after negotiating with the Vikes he could have made what the Vikings were paying him. "The same money either way" doesn't mean the Seahawks were going to match the Poison Pill language.

Again, putting a different tag on him certainly is something that would tick him off, and that's a fck-up on Ruskell's part, but if you think a phone call to the guy you trusted on the team is so unreasonable to think a rational person might do before giving the team the middle finger over it, you're a different breed of cat than I.

Maybe you wouldn't be upset about being told that, I would be, and have been.

I would be, and have been, too. You know what I did, though? Before quitting, I marched into my boss's office and got the 411 on WTF happened, and I told him what I thought about it and what my expectations were going forward. Only then did I contemplate quitting.

That's what grown-ups do.

also to clarify, the poison pill clause was used after Hutch, by Seattle, in essence Russkfool trading Hutch for Burleson.

Yes, while they were still trying to decide what to do about Hutch's and the Vikings' antics, we did slip another one in. It was going to be outlawed whether we did so or not, though.

[HumanCockroach]

Good for you. You and your "right" handling of the situation, course there was NO guarantee one way or another ( and he wasn't FT which allowed him to get that irrelevant language as a stipulation in his contract, he was transition tagged ( you know less money) they would have matched that offer the following year, AND his contract with the Vikings guaranteed him security ( not one year at a lower rate, with the word he would have gotten the same amount from a FO that had ALREADY lied to him). Why it is hard for you to understand players aren't clamoring for a TT or FT for that matter ( especially when they are one play from having their career ended).

Hutch had "options" which Ruskfool gave him, he chose the one with MORE money, and security, and you 10 years later are still moaning about it like some gilted lover. The fact is, they dicked around with him, and he CHOSE to do what was right for him, whether that adheres to the Burton "being an adult" theory and process or not, isn't COMPLETELY and UTTERLY irrelevant. He made the choice that was "best" for him at the time, if that leaves fans, or FO butthurt and moaning, so what? Did he walk away with less money after his career because of it? maybe, but doubtful, there is no guarantees in life, pretending like there is in life, much less in the NFL ( Beyond the guaranteed money they receive when they SIGN a contract, NOT a FT or TTwhich only guarantees a single year) is the childish thought process, not the other way around.

[burrrton]

Why it is hard for you to understand players aren't clamoring for a TT or FT for that matter ( especially when they are one play from having their career ended).

Either your comprehension is awful or I'm being terribly unclear.

My entire point revolves around the fact that players don't really like being tagged period. That's why I don't think it's all that reasonable for Hutch to have sh*t the bed when he was T-tagged instead of F-tagged as he was told he would be. Neither is ideal (and yeah, I know the T-tag guarantees slightly less- averaging the top 10 instead of top 5- which is why I don't blame him for being ticked).

So the question becomes: what does an adult do when he's tagged differently than expected? Does he give his trusted coach a call and see what happened, even after negotiating the deal with Minnesota?

I think yes, and I think most reasonable people would agree with me. If you think no, fine.

The fact is, they dicked around with him, and he CHOSE to do what was right for him, whether that adheres to the Burton "being an adult" theory and process or not, isn't COMPLETELY and UTTERLY irrelevant.

Ruskell *did* dick around, but communicating is not *my* idea of what an adult typically does- it's society's.

That you think it's something bizarre and unreasonable to expect is telling, and might be why you resent successful people so much.

Further, it's germane to our conversation because that's pretty much my beef with Hutch.

I don't think Ruskell did the right thing. I don't think Hutch had no justification to be peeved. I *do* think it's bizarre to get SOO p*ssed off about it, and after saying you wanted to stay with a team that a phone call is too much to expect before giving that team the middle finger (and Holmgren agrees per your linked podcast).

Hutch had "options" which Ruskfool gave him, he chose the one with MORE money, and security, and you 10 years later are still moaning about it like some gilted lover.

Ten (actually 8) years later you're still working hard to excuse Hutch's (over)reaction and using a dorky, derogatory nickname for a GM. Who's acting like a jilted lover?

[HumanCockroach]

Whatever Burton, continue to insist your the mature one, know all the reasons why someone does something, and REFUSE to believe that a FT or TT is the same as a mega contract. Hutch did what 90% percent of the people walking this world would have done, he TOOK the better option. PERIOD. You can still be butthurt about it, or how he handled it, but that fact remains, he took the BETTER deal.

Like an ADULT I can accept, forgive and move forward. Obviously you cannot ( making who child-like one?) Yeah I make fun of Ruskels name, can you say he wasn't a fool? The worst GM the Seahawks ever had? that said, I didn't bring him up, did I? Nope it was you and your eight year cry that brought Ruskell onto the board.

I'm done with your " I'm an adult, know whats best, know how the world works, and the rest of the world should learn to be as great as me" crap. This is now the second thread you have insulted me, insinuated that I am immature, or childish or " not an adult", I grow weary of your judgemental, holier than thou, attitude towards not just me, but it seems like anyone else you can get your hands on.

Keep going through life the way you want, believing yourself superior to those around you, I'll just keep plugging away in mine, the same as always.

And just to clarify. I don't resent "successful" people, I have several close friends, and relatives that are successful, there's a HUGE difference between being the Koch brothers trying to buy elections and force policies down peoples throats that don't benefit anyone but the uber rich ( and no don't start with your "you a liberal" crapola I'm not either, and am fully aware there are uber rich trying to buy democrats as well, just easy name to remember), and a "successful" person . Your right, I don't like, or approve of, getting d!cked araround, or lied to. Guess I believe in the ol' be straight with me, I'll be straight with you, childish stupidity. Just don't believe, people should make a habit of lying ( including I guess the bosses, my bad) seems pretty clear your thoughts and mine don't coincide, which I'm fine with, but I do have a problem with being judged by someone that hasn't the first damn idea, what I've experienced, dealt with, lived with and witnessed.

[burrrton]

Whatever Burton, continue to insist your the mature one, know all the reasons why someone does something, and REFUSE to believe that a FT or TT is the same as a mega contract.

Maturity isn't generally some nebulous, difficult-to-define concept, Hutch *stated* the reasons he did what he did, and as I just told you, my argument revolves around the FT and TT both not being close to the same as a mega contract.

Beyond that, great statement there.

Hutch did what 90% percent of the people walking this world would have done, he TOOK the better option. PERIOD.

Holmgren just told you (on your podcast) Hutch would have gotten the same money from the Seahawks, where he said he wanted to be, with a phone call. PERIOD.

Like an ADULT I can accept, forgive and move forward. Obviously you cannot ( making who child-like one?)

Actually, yes, it is childish of me to not forgive Hutch. It's conscious and intentional, though- I think of it as a "back at him" sorta thing.

See also: XL.

This is now the second thread you have insulted me, insinuated that I am immature, or childish or " not an adult", I grow weary of your judgemental, holier than thou, attitude towards not just me, but it seems like anyone else you can get your hands on.

You better get used to it- judging by some of the attitudes you've expressed, I seriously doubt I'll be the last one you hear it from.

And just to clarify. I don't resent "successful" people

You've made it clear you paint them all with the same brush if you don't know them. Maybe you're just lucky enough to know the only 'good' successful people.

[HumanCockroach]

Give it a rest Burton. Maybe you feel you have a monopoly on maturity, you don't, and your continued attacks on me is a great example of that. To date, I've seen ONE guy claim it, in the years I've been posting on this board, and while you can feel secure in your ability to judge me accurately based on my bias against, not "successful" but the UBER rich ( which is whatt? 1% of 1%)posted on a FOOTBALL board, which simply doesn't do anyone justice in the least, I NEVER said I had a bias against successful people, that is YOU putting words into my mouth, and I did NOT say I painted all with the same brush, in fact I readily said that not "all" where corrupt. You paint people with a pretty damn broad brush yourself there Burton, so I'm really not sure where you get off, telling me I shouldn't. Unfortunately, that is today's society, bunch of brain washed turds that roll out a party, or a political agenda at each and every opportunity.

Since I don't "toe the line" of any party, I guess I'm missing out, but I can live with that.

[NorthHawk]

The bottom line is Ruskell used the T-Tag and it blew up in his face.
It's one of many poor moves that led to his tenure here being short.

[burrrton]

in fact I readily said that not "all" where corrupt.

Big of you.

Unfortunately, that is today's society, bunch of brain washed turds that roll out a party, or a political agenda at each and every opportunity.

Says the guy painting all "UBER rich" (not the merely successful, though- they're ok!) with the same brush. Heal thyself, HC.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep, big of me, to acknowledge from the first, I don't know everything, acknowledge that I have bias' ( just like everyone, including you big guy) that people won't always agree with me, and doing so without insulting the other person, and in fact congratulating the other person who is actually insulting you, judging you, and continues to push his beliefs, on you for finding that "good guy", wishing them nothing but the best, and then proceeding to have it drudged up in another ENTIRELY different thread to paint your opinion on something to coincide with an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TOPIC. At NO point did I bring the Huber rich into this conversation, you did, to defend your jilted lover position on Hutch ( because of course I couldn't be OK with some player doing what is best for him, after getting lied to, without it being a bias against Paul Allen somehow, right? WTF?).

You created this mess Burton, not me. If admitting you don't know everything, remaining civil, being polite and not a pompous assnugget is being childish, immature, stupid ( and any other slight you felt inclined to insinuate towards me) than paint me a child, I CAN live with that, and do so PROUDLY. I don't come on a damn message board to further my agenda about how the world works, should work, or to attempt to spread the word of my political party ( especially since I don't have one), I come here to talk SPORTS ( more specifically Seahawks). Ruskell provided an opportunity, and Hutch took it. That is the crux of the whole damn thing, not some hidden agenda against uber rich, not some attack on republican values, or some other excuse for why your childish obsession with a player that has RETIRED .

[burrrton]

childish obsession

Says the guy posting rambling thousand-word run-on sentences.

Thanks, HC. Safe to say this conversation is over, or do you have another "I DON'T HAVE ANY POLITICAL AGENDAS EXCEPT TEH EBIL KOCH BROTHERS" rant to post?

[kalibane]

I think my issue is Burrton seems to think that the fact that Hutch left meant tha he was lying when he said he wanted to stay. It could just be that after over a year of actively trying to work out a deal to stay the transition tag switch was just the straw that broke the camels back and he just felt it wasn't worth having to work for Ruskell.

It's curious what and why people choose to latch onto something like this and never let it go. The honest truth is that had Hutch resigned the Hawks weren't going back to the Super Bowl because his leaving was just one of Ruskell's botched moves. It's not exactly the same but it feels a little like when someone cheats on their S/O and the S/O gets more mad at the cheatee than the cheater. Both are kind of wrong but it's easier to direct your anger at the party you aren't stuck with.

[burrrton]

I think my issue is Burrton seems to think that the fact that Hutch left meant tha he was lying when he said he wanted to stay.

Well, kinda. He said he wanted to stay with my team, then couldn't be bothered to make a phone call before giving my team the finger.

Your point about it simply being the last straw is well taken, but I'm of the opinion that there was nothing ALL that insulting about the way he was treated. We agree Ruskell could have and should have done things differently, but it's still a business and none of the decisions were outrageous slaps in the face, at least as I see it.

Either he wanted to stay and couldn't be bothered to make a phone call, or he didn't want to stay. Either way, he's not getting much of a break from me for d*cking my team.

Again, though, I understand if you feel differently (you feel not being negotiated with during the season like everyone else is an insult, the GM applying a different tag to you than you were led you'd be tagged with, etc), but I just can't get there.

It's curious what and why people choose to latch onto something like this and never let it go.

I get that a lot.

[edit]

All that said, there does come a point, even for me, where I ask myself why I'm still posting about it.

[kalibane]

C'mon Burrton... dont' project ideas onto me that I've never expressed. I'm not going at you. I don't even think I've said you're wrong. So if I haven't said something I'd appreciate you not ascribing it to me.

What I've said about Ruskell's negotiating rule is that I think it's stupid and self defeating, especially for a guy like Ruskell who has shown an inability to get deals done in a timely matter. I understand that other front offices have that rule but were those front offices forced to use the Franchise Tag every year on a player because they couldn't manage the time in the offseason well enough to get their own players signed? That rule may serve other franchises well... but it didn't serve Ruskell. I complained about it before the Hutch thing.

I never said Hutch had a right to get upset over the rule or that there was a justification for him to expect to get treated differently from anyone else. I merely am saying that the rule became yet another obstacle to getting a deal done. It helped to achieve the result of watching a HOF player in the prime of their career walk out the door with zero compensation.

This can apply to any situation really... basically Person A goes to Person B to ask for something, Person B says later. Person A comes back. Person B says later. Person A comes back Person B says let's talk about it, but then shortly after starting to talk Person B says well, I have a rule against talking for the next 6 months so come back then. Person A comes back 6 months later and Person B says, I have to concentrate on something else right now, let me get back to you and I promise if we can't work out option 1, we'll go for option 2. Person B comes back finally, and after a little discussion with no resolution they offer Person A, Option 3.

There is only so long before Person A is going to say screw it because Person B has built up no record of exhibiting a good faith effort. That's really the problem. And it's not that I think Ruskell was intentionally messing with Hutch, like you said obviously he had to get Hass done first. But that is why you have to insure that you're doing something so they know that they are a priority and you aren't jerking them around besides saying it. That's why the Tag issue that I agree shouldn't have been a huge deal in a vacuum comes across as a slap in the face because of the way the whole thing played out. There isn't any one thing that Ruskell did that was a deal breaker, but a bunch of little things building on eachother can end up achieving the same result. Regardless of however big the actual difference was between the FTag and TTag numbers (which I believe is bigger than you are giving it credit for), it was just stupid that after all the times Ruskell put the Hutch negotiations off, however justified the reasons were, to agree to one set of options and then turn around and spring an Option on Hutch that wasn't discussed at all. It makes you look like a sleazeball and a liar.

Should Hutch have called? Sure but I also understand that he was probably extremely frustrated by that point and just wanted to move on. We all do things in our lives that we didn't necessarily handle perfectly. I understand the reasoning for both Ruskell and Hutch. The difference for me is that even though I understand what Ruskell was thinking, I always believed his thought process for these matters was wrong. Ruskell kept making the same mistakes over and over. I don't have that tainted history with Hutch. The way I see it was Ruskell skated for a few years getting away with it but I was always waiting for the other shoe do drop. Hutch was the other shoe.

[HumanCockroach]

childish obsession

Says the guy posting rambling thousand-word run-on sentences.

Thanks, HC. Safe to say this conversation is over, or do you have another "I DON'T HAVE ANY POLITICAL AGENDAS EXCEPT TEH EBIL KOCH BROTHERS" rant to post?

Knew it was coming, surprised it took you so long. LMFAO. Yeah mentioning an example of a uber rich pair of brothers definitely means I'm a socialists, or a left wing nut job. LMFAO.

[burrrton]

C'mon Burrton... dont' project ideas onto me that I've never expressed. I'm not going at you. I don't even think I've said you're wrong. So if I haven't said something I'd appreciate you not ascribing it to me.

I wasn't intending to mis-attribute anything there, Kal. Consider it a general statement if it wasn't something you stated.

There is only so long before Person A is going to say screw it because Person B has built up no record of exhibiting a good faith effort.

Agreed. I just didn't (and don't) see Ruskell's efforts as being all that non-standard. I think he ended up being a bad GM, but letting players play out their contracts, not negotiating mid-season, and all that that ostensibly played into Hutch's "fck you" attitude just weren't that unusual, and certainly (IMO) not something to take as some kind of personal insult.

Hutch apparently did.

Ruskell arguably should have recognized that, and I sure as *h3ll* would have preferred him not being so clueless and gotten it done, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give Hutch a pass on it.

[burrrton]

Knew it was coming, surprised it took you so long.

I posted that 7 minutes after your last post, HC. I'll be quicker next time, I promise.

Yeah mentioning an example of a uber rich pair of brothers definitely means I'm a socialists, or a left wing nut job. LMFAO.

I don't know or care if you're left, right, center, or what, HC. I'd just save the accusations of 'brainwashed politicizer' when you insert one of the most currently divisive political footballs into the conversation yourself.

[kalibane]

Let me ask you this Burrton. How many HOF players in the prime of their careers have you ever seen hit the open market when there was no injury situation affecting their perceived value?

I can only think of two other guys. Reggie White and Deion Sanders (9ers to Cowboys). Reggie White was in the first year of free agency before teams had a handle on how to deal with it and Deion Sanders was a rent a player and there were internal team politics involved that really prevented him from coming back.

It just doesn't happen. If what Ruskell did was typical of the way teams handled negotiations with their absolute best players I don't think the list would be so short.

[HumanCockroach]

Knew it was coming, surprised it took you so long.

I posted that 7 minutes after your last post, HC. I'll be quicker next time, I promise.

Yeah mentioning an example of a uber rich pair of brothers definitely means I'm a socialists, or a left wing nut job. LMFAO.

I don't know or care if you're left, right, center, or what, HC. I'd just save the accusations of 'brainwashed politicizer' when you insert one of the most currently divisive political footballs into the conversation yourself.

LOL. Keep judging, attributing words,agendas etc. I just don't care any longer. I'm sure you'll follow me to yet another thread and claim my opinion is shaded by my unreasonable bias against the uber rich. ( I mean Hutch's problems with a couple non uber rich front office personnel HAS to be influenced by a completely different opinion right?). Is it possible to understand Hutch taking a better deal somewhere else without having a damn thing to do with a bias towards a billionaire? I would say emphatically it is ( since he took that better deal from another uber rich owner in Minnesota). You brought up that even though it had NOTHING to do with Hutch's decision, or my feelings on the matter. To defend your own childish issues with a player that doesn't even suit up any longer.

[burrrton]

Well, they didn't intend for him to hit the open market, right? That said, I give you Walter Jones: continuously tagged, not negotiated with mid-season, etc.

Same with Alexander. Same with our franchise QB. Also remember that both of those contracts came up at the same time, making Hutch (reasonably) a lower priority.

Outside of applying the wrong tag, Hutch's treatment was not outrageous, and even the tag fiasco could have been solved at any point up to the time he signed his name on the PP contract with a phone call.

[burrrton]

I'm sure you'll follow me to yet another thread and claim my opinion is shaded by my unreasonable bias against the uber rich.

Uh, YOU told me your opinion is shaded against the "UBER rich"- that's not my claim.

I just don't care any longer.

Good.

[kalibane]

Walt never hit the open market.

And I'm sorry you don't get to use the fact that Ruskell mismanaged negotiations with Walt, Alexander and Hass as evidence that Hutch was handled reasonbly. That's my whole point.

It never should have gotten to the point where the franchise QB and the franchise RB are both within hours of being unrestricted free agents. Especially since the Seahawks were primarily an offensive team. There was no contingency plan in place they had no intention of playing the next season without Alexander or Hass so why are they both about to hit free agency? I've never seen anything like that before in the NFL. Like I said that rule may work for some people but it didn't work for Ruskell. Just because you're consistantly bad doesn't mean that we should be happy so long as you're consistant. That in and of itself is nigh on inexcusable.

Great they were traditionally considered higher priority positions than Hutch, explain how that helps to secure Hutch's financial security? Whatever... this is going nowhere but it kind of leaves me scratching my head that the rationale is that Hutch should just understand that because the Front Office can't get their crap together that he should just be okay with them getting around to him whenever they can and then when they finally do they go completely off script. Dude if my company pulled a bait and switch like that with me I'd probably be sending out resumes too. I get that you're signing my checks but I still expect to be treated with a certain level of professionalism.

[HumanCockroach]

I'm sure you'll follow me to yet another thread and claim my opinion is shaded by my unreasonable bias against the uber rich.

Uh, YOU told me your opinion is shaded against the "UBER rich"- that's not my claim.

I just don't care any longer.

Good.

Sure I Did on an entirely DIFFERENT topic. ( ie Vernon Davis holdout, NOT Hutch deciding to leave, when he WAS entitled to do so) simply NOT the same, no matter how hard you try to justify your infantile opinion on Hutch, with my view on an entirely different situation. Multiple people have explained it to you, just because you can't be an adult about it and see it for what it is at this point, doesn't change that.

I also said that I understood my bias, and congratulated you on not having to cope with shady rich people, after you had childishly insulted me for forming my opinion on MY life and experiences. Just because you can't see past your own little bubble, doesn't make you right, or more mature, or more intelligent or any other pompous judgemental position you choose to display. It simply means, there is NO right or wrong answer, that is universally acceptable in each and every situation, as you continue to regurgitate as fact. Last I checked, you weren't living my life, or Hutch's ,anyone else's, so why you came to the conclusion that it was your job to judge us all, I haven't the foggiest, but keep on pretending like you got it all figured out, and know what's best for everyone walking this Earth, I'm confident you'll get your maturity on all matters out there, and we'll all just follow along behind. LMFAO.

[burrrton]

Walt never hit the open market.

They never intended for Hutch to do so, either, except as far as he insisted on (to get price from another team).

And I'm sorry you don't get to use the fact that Ruskell mismanaged negotiations with Walt, Alexander and Hass as evidence that Hutch was handled reasonbly.

I'm only saying "reasonably" in as far as he was treated like everyone else on the team.

Great they were traditionally considered higher priority positions than Hutch, explain how that helps to secure Hutch's financial security?

It doesn't- but the guarantee from his coach that he'd be taken care of might have reasonably been expected to be worth a phone call.

Dude if my company pulled a bait and switch like that with me I'd probably be sending out resumes too.

So send out resumes. Would you also ask your boss what in the world was going on before accepting another position? I would, and I think you would, too, unless you were just waiting for a reason to leave.

[burrrton]

Sure I Did on an entirely DIFFERENT topic.

So the "UBER rich" are corrupt if you and I are arguing about VD, but A-OK if you and I are discussing Hutchinson.

Got it.

[kalibane]

Nope I doubt I would actually. I see a pattern of mismanagement and not taking care of the people you should be taking care of. I feel like I'm getting jerked around for over a year, then they pull a bait an switch on me (even if it's on something minor), then I get a call from a head hunter from a company offering to give me the salary and benefits I'm looking for without the hassle.

What would be my motivation to stay? Just because I said I wanted to at some point?

[burrrton]

I see a pattern of mismanagement and not taking care of the people you should be taking care of.

That's kind of the rub, isn't it?

I have no doubt you'll disagree, but I paid as close attention to this team at that time as anyone (as I'm sure you did, too), and Ruskell mismanaging the team was never an overwhelming theme if it was one at all (in fact everyone thought he was a pretty good exec, with Lofa et al as feathers in his cap at the time).

What would be my motivation to stay? Just because I said I wanted to at some point?

Not necessarily to stay, but to talk to him before you leave? Your boss, and "fans" of your company, sure as h3ll might think so!

[HumanCockroach]

Sure I Did on an entirely DIFFERENT topic.

So the "UBER rich" are corrupt if you and I are arguing about VD, but A-OK if you and I are discussing Hutchinson.

Got it.

Again, putting words in someones mouth, in what way does this have anything to do with how I feel about the uber rich, one way or another? It doesn't in the least. You're the one that is attempting to paint everything as the same. Not I Burton. ( and can you please show where I stated all uber rich, were corrupt? I know I didn't, so even though you CONTINUE to go back to that as some sort of go to excuse for not being able to cope with a differing opinion, at the VERY least, get the sh!t right, for f sake).

[HumanCockroach]

Nope I doubt I would actually. I see a pattern of mismanagement and not taking care of the people you should be taking care of. I feel like I'm getting jerked around for over a year, then they pull a bait an switch on me (even if it's on something minor), then I get a call from a head hunter from a company offering to give me the salary and benefits I'm looking for without the hassle.

What would be my motivation to stay? Just because I said I wanted to at some point?

Well I guess that would make you not an adult....

[burrrton]

Again, putting words in someones mouth, in what way does this have anything to do with how I feel about the uber rich, one way or another?

*facepalm*

HC, I was about to walk you through it, but frankly I don't think it's worth the bother. You won't comprehend (or pretend not to comprehend) what I write and you'll launch off into another bizarre post.

If you don't understand, read back through the thread. I think it will become obvious.

[kalibane]

Nah Burrton, not me I wasn't full on anti Ruskell at the time but I wasn't anywhere near Pro Ruskell either. It always bothered me that our own free agents never got extended until the 11th hour of free agency. Holmgren's offense was very dependent on a QB who fit the system and knew the system so there really was no excuse for Hass to be playing the final year of his contact without being close to an extension. It wasn't like he was trying to break the bank. And I hated watching him stock the secondary with midget corners like Josh Wilson and Kelly Jennings and watching guys like Ken Lucas walk. So he started off on the wrong foot with me. Lofa just bought him time before full on condemnation. I was never a fan. He drafted what he liked instead of figuring out what worked for the schemes.

If I were Hutch and I saw that two of the most important players on the team weren't even close to extensions until they were about to hit free agency that would have been a red flag.

And did Hutch stop talking to Holmgren altogether or did he just not tell him before he signed his deal? It seemed your beef was that he basically didn't clear it with Holmgren and allow the Seahawks to match before inking his contract. I don't think Holmgren or the Seahawks was owed that.

Actually one at my company we lost one of our best mid level managers in another department in a similar fashion around Christmas. She felt like she wasn't being heard by upper management, felt they ignored suggestions and ultimately she got offered a job by one of our clients and took it. When she gave her notice they offered to give her a big raise to stay but at that point it was too late. If you value someone you need to show them they are valued before your back is against the wall.

[burrrton]

And did Hutch stop talking to Holmgren altogether or did he just not tell him before he signed his deal?

According to Holmgren, they met, he told him they were going to F-tag him and to relax about it that he'd make sure he was taken care of beyond that, then he went to the Combine and found out via a reporter that dumbsh*t had T-tagged him instead.

Then before he could get ahold of him, he found out he had signed the Vike contract. Then he finally got him on the phone and said "Why didn't you call me?? We'd have matched whatever that contract gives you!"

Nah Burrton, not me I wasn't full on anti Ruskell at the time but I wasn't anywhere near Pro Ruskell either.

I wasn't really, either, beyond saying "He's brought in a few guys playing well- let the long-term results speak for themselves."

And they have. He wasn't good. But at the time, nothing he was doing was out of bounds.

I don't think Holmgren or the Seahawks was owed that.

I think they were. Maybe not a phone call to Ruskell, but to his coach, for his teammates? C'mon.

[kalibane]

why? Do you clear it with your direct supervisor and your co-workers before you make a career change? Why do you think these guys owe more? All he owed them was letting them know after the fact.

And Sorry we disagree which may be why we see the entire thing differently. I don't think letting your franchise QB reach the 11th hour of free agency before getting a deal done is acceptable, let alone both him and Alexander at the same time. We weren't talking about a situation like Joe Flacco where Flacco actually broke off negotiations and wanted to head to FA because he thought he could get a better deal. It was symptomatic of Ruskell's inability to manage the team efficiently. I was willing to give him a chance to prove me wrong but I don't think the way he handled the offseason was indicative of an adequate GM. There is no way this happens under Ted Thompson.

I realize that a lot of people got swept up in the fact that they went to the Super Bowl right after Ruskell got here (all that In Ruskell We Trust nonsense) but I was always on team Ted Thompson and believed 2005 was Ruskell standing on his shoulders.

[burrrton]

I don't clear anything, Kal. I *communicate* with trusted management when something goes differently than planned.

Our impasse is over whether what Ruskell did in 2005 rises to the level of egregious behavior, giving Hutch a good reason to say "fck you" to the franchise.

You apparently think it did. I think it plainly didn't.

(and you were vindicated on your opinion of Ruskell!)

[kalibane]

Why do you keep trying to frame my argument for me? I didn't say I think it's okay to give an "F-U" to the franchise. I just don't agree that it was an "F-U" He didn't go out of his way to extend every courtesy but there is a lot of room in between that and "F-U".

As far as I'm concerned he decided to move on and I get why. You don't need to keep trying to paint me with unflattering statements that I never made.

[burrrton]

I just don't agree that it was an "F-U" He didn't go out of his way to extend every courtesy but there is a lot of room in between that and "F-U".

Jesus.

Sorry, Kal- we can debate whether he was justified in doing what he did (I don't find your argument persuasive).

But when the team says "Ok, go get a price and we'll match it", and he goes out of his way to find a method by which the team *can't* match it, that's a BIG old middle finger to the Seahawks by any definition of the phrase.

Somehow this has become debatable between 2006 and 2014.

He didn't go out of his way to extend every courtesy

He didn't go out of his way to do *anything*.

[edit]

And quit whining about framing your argument and "painting you" for pete's sake. I state the argument as I see it, what *I* think pretty obviously happened. If you don't agree with that, just say so and clarify. Quit expecting me to make your argument for you.