Thank God Mr. Cheer or Die wrote a little something at the end there, for a second I thought I was reading the Strib or Pioneer press with all the negative stuff from Vikes Geek. I love this blog but am beginning to dislike all the negativity from VG, lighten up man, smile we just got one of, if not the best guards in the NFL, this is a glorious day! Please post something positive all your negativity is annoying. This is the off-season and time for optimism, if we start 0-3/4 then bring the negativity, but for now try and remain optimistic, "after all the future is so bright you got to wear shades".

Brett,

You must not read the Strib too often. That's the home of rose-colored glasses.

As for negativity, it's difficult to be sugar and spice and everything nice when your team does what the Vikings do. If the response to every move that the Vikings make is to cheer the move, there is no hope for this team as such fan acceptance will only ensure that the team continues to take its fans for granted.

I love optimism, but it has its place. As I state in my column, it's nice to have the left side of the line fairly stable for a change. That's a big step. It's expensive and it cost the Vikings a run at some other free agents, but it should help the Vikings' offense considerably.

I gotta agree that the negativity doesn't make much sense after a big win for the Vikes. But what really bothered me is the arrogant tone and especially labeling a section Contracts 101. Good lord! Special Master Burbank is a top notch law professor, with 30+ years of experience in civil law. Honestly, I'm not sure that the decision will be good for teh league in the long run either (although I'm happy today). But I'm sure that the decision was based on a very careful reading of the contract (which you haven't read), the CBA (which you haven't read) and the testimony (which you didn't hear). Does it seem like this opens the door for increasing gamesmanship in transition (and restricted free agent) contracts? Sure. But hey, the Vikes have a top notch salary cap guy, so good for us!

Lou,

I based my reading of Burbank's decision on what has been made public.

Just because someone is an experienced lawyer does not mean that they are immune from making an elementary mistake. Based on what has been reported, Burbank has made an elementary mistake in this case. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

If we obtain additional information that renders my reading of the situation incorrect, I will be the first to acknowledge that error.

I like the Geek's perspective on things. I don't often agree, but I can appreciate it. You got to have that cynical or flip side view to Viking issues. The Geek's comments motivate people to fire back a rebuttal and it makes for a more interesting site.

God knows the Vikes have left us scratching our heads many times over the years. I see the VG, slowly accepting the Childress era and getting on board by mid season. Well, maybe not that soon.

It is true that anyone can make a fundamental mistake. Still though VG, you are basing your findings and opinion on "what was reported". I think we can all agree that we really don't know the specifics of the meeting, or the contract itself. So how can you assume that Burbank made a fundamental mistake when we clearly do not have access to all the information pertaining to this case?

I disagree with your legal analysis VG.

That meant that Seattle could not match the terms of the Vikings’ offer no matter what they did.

Your argument is basically that the nature of the Viking's offer sheet made it impossible ab initio for the Seahawks to "match" the terms of the contract and thus created in essence an impossibility for the Seahawks to exercise their matching rights under the CBA.

However, your analysis mistakenly focuses not on whether Seattle could match the terms of the contract, but whether Seattle could recreate the same effect of the contract that would result to the Vikings. Two very different concepts.

Significantly clouding your analysis is your broad interpretation of what it means to have a right to "match." In short your interpretation of "right to match" includes the added term of right to have the same impact on your books from matching, and I don't think that extra term can be read into the CBA.

The term matching simply means to sign a contract with the same material terms. Thus if the contract guarantee was "material" Seattle must match the contract and cannot simply offer an unguaranteed contract for the same amount of money. A pretty uncontroversial proposition and one Seattle was not really challenging.

Of course, the wrinkle here is what would trigger the guarantee. Burbank ruled that it must be the same under both the Vikings contract and Seattle contract. That Seattle would trigger such a term and that the Vikings wouldn't, however, does not diminish the fact that Seattle was not in any way prevented from matching all of the material terms of this contract. So in essence what would have been impossible would not be the ability to match but rather the ability to have the same non-guaranteed EFFECT.

The real essence of Burbank's ruling was whether or not Seattle matching the contract would trigger the guarantee ab initio or whether they could avoid the guarantee by changing the status quo.

To carry your point to its logical conclusion. What if Seattle had been over the salary cap and matching would have been impossible without putting them over the cap? Under your argument, the Vikings could only offer Hutchinson a contract that Seattle could afford to pay.

In short, all that Burbank ruled is that:

1) the guarantee clause was material (something Seattle did not dispute);
2) highest paid means highest paid for the entire season - meaning that if Seattle had a higher paid player, they could still match the contract but they would have to guarantee the money as would the Vikings if they were to give Matt Birk a higher contract. In short Seattle had to live with its choice of who to pay before taking this transition risk. Seattle opened themselves up to this by not simply signing Hutch to a contract or by not naming him franchise player, and they got bit.

This site definitely has a different element now. Mr. COD's unique and flavorful depiction of our Vikings is now interjected with Vikes Geek's laconic deadpan and condescending analysis of contract law that takes up a whole page. Differing points of view allow for more informed perspective on a topic, I'll agree. As this fan website becomes more diverse in viewpoint (and decidedly more negative and myopic) I'll just keep scrolling down to Brian's entries and hope this site retains its originality and atmosphere it had before. I know you're both die hard Viking Fans, and I love you for that. But I can see why your site tanked, VG.

I think it's good to get both views. But having said that what is it, exactly, that Seattle could not match? Would it cost them to much so that they could not sign anymore FA's? If so to bad. Would it have put them over the salary CAP? If so to bad. I think both teams were trying to out maneuver each other. The Vikings won. Now the real question is what happens to Jones and his contract? He took a pay cut, signed a new contract, will he be happy? But as a Vikings fan, who cares.

Lichty,

My understanding is that Burbank ruled that the Seahawks' attempt to reconstruct Walter Jones' contract contradicted a material term of the Vikings' offer sheet. If that is correct, Burbank erred in his decision. Seattle sought to make an offer that matched the Vikings' offer. Burbank held that the matching offer contradicted a material term of the Vikings' offer, apparently because the Vikings' offer stipulated that Hutchinson's salary run from the time that the Vikings made their offer. That stipulation--not the act of offering--made it impossible for Seattle to match.

Lonnie,

I agree regarding the Seahawks--I don't particularly care what happens to them. But I do care what happens to the Vikings. And the concern even with Hutchinson is that the signing came at the price of pursuing other players. The Vikings still have some cap space, though not much, and are still in need of at least one linebacker, a safety, a backup quarterback that is more than a mere clip board holder, and a fullback.

With that said, I'm all for having Hutchinson on the team. He instantly makes the offensive line credible. And that makes the running back position less precarious, which makes the quarterback position less precarious, which makes linebacker concerns a little less precarious. And if Childress is even the slightest upgrade over Tice--a virtual lock--that could be enough to make the Vikings contenders in a very mediocre NFC.

Tyler,

I appreciate your concern over my writing. You might be interested to know, however, that my site went down not because there were too few visitors but because there were too many. That suggests, I suspect, that there were many people who either were masochists or who simply had an interest in the Vikings was met, in part, by reading my columns. If I'm not your cup of tea, so be it.

VG that is exactly what he held, but still doesn't change my analysis. Your analysis is dependent upon defining "matching" as having the same effect on both teams.

Seattle was not prvented from matching, but conditions present in their organization simply had different ramifications.

While I understand why you could say that what's the big deal if they get their highest paid lineman below Hutch's average salary is not material, you are failing to recognize that a court is not entitled to rewrite a contract where the parties have expressed their clear intent. The term was obviously very material to the Vikings for the very reason that you raise. Seattle could simply add a voidable year to a contract to get around it. How that is not material is beyond me. Once it is decided that a term is material it is up to the court to enfore the agreement of the parties as it is written.

In short, the arbitrator recognized that this contract does not get written without that provision and that Seattle could indeed match the offer if it wanted to guarantee the contract.

Hey! Do you want to be bored by my drivel every day or have some other fine entries by other people, such as VG, to peruse and think about?

I'm liking this: could be the Reusse-Barrerio combo that used to have this town talking at the water cooler every day. People hated one...loved the other. To each, his own!

One thing this blog will never be accused of is going stale. You can take that to the bank!

Wow, what a pissing contest this has turned into. You guys can interpret that contract anyway you want. This fact remains: the Vikings are a much better team today than they were yesterday. Wilf has truly stepped up and probably overpaid for an all pro and I couldn't be happier. Let's get back to the nuts and bolts of football and leave the posturing and legal jargon to the lawyers.

VG's point isn't that it was impossible for the Seahawks to match the Vikings offer, it's that the Seahawks matched the offer by spreading out their commitment to Walter Jones and Burbank still ruled against them. If today Hutchinson signed the contract in question with Seattle would the guarantee kick in? Possibly, depends on what highest paid means. Per year? Life of contract? Guarateed/Easily attainable? Cap hit? Reasonably expected value?

I think an interesting aspect of Burbank's ruling is the implications for signing players and the cap. Apparently he's saying that if you match its as if you actually matched the second the offer sheet was signed. Does that mean that even if a team free's up space to match if they do match they will have breached the cap retroactively?

Crack

crack a court is not allowed to simply rewrite a contract because it does not like one of the terms. I would say that this is one of the risks Seattle took by not signing Hutchinson to a contract and taking their chances with a transition tag.

For those of you bashing the Vikes Geek -- You have got to be kidding me. Brian has never been shy about criticizing the team either.

The VG provides the BEST Vikings analysis on the web and I know Brian feels fortunate to have him aboard the VU.

That not everything is optimistic about the Vikings should not be surprising. Afterall we are not talking about the New England Patriots here. If you want nothing but optimisim instead of critically assessing moves and players and coaches I suggest that you become a New York Yankees and Duke fan instead of a Vikings fan. Or if you don't like what he is writing, simply uses your scroll bar and skip it or better yet prove him wrong by writing an argument that is more compelling. Good grief, how much are you paying to read this site.

Vikes Geek Exposed!

Vote me in favor of having Vikes Geek on the site-- I value his always critical and provacative opinions.

However, I have long felt that Vikes Geek's prose was a little long and lawyerly. And now we know why: he's a lawyer. Stick with shorter, more direct writing, and I'll be a fan forever.

Here's in interesting perspective on the "Condon clause," which suggests it is a creative way around the Wolford loophole in the CBA:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AqaGhDL0FB0atPvA3WJ3Y9pDubYF?slug=ap-vikings-hutchinsonsprecedent&prov=ap&type=lgns

@JL

I don't know what you are refering to when you say the court can't re-write a contract. I agree with that statement but wasn't trying to claim they could.

My claim, which I believe is VG's is that the Seahawks lowered Walter Jones's per year average and then agreed to sign Hutchinson. The Seahawks were claiming that by lowering Jones's per year average the guarantee clause wouldn't kick in since Hutchinson would have the highest per year deal on the O line. From what I gather Burbank was saying that Seattle had to agree to the contract as if they were agreeing to it the day Hutchinson signed it, meaning while Jones's contract was still higher per year; rather than agreeing to it after they rejiggered (legalese there) Jones's deal.

I agree on VG's analysis. Sober and pragmatic, which is a great change from all the cheer-leader sites around.

Crack - all I am saying is that simply put - the term in the Vikings offer that the period where Hutchinson was to be the highest paid lineman started from the date of that offer rather than the date that Seattle could match was material.

It is a term that clearly the Vikings and Condon would not have made the deal without. Yes it intentionally screwed Seattle which only goes to demonstrate the materiality even more.

In essence Seattle wanted to re-write that clear term of the offer and Burbank said that it would materially alter the offer so they could not.

Seattle did not argue as the Vikes Geek and you apparently do that the CBA voided the term because the guarantee was already triggered by the time they got it. I don't think the CBA requires that terms of the contract have the same effect for both teams so long as Seattle gets the opportunity to match the offer.

Essentially to criticize this ruling one would have to believe that the most favored nations time period was not a material term and seattle could change it as it suited their purposes. Burbank and I disagree.