Good article Geoff.

The use of these types of poison pills is something that football fans should loathe, not praise. It actually is the opposite of the NBA's Larry Bird rule. It makes it FAR more difficult for a team to retain their free agents than for an outside team to sign them.

And you're right about the playes association thing, too. Why the hell would they even negotiate this away? It opens the door to guaranteed contracts and esseentially guts the franchise player tag. Gene Upshaw likely popped himself a bottle of champagne when that ruling came down.

Didn't the new authority want to increase their offer above the $14.5 mil from Sea? Or did Burleson want out?
I think the worst part about this is not that Seattle pulled it, but that the last 3 years of the deal are obviously not going to be honored (what would keep teams from putting in final years worth $20 mil? $30 mil?). At the same time I can't help but chuckle that the juvenile poke in the eye by making it a 7-year, $49 mil deal.

Well I look at it like this; we get Hutch and a 3rd round pick for Nate. That's not bad at all.

Things of interest to me is our poison pill was legal (according to the special master) both of theirs are not (IMO). The NFL or the PA would be best served if the Vikes challenged. The "can't play in MN for 5 games" could have easily been you can't play 5 games in Purple Uniforms. The other poison pill is really very close to the original poison pill the Colts had (highest paid offensive player)which caused the rules to be changed.

I still wouldn't match, I think having another first day pick is worth more than Nate at this point.

I do think that this is a problem with the CBA and not with the legal ruling, but there is no question that those seeking to uphold the validity of the 5 games with an afro poison pill have more ammunition.

The lesson to the teams is that your restricted free agents are more free than restricted and you better hope that your ok with the draft pick as compensation.

Although I was one of those who thought that this was a correct legal ruling, that does not mean I agreed with the law, and I do hope that the owners step in and decide that this loophole must be closed, despitet the fact that it is a net gain for the Vikings in this case.

Little news update for you guys. Vikes will play in the first MNF game on ESPN. It is the sept 11th game against Washington. Here is the link to the story from the evil fish wrap!!!

http://www.startribune.com/510/story/333218.html

"Of course, that’s the type of ridiculous circumvention of intent that we would not permit in most courts, because it makes a mockery of a related contractual agreement, in this case the CBA. But it is the type of circumvention to which Burbank’s ruling in the Hutchinson case has now opened the flood gates."

Not necessarily. The relationship of "key term" to the actual contract still isn't entirely clear through the last ruling.

Also, isn't a possibility that the arbitration over Hutchinson was decided as it was partly due to Seatlle's attempt to circumvent the rules by restructuring Jones' contract specifically to defeat the contact term? There's a "fair play" aspect that could come in here if the Viking chose to challenge this.

Not that it really matter all that much, the Vikings aren't going to match, and frankly they probably shouldn't, even if they could get it on Seattle's terms without the guarantee issue. Burleson's resume is essentially built on one season; it's questionable if you should be paying what is lower #1/upper #2 receiver money to a guy like that, particularly when you still have options on your roster.

Moreover, possession-type receivers are the easiest fill in the NFL. The Vikings have the #1 slot taken care of with Koren Robinson (a player with a better pedigree, if spottier personal life, than Burleson) and Williamson showed the physical tools and flashes of ability that got him drafted at the top. Bring back Travis Taylor and/or Marcus Robinson you're in pretty good shape at WR.

TG,

Thanks for visiting. I think many are still confused about the loophole issue. If there is a loophole in the CBA that needs to be closed so that intent is more readily discernible in the future, such a change must have the support of the players' union. My impression is that many fans believe that the owners can address the problem unilaterally, something that is not possible with a CBA. And the fact that the players have greater mobility under the current reading of the CBA strongly suggests that, if the players' do cede the loophole, they will not do so without the owners offering something in exchange.

Jeff,

There is talk that the Vikings had offered Burleson more than the league minimum for a player with his level of experience, but the Vikings never formally tendered such an offer.

I don't get too upset over added years at the end of contracts. Teams have been constructing player contracts by adding voidable years as long as Gene Upshaw has been negotiating CBAs. I'm more offended by teams that add "reachable incentives" bonuses to contracts to reach the salary cap floor. The Vikings made a tidy profit with such cap games by, for example, providing for Kleinsasser to earn a $1 million dollar bonus in 2004 for playing in 75% of the team's special teams plays--even though the team clearly had no intention of using Kleinsasser in coverage. The league does scrutinize such bonuses so that they do not get absurd, but the Vikings knew (and apparently still know) what the limits are.

Lonnie,

Based on Burleson's 2005 season, I would agree with your assessment that Hutchinson and a third-round pick are a nice return for Burleson. Of course, the tradeoff really is a third-round pick for Burleson, since Hutchinson only factors into the Burleson deal with respect to the terms of Burleson's offer.

Playwhenuwanna,

The timely notice permits you to slide out of the NCAA pick 'em tourney without mention--that's your compensation.

JC,

I agree that the Vikings should not match Seattle's offer to Burleson given the poison pills. But the guaranteed money in the deal is fairly minimal for a quality receiver. If Burleson returns to 2004 form, Seattle gets a steal here. I don't expect that to happen, however.

What nobody knows is how much of Burleson's 2005 problems were related to poor coaching, injury, and the disruptions due to injury and inexperience/bad play by the Vikings' offense. Burleson was not impressive even in the games that he declared himself 100%--games in which other Vikings' receivers did well as Burleson languished--making one suspect that being a number one receiver does not suit Burleson.

When the Vikings signed Robinson, I argued that the projection was for Robinson to assume the mantel of number one receiver. Robinson's size and speed make him the ideal number one, and his head now seems to be where it needs to be. Burleson would have been a nice number two--a better option than an oft-injured, seemingly disinterested Marcus Robinson or an underwhelming, slow-to-pick-up-on-the-NFL-game Troy Williamson, but the Vikings might have Burleson's replacement in Travis Taylor--a bigger, more experienced version of Burleson.

And, as certainly is the case, number two receivers virtually are a dime a dozen these days. To pay big money for Burleson is tough to justify. Seattle might just have done the Vikings a nice favor by making matching their offer to Burleson unattractive.

vg-

Didn't realize that a formal offer was never made. I had read something in the neighborhood of 14/4 years was being discussed (not sure if that was before or after the Sea. offer was made public).

I get the idea of the extra years/incentives being used to get around cap issues and whatnot...I guess I'm just a little more aggressive when it comes to labeling things as 'absurd'.

I completely agree that the Poison Pill loophole needs to be closed, and very very soon. I should state, for the record, that I am a Seahawks fan, and am very glad that I came across this blog!

VG, not only have the poison pills pointed out one loophole in the CBA, but two! The Hutchinson deal effectively killed the Transition Tag. The pending Burleson deal will effectively kill 3/4s of restricted free-agency - teams will be forced to offer the $2m first-round tender offers from now on, and that still might not be enough!

IMO Seattle has thrown a 'soft ball' that the Vikings need to hit out the the park... challenge this contract and force the Special Master to establish a precident as to exactly what kinds of Poison Pills will, and will not, be allowed. Although the owners will be discussing this topic, there is no assurance that the NFL has enough left to 'give back' to the PA for the PA to have any reason, other than bad PR, to agree to any changes.

I like Nate, he and Antonio Gates carried my fantasy team to a Superbowl win in 2004, and I'd be happy for him to be our #2 WR for 3 years, or so, even under the terms of the offer sheet. But I still believe that the NFL, and every team, would be best served if the Vikes were to challenge this offer sheet.