[Lefty Noob]

I'm sure by now everyone's familiar with the "poison pill" in Steve Hutchinson's contract that guaranteed him money if he wasn't the highest paid OL on the team, which clearly would not have happened in Seattle with Walter Jones. Now, I was just reading where the Seahawks signed Nate Burleson to a deal that would guarantee all of his money if he played more than 5 games in the state of Minnesota. What do you guys think about all of this? Creative thinking or blatant contract manipulation?

[DrCool]

The Vikings originally offered Burleson 4 years, 14 mil (I believe those are the numbers. If not they will at least get the point across) with 5 mil guaranteed. The Seahawks wanted to pay him 4 years, 14.5 mil with 5.25 guaranteed. Since he was a RFA the Seahawks would have to give up a 3rd round pick and wait 7 days for the Vikings to see if they would match the offer.

They Seahawks approached the Vikings to just do a trade (3rd round pick for Burleson) so they could bypass the 7 day wait. The Vikings said no so the Seahawks added 3 voidable years and 34.5 mil on the contract making it 7 years, 49 mil (same numbers as Hutchinson). They never intended to pay that money, it was just a way to prove a point.

Along with that they included 2 "poison pills" in the contract. 1) If Burleson plays more than 5 games in Minnesota his contract becomes guaranteed. 2) If the average salary given to Burleson is more than any running back on the roster, all $49 million would be guaranteed. Chester Taylor will be averaging 3.5mil on his contract so with either of these poison pills Burleson's contract would be guaranteed.

My take: I think the Seahawks were just trying to prove a point how damaging these poison pills can be. They basically make the transition tag and RFA contracts worthless. I think the Seahawks just wanted to make the NFL stand up and take notice and do something about this. I don't think it was vendictive against the Vikings. They just wanted to show how ludicrous these type of stipulations are and how the Vikings used one of these poison pills to make it virtually impossible for the Seahawks to match the Hutchinson offer.

[Lefty Noob]

Well, from what I hear, the league office is starting to stand up and take notice. They're not happy about these poison pills. But realistically, what can they do? How much control does the league have about how a team can or can't guarantee money to a player - even if they, personally, have no intention to do so and the language was just added to hurt another team's chances at signing or resigning a player?

[DrCool]

One thing the league could do is just make the financial terms machable. X years for X amount of dollars with an X signing bonus. If team A guarantees money then team B has to match. No crazy conditional stuff. The problem will be the league will need to get this past the players union and will have to give up something in order to get this through.

[Lefty Noob]

And considering they just negotiated the CBA, any such changes will likely be a long way off...