PDA

View Full Version : More RUMORS on JA



wolfpack
04-20-2008, 12:38 PM
This mightbe a repost but i got if off another board.
Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2008, 8:47 a.m.
We received a text message and a phone call late Saturday/early Sunday from a league source who shared with us a curious development regarding the Minnesota Vikings’ ongoing efforts to acquire Kansas City Chiefs defensive end Jared Allen.

Per the source, the Vikings are “likely” to sign Allen to an offer sheet after next weekend’s draft, if a “fair” trade can’t be worked out before then.

The move meshes with the idea that came us to like an acorn to a blind squirrel on Saturday. With the Chiefs reportedly wanting a first-round pick and a second-round pick for Allen, why not simply nab Allen with a poison-pilled offer sheet and foist on the Chiefs the Vikings’ first-round picks in 2009 and 2010?

The fact that the Vikes apparenty plan to pursue this tactic is a strong indication that Allen’s visit to the Twin Cities has resulted in an agreement between the player and the Purple regarding the money that will be paid to the NFL’s sack leader in 2008.

But there’s a wild card in this scenario. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are reportedly interested in Allen, and could be squeezed into besting the Vikings’ pre-draft trade offer if the Bucs know that Allen would otherwise be poised to sign a post-draft offer sheet in Minnesota.

Then again, if Allen has made up his mind that he wants to play in the land of 10,000 lakes (but hopefully not 0.10 percent BAC), the Bucs will be out of the picture, and the question will be whether the Vikings get him before the draft, or after it.

A couple of readers have asked us whether the Vikings could sign Allen to an offer sheet right now, since it’s less than seven days before the first day of the draft. But even though a team with a franchise player has up to seven days to decide whether to match an offer sheet that he signs, the team can also decide before the seven days expire to not match it. In this case, doing so would give the Chiefs the Vikings’ first-round picks in 2008 and 2009.

And since the Chiefs would surely prefer to get extra draft picks for Allen right now (especially since G.M. Carl Peterson might not be around to use picks in 2009 and/or 2010), it’ll be critical for the Vikings to dust off the poison pill, if they want to be sure to acquire Allen. Otherwise, the Vikes will have merely negotiated on the Chiefs’ behalf Allen’s long-term contract to stay in Kansas City.

Permalink | Comments Back to Top
VIKES CAN SIGN ALLEN POST-DRAFT
Posted by Mike Florio on April 19, 2008, 11:04 p.m.
Earlier on Saturday, we floated the possibility of the Minnesota Vikings signing Kansas City Chiefs defensive end Jared Allen to an offer sheet after the 2008 draft. If the Chiefs choose not to match the offer, they would be stuck with the Vikings’ first-round draft picks in 2009 and 2010.

Several readers asked whether such a move would be permissible, citing the Friday, April 18 deadline for signing players to offer sheets. Though vague, the CBA seemed to indicate that the pre-draft deadline applies only to restricted free agents, and not to franchise players. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed for us that there is no pre-draft deadline for signing franchise players to offer sheets.

Thus, if the Vikings believe that the team is going to be a solid contender over the next few years in a so-so NFC North (especially after Brett Favre’s retirement), why not make the run at Allen after the draft? The first-round picks in 2009 and 2010 will be low.

They’ll be even lower if the players whom the Vikes land in a 2008 draft that is deep but not top-heavy become solid contributors.

In our view, it’s a no-brainer. The Vikings should sign Allen to an offer sheet with a poison pill the moment after exercising the 17th overall selection in round one. __________________

(http://rateyourmusic.com/%7EDireckshun)

wolfpack
04-20-2008, 12:41 PM
i also have read RUMORS that a 1st,3rd and McKinny for JA. Just rumors but makes for good gossip.

Guru
04-20-2008, 12:41 PM
Whatever happens, it will probably be on the bad side for the chiefs.

tornadospotter
04-20-2008, 01:00 PM
Whatever happens, it will probably be on the bad side for the chiefs.
Just losing Jared for any reason, is a bad side for us. I do wonder if cp is letting the vikes do the contract negotiations for him.

hermhater
04-20-2008, 03:37 PM
Stupid *** Carl never should have gotten us into this.

Jared was well within his rights to ask for top money and now he is gonna get it, and the Chiefs are gonna get screwed because of this sh!t.

This is turning into a f@rking goat rope!
:mob:

texaschief
04-20-2008, 04:20 PM
does anyone know what a "poison pill" is? i've never heard this term before.

hermhater
04-20-2008, 04:51 PM
does anyone know what a "poison pill" is? i've never heard this term before.

It is a term used to describe a negotiating tactic that will harm both teams, but one less than the other.

If the Vikes decide to sign him to a deal that Carl can't/won't match then we lose the guy, and the Vikes get him, but have to give up their 2 first round picks.

If they sign him after the draft we won't get the picks until 2009 and 2010, and we lose Allen this year without getting any picks for him.

The Vikes end up paying him more than we think he is worth so we don't have a chance of keeping him and we lose the negotiating power of a trade.

This is complete bullsh!t and it should be outlawed after what the Vikes did to Seattle last year, and they are gonna get away with this crap again, at the expense of the Chiefs.

You should have just given him the money Carl.

I'm glad this will be your last year in KC.

hermhater
04-20-2008, 05:38 PM
I still wonder what the "poison pill" clause in the offer sheet will be.

hermhater
04-20-2008, 05:46 PM
This is what went down between the Seahawks and Vikings last year.

And it's probably gonna happen to us this year, except Carl won't pay for any of their players.

:mob:




Seahawks sign WR Burleson to seven-year deal



Seeking another playmaker for their already potent offense, and looking for a little payback as well, the Seattle Seahawks (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=sea) on Friday evening signed Minnesota Vikings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=min) wide receiver Nate Burleson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6407) to a restricted free agent offer sheet worth $49 million over seven years.


Do those contract terms sound a little familiar? They should. The Vikings earlier this week spirited three-time Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5464), designated by Seattle as a transition free agent, away from the Seahawks with a seven-year, $49 million deal. Seattle declined to match the offer, and Hutchinson moved on to the Vikings, after the Seahawks lost an arbitration case in which they challenged some so-called "poison pill" provisions of the offer sheet.


There have been rumors for about a week that Burleson, who recently visited with Seahawks officials, might sign a Seattle offer sheet. But the added element of revenge -- and there is little doubt the similarity to the Hutchinson contract was more than coincidental -- certainly provides a delicious twist.
It should be interesting to see how top officials from the two franchises interact when the annual league meetings convene in Orlando, Fla., on Monday morning. The weather in Orlando for next week already is forecast as cool, and the relationship between the Vikings and Seahawks is a bit chillier after Friday.

The offer sheet that Burleson signed on Friday with the Seahawks features not only the same number of years and the same amount of total payout as the Hutchinson contract, but also includes two "poison pills" that will make it virtually impossible for the Vikings to match.


Minnesota has seven days to match the offer sheet, keep Burleson, and essentially inherit the terms of the contract negotiated by the Seahawks with the three-year veteran wide receiver. If the Vikings decline to match, they will receive Seattle's third-round choice in this year's draft as compensation. The Vikings retained a right of first refusal on Burleson by making him a restricted free agent qualifying offer of $712,000 earlier this month.
To match the deal, though, the Vikings will have to swallow hard. Beyond the size of the total payout and a total of $5.25 million in guarantees, are two devious provisions.


The first would guarantee the entire contract, all $49 million, if Burleson plays five or more games in the state of Minnesota in any season of the contract. The Vikings, of course, play home games in Minneapolis, at the Metrodome there. The second bizarre provision would guarantee the full contract if Burleson is paid more on average per year than all of the Minnesota running backs combined. At least for now, the averages of the Vikings' tailbacks fall well shy of the $7 million average of the Burleson offer sheet.


It should be recalled that, when the Vikings signed Hutchinson to his offer sheet, they wrote into the deal a provision that guaranteed the full contract if the star guard was not the highest paid lineman on the team. The Vikings knew that Seattle could not match the offer, since Pro Bowl left tackle Walter Jones (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3949) has a contract that averages more than Hutchinson's deal.


Before deciding whether to match the offer sheet, Minnesota officials may challenge the "poison pill" provisions, as did the Seahawks with Hutchinson's contract. Minnesota likely could have avoided the raid on Burleson had the Vikings, who possessed more than enough salary cap space, made him a higher qualifying offer, one that carried a loftier price tag in terms of compensatory picks.


By choosing to tender Burleson's lowest-level qualifying offer, the Vikings made him as easy target for teams to poach, given that it would cost them just a third-round draft choice as compensation. At that price, Burleson was one of the real steals of the restricted free agent talent pool, and Seattle, appropriately, attempted to pilfer the talented wideout.


In three seasons, Burleson has 127 receptions for 1,789 yards and 12 touchdowns. The former Nevada star, a third-round pick in the 2003 draft, has appeared in 47 games and started 33 of them. He had a seeming breakout year in 2004, when he posted 68 catches for 1,006 yards and nine touchdowns, but his numbers dropped off in 2005, when injuries limited Burleson to nine starts.


Around the NFL, however, Burleson, just 24, is regarded as an ascending talent, a wide receiver capable of 70 or more catches annually and of consistent 1,000-yard seasons.


Were the Seahawks to secure Burleson, who played at O'Dea High School in Seattle, he probably would join Darrell Jackson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5109) in the starting lineup. That would allow veteran Bobby Engram (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3512), a starter in 2005, to return to his more natural role as the No. 3 receiver working out of the slot.




http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2383020



Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.

chief31
04-20-2008, 05:48 PM
does anyone know what a "poison pill" is? i've never heard this term before.

The "Poison Pill" is putting an unmatchable stipulation in a contract.

For example...

"If Jared has to play any AFC west team twice in any single regular season, then he will get a salary bonus of $700-million dollars per season, for the remainder of the contracts length."

Obviously, the Chiefs are not capable of matching that offer, because then Jared would play all three AFC west teams twice, easily assuring that he would earn $700-million per year, for the remainder of his contract. Breaking the salary cap

But the Vikings can get away with that offer because they aren't going to play any AFC West opponent twice in a regular season, ever.

hermhater
04-20-2008, 05:54 PM
The "Poison Pill" is putting an unmatchable stipulation in a contract.

For example...

"If Jared has to play any AFC west team twice in any single regular season, then he will get a salary bonus of $700-million dollars per season, for the remainder of the contracts length."

Obviously, the Chiefs are not capable of matching that offer, because then Jared would play all three AFC west teams twice, easily assuring that he would earn $700-million per year, for the remainder of his contract. Breaking the salary cap

But the Vikings can get away with that offer because they aren't going to play any AFC West opponent twice in a regular season, ever.

Much better explanation, I was trying to think of what type of clause they would include.

:sign0098:

rbedgood
04-21-2008, 05:38 PM
does anyone know what a "poison pill" is? i've never heard this term before.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I didn't want to forget to come back and answer this.

I saw HH's explanation in the next post, but I also posted an example of a "poison pill" in another thread...

The Vikings could simply give Jared Allen a roster bonus for games against AFC West opponents...say $500,000. This would cost the Vikings $2,000,000 every fourth year, but would cost the Chiefs $6,000,000 every year...thus making matching the contract prohibitive for the Chiefs.

The Vikings have done this in the past with other restricted free agents (Steve Hutchinson comes to mind).

PawnshopMarimba
04-21-2008, 05:56 PM
Wish I could say I was surprised, but this is what CP does. Ship out the talent to other teams.

hermhater
04-21-2008, 06:20 PM
I haven't read the entire thread, but I didn't want to forget to come back and answer this.

I saw HH's explanation in the next post, but I also posted an example of a "poison pill" in another thread...

The Vikings could simply give Jared Allen a roster bonus for games against AFC West opponents...say $500,000. This would cost the Vikings $2,000,000 every fourth year, but would cost the Chiefs $6,000,000 every year...thus making matching the contract prohibitive for the Chiefs.

The Vikings have done this in the past with other restricted free agents (Steve Hutchinson comes to mind).

Perfect scenario.

:sign0098:


Wish I could say I was surprised, but this is what CP does. Ship out the talent to other teams.

Nothing Carl does surprises me anymore.

:mob:

Canada
04-21-2008, 06:52 PM
Yeah, we never have any good players in KC.

hermhater
04-21-2008, 06:55 PM
Yeah, we never have any good players in KC.

:sign0103:

Canada
04-21-2008, 06:58 PM
:sign0103:

:beer:

hermhater
04-21-2008, 07:01 PM
:beer:

Take your pick, but you only get one!

:11:

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/04/125.jpg

tornadospotter
04-21-2008, 07:17 PM
I haven't read the entire thread, but I didn't want to forget to come back and answer this.

I saw HH's explanation in the next post, but I also posted an example of a "poison pill" in another thread...

The Vikings could simply give Jared Allen a roster bonus for games against AFC West opponents...say $500,000. This would cost the Vikings $2,000,000 every fourth year, but would cost the Chiefs $6,000,000 every year...thus making matching the contract prohibitive for the Chiefs.

The Vikings have done this in the past with other restricted free agents (Steve Hutchinson comes to mind).
would that bonus count against the cap?

hermhater
04-21-2008, 07:18 PM
would that bonus count against the cap?

I'm sure it will, and even if it didn't Clark would never allow that much to be paid out.

tornadospotter
04-21-2008, 07:21 PM
[quote=hermhater;82676]Take your pick, but you only get one of each!

:11::drunkhb: :bananen_smilies046: :bananen_smilies046: :bananen_smilies046: So share!
fyp

hermhater
04-21-2008, 07:25 PM
[quote=hermhater;82676]Take your pick, but you only get one of each!

:11::drunkhb: :bananen_smilies046: :bananen_smilies046: :bananen_smilies046: So share!
fyp

Not so much tornado!

I would say you butchered it!

:lol:

tornadospotter
04-21-2008, 07:41 PM
[quote=tornadospotter;82688]

Not so much tornado!

I would say you butchered it!

:lol:
and you would be correct! dang puters!:yahoo:

hermhater
04-21-2008, 07:43 PM
:lol:

Canada
04-21-2008, 11:02 PM
Take your pick, but you only get one!

:11:

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/04/125.jpg

Ok, I will take the left side. :bananen_smilies046:

anaeelbackwards
04-21-2008, 11:07 PM
Ok, I will take the left side. :bananen_smilies046:


the left side seems to have more,

but there is nothing like a good sip of GUINESS!:beer:

royalswin100games
04-21-2008, 11:09 PM
the left side seems to have more,

but there is nothing like a good sip of GUINESS!:beer:

Hatred doesn't like Guiness... pansy. :sign0104:

Canada
04-21-2008, 11:12 PM
the left side seems to have more,

but there is nothing like a good sip of GUINESS!:beer:

I factored that in to the decision but ultimately....quantity prevailed!! :drunkhb:

anaeelbackwards
04-21-2008, 11:15 PM
I factored that in to the decision but ultimately....quantity prevailed!! :drunkhb:


quantity over quality. i get it i get it.

im slowly changing my decision to head to the LEFT SIDE!

Canada
04-21-2008, 11:17 PM
I say we just beat up HH and take the whole damn thing!!

anaeelbackwards
04-21-2008, 11:20 PM
I say we just beat up HH and take the whole damn thing!!

are you suggesting we take advantage of HH?:11: :D

hermhater
04-21-2008, 11:20 PM
Ok, I will take the left side. :bananen_smilies046:

One BEER!

:11:


the left side seems to have more,

but there is nothing like a good sip of GUINESS!:beer:

Yuck!


Hatred doesn't like Guiness... pansy. :sign0104:

Who you callin' a :sign0104:, :sign0104:


I factored that in to the decision but ultimately....quantity prevailed!! :drunkhb:

:sign0098:


quantity over quality. i get it i get it.

im slowly changing my decision to head to the LEFT SIDE!



I changed my mind, the left side is mine, you each only get ONE Guinness!

:bananen_smilies046:

hermhater
04-21-2008, 11:21 PM
I say we just beat up HH and take the whole damn thing!!

NO!

:mob:

royalswin100games
04-21-2008, 11:27 PM
NO!

:mob:

WE'RE GONNA BALL YOU UP AND FORCE GUINESS DOWN YOUR THROAT THROUGH A NASAL CANULA!!! YOU'RE GONNA DRINK THE MOTOR OIL LIKE A MAN DAMNIT!!!

:toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2:

Canada
04-21-2008, 11:29 PM
WE'RE GONNA BALL YOU UP AND FORCE GUINESS DOWN YOUR THROAT THROUGH A NASAL CANULA!!! YOU'RE GONNA DRINK THE MOTOR OIL LIKE A MAN DAMNIT!!!

:toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2:

I am not sharing good beer with the midget!!

hermhater
04-21-2008, 11:30 PM
WE'RE GONNA BALL YOU UP AND FORCE GUINESS DOWN YOUR THROAT THROUGH A NASAL CANULA!!! YOU'RE GONNA DRINK THE MOTOR OIL LIKE A MAN DAMNIT!!!

:toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2: :toast2:

Not a chance.

I have the power of Natty Light on my side!

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/04/127.jpg

Canada
04-21-2008, 11:32 PM
Look....in the sky...its a tiny little bird....no....its a small child....no it HH as little tiny Natty Lite man.

royalswin100games
04-21-2008, 11:34 PM
Not a chance.

I have the power of Natty Light on my side!

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2008/04/127.jpg

Proud of your wussyness!!!

Polleo Pit Man
04-21-2008, 11:44 PM
Natturday is not a good day!

royalswin100games
04-21-2008, 11:45 PM
Natturday is not a good day!

This man is wise. :11:

hermhater
04-21-2008, 11:46 PM
Look....in the sky...its a tiny little bird....no....its a small child....no it HH as little tiny Natty Lite man.

:sign0098: :sign0104:


Proud of your wussyness!!!

:bananen_smilies046:


Natturday is not a good day!

:iamwithstupid:

Chiefster
04-21-2008, 11:47 PM
This is depressing!

tornadospotter
04-21-2008, 11:51 PM
This is depressing!
Dang it HH you was suppose to get some diet coke for chiefster!:toast2:

Chiefster
04-21-2008, 11:58 PM
Dang it HH you was suppose to get some diet coke for chiefster!:toast2:

Thank you for thinkin of the old guy! :wheelchair:

hermhater
04-21-2008, 11:59 PM
Dang it HH you was suppose to get some diet coke for chiefster!:toast2:


Thank you for thinkin of the old guy! :wheelchair:

I did over in my 15,000 post thread.

But what the heck, here ya go old man!



http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/

rbedgood
04-25-2008, 12:00 PM
would that bonus count against the cap?

That bonus would be in the "likely to be earned category" and would count against the cap before each year. If it was not earned it would then be refunded on the next years cap. Other bonuses which are in the "not likely to be earned" category are added in at the end of the year and subtracted from the following years adjusted cap.

Therein lies the problem with the poison pill. Obviously a trade was worked out, but lets say for a minute it hadn't been. If the Minnesota Vikings had offered JA a contract say 5 years $60 million but part of the $60 million was this "poison pill", the reality is matching the contract would cost the Chiefs 5 years and $70 million (an additional $10 million due to the fact that they have more games against AFC West opponents, "the poison pill")

anaeelbackwards
04-25-2008, 01:25 PM
anyone catch NFL LIVE yesterday? they had herm edwards on the phone...

Canada
04-25-2008, 03:11 PM
anyone catch NFL LIVE yesterday? they had herm edwards on the phone...
He has a phone? ....what's next, the internet?