Welcome to PatsFans.com

"Reductio Ad Absurdum"

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by AzPatsFan, Mar 25, 2006.

  1. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,184
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +224 / 20 / -10

    I see where the Seahawks have fired another shot in the Hutchison war. They have offered a reserve Minneapolis WR, a so called $49 million offer, "guaranteed "if he plays 5 games in any year in Minneapolis (i.e stays in Minneapolis). Burleson did not get $49 million. As a matter of fact he will get nothing, if I am correct

    There is an old principle of logic called "Reductio ad absurdum" in which you demonstrate the falseness and fatuity of a supposed logical choice, by tracing it to its absurd extreme. Its used in mathematics and the Law as a method of argument.

    The Seahawks are excised about the theft of Hutchinson by Minneapolis, and the apparent willingnesss of the League to go along with the "poison pill" that prevented them from competing for thier All-Pro player.

    They are determined to get the Hutchison ruling overturned, and the Burleson maneuver is just that. If the Hutchison, and consequently the Burleson reduction to absurdity, is allowed ot stand, than the whole system of FA collapses.

    When players complete their contracts they would be free to sign anywhere with no compensation. This would destroy the basis of the just signed CBA. Players would never sign anything but one year agreements or only fully guaranteed longer constracts, if this were allowed to continue.

    Well done on the part of the Seahawks legal staff.

    I predict the League will be forced to negate the Hutchinson deal and consequently the Burleson absurd "phoney offer" as well.

    For the Patriots it means that Burleson is, or will shortly be, still on the market.
  2. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I am not sure the league will do that..I agree these poison pills are bad..but????
  3. smg93

    smg93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The league has to do something about these poison pill provisions. It should be something to the effect that if you put a "guarantee type provision on a contract with a franchised player, you should be willing to pay that same price as well if the offer is not matched. This sets a bad precedent if the league doesn't do anything about this. It could be extremely messy in the future because poison pills may become even standard contract language and it would certainly make free agency moves much tougher. In the end, this may have been great for Hutchinson but other players who follow this road may in fact suffer the opposite. They might get a lowball offer after an injury year for instance and be forced to sign a contract with a poison pill that would make it extremely difficult for him to become a true Free Agent when his contract is up. I would imagine that the NFLPA has to look into these contracts a little more closely because while it worked to the player's advantage this time, it may not happen that way again next time.
  4. cubedoggy

    cubedoggy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    While Burleson's renewed availability on the market might be a good thing for the Pats, I don't see why this is a good thing in the larger sense.

    Front offices are given a set of rules in which to operate, like the players on the field. Why shouldn't they exploit them? How else might they be changed?

    Why?

    (Aside: Why are the Seahawks "excised?")

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>