Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 102
  1. #21
    Mr. Purple's Avatar
    Mr. Purple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,005

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for us

    No..that cant be right. We had more cap then we had last year(correct me if im wrong) and we signed even more players, and bigger names. So whoever wrote that has to wrong.

    Theres NOTHING greater then a Florida Gator!
    "I promise everyone this. When Childress is let go in two years I can honestly say this.
    "I am not surprised"."-PurplePackerEater

  2. #22
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for us

    "rdknieff" wrote:
    noticed this bit here at http://blog.lib.umn.edu/maasx003/Vikings/

    Not including Hutchinson’s salary cap hit, the Vikings have already spent approximately $19 million of their approximately $33 million in cap space for 2006. Should the Seahawks fail to match the Vikings’ tender to Hutchinson, the Vikings will have spent approximately $32 million of their $33 million in cap space with several holes left to be filled and rookies left to be signed.

    Will we REALLY only have $1 million in cap space if we sign Hutch?!!! I mean, I know we've spent some dough but dang! Tell me this ain't true....
    No when we get rid of Culpepper we will have 3 something and I am sure there are other ways around the cap to make it work for us.

    AKA the redskins.

  3. #23
    PurplePeopleEaters's Avatar
    PurplePeopleEaters is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,901

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    Hahahahahha

    Oh it looks fine for us. They won't be able to sign him, and he wants to play for the Vikings. The "poison pill" and the fact that his own agent took part in making it will definately keep Hutch from being signed by the Seahawks.

    He should be in purple next year.

    What will happen though is Mckinnie will be gone at the end of the season. I can't say I'm sad I think he is highly overated. Between the Culpepper issue and this new guy getting a massive contract Mckinnie will want the ranch, we can't give it to him though or else we get stuck paying Hutch 52 million.

    So if your a Mckinnie fan cherish this season.
    :sad:

  4. #24
    rdknieff's Avatar
    rdknieff is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    205

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    "rdknieff" wrote:
    noticed this bit here at http://blog.lib.umn.edu/maasx003/Vikings/

    Not including Hutchinson’s salary cap hit, the Vikings have already spent approximately $19 million of their approximately $33 million in cap space for 2006. Should the Seahawks fail to match the Vikings’ tender to Hutchinson, the Vikings will have spent approximately $32 million of their $33 million in cap space with several holes left to be filled and rookies left to be signed.

    Will we REALLY only have $1 million in cap space if we sign Hutch?!!! I mean, I know we've spent some dough but dang! Tell me this ain't true....
    No when we get rid of Culpepper we will have 3 something and I am sure there are other ways around the cap to make it work for us.

    AKA the redskins.
    We BETTER hope we can trade Daunte for sho now! Looks like otherwise we will HAVE to cut him.... All you Daunte supporters better wake up now......if he stays ON the team, well, we're gonna be a little screwed.
    ----------------------------------YESSSSS!--------------------------

  5. #25
    Prophet Guest

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    Hahahahahha

    Oh it looks fine for us. They won't be able to sign him, and he wants to play for the Vikings. The "poison pill" and the fact that his own agent took part in making it will definately keep Hutch from being signed by the Seahawks.

    He should be in purple next year.

    What will happen though is Mckinnie will be gone at the end of the season. I can't say I'm sad I think he is highly overated. Between the Culpepper issue and this new guy getting a massive contract Mckinnie will want the ranch, we can't give it to him though or else we get stuck paying Hutch 52 million.

    So if your a Mckinnie fan cherish this season.
    I think McKinnie's contract is until the 2009 season. So, hopefully, that won't even be an issue.

  6. #26
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for us

    That number has to be wrong..

    Wahle got a contract last year that was only a million less..

    And the Panthers still had plenty of room..

    I do see how 4 players would make our cap drop so far.. It isn't right..

    Wilf isn't that stupid to leave 1 million to resign a few more players.. and sign a couple more and sign our rookies

  7. #27
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for

    Why do you have to ruin my fun Prophet?

  8. #28
    DCPologirl is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,280

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for

    "rdknieff" wrote:
    "Del Rio" wrote:
    "rdknieff" wrote:
    noticed this bit here at http://blog.lib.umn.edu/maasx003/Vikings/

    Not including Hutchinson’s salary cap hit, the Vikings have already spent approximately $19 million of their approximately $33 million in cap space for 2006. Should the Seahawks fail to match the Vikings’ tender to Hutchinson, the Vikings will have spent approximately $32 million of their $33 million in cap space with several holes left to be filled and rookies left to be signed.

    Will we REALLY only have $1 million in cap space if we sign Hutch?!!! I mean, I know we've spent some dough but dang! Tell me this ain't true....
    No when we get rid of Culpepper we will have 3 something and I am sure there are other ways around the cap to make it work for us.

    AKA the redskins.
    We BETTER hope we can trade Daunte for sho now! Looks like otherwise we will HAVE to cut him.... All you Daunte supporters better wake up now......if he stays ON the team, well, we're gonna be a little screwed.
    And if we cut a franchise quarterback that will be absolutely ridiculously stupid.

    DCPologirl:Maybe Randy will make Aaron Brooks look better......roflmao Del Rio: I guarantee he will

  9. #29
    Prophet Guest

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    Why do you have to ruin my fun Prophet?
    :lol: , I know you have plenty of 'pot boiling' ideas. Your fun is still intact.

  10. #30
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: It's simple: Hawks must sign Hutch, doesnt look good for us

    I tryed to find the updated cap rooms after signings but couldn't seem to find it on google..

    Anyone have an idea where to get that?

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Good sign for today's game
    By Vikingswillrule in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-21-2008, 11:41 AM
  2. Doesnt everyone here think The Vikings are as good as the Bears
    By soonerbornNbred in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-12-2008, 06:14 PM
  3. Is it a good sign?
    By scottishvike in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-08-2006, 10:40 PM
  4. Good sign for Sunday?
    By shockzilla in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-18-2004, 04:13 AM
  5. Not a good sign
    By vikings minnesoulija in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-20-2004, 09:50 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •