RE: General Vikes Talk

RE: General Vikes Talk (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk

Message

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:19:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: David F. I don't care didily squat if Hunter is a Viking for life. I want him on the field THIS season. To make that happen he needs a new deal. Right now he makes Yannick Ngakoue money. Let that sink in a bit. Rest assured he has. Without him playing this season the team has NO chance of doing anything substantial. Obviously make it contingent on him passing a physical (as every contract already is). He has a deal. And a pretty good one. Yannick Ngakoue is vastly overpaid. Hunter signed the deal. He missed an entire year. He's very good if healthy but he needs to prove he's healthy. If he goes out there an dominates this year I will be all for him renegotiating his contract. but he missed all of last year with a neck injury. He has to show he is completely healthy and return to dominate. If he doesn't play, he loses money and nobody will eventually sign him for more because of the attitude and injury history. He doesn't have as much leverage as people think IMO This is naïve beyond belief---I don't think you even believe this. If he's available, I guarantee he signs a contract that is more lucrative than his current contract. He's talking about after Hunter sits out this year. Also Hunter would only be available in trade so the team would have to give the Vikings compensation. Then what if Hunter is still unwilling to report so the team has no indication of how damaged the goods are. You want to be the team that gives up 2 FRPs and 25 million a year for Hunter? I think Hunter does have to soften his stance and report to show that he is still a great player. I can't see a team being willing to do what Hunter wants if he remains unwilling to show he's OK.

ronhextall -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:20:07 AM)
I wouldn't pay Hunter more, he has a lot to prove. If he wants to sit out let him. I understand my opinion will not change what happens.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:20:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: The Happy Norseman quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro Seems to me Hunter has to bite the bullet and show he's still the same guy. Some kind of gentleman's agreement needs to be reached. After all he is closer to the beginning of his 5 year deal than the end of it. I don't see that happening. Hunter's agent will, no doubt, keep him from softening his stance. You can stand on the principle of setting a bad precedent. I accept that. The reality is that if the Vikings stand firm on that point, then Danielle Hunter has likely played his last game for the Vikings. I agree about the "gentleman's agreement" but disagree on your second point. If the Vikings play hardball, what are Hunter's options? Sit out and forfeit 13mil. Then what? He's still under contract. Is he going to do the same thing all over again next year? And no one is trading for a guy who hasn't played in a year and had neck surgery. His current deal for this year is the best he's going to get. The only leverage Hunter has is the fact that he (was) a dominant DE, that Zimmer needs to run his D the way he likes. If I'm Spielman I'd sign Melvin Ingram to a one year deal. You better believe Hunter would show up to camp then. Do you really think the Vikings are going to let a situation like that drag out? It will be detrimental to the team as well as Hunter. Things progress to the burned bridge stage pretty rapidly. Just my opinion, but I think these things ultimately play out to where there is either a new contract or the player gets traded.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:23:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall I wouldn't pay Hunter more, he has a lot to prove. If he wants to sit out let him. I understand my opinion will not change what happens. People keep saying this. What does Hunter have to prove? That he is the best pass rusher in football? He's done that. That he is healthy enough to play? The doctors will determine that. He wouldn't be allowed to take the field or sign a new contract if he wasn't.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:23:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: The Happy Norseman quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro Seems to me Hunter has to bite the bullet and show he's still the same guy. Some kind of gentleman's agreement needs to be reached. After all he is closer to the beginning of his 5 year deal than the end of it. I don't see that happening. Hunter's agent will, no doubt, keep him from softening his stance. You can stand on the principle of setting a bad precedent. I accept that. The reality is that if the Vikings stand firm on that point, then Danielle Hunter has likely played his last game for the Vikings. I agree about the "gentleman's agreement" but disagree on your second point. If the Vikings play hardball, what are Hunter's options? Sit out and forfeit 13mil. Then what? He's still under contract. Is he going to do the same thing all over again next year? And no one is trading for a guy who hasn't played in a year and had neck surgery. His current deal for this year is the best he's going to get. The only leverage Hunter has is the fact that he (was) a dominant DE, that Zimmer needs to run his D the way he likes. If I'm Spielman I'd sign Melvin Ingram to a one year deal. You better believe Hunter would show up to camp then. Do you really think the Vikings are going to let a situation like that drag out? It will be detrimental to the team as well as Hunter. Things progress to the burned bridge stage pretty rapidly. Just my opinion, but I think these things ultimately play out to where there is either a new contract or the player gets traded. Why doesn't Hunter report? If he's ready to roll reporting would improve his position.

Todd M -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:26:50 AM)
I feel I want to pay Hunter whatever he wants and then roll. I think both parties should be willing to revisit this next year with no hard feelings.

bohumm -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:52:35 AM)
It's also worth noting that Hunter has done nothing wrong to this point; all he's done is forfeit offseason workout money that had specific conditions tied to optional activities. Even sitting out mini-camp is not that huge. The Vikings can choose their course, and if the "precedent" is that the best players in the league get special treatment, I don't see that as a big deal. A) Welcome to the real world, where privilege--earned and unearned--permeates everything, and B) The application of said "precedent" is that you're dealing with another "best player in the league." This is not a vital societal issue; this is entertainment. And to the extent that it is somehow a vital thing that means something integral to society somehow, it's always worth remembering that the Vikings are a publicly subsidized private company that returns massive profits to the team's billionaire owners, whose investment also has appreciated rapidly in large part thanks to that public subsidy. So "the way things work" doesn't apply in the way that some people seem to think it does.

bohumm -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:58:05 AM)
Do the Vikings give back ticket money when they suck? Can we make this a "prove-it" year before we renew/buy tickets or pay for the Sunday Ticket? "What? You sucked in your subsidized stadium and now you want to raise prices? How about we see how you do this year and then I promise I'll make it up to you?"

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 9:59:54 AM)
In regards to setting precedent - this isn't a federal court. Therefore there's no such thing as setting precedent. Imagine this future scenario. Team: Hey Agent Jones we noticed your guy isn't reporting to camp Agent Jones(AJ): That's right. He wants a better deal. Team: We love him but he's only slightly above average and our deal is close to fair AJ: Yeah well since you redid Danielle Hunter's deal that time you are obligated to redo it for us too. Team: Go shit in a hat. And leave the door open on your way out.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 10:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm It's also worth noting that Hunter has done nothing wrong to this point; all he's done is forfeit offseason workout money that had specific conditions tied to optional activities. Even sitting out mini-camp is not that huge. The Vikings can choose their course, and if the "precedent" is that the best players in the league get special treatment, I don't see that as a big deal. A) Welcome to the real world, where privilege--earned and unearned--permeates everything, and B) The application of said "precedent" is that you're dealing with another "best player in the league." This is not a vital societal issue; this is entertainment. And to the extent that it is somehow a vital thing that means something integral to society somehow, it's always worth remembering that the Vikings are a publicly subsidized private company that returns massive profits to the team's billionaire owners, whose investment also has appreciated rapidly in large part thanks to that public subsidy. So "the way things work" doesn't apply in the way that some people seem to think it does. Absolutely true. Lot's of people are speculating about him not honoring his contract, but so far he has not violated his contract in any way.

ratoppenheimer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 10:23:28 AM)
. . the vikings don't have a hell of a lot of money available...only $11m in 2021 and spielman isn't done shopping...only $15m in 2022, and harrison, barr, and others are not signed yet....

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 10:25:20 AM)
Don't be very surprised if Browning is the primary backup to Kirk this year. Reports are he remains firmly ahead of Mond and Stanley for the #2 QB role.

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 10:35:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer . . the vikings don't have a hell of a lot of money available...only $11m in 2021 and spielman isn't done shopping...only $15m in 2022, and harrison, barr, and others are not signed yet.... Actually redoing his contract may help the cap for 21-22.

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 10:36:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom Don't be very surprised if Browning is the primary backup to Kirk this year. Reports are he remains firmly ahead of Mond and Stanley for the #2 QB role. I am not surprised on June 11th; I would be August 25th. Mond probably has had the playbook just a few weeks.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 10:38:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom Don't be very surprised if Browning is the primary backup to Kirk this year. Reports are he remains firmly ahead of Mond and Stanley for the #2 QB role. I am not surprised on June 11th; I would be August 25th. Mond probably has had the playbook just a few weeks. Agreed. They aren't going to shake up the depth chart during OTA's or even mini-camp. Training camp will tell the story.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 10:44:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom Don't be very surprised if Browning is the primary backup to Kirk this year. Reports are he remains firmly ahead of Mond and Stanley for the #2 QB role. I am not surprised on June 11th; I would be August 25th. Mond probably has had the playbook just a few weeks. Agreed. They aren't going to shake up the depth chart during OTA's or even mini-camp. Training camp will tell the story. I said don't be very surprised. I will be mildly surprised if Mond doesn't eventually win the backup role. I won't be very surprised if Browning does. I know this isn't a strong stance I'm taking. [&:] [:o]

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 10:46:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom quote: ORIGINAL: David F. Yes they will pay a player who is injured during the season for as long as he’s injured - that season. Then they can cut them at the end of the season. They don’t get the rest of the remaining years compensation. Nope did you read any of what I posted. Here is my statement that you disputed and tried to act like I was an idiot. If Hunter can never play again the Vikings will still be paying him what? Another $40 million? Once again note I stated can NEVER PLAY AGAIN. If Hunter can no longer play the Vikings are on the hook for every penny of the remainder of his contract. They can't cut him and weasel out. Just admit you were wrong. It's not that big a deal. OK. If Hunter is paralyzed or blinded then the team owes him his entire contract. In that 0.004% of injury scenarios you are correct. In the world of reality I'm correct. I said can never play again. As in no possibility of ever playing again. That would mean he doesn't get cleared by doctors, he doesn't settle and the Vikings would have to pay everything. However, we can drop it now. You can look at it your way and be right in that sense. In the same paragraph you also said "He's already protected in case of a practice injury". With that statement at the end I surmised your point and understanding to be that Hunter had no worries because all contracts are guaranteed for injury - which is not the case. Somewhere along the course of the conversation you changed it to career ending injury where the scenario is that Hunter couldn't get cleared by a doctor to take the field again. 99.9% of football injuries are not the type that keep a player from getting back on the field or getting medically cleared to play. They do however, very often keep a player from returning to his former level of athleticism which in turn gets him cut or signed to a contract that is a fraction of what he would have got pre-injury. This is the type of injury Hunter IS concerned about. So you were dead wrong in your statement that "he's already protected in case of a practice injury". All the good will has come from the Vikings. The signing bonus and paying him for not playing last year. If Hunter can never play again the Vikings will still be paying him what? Another $40 million? To show good faith Hunter should honor his contract by showing up to any mandatory activities. Show the Vikings he is fully healed and the Vikings will compensate him like they always do their own. I agree with you that Hunter assuming health is critical, but why would he have a problem doing what I suggest unless something is wrong with him? He's already protected in case of a practice injury.

Tom Sykes -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 11:05:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall I wouldn't pay Hunter more, he has a lot to prove. If he wants to sit out let him. I understand my opinion will not change what happens. People keep saying this. 1) What does Hunter have to prove? That he is the best pass rusher in football? He's done that. 2) That he is healthy enough to play? The doctors will determine that. He wouldn't be allowed to take the field or sign a new contract if he wasn't. 1) Hunter has to prove he is the same post-injury to what he was pre-injury. That is JUST to show he is worthy of the existing 'bad' contract he is trying to break, much less a new contract. Agree to re-evaluate / renegotiate after midseason or whatever. But not in June. 2) The doctors can greenlight him to play only ... there is no way of knowing how ready he is to take the punishment of the sport ... today, or the first game of the season, or the season in general. Vastly different from saying there are no guarantees that a healthy player may get injured. The neck injury is now a PRE-EXISTING condition which changes everything. IMO the Vikings would be stupid to redo Hunter's contract with more guaranteed money before he is on the field looking like pre-injury Hunter. Frankly, he won't get near a position-defining-contract now but he might if he is playing at full-speed.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 11:06:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom quote: ORIGINAL: David F. Yes they will pay a player who is injured during the season for as long as he’s injured - that season. Then they can cut them at the end of the season. They don’t get the rest of the remaining years compensation. Nope did you read any of what I posted. Here is my statement that you disputed and tried to act like I was an idiot. If Hunter can never play again the Vikings will still be paying him what? Another $40 million? Once again note I stated can NEVER PLAY AGAIN. If Hunter can no longer play the Vikings are on the hook for every penny of the remainder of his contract. They can't cut him and weasel out. Just admit you were wrong. It's not that big a deal. OK. If Hunter is paralyzed or blinded then the team owes him his entire contract. In that 0.004% of injury scenarios you are correct. In the world of reality I'm correct. I said can never play again. As in no possibility of ever playing again. That would mean he doesn't get cleared by doctors, he doesn't settle and the Vikings would have to pay everything. However, we can drop it now. You can look at it your way and be right in that sense. In the same paragraph you also said "He's already protected in case of a practice injury". With that statement at the end I surmised your point and understanding to be that Hunter had no worries because all contracts are guaranteed for injury - which is not the case. Somewhere along the course of the conversation you changed it to career ending injury where the scenario is that Hunter couldn't get cleared by a doctor to take the field again. 99.9% of football injuries are not the type that keep a player from getting back on the field or getting medically cleared to play. They do however, very often keep a player from returning to his former level of athleticism which in turn gets him cut or signed to a contract that is a fraction of what he would have got pre-injury. This is the type of injury Hunter IS concerned about. So you were dead wrong in your statement that "he's already protected in case of a practice injury". All the good will has come from the Vikings. The signing bonus and paying him for not playing last year. If Hunter can never play again the Vikings will still be paying him what? Another $40 million? To show good faith Hunter should honor his contract by showing up to any mandatory activities. Show the Vikings he is fully healed and the Vikings will compensate him like they always do their own. I agree with you that Hunter assuming health is critical, but why would he have a problem doing what I suggest unless something is wrong with him? He's already protected in case of a practice injury. OK I got it. No player should ever report to camp because they aren't protected against a practice injury. If they get injured during practice they will never get another dime. Yes Hyperbole.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 11:08:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall I wouldn't pay Hunter more, he has a lot to prove. If he wants to sit out let him. I understand my opinion will not change what happens. People keep saying this. 1) What does Hunter have to prove? That he is the best pass rusher in football? He's done that. 2) That he is healthy enough to play? The doctors will determine that. He wouldn't be allowed to take the field or sign a new contract if he wasn't. 1) Hunter has to prove he is the same post-injury to what he was pre-injury. That is JUST to show he is worthy of the existing 'bad' contract he is trying to break, much less a new contract. Agree to re-evaluate / renegotiate after midseason or whatever. But not in June. 2) The doctors can greenlight him to play only ... there is no way of knowing how ready he is to take the punishment of the sport ... today, or the first game of the season, or the season in general. Vastly different from saying there are no guarantees that a healthy player may get injured. The neck injury is now a PRE-EXISTING condition which changes everything. IMO the Vikings would be stupid to redo Hunter's contract with more guaranteed money before he is on the field looking like pre-injury Hunter. Frankly, he won't get near a position-defining-contract now but he might if he is playing at full-speed. Hunter not reporting not only hurts the Vikings it hurts himself. It's a lose/lose strategy. Hopefully Hunter reports to mandatory camp. If he doesn't than he is clearly not willing to bet on himself. Great point about the Doctors being unable to say if he will return to form. All they can do is give him medical clearance to play. If Hunter does not play for the Vikings this year it will be a crying shame.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 11:16:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall I wouldn't pay Hunter more, he has a lot to prove. If he wants to sit out let him. I understand my opinion will not change what happens. People keep saying this. 1) What does Hunter have to prove? That he is the best pass rusher in football? He's done that. 2) That he is healthy enough to play? The doctors will determine that. He wouldn't be allowed to take the field or sign a new contract if he wasn't. 1) Hunter has to prove he is the same post-injury to what he was pre-injury. That is JUST to show he is worthy of the existing 'bad' contract he is trying to break, much less a new contract. Agree to re-evaluate / renegotiate after midseason or whatever. But not in June. 2) The doctors can greenlight him to play only ... there is no way of knowing how ready he is to take the punishment of the sport ... today, or the first game of the season, or the season in general. Vastly different from saying there are no guarantees that a healthy player may get injured. The neck injury is now a PRE-EXISTING condition which changes everything. IMO the Vikings would be stupid to redo Hunter's contract with more guaranteed money before he is on the field looking like pre-injury Hunter. Frankly, he won't get near a position-defining-contract now but he might if he is playing at full-speed. The doctors can determine if his neck is structurally sound. If it is, then it won't be a limiting factor to his performance. Like I said, I can understand taking the hard line stand. I just don't think anyone should be surprised if it results in Hunter playing somewhere else.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 11:38:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall I wouldn't pay Hunter more, he has a lot to prove. If he wants to sit out let him. I understand my opinion will not change what happens. People keep saying this. 1) What does Hunter have to prove? That he is the best pass rusher in football? He's done that. 2) That he is healthy enough to play? The doctors will determine that. He wouldn't be allowed to take the field or sign a new contract if he wasn't. 1) Hunter has to prove he is the same post-injury to what he was pre-injury. That is JUST to show he is worthy of the existing 'bad' contract he is trying to break, much less a new contract. Agree to re-evaluate / renegotiate after midseason or whatever. But not in June. 2) The doctors can greenlight him to play only ... there is no way of knowing how ready he is to take the punishment of the sport ... today, or the first game of the season, or the season in general. Vastly different from saying there are no guarantees that a healthy player may get injured. The neck injury is now a PRE-EXISTING condition which changes everything. IMO the Vikings would be stupid to redo Hunter's contract with more guaranteed money before he is on the field looking like pre-injury Hunter. Frankly, he won't get near a position-defining-contract now but he might if he is playing at full-speed. The doctors can determine if his neck is structurally sound. If it is, then it won't be a limiting factor to his performance. Like I said, I can understand taking the hard line stand. I just don't think anyone should be surprised if it results in Hunter playing somewhere else. What do you consider a hard line stand? His contract is 2 years old and he played one year of it. Is asking him to report to camp and show he's healthy before tearing up his old contract and replacing it with a top 5 DE contract a hard line?

ronhextall -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 11:44:54 AM)
Hunter may be cleared to play and healthy enough to play but that doesn't automatically mean he will be like he was.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 11:49:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall Hunter may be cleared to play and healthy enough to play but that doesn't automatically mean he will be like he was. Eggzactly.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 11:56:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall Hunter may be cleared to play and healthy enough to play but that doesn't automatically mean he will be like he was. True enough. There is no guarantee about a players level of performance in a coming year, whether he has been injured or not. It's one of the things for the Vikings could weigh. Something tells me the Vikings aren't too concerned about how he will perform. Otherwise, I believe they would have put a lot more resources into bringing in a pass rusher. I just believe that if Hunter's position is that he is not playing without a new deal and the Vikings position is that are not willing to negotiate unless he proves he is still the same player, chances are that this will end in a trade.

Page: << < prev 103 104 [105] 106 107 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode