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 12:08:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens 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. Has Hunter said he won't play without a new deal? I don't think he has. If the Vikings are willing to negotiate once Hunter proves he is the same player as 2019 that is a quite soft line stand on their part. We do need Hunter IMO at his 2019 level or better to have a realistic shot at doing big things this year. As Vikings fans let's all hope that Hunter reports to camp, plays great and the Vikings take steps to take care of him like we almost always do with our own.

ronhextall -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 12:09:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens 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. If you can trade him for a #1 pick of a team that likely is going to suck I would do it in a heartbeat. As an owner I would put the brakes on my GM if he wanted to trade a high #1 pick for a DL that hasn't played much in two years.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 12:14:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens 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. If you can trade him for a #1 pick of a team that likely is going to suck I would do it in a heartbeat. As an owner I would put the break on my GM if he wanted to trade a high #1 pick for a DL that hasn't played much in two years. The problem Ron is I don't think we win the Super Bowl without him and I would really like us to do that. 2019 Hunter would have fetched 2 FRPs I'm pretty sure, but future picks won't help us win it all this year.

ronhextall -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 12:17:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens 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. If you can trade him for a #1 pick of a team that likely is going to suck I would do it in a heartbeat. As an owner I would put the break on my GM if he wanted to trade a high #1 pick for a DL that hasn't played much in two years. The problem Ron is I don't think we win the Super Bowl without him and I would really like us to do that. 2019 Hunter would have fetched 2 FRPs I'm pretty sure, but future picks won't help us win it all this year. Time will tell. Just my opinion. Be interesting to see how it plays out. Nothing will really upset me no matter how it goes.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 12:19:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens 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. If you can trade him for a #1 pick of a team that likely is going to suck I would do it in a heartbeat. As an owner I would put the brakes on my GM if he wanted to trade a high #1 pick for a DL that hasn't played much in two years. What do mean 2 years? He missed 1 year. I'm pretty much with bohumm. This really isn't too big of an issue until training camp. There is no harm in the Vikings sitting down and seeing if something reasonable can be worked out.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 12:48:18 PM)
If you've got to give him more make it all incentivized. Number of games played, sacks, pressures, fumbles caused/recovered etc and if he meets a designated percentage of those incentives thenhe can opt out with first right to match any FA contract he's offered.

bohumm -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 2:47:39 PM)
I hope none of the people who are saying that Hunter is being a dick or even unreasonable for wanting to capture the value he's exceeded are people who also get mad at Kirk for having an all-guaranteed contract. If the NFL would just have two-way guarantees on all contracts (instead of just the guarantee for the team), which they can easily do with their public subsidies and monster revenues, all of this would be avoided.

bohumm -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 2:50:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott If you've got to give him more make it all incentivized. Number of games played, sacks, pressures, fumbles caused/recovered etc and if he meets a designated percentage of those incentives thenhe can opt out with first right to match any FA contract he's offered. Why does it all fall on the player all of the time? The NFL probably makes the Mafia jealous....

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 3:02:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm I hope none of the people who are saying that Hunter is being a dick or even unreasonable for wanting to capture the value he's exceeded are people who also get mad at Kirk for having an all-guaranteed contract. If the NFL would just have two-way guarantees on all contracts (instead of just the guarantee for the team), which they can easily do with their public subsidies and monster revenues, all of this would be avoided. Players have guaranteed money. It's called a signing bonus. Any agent worth shit will get the the player their fair value in the signing bonus. So far I think Hunter has been more than fairly compensated for one season of play.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 3:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm I hope none of the people who are saying that Hunter is being a dick or even unreasonable for wanting to capture the value he's exceeded are people who also get mad at Kirk for having an all-guaranteed contract. If the NFL would just have two-way guarantees on all contracts (instead of just the guarantee for the team), which they can easily do with their public subsidies and monster revenues, all of this would be avoided. FWIW, I hate the albatross that is Kirk Cousins contract.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 3:12:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott If you've got to give him more make it all incentivized. Number of games played, sacks, pressures, fumbles caused/recovered etc and if he meets a designated percentage of those incentives thenhe can opt out with first right to match any FA contract he's offered. Why does it all fall on the player all of the time? The NFL probably makes the Mafia jealous.... It's simple. Hunter missed a full season due to a pretty serious injury that has ended careers and highly diminished the capacity of players in other cases. He's already under contract. I am looking for a compromise here were both sides get some guarantee. If hunter is still the shit he gets paid and has the option to opt out. If he isn't he still gets paid his old contract. He has to prove he is health and still the beast to get the big contract he wants. the team risks paying him a lot more and losing him in the end, considering the damage the KC contract is going to do to our salary cap it would be highly likely Hunter would leave after this year. Hunter has the opportunity to make a lot more this way while the team gets some security if he isn't his former self.

ratoppenheimer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 4:03:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott If you've got to give him more make it all incentivized. Number of games played, sacks, pressures, fumbles caused/recovered etc and if he meets a designated percentage of those incentives thenhe can opt out with first right to match any FA contract he's offered. Why does it all fall on the player all of the time? The NFL probably makes the Mafia jealous.... It's simple. Hunter missed a full season due to a pretty serious injury that has ended careers and highly diminished the capacity of players in other cases. He's already under contract. I am looking for a compromise here were both sides get some guarantee. If hunter is still the shit he gets paid and has the option to opt out. If he isn't he still gets paid his old contract. He has to prove he is health and still the beast to get the big contract he wants. the team risks paying him a lot more and losing him in the end, considering the damage the KC contract is going to do to our salary cap it would be highly likely Hunter would leave after this year. Hunter has the opportunity to make a lot more this way while the team gets some security if he isn't his former self. so if hunter is still a great player he can unilaterally cancel our contract and move on...we get nothing in return?.... hunter was a 3rd round pick with 4.5 sacks over his last two years at lsu...we developed him into one of the best defensive ends in the league.... if we traded hunter this summer we'd have to pick up over $15m of dead cap, so we'd get no cap relief....

Tom Sykes -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 4:46:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm I hope none of the people who are saying that Hunter is being a dick or even unreasonable for wanting to capture the value he's exceeded are people who also get mad at Kirk for having an all-guaranteed contract. If the NFL would just have two-way guarantees on all contracts (instead of just the guarantee for the team), which they can easily do with their public subsidies and monster revenues, all of this would be avoided. I don't want the bulk of my cap space tied up into two players, one who has been receiving elite QB money while not being elite ... the other a rising star at DE that is now sidelined or toothless because of neck issues. The neck issues probably won't come to pass – that's a worst case scenario. But I'm not going to risk it or send the franchise back into cap strapped hell because Hunter signed a piss poor deal. We are just slowly oozing our way out of it. Be responsible to the franchise (which is currently 89 CBs and no-show Hunter), make Hunter demonstrate he's healthy and then negotiate in good faith. The wink-wink-nudge-nudge that Brez and Spiels exchanged behind Hunter while he inked his deal tells you they new the deal was not going to last.

kgdabom -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 4:47:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott If you've got to give him more make it all incentivized. Number of games played, sacks, pressures, fumbles caused/recovered etc and if he meets a designated percentage of those incentives thenhe can opt out with first right to match any FA contract he's offered. Why does it all fall on the player all of the time? The NFL probably makes the Mafia jealous.... It's simple. Hunter missed a full season due to a pretty serious injury that has ended careers and highly diminished the capacity of players in other cases. He's already under contract. I am looking for a compromise here were both sides get some guarantee. If hunter is still the shit he gets paid and has the option to opt out. If he isn't he still gets paid his old contract. He has to prove he is health and still the beast to get the big contract he wants. the team risks paying him a lot more and losing him in the end, considering the damage the KC contract is going to do to our salary cap it would be highly likely Hunter would leave after this year. Hunter has the opportunity to make a lot more this way while the team gets some security if he isn't his former self. so if hunter is still a great player he can unilaterally cancel our contract and move on...we get nothing in return?.... hunter was a 3rd round pick with 4.5 sacks over his last two years at lsu...we developed him into one of the best defensive ends in the league.... if we traded hunter this summer we'd have to pick up over $15m of dead cap, so we'd get no cap relief.... Yeah I don't like that either.

bohumm -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 5:01:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm I hope none of the people who are saying that Hunter is being a dick or even unreasonable for wanting to capture the value he's exceeded are people who also get mad at Kirk for having an all-guaranteed contract. If the NFL would just have two-way guarantees on all contracts (instead of just the guarantee for the team), which they can easily do with their public subsidies and monster revenues, all of this would be avoided. FWIW, I hate the albatross that is Kirk Cousins contract. Do you blame Kirk? Do you feel like the players should just appreciate whatever the owners are willing to give them while the owners get cost certainty? Until they guarantee 100% of all player contracts, the owners are perpetrating an injustice, IMO. The have guaranteed revenue streams when they enter into contracts; why shouldn't the players? And how can you blame someone for fighting against that injustice?

Ricky J -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 5:09:00 PM)
re: Hunter, didn't play a snap last year and has 3 years left on his contract. Nope, he's going to have to play with the contract he has in place this year ... deal with it

Dana Turner -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 5:32:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ricky J re: Hunter, didn't play a snap last year and has 3 years left on his contract. Nope, he's going to have to play with the contract he has in place this year ... deal with it Yep, if I'm GM, I talk with his camp, state my position and how much I am hoping this all works out, but he's going to have to play through this year, we'll talk next year about his contract if he wants.

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 5:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kgdabom quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm I hope none of the people who are saying that Hunter is being a dick or even unreasonable for wanting to capture the value he's exceeded are people who also get mad at Kirk for having an all-guaranteed contract. If the NFL would just have two-way guarantees on all contracts (instead of just the guarantee for the team), which they can easily do with their public subsidies and monster revenues, all of this would be avoided. Players have guaranteed money. It's called a signing bonus. Any agent worth shit will get the the player their fair value in the signing bonus. So far I think Hunter has been more than fairly compensated for one season of play. Hunter signed his current deal in2018.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 5:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dana Turner quote: ORIGINAL: Ricky J re: Hunter, didn't play a snap last year and has 3 years left on his contract. Nope, he's going to have to play with the contract he has in place this year ... deal with it Yep, if I'm GM, I talk with his camp, state my position and how much I am hoping this all works out, but he's going to have to play through this year, we'll talk next year about his contract if he wants. And right after that you can start talking to other teams and start gaging what you can get for him because he won't be playing through the year here.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 5:49:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm I hope none of the people who are saying that Hunter is being a dick or even unreasonable for wanting to capture the value he's exceeded are people who also get mad at Kirk for having an all-guaranteed contract. If the NFL would just have two-way guarantees on all contracts (instead of just the guarantee for the team), which they can easily do with their public subsidies and monster revenues, all of this would be avoided. The contracts of Hunter and Cousins are apples to oranges assuming some of the speculation is correct that Hunter does not want to honor his existing contract.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 5:59:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott If you've got to give him more make it all incentivized. Number of games played, sacks, pressures, fumbles caused/recovered etc and if he meets a designated percentage of those incentives thenhe can opt out with first right to match any FA contract he's offered. Why does it all fall on the player all of the time? The NFL probably makes the Mafia jealous.... Hunter was paid, what, $8.5 million last season and didn't play a down. Over four months: Around $70,00 per day. $2,900 an hour. $48 a minute. That is hardly having it all fall on the player all the time.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 6:09:12 PM)
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-danielle-hunter-has-himself-to-blame-for-contract-unhappiness-what-vikings-could-do-about-it/ Hunter's eventual saving grace may be the Vikings addressing the gross inequity of wide receiver Adam Thielen's contract in 2019. Thielen had clearly outperformed the four-year deal he signed in 2017 as a restricted free agent. He got a new contract with two years remaining, which would be 2022 for Hunter. My experience as an agent was that teams tried to avoid establishing new contract precedents at almost all costs. Giving Hunter a new contract with three years left would be something the Vikings aren't accustomed to doing.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 6:18:20 PM)
I believe Hunter plays this year, fingers crossed his neck stays ok, and we negotiate next year based on his performance when he rounds into football shape. So the contract might be based on sacks, pressures, tackles over his last 10 games extrapolated over a season. One problem with holding out is a player returns and is quickly taken out by things like hamstring injuries. Six game IR for you!

Todd M -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 6:23:29 PM)
If Hunter was coming off year 2 of his contract having a 15 sack campaign...it would probably still tough to see a new contract. He was out last year and is a ?. He should play out the year. I'm willing to spend the Wilf's quite easily though and if they break the bank I won't lose any sleep.

Tom Sykes -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/11/2021 7:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Dana Turner quote: ORIGINAL: Ricky J re: Hunter, didn't play a snap last year and has 3 years left on his contract. Nope, he's going to have to play with the contract he has in place this year ... deal with it Yep, if I'm GM, I talk with his camp, state my position and how much I am hoping this all works out, but he's going to have to play through this year, we'll talk next year about his contract if he wants. And right after that you can start talking to other teams and start gaging what you can get for him because he won't be playing through the year here. Your stance is consistent, I’ll give you that. That is a drastic outcome that neither camp wants. This isn’t about the horrible and unsightly animosity of that rogers situation [&:][&:] ... at the end of the day both sides will work it out.

Page: << < prev 104 105 [106] 107 108 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode