|
Tom Sykes -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/14/2021 4:55:05 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen
quote:
ORIGINAL: TJSweens
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro
quote:
ORIGINAL: kgdabom
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro
the law office of KG-Bill would have us doLOL
I'm in the middle on this one. Prefer he plays on existing contract through this season with the promise of entering good faith negotiations next off season.
1. Hunter needs to prove he's not damaged goods.
2. Current Covid cap restrictions are also something Hunter's team needs to take in for account.
3. Viking brass need to acknowledge Hunter has vastly out played his current deal.
All this vastly outplaying his current deal is simply not true. In 2019 he outplayed it, but in 2020 he didn't even take the field for us. That is not vastly outplaying his current deal.
He was 1st team all-pro for both the 2018 &19 seasons. (All-pro is the award where the rubber meets the road vs pro bowl.) So he was considered to be among the 4-5 best DE's/Edge guys in the league. Yet (at no fault of the Vikings) is now currently the 13 highest paid DE. As I noted it wasn't the Vikings fault that DE salaries really escalated.
He did get hurt last season but I don't think we can throw rocks at him for that. He showed up to all voluntary OTA's ect and was injured. That's part of football.
That Hunter missed last year is irrelevant when evaluating performance against his contract. Players get injured. A player gets injured, he still gets paid. Deal with it. If you want to bitch about last year, then Hunter can point to the fact that he racked up 40 sacks for the Vikings on a 3rd round rookie scale contract for 4 years. You can't just cherry pick the point in time. You take performance and pay as a whole. Hunter didn't miss a game due to injury for 5 years before last year. He piled up 54.5 sacks in that time. He holds the NFL record for most sacks by a player by age 25. Harp on him being out last year all you want, but the reality is that even factoring in last year, Hunter has been a bargain for the Vikings.
I also don't buy the argument that you can't renegotiate with three years remaining on the contract. When a team goes to a player with the ultimatum to renegotiate or get cut, they don't care how many years are left on the contract.
The only argument that has any validity is the "needs to prove he still has it after the injury" one. The Vikings have pretty well admitted that they have no concerns about the level of performance they expect out of Hunter. If they were concerned, they wouldn't have been satisfied with signing a journey man who had just been cut and using a couple of mid round picks on the position.
The bottom line is that the DE market exploded after Hunter signed his contract. There are DE that aren't half as good Hunter, making more money than he is. I believe he is now the 17th highest paid DE. He wants a fair market deal and it appears he is ready to utilize the only leverage he has. I have no problem with him doing so. Like bohumm said, until the NFL fundamentally changes how contracts and guaranteed money are structured, this how the game will be played league wide. - FWIW, I think Hunter would be better served by attending mini camp and showing the coaches and brass that he is 100%. He can then pick the next camp for his battle if he chooses.
Having heard all the speculative evidence, you've got the jurors nodding and taking notes with that hell of a closing argument.
Even the part justifying negotiating with three years to go is compelling.
I'm sure opposing counsel will muster up their same points while the jury stews the wasted time could be used to wrap this thing up.
I agree the Sweens post is compelling.
IMO everything is subjuct to personal viewpoint but the central issue of the case, pre-injury Hunter vs post-injury Hunter.
Ofcourse, desciptions like, ‘if you want to bitch’ and ‘deal with it’ betray the otherwise sound logic presented ...
We are fans. Fans are emotional. The contract however is a cold business document that requires guaranteed assurances from both sides. I’m sure the team would love to redo his contract right now this very moment because they would be able add in insurance language above the standard ‘what happens in case of injury’ ... since Hunter is currently damaged goods. There’s no other way to interpret it ... until he proves otherwise. The team would pay their player fairly what he deserves on the market but structure it with a much heavier emphasis on incentives and probably an escape clause after season 1 or 2 for worst case health scenarios that wouldn’t be there if Hunter had played ladt year.
Whatever ... let him sign his second sub-standard team-friendly contract in a row, I just want him to stay a Viking.
Unsure whom Sweens is arguing against. It's as if he never even read my post. I could make a motion to dismiss.
I think it was directed at KG. Thats just my opinion. Ask David F, he has the power to lump you in KGs boat, the SS Emoji Hell.
It would spark new debate for the void we are staring into.
|
|
|
|