RE: General Vikes Talk

RE: General Vikes Talk (Full Version)

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

Message

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 11:49:23 AM)
Wonder if Brad will be reporting on Twitter trends in SoCal.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 3:24:12 PM)
Considering the asking price, and the cap implications it is pretty much a nonstarter to hope for Watson. Now Cousins may be coveted by San Francisco...so maybe we can arrange a trade for a couple picks (not on the Watson level) and Jimmy Garafolo? It's not that I want Garafolo, but it would probably ease our cap situation a bit and give us a little more draft capital to draft his replacement. Of course that would also have the added requirement of getting a better backup than Mannion cause Jimmy G has a tendency to miss games..

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 3:39:44 PM)
Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 3:59:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. Well, 21 is better than 41.... Just sayin But it was probably a bad idea anyway.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:02:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. Well, 21 is better than 41.... Just sayin But it was probably a bad idea anyway. 21 is better than 41, but you still have to pay Garoppolo on top of it.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:04:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. Well, 21 is better than 41.... Just sayin But it was probably a bad idea anyway. 21 is better than 41, but you still have to pay Garoppolo on top of it. So Watson makes even less sense.

David Levine -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. Well, 21 is better than 41.... Just sayin But it was probably a bad idea anyway. 21 is better than 41, but you still have to pay Garoppolo on top of it. So Watson makes even less sense. Except Watson is a stud that, if he stays healthy, gives you a Top QB for the next decade. You make room for guys like that.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:08:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. Well, 21 is better than 41.... Just sayin But it was probably a bad idea anyway. 21 is better than 41, but you still have to pay Garoppolo on top of it. So Watson makes even less sense. No, all bets are off when it comes to Watson. He is that elite, top tier, young franchise QB that everyone covets. Bite whatever bullets and spend whatever assets you have to in order to get him and figure out the rest after.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:12:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. Well, 21 is better than 41.... Just sayin But it was probably a bad idea anyway. 21 is better than 41, but you still have to pay Garoppolo on top of it. So Watson makes even less sense. No, all bets are off when it comes to Watson. He is that elite, top tier, young franchise QB that everyone covets. Bite whatever bullets and spend whatever assets you have to in order to get him and figure out the rest after. As good as Watson is, it would require us to dump a bunch of other important players just to fit him under the cap and include the Cousins hit etc.... that plus the loss of draft picks would probably be too much for Deshaun Watsons talent to make up for all by himself. I just don't see how they can maneuver it to get Watson in here and not decimate the rest of the team in the process to do it. If it was just about draft picks, I wouldn't have a problem, but our salary cap situation makes getting Watson seem unmanagemable. It's not that I don't want him. I would love to get him. But I just don't see how we can pull it off without ****ing the rest of the team.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. You keep saying $21 million but the fact is you end up having to pay all the dead cap one way or the other. OverTheCap shows $31 M in dead cap after June 1st, I guess because we pay the prorated signing bonus of $10 M this year. The important thing to note here is that June 1 cuts, though they create more cap space in the current year than pre-June 1 cuts (at the expense of creating more dead money in the following year), do not create ANY cap space until after June 1, long after the free agent market for most of the best players has played out. Thus June 1 cuts, which are sometimes represented as an effective tool for creating extra cap space in free agency, are actually all but useless for that purpose, as you cannot access that cap space until after June 1. The only effective salary cap benefit of a June 1 cut is for use in signing draft picks and other late offseason transactions after a team has been tapped out in free agency. The main things to take away here: 1. The June 1 designation applies to both trades and cuts, but only cuts can get the designation early. Early June 1 designations are limited to two players per team. 2. The June 1 designation does indeed create extra cap space in the current year, but it does so at the expense of the following year’s cap, and the space it creates in the current year cannot be used until after June 1, rendering it all but useless for the purpose of signing free agents. 3. The net cap space created by a June 1 cut versus a pre-June 1 cut is ALWAYS the same; the only difference is in which year(s) the prorated bonus money is counted against the cap. Basically there’s no such thing as a free lunch. You can’t cheat the cap with a June 1 designation, you can just move around a limited amount of prorated bonus money.

Murph -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:18:31 PM)
I think I heard that Watson's contract for next year is only a little more than 10 mil against the cap. I think it was on a national sports talk? Highly doubt we move on from Cousins unless someone blows us away with an offer though.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:20:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. Well, 21 is better than 41.... Just sayin But it was probably a bad idea anyway. 21 is better than 41, but you still have to pay Garoppolo on top of it. So Watson makes even less sense. No, all bets are off when it comes to Watson. He is that elite, top tier, young franchise QB that everyone covets. Bite whatever bullets and spend whatever assets you have to in order to get him and figure out the rest after. As good as Watson is, it would require us to dump a bunch of other important players just to fit him under the cap and include the Cousins hit etc.... that plus the loss of draft picks would probably be too much for Deshaun Watsons talent to make up for all by himself. I just don't see how they can maneuver it to get Watson in here and not decimate the rest of the team in the process to do it. If it was just about draft picks, I wouldn't have a problem, but our salary cap situation makes getting Watson seem unmanagemable. It's not that I don't want him. I would love to get him. But I just don't see how we can pull it off without ****ing the rest of the team. Look, there are plenty of overpriced contracts on this team that can be cut, traded or renegotiated. As David said, you get Watson, you have basically opened at least a 10 year window. I'll take the hit short term to get Watson on the roster for the long term. I won't even think twice about it. I also have to correct myself. The Vikes save $21 million and have $10M in dead cap if they trade Cousins after June 1.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:22:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. You keep saying $21 million but the fact is you end up having to pay all the dead cap one way or the other. OverTheCap shows $31 M in dead cap after June 1st, I guess because we pay the prorated signing bonus of $10 M this year. Yep, I got it back asswards on the dead cap vs savings.

thebigo -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:23:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott Considering the asking price, and the cap implications it is pretty much a nonstarter to hope for Watson. Now Cousins may be coveted by San Francisco...so maybe we can arrange a trade for a couple picks (not on the Watson level) and Jimmy Garafolo? It's not that I want Garafolo, but it would probably ease our cap situation a bit and give us a little more draft capital to draft his replacement. Of course that would also have the added requirement of getting a better backup than Mannion cause Jimmy G has a tendency to miss games.. Maybe a 3 way trade via the Jets who would love to have Barr.

Brad H -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 4:54:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen Wonder if Brad will be reporting on Twitter trends in SoCal. 68 and sunny

Bruce Johnson -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 5:22:58 PM)
Vikings have four players selected in ESPN's two-round 2020 redraft: • Justin Jefferson, taken 9th (originally taken 22nd) • Cam Dantzler, taken 40th (originally taken 89th) • Ezra Cleveland, taken 47th (originally taken 58th) • DJ Wonnum, taken 64th (originally taken 117th) (Nick Olson on Twitter)

marty -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 7:09:03 PM)
I think you guys are right, if the Vikings got Watson, Zimmer would probably be gone in a year or 2, after some poor coaching decisions, and Watson getting upset with him for taking the hand off the throttle. Watson would just have to out his arms out in frustration, like Moss did on his last Minnesota stint, right before halftime as Zim runs out the clock instead of taking a shot.

marty -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 7:13:04 PM)
I think Spielman DOES have the balls. It took balls to sign Cousins, and trying for Brees was also ballsy. Trading up to get 3 picks in the first round is also ballsy. As was signing Sheldon Richardson, and not letting him leave town.

marty -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 7:18:13 PM)
The vast majority of time when a big trade occurs, there are claims among the national networks that they were the first to report it (after the fact). Rarely does anything happen in accordance with what some website or blogger claimed days in advance. The vast majority of time when a big trade occurs, there are claims among the national networks that they were the first to report it (after the fact). Rarely does anything happen in accordance with what some website or blogger claimed days in advance. I disagree. I haven't been on many of these sites lately, but I think some of these sights have SO much speculation, almost every trade has been discussed by someone, and sometimes several sites had the trade right on the money, or were very close. It's more like, the number of rumors and speculations is such a vast number, some are bound to get it right. The number of trades that didn't happen, but were talked about, is also quite a large number.

marty -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 7:28:13 PM)
IOW, there are so many stabs in the dark, in so many directions, someone is bound to get it right. If you researched a lot, I think you could get a percentage on rumors, like one might do for the 1st round of the draft, and get a number for the amount of rumors saying x player is going to team y. For instance, it could be, Deshaun Watson has about a % chance of going to: NY Jets 32%, Miami 19% Indy 16%, SF 14%, Minnesota 13%, Chicago 6%. [These numbers mean absolutely nothing, it was just an example pulling numbers out of the ....]

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/2/2021 7:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. You keep saying $21 million but the fact is you end up having to pay all the dead cap one way or the other. OverTheCap shows $31 M in dead cap after June 1st, I guess because we pay the prorated signing bonus of $10 M this year. The important thing to note here is that June 1 cuts, though they create more cap space in the current year than pre-June 1 cuts (at the expense of creating more dead money in the following year), do not create ANY cap space until after June 1, long after the free agent market for most of the best players has played out. Thus June 1 cuts, which are sometimes represented as an effective tool for creating extra cap space in free agency, are actually all but useless for that purpose, as you cannot access that cap space until after June 1. The only effective salary cap benefit of a June 1 cut is for use in signing draft picks and other late offseason transactions after a team has been tapped out in free agency. The main things to take away here: 1. The June 1 designation applies to both trades and cuts, but only cuts can get the designation early. Early June 1 designations are limited to two players per team. 2. The June 1 designation does indeed create extra cap space in the current year, but it does so at the expense of the following year’s cap, and the space it creates in the current year cannot be used until after June 1, rendering it all but useless for the purpose of signing free agents. 3. The net cap space created by a June 1 cut versus a pre-June 1 cut is ALWAYS the same; the only difference is in which year(s) the prorated bonus money is counted against the cap. Basically there’s no such thing as a free lunch. You can’t cheat the cap with a June 1 designation, you can just move around a limited amount of prorated bonus money. Spotrac seems to think there’s a difference between a post June 1 cut and a post June 1 trade. I’ve made two prior posts regarding this and even put instructions on where to click to see it.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/3/2021 8:45:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty The vast majority of time when a big trade occurs, there are claims among the national networks that they were the first to report it (after the fact). Rarely does anything happen in accordance with what some website or blogger claimed days in advance. The vast majority of time when a big trade occurs, there are claims among the national networks that they were the first to report it (after the fact). Rarely does anything happen in accordance with what some website or blogger claimed days in advance. I disagree. I haven't been on many of these sites lately, but I think some of these sights have SO much speculation, almost every trade has been discussed by someone, and sometimes several sites had the trade right on the money, or were very close. It's more like, the number of rumors and speculations is such a vast number, some are bound to get it right. The number of trades that didn't happen, but were talked about, is also quite a large number. Says the mad hatter who thinks GMs make decisions and act on posts.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/3/2021 8:50:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson Vikings have four players selected in ESPN's two-round 2020 redraft: • Justin Jefferson, taken 9th (originally taken 22nd) • Cam Dantzler, taken 40th (originally taken 89th) • Ezra Cleveland, taken 47th (originally taken 58th) • DJ Wonnum, taken 64th (originally taken 117th) (Nick Olson on Twitter) I wish they would do a full redraft. I'm really curious who we would have gotten in the 7th round.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/3/2021 8:52:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens Garoppolo. You must be thinking of Janeane. Garoppolo wouldn't ease our cap situation. Even if we wait until June, trading Cousins will saddle us with $21 million in dead cap money. You keep saying $21 million but the fact is you end up having to pay all the dead cap one way or the other. OverTheCap shows $31 M in dead cap after June 1st, I guess because we pay the prorated signing bonus of $10 M this year. The important thing to note here is that June 1 cuts, though they create more cap space in the current year than pre-June 1 cuts (at the expense of creating more dead money in the following year), do not create ANY cap space until after June 1, long after the free agent market for most of the best players has played out. Thus June 1 cuts, which are sometimes represented as an effective tool for creating extra cap space in free agency, are actually all but useless for that purpose, as you cannot access that cap space until after June 1. The only effective salary cap benefit of a June 1 cut is for use in signing draft picks and other late offseason transactions after a team has been tapped out in free agency. The main things to take away here: 1. The June 1 designation applies to both trades and cuts, but only cuts can get the designation early. Early June 1 designations are limited to two players per team. 2. The June 1 designation does indeed create extra cap space in the current year, but it does so at the expense of the following year’s cap, and the space it creates in the current year cannot be used until after June 1, rendering it all but useless for the purpose of signing free agents. 3. The net cap space created by a June 1 cut versus a pre-June 1 cut is ALWAYS the same; the only difference is in which year(s) the prorated bonus money is counted against the cap. Basically there’s no such thing as a free lunch. You can’t cheat the cap with a June 1 designation, you can just move around a limited amount of prorated bonus money. Spotrac seems to think there’s a difference between a post June 1 cut and a post June 1 trade. I’ve made two prior posts regarding this and even put instructions on where to click to see it. Overthecap distinguishes the two as well.

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (2/3/2021 8:55:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty I think Spielman DOES have the balls. It took balls to sign Cousins, and trying for Brees was also ballsy. Trading up to get 3 picks in the first round is also ballsy. As was signing Sheldon Richardson, and not letting him leave town. I didn't take any balls to sign Cousins. Cousins was the best available FA QB is many years. Cousins wanted to play here. The Vikings believed they were a starting QB away from the promised land. The Vikings had the cap room. Cousins passed on a bigger offer to come here. It was an easy signing. Richardson was another easy one. A top DT came here on a 1 year deal because we had the room to fit him. Not exactly a gamble.

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode