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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.