Texas Vike wrote:That's awfully optimistic of you, Jim. I personally think there's going to be a holdout if we don't trade him, but I get what you're saying. A lot of the clamor is the cycle of hack writers trying to generate hits and the masses foaming at the mouth about every theory pitched.
Yes, that was really what I was trying to say. I expect a holdout too if Peterson isn't traded before the draft. I just don't consider a holdout, on it's own, to be ugly. I also get the feeling neither camp wants to be too public about this, though that could obviously change.
Anyone know if Dogra has a precedent of barking louder than he bites?
Good question. I don't know either...
Also: regarding the compensation, he never mentions a 1st round pick. He only states, "Eating salary in this manner could be a way for the Vikings to increase the compensation received for Peterson," which I understand to mean a 2nd and a 5th (say). That is, unless I missed something.

You didn't miss anything. I just interpreted "increase the compensation" to mean a first round pick wouldn't be out of the question. I don't think it is either. Dallas, for example, has a relatively low first round pick and IF they cleared cap space to make a move for Peterson (which may not be the case at all since they needed to clear some cap space anyway) they might not balk at the price of a first round pick, especially since they'd presumably be trading for Peterson to make a serious move toward winning a Super Bowl now.
I understand why the author of the article looked to other RBs to figure out the likely market for Peterson but every situation is unique. If a team
really wants him and thinks he could be the missing piece they need to win it all, I doubt a first rounder would be out of the question.