Adrian Peterson Reinstated

[Mothman]

Just some thinking out loud on my end, but wouldn't it make more sense to try to low Adrian's cap number while guaranteeing some money in 2016? I mean, that way, the team can please Adrian while tackling his enormous cap hit. Why not convert his deal into a bonus and lower his cap number?

Just a thought.

I made the same suggestion many weeks and pages ago. It makes sense. The Vikes should be able to work out something that benefits them as well as peterson.

The persistent request for guaranteed money makes me wonder if Peterson knows something about his body that we don't know.

I recommend listening to the Peterson section of the Pelissero podcast I linked to above (if you have time), Cliff. He covers the potential reasoning on this pretty well.

[Cliff]

I recommend listening to the Peterson section of the Pelissero podcast I linked to above (if you have time), Cliff. He covers the potential reasoning on this pretty well.

I'll have to do that, I hadn't heard Peterson's reasoning for wanting to change the contract so I was drawing my own conclusions.

[dead_poet]

@murphPPress #Vikings COO Kevin Warren on KFAN re: Adrian Peterson: "It’s people like Adrian you want to see them enjoy winning a Super Bowl."

@murphPPress Warren on being Adrian's boogeyman: "I don’t think I’m surprised about anything anymore. I also don’t take things personally." #Vikings

-- seems like a yes

[Demi]

It’s people like Adrian you want to see them enjoy winning a Super Bowl.

Yeah...not really. There are dozens of other players on this team I'd want to see enjoy winning a super bowl over him. Most of which are better human beings than he is.

If the Vikings really want him to play out his deal here, then rework it. Both sides have went through a lot of crap. If they have the faith they claim they have in him, make him happy. As much as I'd rather see him traded, hopefully someone budges and puts this whole mess behind.

[Mothman]

Tom Pelissero has written a piece about this too (although the podcast talk covers more ground):

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nf ... /28036785/

Here's an excerpt:

Money is the language of the locker room. There's more talk about not playing hurt and producing bad film than most outsiders realize. Players tend to take their cues from the best of the best, and Peterson is a game-changer — one with no future protection.

This isn't about giving Peterson a pass on the felony indictment (later pled down) for injuring his 4-year-old son that sidelined him for all but one game last season. This is business. And in the business of pro football, the stars always have some leverage.

Guaranteeing the next two years and $28 million on Peterson's contract is one option to make this go away. No raise. No new money. The Vikings could take out an insurance policy in case he gets hurt and end the drama tomorrow. But that might just be a Band-Aid over deeper wounds.

[Pseudo Everything]

A lot of sports jurnos who have been reporting that Peterson's absence from OTAs was because he was still adamant about wanting to be traded need to reevaluate their "sources." Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports has been at the forefront of writing articles about Peterson using "sources close to Peterson" as the basis of his information. Just last Sunday he tweeted and wrote an article about how Peterson was still adamant about wanting to be traded.

Here is how he is reacting today to being played:
Charles Robinson @CharlesRobinson · 12h 12 hours ago
Adrian Peterson said what he said. I stand by my work. 3 days pass, Zimmer speaks out & the story changes, so be it.

C'mon. What Zimmer said yesterday is what the Vikings have been saying for months. He didn't say anything new. Does anyone really believe that Peterson did a complete about face based on Zimmer's comment? Robinson would be better served by just saying his source for his Peterson story was wrong.

[Mothman]

A lot of sports jurnos who have been reporting that Peterson's absence from OTAs was because he was still adamant about wanting to be traded need to reevaluate their "sources." Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports has been at the forefront of writing articles about Peterson using "sources close to Peterson" as the basis of his information. Just last Sunday he tweeted and wrote an article about how Peterson was still adamant about wanting to be traded.

Here is how he is reacting today to being played:
Charles Robinson @CharlesRobinson · 12h 12 hours ago
Adrian Peterson said what he said. I stand by my work. 3 days pass, Zimmer speaks out & the story changes, so be it.

C'mon. What Zimmer said a few days ago is what the Vikings have been saying for months. He didn't say anything new. Does anyone really believe that Peterson did a complete about face based on Zimmer's comment? Robinson would be better served by just saying his source for his Peterson story was wrong.

Agreed!

[petev_sj]

I love AD, but someone needs to remind him that he is getting paid millions of dollars to play a game. He literally runs around a field with a ball in his hands. He's not curing cancer, he's not inventing new technology to make people's lives easier. He also gets the benefit of retiring in his prime where as the rest of us will have to work until our 70's.

AD, you're just here to entertain and take our minds of our daily life. And you get millions for doing so, just be thankful for that.

[dead_poet]

A lot of sports jurnos who have been reporting that Peterson's absence from OTAs was because he was still adamant about wanting to be traded need to reevaluate their "sources." Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports has been at the forefront of writing articles about Peterson using "sources close to Peterson" as the basis of his information. Just last Sunday he tweeted and wrote an article about how Peterson was still adamant about wanting to be traded.

Here is how he is reacting today to being played:
Charles Robinson @CharlesRobinson · 12h 12 hours ago
Adrian Peterson said what he said. I stand by my work. 3 days pass, Zimmer speaks out & the story changes, so be it.

C'mon. What Zimmer said a few days ago is what the Vikings have been saying for months. He didn't say anything new. Does anyone really believe that Peterson did a complete about face based on Zimmer's comment? Robinson would be better served by just saying his source for his Peterson story was wrong.

If we really want to get technical about a Tweet (which sounds kind of dumb but oh what the heck), Peterson said the reason he's not at OTAs (and only OTAs) is about his contract. That doesn't mean that A) he didn't want or still doesn't want to be traded B) there haven't been ongoing personal issues C) he's not lying to change the narrative. Make no mistake; Peterson has been getting hammered in the media and by fans for the perceived narrative that he feels/felt mistreated by the Vikings after what he did (which has gotten louder in the last couple of weeks). Shifting the narrative to a purely contractual issue takes the focus off that damaging narrative and back onto how many other NFL players feel, especially superstars when they don't have any more guaranteed cash, feel underpaid, etc. So in that respect he's just another Michael Bennett.

It's also important to consider that just because it was Tweeted from AD's Twitter doesn't mean that Tweet wasn't written by Dogra.

The Vikings need to tread carefully and they are in a bit of a delicate situation. They can apparently make all this go away by guaranteeing some cash and/or extending his contract. But think of what kind of message this could potentially send to the locker room, public and sponsors even if it's partially in their best financial interest (some potential small cash savings).

[CbusVikesFan]

Its time for AP to put up or shutup and shutup all around him. In purple, I might add. All of this hyperbole is just that.

[Mothman]

If we really want to get technical about a Tweet (which sounds kind of dumb but oh what the heck), Peterson said the reason he's not at OTAs (and only OTAs) is about his contract. That doesn't mean that A) he didn't want or still doesn't want to be traded B) there haven't been ongoing personal issues C) he's not lying to change the narrative. Make no mistake; Peterson has been getting hammered in the media and by fans for the perceived narrative that he feels/felt mistreated by the Vikings after what he did (which has gotten louder in the last couple of weeks). Shifting the narrative to a purely contractual issue takes the focus off that damaging narrative and back onto how many other NFL players feel, especially superstars when they don't have any more guaranteed cash, feel underpaid, etc. So in that respect he's just another Michael Bennett.

It's also important to consider that just because it was Tweeted from AD's Twitter doesn't mean that Tweet wasn't written by Dogra.

The Vikings need to tread carefully and they are in a bit of a delicate situation. They can apparently make all this go away by guaranteeing some cash and/or extending his contract. But think of what kind of message this could potentially send to the locker room, public and sponsors even if it's partially in their best financial interest (some potential small cash savings).

I don't think there's any way the Vikings can retain Peterson without taking a PR hit. By repeatedly stating their intention to keep Peterson, they've already acknowledged their willingness to take that PR hit with both the public and sponsors.

The message a restructured deal would send to the locker room would likely be beneficial. As Pelissero pointed out, money is the language of the locker room. Re-working the deal of their biggest star would likely go over well in there. Players want to win and they want to believe they will be rewarded for good performance on the field with guaranteed money. Seeing Peterson get a new contract could be reassuring in that sense. Players and coaches have said, pretty consistently, that they'd welcome him back into the locker room. There may be be some who feel otherwise but if so, they're keeping it to themselves.

Theoretically, the Vikings should be able to restructure the deal so Peterson won't make any more money. Some of the money would simply be guaranteed. I think the only message that sends is one about market forces and the realities of doing business in the NFL.

I should add that you're obviously right about this being a delicate situation. I just don't think there's any scenario in which Peterson remains with the team and some people don't end up ticked off.

[dead_poet]

I don't think there's any way the Vikings can retain Peterson without taking a PR hit. By repeatedly stating their intention to keep Peterson, they've already acknowledged their willingness to take that PR hit with both the public and sponsors.

I know we don't agree on this but I think it's an issue of degrees. If there has been damage by keeping Peterson at this point (for example Radisson Hotels pulling out), that damage is done. The organization may open themselves up to further damage should they choose to engage in contract negotiations at this point. They may have a willingness to take a PR hit, but it's hard to say what their line in the sand is going forward. Stadium costs will probably not get any cheaper and Peterson is in no position to negotiate. He's handled this poorly from the onset. I can't see him getting rewarded for it in the end.

The message a restructured deal would send to the locker room would likely be beneficial. As Pelissero pointed out, money is the language of the locker room. Re-working the deal of their biggest star would likely go over well in there. Players want to win and they want to believe they will be rewarded for good performance on the field with guaranteed money.

That's just it, Jim, Peterson hasn't been on the field. He's played one game since 2013.

The contrarian message a contract restructuring that provides more guaranteed cash is that you can beat your child (or commit some other crime), get suspended (or the equivalent), sit out a year, get paid and get rewarded for it in the end.

Seeing Peterson get a new contract could be reassuring in that sense. Players and coaches have said, pretty consistently, that they'd welcome him back into the locker room. There may be be some who feel otherwise but if so, they're keeping it to themselves.

That's before the Vikings give in to his demands (which, again, even if it's in some small way financially prudent I believe the organization doesn't come off looking good). I wonder how many would feel differently if that happens. Probably few, I'm sure, because it's not their contract and they just want the guy back and dominating. Granted that's also what some fans want, too.

Theoretically, the Vikings should be able to restructure the deal so Peterson won't make any more money. Some of the money would simply be guaranteed.

I suppose I would be fine with that, even if I don't necessarily think it's in any way deserved. And we have no way of knowing if doing that would even begin to satisfy Peterson. For all we know he's looking for an extension and some kind of salary increase.

I think the only message that sends is one about market forces and the realities of doing business in the NFL.

That's cool you see it that way. I'm in the camp that believes it would send a negative message; but if they do it, fine. I just want this whole issue resolved. I can't wait for this thread to get buried.

[Pseudo Everything]

If we really want to get technical about a Tweet (which sounds kind of dumb but oh what the heck), Peterson said the reason he's not at OTAs (and only OTAs) is about his contract. That doesn't mean that A) he didn't want or still doesn't want to be traded B) there haven't been ongoing personal issues C) he's not lying to change the narrative. Make no mistake; Peterson has been getting hammered in the media and by fans for the perceived narrative that he feels/felt mistreated by the Vikings after what he did (which has gotten louder in the last couple of weeks). Shifting the narrative to a purely contractual issue takes the focus off that damaging narrative and back onto how many other NFL players feel, especially superstars when they don't have any more guaranteed cash, feel underpaid, etc. So in that respect he's just another Michael Bennett.

It's also important to consider that just because it was Tweeted from AD's Twitter doesn't mean that Tweet wasn't written by Dogra.

Well ... technically ... Peterson sent a text message to Josina Anderson of ESPN and then he re-tweeted her tweet it from his account:
Josina Anderson · @JosinaAnderson 28th May 2015 from TwitLonger
Statement to me from Adrian Peterson: "The reason I'm not attending OTAs has nothing to do with wanting to be traded. It's about securing my future with the Vikings. It's business, not personal and I understand that firsthand. Go Vikings."

This is the one of the few times Peterson has said anything to the media where he can be quoted. I don't think it matters that much whether Dogra wrote the message that Peterson texted to Anderson (if he didn't write it he most likely approved ahead of time).

How does changing the narrative from being disgruntled over the way the Vikings treated Peterson during his legal troubles to being disgruntled over his contract help in any way? I think it makes him look even worse. At least before he was standing on principle (even if it was of the very twisted variety). Now it's just about money ... but he's already the highest paid RB in the NFL and by a considerable margin.

What GM in their right mind is going to reward a player with a restructuring or extension just months after that player plead guilty to reckless assault on a four year old?

Brezenski should sit pat and let Peterson show what he's got in 2015. If anything this should make him even more motivated than he already is (which works to the Vikings benefit). If Peterson wants to holdout from training camp, or part of the season, or become a royal PIA ... that will only serve to diminish his already diminished reputation here and though out the league.

[dead_poet]

This is the one of the few times Peterson has said anything to the media where he can be quoted. I don't think it matters that much whether Dogra wrote the message that Peterson texted to Anderson (if he didn't write it he most likely approved ahead of time).

It just matters as it applies to whatever strategy Peterson's camp is applying. It could be straight from Peterson, but more likely than not it was a calculated text (ugh) approved if not written by Dogra. It just matters because this is one of the first things we've heard allegedly from Peterson himself on this whole mess.

How does changing the narrative from being disgruntled over the way the Vikings treated Peterson during his legal troubles to being disgruntled over his contract help in any way?

Because it tactically shifts the focus of what many people were thinking the issue was about (Peterson feeling hurt/betrayed) to simply money. The former, at least as I was following the story, seemed to garner much more negativity/backlash.

What GM in their right mind is going to reward a player with a restructuring or extension just months after that player plead guilty to reckless assault on a four year old?

Good question. Peterson is apparently hoping that GM is Rick Spielman and Peterson obviously believes he's deserving.

Brezenski should sit pat and let Peterson show what he's got in 2015. If anything this should make him even more motivated than he already is (which works to the Vikings benefit).

That's kind of my thought but I suppose I'd be open to a mild concession of some kind if that just puts this all to rest.

[Mothman]

I know we don't agree on this but I think it's an issue of degrees. If there has been damage by keeping Peterson at this point (for example Radisson Hotels pulling out), that damage is done. The organization may open themselves up to further damage should they choose to engage in contract negotiations at this point. They may have a willingness to take a PR hit, but it's hard to say what their line in the sand is going forward. Stadium costs will probably not get any cheaper and Peterson is in no position to negotiate. He's handled this poorly from the onset. I can't see him getting rewarded for it in the end.
That's just it, Jim, Peterson hasn't been on the field. He's played one game since 2013.

The contrarian message a contract restructuring that provides more guaranteed cash is that you can beat your child (or commit some other crime), get suspended (or the equivalent), sit out a year, get paid and get rewarded for it in the end.
That's before the Vikings give in to his demands (which, again, even if it's in some small way financially prudent I believe the organization doesn't come off looking good). I wonder how many would feel differently if that happens. Probably few, I'm sure, because it's not their contract and they just want the guy back and dominating. Granted that's also what some fans want, too.
I suppose I would be fine with that, even if I don't necessarily think it's in any way deserved. And we have no way of knowing if doing that would even begin to satisfy Peterson. For all we know he's looking for an extension and some kind of salary increase.
That's cool you see it that way. I'm in the camp that believes it would send a negative message; but if they do it, fine. I just want this whole issue resolved. I can't wait for this thread to get buried.

I'll be glad when we can bury it too.

I'm beyond caring about the message restructuring Peterson's contract would send to people. I'm resigned to the fact that they'll see it as they choose to see it. To me, the idea that a revised deal would be rewarding bad behavior makes no logical sense. If they made such a deal, the Vikings wouldn't be giving Peterson a pat on the back and a "well done" for committing a crime, getting suspended, etc. On an intellectual level, I suspect everybody grasps that. What the Vikes would be doing is reaching a business agreement with a football player whose ability they value. I'm guessing that's obvious to everyone too. Consequently, the idea that his contract shouldn't be restructured because it would be a reward for bad behavior strikes me as a purely emotional response. It seems like a passive-aggressive form of continued punishment (ie: Peterson did something bad, therefore he shouldn't get something he wants). Does that really make logical or moral sense? Why would it be okay if he plays for the Vikings again, stays healthy and receives $45 million over the next 3 years but not okay if the exact same thing happens and some of the money in his contract is guaranteed? The only answer I can come up with is that it wouldn't be okay because the latter scenario involves giving him something he wants and since he's a bad man, he shouldn't be allowed to get something he wants.

Morally, if it's wrong to pay him and play him then it seems it should be every bit as wrong to do so under his current deal as under a new one. After all, he's still getting the privilege of playing in the NFL and receiving a $13 million dollar "reward' for bad behavior.

My feeling is that it's time to move on (but I'm not telling anybody to move on—if people want/need to stay angry or can't forgive Peterson, that's understandable). The crime's been done, the consequences faced and the team and player now have business to do. I think there's a very good chance Peterson and the Vikes were going to end up having a discussion about guaranteed money at this point in his contract anyway. It never looked to me like a deal that would play out "as is".

My apologies if the post above offends anyone. I tried hard not to offend...