Vikings Message Board.Com

Laugh a little...

Adrian Tweeterson: https://twitter.com/ChrisBurke_SI/statu ... 28/photo/1

DK Sweets wrote:I hate being that guy, but we already have a thread devoted to everything Adrian. If we had a new thread every time the situation escalated again, this board would be a mess.

Exactly.

Dan, your thread has been merged with this one and I added your thread's title to the top of your post here, in bold, since it was obviously relevant to the rest of what you posted.

Mothman wrote: Exactly.

Dan, your thread has been merged with this one and I added your thread's title to the top of your post here, in bold, since it was obviously relevant to the rest of what you posted.

No problem

S197 wrote:There's really no expectation, on either side, that a contract in the NFL will be seen all the way through. It's pretty rare for a team to pay a massive contract full tenor. Jared Allen comes to mind and I really can't think of any others (although I'm sure there are examples just not the norm).

I'm still trying to figure out Peterson's gripe. Does he feel duped? Did his agent not explain what he was getting into by signing?

As you said above, there's really no expectation on either side that a contract in the NFL will be seen all the way through (at least not big contracts like the one Peterson received). I think his gripes are pretty clear: he's being taken to task for being the one to act on that understanding first. Fans rarely rip teams for it. For example, Vikes fans wanted and expected the Vikings to ask Greenway to take a pay cut. They weren't heavily criticized for that move or told to just "shut up and honor the contract". Peterson's reacting to criticism. If the Vikings had approached him about taking a pay cut, would they be getting the same kind of reaction for wanting to change the contract that Peterson is receiving?

The other gripe is obviously about the bigger picture and NFL contracts, unlike contracts in the other major U.S. sports, not being guaranteed.

How people feel about either of those gripes is obviously up to them but I'm pretty sure that's what he was talking about.

Mothman wrote:

As you said above, there's really no expectation on either side that a contract in the NFL will be seen all the way through (at least not big contracts like the one Peterson received). I think his gripes are pretty clear: he's being taken to task for being the one to act on that understanding first. Fans rarely rip teams for it. For example, Vikes fans wanted and expected the Vikings to ask Greenway to take a pay cut. They weren't heavily criticized for that move or told to just "shut up and honor the contract". Peterson's reacting to criticism. If the Vikings had approached him about taking a pay cut, would they be getting the same kind of reaction for wanting to change the contract that Peterson is receiving?

The other gripe is obviously about the bigger picture and NFL contracts, unlike contracts in the other major U.S. sports, not being guaranteed.

How people feel about either of those gripes is obviously up to them but I'm pretty sure that's what he was talking about.

I think Peterson isn't viewing this realistically. If the contracts were guaranteed he wouldn't have been offered 96 for 7 years or whatever it was. Players and agents negotiate guaranteed money for just that reason. He should have known that his contract was of the 4 year variety when he signed it, or he shouldn't have signed it.

DanAS wrote:"Crazy How One Side Has So Much Power"

According to ESPN.com, this was the line Adrian Peterson came up with in whining about the Vikings contract demands.

I am very rarely speechless, but this guy has left me that way.

Given what Peterson did, he's damned lucky that he's not living in Cell Block C. As we Jews like to say, "Dayenu!" But Peterson's luck doesn't stop with living in an era when child abuse is viewed as only a moderately serious offense. He is a member of a football team that is willing to honor a contract that would pay him a bazillion dollars on top of the bazillion dollars that he has already made. Amd yet even that is not enough for him. He wants guaranteed money. And somehow, he sees himself as a victim -- a victim of being in a subordinate role in a relationship, the one without the leverage. Kind of like, oh I don't know, like a four year old who is at the mercy of a big, powerful adult who never understood that there is a price to pay if you "don't tear" after you've been beaten too much, and that price is a bruised scrotum among other welts.

As it turns out, the Fates were prepared to make Peterson a very fortunate man, but he never understood when to say "Dayenu." Right now, I just pity the guy, for I've always valued moral skills more than physical ones, and he seems to come as small in the first category as he comes up large in the second.

There is no way I want the Vikings to give him what he wants. Let him play out his contract, if that's in the best interest of this team, and if he's disposed to pitch a fit, that's fine too. That's how we discipline four year olds, which is obviously what he is. If he ultimately decides not to play, we can handle that as well. After all, Vegas thinks we're going to go 6-10 or 7-9. Perhaps that's not very generous, but it's not like we're one running back away from our first world championship.

In short, since the Vikings are obviously in loco parentis when it comes to this tragic figure, the team should stand pat and just watch him perform. Whether it's off the field or on the field, Peterson sure knows how to put on a show.

Agree with every word you've written here, Dan.

It's utterly unimaginable that a guy who is set to make $13 million for a single year could gripe about his working conditions. Adrian Peterson obviously sees himself as some sort of pioneer, but he needs to get a clue ... and a history lesson.

These allegedly deplorable conditions were collectively bargained for, mostly as a result of TRULY poor working conditions prior to the 1970s, where every player was under a 1-year contract every season, and your performance dictated your salary -- good or bad. Adrian needs to try playing under the same conditions as, say, Mickey Mantle, who won the triple crown in 1956, then was offered a PAY CUT in 1958 because he DIDN'T repeat winning the triple crown in 1957. Thanks to actual pioneers like Curt Flood, Adrian Peterson plays for millions. Flood basically sacrificed his career to sue professional baseball and remove the Reserve Clause, which essentially said that ball clubs "owned" you, even if they offered you a lousy contract. It was truly "take it or leave it." You either played for your owner or you were out of the game. Thanks to Flood, free agency came about, players' unions were formed, and the pie was eventually divided more evenly through collective bargaining. Are athletes ever going to make as much money as owners? Not a chance. But things are a hell of a lot better than they ever were in the past.

Here's something else. If NFL contracts were fully guaranteed, then Adrian Peterson NEVER would have been offered $100 million. Not a chance. Why? Because there would be so much money going out to injured players who couldn't play that owners wouldn't be able to pay big salaries. Peterson would be lucky to make half of his current guaranteed salary, probably less. Also, you can bet that things like concussion protocols would be out the window. Owners would have the attitude, "I don't care if you're hurt. I'm paying you guaranteed money ... get your butt out there." Players would likely suffer even more long-term physical effects than there already do.

Bottom line: There are legitimate reasons that NFL contracts aren't fully guaranteed.

Adrian Peterson is, to put it kindly, a man with extremely limited intelligence. Yet he makes more money in a year than most Americans will make in their lifetime. Put another way, someone making $130,000 a year (a good salary by most standards) would have to work 100 years to make what Adrian Peterson will make in 2015. Dude needs to wake up and realize how incredibly fortunate he is.

fiestavike wrote:I think Peterson isn't viewing this realistically. If the contracts were guaranteed he wouldn't have been offered 96 for 7 years or whatever it was. Players and agents negotiate guaranteed money for just that reason. He should have known that his contract was of the 4 year variety when he signed it, or he shouldn't have signed it.

That may be exactly what he expected but it turns out it's not of the 4 year variety, is it? The Vikes say they're willing to pay him for at least this 5th year of the current contract. If I recall correctly, they've said nothing about wanting to pay him or keep him around in 2016 or 2017 and my guess is Peterson is being quite realistic in at least this one sense: he sees the writing on the wall. Right now, he's a 30 year old RB on what is essentially a one-year contract. It's a lucrative contract, and I realize there are 3 years left on the deal, but considering the price of the next two, he's not likely to see a dime of that money unless he has a great season in 2015 and emerges with a good, healthy prognosis for 2016. If that happens, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Vikes suddenly became more interested in renegotiating his contract. If it doesn't happen, I suspect he'll get his chance to play elsewhere. If he suffers a serious injury, it's goodbye gravy train.

Peterson's not going to get any sympathy for his position. Pro athletes usually don't when it comes to money, especially pro athletes who have made the kind of money Peterson has and whose recent past involves making headlines for all the wrong reasons. However, I don't think it's difficult to understand. He finds himself in a situation he doesn't like and he's trying to improve it. That may not be realistic but hey, if he wants to try, I see no reason why he can't give it a shot.

Meanwhile, even though he's the wrong guy bringing it up at the wrong time in the wrong venue (Twitter's a terrible place to have a dialogue about NFL contracts), I don't think it's a bad thing for a player to once again cast a light on the nature of NFL contracts, as he did yesterday evening when he followed up his "rant' from earlier in the day. Maybe it will inspire some other players to think about it more and the NFLPA will fight harder on that front when the next CBA is negotiated.

I read this at ESPN's site this morning:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12971 ... act-stance

Peterson said last summer he had no illusions about the business of the NFL, after seeing veteran teammates like Antoine Winfield and Kevin Williams get released or take pay cuts. This spring, the Vikings released wide receiver Greg Jennings when they could not come to terms with him on a restructured deal, and reworked the final year of linebacker Chad Greenway's deal. Players like Jennings were on Peterson's mind when he posted his tweets on Thursday, a source close to Peterson said.

Maybe that's damage control and maybe not but I don't think the messenger should completely obscure the point.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:It's utterly unimaginable that a guy who is set to make $13 million for a single year could gripe about his working conditions. Adrian Peterson obviously sees himself as some sort of pioneer, but he needs to get a clue ... and a history lesson.

These allegedly deplorable conditions were collectively bargained for, mostly as a result of TRULY poor working conditions prior to the 1970s, where every player was under a 1-year contract every season, and your performance dictated your salary -- good or bad. Adrian needs to try playing under the same conditions as, say, Mickey Mantle, who won the triple crown in 1956, then was offered a PAY CUT in 1958 because he DIDN'T repeat winning the triple crown in 1957. Thanks to actual pioneers like Curt Flood, Adrian Peterson plays for millions. Flood basically sacrificed his career to sue professional baseball and remove the Reserve Clause, which essentially said that ball clubs "owned" you, even if they offered you a lousy contract. It was truly "take it or leave it." You either played for your owner or you were out of the game. Thanks to Flood, free agency came about, players' unions were formed, and the pie was eventually divided more evenly through collective bargaining. Are athletes ever going to make as much money as owners? Not a chance. But things are a hell of a lot better than they ever were in the past.

Here's something else. If NFL contracts were fully guaranteed, then Adrian Peterson NEVER would have been offered $100 million. Not a chance. Why? Because there would be so much money going out to injured players who couldn't play that owners wouldn't be able to pay big salaries. Peterson would be lucky to make half of his current guaranteed salary, probably less. Also, you can bet that things like concussion protocols would be out the window. Owners would have the attitude, "I don't care if you're hurt. I'm paying you guaranteed money ... get your butt out there." Players would likely suffer even more long-term physical effects than there already do.

Bottom line: There are legitimate reasons that NFL contracts aren't fully guaranteed.

Adrian Peterson is, to put it kindly, a man with extremely limited intelligence. Yet he makes more money in a year than most Americans will make in their lifetime. Put another way, someone making $130,000 a year (a good salary by most standards) would have to work 100 years to make what Adrian Peterson will make in 2015. Dude needs to wake up and realize how incredibly fortunate he is.

I agree with much you posted, Kapp. I was listening to Ross Tucker this morning and he made a good point from a former player perspective. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that he finally worked his way up and was a starter on a playoff team. He signed a three-year deal, I believe no guaranteed money after the first year (maybe none at all). There were game incentives tied to his contract. He mentioned that he had a bunch of back issues but he felt he needed to be out there and work through them. He mentioned that if he had guaranteed money he may have been more cautious. Again, to paraphrase, "I knew this was a short career option. That I wanted to have kids and be able to play with them and be able to walk without pain. If I had guaranteed money I don't know if I would've focused more on rehab and not practiced fully or played in every game when I was taking all kinds of [legal] drugs just to mitigate the pain and help just to move. I wasn't thinking long-term. I was thinking about not letting down my teammates and needing to be out there to continue to prove myself and get paid." He said the year after he signed his three-year contract the neck/back injuries started catching up with him, the team signed competition and he was cut the very next summer. He was paid for exactly one year of the three-year contract.

So I'm not sure I agree that players would be forced to play if they were all paid guaranteed contracts. If anything, there might be guys doing what Tucker may have done and not played in a game here or there to let their bodies heal after sustaining relatively substantial injuries. Right now guys hide injuries all the time, especially depth guys that are more easily replaceable. Perhaps there'd actually be fewer long-term injuries as a result.

So I do see where players are coming from here. I just don't know if Peterson is the right messenger, especially right now.

It will be very interesting when the CBA is up after the 2021 season with all that has transpired in the last couple of seasons (Goodell with ultimate discipline power, contracts, etc.)

Mothman wrote:I don't think it's a bad thing for a player to once again cast a light on the nature of NFL contracts, as he did yesterday evening when he followed up his "rant' from earlier in the day. Maybe it will inspire some other players to think about it more and the NFLPA will fight harder on that front when the next CBA is negotiated.

Having grown up when you and I did, and seeing what we've seen with contracts in our lifetime, we should never say "never." Anything can happen, I guess. But fully guaranteed NFL contracts just don't seem realistic to me.

It's all about risk. It's the same reason that normal homeowners' insurance doesn't usually cover flooding, especially in flood-prone areas or hurricane alleys. These guys are at far more risk than athletes in any other big-money team sport. How many billions would have been lost to injured players if contracts were fully guaranteed? Think of a guy like Daunte Culpepper, whose career was essentially ended on one play. It's unfortunate, but how much would the Vikings have paid if his contract were fully guaranteed? What would that have meant for the salaries of other Vikings players? I hate to make base purely on actuarial science, but the numbers just don't support guaranteed NFL salaries.

Again, I'll never say never. Strange things happen in collective bargaining. But there's a good reason NFL salaries aren't guaranteed. And people typically have more sympathy for the guy who's underpaid, so a running back making quarterback money probably isn't the best guy to be the torch bearer.

dead_poet wrote:I agree with much you posted, Kapp. I was listening to Ross Tucker this morning and he made a good point from a former player perspective. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that he finally worked his way up and was a starter on a playoff team. He signed a three-year deal, I believe no guaranteed money after the first year (maybe none at all). There were game incentives tied to his contract. He mentioned that he had a bunch of back issues but he felt he needed to be out there and work through them. He mentioned that if he had guaranteed money he may have been more cautious. Again, to paraphrase, "I knew this was a short career option. That I wanted to have kids and be able to play with them and be able to walk without pain. If I had guaranteed money I don't know if I would've focused more on rehab and not practiced fully or played in every game when I was taking all kinds of [legal] drugs just to mitigate the pain and help just to move. I wasn't thinking long-term. I was thinking about not letting down my teammates and needing to be out there to continue to prove myself and get paid." He said the year after he signed his three-year contract the neck/back injuries started catching up with him, the team signed competition and he was cut the very next summer. He was paid for exactly one year of the three-year contract.

So I'm not sure I agree that players would be forced to play if they were all paid guaranteed contracts. If anything, there might be guys doing what Tucker may have done and not played in a game here or there to let their bodies heal after sustaining relatively substantial injuries. Right now guys hide injuries all the time, especially depth guys that are more easily replaceable. Perhaps there'd actually be fewer long-term injuries as a result.

That's a good point. Hadn't thought about it in that regard.

Derrick Rose of the Bulls is a great example. How many fans thought he should have been out there playing after a year of rehab? His contract was guaranteed, so his financial incentive was to sit out (even though most guys would have taken Tucker's attitude, which was to not let down his teammates, but I digress).

Point taken.

I still contend that NFL players are under far too much physical risk for owners to guarantee the entirety of their contracts. It stinks, but these guys know the risks when they make the decision to play the sport. They're paid handsomely and given every amenity imaginable in return for taking that risk. Or if entire contracts are going to be guaranteed, then they'll be shorter term, which I don't think players would want, either.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Having grown up when you and I did, and seeing what we've seen with contracts in our lifetime, we should never say "never." Anything can happen, I guess. But fully guaranteed NFL contracts just don't seem realistic to me.

It's all about risk. It's the same reason that normal homeowners' insurance doesn't usually cover flooding, especially in flood-prone areas or hurricane alleys. These guys are at far more risk than athletes in any other big-money team sport. How many billions would have been lost to injured players if contracts were fully guaranteed? Think of a guy like Daunte Culpepper, whose career was essentially ended on one play. It's unfortunate, but how much would the Vikings have paid if his contract were fully guaranteed? What would that have meant for the salaries of other Vikings players? I hate to make base purely on actuarial science, but the numbers just don't support guaranteed NFL salaries.

Again, I'll never say never. Strange things happen in collective bargaining. But there's a good reason NFL salaries aren't guaranteed. And people typically have more sympathy for the guy who's underpaid, so a running back making quarterback money probably isn't the best guy to be the torch bearer.

As I said above, he's the wrong guy for the job and he's not going to get any sympathy.

I agree that there are good reasons why NFL contracts aren't fully guaranteed. I doubt fully guaranteed contracts in this sport are a realistic goal. However, I still think there's merit in the players trying to negotiate a better compromise (I'm not sure exactly what that would be...it's a long way from my area of expertise!).

Mothman wrote:Maybe that's damage control and maybe not but I don't think the messenger should completely obscure the point.

I don't either, but IMO it does dilute it.

It should also be mentioned that the Vikings paid every cent of Jared Allen's final year, which I thought was rather unique. I don't pay close enough attention to all NFL players' contracts but I don't know if that happens a lot, especially to older veterans. So Peterson could look at that situation more closely than that of, say, Chad Greenway.

From a front office perspective you're trying to field the most competitive team possible. A salary cap can make it tricky. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions for the better of the team, not the individual. I suppose where I get confused is when a team does ask guys (usually veterans) to take pay cuts or be released when their salaries could be fit under the cap. I don't know if this is accurate but there was some speculation that the team needed to cut Winfield's contract to be able to retain Loadholt. Even if this wasn't necessarily true, that's just one example of how the team would benefit at the expense of the individual (insert Spock "the needs of the many.." line here). Of course, then there are organizations like the Patriots where it was reported they may have fleeced Tom Brady after Brady took less money that he thought (or specifically requested) be to re-sign buddy Wes Welker (who ultimately received more money to play for Denver). But on that one perhaps the Patriots had a $$ value on Welker they weren't going to exceed, which, from a financial perspective, makes sense. Ugh. This is all why I'm glad I'm not in the business side of sports.

I suppose I can see Peterson's point through all of this but he's still in a good position (unless major injury strikes). I mean, if he goes out and has a 2,000-yard season he can certainly justify getting paid the nearly $15 million in 2016 by the Vikings. If the Vikings want him to take any kind of cut (even while offering some additional guaranteed), he can refuse and perhaps be released, which seems like another winning scenario for him. So while he may not be offered $15 million per year on the open market, as the likely top free agent available coming off a great year (or even a good year), he'll still command Marshawn Lynch/McCoy/Murray cash and get to play wherever he wants (essentially), which will include at least a three-year contract and new guaranteed money.

I can't fault him for wanting job and financial security. But I'm also not going to feel too sorry for him if he "only" makes $7-9 million/year for whatever reason instead of 15.

dead_poet wrote:So I'm not sure I agree that players would be forced to play if they were all paid guaranteed contracts. If anything, there might be guys doing what Tucker may have done and not played in a game here or there to let their bodies heal after sustaining relatively substantial injuries.

Tom Pelissero touched on that same point in his article yesterday when he asked:

What happens if he decides to take care of himself by sitting out the moment he gets nicked?

It's a good point.

Mothman wrote: That may be exactly what he expected but it turns out it's not of the 4 year variety, is it?

Technically its a 4 year contract with a team option for years 5, 6 and 7

Mothman wrote:The Vikes say they're willing to pay him for at least this 5th year of the current contract. If I recall correctly, they've said nothing about wanting to pay him or keep him around in 2016 or 2017 and my guess is Peterson is being quite realistic in at least this one sense: he sees the writing on the wall. Right now, he's a 30 year old RB on what is essentially a one-year contract. It's a lucrative contract, and I realize there are 3 years left on the deal, but considering the price of the next two, he's not likely to see a dime of that money unless he has a great season in 2015 and emerges with a good, healthy prognosis for 2016.

I understand completely why he wants to make adjustments to the contract as it stands and have no objection to him trying to renegotiate. I just think the rant was a little silly since he (presumably) knew the true nature of the contract and how it was structured when he signed it.

Mothman wrote:Peterson's not going to get any sympathy for his position. Pro athletes usually don't when it comes to money, especially pro athletes who have made the kind of money Peterson has and whose recent past involves making headlines for all the wrong reasons. However, I don't think it's difficult to understand. He finds himself in a situation he doesn't like and he's trying to improve it. That may not be realistic but hey, if he wants to try, I see no reason why he can't give it a shot.

I agree with you here. There's nothing wrong with him asking the team to revisit his contract, just like there's nothing wrong with the team asking Greenway or Winfield to revisit their contracts. Neither side is obligated to acquiesce. If its guaranteed money he wants, the Vikings could try to reduce the '16 salary and guarantee a portion of it. If Peterson's not willing to give in order to get its probably not going to happen.