Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple bruise wrote: Packer Troll

Incorrect.

IrishViking wrote:
AP's issue is that he already unintentionally "held out" for year. At this point his choices are either play or essentially be considered retire. Even if he did weasel out after holding out this year. NO team is going to pay a 31 year old RB who hasn't played a game in 2 years. That is why I expect him to play.

I don't know about the 'weasel' part...but I definitely agree he's not going to get paid much by anyone other than Minny in any scenario, even if they traded him tomorrow.

I think everyone(fans, FO) expects him to play....I'm just in the "what if he doesn't?" frame of mind. He's a weirdly stubborn guy....marches to his own drum. In essence an aspect of his character that landed him in this situation to begin with.

This whole deal has been beyond bizarre in just about every way. Nothing would surprise me now....other than somebody giving the Vikings what they want for him.

That's really up the Vikings as a whole. If it were me though...

I'd look at the fact that he as an incentive laden contract (That he cant achieve on the bench) as well as the fact we can fine the ever living crap out of him if he doesn't show and play. IMO if he really is serious about this we hold on to him the whole length of his contract or until he is devalued by age enough that the trades we will be getting from folks ( 3rd round picks for example) actually reflect his value. The vikings are in a very solid position to just eat his contract for a year or two and not suffer any consequences as a result.


Worst case, we trade him in two years for a 3rd or a 4th


Best case he comes out, plays, and helps us get a playoff berth.

IrishViking wrote:That's really up the Vikings as a whole. If it were me though...

I'd look at the fact that he as an incentive laden contract (That he cant achieve on the bench) as well as the fact we can fine the ever living crap out of him if he doesn't show and play. IMO if he really is serious about this we hold on to him the whole length of his contract or until he is devalued by age enough that the trades we will be getting from folks ( 3rd round picks for example) actually reflect his value. The vikings are in a very solid position to just eat his contract for a year or two and not suffer any consequences as a result.


Worst case, we trade him in two years for a 3rd or a 4th


Best case he comes out, plays, and helps us get a playoff berth.

I can't get my head around their inability to reconcile the personal issues that seemed to be involved.

From the organization's view, there is a practical, economic way of handling it....which is probably very similar to what you just posted.

Maybe someone will blink later this month.

I hate this kind of unresolved stuff

IrishViking wrote:That's really up the Vikings as a whole. If it were me though...

I'd look at the fact that he as an incentive laden contract (That he cant achieve on the bench) as well as the fact we can fine the ever living crap out of him if he doesn't show and play. IMO if he really is serious about this we hold on to him the whole length of his contract or until he is devalued by age enough that the trades we will be getting from folks ( 3rd round picks for example) actually reflect his value. The vikings are in a very solid position to just eat his contract for a year or two and not suffer any consequences as a result.

You don't think there would be consequences to an approach like that? I think free agents would avoid Minnesota like the plague if they took that approach.

Adrian Peterson - RB - Vikings

Adrian Peterson will meet with the NFL this week to discuss his reinstatement.

Despite months of legal wrangling, Peterson remains on the commissioner's exempt list. His first chance to get reinstated off that list comes April 15, one week from Wednesday. Peterson is expected to get the green light, which will further open the question of where he'll be playing in 2015. He's trying to force his way out of Minnesota despite being under contract for three more years at a total of $44.25 million. The Cardinals and Cowboys are the teams most commonly linked to trading for the three-time first-team All-Pro.
Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter

Mothman wrote: You don't think there would be consequences to an approach like that? I think free agents would avoid Minnesota like the plague if they took that approach.

I don't see why that would be the case. Requiring Peterson to abide by his contract isn't really all that radical, is it? If a player signs a contract and then refuses to play for said contract certain things happen (with any NFL team). That's a bit different when a player is, say a 6th round pick but has become the starter for their team, is doing well, is still under his rookie contract, but the team won't restructure. I could see a player avoiding a team doing that. However, in this case the player messed up and is (reportedly) making demands ... I'm not sure that is a huge red flag to other players.

Mothman wrote: You don't think there would be consequences to an approach like that? I think free agents would avoid Minnesota like the plague if they took that approach.

This is another concern I have. The Vikings are basically setting an organizational precedent here...

I wonder which teams, players in general, consider grade A destinations and which teams are the ones to avoid? Beyond money. I think the top and bottom teams are easy to guess, I wonder where the Vikings would rank in a poll "Which organization would you most like to play for?"

Cliff wrote: I don't see why that would be the case. Requiring Peterson to abide by his contract isn't really all that radical, is it? If a player signs a contract and then refuses to play for said contract certain things happen (with any NFL team). That's a bit different when a player is, say a 6th round pick but has become the starter for their team, is doing well, is still under his rookie contract, but the team won't restructure. I could see a player avoiding a team doing that. However, in this case the player messed up and is (reportedly) making demands ... I'm not sure that is a huge red flag to other players.

I thinks it's a skosh different when the guy is the highest paid and 'face of the franchise'. Granted AD has blurred some lines and created complications. But I do think there is something to be said for treating a guy, especially a top tier player, like a family member rather than a straight up asset, which is the language I've seen them paint AD with in the last month. Not much said, if at all, about how they value and care about him as a person....it's all been about how important he is to the success of the team and how they want him back for that reason.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying it reflects around the league. Some people may laugh at that sentiment but I think it carries weight when a guy has a couple options when it comes to where he's gonna sign..... Michael Johnson for example?
I'm not sure it's realistic to expect the FO to be consistently giving off the family vibe and maybe that buck ends with the HC, but I do think the Vikings have been a little weak in that department.

Cliff wrote:I don't see why that would be the case. Requiring Peterson to abide by his contract isn't really all that radical, is it? If a player signs a contract and then refuses to play for said contract certain things happen (with any NFL team). That's a bit different when a player is, say a 6th round pick but has become the starter for their team, is doing well, is still under his rookie contract, but the team won't restructure. I could see a player avoiding a team doing that. However, in this case the player messed up and is (reportedly) making demands ... I'm not sure that is a huge red flag to other players.

It's really not worth discussing anyway since the idea that Peterson would hold out for two full years, or that the Vikings would sit in a standoff with him for anywhere near that long, is incredibly unlikely. I think a holdout for the entirety of 2015 is even extremely unlikely. I doubt either side wants that and both sides would lose in that scenario.

This whole area of discussion is WAY ahead of things anyway since Peterson has yet to even miss a mandatory team function or declare a holdout.

The Breeze wrote:You don't think there would be consequences to an approach like that? I think free agents would avoid Minnesota like the plague if they took that approach.

This is another concern I have. The Vikings are basically setting an organizational precedent here...

I wonder which teams, players in general, consider grade A destinations and which teams are the ones to avoid? Beyond money. I think the top and bottom teams are easy to guess, I wonder where the Vikings would rank in a poll "Which organization would you most like to play for?"[/quote]

I've seen a few polls in the last couple years that showed the 5 teams players were least interested in playing for but not a ranking of all 32. Generally speaking, players want to be on good teams and don't want to end up in places like Oakland or Cleveland, where teams have been bad for a long time. Green Bay is usually listed as an unpopular destination too, probably because it's a small community (by NFL standards) in Northern Wisconsin, not exactly a cultural hot spot with a great climate.

The Breeze wrote: I thinks it's a skosh different when the guy is the highest paid and 'face of the franchise'. Granted AD has blurred some lines and created complications. But I do think there is something to be said for treating a guy, especially a top tier player, like a family member rather than a straight up asset, which is the language I've seen them paint AD with in the last month.

That doesn't seem like the case to me. It seems like they actually tried to handle Peterson with kid gloves originally. Going to his house, saying they want him back, etc. They aren't trying to get him to take less money either. Even now they're only saying 'We have Adrian under contract and expect him to live up to it".

If any of these players think they are much more than assets to these teams they're being fooled. If Adrian Peterson was a no name 3rd string RB he would have been straight up cut. His value is the only thing that kept him on the team. He's already being dealt with like an asset, as is every other NFL player.

Not much said, if at all, about how they value and care about him as a person....it's all been about how important he is to the success of the team and how they want him back for that reason.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying it reflects around the league. Some people may laugh at that sentiment but I think it carries weight when a guy has a couple options when it comes to where he's gonna sign..... Michael Johnson for example? I'm not sure it's realistic to expect the FO to be consistently giving off the family vibe and maybe that buck ends with the HC, but I do think the Vikings have been a little weak in that department.

That may be ... but the team didn't cut him, said publicly that they want him back, paid him even when he wasn't playing, and aren't trying to get him to restructure at a lower price (even though his value is significantly lower than his contract at this point). I have a hard time thinking a player is going to avoid the team because Zimmer didn't tell the media how Peterson is like a son to him and he wants nothing more than to see him back in the Vikings family.

An NFL player's priorities in regards to choosing a new team, from what I can tell, are as follows;

Money >> Climate/Attractions/Night Life of the city they're signing with >> strength of team they're signing with (more or less important than city depending on age) >> Personal feelings about the team (was a fan as a kid, perhaps)

I would guess how the team executives make them feel on the inside is on their list somewhere ... but probably between the condition of the stadium and uniform colors.

Mothman wrote: It's really not worth discussing anyway since the idea that Peterson would hold out for two full years, or that the Vikings would sit in a standoff with him for anywhere near that long, is incredibly unlikely. I think a holdout for the entirety of 2015 is even extremely unlikely. I doubt either side wants that and both sides would lose in that scenario.

This whole area of discussion is WAY ahead of things anyway since Peterson has yet to even miss a mandatory team function or declare a holdout.

Yeah, I don't see it either. I'm just talking in the hypothetical because there's nothing real going on

Cliff wrote: That doesn't seem like the case to me. It seems like they actually tried to handle Peterson with kid gloves originally. Going to his house, saying they want him back, etc. They aren't trying to get him to take less money either. Even now they're only saying 'We have Adrian under contract and expect him to live up to it".

If any of these players think they are much more than assets to these teams they're being fooled. If Adrian Peterson was a no name 3rd string RB he would have been straight up cut. His value is the only thing that kept him on the team. He's already being dealt with like an asset, as is every other NFL player.

I generally agree...although it seems his beef is not with the guys who came to his house but the guys who live in New York. I do believe AD is extremely naive when it comes to how ownership truly views him in terms of his value personally versus as an asset.

Cliff wrote: That may be ... but the team didn't cut him, said publicly that they want him back, paid him even when he wasn't playing, and aren't trying to get him to restructure at a lower price (even though his value is significantly lower than his contract at this point). I have a hard time thinking a player is going to avoid the team because Zimmer didn't tell the media how Peterson is like a son to him and he wants nothing more than to see him back in the Vikings family.

Again,I think Zimmer has actually done that to a respectable degree...whereas AD is seeming to be out of sorts with Zygi.

Cliff wrote: An NFL player's priorities in regards to choosing a new team, from what I can tell, are as follows;

Money >> Climate/Attractions/Night Life of the city they're signing with >> strength of team they're signing with (more or less important than city depending on age) >> Personal feelings about the team (was a fan as a kid, perhaps)

I would guess how the team executives make them feel on the inside is on their list somewhere ... but probably between the condition of the stadium and uniform colors.

I would just think it's different for each guy...but when the money is the same and the guy in question could play anywhere he wants, because he's really good, it doesn't hurt to have a well respected FO, like the Steelers and Ravens for example. I really don't know how the Vikes FO is viewed and just wonder how this situation with AD is forming opinions on it.

The Breeze wrote: I generally agree...although it seems his beef is not with the guys who came to his house but the guys who live in New York. I do believe AD is extremely naive when it comes to how ownership truly views him in terms of his value personally versus as an asset.
Again,I think Zimmer has actually done that to a respectable degree...whereas AD is seeming to be out of sorts with Zygi. I would just think it's different for each guy...but when the money is the same and the guy in question could play anywhere he wants, because he's really good, it doesn't hurt to have a well respected FO, like the Steelers and Ravens for example. I really don't know how the Vikes FO is viewed and just wonder how this situation with AD is forming opinions on it.

Even just on the front end, If Peterson's contract stood as is in Dallas he would make about 1.3 million more dollars this year than he would as a Viking. But the real issue with players of Peterson's caliber is the money on the backend (sponsorships that can pay for the the rest of your life after football). And although its just speculation, it makes a lot of sense to me that this is the biggest issue Peterson is weighing in not wanting to be in Minnesota where his brand is tarnished. After his playing career he will likely make a lot more money in Dallas than he would in Minnesota, where whether you agree with the portrayal or not, he is viewed as a child abuser. That seems to be the predominant view of the public and the press in Vikingland. A couple strong seasons in Dallas? maybe a 2000 yard campaign or a superbowl? He becomes a money magnet, all without the taint he carries in Minnesota.