Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 134
  1. #101
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    Again, you seem to be pretty ardent you don't like what the FO is doing but you have no clue how you would do it better or how you would like them to do it different. Pushing money back to other years is not always a good thing because it limits what you can do with salaries in future years and from my memory I don't remember too many years where we were both stocked with talent on the roster and also sitting with lots of cap room.

    You also need to understand that we are only a few years into this new CBA and when we had the uncapped year nobody knew how it would impact the cap in the coming years. Many teams overspent during that period,anticipating there would be more money available but the cap turned out to be fairly flat and that is what is causing many of the teams you are praising to reno these contracts and it isn't because they are smart now, it is because they were not wise earlier and they need to create space in the present year at the expense of having less cap space for players in future years. You can't have your cake and eat it.

    I am glad they are letting his contract expire so they can make a decision on what to do with him with a clean slate and not have any old money tied to future years.
    I think you don't understand that I get what you are saying. I promise you I do.
    I get that you think it's a good idea that we let our DE that has 117 sacks (leads active players) to hit the free agent market. Where we disagree is that I believe that teams shouldn't let this happen to their players. You think he will hit the market, test the waters, find it lukewarm and return. I believe that he will hit the market and find a good offer. He will not return because he feels disrespected. In the mean time we would lose several of the players I listed above.

  2. #102
    Flair Hay is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    87
    It is possible he could want to leave without receiving a multi year deal. But we would still have the option to franchise him. Similar situation to Briggs in the Windy City.

    It's a cruel way to run your business, but that's the reality of the salary cap era.

  3. #103
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,906
    Where does it say that contacts have to be escalating only? Please point out, as I missed it?

  4. #104
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Flair Hay View Post
    It is possible he could want to leave without receiving a multi year deal. But we would still have the option to franchise him. Similar situation to Briggs in the Windy City.

    It's a cruel way to run your business, but that's the reality of the salary cap era.
    Agreed, however, you're letting your youngin hit the market.
    Letting him play out this year is a double whammy.

  5. #105
    Flair Hay is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    87
    This is true. I really hope they can lock Griffin up before then. Unless one of Allen and Robison is let go, I'd imagine he'd be intent on seeing if someone would offer him a starting job elsewhere. Ideally I'd like to keep all three but for it to logically play out that way is unlikely.

    So much of it depends on how Griffin plays this season. Having three DEs is almost as important these days as having three capable corners. If we lose one of these guys for nothing we'll have another hole to fill in next year's draft.

  6. #106
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by kevoncox View Post
    I think you don't understand that I get what you are saying. I promise you I do.
    I get that you think it's a good idea that we let our DE that has 117 sacks (leads active players) to hit the free agent market. Where we disagree is that I believe that teams shouldn't let this happen to their players. You think he will hit the market, test the waters, find it lukewarm and return. I believe that he will hit the market and find a good offer. He will not return because he feels disrespected. In the mean time we would lose several of the players I listed above.

    I never said it is a good idea, it just may well be an economic reality based on how his contract interacts with other contracts the Vikings have done, are doing and need to do in the near future. This isn't a bubble and other contracts will factor into what they can do with him.

    You contention has been(or started out as) that they should have locked him up last year, this past off season or some other time you have not isolated for us. For that to happen and for him to get the same amount of money (hence not taking a pay cut) they would have had to do an up front bonus and shift that cap hit over the terms of the reno'ed contract. It has to be lineal as I stated while you wrote in black and white that you felt it could go up, down and back up again. my link laid that to rest.

    Now, if we would have done what you wanted to do, then knowing the cap has been flat and we had guys like Harvin and Winfield that we already couldn't afford, who would you have been willing to let go in order to keep those players and still give allen the contract with the cap hit spread out over more years,which impacts more years than the current one does?


    That is what you are not facing up to. It isn't that the team doesn't want to work with him, it is that they have finite resources and they possibly have to consider what other players may have to be let go in future years if they commit money today that will be counted against them in the future. Do you not understand that or do you want us to have cap problems in the future just so we can get more players today at a reduced rate?

    The cap is not as simple and clear cut as you are contending it is. it is extremely difficult to manage and if you make a mistake on a player and they get hurt or cut, you still have to pay them that up front money and it is accelerated which can really throw a monkey wrench into the roster you are able to field.

    Here is a recent example:


    Currently, Crabtree still has pro-rated bonuses due to him, around $2.529 million for 2013 and 2014. He can also receive $500,000 in roster bonuses tied into offseason workouts and per-game roster bonuses. Very complicated stuff.
    But he tore his Achilles and will be out of the lineup until he can recover. During that time they are paying him his salary plus they are on the hook for accounting for Millions of dollars he was paid before but was shifted to this years cap. Now, they don't have him on the field and that deferred hit is going to prevent them from signing another player to take his place.

  7. #107
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,278
    He is 31, and has taken a ton of wear and tear. He played through injuries all last season and had 2 surgeries in the offseason. I'd rather not give him a multi year deal with guaranteed money(which is what it would take).
    Worst case scenario is we lose him after this year.
    If we resign him now the worst case scenario is that we have a highly overpaid aging player for the next 4 years, which leads to Allen being cut and the Vikings have dead money in 2014-2016.
    He's still a great player, but he is on the back side of his career. He is not going to get better.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boise Idaho
    Posts
    1,020
    Quote Originally Posted by jmcdon00 View Post
    He is 31, and has taken a ton of wear and tear. He played through injuries all last season and had 2 surgeries in the offseason. I'd rather not give him a multi year deal with guaranteed money(which is what it would take).
    Worst case scenario is we lose him after this year.
    If we resign him now the worst case scenario is that we have a highly overpaid aging player for the next 4 years, which leads to Allen being cut and the Vikings have dead money in 2014-2016.
    He's still a great player, but he is on the back side of his career. He is not going to get better.
    Why couldn't he get better? Because he's 31??? Look what Ray Lewis accomplished at the LB position.

  9. #109
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    Again, you seem to be pretty ardent you don't like what the FO is doing but you have no clue how you would do it better or how you would like them to do it different. Pushing money back to other years is not always a good thing because it limits what you can do with salaries in future years and from my memory I don't remember too many years where we were both stocked with talent on the roster and also sitting with lots of cap room.

    You also need to understand that we are only a few years into this new CBA and when we had the uncapped year nobody knew how it would impact the cap in the coming years. Many teams overspent during that period,anticipating there would be more money available but the cap turned out to be fairly flat and that is what is causing many of the teams you are praising to reno these contracts and it isn't because they are smart now, it is because they were not wise earlier and they need to create space in the present year at the expense of having less cap space for players in future years. You can't have your cake and eat it.

    I am glad they are letting his contract expire so they can make a decision on what to do with him with a clean slate and not have any old money tied to future years.
    I think this is the best approach as well. Any new contract offered to Allen will look much better with this year's commitment off the books. We will also have his latest body of work to determine his value and the value to the Vikings. We will also have a better idea how easily he can be replaced.

    The only way I see Allen accepting a contract with a reasonable payout is if it is done for a long term (4 or more years) with a significant signing bonus or if we wait until FA and nobody bites with a big contract. I wouldn't be completely against a longer term contract because I think he has a number of years left in him, but I would also understand the decision for moving on. I have a strong suspicion the latter is the plan of the FO.

    Flair's point of franchising is also a real possibility.

  10. #110
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    I never said it is a good idea, it just may well be an economic reality based on how his contract interacts with other contracts the Vikings have done, are doing and need to do in the near future. This isn't a bubble and other contracts will factor into what they can do with him.

    You contention has been(or started out as) that they should have locked him up last year, this past off season or some other time you have not isolated for us. For that to happen and for him to get the same amount of money (hence not taking a pay cut) they would have had to do an up front bonus and shift that cap hit over the terms of the reno'ed contract. It has to be lineal as I stated while you wrote in black and white that you felt it could go up, down and back up again. my link laid that to rest.

    Now, if we would have done what you wanted to do, then knowing the cap has been flat and we had guys like Harvin and Winfield that we already couldn't afford, who would you have been willing to let go in order to keep those players and still give allen the contract with the cap hit spread out over more years,which impacts more years than the current one does?


    That is what you are not facing up to. It isn't that the team doesn't want to work with him, it is that they have finite resources and they possibly have to consider what other players may have to be let go in future years if they commit money today that will be counted against them in the future. Do you not understand that or do you want us to have cap problems in the future just so we can get more players today at a reduced rate?

    The cap is not as simple and clear cut as you are contending it is. it is extremely difficult to manage and if you make a mistake on a player and they get hurt or cut, you still have to pay them that up front money and it is accelerated which can really throw a monkey wrench into the roster you are able to field.

    Here is a recent example:




    But he tore his Achilles and will be out of the lineup until he can recover. During that time they are paying him his salary plus they are on the hook for accounting for Millions of dollars he was paid before but was shifted to this years cap. Now, they don't have him on the field and that deferred hit is going to prevent them from signing another player to take his place.
    I read your link and it put nothing to rest. I asked for a point that showed that salaries are locked in an escalating/deescalating fashion. I am quiet sure that I have seen several nfl contract figures where the number fluctuates.

    My point was that they should have fixed this earlier offseason, they should fix it now, and it makes no sense for it to carry into the new season and keep us from addressing other needs I.E LB and the fact that we have 2 other "starting" DEs that we can't resign. You can't convince me that this situation is being handled the best way possible.

    I don't have to be a contract expert to tell that the FO dropped the ball here. It's simple... really simple... We are stuck in a really bad position with the face of our defense. One that is affecting the young players on our team in 1 of 2 ways. 1) Why should they feel they would be rewarded for their play when we won't take care of the team captain, who gives his all. 2) They may hit FA and hear get woo'ed by other teams, especially if they have a big season this year.

    Because of this we do not have a lot of our core players in good contracts. If we were to win the Super Bowl this season...the vultures will try to pick us clean. Right now in 2013 we don't have a DL and that's scary.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •