Thread: Harvin to be traded?

The PP is suggesting that Percy has turned into Randy Jr.

Originally Posted by smegmavike

Problem is, he would only fetch a second round pick at best and perhaps only a third.
Unless there is a player the Vikings really want involved in the trade, I believe the Vikings will find a way to extend him.
Singer thinks he should have been extended last year but that's not the way the Vikings usually do things.

Harvin would command more than a third without question. I think fair trade value would be a swap of first rounds plus a second.

Originally Posted by smegmavike

Problem is, he would only fetch a second round pick at best and perhaps only a third.
Unless there is a player the Vikings really want involved in the trade, I believe the Vikings will find a way to extend him.
Singer thinks he should have been extended last year but that's not the way the Vikings usually do things.

Agreed. If a good trade presents itself than Spielman may pull the trigger, but I think the talks are largely to assess his value on the market to use in negotiations with Percy.

If I were to guess I would say that Harvin, with advice from his agent, decided to shut it down after the injury. He likely wouldn't have gotten back to 100% during the season, and playing at less than 100% for a small amount of money is not worth the risk(the risk being an injury or poor performance that prevents him from getting a big payday). It's a business and I don't blame a player for being careful.

But in all seriousness... the 'blown out of proportion' theory holds weight. I mean AP wants him back, obviously Harvin's 'blowup' didn't alienate him too much. People argue and fight. Hell, most of you must have at some point gotten in a fight with your wife/gf/other, doesn't mean you're looking for a trade.

Originally Posted by i_bleed_purple

But in all seriousness... the 'blown out of proportion' theory holds weight. I mean AP wants him back, obviously Harvin's 'blowup' didn't alienate him too much. People argue and fight. Hell, most of you must have at some point gotten in a fight with your wife/gf/other, doesn't mean you're looking for a trade.

At least we won't say we are looking for a trade out loud.

Originally Posted by NodakPaul

You are REALLY reaching and making a lot of assumptions here. That is an awful lot of effort just to try and blame everything on Spielman. Do you really not see the confirmation bias here?

Let's recap...

1) You believe that Spielman made a promise to Harvin that they would work on a contract extension if Harvin came to camp and played during the season.

- This is an assumption, but not outside the realm of possibility.

2) You then believe that Spielman "played Harvin like a fiddle" and that he only told Harvin that to get him into camp and playing.

- Now we start departing from reality... Let's take a break here and ask ourselves why on earth anyone would do that? If you and I are smart enough to know that this would alienate a great player as well as every other player in the locker room, I would assume that the front office staff is as well. Anyway...

3) You then believed that Harvin then refused to play after he got injured until he got a new contract

- Another break here - even if that were the case... why? Harvin isn't helping his case any with either the Vikings or with any other team. It shows a player who refuses to honor his contractual obligations.

4) You now believe that Spielman either backed out of the deal or never intended to work on Harvin's contract.

- Again, why? What would that accomplish? And don't you think that Harvin or other players would be making noise if this was the case?

5) Frazier then "is forced" to put Harvin on IR even though Harvin was ready to play.

- Another break from logic here. Frazier isn't forced to put a player on IR ever. If Harvin is refusing to play, then he deactivates from the roster, subsequently missing game checks. It is the same as a hold out at the beginning of the season. There is no need to put Harvin on IR.

6) The tirade he had with Frazier was about Harvin not getting what was promised him.

- Not only is the "promise" an assumption, but this isn't the first time Harvin has exploded against a coach. He grabbed offensive coordinator Billy Gonzales by the neck and threw him to the ground while in college. Two assistants had to pull Harvin off from Gonzales. He got into an heated argument with Childress on the practice field after Moss's release. He got into TWO blowups with Frazier - one caught on camera on the sidelines, and one in the training room at Winter Park. And yet you think these are all Spielman's fault?

Come on now, this doesn't even pass the common sense test.

I can agree that Spielman and Harvin probably agreed to have more contract talks during the season. However, Harvin barely made it halfway through the season. He was hurt in week 9...

Is contract part of it? Probably, but not all of it. I don't even think it is most of it. I hope the Vikings trade him, because honestly I don't want to see the team reward someone who lets the rest of the players down by refusing to play and has no respect for coaches.

He is a great player, just let him be a great player on some other team. I would rather have the draft picks...

1) Sorry, but it makes a lot of sense. You're love for Spielman is clouding your judgment.

What do you believe changed Harvin's mind about being disgruntled and not come to camp one day & the next day everything is fine? You’re quick to ridicule other people’s opinions, but don’t offer up what you believe to be your own logical opinion.

My guess is he was promised something. If you want to assume something else other than he was promised more money/contract extension, you're free to assume so. Both of our assumptions are just that, but mine is highly possible & it was no secret that Harvin wanted a contract extension back then.

2) I'm not departing from reality here. If Spielman did promise Harvin the contract extension during camp, I'm pretty sure he didn't get it by week 9 or even week 14

Why would Spielman alienate Harvin like that? Who knows. Maybe his intent was to trade him in 2013 anyway or at least prolong not giving him the extension until 2013. Either way it’s not like the Vikings never promised a player a new contract before & didn’t follow thru with it.

3) Why would that be a break from reality? C’mon NP, you’re smarter than that. If he was promised a contract extension & didn’t get it & then got hurt on a minimal salary, why should he go back out there without getting a contract that at least gives him more money if he got hurt again giving 150% for his team? Again you’re quick to criticize, but don’t give you’re explanation for it.

4) See 2)

5) Perhaps “forced” is the wrong word here, but IMO Frasier took the only logical path he could, thus “forced”. Sure he could have deactivated Harvin, but that would have thrown fuel on the fire & made a bad situation worse. Why would Frasier alienate his 2nd best player like that? If you listen to the Video I posted, Schefter states contrary to popular belief, harvin is a big fan of Frazier’s & they do get along, but do have their differences at times. Listening to Frazier, the feeling is mutual.

Putting him on IR rather than deactivating him is logical. It doesn’t piss him off a lot more, it gives them more time to work things out & it keeps the media more at bay. You start deactivating him game after game & everyone starts to ask questions & knows something is up.
Again, looking for your opinion on it then. Do you really believe his 2-3 week injury lingered on for 8 weeks?

6) Yep, he had a heated argument with Childress on the sideline, so did Favre. Do you believe we should have dumped Favre for disrespecting his coach? I didn’t think so.

A lot of players have heated moments on the sidelines with their coaches, You seem to think that Harvin is the first or at least should be the one singled out & punished for it.

The heated argument on the sideline with Frasier was about Ponder not throwing to open receivers. The was not happy about it & quite frankly I wasn’t either & rightfully so. That had nothing to do with Spielman & I never said it did.

The tirade in the locker room IMO was still about him not getting his contract extension. It certainly is well within reality & common sense that this is what it was about, but again feel free to offer up your common sense, logical explanation or should I say “assumption”, that is the only one that can possibly make sense.

I’m not blaming Spielman directly for Harvin blowing up at Frasier if it was about the contract, but common sense tells everyone, well almost everyone, that if Harvin would have gotten his contract extension earlier in the year & paid what he was worth, it would have prevented any tirade about it later on in the season.

If you think we should trade Harvin because he disrespected the coach, that’s your opinion & your entitled to believing we should trade him just as you believed we should traded Favre when he disrespected the coach. Oh wait, you didn’t.

Originally Posted by smegmavike

Singer thinks he should have been extended last year but that's not the way the Vikings usually do things.

Pretty sure Adrian Peterson's rookie contract had him becoming a FA in 2013, but he got a new deal in September of 2011. Not at the end of 2011. Not in 2012 the last year of his contract, but September of 2011.

It was the right thing to do. Reward your star players for performance, rather than piss them off and lose them.

Originally Posted by singersp

1) Sorry, but it makes a lot of sense. You're love for Spielman is clouding your judgment.

What do you believe changed Harvin's mind about being disgruntled and not come to camp one day & the next day everything is fine? You’re quick to ridicule other people’s opinions, but don’t offer up what you believe to be your own logical opinion.

My guess is he was promised something. If you want to assume something else other than he was promised more money/contract extension, you're free to assume so. Both of our assumptions are just that, but mine is highly possible & it was no secret that Harvin wanted a contract extension back then.

2) I'm not departing from reality here. If Spielman did promise Harvin the contract extension during camp, I'm pretty sure he didn't get it by week 9 or even week 14

Why would Spielman alienate Harvin like that? Who knows. Maybe his intent was to trade him in 2013 anyway or at least prolong not giving him the extension until 2013. Either way it’s not like the Vikings never promised a player a new contract before & didn’t follow thru with it.

3) Why would that be a break from reality? C’mon NP, you’re smarter than that. If he was promised a contract extension & didn’t get it & then got hurt on a minimal salary, why should he go back out there without getting a contract that at least gives him more money if he got hurt again giving 150% for his team? Again you’re quick to criticize, but don’t give you’re explanation for it.

4) See 2)

5) Perhaps “forced” is the wrong word here, but IMO Frasier took the only logical path he could, thus “forced”. Sure he could have deactivated Harvin, but that would have thrown fuel on the fire & made a bad situation worse. Why would Frasier alienate his 2nd best player like that? If you listen to the Video I posted, Schefter states contrary to popular belief, harvin is a big fan of Frazier’s & they do get along, but do have their differences at times. Listening to Frazier, the feeling is mutual.

Putting him on IR rather than deactivating him is logical. It doesn’t piss him off a lot more, it gives them more time to work things out & it keeps the media more at bay. You start deactivating him game after game & everyone starts to ask questions & knows something is up.
Again, looking for your opinion on it then. Do you really believe his 2-3 week injury lingered on for 8 weeks?

6) Yep, he had a heated argument with Childress on the sideline, so did Favre. Do you believe we should have dumped Favre for disrespecting his coach? I didn’t think so.

A lot of players have heated moments on the sidelines with their coaches, You seem to think that Harvin is the first or at least should be the one singled out & punished for it.

The heated argument on the sideline with Frasier was about Ponder not throwing to open receivers. The was not happy about it & quite frankly I wasn’t either & rightfully so. That had nothing to do with Spielman & I never said it did.

The tirade in the locker room IMO was still about him not getting his contract extension. It certainly is well within reality & common sense that this is what it was about, but again feel free to offer up your common sense, logical explanation or should I say “assumption”, that is the only one that can possibly make sense.

I’m not blaming Spielman directly for Harvin blowing up at Frasier if it was about the contract, but common sense tells everyone, well almost everyone, that if Harvin would have gotten his contract extension earlier in the year & paid what he was worth, it would have prevented any tirade about it later on in the season.

If you think we should trade Harvin because he disrespected the coach, that’s your opinion & your entitled to believing we should trade him just as you believed we should traded Favre when he disrespected the coach. Oh wait, you didn’t.

Harvin has done it four times. I am starting to see a pattern here.

And I actually laughed out loud when you said that Harvin was making a "minimal salary" when he got hurt. Harvin signed a five-year contract in 2009 worth $14.5 million, including $8.7 million in guarantees. Not exactly what he is worth, but not exactly minimal salary either.

Of course part of the problem is his lack of contract extension. I didn't say it wasn't. But a larger part of the problem is starting to look like Percy himself. Of course, if you are looking for any and every reason to justify your dislike of the GM, then I guess it makes sense to say things like "I don't think Harvin failed us, I think Spielman failed Harvin." and "Spielman gambled with our 2nd best player & lost." I am sure Harvin is convinced that he is nothing but a victim here too...

Originally Posted by singersp

Pretty sure Adrian Peterson's rookie contract had him becoming a FA in 2013, but he got a new deal in September of 2011. Not at the end of 2011. Not in 2012 the last year of his contract, but September of 2011.

It was the right thing to do. Reward your star players for performance, rather than piss them off and lose them.

AP was entering the final year of his rookie contract in 2011 when the Vikings gave him a new contract.
That's the way the Vikings have almost always operated in the past. That's why I asked you why you thought they should have extended Percy's contract last year. It made no sense.

After a 3 day holdout, Adrian Peterson signed a five year rookie contract worth about 40 million dollars, making him the highest paid running back in the NFL.
The first year of that contract was 2007, which would have made the final year 2011.
Had AP played out the final year of his contract, he would have tore his ACL and MCL, and his next contract may have been a lot different.

Negotiations for Percy's new contract will start this year, and hopefully, an agreement reached by training camp.