Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Traveling_Vike is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    885

    Re: Vikings in holding pattern on player extensions

    I'm not so sure that this policy indicates a desire to sell. To me, it seems like if you wanted to sell a team, you'd lock up as many top players as you could. After all, you won't be the one paying those contracts down the line. Plus, it increases the value, and therefor the selling price, of the team.

    So it looks more to me like they Wilfs want to hang on to the team, and are trying to protect their investment.

    Moving is another matter... if they retain ownership.

    My Meeple is purple. What color is yours?

  2. #12
    ndnorseman is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    321

    Re: Vikings in holding pattern on player extensions

    Well, moving seems to be THE matter, since it's primarily the expired lease that's causing the issue in the first place. Selling or not is really neither here nor there. I just threw it in as a possibility...but you make good points with that.

  3. #13
    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

    Re: Vikings in holding pattern on player extensions

    Quote Originally Posted by "ndnorseman" #1082346
    Quote Originally Posted by "Infidel" #1082335
    Vikings management has been showing a "penny-wise, pound foolish" style.

    That should change.

    Why should it change? Wilf and Co. are playing it smart (for them). Look at it this way:

    They're very likely going to end up moving/selling the team, because the stadium issue STILL isn't getting resolved, to my knowledge. Why on God's Green Earth would they want to shell out MORE money for players that won't be on their payroll after next season...and with the lockout looming, our guys aren't likely to even play that!

    PLEASE...if there's any info out there that you've seen/heard about, and it shows a SIGNIFICANT possibility that the Vikings are STAYING in Minnesota, let me know!

    Otherwise, this debate is about as pointless as it gets!
    http://www.twincities.com/ci_16744581?nclick_check=1

    A nebulous stadium bill was introduced late in last year's legislative session but quickly died. This time, Bagley said, the Vikings will be better prepared.

    "What we heard at the last session was, 'When you bring this back, have a package that includes site, costs specific to the site and some funding options; then let's attack the issue,' " he said.
    Advertisement
    "That's what we've been busy getting together since summer."

    Bagley said the Vikings have received recent overtures from two groups trying to woo an NFL team to Los Angeles but told each "that we appreciate the check-in, but we're focused on resolving the issue in Minnesota."

    "We feel we're well-positioned with a new governor and Legislature and that the discussion will move forward this year, and that's what we're trying to do," Bagley said. "We told them we need to get the job done in Minnesota."
    The Vikings wouldn't keep spending money to get a stadium deal if they had given up. It's still very alive. My favorite part, and one that I had not seen before came at the very bottom.

    NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently told reporters the league would like to renegotiate its collective bargaining agreement with the players union in order to free up cash for teams that need new stadiums, such as the Vikings and Atlanta Falcons.

  4. #14
    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

    Re: Vikings in holding pattern on player extensions

    Quote Originally Posted by "Traveling_Vike" #1082356
    I'm not so sure that this policy indicates a desire to sell. To me, it seems like if you wanted to sell a team, you'd lock up as many top players as you could. After all, you won't be the one paying those contracts down the line. Plus, it increases the value, and therefor the selling price, of the team.

    So it looks more to me like they Wilfs want to hang on to the team, and are trying to protect their investment.

    Moving is another matter... if they retain ownership.
    Not so sure about that logic. I think when someone is looking to buy a business the first thing they want to see is a profit and loss. If a business loses money(or shows a small profit) no one will pay much, if they are making lots of money it looks much better.

    When McCombs sold the team he brought the teams payroll(players and coaches) to a minimum for this reason.

    Plus new ownership will probably want to gut the team and bring in there own players, coaches, trainers etc. Not having a bunch tied up with long term deals makes that easier.

    If they move it doesn't change much, players would still be locked into there contracts and have to move with the team.

    Personally I think it is all about the CBA. Everything is on the table. If the salary cap gets lowered by 50%(doubt it's that extreme but from what I've heard owners want the players to get 40% instead of 60% of the revenue) then a team is near the cap will have very little to spend in the offseason.

    Maybe the NFL will go to more of a baseball style where teams that spend over a certain amount have to pay a "luxury" tax after a certain dollar amount. Who knows, again it's all going to be on the table when serious negotiations begin.

    Also the owners want leverage in a new CBA. Players that have huge guaranteed contracts are not going to be as easy to strong arm as players that have no guaranteed money.

    Personally I think we have one of the best cap guys around, once the rules are in place he will maximize our salary cap dollars.

  5. #15
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings in holding pattern on player extensions

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1082253
    Quote Originally Posted by "slavinator" #1082251
    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1082188
    The Vikings have several key free agents after this season, including linebacker Chad Greenway and wide receiver Sidney Rice. Running back Adrian Peterson will be looking for a hefty extension after the 2011 season, as will defensive tackle Kevin Williams.

    Though the Vikings are proactive with their players and feel strongly about keeping them, vice president of football operations Rob Brzezinski said, the uncertainty of the Collective Bargaining Agreement has prompted the team to hold off on extensions as the NFL faces a potential lockout.
    Vikings brass in holding pattern on player extensions

    Hey Bryzcheapski........Other teams figured it out. Why the hell can't you?
    They also dont know if they will have a place to play after 2011 so they are probably trying to go on the cheap until they know if they will be in Minnesota.

    My logic being the added revenue by keeping payroll low as a sale is negotiated. I am hopeful something gets worked out but this is what I see.
    I can track with that line of logic.

    Typical Marrdro, always overthinking things I suppose, however, I just can't help but think that things could have been different if a few of our players would have gone into this year with contracts.

    I am still 100% El Syd would have had the surgery and played this year if he would have been given something.

    I think it should be pretty clear to all what he can do with respect to covering up a QB's mistakes.
    I agree with your notion and said in the pre season and early in the year that they should have used the 25 Mill from Brett's contract to help extend some of our guys and left him on the farm.

    But that isn't what happened and we are stuck in the reality of the situation with the team, the league and the stadium in flux. My guess is Dayton will get some sort of agreement with the team now that he is the winner of the Gov race and things will start to fall in line.

    You can expect probably half of the guys to leave for greener pastures though.

    last year was our year to win it and the way the FO set up the team it was either win then or rebuild and wait until the next cycle which will probably be at least half a decade. Sure wish they would have changed coaches 2 years ago, we would be in a much better situation right now.

  6. #16
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Vikings in holding pattern on player extensions

    Quote Originally Posted by "ndnorseman" #1082346
    Quote Originally Posted by "Infidel" #1082335
    Vikings management has been showing a "penny-wise, pound foolish" style.

    That should change.

    Why should it change? Wilf and Co. are playing it smart (for them). Look at it this way:

    They're very likely going to end up moving/selling the team, because the stadium issue STILL isn't getting resolved, to my knowledge. Why on God's Green Earth would they want to shell out MORE money for players that won't be on their payroll after next season...and with the lockout looming, our guys aren't likely to even play that!

    PLEASE...if there's any info out there that you've seen/heard about, and it shows a SIGNIFICANT possibility that the Vikings are STAYING in Minnesota, let me know!

    Otherwise, this debate is about as pointless as it gets!
    ND, I was listening to Dan Shonka (SP) on the local sports radio yesterday (Ourlads Draft Guru) talking about kids coming out in the draft and a caller asked, will the draft happen if there is a lockout/no CBA?

    He said yes, the league is getting ready to put out a announcement that states that it will not only happen, it will be over a 3 day period like last year.

    In short, league business will still happen and teams better be ready to make those decisions regardless.

    Your point about the stadium is a valid one. Been harping on it for about 3 weeks now.

    My guess, $$/revenue will be something that drives this ownerships group decision over the next year or so and it will be decisions based on how cheap they can get by.

    Looks to me like we might be seeing the second coming of Red.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. How does holding out really help the player?
    By gagarr in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-21-2010, 02:23 PM
  2. Vikings bothered by fourth-quarter fade pattern
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-21-2009, 03:08 PM
  3. The only thing holding the Vikings back.
    By Justin_Jgh in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 08:57 PM
  4. Childress not holding back with Vikings' rookie Peterson
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 04:47 PM
  5. Ravens Pattern??
    By magicci in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-12-2006, 03:47 AM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •