Dalvin Cook

[StumpHunter]

We are currently on three winning seasons in a row.

8-7-1 is a winning season?

Technically? Yes, but not by enough that it should matter. At the very least it was a down season that we didn't make the playoffs in.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Harris is a top 3 safety in the NFL. He definitely has the best ball skills in the league IMO. I dont blame him one bit for his asking price. He deserves every bit of it.

What's way too much for Cook? He was a top RB in the league last year. He proved to be fairly healthy this year and now we're going to let him walk or trade him? Seems very premature if you ask me.

I also dont get how giving Cook and Harris contracts is "mortgaging the future"? I feel like so many fans did nothing but complain this offseason because we let so many guys walk in FA and didnt really sign anyone in FA outside of Pierce. Yet now fans arent even willing to pay our own, no less two players that are in the top 5 at their position. Maybe even top 3. Like, not resigning our own free agents and taking a back seat in regards to outside free agents, does nothing but give us more money in the future to pay the younger and BETTER players on our roster like Cook and Harris. Not guys like Waynes, Alexander, Kearse, Griffen, Weatherly, etc. By no means were those guys bad. Many were good players.

But if you give me a list of:

Cook
Harris
Waynes
Alexander
Kearse
Griffen
Weatherly
Sendejo

and said pick 2 you'd like to give long term deals to, I'd pick Cook and Harris every day of the week and twice on weekends. We cant just sit back and not spend any money and let everyone walk or trade them. We need to continue to build through the draft and re-sign out top young players. What mortgages the future is trying to trade away all our best players. If we trade those guys, that means we would have traded Anthony Harris, Dalvin Cook and Stefon Diggs all in one offseason. I'm sorry but that is asinine

I was going to give you a thumbs up until the last 4 words. Even if you're right that's too insulting. I'm in favor of retaining Harris at a reasonable contract. I think that would be $11 million a year or less. Because of how badly large contracts to RBs have been working out $10 million a year is the max I would find acceptable for Cook.We will see how it all works out in the end.

I think you took that the wrong way. I wasn’t directing that at you in any way. That’s a direct shot at Spielman and Zim if they did that. I’m saying it would be asinine on their part to trade 3 of the best players on the team in one offseason.

1.) you never see 3 top players from 1 team all get traded in an offseason

2.) guys think we took a hit losing the free agents we did and trading diggs, subtract Harris and cook out of that equation as well. We’ve already lost one huge contributor on this offense. No need to do it again unless someone threw some insane offer at us which is highly doubtful. Like I said before, 2024 will be a year from hell if we trade cook and Harris and get picks for them. That would be 14+ rookie contracts in 2024 that are expired and we now traded away 3 top players in diggs , Harris and cook. That’s just too much to lose simple as that.

[VikingsVictorious]

We are currently on three winning seasons in a row.

8-7-1 is a winning season?

Yes when you win more than you lose that is the definition of a winning season.

[VikingsVictorious]

I was going to give you a thumbs up until the last 4 words. Even if you're right that's too insulting. I'm in favor of retaining Harris at a reasonable contract. I think that would be $11 million a year or less. Because of how badly large contracts to RBs have been working out $10 million a year is the max I would find acceptable for Cook.We will see how it all works out in the end.

I think you took that the wrong way. I wasn’t directing that at you in any way. That’s a direct shot at Spielman and Zim if they did that. I’m saying it would be asinine on their part to trade 3 of the best players on the team in one offseason.

1.) you never see 3 top players from 1 team all get traded in an offseason

2.) guys think we took a hit losing the free agents we did and trading diggs, subtract Harris and cook out of that equation as well. We’ve already lost one huge contributor on this offense. No need to do it again unless someone threw some insane offer at us which is highly doubtful. Like I said before, 2024 will be a year from hell if we trade cook and Harris and get picks for them. That would be 14+ rookie contracts in 2024 that are expired and we now traded away 3 top players in diggs , Harris and cook. That’s just too much to lose simple as that.

I didn't take it as directed at me, but maybe at some others. Asinine is a word to use when you want to make enemies of somebody. I think it's better to avoid it.

[Pondering Her Percy]

https://vikings61.com/vikings-not-payi ... -bad-math/

Not much of a source but good article regarding giving cook a contract

[Pondering Her Percy]

I think you took that the wrong way. I wasn’t directing that at you in any way. That’s a direct shot at Spielman and Zim if they did that. I’m saying it would be asinine on their part to trade 3 of the best players on the team in one offseason.

1.) you never see 3 top players from 1 team all get traded in an offseason

2.) guys think we took a hit losing the free agents we did and trading diggs, subtract Harris and cook out of that equation as well. We’ve already lost one huge contributor on this offense. No need to do it again unless someone threw some insane offer at us which is highly doubtful. Like I said before, 2024 will be a year from hell if we trade cook and Harris and get picks for them. That would be 14+ rookie contracts in 2024 that are expired and we now traded away 3 top players in diggs , Harris and cook. That’s just too much to lose simple as that.

I didn't take it as directed at me, but maybe at some others. Asinine is a word to use when you want to make enemies of somebody. I think it's better to avoid it.

It wasn’t directed at anyone else either. Asinine is another word for stupid or foolish. I’m saying that’s what spielman and Zim would be if they traded away 3 of their best players in one offseason

[fiestavike]

If we could get the proposed 1st for Cook and proposed 2nd for Harris, I am all for making those trades. 100 percent yes. That would be highway robbery for Harris (and obviously the rest of the NFL agrees) and would also be highway robbery for a RB about to get his second contract. The vikings would be absolutely asinine not to make those trades if they were on the table. Unfortunately, they aren't on the table, because nobody would give us that much for ANY RB, or for a slightly better than average safety.

[cmoss84]

Fans want to keep all of their stars. Organizations do the best they can, with the circumstances they have. Trading away our 3 best players would be far from ideal. But maybe necessary given our circumstances:
1) we have no $ (bottom 5 in NFL?)
2) our star WR wanted out. Do you think the Texans WANTED to trade Hopkins? Don't you think O'Brien knows first hand how good he is and how much fans loved him? I'm sure the circumstances were bad.
3) Cook is spectacular. No doubt. And it isn't even a question of HIS durability. It is the risk of giving a ton of guaranteed $ to a position that normally has a fairly short shelf life. Incentive based contract? Sure...But not likely.
4) Harris was awesome. But wouldn't extending him to a big contract be a luxury only the top half of salary cap flexible teams can afford to make?
5) draft picks can be stacked/traded. We can trade up to get the exact players we want. We don't have to have 14 rookie contracts.

[Pondering Her Percy]

If we could get the proposed 1st for Cook and proposed 2nd for Harris, I am all for making those trades. 100 percent yes. That would be highway robbery for Harris (and obviously the rest of the NFL agrees) and would also be highway robbery for a RB about to get his second contract. The vikings would be absolutely asinine not to make those trades if they were on the table. Unfortunately, they aren't on the table, because nobody would give us that much for ANY RB, or for a slightly better than average safety.

Sure, if someone was going to give us the kings ransom, then yeah. That’s why I said the only way I’d be good with trading diggs was if we got a good haul.

Also, how is Harris slightly above average??? He was arguably the best safety in the entire nfl this year. I’m pretty sure that he’s in the elite range of safeties right now.

As for cook, yeah we aren’t getting a first round pick. How often are RBs ever traded for a first round pick? And to ask for anything less than that is just dumb given we drafted him in the 2nd round. Basically we rented him for 3 years and got the same value back in return if we took a 2nd. However, that doesn’t mean cook doesn’t deserve an extension.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Fans want to keep all of their stars. Organizations do the best they can, with the circumstances they have. Trading away our 3 best players would be far from ideal. But maybe necessary given our circumstances:
1) we have no $ (bottom 5 in NFL?)
2) our star WR wanted out. Do you think the Texans WANTED to trade Hopkins? Don't you think O'Brien knows first hand how good he is and how much fans loved him? I'm sure the circumstances were bad.
3) Cook is spectacular. No doubt. And it isn't even a question of HIS durability. It is the risk of giving a ton of guaranteed $ to a position that normally has a fairly short shelf life. Incentive based contract? Sure...But not likely.
4) Harris was awesome. But wouldn't extending him to a big contract be a luxury only the top half of salary cap flexible teams can afford to make?
5) draft picks can be stacked/traded. We can trade up to get the exact players we want. We don't have to have 14 rookie contracts.

I think we’ve lost plenty of talent already this year. Shipping two more studs out the door and fans disagreeing with it doesn’t mean we want to keep all our stars. By no means IS it necessary. To assess your points:

1.) yeah we are low on cap. However a few weeks ago, Kansas City had $177 in cap room. Yes $177. The saints were floating on next to nothing as well. I don’t see the chiefs trying to trade kelce and tyreek hill or the saints trying to trade cam Jordan and Michael Thomas.

2.)Hopkins had an issue with O’Brien and rightfully so because I think O’Brien is clueless. Dalvin cook and Harris are both in their prime, both want to be here, are humble and all about the team not their stat sheets like Diggs was. Diggs didn’t like not being the go to guy and wanted the spotlight on him. That became more and more obvious through this process. Harris and cook are nothing like that.

3.) I get what you’re saying about the guaranteed money. But I guess my question is, what are we suppose to do? In the sense of are we just going to draft a new RB every 4 years because we are scared to give a RB guaranteed money? When you come across a talent like cook and then add in his attitude, leadership and love for the team, I think he should 100% get a new contract. I don’t think he’s all about the money either. He could try and take us to the cleaner but I don’t think he will.

4.) as for Harris, maybe it is a luxury. However I’ve said this before regarding Harris: he’s arguably the best ball hawk safety in the nfl. Our CB room is decimated. Pairing him with Harry gives you two guys you hardly ever have to worry about in the back end. Harris is a playmaker. We need playmakers in this defensive backfield.

5.) we can trade up and still get the exact players we want with the 12 picks we have. The only team with more picks is the dolphins with 14. Having 12 picks already in a 7 round draft is a boat load. You have teams like the saints and chiefs (ironically) that have 5 total picks. So not only do they have zero cap room but they have zero picks. We at least have the luxury of all these picks. Having a couple extra picks from trading cook and Harris wouldn’t be a determining factor of us trading up or not. We have plenty to do whatever we want with now. No less two of them are 1sts and two of them are 3rds. How many more draft picks do we want? If we make anymore trades we might be setting a record and could potentially be in trouble come 2024.

[cmoss84]

Fans want to keep all of their stars. Organizations do the best they can, with the circumstances they have. Trading away our 3 best players would be far from ideal. But maybe necessary given our circumstances:
1) we have no $ (bottom 5 in NFL?)
2) our star WR wanted out. Do you think the Texans WANTED to trade Hopkins? Don't you think O'Brien knows first hand how good he is and how much fans loved him? I'm sure the circumstances were bad.
3) Cook is spectacular. No doubt. And it isn't even a question of HIS durability. It is the risk of giving a ton of guaranteed $ to a position that normally has a fairly short shelf life. Incentive based contract? Sure...But not likely.
4) Harris was awesome. But wouldn't extending him to a big contract be a luxury only the top half of salary cap flexible teams can afford to make?
5) draft picks can be stacked/traded. We can trade up to get the exact players we want. We don't have to have 14 rookie contracts.

I think we’ve lost plenty of talent already this year. Shipping two more studs out the door and fans disagreeing with it doesn’t mean we want to keep all our stars. By no means IS it necessary. To assess your points:

1.) yeah we are low on cap. However a few weeks ago, Kansas City had $177 in cap room. Yes $177. The saints were floating on next to nothing as well. I don’t see the chiefs trying to trade kelce and tyreek hill or the saints trying to trade cam Jordan and Michael Thomas.

2.)Hopkins had an issue with O’Brien and rightfully so because I think O’Brien is clueless. Dalvin cook and Harris are both in their prime, both want to be here, are humble and all about the team not their stat sheets like Diggs was. Diggs didn’t like not being the go to guy and wanted the spotlight on him. That became more and more obvious through this process. Harris and cook are nothing like that.

3.) I get what you’re saying about the guaranteed money. But I guess my question is, what are we suppose to do? In the sense of are we just going to draft a new RB every 4 years because we are scared to give a RB guaranteed money? When you come across a talent like cook and then add in his attitude, leadership and love for the team, I think he should 100% get a new contract. I don’t think he’s all about the money either. He could try and take us to the cleaner but I don’t think he will.

4.) as for Harris, maybe it is a luxury. However I’ve said this before regarding Harris: he’s arguably the best ball hawk safety in the nfl. Our CB room is decimated. Pairing him with Harry gives you two guys you hardly ever have to worry about in the back end. Harris is a playmaker. We need playmakers in this defensive backfield.

5.) we can trade up and still get the exact players we want with the 12 picks we have. The only team with more picks is the dolphins with 14. Having 12 picks already in a 7 round draft is a boat load. You have teams like the saints and chiefs (ironically) that have 5 total picks. So not only do they have zero cap room but they have zero picks. We at least have the luxury of all these picks. Having a couple extra picks from trading cook and Harris wouldn’t be a determining factor of us trading up or not. We have plenty to do whatever we want with now. No less two of them are 1sts and two of them are 3rds. How many more draft picks do we want? If we make anymore trades we might be setting a record and could potentially be in trouble come 2024.

I was comparing Hopkins/O'Brien strictly to us/Diggs. Did not want to tie in Cook or Harris. Sorry if unclear.
Takes a lot to trade up in the first 3 rds...the more fire power, the better. If we could get 5 guys in the first 3 rounds that we love, our rebuild might be very quick and effective.
Interesting conversation everyone...thanks for all of your responses!

[VikingLord]

1.) yeah we are low on cap. However a few weeks ago, Kansas City had $177 in cap room. Yes $177. The saints were floating on next to nothing as well. I don’t see the chiefs trying to trade kelce and tyreek hill or the saints trying to trade cam Jordan and Michael Thomas.

Maybe KC and the Saints believe they can hold their rosters together and compete for a Superbowl next year.

Do you think the Vikings believe they were ready to compete for a Superbowl next year with their season-ending roster? I suggest that the moves made thus far say no, and if that is their mindset, then I won't be surprised if further significant moves are made this offseason in an effort to rebuild the roster.

2.)Hopkins had an issue with O’Brien and rightfully so because I think O’Brien is clueless. Dalvin cook and Harris are both in their prime, both want to be here, are humble and all about the team not their stat sheets like Diggs was. Diggs didn’t like not being the go to guy and wanted the spotlight on him. That became more and more obvious through this process. Harris and cook are nothing like that.

That may be true, but players don't play for free. To paraphrase the Clint Eastwood character near the end of "Unforgiven" - "Like's got nothin' to do with it...". That's before he blows away the corrupt sheriff that killed his friend.

In the end, Harris and Cook (and all players) only have a certain amount of time to play at the pro level, and they need to make all the money they can. It is exceedingly rare for players to take less than they could make elsewhere. Those who do take less exist, sure, but it won't be markedly less.

3.) I get what you’re saying about the guaranteed money. But I guess my question is, what are we suppose to do? In the sense of are we just going to draft a new RB every 4 years because we are scared to give a RB guaranteed money? When you come across a talent like cook and then add in his attitude, leadership and love for the team, I think he should 100% get a new contract. I don’t think he’s all about the money either. He could try and take us to the cleaner but I don’t think he will.

The Vikings have had the star RB already several times in their history. Still no Superbowl win, and no Superbowl appearance even since the first half of the 70's.

Plus, do they need the high power RB if they have a great offensive line? Did San Fran have a star RB last year? How many teams that have won the Superbowl or even gotten to the Superbowl did so on the strength of a star RB?

I'm not saying having a star RB is a bad thing. Far from it. If you can get one, it won't hurt. But RB's tend to have short shelf lives (has Cook even played a full season yet?), and tying up a bunch of money in that position in particular doesn't seem to be the wisest move to me.

4.) as for Harris, maybe it is a luxury. However I’ve said this before regarding Harris: he’s arguably the best ball hawk safety in the nfl. Our CB room is decimated. Pairing him with Harry gives you two guys you hardly ever have to worry about in the back end. Harris is a playmaker. We need playmakers in this defensive backfield.

How much money should be tied up in the safety position? How much of the cap do you want to spend for the secondary overall, and how much do you want to invest in the defensive line?

Look at league history and what types of teams have made and won Superbowls. Where do they tend to be strong? Where are they investing their limited dollars?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but my guess is few of the more successful teams have two highly-paid safeties at the same time. My guess is most of them have more invested up front, either in their front fours or front sevens, and if they do have highly paid secondary players, the top two would be a combo of a corner and a safety or even two corners.

5.) we can trade up and still get the exact players we want with the 12 picks we have. The only team with more picks is the dolphins with 14. Having 12 picks already in a 7 round draft is a boat load. You have teams like the saints and chiefs (ironically) that have 5 total picks. So not only do they have zero cap room but they have zero picks. We at least have the luxury of all these picks. Having a couple extra picks from trading cook and Harris wouldn’t be a determining factor of us trading up or not. We have plenty to do whatever we want with now. No less two of them are 1sts and two of them are 3rds. How many more draft picks do we want? If we make anymore trades we might be setting a record and could potentially be in trouble come 2024.

Whether a given trade makes sense depends on what the team gets in exchange. If the compensation for a given player is good enough, Spielman would be foolish not to make the trade. For a safety like Harris who, if he plays under the franchise tag, would be on a one year deal, a 2nd rounder, especially a top half of the 2 round, would be enough for me to make the deal.

For Cook I'm not sure. On a potential contribution basis (i.e. Cook stays effective and healthy all year), he's worth at least a 1st. On an actual basis given his injury history and length of time in the league, I might do the deal for a 2nd rounder in the top 10 picks of the 2nd, or a first half of the 3rd and a 2nd.

But an offer like that will never come. Every sim mock I've done and every other mock I've seen has the RBs in this year's draft slipping. If the Vikings were to ship Cook for an extra 2nd, they could easily use that to get a talented replacement with a lot less wear on the tires, but the same logic suggests a team that needs a talented runner would probably just hold on to their ammunition and spend it on said RB.

[YikesVikes]

We paid Rudolph 9 million and you guys are talking about not wanting to pay Cook 9 million. Pay Cook his money. We have paid a lot of inconsistent players much more. The guy is in his prime and getting better.

[Husker Vike]

Agree on not paying that much for Rudolph, But all this talk about trading Cook is crazy,Our offense is built around him and there are very few backs who have Cook's skill set.His vision and burst can't be found as easily as many of you think.

[Dakotavike]

Most of you are much smarter than me with the actual X's and O's of football. But I think what some on this forum are missing is that it's not just Cook's talent (which of course is undeniable), it's also his fit in this offense. Not all RB's are created equal. I would agree that the vast majority of RB's in this league (even the really good ones) are pretty close to interchangeable and shouldn't be paid huge contracts. But Cook is unique in that he's one of the few that can do it all and is tailor-made for this scheme. Outside of McCaffrey and possibly Kamara I can't think of, off the top of my head, many others that can do what he does. So, for me, as long as we're running this offense the last thing I want to do is lose Cook. Do I want to pay him 'highest RB in the league' money? No, absolutely not. But I agree with PHP, I don't think we'll have to. So if we can find a way to extend him without completely breaking the bank I'm all for it.