Ruh-Roh, Cook Plans to Hold Out?

[VikingsVictorious]

Cook wants a billion dollars a year or more. It's irrelevant what he wants to what he gets. He has no leverage and no production to indicate that he is worth 13 million a year. IMO 10 Million with incentives for more is very reasonable.

Someone made a good point that his leverage could come from Zimmer and Spielman being in the final years of their contracts, and being unable to afford a down year.

First I don't buy the thinking that Spielman and zimmer are win at all costs this season. If so they wouldn't have been trading draft picks this year for draft picks next year. My opinion is that Cook has zero leverage. We have Mattison to replace cook and we can spend that money so much more effectively for us to have a winning season. Really our best move for winning football is to trade Cook for an actually useful player rather than a draft pick. That said I would have no problem with us signing him for a reasonable $10 million a year.

[VikingsVictorious]

I don't really think there are any good or bad guys in this situation.

Cook has outplayed his contract and he probably knows a RB's career is short. He's justified in asking for more money.

Anybody can ask for more money based on performance, so I agree with you on that.

But threatening to breach a contract to force more is not justified. Heck, it used to be common for players to threaten breaches or actually breach their contracts, both rookies and vets, which caused a lot of chaos and negative outcomes for both the owners and less-heralded players who worked every bit as hard and took the same physical risks as the star players who felt entitled.

I'm on the extreme end of this maybe. I acknowledge that, but from where I sit, for a player like Cook who is under an existing contract and with his injury history and inconsistency, I'd make him play well into next season before I'd start negotiations with his agent on an extension. I'd assure him he's valuable to the team and if he can prove he can stay on the field he's in the long-term plans and will be compensated well at that point, but that's as far as I'd go right now.

I'd take that position because if I were the GM I'm responsible for the future of the entire team, and as much as I might like a particular player or believe in his potential, if I sink limited future dollars into a player who can't stay on the field, that moves the team away from being competitive and impacts everyone else whose future is tied to it being competitive, from coaches to players to the GM.

If I'm being fair, I'm also jaded now as to the tangible impact of an explosive running back on the team's chances to make it to, much less win, a Superbowl. This goes back to the Herschel Walker trade probably, where the Vikings invested a king's ransom to obtain the "missing piece" of a Superbowl-caliber team and got what in return? Or Adrian Peterson... Another star back who got them close only once when he played with a vet QB who was the real difference on that offense and team, and in the most critical situations in the NFC Championship Game it was Peterson who literally fumbled away their chances (he fumbled 5 times in that game IIRC).

The Vikings had Chuck Foreman during their Superbowl years in the first half of the 70's, but he was not what I would call a star back. He was an effective back who did everything he was asked to do very well and very consistently.

They had Robert Smith in the late 90's and early 2000's and did pretty well. Again, not a flashy back, but a guy who played the position about as well as it can be played.

So the Vikings have a history with "star" running backs and it's not great. They're fun to watch, sure, but over decades of experience I think competence and consistency at RB pay off more in the big scheme of things than flash. And its not just the Vikings that demonstrate that, either. I think there is a pretty decent history of teams that made and won Superbowls that demonstrates effective and consistent running is far more important than flashy explosive running. It isn't necessary to invest lots of cap space into the running back position to have success.

I get so tired of the Peterson fumbling thing in the New Orleans game. He did fumble twice. Both of those fumbles were recovered. Once by Peterson making a spectacular recovery himself. A lot of people want to Blame Peterson for a fumble charged to Favre. Even if that's right Peterson rushed for about 140 yards and 3 TDs. We had 5 TOs in that game and at worst Peterson was involved in one of them. Peterson was a huge part of us almost winning. He was the solution not the problem.

[Bowhunting Viking]

Anybody can ask for more money based on performance, so I agree with you on that.

But threatening to breach a contract to force more is not justified. Heck, it used to be common for players to threaten breaches or actually breach their contracts, both rookies and vets, which caused a lot of chaos and negative outcomes for both the owners and less-heralded players who worked every bit as hard and took the same physical risks as the star players who felt entitled.

I'm on the extreme end of this maybe. I acknowledge that, but from where I sit, for a player like Cook who is under an existing contract and with his injury history and inconsistency, I'd make him play well into next season before I'd start negotiations with his agent on an extension. I'd assure him he's valuable to the team and if he can prove he can stay on the field he's in the long-term plans and will be compensated well at that point, but that's as far as I'd go right now.

I'd take that position because if I were the GM I'm responsible for the future of the entire team, and as much as I might like a particular player or believe in his potential, if I sink limited future dollars into a player who can't stay on the field, that moves the team away from being competitive and impacts everyone else whose future is tied to it being competitive, from coaches to players to the GM.

If I'm being fair, I'm also jaded now as to the tangible impact of an explosive running back on the team's chances to make it to, much less win, a Superbowl. This goes back to the Herschel Walker trade probably, where the Vikings invested a king's ransom to obtain the "missing piece" of a Superbowl-caliber team and got what in return? Or Adrian Peterson... Another star back who got them close only once when he played with a vet QB who was the real difference on that offense and team, and in the most critical situations in the NFC Championship Game it was Peterson who literally fumbled away their chances (he fumbled 5 times in that game IIRC).

The Vikings had Chuck Foreman during their Superbowl years in the first half of the 70's, but he was not what I would call a star back. He was an effective back who did everything he was asked to do very well and very consistently.

They had Robert Smith in the late 90's and early 2000's and did pretty well. Again, not a flashy back, but a guy who played the position about as well as it can be played.

So the Vikings have a history with "star" running backs and it's not great. They're fun to watch, sure, but over decades of experience I think competence and consistency at RB pay off more in the big scheme of things than flash. And its not just the Vikings that demonstrate that, either. I think there is a pretty decent history of teams that made and won Superbowls that demonstrates effective and consistent running is far more important than flashy explosive running. It isn't necessary to invest lots of cap space into the running back position to have success.

I get so tired of the Peterson fumbling thing in the New Orleans game. He did fumble twice. Both of those fumbles were recovered. Once by Peterson making a spectacular recovery himself. A lot of people want to Blame Peterson for a fumble charged to Favre. Even if that's right Peterson rushed for about 140 yards and 3 TDs. We had 5 TOs in that game and at worst Peterson was involved in one of them. Peterson was a huge part of us almost winning. He was the solution not the problem.

AGREED!!! And I've said it a million times and will till the day I die... yes we did have the TOs in that game, but you take away all the BLATANT HOMER calls by that D..Head Pete Morelli and his crew, and the fact they allowed the Saints D to commit Assult and Battery on Favre without 1 flag, we would have never had to be in.the position for that last drive when Favre threw the pick.
The NFL wanted the Saints in the SB for the feel good story and Petie and his crew did everything the could to make it happen. PERIOD! I will never be convinced any different.
I've heard Rich Eisen refer it to as the "Game of the Ghost Calls" on 2 different occasions.
Ok rant over. It's my opinion and will never ever be changed. Lol

[RandyMoss84]

Blaming Adrian for the loss got really old, Adrian was not the only one who fumbled, Harvin and Berrian fumbled too plus Brett threw a interception, it is a team loss and it is a shame Vikings lost or Vikings would have won their first Superbowl against the Colts

[VikingLord]

I get so tired of the Peterson fumbling thing in the New Orleans game. He did fumble twice. Both of those fumbles were recovered. Once by Peterson making a spectacular recovery himself. A lot of people want to Blame Peterson for a fumble charged to Favre. Even if that's right Peterson rushed for about 140 yards and 3 TDs. We had 5 TOs in that game and at worst Peterson was involved in one of them. Peterson was a huge part of us almost winning. He was the solution not the problem.

You are correct, and I stand corrected (where is the eating crow emoji...)

I think my core point still stands (the explosive RB doesn't necessarily equate to Superbowl success), but, at least in that game, things weren't as simple as I made them out to be.

[Dmizzle0]

Blaming Adrian for the loss got really old, Adrian was not the only one who fumbled, Harvin and Berrian fumbled too plus Brett threw a interception, it is a team loss and it is a shame Vikings lost or Vikings would have won their first Superbowl against the Colts

even with all those turnovers I still blame the loss on the refs

[S197]

I don't really think there are any good or bad guys in this situation.

Cook has outplayed his contract and he probably knows a RB's career is short. He's justified in asking for more money.

How is he justified? He has not played a full season yet so he is not justified in asking for more money

If that's the case then we should have numerous games where the offense did well without Cook. Why don't you share that list with me.

[RandyMoss84]

How is he justified? He has not played a full season yet so he is not justified in asking for more money

If that's the case then we should have numerous games where the offense did well without Cook. Why don't you share that list with me.

I am not going to look up every game without Cook for the past 4 years, it is too much work and would take hours to post a long list and I do not have alot of time on my hands to do it so why don’t you do it?

[S197]

If that's the case then we should have numerous games where the offense did well without Cook. Why don't you share that list with me.

I am not going to look up every game without Cook for the past 4 years, it is too much work and would take hours to post a long list and I do not have alot of time on my hands to do it so why don’t you do it?

I'm not saying look at every single game. Just think back in your head how this team played with and without Cook.

That huge win against the Cowboys where Cousins was finally able to win in primetime. Guess who was the player of the week? Cook. Now compare that to when Cook was out a few weeks later against the Packers. The offense couldn't do anything.

Or his contribution to beating the Saints in the playoffs vs how the offense could do nothing against the 49ers when they game planned to stop him.

This team can beat 3 win teams like Denver and Detroit without him but when up against playoff level teams, he's been so key to this offense.

I'm not saying pay the guy CMC money but it's very disingenuous to say he hasn't earned a bigger paycheck.

[Pondering Her Percy]

So ... let's recall the past few months.

I called the Diggs trade many weeks before it happened, and y'all ripped me. I said that somebody would overpay for him, and sure enough, the Bills did. And they did it just days after Arizona sent Houston a bag of balls for D'Andre Hopkins (OK, they threw in David Johnson, too). Meanwhile, the Vikings got a first, a fourth, a fifth and a sixth for a guy in Diggs who has never come close to equaling an average Hopkins season. The Bills gave up far more than even I thought any team would give up.

Now we turn to Dalvin Cook and his salary demands.

I told you that the $10 million that so many of you think he deserves is too high. You ripped me again. I went on to say that $4 million is the most I'd pay ANY running back. Y'all ripped me mercilessly. Well, don't look now, but it appears the chickens are coming home to roost.

Forget what's right or wrong. Forget how talented Cook is. These are the economics of the NFL in 2020. Smart teams do not overpay for running backs. And with the salary cap potentially dropping by $40 million next season because of the economic impact of Covid, it makes even less sense to overpay for a running back ... even a back of Cook's ability. Again, look at last year's top 10 highest-paid running backs. All of them except one played for a non-playoff team. And that one ... Lamar Miller ... was injured and didn't even play!

Dalvin Cook has threatened to hold out when only a fool would hold out. He's overplayed his hand, and it's only the flop (Texas Holdem term). Bottom line ... I'll be very surprised if he's a Viking beyond 2020.

Gotta disagree here kapp. The Vikings have always been known to take care of their good players. Cook will get a deal. What that deal will be I don’t know. But I think he will get one sooner than later. Granted he’s been banged up but he’s also one of the best RBs in the league when healthy and a focal point of this offense.

I was with you on the diggs trade but with this one I think you might be wrong. But we won’t know until more details come out.

[VikingsVictorious]

I get so tired of the Peterson fumbling thing in the New Orleans game. He did fumble twice. Both of those fumbles were recovered. Once by Peterson making a spectacular recovery himself. A lot of people want to Blame Peterson for a fumble charged to Favre. Even if that's right Peterson rushed for about 140 yards and 3 TDs. We had 5 TOs in that game and at worst Peterson was involved in one of them. Peterson was a huge part of us almost winning. He was the solution not the problem.

You are correct, and I stand corrected (where is the eating crow emoji...)

I think my core point still stands (the explosive RB doesn't necessarily equate to Superbowl success), but, at least in that game, things weren't as simple as I made them out to be.

Thank you. I have fought this fight on my other message board in the past and even after I shared the facts people still wouldn't back down from their belief that Adrian Peterson lost that game for us. I would be perfectly fine with Cook or any RB on my team matching Adrian's performance from that game each and every game.

[J. Kapp 11]

So ... let's recall the past few months.

I called the Diggs trade many weeks before it happened, and y'all ripped me. I said that somebody would overpay for him, and sure enough, the Bills did. And they did it just days after Arizona sent Houston a bag of balls for D'Andre Hopkins (OK, they threw in David Johnson, too). Meanwhile, the Vikings got a first, a fourth, a fifth and a sixth for a guy in Diggs who has never come close to equaling an average Hopkins season. The Bills gave up far more than even I thought any team would give up.

Now we turn to Dalvin Cook and his salary demands.

I told you that the $10 million that so many of you think he deserves is too high. You ripped me again. I went on to say that $4 million is the most I'd pay ANY running back. Y'all ripped me mercilessly. Well, don't look now, but it appears the chickens are coming home to roost.

Forget what's right or wrong. Forget how talented Cook is. These are the economics of the NFL in 2020. Smart teams do not overpay for running backs. And with the salary cap potentially dropping by $40 million next season because of the economic impact of Covid, it makes even less sense to overpay for a running back ... even a back of Cook's ability. Again, look at last year's top 10 highest-paid running backs. All of them except one played for a non-playoff team. And that one ... Lamar Miller ... was injured and didn't even play!

Dalvin Cook has threatened to hold out when only a fool would hold out. He's overplayed his hand, and it's only the flop (Texas Holdem term). Bottom line ... I'll be very surprised if he's a Viking beyond 2020.

Gotta disagree here kapp. The Vikings have always been known to take care of their good players. Cook will get a deal. What that deal will be I don’t know. But I think he will get one sooner than later. Granted he’s been banged up but he’s also one of the best RBs in the league when healthy and a focal point of this offense.

I was with you on the diggs trade but with this one I think you might be wrong. But we won’t know until more details come out.

That's OK, PHP. It's cool to disagree. No hurt feelings here.

I really think the kicker is the potential for a lower cap next year. If Covid forces the NFL to play games in empty stadiums, experts are projecting the cap to be $40 million lower in 2021. In that case, it may be impossible to keep Cook — indeed, it may not be possible for him to get the kind of deal he wants ANYWHERE. A $40 million cap hit will truly hurt a lot of teams. The Vikings would have some difficult decisions to make on many players, not just Cook.

Here's the deal though. If the cap isn't lowered and the Vikings re-sign Cook to a lucrative deal, you'll never hear me complain about it (unless he's consistently injured, and that only because the Vikings know his injury history). If he has a bad game or two, I won't say a word about his contract. I don't think that's productive at all. Before the season, we can talk until the cows come home about whether a player is worth signing, or whether they ought to cut a player to save cap space, or whatever. But once the season starts and that player is on the roster, he's a Viking as far as I'm concerned, and I'll root for him. I love Dalvin Cook the player. I think he's as good an all-around back as we've had since Chuck Foreman. If he gets the money he wants, great. I won't hold it against him. If I were a GM, I wouldn't do it, but that's irrelevant. If they get a deal done, I'll continue to be a Dalvin Cook fan.

[VikingsVictorious]

Gotta disagree here kapp. The Vikings have always been known to take care of their good players. Cook will get a deal. What that deal will be I don’t know. But I think he will get one sooner than later. Granted he’s been banged up but he’s also one of the best RBs in the league when healthy and a focal point of this offense.

I was with you on the diggs trade but with this one I think you might be wrong. But we won’t know until more details come out.

That's OK, PHP. It's cool to disagree. No hurt feelings here.

I really think the kicker is the potential for a lower cap next year. If Covid forces the NFL to play games in empty stadiums, experts are projecting the cap to be $40 million lower in 2021. In that case, it may be impossible to keep Cook — indeed, it may not be possible for him to get the kind of deal he wants ANYWHERE. A $40 million cap hit will truly hurt a lot of teams. The Vikings would have some difficult decisions to make on many players, not just Cook.

Here's the deal though. If the cap isn't lowered and the Vikings re-sign Cook to a lucrative deal, you'll never hear me complain about it (unless he's consistently injured, and that only because the Vikings know his injury history). If he has a bad game or two, I won't say a word about his contract. I don't think that's productive at all. Before the season, we can talk until the cows come home about whether a player is worth signing, or whether they ought to cut a player to save cap space, or whatever. But once the season starts and that player is on the roster, he's a Viking as far as I'm concerned, and I'll root for him. I love Dalvin Cook the player. I think he's as good an all-around back as we've had since Chuck Foreman. If he gets the money he wants, great. I won't hold it against him. If I were a GM, I wouldn't do it, but that's irrelevant. If they get a deal done, I'll continue to be a Dalvin Cook fan.

Yep I see no reason whining about the contracts our players have signed even though I once in a while whine about Barr's. I need to stop that.

[StumpHunter]

That's OK, PHP. It's cool to disagree. No hurt feelings here.

I really think the kicker is the potential for a lower cap next year. If Covid forces the NFL to play games in empty stadiums, experts are projecting the cap to be $40 million lower in 2021. In that case, it may be impossible to keep Cook — indeed, it may not be possible for him to get the kind of deal he wants ANYWHERE. A $40 million cap hit will truly hurt a lot of teams. The Vikings would have some difficult decisions to make on many players, not just Cook.

Here's the deal though. If the cap isn't lowered and the Vikings re-sign Cook to a lucrative deal, you'll never hear me complain about it (unless he's consistently injured, and that only because the Vikings know his injury history). If he has a bad game or two, I won't say a word about his contract. I don't think that's productive at all. Before the season, we can talk until the cows come home about whether a player is worth signing, or whether they ought to cut a player to save cap space, or whatever. But once the season starts and that player is on the roster, he's a Viking as far as I'm concerned, and I'll root for him. I love Dalvin Cook the player. I think he's as good an all-around back as we've had since Chuck Foreman. If he gets the money he wants, great. I won't hold it against him. If I were a GM, I wouldn't do it, but that's irrelevant. If they get a deal done, I'll continue to be a Dalvin Cook fan.

Yep I see no reason whining about the contracts our players have signed even though I once in a while whine about Barr's. I need to stop that.

If you feel Barr's money could be better used elsewhere, I see no reason for you to stop complaining about his deal. Fans and media ripping the GM for bad contracts is motivation for the GM to stop giving them out.

Of course, if Barr were making 8 million this year instead of 12, or 10 million next year instead 15, is that really going to change anything? As much as not having the LBer Zimmer says every OC accounts for when calling their plays?

To bring that back to Cook, is paying Cook 12 million per year instead of 8 really going to impact what we do in free agency next season? Is 10 million versus 6 million going to impact our free agent signings? As much as not having the most explosive RB in the NFL would impact the team?

[S197]

4 million here, 4 million there, it adds up. That's how you can grab guys like Rodger Saffold in free agency.