That "one of the worst starting LTs" designation is debatable, in my opinion. The injury history would be a concern but he's still a young, experienced player at a sought-after position. I think he'd have value in the free agent market.dead_poet wrote:That's what makes this so tricky. I think teams would be incredibly weary of signing a guy that has been one of the worst starting LTs for much of his career who has at LEAST 4-5 known knee surgeries on his resume (some of them as I point below having a "last resort" feeling). No team is going to make a heavy long-term financial commitment to a guy like that.
.I don't see why using Fusco's deal wouldn't work an example where 2016 he gets most of the guaranteed cash up front and spreading the cap hit out beyond 2017 so making it palatable to cut him in 2017 if they feel like it with minor repercussions
It might not work because Kalil and his agent might not view his prospects as you do. He may not see himself as nothing more than a stopgap solution who could play for the Vikings in the short term while they look for or develop his replacement. He might not want to settle for that. Right now, the team will owe him $11 million next year and, like you, they would probably prefer to move on when there's clearly a good option on their roster rather than cutting him without one, hoping to replace him with a free agent or being forced to draft a new starting left tackle. He's all they've got and that's leverage. I don't see much incentive for him to sign an unfavorable deal for less money and less security in the future when he could stand pat and force the Vikes to either pay him the $11 million, roll the dice on replacing him or offer him a more favorable extension.
One possible incentive: if he likes playing for the Vikes and wants to stay for that reason. That could lead to compromise.