Ruh-Roh, Cook Plans to Hold Out?

[RandyMoss84]

Per Pat Kirwan a respected NFL journalist.

Pat Kirwan
@PatKirwan_NFL
·
5h
Dalvin Cook will come in to camp. If he doesn’t as a player with less than 4 yrs he will lose a year towards UFA and be restricted in 2021 also there is a 50k a day fine. His salary is 1.3 mil and his fines could reach 1.5 mil. He has no leverage.


Rumor has it that so far the Vikings have offered less than $10 million a year. That could be a magic number. I think the Vikings should absolutely offer that.

Very smart move, if Cook stayed healthy, he would have gotten more than $10 million and I would have no problem with it

[StumpHunter]

It is a contract that was decided for him before he was ever drafted. It is also a contract the Vikings could tear up at any time and not honor if they wanted too.

"Decided for him"...

You mean by the collective bargaining agreement which is negotiated between the owners and the players? You're arguing that the CBA is unfair to guys like Cook?

If the Vikings tear it up, Cook is a free agent is he not? He can sign elsewhere for any amount of money he can get. I'd argue that is actually fair to Cook.

Plus, as Victorious pointed out earlier, the Vikings could not escape the guaranteed portions of Cook's contract even if they tore it up. You make it sound like Cook plays at the whim of the Vikings and they can treat him how they choose and pay him what they want. And for every Cook who outperforms his rookie deal, there are more rookies who underperform theirs. Their teams still have to pay the guaranteed portions of those contracts. I don't see how that is unfair in that situation, either. Both sides bear risk and both sides are protected.

The CBA dictates the parameters of player contracts and what teams can and can't do in those contracts. If Cook doesn't like that reality he should find another line of work. He can join the rest of us in regular jobs making regular wages and living regular lives with regular risk.

He can choose to work a regular job, just like he can choose to sit out. That isn't a selfish move or "not honoring the contract" anymore than the Vikings not honoring the contract if they cut him. Both have consequences, with the Vikings having to pay the guaranteed no matter what(an amount that is 0 btw) and with Cook getting fined and losing salary. The Vikings will do, and have done what they can to deal with bad contracts, and no one bats an eye when Rhodes, Joseph and Kline are cut. Yet when a player does what they have in their power to deal with a bad contract that was decided before they ever entered the NFL, they are selfish and not honoring the contract. Hypocrisy at its finest.

A guy works his butt off, giving up years of his life, sacrificing his body to be one of the best in the world at what he does, entertaining millions of fans, including you, and wants to be compensated fairly for it. Yet some fans want to rip him for that and don't understand why he would hold out?

I totally understand not wanting to pay Cook big money, but I don't understand how people can look at his situation and think he should honor his contract. He shouldn't. It would be a bad financial decision and life decision to not put up a stink when the Vikings are low balling him on a contract because they have him over a barrel.

[VikingsVictorious]

"Decided for him"...

You mean by the collective bargaining agreement which is negotiated between the owners and the players? You're arguing that the CBA is unfair to guys like Cook?

If the Vikings tear it up, Cook is a free agent is he not? He can sign elsewhere for any amount of money he can get. I'd argue that is actually fair to Cook.

Plus, as Victorious pointed out earlier, the Vikings could not escape the guaranteed portions of Cook's contract even if they tore it up. You make it sound like Cook plays at the whim of the Vikings and they can treat him how they choose and pay him what they want. And for every Cook who outperforms his rookie deal, there are more rookies who underperform theirs. Their teams still have to pay the guaranteed portions of those contracts. I don't see how that is unfair in that situation, either. Both sides bear risk and both sides are protected.

The CBA dictates the parameters of player contracts and what teams can and can't do in those contracts. If Cook doesn't like that reality he should find another line of work. He can join the rest of us in regular jobs making regular wages and living regular lives with regular risk.

He can choose to work a regular job, just like he can choose to sit out. That isn't a selfish move or "not honoring the contract" anymore than the Vikings not honoring the contract if they cut him. Both have consequences, with the Vikings having to pay the guaranteed no matter what(an amount that is 0 btw) and with Cook getting fined and losing salary. The Vikings will do, and have done what they can to deal with bad contracts, and no one bats an eye when Rhodes, Joseph and Kline are cut. Yet when a player does what they have in their power to deal with a bad contract that was decided before they ever entered the NFL, they are selfish and not honoring the contract. Hypocrisy at its finest.

A guy works his butt off, giving up years of his life, sacrificing his body to be one of the best in the world at what he does, entertaining millions of fans, including you, and wants to be compensated fairly for it. Yet some fans want to rip him for that and don't understand why he would hold out?

I totally understand not wanting to pay Cook big money, but I don't understand how people can look at his situation and think he should honor his contract. He shouldn't. It would be a bad financial decision and life decision to not put up a stink when the Vikings are low balling him on a contract because they have him over a barrel.

Teams cutting a player are according to the contract. A team is honoring the contract terms by cutting the player and giving that player the right to play for whoever he wants that wants him back. A player holding out is not honoring the contract. He took the money he agreed to and signed the contract to play for x amount of years.
Regardless the NFLPA doesn't want holdouts. They are so strongly against them that they signed a new CBA with by far the strictest anti-holdout language in the history of sports. Teams used to have the option to forgive accrued fines during a holdout. They no longer have that option. Players use to be able to report for the last half of the season and get a year of service time. Now if they don't report for training camp they get no accrued service time.
The Vikings would love to sign Cook to an extension so he gets the big bucks now rather than later. Rumors have it he is being offered something less than $10 million a year for I don't know how many years. Is that lowballing him? It's a matter or opinion. If Cook is so insulted by that he can hold out as he is doing at the moment in hopes that the team offers more or trades him to another team that will offer more. He's had one good season out of three. Maybe he shouldn't be insulted. If he doesn't report to camp the Vikings fully maintain his rights through 21 rather than just 20. Cook can sit out both of those seasons over being slighted by the Vikings paltry offer. The Vikings can up that offer a bit.
IMO Alexander Mattison is fully capable of being a #1 back in the NFL. If the Vikings don't sign Cook that means they have what Cook would have earned to improve the team at another position. What incentive do the Vikings have to make Cook an offer over $10 million. Spielman needs to do what's best for the team which may mean not signing Cook if he won't sign for what the team deems reasonable.

[StumpHunter]

He can choose to work a regular job, just like he can choose to sit out. That isn't a selfish move or "not honoring the contract" anymore than the Vikings not honoring the contract if they cut him. Both have consequences, with the Vikings having to pay the guaranteed no matter what(an amount that is 0 btw) and with Cook getting fined and losing salary. The Vikings will do, and have done what they can to deal with bad contracts, and no one bats an eye when Rhodes, Joseph and Kline are cut. Yet when a player does what they have in their power to deal with a bad contract that was decided before they ever entered the NFL, they are selfish and not honoring the contract. Hypocrisy at its finest.

A guy works his butt off, giving up years of his life, sacrificing his body to be one of the best in the world at what he does, entertaining millions of fans, including you, and wants to be compensated fairly for it. Yet some fans want to rip him for that and don't understand why he would hold out?

I totally understand not wanting to pay Cook big money, but I don't understand how people can look at his situation and think he should honor his contract. He shouldn't. It would be a bad financial decision and life decision to not put up a stink when the Vikings are low balling him on a contract because they have him over a barrel.

Teams cutting a player are according to the contract. A team is honoring the contract terms by cutting the player and giving that player the right to play for whoever he wants that wants him back. A player holding out is not honoring the contract. He took the money he agreed to and signed the contract to play for x amount of years.
Regardless the NFLPA doesn't want holdouts. They are so strongly against them that they signed a new CBA with by far the strictest anti-holdout language in the history of sports. Teams used to have the option to forgive accrued fines during a holdout. They no longer have that option. Players use to be able to report for the last half of the season and get a year of service time. Now if they don't report for training camp they get no accrued service time.
The Vikings would love to sign Cook to an extension so he gets the big bucks now rather than later. Rumors have it he is being offered something less than $10 million a year for I don't know how many years. Is that lowballing him? It's a matter or opinion. If Cook is so insulted by that he can hold out as he is doing at the moment in hopes that the team offers more or trades him to another team that will offer more. He's had one good season out of three. Maybe he shouldn't be insulted. If he doesn't report to camp the Vikings fully maintain his rights through 21 rather than just 20. Cook can sit out both of those seasons over being slighted by the Vikings paltry offer. The Vikings can up that offer a bit.
IMO Alexander Mattison is fully capable of being a #1 back in the NFL. If the Vikings don't sign Cook that means they have what Cook would have earned to improve the team at another position. What incentive do the Vikings have to make Cook an offer over $10 million. Spielman needs to do what's best for the team which may mean not signing Cook if he won't sign for what the team deems reasonable.

I totally agree that Spielman should do what is the best for the team. I also think Cook should do what is best for him.

[VikingLord]

He can choose to work a regular job, just like he can choose to sit out. That isn't a selfish move or "not honoring the contract" anymore than the Vikings not honoring the contract if they cut him. Both have consequences, with the Vikings having to pay the guaranteed no matter what(an amount that is 0 btw) and with Cook getting fined and losing salary. The Vikings will do, and have done what they can to deal with bad contracts, and no one bats an eye when Rhodes, Joseph and Kline are cut. Yet when a player does what they have in their power to deal with a bad contract that was decided before they ever entered the NFL, they are selfish and not honoring the contract. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Why did Cook enter into a bad contract in the first place? Who is to blame for that in your view?

What is it about this discussion that invites making it personal? Where is the hypocrisy you accuse me of?

I was very clear on this. I think once the contract was signed, if there are no extenuating circumstances that make it invalid (like misrepresentation by the Vikings), both parties should perform under the terms of the contract. That means the Vikings too. If Cook under-performed his rookie deal I wouldn't agree with the Vikings backing out of it either.

The situation with guys like Rhodes, Joseph and Kline is the same thing. The Vikings had to pay the guaranteed portions of those contracts (including signing bonus) regardless of how the players met on-field expectations, and when the deals were voided, all of those players were free to go elsewhere and get what they could.

A guy works his butt off, giving up years of his life, sacrificing his body to be one of the best in the world at what he does, entertaining millions of fans, including you, and wants to be compensated fairly for it. Yet some fans want to rip him for that and don't understand why he would hold out?

I'm not ripping him for wanting to be compensated "fairly". I'm ripping him because he's breaching a contract to which he agreed under the terms of the CBA and with the services of an agent.

I totally understand not wanting to pay Cook big money, but I don't understand how people can look at his situation and think he should honor his contract. He shouldn't. It would be a bad financial decision and life decision to not put up a stink when the Vikings are low balling him on a contract because they have him over a barrel.

I disagree.

Why do you keep making it sound like Cook didn't know what he was getting into and is somehow a victim? In the real world that most of us inhabit, if you breach a contract and don't have any mitigating factors to point at like misrepresentation or fraud, what would happen to you if you were dragged into Court? We both know the answer to that. And if you were the one who was the victim of the breach, I doubt you'd agree with the person who breached the contract based on an argument they should be paid more.

Look, maybe the CBA has to be adjusted to better meet performance-based considerations like the ones you raise, especially for rookie contracts. But under the current rules of the game, Cook's position isn't tenable, and your concept of fairness just isn't part of the rules he agreed to play by when he signed his original deal.

[VikingLord]

I totally agree that Spielman should do what is the best for the team. I also think Cook should do what is best for him.

Then Cook should play out his final season with the Vikings, knock everyone's socks off with his performance, and get the biggest freakin' contract he can in free agency.

That is by far what is best for Dalvin Cook.

Holding out is not. He might get lucky and the non-Superbowl-bound 2020 Vikings struggle enough that they feel compelled to capitulate and offer him a new deal immediately (which would probably require cutting someone else at that point, possibly someone with a large deal to make cap room as it looks like things are going to be tight heading into the season), or maybe they won't struggle and he'll be sitting there facing significant future contract consequences with zero upside for him.

I get that he wants to be paid commensurate with his performance. I actually understand and to a large extent agree with you that his contract terms don't reflect his on-field performance. But the best way for Cook to true that up to match his on-field performance is to perform on-field next season. Unless he's trying to force a trade, holding out moves him further away from truing things up IMHO and exposes him to major downside risks save a career-ending on-field injury.

[StumpHunter]

I totally agree that Spielman should do what is the best for the team. I also think Cook should do what is best for him.

Then Cook should play out his final season with the Vikings, knock everyone's socks off with his performance, and get the biggest freakin' contract he can in free agency.

That is by far what is best for Dalvin Cook.

Holding out is not. He might get lucky and the non-Superbowl-bound 2020 Vikings struggle enough that they feel compelled to capitulate and offer him a new deal immediately (which would probably require cutting someone else at that point, possibly someone with a large deal to make cap room as it looks like things are going to be tight heading into the season), or maybe they won't struggle and he'll be sitting there facing significant future contract consequences with zero upside for him.

I get that he wants to be paid commensurate with his performance. I actually understand and to a large extent agree with you that his contract terms don't reflect his on-field performance. But the best way for Cook to true that up to match his on-field performance is to perform on-field next season. Unless he's trying to force a trade, holding out moves him further away from truing things up IMHO and exposes him to major downside risks save a career-ending on-field injury.

Or...he plays under his current deal for 5 games, blows out his ACL, never walks normal again, and his career is over 4 years in. Or he signs the deal the Vikings are offering, has a great season like you described, and is woefully underpaid during his only prime earning period.

He wants a good extension for the same reason the Vikings are hesitating to give him one. Both Cook and the team are afraid he will get injured this season and never be the same RB again. Which is why I totally understand why Rick doesn't want to pay him a lot, and why I also totally understand why Cook doesn't want to risk 10's of millions for 1.5.

[StumpHunter]

He can choose to work a regular job, just like he can choose to sit out. That isn't a selfish move or "not honoring the contract" anymore than the Vikings not honoring the contract if they cut him. Both have consequences, with the Vikings having to pay the guaranteed no matter what(an amount that is 0 btw) and with Cook getting fined and losing salary. The Vikings will do, and have done what they can to deal with bad contracts, and no one bats an eye when Rhodes, Joseph and Kline are cut. Yet when a player does what they have in their power to deal with a bad contract that was decided before they ever entered the NFL, they are selfish and not honoring the contract. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Why did Cook enter into a bad contract in the first place? Who is to blame for that in your view?

What is it about this discussion that invites making it personal? Where is the hypocrisy you accuse me of?

I was very clear on this. I think once the contract was signed, if there are no extenuating circumstances that make it invalid (like misrepresentation by the Vikings), both parties should perform under the terms of the contract. That means the Vikings too. If Cook under-performed his rookie deal I wouldn't agree with the Vikings backing out of it either.

The situation with guys like Rhodes, Joseph and Kline is the same thing. The Vikings had to pay the guaranteed portions of those contracts (including signing bonus) regardless of how the players met on-field expectations, and when the deals were voided, all of those players were free to go elsewhere and get what they could.

A guy works his butt off, giving up years of his life, sacrificing his body to be one of the best in the world at what he does, entertaining millions of fans, including you, and wants to be compensated fairly for it. Yet some fans want to rip him for that and don't understand why he would hold out?

I'm not ripping him for wanting to be compensated "fairly". I'm ripping him because he's breaching a contract to which he agreed under the terms of the CBA and with the services of an agent.

I totally understand not wanting to pay Cook big money, but I don't understand how people can look at his situation and think he should honor his contract. He shouldn't. It would be a bad financial decision and life decision to not put up a stink when the Vikings are low balling him on a contract because they have him over a barrel.

I disagree.

Why do you keep making it sound like Cook didn't know what he was getting into and is somehow a victim? In the real world that most of us inhabit, if you breach a contract and don't have any mitigating factors to point at like misrepresentation or fraud, what would happen to you if you were dragged into Court? We both know the answer to that. And if you were the one who was the victim of the breach, I doubt you'd agree with the person who breached the contract based on an argument they should be paid more.

Look, maybe the CBA has to be adjusted to better meet performance-based considerations like the ones you raise, especially for rookie contracts. But under the current rules of the game, Cook's position isn't tenable, and your concept of fairness just isn't part of the rules he agreed to play by when he signed his original deal.

Cook knew what he was getting himself into when he was given the option to give up on his dream of being a pro-football player, or sign an unfair contract decided by players and owners years before he entered the draft, that is true. Do you know why the NFLPA concedes points like this btw? Because every player voting on the new CBA has already signed their rookie deal and it has 0 impact on them. Actually it is a positive for them, because that means more money available for them.

I know why Cook is holding out, I don't blame him for it, and I would never fault him for "not honoring a contract" that was never fair to begin with. Just like I don't fault the Vikings for not honoring contracts of players all the time when the cut guys because they are under performing.

If you are okay with him not getting paid, I totally get that, but don't rip a guy for trying get a fair deal for the first time in his NFL career and using the only leverage he has at his disposal to do it.

[vikeinmontana]

I think this will be much ado about nothing. Both sides are doing just what they should, and I feel like a deal will get done.

We're a MUCH better team with him on the field. And he's clearly underpaid. Now is a perfect time for an extension.

The issue is how much is he seeking? I think he's definitely worth that 8 to 10 million a year kind of deal. As injuries have been an issue I'm sure they could build with incentives and more money being paid in the later years of the deal. And I'm not seeing him get a ton of guaranteed money either.

And as was pointed out, he really doesn't have much for leverage, but I think the team wants to work with him. But if he's looking to be the highest paid back in the league or something that's not happening. But even with some injuries, he's definitely outplayed his contract and I think he'll be rewarded.

[VikingLord]

Cook knew what he was getting himself into when he was given the option to give up on his dream of being a pro-football player, or sign an unfair contract decided by players and owners years before he entered the draft, that is true. Do you know why the NFLPA concedes points like this btw? Because every player voting on the new CBA has already signed their rookie deal and it has 0 impact on them. Actually it is a positive for them, because that means more money available for them.

I know why Cook is holding out, I don't blame him for it, and I would never fault him for "not honoring a contract" that was never fair to begin with. Just like I don't fault the Vikings for not honoring contracts of players all the time when the cut guys because they are under performing.

If you are okay with him not getting paid, I totally get that, but don't rip a guy for trying get a fair deal for the first time in his NFL career and using the only leverage he has at his disposal to do it.

How are the Vikings not honoring contracts when they cut guys? Are you saying that they aren't paying out the guaranteed money they agreed to pay out?

NFL contracts are negotiated between professional agents and the teams they play for. They contain lots of clauses, incentives, some guarantees, and strike a balance between the interests of each party involved. Everyone gives something up and everyone gets something back under the rules of the CBA.

I still fail to see how that is unfair to Dalvin Cook.

You can disagree with the CBA, but those rules regarding rookie contracts were created out of decades of experiences by players and owners. Holdouts by rookies used to be a big problem, as were huge rookie contracts that on aggregate sucked a lot of money out of the pool for veteran players. IIRC, there were many examples of rookies with huge largely guaranteed contracts who weren't performing while guys who had proven themselves in the league over many years were getting a lot less because of that.

The CBA generally strikes the best balance of overall experience and interests for everyone involved. While that might not benefit a highly-performing player on the last year of his rookie deal, on aggregate it benefits everyone involved.

And like I said - I don't fault Cook for feeling he's worth more than he's getting paid (although when $1.5 million became considered low pay is beyond me), but reneging on something he agreed to in order to get what he wants isn't OK with me.

[VikingsVictorious]

Teams cutting a player are according to the contract. A team is honoring the contract terms by cutting the player and giving that player the right to play for whoever he wants that wants him back. A player holding out is not honoring the contract. He took the money he agreed to and signed the contract to play for x amount of years.
Regardless the NFLPA doesn't want holdouts. They are so strongly against them that they signed a new CBA with by far the strictest anti-holdout language in the history of sports. Teams used to have the option to forgive accrued fines during a holdout. They no longer have that option. Players use to be able to report for the last half of the season and get a year of service time. Now if they don't report for training camp they get no accrued service time.
The Vikings would love to sign Cook to an extension so he gets the big bucks now rather than later. Rumors have it he is being offered something less than $10 million a year for I don't know how many years. Is that lowballing him? It's a matter or opinion. If Cook is so insulted by that he can hold out as he is doing at the moment in hopes that the team offers more or trades him to another team that will offer more. He's had one good season out of three. Maybe he shouldn't be insulted. If he doesn't report to camp the Vikings fully maintain his rights through 21 rather than just 20. Cook can sit out both of those seasons over being slighted by the Vikings paltry offer. The Vikings can up that offer a bit.
IMO Alexander Mattison is fully capable of being a #1 back in the NFL. If the Vikings don't sign Cook that means they have what Cook would have earned to improve the team at another position. What incentive do the Vikings have to make Cook an offer over $10 million. Spielman needs to do what's best for the team which may mean not signing Cook if he won't sign for what the team deems reasonable.

I totally agree that Spielman should do what is the best for the team. I also think Cook should do what is best for him.

And considering the CBA Cook better be ready to blink first before Training Camp. Otherwise he loses the next two years.

[VikingsVictorious]

Why did Cook enter into a bad contract in the first place? Who is to blame for that in your view?

What is it about this discussion that invites making it personal? Where is the hypocrisy you accuse me of?

I was very clear on this. I think once the contract was signed, if there are no extenuating circumstances that make it invalid (like misrepresentation by the Vikings), both parties should perform under the terms of the contract. That means the Vikings too. If Cook under-performed his rookie deal I wouldn't agree with the Vikings backing out of it either.

The situation with guys like Rhodes, Joseph and Kline is the same thing. The Vikings had to pay the guaranteed portions of those contracts (including signing bonus) regardless of how the players met on-field expectations, and when the deals were voided, all of those players were free to go elsewhere and get what they could.



I'm not ripping him for wanting to be compensated "fairly". I'm ripping him because he's breaching a contract to which he agreed under the terms of the CBA and with the services of an agent.



I disagree.

Why do you keep making it sound like Cook didn't know what he was getting into and is somehow a victim? In the real world that most of us inhabit, if you breach a contract and don't have any mitigating factors to point at like misrepresentation or fraud, what would happen to you if you were dragged into Court? We both know the answer to that. And if you were the one who was the victim of the breach, I doubt you'd agree with the person who breached the contract based on an argument they should be paid more.

Look, maybe the CBA has to be adjusted to better meet performance-based considerations like the ones you raise, especially for rookie contracts. But under the current rules of the game, Cook's position isn't tenable, and your concept of fairness just isn't part of the rules he agreed to play by when he signed his original deal.

Cook knew what he was getting himself into when he was given the option to give up on his dream of being a pro-football player, or sign an unfair contract decided by players and owners years before he entered the draft, that is true. Do you know why the NFLPA concedes points like this btw? Because every player voting on the new CBA has already signed their rookie deal and it has 0 impact on them. Actually it is a positive for them, because that means more money available for them.

I know why Cook is holding out, I don't blame him for it, and I would never fault him for "not honoring a contract" that was never fair to begin with. Just like I don't fault the Vikings for not honoring contracts of players all the time when the cut guys because they are under performing.

If you are okay with him not getting paid, I totally get that, but don't rip a guy for trying get a fair deal for the first time in his NFL career and using the only leverage he has at his disposal to do it.

You keep saying fair deal as if the Vikings aren't offering a fair deal. I have heard we have offered 10 Million a year over some period of time. Sounds pretty fair to me for a guy who has had one good season.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I don’t know why everyone is freaking out. We aren’t trading Cook and this holdout won’t last long. When was the last Vikings player that held out?? It doesn’t happen because they take care of their players. Cook will get a deal and everything will go back to normal.

And for whoever said we didn’t upgrade anywhere this offseason, our secondary was terrible last year. Granted they are young this year but it looks much more promising than what we had in terms of long term success and I honestly think they will be better than some think this year.

I also think Jefferson will be much better than some think. He won’t be diggs year one but he has every tool to be better than diggs as time goes on.

I mean by letting these guys go like diggs, Rhodes, Waynes, mac, etc. what did you guys think we were going to do to “upgrade” the position?? We all knew the Vikings would address these holes in the draft. It’s not like we’ve passed on stud free agent corners and WRs. And even if we did, I’d rather draft guys and develop them instead of signing big free agents, burying ourselves further with the cap, getting someone in their mid to late 20’s vs early 20s.... just to say we “upgraded”.

The future of this team is in MUCH better shape than it was at the end of last season I can honestly say that

[Cliff]

I don’t know why everyone is freaking out. We aren’t trading Cook and this holdout won’t last long. When was the last Vikings player that held out?? It doesn’t happen because they take care of their players. Cook will get a deal and everything will go back to normal.

Do they even have enough cap space to give Cook the money? According to this SI Article they either have 13.1 million in cap space left or 11.4 million in cap space (there's some disagreement about Josh Kline's dead money).

They're projected to spend $10m of that space signing their rookies.

**Edit - Perhaps they'll cut Reiff to free up some cap space? It'd be 8.8 million. That might be what they're trying to get Cook to take and why they aren't getting to 10.

[StumpHunter]

I don’t know why everyone is freaking out. We aren’t trading Cook and this holdout won’t last long. When was the last Vikings player that held out?? It doesn’t happen because they take care of their players. Cook will get a deal and everything will go back to normal.

Do they even have enough cap space to give Cook the money? According to this SI Article they either have 13.1 million in cap space left or 11.4 million in cap space (there's some disagreement about Josh Kline's dead money).

They're projected to spend $10m of that space signing their rookies.

**Edit - Perhaps they'll cut Reiff to free up some cap space? It'd be 8.8 million. That might be what they're trying to get Cook to take and why they aren't getting to 10.

If they give him a signing bonus of 8-10 million, and spread that cap hit over the life of the contract, he could count for as little as 3 million against the cap this year.