Vikings Message Board.Com

RandyMoss84 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:54 am

Cliff wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:25 am

Got a source? As far as I know Cook nor any of his agents have said anything to anyone. From what I can tell, all of this actually stems from a single sentence by an unnamed source reported by Adam Schefter:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/dalv ... is-asking/

And the source of that article is this:

Maybe it's a "where there's smoke there's fire" situation. His camp hasn't officially said anything though.

Well at that price his trade value is probably a 4th or 5th rounder

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:03 pm You can insert literally any player on the team into that sentence.

But I didn't insert any player on the team into that sentence, and as far as I know no other players on the Vikings are in Cook's situation and threatening to hold out.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:03 pm Why exactly is Harrison Smith so critical in the big scheme of things for 2020 given the results of the 2019 season?
Why exactly is Adam Thielen so critical in the big scheme of things for 2020 given the results of the 2019 season?

By that logic you would never extend any player from the 2019 team. They should play out their contracts and if they've done well enough they'll be paid accordingly.

You're really stretching here.

Debating whether a given player deserves an extension because he fits into the longer term plans of the team and whether a player's threatened breach of his contract to obtain more money are two completely different things.

As to why a given player is "critical", that's up to the Vikings, but just to be clear - I don't think any player is so critical to a team sport that they should be allowed to breach their contract to get more money. If I were the GM of a team and I had a prima donna player who did that, I'd trade him if I could and get something for him, or he can sit and go pound rocks and see how he likes that. The rest of the team will live, and I'd bet many, if not most, would appreciate the message that sends to them. I mean, you yourself proposed cutting one of those 5+ year vets to pay for Cook's appeasement. What you proposed was *exactly* what the new provisions in the CBA about holdouts by rookies were designed to discourage for exactly this situation where a guy on a rookie deal in his 3rd season finally makes it through 14 of the 16 games and performs well enough to be among the top 10 best at his position decides he's not getting enough money for that performance.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:03 pm I guess it just doesn't seem like "invest heavily" applies to the contract that Cook would get. Certainly it's not like the Vikings have done at QB where the player makes nearly 3 times the next highest paid. Cook would be roughly the 8th highest paid player on the team, I believe.

Doesn't Cook want $13 million per year (at least)? I thought that is what I read.

I admit I don't know what he wants or what the Vikings might have offered him. I doubt you do either so neither of us have an idea of where he'd rank among the team salaries.

What we do know is that the Vikings are hard up against the cap. the money to pay Cook has to come from somewhere or, in the case of the Vikings, likely someone.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:00 pm The guy is a special back when healthy. Not because of his supporting cast like Jones, but because he is special. If you want to debate whether he is worth extending based on health concerns that is one thing, but I honestly don't know how anyone could watch Cook every game and not think he is a top 5 back.

He's top-5 because he is what, slightly more likely to break off a handful (if that) of big TD runs per year? As compared to what, a "workhorse" like Jones who needs a stronger supporting cast?

Cook could be special if he can do it for a full season. I'd agree with you, but he hasn't done that yet in 3 full seasons.

When it comes to investing in a running back longer term, don't you think its reasonable to want to have seen some consistency before you make that investment?

You were *very* critical of the extension of Cousins IIRC, and yet Cousins has been remarkably consistent over his career. You don't like that extension, but you're OK with appeasing a malcontent with a big contract and gambling it pays off down the road?

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:24 pm Dalvin Cook is going into his 4th year so I'm not sure how the rookie holdout stuff applies. Having the rookies on "prove it" deals is fine.

He's on a rookie deal, but is not a literal rookie.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:24 pm I'm not saying I'm a fan of players holding out. That doesn't mean I can't respect their side of it. Especially when the team is handing out big time extensions to other players.

You may not be a fan of it, but you think under some circumstances it is justified.

I disagree with that, especially for highly paid pro athletes. They live in na-na land getting paid obscene amounts of money to play a game. That isn't their fault - society values what they do and is willing to pay to watch it, but I still shake my head when people can say $1.5 million dollars for less than a year's worth of effort is not enough compensation, especially when the guy is looking at much larger sums of money in his next contract.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:52 pmBut I didn't insert any player on the team into that sentence, and as far as I know no other players on the Vikings are in Cook's situation and threatening to hold out.

Cook hasn't actually threatened to hold out either. There is speculation from "sources".

The logic is there whether you put other players in there or not. If Cook isn't worth it because "look at how the team did in 2019" then how does it not apply to anybody else?

I'll leave that though, it's really besides the point.

Doesn't Cook want $13 million per year (at least)? I thought that is what I read.

I admit I don't know what he wants or what the Vikings might have offered him. I doubt you do either so neither of us have an idea of where he'd rank among the team salaries.

What we do know is that the Vikings are hard up against the cap. the money to pay Cook has to come from somewhere or, in the case of the Vikings, likely someone.

Nobody is sure what he wants or what the team has offered. ESPN has reported some stuff but it wasn't actually from Cook.

As far as the "ranking against team salaries" I was assuming the low end of "top 5 money" which is roughly 10m a year for arguments sake.

Depending on how the structure the deal they can pay him without cutting anyone else. I'm with you though, I'd expect someone to get cut to make room.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:59 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:00 pm The guy is a special back when healthy. Not because of his supporting cast like Jones, but because he is special. If you want to debate whether he is worth extending based on health concerns that is one thing, but I honestly don't know how anyone could watch Cook every game and not think he is a top 5 back.

He's top-5 because he is what, slightly more likely to break off a handful (if that) of big TD runs per year? As compared to what, a "workhorse" like Jones who needs a stronger supporting cast?

Cook could be special if he can do it for a full season. I'd agree with you, but he hasn't done that yet in 3 full seasons.

When it comes to investing in a running back longer term, don't you think its reasonable to want to have seen some consistency before you make that investment?

You were *very* critical of the extension of Cousins IIRC, and yet Cousins has been remarkably consistent over his career. You don't like that extension, but you're OK with appeasing a malcontent with a big contract and gambling it pays off down the road?

Cousins demanded the best contract in the history of the NFL in terms of guarantees and overall percentage of the cap after making a ton of money already. He is making 2 to 3 times what Cook wants and there is essentially no way out of his deal. His consistency is the problem, in that he consistently beats up on bad teams while struggling against good ones and he is consistently in that 12-15 range of QBs every year. That is not the kind of consistency you want.

Cook has a couple of years left to make money and has made pennies in comparison to what Cousins has made. In 2019, when Cousins production went down from the previous year, and Cooks numbers went way up, the team went from a bottom 10 offense to a top 10 offense and won 10 games. Yet Cousins got a raise that puts him among the top 5 of all players, #1 in guarantees, and Cook gets offered Melvin Gordon money. He has been inconsistent in terms of health, but when he is healthy he is a game changer. Game changers are what you want on your team and are what win you SBs. He is a risky signing, but I like risky signings that have high upside as a opposed to risky ones that might win you a single playoff game in 2 years.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:52 pm

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:03 pm You can insert literally any player on the team into that sentence.

But I didn't insert any player on the team into that sentence, and as far as I know no other players on the Vikings are in Cook's situation and threatening to hold out.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:03 pm Why exactly is Harrison Smith so critical in the big scheme of things for 2020 given the results of the 2019 season?
Why exactly is Adam Thielen so critical in the big scheme of things for 2020 given the results of the 2019 season?

By that logic you would never extend any player from the 2019 team. They should play out their contracts and if they've done well enough they'll be paid accordingly.

You're really stretching here.

Debating whether a given player deserves an extension because he fits into the longer term plans of the team and whether a player's threatened breach of his contract to obtain more money are two completely different things.

As to why a given player is "critical", that's up to the Vikings, but just to be clear - I don't think any player is so critical to a team sport that they should be allowed to breach their contract to get more money. If I were the GM of a team and I had a prima donna player who did that, I'd trade him if I could and get something for him, or he can sit and go pound rocks and see how he likes that. The rest of the team will live, and I'd bet many, if not most, would appreciate the message that sends to them. I mean, you yourself proposed cutting one of those 5+ year vets to pay for Cook's appeasement. What you proposed was *exactly* what the new provisions in the CBA about holdouts by rookies were designed to discourage for exactly this situation where a guy on a rookie deal in his 3rd season finally makes it through 14 of the 16 games and performs well enough to be among the top 10 best at his position decides he's not getting enough money for that performance.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:03 pm I guess it just doesn't seem like "invest heavily" applies to the contract that Cook would get. Certainly it's not like the Vikings have done at QB where the player makes nearly 3 times the next highest paid. Cook would be roughly the 8th highest paid player on the team, I believe.

Doesn't Cook want $13 million per year (at least)? I thought that is what I read.

I admit I don't know what he wants or what the Vikings might have offered him. I doubt you do either so neither of us have an idea of where he'd rank among the team salaries.

What we do know is that the Vikings are hard up against the cap. the money to pay Cook has to come from somewhere or, in the case of the Vikings, likely someone.

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.

VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:20 am

VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:52 pm

But I didn't insert any player on the team into that sentence, and as far as I know no other players on the Vikings are in Cook's situation and threatening to hold out.



You're really stretching here.

Debating whether a given player deserves an extension because he fits into the longer term plans of the team and whether a player's threatened breach of his contract to obtain more money are two completely different things.

As to why a given player is "critical", that's up to the Vikings, but just to be clear - I don't think any player is so critical to a team sport that they should be allowed to breach their contract to get more money. If I were the GM of a team and I had a prima donna player who did that, I'd trade him if I could and get something for him, or he can sit and go pound rocks and see how he likes that. The rest of the team will live, and I'd bet many, if not most, would appreciate the message that sends to them. I mean, you yourself proposed cutting one of those 5+ year vets to pay for Cook's appeasement. What you proposed was *exactly* what the new provisions in the CBA about holdouts by rookies were designed to discourage for exactly this situation where a guy on a rookie deal in his 3rd season finally makes it through 14 of the 16 games and performs well enough to be among the top 10 best at his position decides he's not getting enough money for that performance.



Doesn't Cook want $13 million per year (at least)? I thought that is what I read.

I admit I don't know what he wants or what the Vikings might have offered him. I doubt you do either so neither of us have an idea of where he'd rank among the team salaries.

What we do know is that the Vikings are hard up against the cap. the money to pay Cook has to come from somewhere or, in the case of the Vikings, likely someone.

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.

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.

The Vikings have chosen to weight their capital towards Cousins and several other players they deem key, which means less for everyone else and tough cuts will need to be made.

This was a long time coming, as were all the other major personnel changes this offseason. Some were convinced Brez is some sort of magical cap genius and they would figure everything out but the fact is things are now coming home to roost as the negative side of the "all in" bet starts to take hold.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:02 am Yet Cousins got a raise that puts him among the top 5 of all players, #1 in guarantees, and Cook gets offered Melvin Gordon money.

Why do you think Cousins got paid and Cook didn't?

From what I've read the Vikings were attempting to reach a deal this offseason with Cook, but Cook didn't like the numbers and broke off talks. So it's not like the Vikings are denying he's valuable or even trying to stiff him per se. They just didn't hit the number he wanted.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:48 pm 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.

Mattison produced last year when Cook was out and when he spelled Cook. He actually had a higher YPC average than Cook (albeit on significantly fewer touches).

It's not like it's inevitable that the Vikings offense will collapse without Cook. It might be slightly less explosive in the run game, but if the OL improves, who is to say the overall run game would really take a big step backwards?

I'll use the example of Aaron Jones again. You said he succeeded because his supporting cast was better? What if the Vikings end up starting Mattison and his supporting cast is better? In terms of effectiveness of the run game, that could turn out better for the Vikings offense. Sure, maybe if they had Cook it would be better still, but would whatever that difference is be worth an extra $10-13 million (or more)?

I wish we knew what the Vikings offered Cook and what Cook is asking for. It's hard to have a discussion along these lines without knowing what those numbers are.

S197 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:51 pm 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.

S197 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:51 pm 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