Vikings Message Board.Com

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:05 am**

dead_poet wrote:Sure, I understand that he's burned his share of bridges and inviting him back may have cost the team some fans (and sponsors). However I think there remains a difference between welcoming him back after serving whatever penalty society and the league has deemed appropriate and then giving him something he wants after what he did plus the way he's handled this, even if it's also in the team's best interest as well.

Fair enough. That doesn't seem logical to me but I understand the point you're making. My view is that at some point, those involved have to move forward and get back to business. Peterson's been punished and presumably allowing him to play is giving him something he wants. It sounds like trading him would be giving him something he wants. I assume he'd love to make $47 million over the next 3 years too. I think giving him something he wants is inevitable here, so why worry about it? He did something wrong and he paid a pretty substantial price for it. If the Vikes are able to renegotiate his deal so that it benefits them, it's hard for me to see anything Peterson did as a reason why they shouldn't do that.

I think it probably is a consideration. Frankly, Peterson's perceived attitude may be one of the reasons why the Vikings haven't approached him about a restructure. Not to say they would have, as Spielman has shown he's willing to honor contracts (even high-priced ones) to players he values (Peterson is on the Jared Allen scale), but before this all happened the general sentiment was that some kind of restructure was probably in order.

I think it's possible they actually have approached him about restructuring, although there's no way to know. For example, it doesn't seem like a leap to guess that Dogra and Brzezinski may have been discussing Peterson's contract when they nearly got into an altercation at the combine.

I'm not sure this is exactly apples-to-apples but I'll share it anyway. In 2007 Michael Vick plead guilty to federal charges relating from dog fighting. He was suspended indefinitely by the league and the Falcons ultimately (via court action) forced him to pay back nearly $20 million of a signing bonus. They also cut him. Imagine the reaction if Vick not only started for the Falcons in 2007 or 2008 but they never asked for any money back and re-negotiated his contract to give him more guaranteed money.

I think the comparison is more like apples to Guatemalan Insanity Peppers.

I understand why people keep connecting the two players and I understand the point you're making above but to me, there's really no comparison between Peterson's one-time incident and Vick's felonious activity across state lines.

I hear ya. I just don't understand why he can't come out and say he understands what he did was wrong, is seeking help and hoping to put that chapter behind him as he looks to make himself a better man and better member of the community and team (or something along those lines).

That has pretty much happened already. I don't know if he's said anything about being a better member of the community but he has said he made a mistake (ie: did something wrong). He's said he regrets what happened. He's expressed how awful he felt when it happened. He's sought help and has been receiving it for months now and he's stated more than once that he has reevaluated how he should parent. He's also stated that he wants to put this incident behind him, that he's focused on his family and becoming a better father. I don't know what more people want from him on that front. The statements he's actually made just don't seem to register.

The more I read about his agent the more I think he's just taking advice from the guy that has a track record of landing huge contracts and the guy is like, "Trust me, Adrian. I have you best interests in mind and this is the way we should play it" and AD trusts/believes him, hoping to land some more guaranteed cash. I can't help but think if he had any other agent this may be playing itself out much differently. Of course, maybe that's just me trying to vilify a smarmy agent while trying desperately to deflect blame and cling to the integrity of previously one of my favorite all-time Vikings.

Believe me, I understand the impulse.

I think it's very important to keep reminding ourselves that we still have almost no information about the situation between Peterson and the Vikings. There's been no indication from him, Dogra or the Vikings that Peterson is seeking more guaranteed money and almost no detail about the exact nature of Peterson's uneasiness with the team. There's been no threat of a holdout and no refusal to show up for any mandatory team activities. It's an information void that's been filled with guesswork and rumors for months now. All we really know is the Vikes say they want him back and his agent (so presumably Peterson himself) doesn't think Minnesota is the place for him anymore.

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it happens next year, giving this whole incident another entire season to essentially be forgotten. I'd be shocked if they did something this season, though. The perception, whether justified or not, wouldn't be very positive. I think that matters to Zygi and the rest of the Vikings' brass. YMMV.

It obviously does vary.

It will be interesting to see what happens but it doesn't matter to me at all if they renegotiate his deal.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:38 am**

Mothman wrote:Fair enough. That doesn't seem logical to me but I understand the point you're making.

Easy, Spock, since when is the public logical?

My view is that at some point, those involved have to move forward and get back to business. Peterson's been punished and presumably allowing him to play is giving him something he wants. It sounds like trading him would be giving him something he wants. I assume he'd love to make $47 million over the next 3 years too. I think giving him something he wants is inevitable here, so why worry about it?

I think the perception is the Vikings support him and want him to play. They're not asking him for a cut or restructure. They stood by him (most of them anyway) during this whole ordeal that may have gotten a lesser player released. The fact is many think he should just be grateful for being employed (and compensated handsomely) when instead it feels like his agent is playing him as a victim as a means to leave and/or get more cash. I'm sure the Vikings want to move forward and get back to business, too, but that takes both sides. As far as giving him what he wants, there's honoring a commitment (letting him play, and for his existing contract) and there's giving him something else. It's like if a kid took a baseball bat to his parents' glass table, smashing it to pieces. They punish him and then move on with the relationship, but that kid not only wants his bat back, but a better one.

I don't know. My perception is the Vikings are not at fault, they're going to honor the contract they have in place and and Peterson should do the same. Of course, we don't know Peterson won't do that (yet) but he's given zero indication that he'll be reporting. There's more evidence by things he and his agent have said to the contrary.

I think it's possible they actually have approached him about restructuring, although there's no way to know. For example, it doesn't seem like a leap to guess that Dogra and Brzezinski may have been discussing Peterson's contract when they nearly got into an altercation at the combine.

Yeah, who knows.

I don't know what more people want from him on that front.

A statement on whether or not he wants to be a Minnesota Viking any longer.

It obviously does vary. It will be interesting to see what happens but it doesn't matter to me at all if they renegotiate his deal.

It really doesn't matter to me, either, but I'm just concerned with how such a move will be perceived.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:26 am**

dead_poet wrote:Easy, Spock, since when is the public logical?

Excellent point, Captain.

I think the perception is the Vikings support him and want him to play. They're not asking him for a cut or restructure. They stood by him (most of them anyway) during this whole ordeal that may have gotten a lesser player released. The fact is many think he should just be grateful for being employed (and compensated handsomely) when instead it feels like his agent is playing him as a victim as a means to leave and/or get more cash. I'm sure the Vikings want to move forward and get back to business, too, but that takes both sides. As far as giving him what he wants, there's honoring a commitment (letting him play, and for his existing contract) and there's giving him something else.

"Giving" implies that it's some sort of gift or reward and it wouldn't be either. It would simply be a business decision. The Vikes are under absolutely no obligation to change Peterson's contract at all so I think it's pretty safe to say that doing so would be voluntary, part of a negotiation they would choose to enter and an agreement they would be willing to make. It's unlikely they'd make it if it didn't benefit them so I don't see how it has to do with "giving" him anything. A mutually beneficial change in his contract is hardly a gift.

I

t's like if a kid took a baseball bat to his parents' glass table, smashing it to pieces. They punish him and then move on with the relationship, but that kid not only wants his bat back, but a better one.

I understand the analogy but I don't see Peterson asking for a better bat.

My point is there's no need to keep seeking retribution, in large or small amounts. Peterson has dealt with the ramifications of his actions with both the legal system and the NFL. The idea that a renegotiation which could actually benefit the Vikings should be off-limits seems like a passive-aggressive form of "punishment" to me, an effort to continue to satisfy someone's sense of justice. They might as well make him play in a hair shirt. Why would it be okay if he plays and gets paid a fortune under his current deal but it's not okay if a higher percentage of that money is guaranteed and the deal works in the team's long term favor? It just doesn't make sense to me.

A statement on whether or not he wants to be a Minnesota Viking any longer.

That would be nice but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming, does it?

It really doesn't matter to me, either, but I'm just concerned with how such a move will be perceived.

I guess that's the difference. I'm resigned to the fact that some people are going to stay angry about this no matter what happens and that some perceptions will remain skewed no matter what. We've seen those dynamics throughout this process which is why I come back to the inability to please all of the people all of the time. Keeping Peterson as a Viking, under any circumstances, is going to tick some people off so if a renegotiation ticks a few more off but ultimately benefits the team, I say damn the torpedoes and renegotiate!

Wait, I'm I'm Spock, should that be "damn the photon torpedoes"?

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:49 pm**

@SiriusXMNFL #Vikings CB @Captain_41 on A.Peterson: As a football player & a teammate we want him back in Minnesota. Coaches haven't talked about it yet.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:08 pm**

dead_poet wrote:

I assume that means "coaches haven't talked about it with the players yet", correct?

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:11 pm**

Mothman wrote: I assume that means "coaches haven't talked about it with the players yet", correct?

Right.

‏@GoesslingESPN Saw @captain_41 said coaches haven't talked about Peterson yet; I'm told Mike Zimmer didn't mention AP at all in 1st remarks to team today. Zimmer was pretty good last year about focusing on players who were here and limiting distractions. Makes sense to stick with that approach.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:28 pm**

dead_poet wrote:Right.

Thanks for the info (and the good discussion the last two days).

I was thinking a little while ago about what a shame that football fandom now involves so much discussion of player contracts and salaries, off-the-field issues, etc. It's so much less fun than talking about the draft or actual football games!

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm**

@JasonPhilCole Insider Buzz: Peterson Will Play for Vikings If They Guarantee Majority of Deal http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2436 ... art-vid-16 … via @bleacherreport

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2436 ... art-vid-16

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:46 pm**

At this point I'm just laughing at this situation. So he doesn't want to play for the Vikings based on principle because he felt they betrayed him. However, if they start guaranteeing some money in future years, it's all good and he's back? So principle and his and his family's feelings go out the window if he's getting more money?

He's going to be a monster this season and I welcome him back with open arms but I hope the team doesn't budge one bit. Don't guarantee a single penny in future years. This contract was structured perfectly so they could easily get out once he starts to age. There's no need to do anything to change that now.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:49 pm**

@christomasson Source: If Adrian Peterson isn't traded before or during next week's NFL draft he won't be traded before 2015 season. http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_279 ... ade-source …

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:37 pm**

Vikings28 wrote:At this point I'm just laughing at this situation. So he doesn't want to play for the Vikings based on principle because he felt they betrayed him. However, if they start guaranteeing some money in future years, it's all good and he's back? So principle and his and his family's feelings go out the window if he's getting more money?

He's going to be a monster this season and I welcome him back with open arms but I hope the team doesn't budge one bit. Don't guarantee a single penny in future years. This contract was structured perfectly so they could easily get out once he starts to age. There's no need to do anything to change that now.

I agree. I'd fully back him on an issue of principle, if it was a legit issue, but if he is just selling out I'm really unimpressed.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:48 pm**

dead_poet wrote:

Yeesh... how many times did he write "the source" in that article?

I don't have a hard time believing the Vikes won't trade Peterson unless they do so before this draft. As for the rest, Tomasson seems to just be repeating more of the same and I don't put much stock in Cole or his sources, not that he really offered much anyway. I think most of these guys are just making educated guesses and doing their best to provide content to keep their editors happy.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:22 pm**

So is this 'guarantee the majority of my salary' request (when you're under contract can it be a 'demand'?) something he would require of a potential trade partner? Seems like that would scare teams off more than it would attract them if he wants out. Or is he willing to give a trade partner a better deal for a bigger market? Peterson stands to make a fortune in the Dallas market, for example. So that guaranteed money might not be as important if he thought he could make money via advertising. He lost his big advertisers (Nike, BP) and he probably wants to go somewhere with bigger local advertising dollars or get his contract guaranteed.

If he gets traded it'll be interesting to see if he requires the same kind of contract he's asking for here.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:22 pm**

Cliff wrote:So is this 'guarantee the majority of my salary' request (when you're under contract can it be a 'demand'?) something he would require of a potential trade partner?

I imagine if he signed elsewhere, his deal would get renegotiated and a new deal would probably involve some guaranteed money. However, I feel compelled to point out that there is no request or, if there is, it remains between Peterson and the Vikings and completely unconfirmed. All Jason Cole said was that "just as likely" as a trade, "if the Vikings are willing to repair the situation and guarantee much of his contract" then "Peterson would be happy to play for the Vikings". He made no reference to any source for that information. It appeared to simply be his opinion. He provided no real basis for it.

Seems like that would scare teams off more than it would attract them if he wants out. Or is he willing to give a trade partner a better deal for a bigger market? Peterson stands to make a fortune in the Dallas market, for example. So that guaranteed money might not be as important if he thought he could make money via advertising. He lost his big advertisers (Nike, BP) and he probably wants to go somewhere with bigger local advertising dollars or get his contract guaranteed.

If he gets traded it'll be interesting to see if he requires the same kind of contract he's asking for here.

We don't know that he's asking for any contract at all here. I'm sorry to keep being the guy who points this stuff out again and again but there's not a single report I'm aware of that refers to an actual financial request/demand from Peterson or his agent in regard to his current contract. Their official stance, based on Dogra's comments, seems to be that Peterson wants out of Minnesota. Maybe that's a negotiating tactic to get more guaranteed money or maybe he truly just wants to play somewhere else but until there's some kind of actual evidence of a demand regarding money, it seems unfair to continually attribute a desire for more guaranteed money to Peterson when he has expressed no such desire. I suspect the reason the subject keeps coming up is because the media know he's unhappy and the best solution they can come up with to placate him is to throw money at the problem. For all I know, that IS the best solution but it remains to be seen.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:56 pm**

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -an-offer/

That said, it’s possible that someone will make them a trade offer that gets Minnesota’s attention — under the same theory pursuant to which any player on any team is, in theory, available via trade. If another team puts enough picks and/or players on the pile, even an untouchable player will be asked to pack his bags.

In this case, that’s not expected to happen. A source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that a recent report that they’d want a first-round pick and a starting cornerback isn’t accurate, which suggests it would take even more than that to even begin to get the Vikings to consider making the deal.

So the CB and 1st round pick isn't enough - apparently.

Vikings Message Board.Com

Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated

Re: Adrian Peterson Reinstated