Adrian Peterson Reinstated

[J. Kapp 11]

Tom Pelissero touched on that same point in his article yesterday when he asked:

Derrick Rose.

(Again, I digress.)

[dead_poet]

Souhan: Little logic to Peterson's self-pitying whine
Adrian Peterson has a point when it comes to NFL contracts … but he is not the guy to be a martyr.

The newest addition to our list of things we never thought we’d think: Hey, Adrian Peterson — we liked you better when you were wearing a turban and riding a camel.

Peterson, long known for running angry, tweeted angrily on Thursday afternoon.

He complained about one-sided contracts, unguaranteed money, the power NFL teams hold over players’ careers and the plight of his NFL brethren.

It was like hearing Derek Jeter whining about finding a date or Latrell Sprewell expounding on the importance of money management. Even if the message is apt, the messenger is not credible.

Full post: http://www.startribune.com/little-logic ... 305413751/

[Mothman]

I don't either, but IMO it does dilute it.

It should also be mentioned that the Vikings paid every cent of Jared Allen's final year, which I thought was rather unique. I don't pay close enough attention to all NFL players' contracts but I don't know if that happens a lot, especially to older veterans. So Peterson could look at that situation more closely than that of, say, Chad Greenway.

I'd say he should look at both but you make a good point about Allen and no, I don't think what happened with his contract happens a lot.

From a front office perspective you're trying to field the most competitive team possible. A salary cap can make it tricky. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions for the better of the team, not the individual. I suppose where I get confused is when a team does ask guys (usually veterans) to take pay cuts or be released when their salaries could be fit under the cap. I don't know if this is accurate but there was some speculation that the team needed to cut Winfield's contract to be able to retain Loadholt. Even if this wasn't necessarily true, that's just one example of how the team would benefit at the expense of the individual (insert Spock "the needs of the many.." line here). Of course, then there are organizations like the Patriots where it was reported they may have fleeced Tom Brady after Brady took less money that he thought (or specifically requested) be to re-sign buddy Wes Welker (who ultimately received more money to play for Denver). But on that one perhaps the Patriots had a $$ value on Welker they weren't going to exceed, which, from a financial perspective, makes sense. Ugh. This is all why I'm glad I'm not in the business side of sports.

Ditto. It wears me out just talking about it. I like the sports side of sports!

I suppose I can see Peterson's point through all of this but he's still in a good position (unless major injury strikes). I mean, if he goes out and has a 2,000-yard season he can certainly justify getting paid the nearly $15 million in 2016 by the Vikings. If the Vikings want him to take any kind of cut (even while offering some additional guaranteed), he can refuse and perhaps be released, which seems like another winning scenario for him. So while he may not be offered $15 million per year on the open market, as the likely top free agent available coming off a great year (or even a good year), he'll still command Marshawn Lynch/McCoy/Murray cash and get to play wherever he wants (essentially), which will include at least a three-year contract and new guaranteed money.

It's that potential for injury that's probably very scary to a player, especially a player who has already had a major injury in his career.

[Mothman]

Derrick Rose.

(Again, I digress.)

Yes, but you're providing the perfect example and believe me, living where I do, I heard a LOT of complaining about Rose's decisions to exercise caution and put his health ahead of getting back out on the court in meaningful games.

[fiestavike]

Id consider doing 6 mil guaranteed in '16 for a salary reduction to 8 mil and 2 guaranteed in '17 on a 7 mil/year deal. If he wants guarantees, he would essentially be guaranteed 10 million, but save the team massive cap space.

I suspect, unfortunately, he just wants guaranteed money added with no salary reduction, which isn't realistic.

[Mothman]

I understand completely why he wants to make adjustments to the contract as it stands and have no objection to him trying to renegotiate. I just think the rant was a little silly since he (presumably) knew the true nature of the contract and how it was structured when he signed it.

He probably just lost his temper at comments directed at him on Twitter and provided a good example of why pro athletes without a tremendous level of self control are probably better off avoiding social media.

I agree with you here. There's nothing wrong with him asking the team to revisit his contract, just like there's nothing wrong with the team asking Greenway or Winfield to revisit their contracts. Neither side is obligated to acquiesce. If its guaranteed money he wants, the Vikings could try to reduce the '16 salary and guarantee a portion of it. If Peterson's not willing to give in order to get its probably not going to happen.

Well said (and nice use of the word acquiesce, which should be used more often!).

[Mothman]

Id consider doing 6 mil guaranteed in '16 for a salary reduction to 8 mil and 2 guaranteed in '17 on a 7 mil/year deal. If he wants guarantees, he would essentially be guaranteed 10 million, but save the team massive cap space.

I suspect, unfortunately, he just wants guaranteed money added with no salary reduction, which isn't realistic.

No, it's not but the deal you propose, or something similar, could benefit both parties.

[J. Kapp 11]

Yes, but you're providing the perfect example and believe me, living where I do, I heard a LOT of complaining about Rose's decisions to exercise caution and put his health ahead of getting back out on the court in meaningful games.

Oh, I know it's the perfect example.

That's why I acquiesced to Dead Poet's point about the likelihood of guys playing through injuries if their contracts are guaranteed.

[Mothman]

Oh, I know it's the perfect example.

That's why I acquiesced to Dead Poet's point about the likelihood of guys playing through injuries if their contracts are guaranteed.

[S197]

As you said above, there's really no expectation on either side that a contract in the NFL will be seen all the way through (at least not big contracts like the one Peterson received). I think his gripes are pretty clear: he's being taken to task for being the one to act on that understanding first. Fans rarely rip teams for it. For example, Vikes fans wanted and expected the Vikings to ask Greenway to take a pay cut. They weren't heavily criticized for that move or told to just "shut up and honor the contract". Peterson's reacting to criticism. If the Vikings had approached him about taking a pay cut, would they be getting the same kind of reaction for wanting to change the contract that Peterson is receiving?

The other gripe is obviously about the bigger picture and NFL contracts, unlike contracts in the other major U.S. sports, not being guaranteed.

How people feel about either of those gripes is obviously up to them but I'm pretty sure that's what he was talking about.

It's mostly optics. I think if owners were to say they weren't going to honor guaranteed money for whatever reason then I think fans would criticize them. The way I see it, contracts are front loaded for most players meaning the teams take more of the risk on the front end and players take more of the risk on the back end. That sounds more like shared risk than a one way street to me.

Peterson's made his money. That being the case, why is it now unreasonable for him to bear some of the risk? If contracts are fully guaranteed then all the risk falls to the owners and aren't we back to a one way street again?

This is why I say it's mostly optics. You can call a contract X million but the real contract is the guaranteed amount. Anything beyond that is subject to performance and really, there's absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about that.

[fiestavike]

It's mostly optics. I think if owners were to say they weren't going to honor guaranteed money for whatever reason then I think fans would criticize them. The way I see it, contracts are front loaded for most players meaning the teams take more of the risk on the front end and players take more of the risk on the back end. That sounds more like shared risk than a one way street to me.

Peterson's made his money. That being the case, why is it now unreasonable for him to bear some of the risk? If contracts are fully guaranteed then all the risk falls to the owners and aren't we back to a one way street again?

This is why I say it's mostly optics. You can call a contract X million but the real contract is the guaranteed amount. Anything beyond that is subject to performance and really, there's absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about that.

I totally agree.

[petev_sj]

Make that 2.

I don't see the Wilfs taking to Twitter about AD getting $8 Million for playing one game last year. I don't see AD complaining about the contract in that situation.

[Pseudo Everything]

Chris Mortensen ‏@mortreport 5h5 hours ago
Unions for MLB and NBA have never collectively bargained fully guaranteed contracts for all players. Individually negotiated #misconception

Very surprised to learn this. I suspect if you did a survey of contracts in the NBA and MLB (and excluded younger players without much experience) that most of them are guaranteed to one extent or another. So while the NBA and MLB don't require contracts to be guaranteed it's more or less become an accepted practice.

Sully on Kfan this morning:
Sullivan on if contracts should be guaranteed: "Injury rate is why it's tough sell. Addressing what Adrian said, he's not completely wrong." https://twitter.com/KFAN1003

Sully is exactly right. Not only is the injury rate higher in the NFL but NFL teams also carry a lot more contracts. 53 man rosters in the NFL compared to 25 for MLB and 13 for NBA. The NFL owners will never go along with mandating guaranteed contracts.

[Mothman]

It's mostly optics. I think if owners were to say they weren't going to honor guaranteed money for whatever reason then I think fans would criticize them. The way I see it, contracts are front loaded for most players meaning the teams take more of the risk on the front end and players take more of the risk on the back end. That sounds more like shared risk than a one way street to me.

Peterson's made his money. That being the case, why is it now unreasonable for him to bear some of the risk?

It's not. I think a degree of shared risk is perfectly reasonable.

However, to be honest, I don't care much about it either way. They're all rolling in money and I didn't get into football, or other sports, to discuss contracts, salary cap issues or the seemingly endless off-the-field drama we seem to constantly end up discussing here because the Vikings can't seem to stay out of trouble. To be honest, all of that stuff is really wearing me out as a fan and I'm sure I'm not alone. We could use a few years of smooth sailing when it comes to the Vikes, accompanied by some winning football.

[VikingLord]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't there a guaranteed portion of AD's contract? I think Kapp alluded to the fact that if all contracts were fully guaranteed the total amounts of the contracts would be a lot lower and that's completely correct.

The guaranteed part of the contract reflects the percentage of the total that the team *and player* are willing to agree to. The team gets the player's commitment to play for a certain period of time while the player gets a set amount of money that compensates him no matter what happens. The deal is completely fair, ethical, and just from the perspective of both parties, and contrary to what AD would have people believe apparently, *both sides * bear risk. If teams cut a guy early, for example, the prorated portion of any guaranteed money accelerates against the cap, which in turn provides a disincentive against cutting a player early. The fact that some teams find ways to push that hit into the early portion of the contract does not alter the fact that it is guaranteed money.

Heck, take AD's case itself. He got paid to do nothing last year and the Vikes took that hit in order to keep his contract intact. AD doesn't think the team bore risk in the deal? His *exact* situation underlines the risks to teams. He himself proves it, and yet he has the gall to go public and whine that players aren't getting a fair shake?

People talk about Dogra being an idiot? If I were Dogra, I'd cut ties with AD ASAP. Maybe AD can represent himself since he seems to know so much about social justice.