Vikings Message Board.Com

Winfield from my understanding was asked to take a pay cut and refused

it was simply a business call and the Vikings wanted him still but couldn't afford
over 7 million for him.

I hope we can get him back he makes so many great plays overall against the run
and tackles like a LB on defense.

losperros wrote:Very well said and I agree completely. Losing Winfield is bad if for no other reason that the Vikings need more, not less, CB depth. It's not rocket science. Look at the division and what the Vikings D will be facing next season. It's not a pretty picture.

Look at what happened to them in 2011 after he went down for the count. It was U-G-L-Y.

Winfield's potential departure is one of the more compelling arguments for the Vikes to draft a CB in R1 and consider waiting on another need until R2.

Mothman wrote: Look at what happened to them in 2011 after he went down for the count. It was U-G-L-Y.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kejIzc0dla0

CB depth is a major concern. DP had it right on the money when asked "what happens if/when Cook or Robinson go down?" I do not think we'll see an apocalypse like we saw in 2011, the Safety position is vastly improved vs. that crop that year, however CB is one or two injuries away from Armageddon, even less against a spread team like GB.

Given the state of the veteran CB market, I wonder if they'll make a play on one of the other names out there should they lose Winfield.

I hope Spielman learns his lesson. In the end, this tumult is about a difference of maybe $1-3MM? That could cost them games and playoff position if they lose winfield and have CB injury issues which are not at all unlikely given a player like Cook's history. I agree that you do not want to overpay declining Veterans in general, however, if you have a team on the rise and a player in a position where you are not 100%, why not pay the guy, especially if it is the tail end of a contract?

mansquatch wrote:I hope Spielman learns his lesson. In the end, this tumult is about a difference of maybe $1-3MM? That could cost them games and playoff position if they lose winfield and have CB injury issues which are not at all unlikely given a player like Cook's history. I agree that you do not want to overpay declining Veterans in general, however, if you have a team on the rise and a player in a position where you are not 100%, why not pay the guy, especially if it is the tail end of a contract?

Because you can't pay everybody and a team on the rise isn't the same as a team that's ready to win it all. Cutting an expensive veteran at the tail end of his contract while rebuilding makes more sense than doing it later, when the rebuilding process is paying big enough dividends for the team to be a Super Bowl contender.

Maybe they could have found a way to pay/keep Winfield and maybe not but I don't think think it's fair for us to just assume Winfield would have been willing to take a pay cut and that this is all about a difference of $1-$3 million. $7.25 million is a LOT to pay for a 35 year old (soon to be 36) slot/nickel CB, which is the role they intended for Winfield this season. The guy is a terrific football player but teams have to make these cap-related decisions all the time and the Vikings were probably going to have to move on soon anyway.

Something to consider: Winfield looked like a fresh, viable CB last year at the age of 35 but he missed the final 11 games of 2011. How much did that down time help him rest and enable him to be the player he was in 2012? Can he do the same at 36 coming off a 16 (17 including the playoffs) game season?

It certainly sounds like Spielman could have handled this situation better on an interpersonal level (although we only got one side of that story) but beyond that, I'm not sure if there's a lesson to be learned here. He had to clear some cap space to make the moves he made. Winfield ended up being the cap casualty.That stinks but it's not uncommon in the NFL.

Just in response to the Spielman hate. I for one am noticing more and more how wrong we all are about how well Spielman has a handle on situations and how well he handles them. Despite my love for Winfield I am still willing to give Spielman the benefit of the doubt given his growing track record. I hope Win ends up back here but I am learning that This GM typically has a plan B C D before he does anything.

Mothman wrote:Winfield's potential departure is one of the more compelling arguments for the Vikes to draft a CB in R1 and consider waiting on another need until R2.

Yes! Well said. I couldn't agree more.

I still say go for MLB and CB in the first round. Pick up that needed WR in R2, even if it requires a trade up. And pick up another WR later in the draft.

PurpleJarl wrote:Just in response to the Spielman hate. I for one am noticing more and more how wrong we all are about how well Spielman has a handle on situations and how well he handles them. Despite my love for Winfield I am still willing to give Spielman the benefit of the doubt given his growing track record. I hope Win ends up back here but I am learning that This GM typically has a plan B C D before he does anything.

Your point is well taken. After all, it takes two to tango. Winfield must have had a hand, directly or indirectly, in the cut. If the two sides couldn't compromise, that's the way it goes, I guess.

But it ain't over until it's over. Maybe the Vikings will get Winfield back. I hope so. They need him.

It is hard to comprehend 11 pages and counting on this topic. A 36 year old, past his prime, oft injured player, whose role was to be diminished to becoming a part time cover player, who by all accounts was not willing to take a pay cut, wanted to go out and test the market. I really liked and appreciated his tackling ability and his leadership but that was then and this is now. Time to move on. Josh Robinson and perhaps a new younger player will fill the void.
For those that are complaining the loudest and lambasting Spielmen, first off you know nothing about the dynamics that went on with this negotiation. Both Spielman and Frazier came out and said that they want him on the team but at what cost? They barely have enough cap space to sign their rookies. Paying Winfield an exorbitant amount of money makes zero sense under these money constraints. There will be similar angst and complaints when next year rolls around and JA or KW are facing a similar situation. I dare say that if they are unwilling to renegotiate their deals then they will face a similar fate. This is all about numbers and the fact that older players are not worth the money that they were when they were younger and less expendable.

Purple bruise wrote:It is hard to comprehend 11 pages and counting on this topic. A 36 year old, past his prime, oft injured player, whose role was to be diminished to becoming a part time cover player, who by all accounts was not willing to take a pay cut, wanted to go out and test the market.

It's not clear at all that Winfield wanted to go out and test the market. He became a free agent because he was released and reportedly was surprised to be cut.

It's also not clear that he wasn't willing to take a pay cut. That's possible and it's also possible that he would have been willing to compromise. We don't have enough info to tell one way or the other. The Vikings supposedly approached Winfield's agent at the combine about the possibility of a pay cut but according to that agent, those talks were casual and the idea was never explored in detail in the days leading up to Winfield's release.

I think the 11 page thread is simply a consequence of surprise, the offseason (not as much to talk about and the situation is ongoing) and the well-deserved admiration Vikes fans have for what Winfield brought to the team over the years.

For those that are complaining the loudest and lambasting Spielmen, first off you know nothing about the dynamics that went on with this negotiation. Both Spielman and Frazier came out and said that they want him on the team but at what cost? They barely have enough cap space to sign their rookies. Paying Winfield an exorbitant amount of money makes zero sense under these money constraints. There will be similar angst and complaints when next year rolls around and JA or KW are facing a similar situation. I dare say that if they are unwilling to renegotiate their deals then they will face a similar fate. This is all about numbers and the fact that older players are not worth the money that they were when they were younger and less expendable.

I'm sure there will be plenty of angst over the fate of JA and KW, although in Allen's case, his contract will be up so the situation will be different. Kevin Williams' situation could end up being very similar to Winfield's.

Time to move forward.... reality check. Winny is done in Minny!

That wasn't Spielman hate. It was an analysis of the move based on what we presently know. They released Winfiled because they didn't want to pay him $7MM for his services. Now they are in a situation where they obviously want him back.

It seesm like AW will get a deal in the $3-$4MM neighborhood. So in the end Spielman has taken a risk to save $3-$4MM of cap space for one year. My issue is whether the risk/reward makes sense. It almost seems like they took the risk to have more money to play in FA. Either that or tthey were genuinely fearful about their chances to eithe resign Phil Loadholt and/or get a Harvin Replacement. Whatever it was, we are now facing a CB depth issue that will either get addressed via FA or draft picks.

I'm just not sold on whether the uncertainty we face now was worth the $3MM in cap space for one season.

That being said, Spielman knows infinitely more than we do about the current roster, the market for players, etc. So my anaylsis could be completely off base.

mansquatch wrote:That wasn't Spielman hate. It was an analysis of the move based on what we presently know. They released Winfiled because they didn't want to pay him $7MM for his services. Now they are in a situation where they obviously want him back.

It seesm like AW will get a deal in the $3-$4MM neighborhood. So in the end Spielman has taken a risk to save $3-$4MM of cap space for one year. My issue is whether the risk/reward makes sense. It almost seems like they took the risk to have more money to play in FA. Either that or tthey were genuinely fearful about their chances to eithe resign Phil Loadholt and/or get a Harvin Replacement. Whatever it was, we are now facing a CB depth issue that will either get addressed via FA or draft picks.

I'm just not sold on whether the uncertainty we face now was worth the $3MM in cap space for one season.

When you talk about Spielman taking a risk, it sounds like you're assuming Winfield would have just capitulated and accepted a $3-$4 million dollar pay cut at the Vikings request but there's no reason to believe that's true. He may end up getting that now if that turns out to be the market price for his services but that doesn't mean all the Vikes had to do was ask him to give up $3+ million dollars and he would have said "yes". Unless they were offering him an extension, what's his motivation to do that?

In the end, Spielman bought the Vikes $7.25 million in cap space, not $3 million and he did it by releasing a player they were going to have to replace soon anyway. If Winfield has played his last game as a Viking, it stinks that it went down this way but the move is pretty easy to understand.

jackal wrote:Winfield from my understanding was asked to take a pay cut and refused

it was simply a business call and the Vikings wanted him still but couldn't afford
over 7 million for him.

I hope we can get him back he makes so many great plays overall against the run
and tackles like a LB on defense.

Where did you see this? Because I can find the sites where Winfield had no clue about what was going on. The only communications was, take a hike. Nothing about take a paycut, which im sure Winfield would have.

Mothman wrote: Because you can't pay everybody and a team on the rise isn't the same as a team that's ready to win it all. Cutting an expensive veteran at the tail end of his contract while rebuilding makes more sense than doing it later, when the rebuilding process is paying big enough dividends for the team to be a Super Bowl contender.

Maybe they could have found a way to pay/keep Winfield and maybe not but I don't think think it's fair for us to just assume Winfield would have been willing to take a pay cut and that this is all about a difference of $1-$3 million. $7.25 million is a LOT to pay for a 35 year old (soon to be 36) slot/nickel CB, which is the role they intended for Winfield this season. The guy is a terrific football player but teams have to make these cap-related decisions all the time and the Vikings were probably going to have to move on soon anyway.

Something to consider: Winfield looked like a fresh, viable CB last year at the age of 35 but he missed the final 11 games of 2011. How much did that down time help him rest and enable him to be the player he was in 2012? Can he do the same at 36 coming off a 16 (17 including the playoffs) game season?

It certainly sounds like Spielman could have handled this situation better on an interpersonal level (although we only got one side of that story) but beyond that, I'm not sure if there's a lesson to be learned here. He had to clear some cap space to make the moves he made. Winfield ended up being the cap casualty.That stinks but it's not uncommon in the NFL.

They could have tried, dont ya think? A 10 year vet? Alot of fans favorite, or one of them, players?