Vikings Message Board.Com

PurpleKoolaid wrote: 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.

Here, for one: http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Vete ... ttle041013

Winfield remains a top slot cornerback in the nickel defense and would serve in that role with the Seahawks, who already have Richard Sherman and Brandon Browner playing on the outside.

Winfield had been due $7.25 million in base salary from the Vikings in the last year of his deal.

The Vikings first approached his representatives about a pay cut in February at the NFL scouting combine.

Winfield, 35, played 89.8% of the snaps last season (1,076 total, including playoffs) despite finishing the season with a broken right hand.

The Ohio State product joined the Vikings a free agent in 2004 after five seasons in Buffalo. He was entering the last year of the contract extension he signed in July 2009. Winfield had no bonus proration left on his deal, so the Vikings freed up $7.25 million in cap space with the release.

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.

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.

I'm not sure how much we can even afford to give Winfield at this point so I wouldn't say the difference is only $3 or $4 million, at this point we're saving $7 million and that's fairly significant. The way I look at it is this, I would rather have a 27 year old Loadholt who hasn't missed a snap in 4 years, who's essential to our power running game offense, who's only improved his game, locked up then to hold on to a 36 year old part time nickel corner. If we don't sign Jennings we might as well penciled in forced WR and LB picks and if Loadholt wasn't happy with the offer and tested FA we could easily be talking about RT being a massive need as well.

In my opinion, looking at the cap numbers, this just seems to be an open and shut case of spielman picking the lesser of two evils and doing what had to be done. I don't think there was any possible pay cut negotiations that could have actually worked. It looks like we could MAYBE only give him 2 million, no matter how you present that to Winfield (It's like a 72.5% pay cut, 3 million is like 57.2%) I don't see it working out.

ugg Jim beat me to most of it!

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

As dead_poet posted, they reportedly approached Winfield's agent about the possibility of a pay cut in February. Maybe he gave them the impression there was no way Winfield would accept a significant cut.

The bottom line: we don't know exactly what happened and we probably won't because Spielman maintains a pretty consistent silence about any contract-related discussions.

FWIW: Pelissero doesn't mention Winfield's refusal to take a pay cut, but the 'Trib does.

Winfield was not willing to take a pay cut this season, which could have been a factor in today's decision.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 93331.html

Thanks for that info.

Mothman wrote: As dead_poet posted, they reportedly approached Winfield's agent about the possibility of a pay cut in February. Maybe he gave them the impression there was no way Winfield would accept a significant cut.

The bottom line: we don't know exactly what happened and we probably won't because Spielman maintains a pretty consistent silence about any contract-related discussions.

There were 2 reports, 1 from the Star Tribune i think, that said Winfield was blind sided. He had no idea this was coming. He was litterally in the work out room with other Vikes when they told him. The sources were listed on Rosens blog i think, maybe Berschiet (sp?). Also Roussie mentioned it. Spielman is a classless act, I dont have to know what words were spoken. Hes just like Childress when it comes to handling personale. He knew as well as you or me that Winfield wasnt going to stick at 7 mil. But he did think if he let Winfield go, he could get him cheap later. And it looks like its going to backfire on him. But hey, we overpaid for Load and Carlson so that makes it worth it. We have a horrible secondary, as we saw when Winfield was out last year, but who cares right? We can just draft another Winfield...

PurpleKoolaid wrote: There were 2 reports, 1 from the Star Tribune i think, that said Winfield was blind sided. He had no idea this was coming. He was litterally in the work out room with other Vikes when they told him. The sources were listed on Rosens blog i think, maybe Berschiet (sp?). Also Roussie mentioned it. Spielman is a classless act, I dont have to know what words were spoken. Hes just like Childress when it comes to handling personale. He knew as well as you or me that Winfield wasnt going to stick at 7 mil.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that the Vikings and Winfield's agent weren't making progress and the Vikings wanted to give him a chance to catch on with another team before they filled their needs at CB.

I don't know what was said to Winfield but the actions of the team don't reflect classlessness. Classlessness would have been going back and forth with Winfield's agent right up until the deadline and cutting him when teams had already filled their rosters.

But he did think if he let Winfield go, he could get him cheap later. And it looks like its going to backfire on him.

Why would you think that? I honestly just think Speilman was fine losing Winfield at that price. If they can get him back cheaper, great ... but you can't force someone to renegotiate.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Spielman is a classless act, I dont have to know what words were spoken.

Exactly. Facts are not required to form opinions. Often, they just get in the way. As Stephen Colbert would say, "Just think with your gut."

But he did think if he let Winfield go, he could get him cheap later.

I'm sure that was what he would consider a "best case scenario" but obviously he knew that re-signing him for less would be far from a guarantee with other interested bidders.

dead_poet wrote: Exactly. Facts are not required to form opinions. Often, they just get in the way. As Stephen Colbert would say, "Just think with your gut."
I'm sure that was what he would consider a "best case scenario" but obviously he knew that re-signing him for less would be far from a guarantee with other interested bidders.

Hah, I mean by reading the reports of how it was handled, i dont need the spin facts from Spielman or his spokesman. (wish i knew how to do the quote thing for lines of text...Jim explained it but I still cant firgure it out. And I actually worked with HTML 10 years ago or so).

My whole point was, thats not how you handle vets. Thats not how a GM handles a PH type of player. Thats not how a HC should handle a McKinney situation (who now has a SB ring, I guess he should be thanksing Fraizer for his mistake). Vets need to be treated better. NFL stars like Moss and PH should have been handled better then Childress did (i know, they were cancers yada yada). And mainly Winfield was one of the few class acts on and off the field. We even lost Birk, a future HoF, because he couldnt stand Childress. Its just a pattern under the Wilfs.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Hah, I mean by reading the reports of how it was handled, i dont need the spin facts from Spielman or his spokesman.

Keep in mind that the source for what the Strib reported appeared to be Winfield's agent so you may be basing your indignation on spin!
Just select the text you want to quote and hit the quote button.

McKinnie got what he deserved from the Vikings. He showed up out of shape and he'd already had a host of issues in the past. Why should they have given him any special treatment when he didn't seem to respect his position with the team? If anything, they were patient with him.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:I mean by reading the reports of how it was handled, i dont need the spin facts from Spielman or his spokesman.

You mean the other side of the story? A question: what makes Winfield's camp any more believable than Speilman's? I know I'm not comfortable with calling Winfield's camp "truth" and Spielman's "spin." We're all basing this on what we read. Both sides have said things. It could all be true, or none. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. We'll likely never know.

My whole point was, thats not how you handle vets. Thats not how a GM handles a PH type of player. Thats not how a HC should handle a McKinney situation (who now has a SB ring, I guess he should be thanksing Fraizer for his mistake).

We really don't know how other GMs would've handled those situations. We only know what OUR GM did. In retrospect the 400-lb McKinnie was probably handled properly and we now have Kalil, who will likely already is as good or better than McKinnie ever was. Time will tell if we did right with Percy. We don't know the behind-the-scenes stuff and from all reports the compensation we got for him was pretty fair. Honestly, Percy probably forced our hand in that situation. I'm sure nobody really wanted to trade him.

Vets need to be treated better. NFL stars like Moss and PH should have been handled better then Childress did (i know, they were cancers yada yada).

Vets aren't untouchable creatures to be handled with kid gloves. No one person should be bigger than the team. When you start giving preferential treatment, it has the potential to be quite detrimental to your team as a whole.

And mainly Winfield was one of the few class acts on and off the field. We even lost Birk, a future HoF, because he couldnt stand Childress. Its just a pattern under the Wilfs.

I don't think you can blame the Wilfs for football decisions. And it's difficult to blame Spielman for Birk's departure. Difficult, but not impossible

I think I saw a figure that put the Vikings at 4.4MM under the cap and a team typically needing $3-$5MM to sign a whole draft class. Given how many picks the Vikes have hoarded, they will be in the upper end of that range.

IMO, then, what they did makes sense and I withdraw my criticism of Spielman. You needed to resign your young RT plus you knew going into this offseason that you were going to dish Harvin (they knew it, dont kid yourselves) and would need $$$ to sign a FA WR. All that adds up to needing cap space and in that scenario, Winfield's Cap # was low hanging fruit.

Next year is going to be tumultuous. They are going to have to bring JA down to earth in terms of his cap #, plus KWill. Also resigning (if he deserves it) Ponder will become a priority.

mansquatch wrote:I think I saw a figure that put the Vikings at 4.4MM under the cap and a team typically needing $3-$5MM to sign a whole draft class. Given how many picks the Vikes have hoarded, they will be in the upper end of that range.

IMO, then, what they did makes sense and I withdraw my criticism of Spielman. You needed to resign your young RT plus you knew going into this offseason that you were going to dish Harvin (they knew it, dont kid yourselves) and would need $$$ to sign a FA WR. All that adds up to needing cap space and in that scenario, Winfield's Cap # was low hanging fruit.

Next year is going to be tumultuous. They are going to have to bring JA down to earth in terms of his cap #, plus KWill. Also resigning (if he deserves it) Ponder will become a priority.

Robison and Griffen will be free agents as well. That defensive line could see some big changes in the next 12 months!

Vets need to be treated better.

Give me a break. You know who treats vets like interchangeable pieces of property? The Patriots. The Packers. You know who lets top talent go and works on developing younger players? The Ravens. The Giants. Good teams don't give old players contracts based on simply playing here for a long time. They tell Brett Favre to sit down and shut up they aren't over spending in free agency. They tell Richard Seymour and anyone they can they'll move you in a second if they feel the deal is worth it. Regardless of what have you done for me in the last decade.

This is a business. Spielman shouldn't hold anyones hand. McKinnie was making too much, and wouldn't take a pay cut. Winfield was making too much, and was reported he had made comments before about not wanting to take a pay cut. Harvin and Moss acted like idiots. And the team as a whole is better off without them. Birk was a pay me and I can play, don't and I won't. Clearly upset with a number of different things that had nothing to do with Spielman.

This is the NFL, not Dandy Dan's Car Wash. Putting in 20 years of service shouldn't be considered for a second. Players are replacement. Even more so when you take the price tag on veteran players into consideration. They're building a team, not a retirement home. Not a home for disgruntled youths.

Demi wrote: They're building a team, not a retirement home. Not a home for disgruntled youths.

I am totally stealing this and will use in any argument about PH and AW.