Vikings Message Board.Com

RandyMoss84 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:50 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:33 pm

If Cook holds out, we will be lucky to win 6 games.

What? Mattison will replace Cook with no problem

LMAO. Chill.

I think most fans saw this coming. It is also why we have been scratching our head at certain moves. This organization is doing a half rebuild half win now thing that generally doesnt work.

Dont fault Cook for wanting to get paid while he can. Do fault the front office if they dont get this ironed out before season, they should have been prepared for this. If we cant execute play action this offense is going to be pedestrian failure.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:55 pm

VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:44 am
You cherry pick things to such extremes it blows my mind. Bell went from being a superstar to a complete nobody by signing with the jets and sure he got a lot of money. I think the Steelers were offering as much or more. Gordon signed for 8 Million a year. Weren't the Chargers offering more. You add in Bell's receiving while ignoring Ekeler's receiving. Both those holdouts were complete failures.

If what was reported is true for Bell and Gordon, yeah, they should have taken the deals offered. If not, Bell made the right decision financially, Gordon as well.

If the Vikings are offering a decent contract, Cook is also be foolish for turning it down and I question why he wasn't traded. If they are offering something ridiculously low, or nothing at all, Cook would be smart to not join the team until he absolutely has to and the team should up their offer.

Good post. You are recognizing that according to all that was reported both of them lost out by holding out for some pie in the sky reward. If Bell is happy playing with the jets and his sucking and the team sucking good for him I guess. I don't know what can be done for Cook in the short term to get him to play. He is deserving of a huge increase in pay and I'm pretty sure the Vikings are willing to give him a huge increase in pay. Whether it's huge enough to satisfy Cook is the question.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:36 pm

VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:15 amIf you don't play without a new contract you lose a year of your prime and get fined through the roof and teams can no longer waive the fines when you do sign and you earn no service time towards free agency. As Gordon and Bell have proven not playing is a losing proposition. James Conner stepped up and Bell was barely missed during the hold out year. Ekeler stepped up and Gordon wasn't missed during his holdout. Bell signed with the Jets and went from superstar to nobody overnight. Gordon has moved on to the Broncos after losing a lot of money last year and was only able to get $8 million a year on his new contract. History isn't on the side of RBs going all in on the holdouts.

If you don't play with a new contract and get injured, you don't get another contract period.

Cook doesn't have a ton to lose, honestly. Again, he's coming in at 45th highest paid in the league.

I don't know how it worked for other teams but the Vikings aren't built to win games without Cook.

Sure he deserves more money. I don't see why he feels the need to hold out. I doubt the Vikings are completely lowballing him. I doubt if he can get a 3-39 contract from any team in the league. So if he holds out for that or better he will lose just like Gordon and Bell did.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:26 pm

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:39 amWhat is the point of a contract if players sign it and then ignore it when it suits them?

You can ask the same question of the teams, no? How many times do teams cut a player after injury and forego them millions of dollars?

Cook is talented but can't stay healthy. He might be worth investing in, even potentially investing heavily in, if he can prove he can stay healthy and perform at a high level for an entire season. He hasn't done that yet. My advice to him would be do exactly that - show up and perform and give the Vikings a reason to want to extend you beyond the flashes you've shown.

Otherwise, I say ship him for what they can get. He'll likely fetch at least a high 2nd rounder if not a 1st.

I imagine you would like for him to play for no more money as it's good for your favorite team. For him, he's risking injury in a very violent game and potentially losing out on millions of dollars.

That's why the players get guaranteed money in the contracts.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:32 pm If the front office truly believes that, they should have blown everything up. Cutting Reiff, Stephen and Rudy this year saves about 5 million more in cap next year (with the dead cap hits moving to this year instead of next) than if they wait until 2021. It also makes room for younger guys to step up and develop on the field instead of sitting behind a vet.

Those players are playing under contract already. Yeah, they could cut them, but that doesn't make sense nor is it necessary. In the case of Cook, he's also under contract already. What we're talking about here is him breaching that contract for more money.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:26 pm You can ask the same question of the teams, no? How many times do teams cut a player after injury and forego them millions of dollars?

Injury is a material change of circumstances and is usually covered in the contract. Players are represented by agents in those negotiations and those agents negotiate the terms. Some jobs/activities are more risky than others. It goes with the territory.

But even so, many teams don't cut injured players unless those players literally can't return, and it often takes time to see if that will be the case. I can't think of one example of a time where a player got injured and the team cut the player soon afterwards based solely on that.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:26 pm imagine you would like for him to play for no more money as it's good for your favorite team. For him, he's risking injury in a very violent game and potentially losing out on millions of dollars.

Are you saying he didn't know that and accept the same when he signed the original contract?

Is it hard to imagine that I want him to simply honor the terms of the deal he originally signed, which is the same thing I'd expect of anyone who signed a contract? Not sure why you want to make this personal, but you'll just have to trust me when I say that I feel the same way about players from any other team too. And I do not feel sorry for pro athletes. Should I feel bad for Dalvin Cook because he's "only" going to make $1.5 million dollars for a few months of playing football?

Maybe the real problem is the way NFL contracts are structured. Maybe players should sign contracts that ensure they are paid based on performance via some sort of floating cap or ladder system. There are incentive-based contracts in pro football, so maybe that is a better way to go and is more fair to everyone. It might not be possible to have a hard cap if such contracts were standard, but perhaps there would be a way to offset things so that the league stays in competitive balance.

Some more on the Cook situation from Vikings.com:

https://www.vikings.com/video/pelissero ... alvin-cook

Some highlights from that:

- The new CBA makes it prohibitive for a player in Cook's position to hold out
- If Cook doesn't show up next month with the rest of the team and holds out for any "material" length of time, under the CBA he doesn't accrue his final year
- If he doesn't accrue his final year, he doesn't become an unrestricted FA at the end of the upcoming season
- That makes him a restricted FA, which means the Vikings can pay restricted FA money to keep him on the team versus having to apply the franchise tag to him (which would cost them roughly double)

That video also says the Vikings were "surprised" this came out.

This smells like another Diggs situation to me. If negotiations truly broke off as described, that suggests the two sides were pretty far apart in terms of perceived value. Couple that with public discontent and you have the recipe for another trade, probably before the season starts.

If I were the Vikings at this point I'd ship him providing I get value. To me, Cook's value is around what they got for Diggs.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:00 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:32 pm If the front office truly believes that, they should have blown everything up. Cutting Reiff, Stephen and Rudy this year saves about 5 million more in cap next year (with the dead cap hits moving to this year instead of next) than if they wait until 2021. It also makes room for younger guys to step up and develop on the field instead of sitting behind a vet.

Those players are playing under contract already. Yeah, they could cut them, but that doesn't make sense nor is it necessary. In the case of Cook, he's also under contract already. What we're talking about here is him breaching that contract for more money.

It is a contract that was decided for him before he was ever drafted. It is also a contract the Vikings could tear up at any time and not honor if they wanted too.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:29 pm

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:00 pm

Those players are playing under contract already. Yeah, they could cut them, but that doesn't make sense nor is it necessary. In the case of Cook, he's also under contract already. What we're talking about here is him breaching that contract for more money.

It is a contract that was decided for him before he was ever drafted. It is also a contract the Vikings could tear up at any time and not honor if they wanted too.

"Decided for him"...

You mean by the collective bargaining agreement which is negotiated between the owners and the players? You're arguing that the CBA is unfair to guys like Cook?

If the Vikings tear it up, Cook is a free agent is he not? He can sign elsewhere for any amount of money he can get. I'd argue that is actually fair to Cook.

Plus, as Victorious pointed out earlier, the Vikings could not escape the guaranteed portions of Cook's contract even if they tore it up. You make it sound like Cook plays at the whim of the Vikings and they can treat him how they choose and pay him what they want. And for every Cook who outperforms his rookie deal, there are more rookies who underperform theirs. Their teams still have to pay the guaranteed portions of those contracts. I don't see how that is unfair in that situation, either. Both sides bear risk and both sides are protected.

The CBA dictates the parameters of player contracts and what teams can and can't do in those contracts. If Cook doesn't like that reality he should find another line of work. He can join the rest of us in regular jobs making regular wages and living regular lives with regular risk.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:29 pm

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:00 pm

Those players are playing under contract already. Yeah, they could cut them, but that doesn't make sense nor is it necessary. In the case of Cook, he's also under contract already. What we're talking about here is him breaching that contract for more money.

It is a contract that was decided for him before he was ever drafted. It is also a contract the Vikings could tear up at any time and not honor if they wanted too.

Not exactly true. The Teams have the option to terminate the contract at any time. That is the reason that the players are usually given some guaranteed money. When a team terminates the contract they are abiding by the terms of the contract. When a player holds out he is not abiding by the terms of the contract that he agreed to.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:14 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:29 pm

It is a contract that was decided for him before he was ever drafted. It is also a contract the Vikings could tear up at any time and not honor if they wanted too.

"Decided for him"...

You mean by the collective bargaining agreement which is negotiated between the owners and the players? You're arguing that the CBA is unfair to guys like Cook?

If the Vikings tear it up, Cook is a free agent is he not? He can sign elsewhere for any amount of money he can get. I'd argue that is actually fair to Cook.

Plus, as Victorious pointed out earlier, the Vikings could not escape the guaranteed portions of Cook's contract even if they tore it up. You make it sound like Cook plays at the whim of the Vikings and they can treat him how they choose and pay him what they want. And for every Cook who outperforms his rookie deal, there are more rookies who underperform theirs. Their teams still have to pay the guaranteed portions of those contracts. I don't see how that is unfair in that situation, either. Both sides bear risk and both sides are protected.

The CBA dictates the parameters of player contracts and what teams can and can't do in those contracts. If Cook doesn't like that reality he should find another line of work. He can join the rest of us in regular jobs making regular wages and living regular lives with regular risk.

Very well stated.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:37 pm Some more on the Cook situation from Vikings.com:

https://www.vikings.com/video/pelissero ... alvin-cook

Some highlights from that:

- The new CBA makes it prohibitive for a player in Cook's position to hold out
- If Cook doesn't show up next month with the rest of the team and holds out for any "material" length of time, under the CBA he doesn't accrue his final year
- If he doesn't accrue his final year, he doesn't become an unrestricted FA at the end of the upcoming season
- That makes him a restricted FA, which means the Vikings can pay restricted FA money to keep him on the team versus having to apply the franchise tag to him (which would cost them roughly double)

That video also says the Vikings were "surprised" this came out.

This smells like another Diggs situation to me. If negotiations truly broke off as described, that suggests the two sides were pretty far apart in terms of perceived value. Couple that with public discontent and you have the recipe for another trade, probably before the season starts.

If I were the Vikings at this point I'd ship him providing I get value. To me, Cook's value is around what they got for Diggs.

Cook can not stay healthy so Vikings are not getting similar to a Diggs trade, that is a pipe dream

Per Pat Kirwan a respected NFL journalist.

Pat Kirwan
@PatKirwan_NFL
·
5h
Dalvin Cook will come in to camp. If he doesn’t as a player with less than 4 yrs he will lose a year towards UFA and be restricted in 2021 also there is a 50k a day fine. His salary is 1.3 mil and his fines could reach 1.5 mil. He has no leverage.


Rumor has it that so far the Vikings have offered less than $10 million a year. That could be a magic number. I think the Vikings should absolutely offer that.

VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm Per Pat Kirwan a respected NFL journalist.

Pat Kirwan
@PatKirwan_NFL
·
5h
Dalvin Cook will come in to camp. If he doesn’t as a player with less than 4 yrs he will lose a year towards UFA and be restricted in 2021 also there is a 50k a day fine. His salary is 1.3 mil and his fines could reach 1.5 mil. He has no leverage.


Rumor has it that so far the Vikings have offered less than $10 million a year. That could be a magic number. I think the Vikings should absolutely offer that.

Smart move for the Vikings