He's a little late to the conversation. http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Reus ... 913_060913
In a nutshell, his attitude is that it's never good to get rid of great players. Generally speaking, I think that's a philosophy we can all get behind but what if the great player is a malcontent who apparently doesn't want to play for the team anymore and will be a free agent in a year? Is it a good idea to trade him then and get a first round pick in return or is it better to wait, franchise tag him and and make him a very unhappy player getting paid liek one of the top 5 at his position? Is it better to let him continue being a distraction and then walk in free agency a year later and get nothing in return?
Winfield's a different story but let's face it, they had to move on at his position at some point soon anyway. I wish it had happened differently and I wish it had happened later but it's an understandable, if regrettable, move.
Maybe the differences between Harvin and the Vikes weren't irreconcilable and maybe Winfield didn't need to become a cap casualty but these were at least understandable moves that could make the team better in two years, even if they don't necessarily make them better immediately.
Anyways, what a bummer that we have to play them in that stadium again! That's hardly fair. It's a huge advantage, just as the dome is for us. I guess beating them there would be all the more sweet.
