Hunter has agreed to an Extension (5 yr / $72M total / $40M G.)

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

Fair enough. I agree they should look to replace Rudolph rather than extending him on a 3rd contract. His deal expires after 2019, so they could draft a TE next year and plan to have him take over in 2020. If that’s what you’re suggesting, I’m on board. 

Letting Rudolph play out the last year on his extension and then move on won’t affect cap space. The discussion upthread was about trying to increase cap space by...

...which in Rudolph’s case would either be trying to get him to take a pay cut for 2019 or cutting him outright after 2018. 

Cutting Rudolph doesn’t make sense, there’s no replacement in sight (which was my point). I don’t think he’d be asked to take a paycut either, since he’s clearly TE1 unless Conklin lights the league on fire as a rookie, and he’s produced at a level of a top 10 TE, which is what he’s making (currently projected to make the 9th highest cap hit for TEs in 2019). Rudolph’s production seems more likely to increase than decrease this year, so he’d seem fully worthy of that salary heading into next year.

The other way to lower his 2019 cap number would be to extend him heading into that year. It’s not a stupid idea, Rudolph’s mainly a possession receiver and his game may age well (like Greg Olsen). They could give him another 2-3 year extension for similar AAV to what he’s making now. That’s not really a “restructure or flat out release”, or “moving on” from Rudolph, but it might be necessary if they can’t find another TE by this time next year. 

I agree with all of that.

 

[SemperFeist]

Has anyone ever thought that the NFL should implement some sort of “discount/cap forgiveness” option for teams when it comes to re-signing their own players? 

It seems odd that teams are essentially punished for evaluating talent, drafting well, and developing players because they eventually won’t be able to pay all of those players. 

[JDBrocks]

Something like Bird Rights for drafted players. I think that’s a great idea, but I think that it only works if you guarantee more of the contract. NFL cap guys are magicians with the non-guaranteed portions of contracts and I think they would find a way to exploit that kind of rule.

[SemperFeist]

It’s not an easy task. But imagine if teams were given a 20% “forgiveness” when re-signing a drafted player. What would happen if you could pay Diggs $15M per year, for example, and only count $12M towards the cap? 

 

I just seems odd that teams like the Vikings could essentially get punished for drafting and developing players, and not having the means to re-sign all of them. But teams like the Jaguars and Browns, after years of poor drafting and not paying players are essentially rewarded with $100M+ in cap space to raid another team’s cupboard. 

[vikingsrule]

10 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

Has anyone ever thought that the NFL should implement some sort of “discount/cap forgiveness” option for teams when it comes to re-signing their own players? 

It seems odd that teams are essentially punished for evaluating talent, drafting well, and developing players because they eventually won’t be able to pay all of those players. 

No that would create an uneven playing field for teams who draft well. You'd essentially be punishing a majority of the league if FA talent doesn't become available. Think of the what the Vikes QB situation would be right now without Cousins, you'd have to think that the Redskins would have paid Cousins if they could get a discount from the NFL.

The NFL is trying to create some level of parity and teams that consistently draft well should find future talen to replace departing talent. Teams that draft poorly can potentially add talent through FA as another option, I think the system is fine as it is.

 

[Cearbhall]

The compensatory picks help teams that draft well and can't keep all the players. I don't think "discount/cap forgiveness" would be a good thing. Teams that draft well already have a huge advantage over teams that are terrible at it. People like parity.

[vike daddy]

At the time of the 2015 Draft, Hunter was considered a talented prospect, but not an accomplished player. Media scouting reports said things like “He still needs someone to unlock all that talent” and “a raw prospect from LSU whose production doesn’t astound but whose athletic makeup does” and “He looks more like a model than a football player, but his natural athleticism can’t be denied.”

Hunter certainly wasn’t a bad player at LSU, but he had just 4.5 sacks in his college career, which is an awfully low total for a highly drafted defensive end. But the Vikings saw that natural athleticism in Hunter, and considered the fact that he was only 20 years old when he began his rookie year, which meant that he still had a lot of time to get better as a player.

And Hunter did get better. After 4.5 sacks at LSU, Hunter has 25.5 sacks in his three seasons in the NFL. The Vikings have developed a raw talent and made him a productive player. When you wonder why an NFL team is willing to spend a draft pick on a workout warrior who hasn’t shown he can put it all on the field, remember the way Danielle Hunter went from a college player who showed flashes of talent to an NFL player who learned to do it consistently.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/01/danielle-hunter-shows-the-value-of-drafting-talent-over-production/

[gopherwrestler]

On 6/29/2018 at 9:32 PM, SemperFeist said:

It’s not an easy task. But imagine if teams were given a 20% “forgiveness” when re-signing a drafted player. What would happen if you could pay Diggs $15M per year, for example, and only count $12M towards the cap? 

 

I just seems odd that teams like the Vikings could essentially get punished for drafting and developing players, and not having the means to re-sign all of them. But teams like the Jaguars and Browns, after years of poor drafting and not paying players are essentially rewarded with $100M+ in cap space to raid another team’s cupboard. 

I get the point behind it, but then the ability to gain more talent via free agency would probably end up getting an unfair advantage.

[Uncle Buck]

On 6/28/2018 at 11:56 AM, SemperFeist said:

I think it’s a foregone conclusion that Waynes will be moving on. Whether it’s after he plays out his 5th year, or the team opts out before the option goes into effect is what remains to be seen. 

Either Waynes doesn’t take the next step forward, where he won’t be worth the option cost, and likely won’t be worth a long term deal. Or he takes the next step and looks like a solid to very good starting cornerback, where he’ll price himself out of a new contract with the Vikings. 

1

I think Waynes has already taken that step.  He is a very good starting cornerback, IMO.  He played very well last year.  I think a lot of people are underestimating not only him but also how long it takes to learn both the NFL game and how to play at a high level in Mike Zimmer's defense at the cornerback position.   I would rather resign Waynes than Barr because Barr would be easier to replace, IMHO.  That may not end up happening, but that's what I'd do if it came down to a decision between the two of them. 

As others have already said, however, Diggs should be the #1 priority at this point.

[swede700]

On 6/29/2018 at 9:32 PM, SemperFeist said:

It’s not an easy task. But imagine if teams were given a 20% “forgiveness” when re-signing a drafted player. What would happen if you could pay Diggs $15M per year, for example, and only count $12M towards the cap? 

 

I just seems odd that teams like the Vikings could essentially get punished for drafting and developing players, and not having the means to re-sign all of them. But teams like the Jaguars and Browns, after years of poor drafting and not paying players are essentially rewarded with $100M+ in cap space to raid another team’s cupboard. 

That would be considered socialism.  There can only be so much socialism in the NFL.  

[vikingsrule]

1 hour ago, disaacs said:

That would be considered socialism.  There can only be so much socialism in the NFL.  

Preferably none at all.

Comp picks were always made available to teams that draft well but the formula may have to be revisited with how much contracts are going up.

[NorthCountryEvo]

On 6/29/2018 at 7:32 PM, SemperFeist said:

It’s not an easy task. But imagine if teams were given a 20% “forgiveness” when re-signing a drafted player. What would happen if you could pay Diggs $15M per year, for example, and only count $12M towards the cap? 

 

I just seems odd that teams like the Vikings could essentially get punished for drafting and developing players, and not having the means to re-sign all of them. But teams like the Jaguars and Browns, after years of poor drafting and not paying players are essentially rewarded with $100M+ in cap space to raid another team’s cupboard. 

The idea of cap forgiveness sounds great when you have a team that is drafting well, or for fans of teams (which is why it sounds awesome to me). Not only does a team get rewarded for finding and developing players effectively, but a fan base can get even more invested in individual players.

 

Unfortunately, for the NFL as a whole "ecosystem", this wouldn't prove to work well. The free agent market would become even more sparse of top end talent unless the player was aging. Also, it would probably start inflating contracts even further. Players would be willing to receive and offer from their current team, then go hit the market, and other teams bidding for their services would then have to match the player's current teams offer (though it ends up being 20% more than what the original team offered as far as cap hit) and then they would have to inflate that further to stay competitive against any other bidders. Example would be QB1 gets a 4yr, $100M offer from the team that drafted them (and that team looks at that contract as essentially being a 4yr, $80M contract). The player doesn't sign immediately and tests the FA waters. Team 2 would have to offer him the same 4 yr$100m at a minimum, and then to lure him away, they probably have to boost that number further, say $110M/4yr to compete against other offers. So the player signs with team 2. The next year, Team 3 is ready to resign their QB draft pick, and he says, well, QB1 just got $110/4yr from that other team, i'm better than him, so I want $115/4yr. That ends up being $92/4yr for the drafting team, which they offer, but again the QB heads to market, and the whole cycle starts over. Now, this isn't any different than how it works now, except it accelerates the contract rate increase, because drafting teams will be willing to offer more immediately, and by quite a bit. That means the price to grab a guy in FA will inflate big time, and teams will pay that to get the player they want. Before you know it, the average salary rate for players will be so high that no team can afford it unless the salary cap itself mimics the rate of contract inflation... and that would mean the owners get paid less, because more of their money is going to the players. The owners would either deny this cap forgivness, or they would push to find revenue gains elsewhere... namely, us, the fans. Ticket prices, food prices, and merch prices would go through the roof to compensate.

[vike daddy]

there's no socialism in the NFL...? i thought it was ALL socialist in nature.

i mean, a bunch of billionaires take the television broadcasting profit and split it 32 ways.

[wcblack34]

On 7/1/2018 at 1:45 PM, Uncle Buck said:

I think Waynes has already taken that step.  He is a very good starting cornerback, IMO.  He played very well last year.  I think a lot of people are underestimating not only him but also how long it takes to learn both the NFL game and how to play at a high level in Mike Zimmer's defense at the cornerback position.   I would rather resign Waynes than Barr because Barr would be easier to replace, IMHO.  That may not end up happening, but that's what I'd do if it came down to a decision between the two of them. 

As others have already said, however, Diggs should be the #1 priority at this point.

I agree with this. An above average CB (which Waynes is, and then some) is of more value in today's NFL than a very good linebacker. Barr is not elite. Rhodes, Waynes, Smith and hopefully Hughes could be the NFL's next GREAT secondary. I'd rather have that than Barr. 

[swede700]

15 hours ago, vike daddy said:

there's no socialism in the NFL...? i thought it was ALL socialist in nature.

i mean, a bunch of billionaires take the television broadcasting profit and split it 32 ways.

It's not all socialist...that's why Jerry gets to keep all of his JerryWorld revenue.