The Iron Chef!!

[Guest]

I haven't really participated in this thread up to now.  I think that second contract or extension value needs to be based on production and value within the system being run offensively.  It should not be based at all on what players from other teams are paid.  Comparing contracts from teams who use positions differently in their schemes than the Vikings makes no sense whatsoever.  Why? Because the running back position is undervalued by most teams in the NFL, because most teams are heavily pass oriented.  The Vikings are a run first, ball control offense.  The running back position should be more valued here than on other teams.  So, I do think Cook deserves to have a raise to his salary, and think that 10 million a year would be logical.

Again, second contracts and extensions should be based on relative value within the scheme that is being run by the offense and past production within that scheme.

[Cearbhall]

10 hours ago, Purplepride323 said:

You have to consider Cook has played 19 games less than McCaffrey when you look at these stats. McCaffrey has never missed a game in 3 years. Which is why I don’t think they’ll get the same contract. If the Vikings get a deal done between now and training camp, it could be in the $10-12 million range. Which will be a bargain in my opinion. Cook is top 5, let’s stop disrespecting the talent that’s on our team. I know we’re spoiled, we got Adrian Peterson, then Percy Harvin. Cook is kinda like a mix of both. You put AD and Harvin (maybe more of  Harvin) in a blender, you get Cook. Let’s just be more appreciative we get to watch him in a Vikings jersey. 

It is refreshing to have someone here pushing for Cook to be resigned, almost no matter the cost. We haven't had that here. I would encourage you to keep leading that charge with the conviction Klomp has for Josh Allen.

That said, I hope you won't take it personally that a heavily disagree about the value of the RB position. I believe Cook is worth the $10-$12M per year you say here, but I would let someone else pay out that contract to him. I also agree that Cook's value could go up as high as $15M/year if he has a season this year that replicates what Christian McCaffrey did last season.

If I were the Vikings, I would not take that risk. If Cook gets injured his value could also drop substantially. Also, since I was already willing to let him walk for the $10-$12M price range it wouldn't really cost the team anything more so that isn't much risk. All it would do is give the team a year of great production followed by even better compensatory considerations when someone else pays him.

The big risk for the team would be Cook holding out like Melvin Gordon did in the last year of his contract. That would stink but if he comes to the team in the middle of the season without football conditioning and has a season like Gordon did when Gordon came back, it would also reduce Cooks value on the market to something closer to the two year $16M contract signed by Melvin Gordon -- himself a talented RB that has a history that includes dings that have held him back.

Like Mr CriminalMind, I would offer Cook $8M per year. On the three year deal Mr CriminalMind mentioned, that would be a new money average of $11.325M. Cook could take it or leave it. I suspect he would leave it just as Anthony Harris left the Vikings last best offer at an extension.

Cook, being a RB, does carry a greater injury risk than a S. He might be wise to grab the bird in hand rather than going for the two in the bush. If he does end up catching the two in the bush, that is great for him and I would congratulate him. I wouldn't judge him for grabbing for the bigger payday.

I also wouldn't judge the Vikings for not giving Cook a blank check to secure an extension when they currently control him for a year and have the possibility of the franchise tag to secure his services for another year. As a practical matter, that allows the Vikings to start their negotiating based on $14M over two years. 

Cook's camp can, and should, counter with the $29M over three years Cook would get if the Vikings tagged him a second time. That is why Cook's agent likely turns down the $24M over three years CriminalMind and I would offer. They do need to ask themselves how much it is worth it to them to shift the injury risk from Cook to the team. As such, a fair deal could be had for something less than what Cook would get on his current deal plus a couple tags.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Cearbhall

[Illadelegend215]

13 hours ago, Vikes22 said:

So career numbers:

Cook: 2104 yards rushing 17 TD’s

104 rec , 914 yards 2 TD’s

 

McCaffrey: 2920 yards rushing 24 TD’s

303 rec,  2523 yards 15 TD’s

 

They are both in the league 3 years and you see Cook getting what McCaffrey got???? 
 

You do know that McCaffrey has better numbers thru 3 years then Barry Sanders?? 
 

They are not even close. 
 

like I said before, 7 million a year is my max offer..

I see what you did there. That is a great way to showcase statistics in a bias way to prove a point. You’re forgetting one small detail however. One player tore his ACL week 4 in 2017, the other has remained healthy through each season. Would you like to put up games played as well? Dalvin Cook played 29 games, Christian Mcaffery played 48. That is legitimately a full season and 3 extra games. 

Also, my argument was for this season that just passed. The numbers he had are in 29 career games compared to Mcaffery’s 48. 

[JDBrocks]

Just now, Illadelegend215 said:

The numbers he had are in 29 career games compared to Mcaffery’s 48. 

This is an extraordinarily important part of the argument against.

[Illadelegend215]

1 minute ago, JDBrocks said:

This is an extraordinarily important part of the argument against.

It is very important. Mcaffery has clearly been the healthier back, but comparing career numbers should never be a realistic comparison unless both players have similar time on the field. If he is arguing the health aspect, then it’s EXTREMELY important. But if we are saying who is superior player due to more numbers, picking a guy who has an entire calendar season and 3 more games over the other to prove he has more yards and receptions  is a bogus argument.

Was Frank Gore the better option than Adrian Peterson prior to the 2012 season due to superior numbers of yards and catches? Heck no. AD was injured and missed ample time which is why the numbers were the way they were as well as Gore being in the league longer.

[JDBrocks]

1 minute ago, Illadelegend215 said:

It is very important. Mcaffery has clearly been the healthier back, but comparing career numbers should never be a realistic comparison unless both players have similar time on the field. If he is arguing the health aspect, then it’s EXTREMELY important. But if we are saying who is superior player due to more numbers, picking a guy who has an entire calendar season and 3 more games over the other to prove he has more yards and receptions  is a bogus argument.

Was Frank Gore the better option than Adrian Peterson prior to the 2012 season due to superior numbers of yards and catches? Heck no. AD was injured and missed ample time which is why the numbers were the way they were as well as Gore being in the league longer.

I don't disagree that context around bulk stats is important. No one has ever said that Frank Gore was better than Adrian Peterson.

It's not a bogus argument though - one guy has better bulk number because he is able to stay on the field. It doesn't matter how talented you are if you can't be counted on to deliver week in and week out. 

[swede700]

23 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

This is an extraordinarily important part of the argument against.

Yes, because it means that after McCaffrey has been beat up and worn down, Cook will still be chugging along, since his injuries came early in his career.  

Edited May 1, 2020 by swede700

[Vikes22]

1 hour ago, Illadelegend215 said:

I see what you did there. That is a great way to showcase statistics in a bias way to prove a point. You’re forgetting one small detail however. One player tore his ACL week 4 in 2017, the other has remained healthy through each season. Would you like to put up games played as well? Dalvin Cook played 29 games, Christian Mcaffery played 48. That is legitimately a full season and 3 extra games. 

Also, my argument was for this season that just passed. The numbers he had are in 29 career games compared to Mcaffery’s 48. 

Well, how about McCaffery just last year. He had more catches and receiving in 1 year then cook has in his career!!!!!!!! 

and your no help to your team if you can’t play...

again, what about Bell, Gordon, Freeman, Gurley????? 
 

they were over paid and got cut ( or held out and lost a lot of money)

Cook is no way worth over 10 million a year. 
 

7 million a year, or hit the road...

By the way, Cook better ask Melvin Gordon how that worked out for him🤔..

[swede700]

Cook is far better than Melvin Gordon ever has been, even at his best.

[Cearbhall]

2 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Cook is far better than Melvin Gordon ever has been, even at his best.

Gordon had that one good year that he tried (unsuccessfully) to cash in on.

[CriminalMind]

4 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Cook is far better than Melvin Gordon ever has been, even at his best.

Being "far better" is still only part of the equation (and subject to interpretation). I would say availability is just as important (if not more important).

Gordon got 2/$16M, so I would give Cook the 3/$24

Edited May 1, 2020 by CriminalMind

[Cearbhall]

7 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

Being "far better" is still only part of the equation (and subject to interpretation).

Interpretation indeed. Gordon, at his best, averaged 5.1 yards per attempt in 2018. Dalvin Cook has never averaged over 5 yards per attempt for a season.

That said, I do think that Cook is the better of the two backs, assuming Cook can stay healthy.  Gordon had to get to free agency to get that $16M over two years. I believe that Cook is good enough to get that much full year before hitting free agency. That, in itself, is an acknowledgement that Cook is the more valued RB of the two.

[Krauser]

2 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

I also wouldn't judge the Vikings for not giving Cook a blank check to secure an extension when they currently control him for a year and have the possibility of the franchise tag to secure his services for another year. As a practical matter, that allows the Vikings to start their negotiating based on $14M over two years. 

Cook's camp can, and should, counter with the $29M over three years Cook would get if the Vikings tagged him a second time. That is why Cook's agent likely turns down the $24M over three years CriminalMind and I would offer. They do need to ask themselves how much it is worth it to them to shift the injury risk from Cook to the team. As such, a fair deal could be had for something less than what Cook would get on his current deal plus a couple tags.

The Vikings have a long track record of treating players fairly. As a RB, Cook has exactly one chance to get a long-term contract. They're not going to force him to play on the franchise tag, let alone tag him twice (which would mean a fully guaranteed $12M in 2021 and $15M in 2022).

Cook is quite likely to hold out this year if he doesn't get an extension. The team has the money to pay him and has built the offense around his skills as much as anyone's.

The extension doesn't have to break the bank, and it doesn't have to offer much more guaranteed money than he would get under a worst case scenario with the tag. It just has to be fair, and offer Cook some recognition and security.

It's a similar situation to the Rudolph extension last year, which many fans similarly wanted to draw a hard line against for Moneyball reasons. But the deal with Rudolph was fair, and I don't think many fans regretted it while watching the actual games. Rudolph clearly deserves his spot on the roster this year and his cap number is fair (7th highest hit for a TE this year). By 2021, when the team may be looking to move on, he only has $4M left in dead money and that number drops off further in subsequent years.

The Vikings can similarly offer Cook a deal that looks good on paper, with a fairly high AAV, but doesn't have much guaranteed money so the cap implications beyond the next 2-3 years are light. That could be something like $50M/4, but with dead cap hits that allow the team to get out from the deal by 2022. 

It's not always good business to drive the hardest possible bargain -- there's something to be said for the value of avoiding conflict with team leaders and stars. The Vikings have had an excellent reputation with players and their agents. They've attracted free agents without outbidding the competition (Cousins and Barr left money on the table to play in Minnesota), retained a number of homegrown players for cheaper extensions than expected (especially Hunter), and had several vets take pay cuts to stay one more year with the team (Griffen last year, Robison previously, etc). 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Krauser

[swede700]

26 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

Being "far better" is still only part of the equation (and subject to interpretation). I would say availability is just as important (if not more important).

Gordon got 2/$16M, so I would give Cook the 3/$24

Certainly, availability is important, but that's part of the reason why I'd only give him $10M , if he were as available as Gordon had been, he'd probably be worth $12M-$14M.  I don't think you can compare the two, especially when you consider that Gordon got his 5.1 YPA behind a far superior line to the Vikings.  In fact, the Chargers had a top-5 offensive line in 2018.  The Vikings have largely had a bottom-10 offensive line the entire time Cook has been here.

Edited May 1, 2020 by swede700

[Vikes22]

1 hour ago, CriminalMind said:

Being "far better" is still only part of the equation (and subject to interpretation). I would say availability is just as important (if not more important).

Gordon got 2/$16M, so I would give Cook the 3/$24

Yep. Some people have a hard time believing this. 7-8 million a year is all he is worth. If he leaves or holds out, so be it. Draft another back next year..