Dalvin Cook Holding Out

[diamondbull424]

5 hours ago, spilltray said:

Why would the owners do anything even remotely like this? The players would have to fight hard for major structural changes like this and probably give up % of revenue for shorter contracts. Then you have to consider the player's union isn't going to get behind something that takes money from everyone else just to try and be fair to RB.

 

13 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

I definitely think the RB position gets the short end of the stick considering the rookie pay scale. I think RBs should get two year rookie contracts followed by an additional RFA year where you can assign a tender. Beyond that they should hit UFA. No franchise tag allotments.

I thought it would be pretty obvious by the phrasing here that it’s how I think RBs should be treated, not what makes sense to owners. The NFL has always put terrible mechanisms in place that don’t truly benefit all players. So why should I care about their stance in a utopia experience for the players.

I mean it’s not like most players are likely to be happy with QBs making $40m/year while the rest of players fight for scraps. The reason money was removed from rookies was to go to productive players vs crappy rookies. Essentially a lot of those dollars have simply went into negotiating terrible contracts/greater profits to QBs. I have my theories as to why that was the case, but that’s neither here nor there.

So when I present ideas as to how I would prefer the product to look, could things improve in that concept, absolutely, but let’s not act like what the NFL has is some amazing system. There’s tons of improvements that can be made to it. Max contracts, home grown player deals like the MLE, a rookie scale dependent upon a positions avg shelf life in the league. Perhaps some sort of arbitration period like what the MLB has could be beneficial if provided a max value (due to the hard cap).

Heck the cap doesn’t even need to change. Would QBs be mad if a max contract was put in place? Probably, but I’m sure most other players would be a fan. What’s more if the max is $30m than that would prevent owners from having to pay $40m for a Pat Mahomes and could instead use the additional cap space for some of these other mechanisms that make things more fiscally fair for the rest of the squad.

Owners might also benefit from the structure in that QBs like Joe Flacco can never hold a franchise hostage because if the max contract value was $20m back then, the team might’ve been able to say “that’s Tom Brady/Peyton Manning money” how about we settle on $16m instead. Other mechanisms would be better afforded due to the changes made in the system at large.

But again, I never claimed that this would be something that holistically benefits the owners... I’m a greater fan of the players, not the owners. So I’ll always side with them when it comes to what’s “fair”.

[AntonChigurh]

13 mil? 

Vikings pay the man. David Johnson is making that much and on the downslope of his physical prime 

[Shanedorf]

Here's OTC with their take on Cook/ Vikings, couple of snippets below

https://overthecap.com/dalvin-cook-wants-new-contract/

"Cook is coming off a career defining season in which he ran for 1,135 yards and added over 500 receiving yards en route to a Pro Bowl season. The kind of year he had would compare with those of the few players earning over $13 million a year.

The market for running backs remains fragmented however and the high end outcomes are often hard to obtain. This is often a game of chicken between two sides. The teams who have caved in have typically regretted it but avoided holdouts and unhappy players. Those players who landed in free agency ended up with far less lucrative contracts than initially expected and lose out with the holdout or refusal to accept a lower offer.

The Vikings would need to weigh the short vs long term benefits of an extension as well. The team is going through a bit of a rebuild which would lead me to believe they were planning on leaning heavily on Cook this season, but if they do not view themselves as a title contender -  would it be worth sinking three big cap years into a running back? Its different than in Dallas or LA where the running back were considered key cogs on a team that expected to win the division and compete for the Super Bowl "

 

[vikesfan89]

I'm thinking the vikings will get something done.  Hopefully not for to much

I'm sure I'm forgetting someone but I can't remember the last time the vikings had a player hold out

 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

8 hours ago, JTagg7754 said:

Smart move. Dude has all the talent in the world, had never stayed healthy until last season, blew up, take advantage of it. 

Same thing happened with Fournette and paying him would be a big mistake too. 

[SweetFancyMoses]

2 hours ago, AntonChigurh said:

13 mil? 

Vikings pay the man. David Johnson is making that much and on the downslope of his physical prime 

Did the Vikings get reimbursed for the 19 of 48 games he didn't play.  He's had 1 good year.

[Soko]

Rookie running backs (or players as a whole) should have production incentives laced into their deals, allowing them to get decent (but not elite) pay if they hit certain standards. I’d even be cool letting those figures not play a role in the cap, so teams could still get their bargain by finding late round gems. I think that’s the best way of letting these players make some money while also letting the team value the rookie-deals.

[INbengalfan]

he probably signs for 100k more than Joe Mixon, whatever he ends up getting from Cincy, and probably a day or two later as well.  I hope this doesn't encourage Joe Mixon to test the holdout card with Mike Brown, because it always ends up poorly for the player.  

[AntonChigurh]

59 minutes ago, SweetFancyMoses said:

Did the Vikings get reimbursed for the 19 of 48 games he didn't play.  He's had 1 good year.

Depends on how you view these contracts. 

Are you paying them for what they did or what they can do?

He is 24, probably still has 4 years left in his physical prime. 

Unless you aren't confident in his health, I believe a lionshare of his IR time has been due to the ACL injury. 

Id rather overpay a running back than a good wr, especially if I have a decent albeit scarecrowish qb in Kirk Cousins. 

Cousins isn't winning a playoff game being the focal point. He needs a substantial amount of balance. Dalvin Cook gives him that balance.  

[RandyMossIsBoss]

RBs have it bad and the NFL needs to figure out a way to get them paid appropriately, perhaps have very good, yet high, performance incentives in ALL rookie deals that do not count towards cap. Pro bowl, all-pros, top 10 in category x. Things like that. Every position would benefit a bit, but none more than RBs who sometimes peak before their 2nd deal. 

 

However, holding will not accomplish much here. Not when the Vikes have the leverage. He can make it known he wants to be traded if there is no extension in place, but if he actually held out like Gordon did... he'd get the same result as Gordon. Mattison would probably more than prove himself in Cook's absence, and then when returning (which he would, otherwise no free agency) he would be rusty which could hurt his production. 

[AlexGreen#20]

17 hours ago, cconocool said:

As a Vikings fan,  I would take a 3rd + 4th or 2nd round pick. Any takers? 

So you want draft picks from a team for the right to give Cook the contract that your team is saying "Hell no" to paying?

[Danand]

17 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

 

I thought it would be pretty obvious by the phrasing here that it’s how I think RBs should be treated, not what makes sense to owners. The NFL has always put terrible mechanisms in place that don’t truly benefit all players. So why should I care about their stance in a utopia experience for the players.

I mean it’s not like most players are likely to be happy with QBs making $40m/year while the rest of players fight for scraps. The reason money was removed from rookies was to go to productive players vs crappy rookies. Essentially a lot of those dollars have simply went into negotiating terrible contracts/greater profits to QBs. I have my theories as to why that was the case, but that’s neither here nor there.

So when I present ideas as to how I would prefer the product to look, could things improve in that concept, absolutely, but let’s not act like what the NFL has is some amazing system. There’s tons of improvements that can be made to it. Max contracts, home grown player deals like the MLE, a rookie scale dependent upon a positions avg shelf life in the league. Perhaps some sort of arbitration period like what the MLB has could be beneficial if provided a max value (due to the hard cap).

Heck the cap doesn’t even need to change. Would QBs be mad if a max contract was put in place? Probably, but I’m sure most other players would be a fan. What’s more if the max is $30m than that would prevent owners from having to pay $40m for a Pat Mahomes and could instead use the additional cap space for some of these other mechanisms that make things more fiscally fair for the rest of the squad.

Owners might also benefit from the structure in that QBs like Joe Flacco can never hold a franchise hostage because if the max contract value was $20m back then, the team might’ve been able to say “that’s Tom Brady/Peyton Manning money” how about we settle on $16m instead. Other mechanisms would be better afforded due to the changes made in the system at large.

But again, I never claimed that this would be something that holistically benefits the owners... I’m a greater fan of the players, not the owners. So I’ll always side with them when it comes to what’s “fair”.

With regard to the bolded part, I would add that I am in the corner of all the well playing rookies/depth players, and also that I see the game as the ultimate team sport, and therefor thinks quarterbacks accounts for too much money on the entire roster.

Its the same old discussion - how much is the CEO really worth? Granted QB's put their teams in position to win and they can elevate an entire team, but while we had/have Peyton Manning, Brady, Mahomes, Wilson who elevate their team, we also have Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, Matthew Stafford and the likes who can't elevate the entire team but are paid so substantially much more than their teammates.

If we put a ceiling on QB contracts though, we would just have 16 QB's all getting the same amount of dollars.

Interesting discussion, but I doubt we will see any major change on contract structuring

[SpacemanSpiff]

I think the idea of having performance incentives in rookie deals that don't count toward the cap is definitely a step in the right direction on this particular issue. 

[Phinsesq]

I agree with the idea of adding incentives into the rookie deals (for all positions) that do not count against the cap but at the end of the day for a lot of these players, right or wrong, the compensation will never meet their expectations. 

[SaveOurSonics]

I'll play devil's advocate and say that I don't see most of the proposed solutions really being all that effective. 

Performance incentives on rookie deals will certainly help the RB position from an early-career earnings perspective, but it's not going to move the needle as far as incentivizing teams to pay them more on their 2nd contract. These incentives would likely be in the $100,000-$1m range, and that's frankly not a huge dent relative to the money these guys are missing out on with their 2nd contract. Players at the position will continue to think they are worth more, hold out, and be met by a cold market. 

I also heard establishing a max value for QB contracts. Great idea in theory, but teams aren't going to suddenly allocate that extra money into a position they've deemed expendable. That extra financial flexibility will simply be passed off to what are deemed the next most important players; pass rushers, offensive tackles, and cornerbacks.