Hunting Problems?

[wcblack34]

1 hour ago, CriminalMind said:

As I expected a new deal gets done for Hunter. This was no doubt going to be the end result. (Sold as Win/win)

Hunter gets more money upfront now (possibly/likely net new money) & possibly a new contract after the season. 

“Sold as win/win”

No, it’s a rare exception where it actually is one. But some peeps still just hate Spielman. 

[CriminalMind]

2 minutes ago, wcblack34 said:

“Sold as win/win”

No, it’s a rare exception where it actually is one. But some peeps still just hate Spielman. 

Well I'm sure Spielman would have preferred no change to Hunters contract at all (and he shuts up and play). So this is sold as a "win" on the part of the Vikings as well cause we kept him happy and we have the ability to offer him a big shiney new contract next year instead of under contract for peanuts

[PrplChilPill]

sounds like some good news. that's nice.

[gopherwrestler]

So I take it our Hunting problems are done for the year? 

[Cearbhall]

I've been out of the loop for a few days but I saw the headline about the Vikings reworking the deal. From what I read, it sounds like the Vikings are not paying Hunter anything new in 2021 and converting some salary to bonus instead. It costs them no extra dollars this year but saves them a decent amount of cap space. Is that right?

How about 2022? I see the mention of a roster bonus. Does any of that increase Hunter's 2022 compensation? Or is he still slated to make exactly the same amount in 2022 too?

If I understand this right (I am probably missing something) the Vikings haven't given Hunter anything additional in any of the years, but they have bought some immediate cap space by giving money to Hunter earlier this year and next year. I assume that the roster bonus next year will never be paid to him. It looks like that is something that team will convert that into a signing bonus probably as part of an extension they work out. Alternatively, they'll cut him before it is due. There is a small chance they pay it without extending him, but that sounds like risky business so I would hope they aren't really considering that an option.

I like the approach of waiting to pay Hunter until after he shows what he is worth after his neck injury.  Gaining cap room this year is a great win for the Vikings.  Getting either extended or cut early next offseason is a nice benefit for Hunter. I still think that O'Neill gets paid before Hunter. The team should extend him before this season starts. The only thing that should stop that is if O'Neill's contract demands are way out of line.

Harrison Smith can get paid before or after O'Neill. I don't know that matters, but I do think that extending O'Neill is far more important. Smith has earned an extension too though and extending him shouldn't get in the way of extending O'Neill so order doesn't matter that much. Smith's extension is likely a much simpler contract for the Vikings to work out. That may result in them knocking it out first if negotiations with O'Neill get complicated.

[CriminalMind]

So I believe the escalation in additional money (paid as a signing bonus now) from a 'future year' .... could be seen as "additional" new money since he is very likely signing a new contract March 2022 with some team (us or new) .. and likely getting a new signing bonus at that point.

So this rework gives him $5-6M extra in the bank today, and likely a new contract in 8 months times (with more new money potentially).

I'd definitely like to get an extension done for O'Neil even at a top 3 RT figure. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by CriminalMind

[Cearbhall]

29 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

So I believe the escalation in additional money (paid as a signing bonus now) from a 'future year' .... could be seen as "additional" new money since he is very likely signing a new contract March 2022 with some team (us or new) .. and likely getting a new signing bonus at that point.

So this rework gives him $5-6M extra in the bank today, and likely a new contract in 8 months times (with more new money potentially).

I'd definitely like to get an extension done for O'Neil even at a top 3 RT figure. 

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought the money he banked today was 100% money that he was already scheduled to make in 2021. My understanding was based on a pretty limited bit of reading though so it doesn't surprise me that I misunderstood something. It is why I was asking for clarification here. Thanks.

With that new information, I am leery of the new deal. Bringing money from a future year forward to this year when a potential outcome is the team not having Hunter in the future here would be a mistake IMO. That sets a precedent that would be very hesitant to set if I was the general manager. Given Hunter's status prior to this new deal, setting that precedent with him now seems even more suspect.

Oh well. Nothing I can do about it. I already wanted Spielman fired. And here I was thinking that Spielman did something good. I have to stop giving that guy the benefit of the doubt.

[vikingsrule]

8 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought the money he banked today was 100% money that he was already scheduled to make in 2021. My understanding was based on a pretty limited bit of reading though so it doesn't surprise me that I misunderstood something. It is why I was asking for clarification here. Thanks.

With that new information, I am leery of the new deal. Bringing money from a future year forward to this year when a potential outcome is the team not having Hunter in the future here would be a mistake IMO. That sets a precedent that would be very hesitant to set if I was the general manager. Given Hunter's status prior to this new deal, setting that precedent with him now seems even more suspect.

Oh well. Nothing I can do about it. I already wanted Spielman fired. And here I was thinking that Spielman did something good. I have to stop giving that guy the benefit of the doubt.

I don’t see what he did wrong. They are basically forcing the issue next year in terms of reworking a new contract. I don’t see why that’s a problem, Hunter deserves a deal but they can take a wait and see approach on the injury this year. There shouldn’t be resistance to wanting to bring back a young edge rusher who certainly pre injury looked to be having a HOF trajectory. 

[CriminalMind]

Rick/Rob did this to ensure Hunter did not hold out and that he is playing for Vikings this year. They took a hit in terms of "ease of retaining hunter after this season" but such is life when Rick may feel his job is on the line now. 

Hunter was always going to "win" this battle, because everyone knew Hunter was severely underpaid, and an injury last year didn't change that. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by CriminalMind

[swede700]

11 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought the money he banked today was 100% money that he was already scheduled to make in 2021. My understanding was based on a pretty limited bit of reading though so it doesn't surprise me that I misunderstood something. It is why I was asking for clarification here. Thanks.

With that new information, I am leery of the new deal. Bringing money from a future year forward to this year when a potential outcome is the team not having Hunter in the future here would be a mistake IMO. That sets a precedent that would be very hesitant to set if I was the general manager. Given Hunter's status prior to this new deal, setting that precedent with him now seems even more suspect.

Oh well. Nothing I can do about it. I already wanted Spielman fired. And here I was thinking that Spielman did something good. I have to stop giving that guy the benefit of the doubt.

You didn't misunderstand...$5.6M of the money he was scheduled to make in 2021 was converted to a bonus right now, so he gets that money now instead of being paid over 17 weeks (or whatever the schedule is now in the new CBA).  The remaining portion of what he was due in 2021 will be paid over that schedule.  

And the money that was converted to a roster bonus in 2022 was all of the money he is due in 2022...no new money.   So, they'll either work on a new deal (so, it'll be at least $20M per, since he's already scheduled to get $18M) or cut him before it's paid.   

[swede700]

Occasionally when disputes like this come up the standard way to calm the situation is to move money up in the contract, basically borrowing from the anticipated “extension” year and moving it up into the “non-extension” season. This was done a few times with Antonio Brown in Pittsburgh and most recently with Stephon Gilmore in New England. The Vikings stopped a bit short of the same strategy but the concept remains the same.

https://overthecap.com/vikings-avoid-contract-dispute-with-danielle-hunter/

[SemperFeist]

 

[sinceAtikevike]

3 hours ago, CriminalMind said:

Rick/Rob did this to ensure Hunter did not hold out and that he is playing for Vikings this year. They took a hit in terms of "ease of retaining hunter after this season" but such is life when Rick may feel his job is on the line now. 

Hunter was always going to "win" this battle, because everyone knew Hunter was severely underpaid, and an injury last year didn't change that. 

What was the hit taken in ease of retaining Hunter next year?

Is the roster bonus some "poison pill" where if he plays well but not spectacularly that the Vikings can't just elect to pay him the 18 million roster bonus plus some league minimum per game checks to see him 2 years post-surgery? I guess nobody knows what the structure of "year 2" looks like right now.

[Cearbhall]

3 hours ago, swede700 said:

You didn't misunderstand...$5.6M of the money he was scheduled to make in 2021 was converted to a bonus right now, so he gets that money now instead of being paid over 17 weeks (or whatever the schedule is now in the new CBA).  The remaining portion of what he was due in 2021 will be paid over that schedule.  

And the money that was converted to a roster bonus in 2022 was all of the money he is due in 2022...no new money.   So, they'll either work on a new deal (so, it'll be at least $20M per, since he's already scheduled to get $18M) or cut him before it's paid.   

Thanks for posting the updated info. If they gave Hunter nothing additional this year, which looks to be the case, they did themselves no harm. Ordinarily they wait until later in the offseason to extend their guys that are under contract, but this deal will make them look at a Hunter deal early in the offseason. That's fine.

I'm really glad they didn't set the precedent of giving a guy a raise when that guy has three years left on the contract.

I do wonder if the Vikings will listen to trade offers after the season if they don't feel they'll be able to extend Hunter. I would hate to see him traded away, but at least the Vikings didn't cost them anything extra before dealing with such a potential demand.

[wcblack34]

8 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Thanks for posting the updated info. If they gave Hunter nothing additional this year, which looks to be the case, they did themselves no harm. Ordinarily they wait until later in the offseason to extend their guys that are under contract, but this deal will make them look at a Hunter deal early in the offseason. That's fine.

I'm really glad they didn't set the precedent of giving a guy a raise when that guy has three years left on the contract.

I do wonder if the Vikings will listen to trade offers after the season if they don't feel they'll be able to extend Hunter. I would hate to see him traded away, but at least the Vikings didn't cost them anything extra before dealing with such a potential demand.

They don't have to worry about extending him at that point. He can be franchised for two seasons at a rate that will be, at least a little, less than the top of the market. 

However, I suspect they'll get a deal done if he is the same player he was in 2019.