Cearbhall Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 3 hours ago, battle2heaven said: His cap hit for 2024 is only like, 2.41M My theory is that Risner's price point dropped low enough for the Vikings to justify to bring him back, to compete for the LG spot. Because if he doesn't win the spot and Brandel shows to be better, it's not a cost drain having his 2.41 cap hit on the bench as a veteran back up. If they were to sign him to something like 6-8m APY, he'd be pretty much locked in as the starter. But they like Brandel and they want to give him an honest shot at winning the gig. Given your theory, why didn't the Vikings just place the UFA tender offer on him? They didn't need his price point to drop in order to do that. They wouldn't have needed to guarantee salary to Risner so it would have been even easier to move on in the case Brandel wins the job. In the case of Risner winning the job, it would have been cheaper than paying out what they are likely to owe him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 1 hour ago, marshpit23 said: If Risner doesn’t win the starting LG job, does he even make the roster? Historically, he doesn’t have a lot of position flexibility. He’s been a LG at the NFL level, that’s it. On the other hand, Brandel has a lot of position flexibility and can play several positions on the OL. If Brandel is the starter at LG, I think they look at keeping another more flexible (than Risner) OL guy to be a backup. I believe Risner played C and RT at Kansas State. As a RS FR started 13 games at Center and was a Freshman 1st team All American As a RS SOPH started 13 games at RT 1st Team All Big 12 As a RS JR started 12 games at RT 1st Team All American by PFF As a RS SR started 12 games at RT as a 1st Team All American by multiple publications Brandel was a RT then LT almost his entire career at Oregon State, never played center. So who is more versatile, well to me playing C and RT is harder to do that just switching from RT to LT as your career moves on in college. I would be surprised of Brandel beats out Risner considering he did not last year and Risner was behind the 8 ball and came in late and was behind and still got the starting job. Either way competition is great and depth is even better. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted June 5 Author Share Posted June 5 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: It isn't so much what I believe, but the rules agreed to by the NFL and NFLPA. As you mention, I posted those previously. Actually, I think I have posted them twice. I don't know what you see in those rules that needs clarification so, unfortunately, I don't know how I can help. The parts of the CBA I posted do not have anything to do with restricted free agents, so I am not sure how you are confusing the two. What I posted (and cited) is from Article 9 of the CBA. Article 9 is specifically about veteran free agency. The title of the section is "Veteran Free Agency". The title of section 1, which is what I referenced is "Unrestricted Free Agents". I apologize for not understanding where you are getting confused. It all seems very clear to me, which makes it hard to understand where it may be unclear to someone else. Article 9, Section 1(b)(i) | NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) | Over The Cap I am not sure whether examples will help, but under the "anything that has been done is possible" line of reasoning perhaps it will convince someone that it is possible -- the CBA is the definitive source. Here is example of the Ravans and Chiefs using the UFA tender a couple years ago: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ravens-chiefs-reportedl-put-rare-ufa-tenders-on-justin-houston-and-melvin-ingram-keeping-compensatory-status/ It's in the rules. It's been done so we know it is possible. I don't understand why the Vikings didn't place a UFA tender on Risner. Anyway, thanks for letting me know that you don't understand the rule. I wish I was better at explaining and apologize if my explanation comes off as condescending. I simply am at wits end trying to explain and don't really know how I can make it clearer than what I have already posted. Fair enough...while I don't necessarily understand it from what you've stated, I found good explanations of it including from the article you suggested. So, basically, the rarely-used tender indicates that on the Monday following the draft, a team can place a "UFA tender" on any outgoing free agent that had yet to sign anywhere else and then if they still hadn't signed with anyone prior to June 22nd, then the previous team would get him at 110% of his previous salary. If he did sign, then both teams actually would be able to count him in the comp formula. I think I get why teams rarely use it...especially for cheaper players like Risner. It's not a fair deal for players like that and they don't want to create ill-will with them in case they do come back, like Risner inevitably did. And second of all, in this particular case, the Vikings did get him cheaper. If they had utilized that particular tag, he'd be getting $3.3M this year, not $2.4M, because he made $3M last year. Edited June 5 by swede700 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, swede700 said: I think I get why teams rarely use it...especially for cheaper players like Risner. It's not a fair deal for players like that and they don't want to create ill-will with them in case they do come back, like Risner inevitably did. And second of all, in this particular case, the Vikings did get him cheaper. If they had utilized that particular tag, he'd be getting $3.3M this year, not $2.4M, because he made $3M last year. Thank you. Now I feel like we are getting somewhere. You may be correct that the team didn't use the tender because it could cause hard feelings. I am not sure whether that would or wouldn't happen, but it is a reasonable theory, which is all I was looking for. As far as the tender offer, OTC has Risner at $2.625MM cap number last year. That isn't definitive, but it is the number that I had been working with. That means under $2.9MM for the tender. Where did you get the $3MM number for 2023? The numbers you posted, which I was replying to when I mentioned the UFA tender option in this thread, the Vikings will be paying out a maximum of $3.2MM. Whether the Vikings will be paying Risner more or less than the tender depends on whether the $3MM number for 2023 you are going off is correct or the OTC number I was looking at. Either way, the difference isn't enough to justify not giving him the tender offer IMO since the tender means guaranteeing less and not risking losing Risner in free agency without the compensatory considerations, which at the time of the decision looked like it could amount to a 3rd round pick. None of that math matters for the perspective you offered on Risner possibly having hard feelings about the situation. The tender isn't like a tag that forces a player to sign with the team that offered it, so I don't know about that, but it is at least something. I appreciate that. Thank you for bringing another theory to the table. It is at least as good as my theory that the Vikings only wanted to pay Risner around $3MM after seeing Brandell in OTC possibly related to what they saw from Brandel. I never liked my theory (even a little). However, it is the only thing I could figure out. Thank you for offering another explanation. I hope it isn't about saving ~$100k or committing an extra ~$100k. Risner is easily worth it either way IMO. If they got him for $1MM less than the tender I would call not placing the tender offer as a win for KAM. Not at $100k so I hope that isn't what it is about. Anyone else see another possibility for not placing UFA tender and then giving him the contract that they signed him to? Edited June 5 by Cearbhall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battle2heaven Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 3 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: None of that math matters for the perspective you offered on Risner possibly having hard feelings about the situation. The tender isn't like a tag that forces a player to sign with the team that offered it, so I don't know about that, but it is at least something. I appreciate that But the tender effects the signing team in their compensatory formula. So that in a way, puts a restriction on his market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 1 minute ago, battle2heaven said: But the tender effects the signing team in their compensatory formula. So that in a way, puts a restriction on his market. True, somewhat. It only matters for teams that have had a net loss of free agents in the compensatory formula and some of those it is only a 7th round pick. But yeah, it could affect some teams. In the end of the day, any contract a team gives a player effects their options. Given the lack of interest in Risner to that point, I doubt he would have been offended by the tender. Regardless, it's possible that KAM may have been worried about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 2 hours ago, Cearbhall said: As far as the tender offer, OTC has Risner at $2.625MM cap number last year. That isn't definitive, but it is the number that I had been working with. That means under $2.9MM for the tender. Where did you get the $3MM number for 2023? Risner signed a 1 year, $3M deal. But because he didn’t sign until after week 2, he didn’t earn those first two weeks worth of that contract. Which is why his cap number was $2.625M. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 (edited) I am curious if anyone knows examples of restricted free agents that were tendered and were offended by receiving the tender. Understandably, they would rather be free agents, but I don't see a lot about players holding it against the team when negotiating a long-term contract later. The restricted tender amounts are a lot closer in line with what Risner's UFA tender would have been. I am just not sure how likely it would have been that Risner would have had hard feelings about having a tender placed. In the end, I like the hard feelings theory better than my theory in a lot of ways. However, if that is the case perhaps KAM is worrying about things that do not need to be worried about. Oh well, perhaps the team saved $100k. That's not a lot compared to the total cap, but it is still $100k. That's an amount I would invest a fair amount of energy into. The team is also more insulated from something that causes Risner to not play much (such as injury). In the end, it will have all worked out so I can't complain. I am happy with Risner starting for $3.3MM and I am happy having him around as a backup for somewhere between $2.4MM and $3.2MM depending on how much he ends up playing. KAM did a good job getting him for that amount. I only wish I understood the rationale better. Too bad the sports journalists in MN couldn't bother themselves to ask the team why they didn't place a UFA tender when the team didn't place the tender. It would have been interesting to see the response. Edited June 6 by Cearbhall 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 16 hours ago, Cearbhall said: I am curious if anyone knows examples of restricted free agents that were tendered and were offended by receiving the tender. Understandably, they would rather be free agents, but I don't see a lot about players holding it against the team when negotiating a long-term contract later. The restricted tender amounts are a lot closer in line with what Risner's UFA tender would have been. I am just not sure how likely it would have been that Risner would have had hard feelings about having a tender placed. In the end, I like the hard feelings theory better than my theory in a lot of ways. However, if that is the case perhaps KAM is worrying about things that do not need to be worried about. Oh well, perhaps the team saved $100k. That's not a lot compared to the total cap, but it is still $100k. That's an amount I would invest a fair amount of energy into. The team is also more insulated from something that causes Risner to not play much (such as injury). In the end, it will have all worked out so I can't complain. I am happy with Risner starting for $3.3MM and I am happy having him around as a backup for somewhere between $2.4MM and $3.2MM depending on how much he ends up playing. KAM did a good job getting him for that amount. I only wish I understood the rationale better. Too bad the sports journalists in MN couldn't bother themselves to ask the team why they didn't place a UFA tender when the team didn't place the tender. It would have been interesting to see the response. I wouldn't hold it against them. For whatever reason it doesn't seem like something that's ever used Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted June 6 Author Share Posted June 6 RFAs are a little different because they often aren't veteran players...they are just young guys that are happy to be on a roster and likely wouldn't make very much more money, if any at all, out in the market. UFAs are veterans who likely could and would make more money out in the market because they're more known commodities...therefore, far more likely to be offended at being tendered...such as the guys that are franchise tagged or transition tagged. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 51 minutes ago, swede700 said: RFAs are a little different because they often aren't veteran players...they are just young guys that are happy to be on a roster and likely wouldn't make very much more money, if any at all, out in the market. UFAs are veterans who likely could and would make more money out in the market because they're more known commodities...therefore, far more likely to be offended at being tendered...such as the guys that are franchise tagged or transition tagged. I really don't see much similarity at all between the UFA tender and franchise or transition tags. UFA tender offers do not restrict a player at all for the first months of free agency. They are free to sign with whoever they want for whatever they want. A UFA tender can only be placed after there was not enough market for their services for them to get a contract that was to their liking. Any player that a UFA tender can be placed upon already didn't get a deal in the first waves of free agent. Very few players that were free agents from the start of free agency sign after the draft for large deals. Like you describe the RFAs, these are guys that likely wouldn't get much more money, if any at all, out in the market (or they wouldn't still be on the market). In my estimation, there is a lot more chance of a young undrafted player coming into the league and proving he is a worthy starter being bound to the RFA offer when he could have gotten a solid starter level salary than a UFA getting less on their tender than they would have gotten on the market that already didn't give them anything better. Also, after an UFA tender is placed the player can still sign with anyone they want until around the start of training camp without worrying about right of first refusal. It's not like the UFA tender is putting handcuffs on them like the tags. UFA tenders are even less restrictive than RFA tenders. If Ivan Pace keeps playing like a solid starter, he could expect to get more money on the market than a low RFA offer, the lowest of which is more restrictive than the UFA tender. While I don't follow your concern of players being miffed at the UFA tender, I still like your theory better than the own that I had some up with. Not sure it is more likely to be correct, but I like it better. Someone else I talked to mentioned that KAM perhaps didn't know about the UFA tender. It would be scary if that was true. That theory is even worse than the one that I came up with. Given that KAM has a job as an NFL GM (and still has it), I think we can assume this theory isn't correct. At least I found another person that could work out another theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted June 6 Author Share Posted June 6 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: Someone else I talked to mentioned that KAM perhaps didn't know about the UFA tender. It would be scary if that was true. That theory is even worse than the one that I came up with. Given that KAM has a job as an NFL GM (and still has it), I think we can assume this theory isn't correct. At least I found another person that could work out another theory. Yeah, I don't see that as likely...even if he personally didn't know about it, you know Brz did and would have told him since there's a cap impact associated with it. Edited June 6 by swede700 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battle2heaven Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 18 hours ago, Cearbhall said: Someone else I talked to mentioned that KAM perhaps didn't know about the UFA tender. It would be scary if that was true. That theory is even worse than the one that I came up with. Given that KAM has a job as an NFL GM (and still has it), I think we can assume this theory isn't correct. At least I found another person that could work out another theory. Rob Brzezinski is the contracts and cap guy for the Vikings. If KAM didn't know about the tender, then Rob Brzezinski didn't know about the tender and it's a damnation on the entire front office, not just KAM. That said, I very much doubt they didnt know about such tender. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted June 7 Author Share Posted June 7 And yes, one of them is the Vikings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battle2heaven Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 9 minutes ago, swede700 said: And yes, one of them is the Vikings. Meh, I dunno. I thnk they're fine right now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.