Running back candidates

[Bleu Star]

Well, let me ask you this question. Let's say the Vikings retain AP for this year, pay him his money then release him next year.

Do you think ...

a.) The Cowboys would still want him and
b.) The market would still be as strong for a 31-year-old running back?

I think this year is the year to make a deal for Adrian Peterson. I think the Cowboys know it, the Vikings know it and Peterson knows it. He's not getting any younger, which is why he wants out now. He wants to go to another team, get settled and play out his remaining years - how many more that will be who knows.

But I believe the Vikings are willing to pay him to see what they can do with him in the background playing with Teddy Bridgewater and the receives and team they have assembled around him.

It would be incredibly dumb on the part of the Vikes FO to not somehow make this situation net them draft picks now for future improvement. Next year they won't have the same opportunity and AP will be gone. Do it now somehow and get the headache out of Minnesota. Badabing badaboom.

 

[tyke1doe]

It would be incredibly dumb on the part of the Vikes FO to not somehow make this situation net them draft picks now for future improvement. Next year they won't have the same opportunity and AP will be gone. Do it now somehow and get the headache out of Minnesota. Badabing badaboom.

I don't disagree with you. But it can't be a fifth rounder. What I'm saying is ...

a.) They're not going to release him and
b.) They're not going to trade him unless it's to their benefit.

Now what "their benefit" is is up to the Vikings. But I don't see them letting him go for anything less than a 1st rounder and if lower, it's going to be a combination of picks, i.e., a 2nd and a 3rd or a 3rd, a 4th and a starter."

But I don't see any "minor" trade deal being done until the trade deadline, assuming Peterson sits out.

I think the Vikings would be willing to deal Peterson for a 1st and a 3rd easily before the start of the season, particularly if Peterson holds out.

Even so, I think if it's the Cowboys, they would hold out for more. I don't think the Vikings or their fans will ever forget the fleecing they received at the hands of the JJ boys, and Jerry Jones is still here.

The Herschel Walker trade essentially conceded the Super Bowl to Dallas. I doubt very seriously they're going to fork over AP to the Cowboys to let Dallas get to and win another.

Again, never underestimate the stubbornness of men with money and power.

 

[Nightman]

Dallas just went through this last year with Kyle Orton.

He didn't want to be here and made waves about causing trouble.

We decided to give him what he wanted and we moved on and had a great season with great chemistry.

Peterson will miss OTAs but he will show up for camp. He will not let them fine his 12.75m away.

 

[coult44]

Why would anybody trade for McFadden? If anybody wanted him they could have signed him.

And we did....as soon as FA began.

 

[Nightman]

And we did....as soon as FA began.

Not quite. It wasn't until after Murray signed with Philly.

 

[Galian Beast]

1. Well, I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know what you've said about Carson Palmer. But he fits the scenario I outlined in my reasons why I don't think the Vikings will release Peterson.

2. There are ALWAYS variables when people don't want to accept an example. Be that as it may, we'll see how this plays out.

3. Jump in what way? If the Vikings release or waive him, doesn't he get claimed by the worst team? I can't recall when which applies.
Second, let's assume you're correct and after being cut, Peterson can go to any team he chooses. Isn't that even more reason for the Vikings not to let him go? Peterson has already stated he wants to play for Dallas. The Vikings KNOW this. Do you honestly think they're going to let him dictate where he goes? This isn't Adrian Peterson who played for the Chicago Bears. He can go where he wants. He's not threat to anyone. But THE AP? Going to a team that is a dominant back away from destroying the entire NFC?
Uh, no. My prediction is they won't let him go as easily as you think.

But, hey, as I've said, if you are correct, remind me to put down as my signature "Galian Beast (and a few others who believe similarly as you do) were right all along."

I won't be mad at cha.

Adrian Peterson isn't subject to waivers, but that wasn't my point. My point is no team will trade for that contract, thus he has to renegotiate, and will only do so for a team that he wants to play for.

 

[DFWJC]

I don't think the worst team would just outright claim him, because he would do exactly the same thing he did in 2015. Peterson is going to play for who he wants to in 2016, if not 2015. He has all the leverage

Isn't he under contract for three years still?
And I think he's used up his guaranteed money?

 

[Zekeats]

I think we should trade for Adrian Peterson

 

[Galian Beast]

I remember reading the stories about it back before any of the off field stuff ever came up. There was already plenty of speculation about that contract being out of whack and having to be fixed or torn up entirely.

And does anyone think it's coincidental that all of the guaranteed money has already been paid?

Peterson was 5th in rushing yards in 2013. 4th in touchdowns.

Right now his cap hit is 6 million more than the next highest paid running back. You could almost afford the #2 and #3 running backs for the cost of Peterson (for 2015).

Ridiculous that this is even an issue.

 

[phildadon86]

Honestly at this point a first rounder for peterson would essentially be a second round pick anyways. So i dont see the issue

 

[Nightman]

Isn't he under contract for three years still?
And I think he's used up his guaranteed money?

Yes MINN has him for 3yrs/45m with 0m guaranteed

They could release him at any time and only take a 2.4m cap hit, saving almost 13m this year.

He could sit out until camp starts in July and only lose his 250k workout bonus. Once he shows up though, MINN is on the hook for the full 12.75m if he gets hurt.

 

[DallasEast]

And we did....as soon as FA began.

Not quite. It wasn't until after Murray signed with Philly.

Free agency began March 10. Both Dallas and Murray couldn't compromise on a new contract for two days. He signed with Philadelphia on March 12. With the Murray deal D.O.A., Jones signed McFadden the very next day on March 13. IMO, Dallas would have signed McFadden as early as March 10 if they thought they had no chance of signing Murray.

 

[Galian Beast]

The Bengals got a 1st and 2nd round pick after Palmer decided to sit. I wouldn't call that giving Palmer away. And they sent him not to Baltimore or Pittsburgh but that black hole called Oakland. Cincinnati likely had no fear that Palmer would return to bite them as long as he was in Oakland - the worst franchise in the NFL west of Cleveland.

Will any of those teams trade for Peterson with his current contract?

 

[Nightman]

Free agency began March 10. Both Dallas and Murray couldn't compromise on a new contract for two days. He signed with Philadelphia on March 12. With the Murray deal D.O.A., Jones signed McFadden the very next day on March 13. IMO, Dallas would have signed McFadden as early as March 10 if they thought they had no chance of signing Murray.

There was also the previous weekend when the wink and nod deals were reported but not finalized. It was almost a week before Murray was done and McFadden went the next day.

Point is that McFadden was free to sign with anyone for almost a week and only signed a small deal with DAL after Murray left.

 

[DallasEast]

There was also the previous weekend when the wink and nod deals were reported but not finalized. It was almost a week before Murray was done and McFadden went the next day.

Point is that McFadden was free to sign with anyone for almost a week and only signed a small deal with DAL after Murray left.

I agree McFadden wasn't a first-choice signee but that it's possible Dallas would have had other candidates besides McFadden if not for the delay caused by the extended contract negotiations with Murray. For example, maybe Dallas would have entered into a wink and nod deal with Frank Gore if not for the Murray nonsense. Options like those became null and void as a result and McFadden became the best of what was left over.

 

[tyke1doe]

Adrian Peterson isn't subject to waivers, but that wasn't my point. My point is no team will trade for that contract, thus he has to renegotiate, and will only do so for a team that he wants to play for.

Fair enough.

 

[tyke1doe]

Will any of those teams trade for Peterson with his current contract?

I would assume if Peterson wants to get out bad enough, he'd be willing to redo his contract.

 

[xwalker]

1. Well, I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know what you've said about Carson Palmer. But he fits the scenario I outlined in my reasons why I don't think the Vikings will release Peterson.

2. There are ALWAYS variables when people don't want to accept an example. Be that as it may, we'll see how this plays out.

3. Jump in what way? If the Vikings release or waive him, doesn't he get claimed by the worst team? I can't recall when which applies.
Second, let's assume you're correct and after being cut, Peterson can go to any team he chooses. Isn't that even more reason for the Vikings not to let him go? Peterson has already stated he wants to play for Dallas. The Vikings KNOW this. Do you honestly think they're going to let him dictate where he goes? This isn't Adrian Peterson who played for the Chicago Bears. He can go where he wants. He's not threat to anyone. But THE AP? Going to a team that is a dominant back away from destroying the entire NFC?
Uh, no. My prediction is they won't let him go as easily as you think.

But, hey, as I've said, if you are correct, remind me to put down as my signature "Galian Beast (and a few others who believe similarly as you do) were right all along."

I won't be mad at cha.

AP is not subject to waivers.

The only time vested veterans are subject to waivers is after the trade deadline to the end of the season.

 

[SunspotJonz]

Couldnt AP essentially pullna Ratliff and say he was "injured" and still get a paycheck without playing?

He would only lose money if he voluntarily missed games because of a holdout.

 

[Bleu Star]

Couldnt AP essentially pullna Ratliff and say he was "injured" and still get a paycheck without playing?

He would only lose money if he voluntarily missed games because of a holdout.

Funny you mention that! I was doing some reasearch earlier regarding the whole Ratliff situation. AP surely could go that route. Perhaps one of those nagging injuries becomes a little more bothersome than normal.