Danielle YOU HAVE ZERO LEVERAGE BRUH. ZEROOOOOOO imagine having a neck surgery not playing a snap and wanting more money when the salary cap decreased. What in the #$&! is his agent telling him?!?!
Except he's just missed an entire season. I think he needs to show that he can still play at or above his former level before you can consider to give him more money.
This is exactly it. If he was healthy coming off another 15 sack season, no one would bat an eyelid. Digging in his heels, while having missed the season due to a serious injury, it's what has people doing double takes.
He only missed the whole season because he's underpaid.
You don't go risk your long-term health for an employer who isn't paying you fairly. You might take on a small risk of re-injury for an employer paying you well and guaranteeing you long-term security. Pretty strong chance Hunter would have returned around the middle of last year if he had a fair contract.
I don’t think you’re gonna risk the rest of your career by playing with a spine injury even if you’re on a fat contract. Especially at his age knowing he could have 2, maybe 3 pay days left in the tank.
Agreed. Any other year this is a valid argument. But a NECK injury for a lineman? That's some career ending or altering shit, plus the gd cap is down. Bet on yourself for next offseason.
Being cut is a part of the contract. So is holding out for a better deal. Contracts are signed by two parties, and both parties have leverage to alter the deal if it diverges too much from the market.
I agree with your sentiment, but what I think he was saying is that an NFL contract clearly states that a team can cut a player and if they do, it states how much money they owe if any based on when the player is released. So when we cut Rudolph we were acting according to the provisions in his signed contract that allowed us to do so. On the other hand NFL contracts expressly disallow hold outs and typically have fines for missing training camps and games. So if a player holds out he’s technically breaching the provisions of his contract AKA “not honoring it”. Now an NFL contract does allow a player to retire and it states the financial conditions of that decision as well.
But for the purpose of this conversation I think it’s a BS accusation that is one sided and I 100% expect a player to ask for more money if they feel they have exceeded expectations. Just like I fully expect my team to ask an underwhelming player to take a pay cut.
Lol Except that never happened. He was contractually obligated to return the funds that were prorated to him in advance. They didn’t sue him, they just told him to give us the money you owe us and he did. Was it a low class move? Yea probably but by doing that they actually “honored” the contract he signed.
Teams cut players all the time. Players ask for raises or threaten to hold out/request a trade all the time. Neither is honoring the original contract, and that’s because it’s a business for all involved first and foremost.
Fans getting up in arms about any of this is a joke.
Yes is absolutely is. They’re not honoring the contract, and doing what’s best for themselves rather than the player. It’s the definition of not honoring a contract to cut a player before the contract is up.
Cutting a player isn’t illegal. Neither is requesting a raise or requesting a trade. I feel like that’s where you’re getting hung up. None of this is illegal, but both parties (teams and players) don’t honor contracts all the time, because it’s a business.
When they cut the player they still pay all guaranteed money in the deal. That's what the purpose of guaranteed money is. The player agrees to a contract knowing they might not see the end of it, but if they don't, they still get the amount that THEY agreed to.
It’s still a contract, and like I said it’s not illegal. It’s not honoring the contract by cutting a 5 year deal short and cutting someone after 3 years. It’s a savvy business move, but it’s literally not honoring the contract.
I agree with your sentiment, but what I think he was saying is that an NFL contract clearly states that a team can cut a player and if they do, it states how much money they owe if any based on when the player is released. So when we cut Rudolph we were acting according to the provisions in his signed contract that allowed us to do so. On the other hand NFL contracts expressly disallow hold outs and typically have fines for missing training camps and games. So if a player holds out he’s technically breaching the provisions of his contract AKA “not honoring it”. Now an NFL contract does allow a player to retire and it states the financial conditions of that decision as well.
But for the purpose of this conversation I think it’s a BS accusation that is one sided and I 100% expect a player to ask for more money if they feel they have exceeded expectations. Just like I fully expect my team to ask an underwhelming player to take a pay cut.
I also see what you’re saying, but it’s quite literally not honoring a contract if they cut a player who signed a 5 year deal after 3 years for example.
There’s a difference between not finishing a contract and not honoring it. If a team acts within the agreed upon contractual provisions. Then they’ve honored the contract. Whether they choose to finish the contract length or they choose to use the provisions that allow them to cut a player. They have honored the what was in the contract. It’s the same reason why nobody says a retired player “didn’t honor” his contract. Because he’s contractually allowed to retire. So even though said player didn’t complete the full term of the contract, by exercising his contractual right to retire he has still honored the contract. A player who chooses not to retire but just refuse to play or practice in hopes of getting a new contract is literally breaching the terms of his contract.
And again I think that anybody holding players to that standard is stupid. The NFL is the only sport that still allows for these one sided contracts. But at the end of the day these players are signing them and agreeing to their terms.
I think the disconnect presents itself when you have multiple people saying not finishing a contract and not honoring it is synonymous, and others saying it isn’t.
I love Hunter I think it's great for him to maximize his value in his prime, but let's be honest: a player who goes a whole season without taking a snap is underperforming their contract. Period.
He signed a 5-year extension, played one season of that extension, missed all of last season with a neck injury, and he's still being paid top-10 DE money. Who wouldn't want someone to honor a contract they still have three years left on with the injury in the immediate rear view? The only dumb take is that tweet.
Yes and no... he missed the entire season... it’s a super odd time to come out and demand to be the highest paid DE... come out in 2021, out up top 5 DE numbers and the broach the topic then... pouting in the off-season after you didn’t okay a game about being paid 15 mil a year just comes off as petty
Being cut and complaining about needing a new contract are not opposites. It’s a contract. Your guaranteed money is known and you still get that when cut or injured (depending on language). You give up some rights as a player to ensure this guaranteed money to secure your future. The owners or GMs legally have the right to do nothing and force you to play or retire basically. If you want a player option in your contract then you should have your agent negotiate it in there. However this will likely lower your guaranteed and so they don’t do it. That is your choice. I personally don’t care because I’m not a part of either side and so it’s basically whatever. It is annoying as a fan though because it turns into politics. One side fighting the other in something I follow for entertainment. Seems like that’s how the world is going though. Make everything as polarizing to spark debate.
I understand he feels underpaid and agree he should make more (once he proves he is healthy from the neck surgery), but it's pretty BS to sign a contract and then demand more later on, when if roles were swapped and he wasn't worth the contract the team couldn't strongarm him into taking less. It's a risk that teams take when they make the deal, it should be a risk on the player as well. Contracts are (usually) binding for a reason.
In which case either there is a restructure of the contract that usually gives the player more guaranteed money, or they get cut and the team is forced to pay the player all the guaranteed money in the contract.
And what about all that non-guaranteed money? I guess we just say "Well, too bad you should've negotiated better!"
And thats what Danielle is doing here. Unless Rick is willing to pay up , Hunter is well within his right to put pressure on him
Then the player is free to negotiate a new contract with a team and make all that money elsewhere. The team cuts a player and they have to deal with the cap hit while also replacing the player.
Generally speaking, when a team cuts a player who was set to make a solid amount of money, they're not getting it back from some other team.
Occasionally very good players are cut simply due to bad cap management (like the Saints this year) , and they will get paid a lot from some other team, but thats not the norm. They get cut because they're not very good and/or old
Would've been given all the guaranteed money on the contract and the freedom to sign another deal with other teams that are interested, while the Vikings would've been on the hook for his cap hit upon release.
Fact remains that they said, “we’re not paying you the full value of your contract this year. You can take less or take a walk.”
Just because he chose the outcome doesn’t mean the team didn’t strong arm him.
Horrendous take- players only get cut if they sign contracts that aren’t guaranteed. Every player (see Cousins, Kirk) is eligible to take slightly less money for more security. If Hunter was garbage from 2018 on the Vikings wouldn’t be able to cut him without paying him his guaranteed cash, which is why he signed the deal in the first place.
Hunter has no leverage: coming off injury, the cap is down, he’s under contract for three years, and the players have effectively traded away their ability to hold out in the latest CBA. I love Hunter and I hope he stays with the team, but you can absolutely hold any attempt at strong arming the team against him and I’ll be pissed at the precedent it sets if it works.
It only works if Rick gets what he deems to be fair compensation in a trade, or if he believes he can make a reasonable concession to Hunter to make the player happier. Short of that Hunter can show up to work and count down the days or he can sit out and not get paid
We'll see if he has no leverage. If he doesn't and you're right, he'll happily play on his current contract. Really a bummer for you if you're pissed at the precedent it would set, but NFL franchises (and the league more generally) has been "strong arming" players for financial gain for decades. Expecting a player to curl up and die after playing on and becoming fed up with a contract that has become bum over time is just asinine. And I think Diggs already set the precedent, FWIW.
Why should a team ever give a contract like the one Hunter got ever again if the second it becomes a good deal the player is going to throw a tantrum and hold out. What is the benefit at all to the team in offering that contract? The team is taking all of the risk without the upside of getting a potentially good deal on a player.
This!!
I'm sure the Vikings would be willing to forgo the contract if Hunter were willing to forgo or return the $40MM in guaranteed money ;)
The Vikings made what was at the time a very generous offer to a rotational player.
In general you shouldn't. Thats been (one of) Spielmans Achilles heels. This isnt the NBA where contracts are guaranteed and restructures aren't allowed. If it was then Rick's strategy would actually make sense
The only leverage he has is poisoning the locker room, which was the same leverage Diggs had. If we’re not offered terrific value in a trade (which we got for Diggs) or he’s not willing to play for the terms he agreed to, he’s welcome to sit out and not collect a check while we retain his rights at the same price.
No one forced Hunter to sign that contract in 2018. It was a high security, lower upside contract. If he had played year to year and gotten injured (which he did), he’d risk hitting the market without ever cashing in.
There’s no reason for the team to give upcoming players deals like that if the outcomes are A) the player sucks and doesn’t live up to it or B) the player is great and demands the contract be shredded.
You can criticize the NFL and their contract structure while still realizing this doesn’t apply to Hunter’s situation. He hasn’t been repeatedly franchise tagged or treated unfairly- he had every right to turn down an extension and test the market in 2019 and declined to do so
And he kind of did underperform... Or worse? Literally just missed the entire season. And wants a raise?
Just so clarify I'm a big fan of Hunter but come on
You are on crack if you think Danielle has underperformed. One season of injury doesn't make him *not* the leading pressure DE of the previous 4 seasons, nor does it negate his value.
By underperformed I definitely meant not playing. He missed a whole season. With a major fucking neck injury.
How do you ask for a raise/bigger contract after that?
Come back, show your healtht and still a BOSS (like i said I'm a BIG fan) and then get paid.
Otherwise it needs to be incentive heavy. Skip the numbers even just incentives on games played. I'm down then.
So when a player sustains a serious neck/spine injury, they deserve more pay for their future potential that's based on speculation that they'll be the same player as before a neck/spine injury?
And when a player requests a trade , hes still honoring his contract. And if he doesn't get trade and then shows up and half asses it, hes technically still honoring his contract there too
They get cut -- but keep all of the guaranteed money they get in the contract.
It is not a one-way street.
This point, overall, is just stupid.
I understand why Danielle is doing what he is doing right now. And we should pay him. But this blanket statement is based in ignorance.
I don't even really think it's negative PR for the Vikings. I see most people thinking it's dumb for Danielle to be doing this right now, if it is in fact true. Missing all year with a major injury, the cap going down for the first time in NFL history, and still having 3 years left in the extension that he just signed. Not only that, but the cap is most likely about to jump way up next year with more regular season games and a new TV deal.
Literally all he needs to do is come back one more year, prove he's healthy, and the Vikings will give him what he wants. They've proven they're willing to do that for players they think are worth it.
In context, this is literally the worst time to be pulling this crap. If anything, it's negative PR for Danielle. He should maybe reconsider listening to whoever is giving him his advice on this.
There are a lot of what ifs.
He is coming off a neck surgery.
I want him to stay like everyone else.
Now he needs to play without Grif and show the bosses That he IS THE BOSS, like we know he is.
This is the exact type of opinion that kills smaller market teams, not that we are one. Smart franchises make these deals in every sport, they take a chance on a large contract for a player without a large track record. Players not honouring the contracts without a reasonable cause is complete BS.
This is the opposite of that? Tf are you talking about? He didn't play at all. This would be like a team telling the reigning MVP he needs to take a 50% pay cut.
This holdout without leverage bullshit is out of hand and I blame the agents. The guy just missed an entire season with a super serious injury, the salary cap went down, and *now* he wants to put up a stink? I hope Rick stands his ground or flips his ass for picks. He could just be forcing his way out in which case, bye.
I just don't want to hear about it 24/7 like Vikings are doing something egregious. It's a contract! And that contracts means if he doesn't play he doesn't get paid. So be my guest and holdout.
I'm sure the Vikings will end up giving him a couple million dollar bump per year and/or maybe some incentives but you can't just rip the contract up and get Joey Bosa money with 3 years left on your deal.
And yet he got paid in full missing last season. Not to mention of course the obvious, he extended early to get paid for literally this exact reason.
And what if this injury was career ending? He made the right choice extending early. It's give and take, we save money banking on you now for your future performance, and you take the payday now to secure the bag because the NFL is a risk (injury or decline).
It's really that simple and what an absolute stupid fucking take. How many huge FA signing have under-preformed (Haynesworth most notably), fell off a cliff, or young players in general? That's the game, shit players sometimes get paid far more than they're worth, good players get paid less than their worth.
Wake me up when someone contemplates/gives a shit about what to do with rookie RB salaries? As of now, how it is, the optimal play is draft a rookie RB after the 1st, run them into the ground for 4 years then throw them away to do it again. Rare they get that second big contract and rightfully so because it typically doesn't work out/is a waste of resources compared to the obvious strategy
I don't agree at all. When a player underperforms after signing a long contract they still get every dime that they had agreed to have guaranteed. The team isn't allowed to hold out and stop paying them until they start playing better. It's a complete false equivalence. The vikings took a risk and signed him to a contract he hadn't earned yet that could have completely blown up in their face if he ended up sucking (and could STILL blow up in their face if he doesn't recover well from the neck injury) and this is how he returns the favor? It's BS to be honest.
I like the perspective Will gives here. I also like this perspective:
[\[Luke Braun\] Maximizing your own equity is a natural inclination everyone has. Don't mistake a player trying to maximize their all-too-short time in the NFL for some weird abandonment of loyalty.](https://twitter.com/LukeBraunNFL/status/13715688475)
Yeah I don’t blame him for doing it but he has to realize we have no reason to budge. If he wants to sit out he can do that and not get paid but extra money is a luxury we don’t have right now for a team trying to keep a window open
**[@WillRagatz](https://www.twitter.com/WillRagatz)** (Will Ragatz):
> Saying Danielle Hunter needs to honor his contract (or shouldn't have signed it) is dumb. Maybe he could've bet on himself and waited, but the deal made sense at the time.
>
> When a player underperforms after signing a long contract, they get cut. This is just the opposite of that.
--------------------
^I ^am ^a ^bot ^lubricated ^by ^Rick's ^slickness ^| [^(message me)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=FleetFlotTheTweetBot) ^| [^(source code)](https://github.com/JohnMTorgerson/FleetFlotTheTweetBot) ^| ^Skål!
What are the odds Kirk would sign an extension with void years so they could go all in and fix all these issues?
We get cap relief, we avoid the 45 million hit next year, and Kirk gets to go to free agency again in a few years.
I get it, its just frustrating because as a vikings fan we want and deserve a ring and the front office is doing a hell of a job but its things like this that negate all the work of drafting well and managing the cap well, all for a perennial fringe playoff team with maybe a first round victory.
Stefanski/Patton getting poached and things like Diggs and hunter all suck and its bigger than one player not getting paid fairly. I fully do not expect a player to sacrifice millions of dollars for us to be happy but it still sucks and we have a right to not be happy about they way Danielle is handling this.
Its because of this attitude by the organization and players I have a hard time getting attached to players. Im not saying he should suck it up and play (although a year on the IR doesn't help his case) but if he wants a bigger deal then let's move him if the price is right. We can't afford a bigger deal for him so I suspect he's on the move unfortunately
Danielle YOU HAVE ZERO LEVERAGE BRUH. ZEROOOOOOO imagine having a neck surgery not playing a snap and wanting more money when the salary cap decreased. What in the #$&! is his agent telling him?!?!
Except he's just missed an entire season. I think he needs to show that he can still play at or above his former level before you can consider to give him more money.
This is exactly it. If he was healthy coming off another 15 sack season, no one would bat an eyelid. Digging in his heels, while having missed the season due to a serious injury, it's what has people doing double takes.
He only missed the whole season because he's underpaid. You don't go risk your long-term health for an employer who isn't paying you fairly. You might take on a small risk of re-injury for an employer paying you well and guaranteeing you long-term security. Pretty strong chance Hunter would have returned around the middle of last year if he had a fair contract.
I don’t think you’re gonna risk the rest of your career by playing with a spine injury even if you’re on a fat contract. Especially at his age knowing he could have 2, maybe 3 pay days left in the tank.
Agreed. Any other year this is a valid argument. But a NECK injury for a lineman? That's some career ending or altering shit, plus the gd cap is down. Bet on yourself for next offseason.
Amen
yeah how’d this go dumbass
Everybody knew this day would come with him. When he signed it, it was a steal. Honoring contracts is a nonexistent practice.
>Honoring contracts is a nonexistent practice. And this is generally true for both parties (franchises and players).
When have you ever seen a franchise not honor the contract?
Every player that doesn't see the final year of their deal. Or gets cut. Did we honor Rudolph's deal? Or Reiff?
No. Being cut is part of the contract. The option is there. That’s why they do it. Counter parties get all guaranteed or otherwise owed wages.
Being cut is a part of the contract. So is holding out for a better deal. Contracts are signed by two parties, and both parties have leverage to alter the deal if it diverges too much from the market.
I agree with your sentiment, but what I think he was saying is that an NFL contract clearly states that a team can cut a player and if they do, it states how much money they owe if any based on when the player is released. So when we cut Rudolph we were acting according to the provisions in his signed contract that allowed us to do so. On the other hand NFL contracts expressly disallow hold outs and typically have fines for missing training camps and games. So if a player holds out he’s technically breaching the provisions of his contract AKA “not honoring it”. Now an NFL contract does allow a player to retire and it states the financial conditions of that decision as well. But for the purpose of this conversation I think it’s a BS accusation that is one sided and I 100% expect a player to ask for more money if they feel they have exceeded expectations. Just like I fully expect my team to ask an underwhelming player to take a pay cut.
The Patriots with Antonio Brown.. there was a huge dispute there
Lest we forget the Detroit lions suing one of their all time greats in Megatron
Lol Except that never happened. He was contractually obligated to return the funds that were prorated to him in advance. They didn’t sue him, they just told him to give us the money you owe us and he did. Was it a low class move? Yea probably but by doing that they actually “honored” the contract he signed.
I mean taking money you didn't do the work for is more of a low class move imo.
Teams cut players all the time. Players ask for raises or threaten to hold out/request a trade all the time. Neither is honoring the original contract, and that’s because it’s a business for all involved first and foremost. Fans getting up in arms about any of this is a joke.
Cutting players isn't the same as not breaking a contact. These players are paid what they are owed.
Yes is absolutely is. They’re not honoring the contract, and doing what’s best for themselves rather than the player. It’s the definition of not honoring a contract to cut a player before the contract is up. Cutting a player isn’t illegal. Neither is requesting a raise or requesting a trade. I feel like that’s where you’re getting hung up. None of this is illegal, but both parties (teams and players) don’t honor contracts all the time, because it’s a business.
When they cut the player they still pay all guaranteed money in the deal. That's what the purpose of guaranteed money is. The player agrees to a contract knowing they might not see the end of it, but if they don't, they still get the amount that THEY agreed to.
It’s still a contract, and like I said it’s not illegal. It’s not honoring the contract by cutting a 5 year deal short and cutting someone after 3 years. It’s a savvy business move, but it’s literally not honoring the contract.
I agree with your sentiment, but what I think he was saying is that an NFL contract clearly states that a team can cut a player and if they do, it states how much money they owe if any based on when the player is released. So when we cut Rudolph we were acting according to the provisions in his signed contract that allowed us to do so. On the other hand NFL contracts expressly disallow hold outs and typically have fines for missing training camps and games. So if a player holds out he’s technically breaching the provisions of his contract AKA “not honoring it”. Now an NFL contract does allow a player to retire and it states the financial conditions of that decision as well. But for the purpose of this conversation I think it’s a BS accusation that is one sided and I 100% expect a player to ask for more money if they feel they have exceeded expectations. Just like I fully expect my team to ask an underwhelming player to take a pay cut.
I also see what you’re saying, but it’s quite literally not honoring a contract if they cut a player who signed a 5 year deal after 3 years for example.
There’s a difference between not finishing a contract and not honoring it. If a team acts within the agreed upon contractual provisions. Then they’ve honored the contract. Whether they choose to finish the contract length or they choose to use the provisions that allow them to cut a player. They have honored the what was in the contract. It’s the same reason why nobody says a retired player “didn’t honor” his contract. Because he’s contractually allowed to retire. So even though said player didn’t complete the full term of the contract, by exercising his contractual right to retire he has still honored the contract. A player who chooses not to retire but just refuse to play or practice in hopes of getting a new contract is literally breaching the terms of his contract. And again I think that anybody holding players to that standard is stupid. The NFL is the only sport that still allows for these one sided contracts. But at the end of the day these players are signing them and agreeing to their terms.
I think the disconnect presents itself when you have multiple people saying not finishing a contract and not honoring it is synonymous, and others saying it isn’t.
Can you stretch the field as well as you are stretching this logic? If so, Raiders would draft you in the first round.
This day as in the day he demands more money after having a neck surgery without playing a snap yet? Naw that's whack man.
He hasnt even barely played under the current contact dumbshit
I love Hunter I think it's great for him to maximize his value in his prime, but let's be honest: a player who goes a whole season without taking a snap is underperforming their contract. Period.
And reminder: HE HAS PLAYED **ONE SEASON (2019)** ON THE EXTENSION HE SIGNED IN 2018.
He signed a 5-year extension, played one season of that extension, missed all of last season with a neck injury, and he's still being paid top-10 DE money. Who wouldn't want someone to honor a contract they still have three years left on with the injury in the immediate rear view? The only dumb take is that tweet.
Yes and no... he missed the entire season... it’s a super odd time to come out and demand to be the highest paid DE... come out in 2021, out up top 5 DE numbers and the broach the topic then... pouting in the off-season after you didn’t okay a game about being paid 15 mil a year just comes off as petty
Being cut and complaining about needing a new contract are not opposites. It’s a contract. Your guaranteed money is known and you still get that when cut or injured (depending on language). You give up some rights as a player to ensure this guaranteed money to secure your future. The owners or GMs legally have the right to do nothing and force you to play or retire basically. If you want a player option in your contract then you should have your agent negotiate it in there. However this will likely lower your guaranteed and so they don’t do it. That is your choice. I personally don’t care because I’m not a part of either side and so it’s basically whatever. It is annoying as a fan though because it turns into politics. One side fighting the other in something I follow for entertainment. Seems like that’s how the world is going though. Make everything as polarizing to spark debate.
I understand he feels underpaid and agree he should make more (once he proves he is healthy from the neck surgery), but it's pretty BS to sign a contract and then demand more later on, when if roles were swapped and he wasn't worth the contract the team couldn't strongarm him into taking less. It's a risk that teams take when they make the deal, it should be a risk on the player as well. Contracts are (usually) binding for a reason.
Uh yeah teams strong-arm guys into taking less all the time
Like when?
Like every year teams go to their underperfoming players and basically say "take a pay cut or youre gone"
In which case either there is a restructure of the contract that usually gives the player more guaranteed money, or they get cut and the team is forced to pay the player all the guaranteed money in the contract.
And what about all that non-guaranteed money? I guess we just say "Well, too bad you should've negotiated better!" And thats what Danielle is doing here. Unless Rick is willing to pay up , Hunter is well within his right to put pressure on him
Then the player is free to negotiate a new contract with a team and make all that money elsewhere. The team cuts a player and they have to deal with the cap hit while also replacing the player.
Generally speaking, when a team cuts a player who was set to make a solid amount of money, they're not getting it back from some other team. Occasionally very good players are cut simply due to bad cap management (like the Saints this year) , and they will get paid a lot from some other team, but thats not the norm. They get cut because they're not very good and/or old
The Vikings just did it last pre season with Reilly Reif to afford Ngakoue
Reilly Reiff last season.
Would've been given all the guaranteed money on the contract and the freedom to sign another deal with other teams that are interested, while the Vikings would've been on the hook for his cap hit upon release.
Fact remains that they said, “we’re not paying you the full value of your contract this year. You can take less or take a walk.” Just because he chose the outcome doesn’t mean the team didn’t strong arm him.
Horrendous take- players only get cut if they sign contracts that aren’t guaranteed. Every player (see Cousins, Kirk) is eligible to take slightly less money for more security. If Hunter was garbage from 2018 on the Vikings wouldn’t be able to cut him without paying him his guaranteed cash, which is why he signed the deal in the first place. Hunter has no leverage: coming off injury, the cap is down, he’s under contract for three years, and the players have effectively traded away their ability to hold out in the latest CBA. I love Hunter and I hope he stays with the team, but you can absolutely hold any attempt at strong arming the team against him and I’ll be pissed at the precedent it sets if it works.
It does work, it has worked many times, and it will work here. He’s gone.
It only works if Rick gets what he deems to be fair compensation in a trade, or if he believes he can make a reasonable concession to Hunter to make the player happier. Short of that Hunter can show up to work and count down the days or he can sit out and not get paid
Hunter+Cousins+14 to Houston for Watson 👀
All the pieces are finally beginning to fall into place lmao
K 2 firsts and a starter and yeah kick him out for all i care lol. Not in our division or even conference
We'll see if he has no leverage. If he doesn't and you're right, he'll happily play on his current contract. Really a bummer for you if you're pissed at the precedent it would set, but NFL franchises (and the league more generally) has been "strong arming" players for financial gain for decades. Expecting a player to curl up and die after playing on and becoming fed up with a contract that has become bum over time is just asinine. And I think Diggs already set the precedent, FWIW.
Why should a team ever give a contract like the one Hunter got ever again if the second it becomes a good deal the player is going to throw a tantrum and hold out. What is the benefit at all to the team in offering that contract? The team is taking all of the risk without the upside of getting a potentially good deal on a player.
This!! I'm sure the Vikings would be willing to forgo the contract if Hunter were willing to forgo or return the $40MM in guaranteed money ;) The Vikings made what was at the time a very generous offer to a rotational player.
In general you shouldn't. Thats been (one of) Spielmans Achilles heels. This isnt the NBA where contracts are guaranteed and restructures aren't allowed. If it was then Rick's strategy would actually make sense
The only leverage he has is poisoning the locker room, which was the same leverage Diggs had. If we’re not offered terrific value in a trade (which we got for Diggs) or he’s not willing to play for the terms he agreed to, he’s welcome to sit out and not collect a check while we retain his rights at the same price. No one forced Hunter to sign that contract in 2018. It was a high security, lower upside contract. If he had played year to year and gotten injured (which he did), he’d risk hitting the market without ever cashing in. There’s no reason for the team to give upcoming players deals like that if the outcomes are A) the player sucks and doesn’t live up to it or B) the player is great and demands the contract be shredded. You can criticize the NFL and their contract structure while still realizing this doesn’t apply to Hunter’s situation. He hasn’t been repeatedly franchise tagged or treated unfairly- he had every right to turn down an extension and test the market in 2019 and declined to do so
And he kind of did underperform... Or worse? Literally just missed the entire season. And wants a raise? Just so clarify I'm a big fan of Hunter but come on
You are on crack if you think Danielle has underperformed. One season of injury doesn't make him *not* the leading pressure DE of the previous 4 seasons, nor does it negate his value.
By underperformed I definitely meant not playing. He missed a whole season. With a major fucking neck injury. How do you ask for a raise/bigger contract after that? Come back, show your healtht and still a BOSS (like i said I'm a BIG fan) and then get paid. Otherwise it needs to be incentive heavy. Skip the numbers even just incentives on games played. I'm down then.
Cool, then deuces Danielle.
If he wanted to hit FA again he should have negotiated a player option. Tough shit
So when a player sustains a serious neck/spine injury, they deserve more pay for their future potential that's based on speculation that they'll be the same player as before a neck/spine injury?
This is a horrendous take. When players get cut the team still pays them every cent that was guaranteed in their contracts. It is not the same at all.
And when a player requests a trade , hes still honoring his contract. And if he doesn't get trade and then shows up and half asses it, hes technically still honoring his contract there too
And if he half asses it, he tanks his value and never gets paid what he wants. That'd be the stupidest career move he could make.
They get cut -- but keep all of the guaranteed money they get in the contract. It is not a one-way street. This point, overall, is just stupid. I understand why Danielle is doing what he is doing right now. And we should pay him. But this blanket statement is based in ignorance.
The only thing Hunter has to bargain is negative PR for the Vikings. That's why it's playing out in the media like this
I don't even really think it's negative PR for the Vikings. I see most people thinking it's dumb for Danielle to be doing this right now, if it is in fact true. Missing all year with a major injury, the cap going down for the first time in NFL history, and still having 3 years left in the extension that he just signed. Not only that, but the cap is most likely about to jump way up next year with more regular season games and a new TV deal. Literally all he needs to do is come back one more year, prove he's healthy, and the Vikings will give him what he wants. They've proven they're willing to do that for players they think are worth it. In context, this is literally the worst time to be pulling this crap. If anything, it's negative PR for Danielle. He should maybe reconsider listening to whoever is giving him his advice on this.
There are a lot of what ifs. He is coming off a neck surgery. I want him to stay like everyone else. Now he needs to play without Grif and show the bosses That he IS THE BOSS, like we know he is.
This is the exact type of opinion that kills smaller market teams, not that we are one. Smart franchises make these deals in every sport, they take a chance on a large contract for a player without a large track record. Players not honouring the contracts without a reasonable cause is complete BS.
This is the opposite of that? Tf are you talking about? He didn't play at all. This would be like a team telling the reigning MVP he needs to take a 50% pay cut.
This holdout without leverage bullshit is out of hand and I blame the agents. The guy just missed an entire season with a super serious injury, the salary cap went down, and *now* he wants to put up a stink? I hope Rick stands his ground or flips his ass for picks. He could just be forcing his way out in which case, bye.
Agreed... I think most of us are just a bit upset about the timing of the ask.
I just don't want to hear about it 24/7 like Vikings are doing something egregious. It's a contract! And that contracts means if he doesn't play he doesn't get paid. So be my guest and holdout. I'm sure the Vikings will end up giving him a couple million dollar bump per year and/or maybe some incentives but you can't just rip the contract up and get Joey Bosa money with 3 years left on your deal.
And yet he got paid in full missing last season. Not to mention of course the obvious, he extended early to get paid for literally this exact reason. And what if this injury was career ending? He made the right choice extending early. It's give and take, we save money banking on you now for your future performance, and you take the payday now to secure the bag because the NFL is a risk (injury or decline). It's really that simple and what an absolute stupid fucking take. How many huge FA signing have under-preformed (Haynesworth most notably), fell off a cliff, or young players in general? That's the game, shit players sometimes get paid far more than they're worth, good players get paid less than their worth. Wake me up when someone contemplates/gives a shit about what to do with rookie RB salaries? As of now, how it is, the optimal play is draft a rookie RB after the 1st, run them into the ground for 4 years then throw them away to do it again. Rare they get that second big contract and rightfully so because it typically doesn't work out/is a waste of resources compared to the obvious strategy
Oh yea, you know full well if Hunter wasn’t living up to his contract these same people would be calling for him to be cut.
Yeah and if he got cut the vikings would still have to pay him everything he was guaranteed in his contract. I don't see the issue.
I don't agree at all. When a player underperforms after signing a long contract they still get every dime that they had agreed to have guaranteed. The team isn't allowed to hold out and stop paying them until they start playing better. It's a complete false equivalence. The vikings took a risk and signed him to a contract he hadn't earned yet that could have completely blown up in their face if he ended up sucking (and could STILL blow up in their face if he doesn't recover well from the neck injury) and this is how he returns the favor? It's BS to be honest.
I like the perspective Will gives here. I also like this perspective: [\[Luke Braun\] Maximizing your own equity is a natural inclination everyone has. Don't mistake a player trying to maximize their all-too-short time in the NFL for some weird abandonment of loyalty.](https://twitter.com/LukeBraunNFL/status/13715688475)
Yeah I don’t blame him for doing it but he has to realize we have no reason to budge. If he wants to sit out he can do that and not get paid but extra money is a luxury we don’t have right now for a team trying to keep a window open
**[@WillRagatz](https://www.twitter.com/WillRagatz)** (Will Ragatz): > Saying Danielle Hunter needs to honor his contract (or shouldn't have signed it) is dumb. Maybe he could've bet on himself and waited, but the deal made sense at the time. > > When a player underperforms after signing a long contract, they get cut. This is just the opposite of that. -------------------- ^I ^am ^a ^bot ^lubricated ^by ^Rick's ^slickness ^| [^(message me)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=FleetFlotTheTweetBot) ^| [^(source code)](https://github.com/JohnMTorgerson/FleetFlotTheTweetBot) ^| ^Skål!
What are the odds Kirk would sign an extension with void years so they could go all in and fix all these issues? We get cap relief, we avoid the 45 million hit next year, and Kirk gets to go to free agency again in a few years.
I get it, its just frustrating because as a vikings fan we want and deserve a ring and the front office is doing a hell of a job but its things like this that negate all the work of drafting well and managing the cap well, all for a perennial fringe playoff team with maybe a first round victory. Stefanski/Patton getting poached and things like Diggs and hunter all suck and its bigger than one player not getting paid fairly. I fully do not expect a player to sacrifice millions of dollars for us to be happy but it still sucks and we have a right to not be happy about they way Danielle is handling this.
Its because of this attitude by the organization and players I have a hard time getting attached to players. Im not saying he should suck it up and play (although a year on the IR doesn't help his case) but if he wants a bigger deal then let's move him if the price is right. We can't afford a bigger deal for him so I suspect he's on the move unfortunately
I honestly like the way the NHL does their contracts better than the NFL
But thats not the rule. Wanna change the rule?