Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Teddy's Wants and Needs (No 5th year option? Pg.72)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 80, 81, 82, 83  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Worm Guts


Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 1395
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NorthCountryEvo wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
I think he is 3rd QB to start the season and on the 53


While his progress leads me to believe that is possible, I think that would be a poor move. Might as well leave him on the PUP or IR so you can be sure he gets healthy and not rushed, and if he is activated later (i don't remember when) then he still will be available for a 5th year option or something, correct? Either way, while I would love to see Teddy suit up again, i'd much rather he be given every opportunity to get as close to 100% next year, and let him be in the competition for starting QB next year.

He's a free agent next year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marshpit23


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2242
Location: Baxter, MN
PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Worm Guts wrote:
NorthCountryEvo wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
I think he is 3rd QB to start the season and on the 53


While his progress leads me to believe that is possible, I think that would be a poor move. Might as well leave him on the PUP or IR so you can be sure he gets healthy and not rushed, and if he is activated later (i don't remember when) then he still will be available for a 5th year option or something, correct? Either way, while I would love to see Teddy suit up again, i'd much rather he be given every opportunity to get as close to 100% next year, and let him be in the competition for starting QB next year.

He's a free agent next year


Not necessarily WG:

By not exercising the option that would extend the deal from four years to five, the Vikings allow Bridgewater to become an unrestricted free agent in 2018. But there’s a catch, hiding in plain sight.

Says Article 20, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: “Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (‘PUP’) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game.” (Emphasis added.)

Contrary to a report that Bridgewater would have to miss the whole season to have his contract tolled, this means that the contract will toll only if the player is on the PUP list as of the sixth regular-season game. Which also means, as a practical matter, that if he’s still on PUP when the regular season begins, the contract will toll.

Read the article here:

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/05/teddy-bridgewater-may-not-be-a-free-agent-in-2018/amp/
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cearbhall


Joined: 08 Mar 2017
Posts: 31
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

marshpit23 wrote:
Contrary to a report that Bridgewater would have to miss the whole season to have his contract tolled, this means that the contract will toll only if the player is on the PUP list as of the sixth regular-season game. Which also means, as a practical matter, that if he’s still on PUP when the regular season begins, the contract will toll.


While true that the team can go that route, that is not the way a team should treat a franchise QB. If the team puts Teddy on PUP this year and then tries to force him to play the fourth year of his contract again something is wrong. The team should be giving either SAM or Teddy a new contract going into next year or looking for someone else to come in and be the starting QB.

My preference is Teddy but we might not see him play this year owing to either IR or the team being in solid playoff contention with Sam as QB. It would be hard to change to Teddy just to see what he has if the Sam has been leading them well and they are winning.

Perhaps the possibility of holding Teddy for another year on the rookie contract will make it easier to negotiate something short term with his agent without overtly holding the possibility over him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
disaacs


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 28565
Location: Brownbackistan
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I imagine that there has been some sort of discussion already, off the books, that if his contract tolls, they will take care of him if they decide to move on from Bradford (which I suspect is probably their ultimate desire).
_________________


Thx to Lil Uno!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dolmonite26


Joined: 05 Jan 2014
Posts: 1887
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cearbhall wrote:
While true that the team can go that route, that is not the way a team should treat a franchise QB.
why? It was negotiated into the CBA. The team has every right to do it, and if Teddy and his agent are smart they'll realize that it's their best road to a more long term contract, either through this team or another.

And if he is healthy at the end of the PUP designation and he's able to play in 2017 (unlikely) and play well then he'll likely get an extension somewhere in the span of 2018 anyway.

Without the contract tolling he'll have less security, not more.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8631
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marshpit23 wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:
NorthCountryEvo wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
I think he is 3rd QB to start the season and on the 53


While his progress leads me to believe that is possible, I think that would be a poor move. Might as well leave him on the PUP or IR so you can be sure he gets healthy and not rushed, and if he is activated later (i don't remember when) then he still will be available for a 5th year option or something, correct? Either way, while I would love to see Teddy suit up again, i'd much rather he be given every opportunity to get as close to 100% next year, and let him be in the competition for starting QB next year.

He's a free agent next year


Not necessarily WG:

By not exercising the option that would extend the deal from four years to five, the Vikings allow Bridgewater to become an unrestricted free agent in 2018. But there’s a catch, hiding in plain sight.

Says Article 20, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: “Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (‘PUP’) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game.” (Emphasis added.)

Contrary to a report that Bridgewater would have to miss the whole season to have his contract tolled, this means that the contract will toll only if the player is on the PUP list as of the sixth regular-season game. Which also means, as a practical matter, that if he’s still on PUP when the regular season begins, the contract will toll.

Read the article here:

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/05/teddy-bridgewater-may-not-be-a-free-agent-in-2018/amp/


I realize this:

However, if the Teddy camp, feels he is ready to go and can be cleared to play (at whatever half decent level), it is in the best interest of the Teddy camp to get on the 53, and not be placed on the PUP (so his contract is not tolled). I could foresee Teddy's agent stirring things up with the league.

Maybe forcing, clear me to play (on the 53) or cut me predicament.
He has maybe ~$10M on the line for the 2018 season.

Teddy hasn't made much bank yet career earnings.
So best case scenario for Teddy is to be backup or 3rd string for 2017 and get a new contract for whatever team in 2018.

So to me, its most likely that Teddy/Vikings come to an agreement that if he is able to play, the Vikings prefer not to dress him immediately, so he is the 3rd QB on the 53 to start the year. Both party's moderately happy.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NorthCountryEvo


Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Posts: 2055
Location: Arizona
PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
marshpit23 wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:
NorthCountryEvo wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
I think he is 3rd QB to start the season and on the 53


While his progress leads me to believe that is possible, I think that would be a poor move. Might as well leave him on the PUP or IR so you can be sure he gets healthy and not rushed, and if he is activated later (i don't remember when) then he still will be available for a 5th year option or something, correct? Either way, while I would love to see Teddy suit up again, i'd much rather he be given every opportunity to get as close to 100% next year, and let him be in the competition for starting QB next year.

He's a free agent next year


Not necessarily WG:

By not exercising the option that would extend the deal from four years to five, the Vikings allow Bridgewater to become an unrestricted free agent in 2018. But there’s a catch, hiding in plain sight.

Says Article 20, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: “Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (‘PUP’) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game.” (Emphasis added.)

Contrary to a report that Bridgewater would have to miss the whole season to have his contract tolled, this means that the contract will toll only if the player is on the PUP list as of the sixth regular-season game. Which also means, as a practical matter, that if he’s still on PUP when the regular season begins, the contract will toll.

Read the article here:

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/05/teddy-bridgewater-may-not-be-a-free-agent-in-2018/amp/


I realize this:

However, if the Teddy camp, feels he is ready to go and can be cleared to play (at whatever half decent level), it is in the best interest of the Teddy camp to get on the 53, and not be placed on the PUP (so his contract is not tolled). I could foresee Teddy's agent stirring things up with the league.

Maybe forcing, clear me to play (on the 53) or cut me predicament.
He has maybe ~$10M on the line for the 2018 season.

Teddy hasn't made much bank yet career earnings.
So best case scenario for Teddy is to be backup or 3rd string for 2017 and get a new contract for whatever team in 2018.

So to me, its most likely that Teddy/Vikings come to an agreement that if he is able to play, the Vikings prefer not to dress him immediately, so he is the 3rd QB on the 53 to start the year. Both party's moderately happy.


His injury is somewhat unprecedented as far as time tables go. Maybe he is in shape to play this year at some point, but even so I doubt he is anywhere near the closest level to 100% that he could be. The safest bet for Teddy physically and for the team financially really would be for him to sit the whole year, ride Bradford on the last year of his deal, and make a decision afterwards. It could A. prevent Teddy from worsening his knee prematurely and possibly extend his playing career, B. Give a more proper evaluation of Bradford's worth, and C. Line Teddy up for an even bigger payday (If he sits this year, and plays great next year, there is no reason why he couldn't be looking at a David Carr style deal. No way he gets that without playing a full season after being recovered from the injury).
_________________


"And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts, and I looked and behold, a Pale Horse...

And his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."

NSDQ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8631
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NorthCountryEvo wrote:
His injury is somewhat unprecedented as far as time tables go. Maybe he is in shape to play this year at some point, but even so I doubt he is anywhere near the closest level to 100% that he could be. The safest bet for Teddy physically and for the team financially really would be for him to sit the whole year, ride Bradford on the last year of his deal, and make a decision afterwards. It could A. prevent Teddy from worsening his knee prematurely and possibly extend his playing career, B. Give a more proper evaluation of Bradford's worth, and C. Line Teddy up for an even bigger payday (If he sits this year, and plays great next year, there is no reason why he couldn't be looking at a David Carr style deal. No way he gets that without playing a full season after being recovered from the injury).


I highly doubt Teddy's camp will agree with this sentiment.

The best interest of Teddy is that if feels he is able to be cleared to play and likely has already got (a personal evaluation that he could be cleared, even at for example 80%), he demand through his agent to the NFLPA to obtain an independent NFL evaluation for if he is medically capable of playing.

If possible to Teddy:
- He doesn't want to be on PUP/IR - hurts him financially since he would have been at least 18months away from playing, hurts him in future contract negotiations.
- He doesn't want his contract tolled in 2018, and could prolly get a 1 year contract worth $10M from some QB needy team willing to gamble.
- He doesn't want more leverage given to his current competition (Bradford)
_________________


Last edited by CriminalMind on Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:28 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dolmonite26


Joined: 05 Jan 2014
Posts: 1887
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
NorthCountryEvo wrote:
His injury is somewhat unprecedented as far as time tables go. Maybe he is in shape to play this year at some point, but even so I doubt he is anywhere near the closest level to 100% that he could be. The safest bet for Teddy physically and for the team financially really would be for him to sit the whole year, ride Bradford on the last year of his deal, and make a decision afterwards. It could A. prevent Teddy from worsening his knee prematurely and possibly extend his playing career, B. Give a more proper evaluation of Bradford's worth, and C. Line Teddy up for an even bigger payday (If he sits this year, and plays great next year, there is no reason why he couldn't be looking at a David Carr style deal. No way he gets that without playing a full season after being recovered from the injury).


I highly doubt Teddy's camp will agree with this sentiment.


Then they're foolish
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
disaacs


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 28565
Location: Brownbackistan
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's about the value of money...a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

So, it's in Teddy's financial interest that he get some playing time this year and get paid a little more next year (even if not $25M) than to have his contract tolled.

To compensate for him not be able to fully get Carr money next season, he'd probably be interested in a short-term deal heavy on incentives and then worry about the gigantic deal later on.
_________________


Thx to Lil Uno!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cearbhall


Joined: 08 Mar 2017
Posts: 31
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolmonite26 wrote:
Cearbhall wrote:
While true that the team can go that route, that is not the way a team should treat a franchise QB.
why? It was negotiated into the CBA. The team has every right to do it, and if Teddy and his agent are smart they'll realize that it's their best road to a more long term contract, either through this team or another.


Souring your relationship with the QB is a terrible strategy and not the route to success IMO. Also, IMO it is in Teddy's best interest to not be bound by his rookie contract next year. I believe that the percentage of player agents that would agree with that is at least in the high 90s.

Just because the CBA allows something does not make it a good idea.

It is not at all unlike the law allowing me to buy up all the houses around my enemies house and then tanking the values of the properties just to spite my enemy. Sure, the law allows it but at what cost to me? Just because something is allowed does not make it a decent idea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dolmonite26


Joined: 05 Jan 2014
Posts: 1887
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cearbhall wrote:
Dolmonite26 wrote:
Cearbhall wrote:
While true that the team can go that route, that is not the way a team should treat a franchise QB.
why? It was negotiated into the CBA. The team has every right to do it, and if Teddy and his agent are smart they'll realize that it's their best road to a more long term contract, either through this team or another.


Souring your relationship with the QB is a terrible strategy and not the route to success IMO. Also, IMO it is in Teddy's best interest to not be bound by his rookie contract next year. I believe that the percentage of player agents that would agree with that is at least in the high 90s.

Just because the CBA allows something does not make it a good idea.

It is not at all unlike the law allowing me to buy up all the houses around my enemies house and then tanking the values of the properties just to spite my enemy. Sure, the law allows it but at what cost to me? Just because something is allowed does not make it a decent idea.


What's the bad idea? Putting Teddy on IR or PUP because he isn't medically cleared to play?

Its nobodies fault that Teddy and the team are in this position, but it's the hand they were dealt. Tolling his contract is one of the plays they can make with that hand, and it's a play that has benefits for Teddy too.

I just don't understand the idea that it would somehow be alienating him. Does he not understand that this is a business? Would him and his agent really think that if he doesn't play this year he could roll into 2018 and get 10M+ contract from a team?

And if were able to play this year, by either winning the job from Bradford or filling in because SB is injured, then I'm sure that he would be rewarded relative to his play. In that scenario it's even likely that the team would look to lock him up if he merits it and the idea of him being taken advantage of is moot.

If Bradford plays well enough this year that the team decides to go with him for the future, then there is also an entirely foreseeable scenario where TB and his camp request a release or trade and the team obliges.

So the only really scenario where TB would likely and rightfully feel alienated by the team is if they go with Bradford as their QBoTF and force Teddy to stay on the team under a tolled contract as a backup. In that event what do they care if he's alienated anyway? They picked Bradford as there guy and they'd have every right to keep Teddy on the team if they want, even if it's a bit of a lowball move.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelKing728


Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 23562
Location: PGH
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^but doing so could be bad PR, right? A lowball move on the once thought QBotF could send a bad message to future draft picks and free agents..
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dolmonite26


Joined: 05 Jan 2014
Posts: 1887
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SteelKing728 wrote:
^^but doing so could be bad PR, right? A lowball move on the once thought QBotF could send a bad message to future draft picks and free agents..


Maybe. As I said that's really the only case where there'd be any justification for hurt feelings and there's a perfectly reasonable expectation to think that the Vikings would release or trade him in that case.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cearbhall


Joined: 08 Mar 2017
Posts: 31
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolmonite26 wrote:
What's the bad idea? Putting Teddy on IR or PUP because he isn't medically cleared to play?


Apologies for my lack of clarity. The bad move is not putting him on IR or PUP. The bad move would be tolling the last year of his rookie contract and then forcing him to play on the rookie contract another year or holding the low salary over his head in negotiating the next deal. Sure, the team could do it but it would be a hideously terrible strategy. It would neither be in the best interest of the player nor the team IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 80, 81, 82, 83  Next
Page 81 of 83

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group