Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 109

Thread: Vikings Offseason

  1. #81
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    3,905
    Like
    75
    Liked 358 Times in 180 Posts
    Wow, a website created by the biggest Boston homer of them all said the Patriots won that trade? Color me ****ing shocked.

    "it ruined their night" Give me a break, what a clown. I also like how he takes the stance that "Hey this guy may be a bust" and "Oh their have been good players picked in the 3rd round in the past!"

    Genius, pure genius.

  2. #82
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,625
    Like
    1,121
    Liked 535 Times in 354 Posts
    Bill is one of the best writers on the internet, and this has NOTHING to do with Boston. Very unbiased writer, very insightful and intelligent.
    Lighten up Francis....

  3. #83
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    926
    Like
    40
    Liked 66 Times in 47 Posts
    One of the points I actually agree with is that with three first round contracts, moving the picks they did does help them this year to keep money, and they did avoid the one thing the Patriots are notorious for: give us less of a pick this year (keep the 2nd), and we'll just take your 1st next year.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  4. #84
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,566
    Like
    18
    Liked 59 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Don't have any problem with this trade. If they believe in this guy he is much more valuable than 4 replacement level players. You can't predict guys in late rounds becoming great players, otherwise they would get drafted earlier. Impact players are what win in this league. From this draft, it appears to me the Vikings upgraded big time. Yes, they need a LB still, but adding depth at CB and D-Line will help mask LB deficiencies. Great strategy IMO.
    Do or do not. There is no try.

  5. #85
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,625
    Like
    1,121
    Liked 535 Times in 354 Posts
    I'm not sure 3rd and 4th rounders are "late rounds". I love the roll of the dice, I just worry about the price, and I don't share their belief they are really a 10-6 team year after year. Though, I love all three players as prospects. It's just a risk/reward issue for me. They should have gotten 3 starters from teh first three picks they had, plus 2-3 contributors. Now they ahve three starters, and will have difficulty getting a lot more contribution.
    Lighten up Francis....

  6. #86
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,687
    Like
    156
    Liked 613 Times in 342 Posts
    I'm just thrilled we didn't mortgage all that for Teo.....I think my brain would have exploded. Love the contract angle and the talent they added. That fourth rounder is going to be really interesting.

  7. #87
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,703
    Like
    8
    Liked 22 Times in 11 Posts
    I appreciate Barnwell's point but I don't necessarily buy it. The Pats may have gotten more total value but it is spread over four roster spots instead of one. I think teams win with high quality guys instead of depth (of course ideally you want both). It is beneficial to consolidate as much value as possible in the one roster spot and try to fill in depth through other avenues. Vikes also had extra picks to work with and adequate depth already, it seems an acceptable risk to turn that into a better player.

    I don't pretend to know much about the individual players involved but if the Vikes had the wr as one of the last guys on the impact player tier I would think that is worthwhile to sacrifice depth for no matter what some draft value point system might say.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben View Post
    One of the points I actually agree with is that with three first round contracts, moving the picks they did does help them this year to keep money, and they did avoid the one thing the Patriots are notorious for: give us less of a pick this year (keep the 2nd), and we'll just take your 1st next year.

    It's not like they are out of picks either. They weren't going to draft and pay 11 players that make the roster so the move makes sense to me. I call Floyd the first rounder, Rhodes the second and Patterson the 3rd. If those first three rounds don't delight people I dunno what to tell them. Taking on more first round money doesn't bother me, as long as it isn't an every year thing.

    I'm damn happy, now they can go gold mining on Saturday.

  9. #89
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,270
    Like
    32
    Liked 120 Times in 78 Posts
    There are really two things at work here and I am not against the trade. The first is that they gave up a lot of value to move up. I'm not sure that should even be debated. The second is that draft pick value is not equal to player value. It's likely that Patterson is ranked significantly higher than 29th on their draft board. I think it's pretty likely that the Vikings would have picked Patterson earlier if Floyd and Rhodes hadn't slid in the draft.

    A third factor is that it was pretty risky that a starting WR would have been available at #52 and that was a critical need for the Vikings to do anything this year.

  10. #90
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,222
    Like
    370
    Liked 746 Times in 462 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    I tend to think they gave up a bit too much for this pick, but I'm not crying too much over it given that there was some question that they weren't going to use all their picks anyways due to cap issues... Getting rid of a few picks to get the guy you want, even if you are overpaying a bit isn't necessarily bad in this situation... What we don't know also plays into this:

    1) How much value did the Vikings place on this supposed mid round depth in this draft? It's possible that they had given first rounds grades to all 3 of those guys and weren't terribly high on everyone else.

    2) Could they have gotten better value by not trading up? They could have picked up Honey Badger in the second round and traded back into the second round for much less to get another a WR. How much more valuable was Patterson than who they could have picked up? Doing this would have let them play far more nickel defense, which would have minimized their need for a MLB.

    That said, Spielman likes to make his splash.. It certainly grabs headlines and I have to admit that getting 3 guys that will start and likely be impact players isn't bad. I'm not going to cry too much about it. We'll know for sure how this turns out in a few years.

  11. #91
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,687
    Like
    156
    Liked 613 Times in 342 Posts
    To me, we are going to look back and consider this:

    Would we have been better off with Cordarelle Patterson or Arthur Brown, Stedman Bailey, and someone like Barret Jones/Alex Okafor/Nassib. All of those guys would've been available at the picks we traded.

    I have to say, I'm unsure it was worth it - but I hope I'm wrong.

  12. #92
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    926
    Like
    40
    Liked 66 Times in 47 Posts
    I would ask whether they could have afforded to have each of Brown, Bailey, and Jones/Okafor/Nassib along with Floyd and Rhodes this year without severely hampering their ability to pursue linebacking help in free agency.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  13. #93
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    3,905
    Like
    75
    Liked 358 Times in 180 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by joe View Post
    seeing a lot of steam now on honey badger going in the back end of the first round!
    derp

  14. #94
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,687
    Like
    156
    Liked 613 Times in 342 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben View Post
    I would ask whether they could have afforded to have each of Brown, Bailey, and Jones/Okafor/Nassib along with Floyd and Rhodes this year without severely hampering their ability to pursue linebacking help in free agency.
    They wouldn't need to pursue much more help at LB if they drafted Brown. You can't tell me those three guys are going to be THAT much more expensive than Urlacher or some other FA veteran that would need to be signed and be as good or better than Brown.

    Plus, Patterson's 2013 Cap hit is only 400,000 less than it would be for all three of the other slots combined - I think that whole line of argument is silly. (Estimates I've seen are 680k, 570k, 450k for the three slots we traded)

  15. #95
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    926
    Like
    40
    Liked 66 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    They wouldn't need to pursue much more help at LB if they drafted Brown. You can't tell me those three guys are going to be THAT much more expensive than Urlacher or some other FA veteran that would need to be signed and be as good or better than Brown.

    Plus, Patterson's 2013 Cap hit is only 400,000 less than it would be for all three of the other slots combined - I think that whole line of argument is silly. (Estimates I've seen are 680k, 570k, 450k for the three slots we traded)
    Your last paragraph is the center of the contract discussion, though. The main argument is giving up too many picks for that one pick. They really exchanged the salary cap hit for this year and avoided giving up anything for next year. None of the contract arguments I've heard is that Patterson would be cheaper, it's that the amount of picks given up had to do with salary cap balancing.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  16. #96
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,270
    Like
    32
    Liked 120 Times in 78 Posts
    The trade was all about locking in a player that they desperately needed instead of waiting and hoping that a solid WR that was rated lower on their draft board would still be there at #52. They will figure out what to do at MLB but getting a 2nd good WR was absolutely necessary for the offense.

    Dave's mistake wasn't spinning it as a good trade but rather that the Vikings didn't give up a lot of value.

  17. #97
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,687
    Like
    156
    Liked 613 Times in 342 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben View Post
    Your last paragraph is the center of the contract discussion, though. The main argument is giving up too many picks for that one pick. They really exchanged the salary cap hit for this year and avoided giving up anything for next year. None of the contract arguments I've heard is that Patterson would be cheaper, it's that the amount of picks given up had to do with salary cap balancing.
    So they did it to balance 400k? Is that your argument?

    I appreciate getting that extra 5th year of control, I'm just saying that there were good players at positions of need at those subsequent picks, which is probably how this ultimately will be evaluated if Patterson never does quite grasp how to put all that talent to good use.

  18. #98
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    926
    Like
    40
    Liked 66 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    So they did it to balance 400k? Is that your argument?
    No, my argument is that typically to move back in on the Patriots, you need to give up a round earlier pick (or 1st to move into the first) in the next season's draft, which they avoided doing. Instead of giving up that valuable first next season, they gave up the amount of picks in this year's draft that essentially balanced out in salary cap hit, which is why it seems like a lot of picks.

    Those could-have-been guys could have great value. There are a number of very intriguing undrafted free agents as well that could, in three years or so, end up being more valuable than any pick the Vikings gave up. Putting a player name on it is akin to going back in three years and saying that a certain undrafted guy ended up being amazing, and he should have been the Vikings pick in the 7th round instead of a guy they ended up cutting. It ends up being revisionist history. You have to judge the trade purely on the picks and financials, not the "what-if" scenarios.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  19. #99
    One thing nobody has mentioned, at least Spielman is trying to put some high end talent on the roster before AP gets old. The reality is AP probally has only 2 more elite years and a couple of years that may be just above league average.

  20. #100
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,687
    Like
    156
    Liked 613 Times in 342 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben View Post
    It ends up being revisionist history. You have to judge the trade purely on the picks and financials, not the "what-if" scenarios.
    It's not revisionist - that's not the point. A lot of people are saying we dealt "depth" for a starter. No - we didn't. There were (and it didn't require a crystal ball to see it) going to be potential starters available at those picks. We dealt for upside, not "depth" for a starter.

    Now, in hindsight, we can see that there was more talent at those picks than we probably could have even expected. But all moves, in review, look back and use hindsight. That's how we evaluate "good job vs. bad job". At some point we will look back and evaluate the move based on how this player performs relative to what we gave up to get them.

    To further make that point - Troy Williamson sucked, but it hurt even more that he was all we had to show for dealing Randy Moss and he was the 7th overall pick (meaning there was basically an entire draft of other choices). Erasmus James sucked, hurts even more that A-Rodg was on the board. Like it or not, at some point we will look back with C-Pat and evaluate him in a similar way. Hopefully, it's all positive.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.