Vikings Offseason

[TheLeviathan]

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.

[biggentleben]

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.

[DaveW]

seeing a lot of steam now on honey badger going in the back end of the first round!

derp

[TheLeviathan]

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)

[biggentleben]

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.

[kab21]

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.

[TheLeviathan]

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.

[biggentleben]

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.

[Thor]

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.

[TheLeviathan]

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.

[biggentleben]

I don't agree with the "depth for starter" line, and I'd agree completely that line of argument is hogwash. That said, there are those who say Patterson is a better body Percy Harvin, and the Vikings have seen what Harvin could do when he could stay on the field (missing plenty of snaps due to the pounding his smaller frame took). When you have an opportunity to get a talent like that, you do what you can to grab him. The Vikings knew (hopefully, though no one really "knows" what's going on in their draft room) that getting that talent would mean extra money that could mean they couldn't pay a 2nd-4th round pick this year that could provide them a possible starter while also picking up a veteran for competition sake, like they could do without Patterson. Now they're going to be more focused on getting a couple cheaper veteran options because of the way the draft worked out, but money-wise, that could be smarter because they can get a guy who is gone for 2014 and use an early pick on a long-term solution at LB.

[biggentleben]

So, now to finishing off the offseason...

 

The long-term desirable guys are off the board, so the Vikings are probably looking more 1-2 year fix for anything, but there are still some solid names out there:

 

Linebackers:

Karlos Dansby

Nick Barnett

Daryl Smith

Brian Urlacher

Leroy Hill

Takeo Spikes

Bart Scott

Quincy Black

Rocky McIntosh

Chris Gocong

Bradie James

Will Witherspoon

Scott Fujita

Thomas Howard

Keith Brooking

Paris Lenon

Bryan Thomas

Demorrio Williams

 

Defensive Backs:

Chris Gamble

Quentin Jammer

Quintin Mikell

Charles Woodson

Sheldon Brown

Kerry Rhodes

Gerald Sensabaugh

Madieu Williams

Ronde Barber

Nate Clements

Sam Shields

Shawntae Spencer

Cedric Griffin

Jacob Lacey

Rashean Mathis

Terrence McGee

Abram Elam

Marcus Trufant

Jason Allen

Chris Crocker

Will Allen

Stanford Routt

Jordan Babineaux

Atari Bigby

 

Others of interest:

Brandon Lloyd

John Abraham

Austin Collie

Sedrick Ellis

Laurent Robinson

Richard Seymour

Randy Moss

Shaun Cody

Josh Cribbs

Kellen Winslow

Steve Breaston

Early Doucet

Amobi Okoye

Braylon Edwards

LaRod Stephens-Howling

Devery Henderson

Brandon Stokley

Deion Branch

Donte Stallworth

Stefan Logan

[TheLeviathan]

When you have an opportunity to get a talent like that, you do what you can to grab him. .

 

I agree, I really hope we got ourselves a bigger, more durable Percy. I have trouble believing Patterson will be more physical (hell, I'm not sure there is any skill player in the league other than maybe AP and Lynch as physical as Harvin was) but I am really encouraged by getting him.

 

My point was just that there were good players available at those picks at key positions of need. So the notion I've heard floating around that you agree with is what bothered me.

[biggentleben]

I agree, I really hope we got ourselves a bigger, more durable Percy. I have trouble believing Patterson will be more physical (hell, I'm not sure there is any skill player in the league other than maybe AP and Lynch as physical as Harvin was) but I am really encouraged by getting him.

 

My point was just that there were good players available at those picks at key positions of need. So the notion I've heard floating around that you agree with is what bothered me.

 

My thoughts there may be different than others...to me, there were going to be good players available at each of those spots, that was a given. For all that was known, the Vikings could have traded just the 2nd and 4th and gotten Te'o and still had the 3rd to get Bailey or Quinton Patton and then use their 4th on Marcus Lattimore with their ILB and WR needs already covered to have possibly the best RB in the whole class on a redshirt year next season. There are just too many what-if statements to say just on that basis that the trade was bad.

 

What I agree with is that there's logic in trading the amount of picks they did in this year's draft in order to ensure there were still finances to fill the roster in free agency. I don't like the pure "depth player for a star" trade analysis as in the draft, it's pure fallacy. Heck, the most respected name in the business, Kiper, rated the Ravens as the best draft this year, and the AFC North blogger for the same employer as Kiper wrote that the Ravens had the worst draft in their own division. We simply don't know now, and we won't for a few years.

[TheLeviathan]

There are just too many what-if statements to say just on that basis that the trade was bad.

 

That wasn't my intent. I was just speculating how we might ultimately evaluate this deal.

 

What I agree with is that there's logic in trading the amount of picks they did in this year's draft in order to ensure there were still finances to fill the roster in free agency.

 

Here's where we still have an issue - they are only saving 400k with this decision. You could argue about saving roster spots but money isn't the reason they did this, 400k isn't making or breaking any FA moves. Now drafting Locke to cut 2M in Kluwe? That I could grant you.

[biggentleben]

Here's where we still have an issue - they are only saving 400k with this decision. You could argue about saving roster spots but money isn't the reason they did this, 400k isn't making or breaking any FA moves. Now drafting Locke to cut 2M in Kluwe? That I could grant you.

 

Okay, that's me not explaining my point well. You sign your 2nd round pick, and you have someone typically your organization is locked into for a number of years. You sign Keith Brooking or someone like that, it's understood it's a short-term answer, and no one expects you to keep him on the team for 2014. Money-wise for this year, it's similar, but then going into 2014, that spot (and money) is open again for possibly a better player to come on board and take over the position long-term.

When they moved those picks, they essentially were saying (to me, at least), we're planning to fill these spots with short-term fixes for now because we think we have a top-end long-term star that we could get.

[TheLeviathan]

When they moved those picks, they essentially were saying (to me, at least), we're planning to fill these spots with short-term fixes for now because we think we have a top-end long-term star that we could get.

 

See, that doesn't make sense to me because guys who are 2-4 round picks aren't tying up your payroll. In fact, if they are playing and playing well they are a boon to your cap situation because they're dirt cheap. To me that deal had NOTHING to do with saving money and everything about going up to get a guy with high upside that you get locked up for 5 years of team control.

[Kobs]

the most respected name in the business, Kiper

 

What business are you referring to, exactly?

[DaveW]

You could argue about saving roster spots but money isn't the reason they did this, 400k isn't making or breaking any FA moves. Now drafting Locke to cut 2M in Kluwe? That I could grant you.

this