Posts: 4,758
Threads: 3,551
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
828
The Vikings have plenty of high-priced players and are poised to add to the list. General manager Rick Spielman at least can joke about it.
“Fifty percent of the proceeds today will go to the contracts of Anthony Barr, Stefon Diggs and Danielle Hunter,’’ Spielman recently told participants at the Vikings’ charity golf outing.
“The hardest thing right now is the economic structure on our team where we have all these high-priced guys now because they all deserve to get paid the way they’ve been playing,’’ Spielman told the gathering. “But economically, we’re not going to go out there, you can’t play fantasy football and have $3 (million), $4 (million) or $5 million backup guys. Those are going to be the young guys that we’ve drafted or we’ve developed.’’
The Vikings have $17.061 million of cap room available. However, a good bit of that money is earmarked for possible extensions for Barr, Diggs and Hunter. Nick Easton also might be in line for one.
As of now, the Vikings have on the books six players in line to make $10 million or more in 2019 and six in that position for 2020. That list is likely to grow, although some players could have deals restructured or end up being let go.
https://www.twincities.com/2018/06/10/vi...m-to-have/
I've never understood that expression: "a good problem to have." I understand he is saying that we have a lot of good players who now can command large salaries. Having a lot of good players is a good thing. Having to let some of them go because you cannot afford to pay them all, or having to go with inferior backups because you can no longer afford the better backups, is not a good thing.
It's like saying, "every time I eat lobster I get sick; that's a good problem to have." No. Being able to afford lobster is good. Getting sick every time you eat it is not.
Well, as they say, "you can't have your cake and eat it, too."
Quote: @dadevike said:
I've never understood that expression: "a good problem to have." I understand he is saying that we have a lot of good players who now can command large salaries. Having a lot of good players is a good thing. Having to let some of them go because you cannot afford to pay them all, or having to go with inferior backups because you can no longer afford the better backups, is not a good thing.
It's like saying, "every time I eat lobster I get sick; that's a good problem to have." No. Being able to afford lobster is good. Getting sick every time you eat it is not.
Well, as they say, "you can't have your cake and eat it, too."
It is a good problem to have. It just means you've drafted well. There is one constant here that every team must abide by. And that's the salary cap. Teams who draft well eventually find themselves in challenging cap situations. Teams who don't draft well have nothing to worry about.
So your analogy doesn't work. It's not about getting sick. It's about hitting the jackpot when you're out lobstering. You find so many that your boat can no longer hold them and you have to head back in. That's a good problem to have. And even though you had to turn some away, it's a helluva lot better than striking out.
A 'good problem to have' means you have an issue who's genesis comes from a very good thing: i.e. a very talented roster that the team drafted well and now must pay for under a salary cap.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ dadevike said:
I've never understood that expression: "a good problem to have." I understand he is saying that we have a lot of good players who now can command large salaries. Having a lot of good players is a good thing. Having to let some of them go because you cannot afford to pay them all, or having to go with inferior backups because you can no longer afford the better backups, is not a good thing.
It's like saying, "every time I eat lobster I get sick; that's a good problem to have." No. Being able to afford lobster is good. Getting sick every time you eat it is not.
Well, as they say, "you can't have your cake and eat it, too."
It is a good problem to have. It just means you've drafted well. There is one constant here that every team must abide by. And that's the salary cap. Teams who draft well eventually find themselves in challenging cap situations. Teams who don't draft well have nothing to worry about.
So your analogy doesn't work. It's not about getting sick. It's about hitting the jackpot when you're out lobstering. You find so many that your boat can no longer hold them and you have to head back in. That's a good problem to have. And even though you had to turn some away, it's a helluva lot better than striking out.
I don't know about other areas of the country but here in Florida your analogy doesn't work. Limits are 6-12 per person per day. Depending on the county. You get caught with a boatload you're going to jail. Knew a guy years ago got caught over limit. DNR officer got him as he was loading his boat on the trailer. Confiscated boat, trailer and all his dive equipment. Not to mention his Jeep. Got released on bail. They call a boatload "poaching"...lol. Don't care the reason or 1st offense. Lost his rights to any game licenses for several years too I believe. Had to pay through the @$$ to get his stuff back.
The problem with alot of talent and a limited cap. Other teams will come "poaching".
Paying a lot for players is not exclusive to good teams. The Vikings paid Reiff very similar amounts of money as was paid to Whitworth and Kalil and I think all 3 teams got very different amounts of value from their investments. Spending a lot of money on a player and getting middle of the road performance from them is going to severely handicap the team, whereas spending a lot on a player and getting a lot of performance is breaking even in my mind.
I think a lot of the guys in line for getting paid on the vikings are average to above average players right now, but not difference makers. Where teams win is by getting a lot of performance from the lower paid players, which we have been doing. Diggs, Barr, Waynes are guys I look at that are going to get overpaid for their production, primarily because they're at premium positions but aren't premium players. Of these 3, I think Diggs is hardest to replace and would be the biggest impact to the team if they were missing. Waynes, I think you just let him play out his contract and let him hit FA. Barr I'm indecisive on. I think you lock him up at $10M/year. Anything above that I'd let him play out the season. I think you are likely to get a lot more value with multiple Sendejo level guys getting paid Sendejo level money than you are to pay Waynes top 5 CB money or Barr top 5 OLB money.
|
