Quote: @JR44 said:
Two questions I feel that are most relevant are do the Vikes plan on extending Kirk and is this a Super Bowl team. I really liked what Kirk did last year and would like to see what he does this year, but if the team is not committed to him and this defense is not likely to take a jump to good enough to be a championship team, then it may be the right time to take a gamble for the franchise QB. Not saying it is Lance, but either making a move for him or being aggressive in this draft.
Nailed it!
Quote: @bigbone62 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ PurplePastor said:
@ dadevike said:
Sunk cost. That is what you call the draft capital that SF gave up to draft Trey Lance. It really should not enter into consideration when considering trade offers for Lance. The only consideration is whether your team is better off with Trey lance or with whatever is being offered in a trade.
If SF values Lance as much as it values the 85th pick in the draft and it rejects the best trade offer by, say, Indy of pick # 80, then instead of making only one mistake (overpaying for Lance), it has made two (refusing to trade him for more than you think he is worth).
I agree with what you're saying. The caveat in these types of cases is whether the GM is willing to humble himself as making a mistake and moving on.
That's not even an issue. Lynch has already come out and said Purdy should be their starter and he's earned that right. The Purdy factor makes it much easier for them to move off Lance in a trade.
You greatly underestimate the power of ego. Lynch can start Purdy and keep Lance which saves his ego from having to admit a monstrous mismanagement in draft capital. Again QB position is costing them nothing. Trading him for what will be pennies on the dollar will be admitting that mismanagement of draft capital.
If he gets something good in return that is a different story, but that isn't happening. I know you're giddy about a possible KC trade but it isn't happening. Fun to talk about but nowhere near the realm of reality. That trade would be a really good way to tell Jefferson you might as well start eye balling what NFL city you want to call your next home.
I understand ego; I also understand delusion. If Lynch thinks that we have to wait for him to admit he made a made a mistake on Lance before we decide for ourselves that he made a mistake on Lance, then his ego is superseded by his delusion. And besides, even if his ego takes a hit on Lance, he can point to Brock Purdy and boast that he found a franchise QB with the last pick in the draft. Now his ego is back intact.
Or flip it around, if Lynch will demand huge compensation in a trade for Lance because he paid huge compensation in the draft, then he should logically take cheap compensation for Purdy because Purdy only cost him a 7th in the draft.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
I think the bottom line is IF there is no intention on signing Kirk to another short term extension and giving him the guaranteed money he wants, then do we simply let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do we use his trade value now to acquire a young, high upside signal caller to build around?
And again, if the organization thought Cousins was the guy to lead them to the Super Bowl, then an extension would have already been signed! We wouldn't be out here looking at other options. The fact that it hasn't happened yet leads me to believe it won't happen, and the team wants to get off the hostage train with him and get a young guy in the fold to build around. If that takes the trading of Kirk Cousins to get that done, then to me it's a no brainer and you make that move. As always I think the big hurdle in doing anything like that is the Wilfs and their unrealistic fanboy expectations. In today's NFL sometimes you need to take a step back before you can move forward. Not everybody can be the Patriots and be Super Bowl contenders for a dozen years straight. That just doesn't happen and its not the way the league is built
It is simply not true to state that we have no intention to
sign Kirk to a short term extension. We
just want to keep our options open to draft a rookie QB that could start in a couple
years. I think if we come out of the
draft not finding a QB of the future, our willingness to give Cousins what he
wanted, which was 2025 guaranteed, will increase quite a bit, because we can
draft a QB in 2024 and not waste his entire contract paying Kirk at the same
time. Giving Cousins 2025 with a rookie drafted
in 2024 is the same as what we already offered him this year which was Cousins
through 2024 with a rookie potentially drafted in 2023.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think the bottom line is IF there is no intention on signing Kirk to another short term extension and giving him the guaranteed money he wants, then do we simply let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do we use his trade value now to acquire a young, high upside signal caller to build around?
And again, if the organization thought Cousins was the guy to lead them to the Super Bowl, then an extension would have already been signed! We wouldn't be out here looking at other options. The fact that it hasn't happened yet leads me to believe it won't happen, and the team wants to get off the hostage train with him and get a young guy in the fold to build around. If that takes the trading of Kirk Cousins to get that done, then to me it's a no brainer and you make that move. As always I think the big hurdle in doing anything like that is the Wilfs and their unrealistic fanboy expectations. In today's NFL sometimes you need to take a step back before you can move forward. Not everybody can be the Patriots and be Super Bowl contenders for a dozen years straight. That just doesn't happen and its not the way the league is built
It is simply not true to state that we have no intention to
sign Kirk to a short term extension. We
just want to keep our options open to draft a rookie QB that could start in a couple
years. I think if we come out of the
draft not finding a QB of the future, our willingness to give Cousins what he
wanted, which was 2025 guaranteed, will increase quite a bit, because we can
draft a QB in 2024 and not waste his entire contract paying Kirk at the same
time. Giving Cousins 2025 with a rookie drafted
in 2024 is the same as what we already offered him this year which was Cousins
through 2024 with a rookie potentially drafted in 2023.
Maybe, I just think every indication up to this point is they'd like to acquire a young franchise signal caller on a rookie deal to build around. Kirk offered to take less money on an extension if more of that money was guaranteed and the Vikings balked at that offer. I really dont see the Vikings moving off that stance and they certainly don't want to continue kicking his salary down the road on restructures/extensions for a 35 year old QB, who for all we know could turn into Matt Ryan at any point as most middle aged QB's do. It's a gamble, and it could be argued it's an as big or bigger gamble then turning the reigns over to a much younger, unproven QB because of the locked in money involved
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ medaille said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think the bottom line is IF there is no intention on signing Kirk to another short term extension and giving him the guaranteed money he wants, then do we simply let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do we use his trade value now to acquire a young, high upside signal caller to build around?
And again, if the organization thought Cousins was the guy to lead them to the Super Bowl, then an extension would have already been signed! We wouldn't be out here looking at other options. The fact that it hasn't happened yet leads me to believe it won't happen, and the team wants to get off the hostage train with him and get a young guy in the fold to build around. If that takes the trading of Kirk Cousins to get that done, then to me it's a no brainer and you make that move. As always I think the big hurdle in doing anything like that is the Wilfs and their unrealistic fanboy expectations. In today's NFL sometimes you need to take a step back before you can move forward. Not everybody can be the Patriots and be Super Bowl contenders for a dozen years straight. That just doesn't happen and its not the way the league is built
It is simply not true to state that we have no intention to
sign Kirk to a short term extension. We
just want to keep our options open to draft a rookie QB that could start in a couple
years. I think if we come out of the
draft not finding a QB of the future, our willingness to give Cousins what he
wanted, which was 2025 guaranteed, will increase quite a bit, because we can
draft a QB in 2024 and not waste his entire contract paying Kirk at the same
time. Giving Cousins 2025 with a rookie drafted
in 2024 is the same as what we already offered him this year which was Cousins
through 2024 with a rookie potentially drafted in 2023.
Maybe, I just think every indication up to this point is they'd like to acquire a young franchise signal caller on a rookie deal to build around. Kirk offered to take less money on an extension if more of that money was guaranteed and the Vikings balked at that offer. I really dont see the Vikings moving off that stance and they certainly don't want to continue kicking his salary down the road on restructures/extensions for a 35 year old QB, who for all we know could turn into Matt Ryan at any point as most middle aged QB's do. It's a gamble, and it could be argued it's an as big or bigger gamble then turning the reigns over to a much younger, unproven QB because of the locked in money involved
They definitely would prefer to build around a young QB on a
rookie contract. They’ve also stated
that they would prefer to have a veteran QB their for year one, but it’s not a
requirement. But the real question is
why were they willing to give kirk 2024 guaranteed money but not 2025
guaranteed money? I think this rules out
the option of them wanting to get rid of Kirk at all costs. I think it means that they would prefer to
keep Kirk until they have their young option in their hands and I think it
means they are comfortable with Kirk eating up potentially two of the rookies first
two seasons (but probably trading him if the rookie looks good). I don’t think they balked at 2025 guaranteed
money because they don’t think Kirks arm will hold up or anything, I think it’s
purely because it hamstrings their ability to get maximum gains from the rookie
on a rookie contract. But if they can’t
get a good rookie prospect this year, I think they’ll resign Kirk to give him
another option in 2024, give him a guaranteed salary in 2025 (which will move
to the new team if a trade occurs), because they’d rather have Kirk than a nobody
off the street.
Quote: @dadevike said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ PurplePastor said:
@ dadevike said:
Sunk cost. That is what you call the draft capital that SF gave up to draft Trey Lance. It really should not enter into consideration when considering trade offers for Lance. The only consideration is whether your team is better off with Trey lance or with whatever is being offered in a trade.
If SF values Lance as much as it values the 85th pick in the draft and it rejects the best trade offer by, say, Indy of pick # 80, then instead of making only one mistake (overpaying for Lance), it has made two (refusing to trade him for more than you think he is worth).
I agree with what you're saying. The caveat in these types of cases is whether the GM is willing to humble himself as making a mistake and moving on.
That's not even an issue. Lynch has already come out and said Purdy should be their starter and he's earned that right. The Purdy factor makes it much easier for them to move off Lance in a trade.
You greatly underestimate the power of ego. Lynch can start Purdy and keep Lance which saves his ego from having to admit a monstrous mismanagement in draft capital. Again QB position is costing them nothing. Trading him for what will be pennies on the dollar will be admitting that mismanagement of draft capital.
If he gets something good in return that is a different story, but that isn't happening. I know you're giddy about a possible KC trade but it isn't happening. Fun to talk about but nowhere near the realm of reality. That trade would be a really good way to tell Jefferson you might as well start eye balling what NFL city you want to call your next home.
I understand ego; I also understand delusion. If Lynch thinks that we have to wait for him to admit he made a made a mistake on Lance before we decide for ourselves that he made a mistake on Lance, then his ego is superseded by his delusion. And besides, even if his ego takes a hit on Lance, he can point to Brock Purdy and boast that he found a franchise QB with the last pick in the draft. Now his ego is back intact.
Or flip it around, if Lynch will demand huge compensation in a trade for Lance because he paid huge compensation in the draft, then he should logically take cheap compensation for Purdy because Purdy only cost him a 7th in the draft.
I dont recall saying fans had to wait for Lynch to admit a mistake for them to come to that conclusion so am unsure where you are going there. Little premature to boast about Purdy being a franchise QB. He has started all of 8 NFL games and tore an elbow ligament in his THROWING ARM. What could possibly go wrong? If only SF had the luxury of another young QB already on ther team, who knows the system and has so much "potential"? Wait, thats exactly what SF has. So why dump the other young guy with so much potential when your "franchise" guy is a question mark health wise? Again $15 million total invested in the QB room next year in SF, absolutely nonsensical to trade Lance if they see any shred of potential. As for your compensation theory, all I can say is that is some serious mental gymnastics. Thats about as good of an example of a false equivalence as I've seen in a while.
I think this is all media smoke rehashed from a meeting at the combine. If the 49'ers were willing to give up on Lance already that scares the crap out of me. Purdy is doubtful to start the season so you go with Lance and you have Darnold as a veteran backup (yuck) for both of them.
If we don't draft a QB then I would take a flyer on the guy the went right before Lance - Zack Wilson. Of all the QB's in that draft he went to the worst situation from BYU to NYC. He could not handle the spotlight. I think he has about 20 starts under his belt with 8 wins compared to Lance's 3 or 4 starts. Neither has looked good but I think we could get Wilson a lot cheaper than Lance....maybe???
Quote: @medaille said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ medaille said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think the bottom line is IF there is no intention on signing Kirk to another short term extension and giving him the guaranteed money he wants, then do we simply let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do we use his trade value now to acquire a young, high upside signal caller to build around?
And again, if the organization thought Cousins was the guy to lead them to the Super Bowl, then an extension would have already been signed! We wouldn't be out here looking at other options. The fact that it hasn't happened yet leads me to believe it won't happen, and the team wants to get off the hostage train with him and get a young guy in the fold to build around. If that takes the trading of Kirk Cousins to get that done, then to me it's a no brainer and you make that move. As always I think the big hurdle in doing anything like that is the Wilfs and their unrealistic fanboy expectations. In today's NFL sometimes you need to take a step back before you can move forward. Not everybody can be the Patriots and be Super Bowl contenders for a dozen years straight. That just doesn't happen and its not the way the league is built
It is simply not true to state that we have no intention to
sign Kirk to a short term extension. We
just want to keep our options open to draft a rookie QB that could start in a couple
years. I think if we come out of the
draft not finding a QB of the future, our willingness to give Cousins what he
wanted, which was 2025 guaranteed, will increase quite a bit, because we can
draft a QB in 2024 and not waste his entire contract paying Kirk at the same
time. Giving Cousins 2025 with a rookie drafted
in 2024 is the same as what we already offered him this year which was Cousins
through 2024 with a rookie potentially drafted in 2023.
Maybe, I just think every indication up to this point is they'd like to acquire a young franchise signal caller on a rookie deal to build around. Kirk offered to take less money on an extension if more of that money was guaranteed and the Vikings balked at that offer. I really dont see the Vikings moving off that stance and they certainly don't want to continue kicking his salary down the road on restructures/extensions for a 35 year old QB, who for all we know could turn into Matt Ryan at any point as most middle aged QB's do. It's a gamble, and it could be argued it's an as big or bigger gamble then turning the reigns over to a much younger, unproven QB because of the locked in money involved
They definitely would prefer to build around a young QB on a
rookie contract. They’ve also stated
that they would prefer to have a veteran QB their for year one, but it’s not a
requirement. But the real question is
why were they willing to give kirk 2024 guaranteed money but not 2025
guaranteed money? I think this rules out
the option of them wanting to get rid of Kirk at all costs. I think it means that they would prefer to
keep Kirk until they have their young option in their hands and I think it
means they are comfortable with Kirk eating up potentially two of the rookies first
two seasons (but probably trading him if the rookie looks good). I don’t think they balked at 2025 guaranteed
money because they don’t think Kirks arm will hold up or anything, I think it’s
purely because it hamstrings their ability to get maximum gains from the rookie
on a rookie contract. But if they can’t
get a good rookie prospect this year, I think they’ll resign Kirk to give him
another option in 2024, give him a guaranteed salary in 2025 (which will move
to the new team if a trade occurs), because they’d rather have Kirk than a nobody
off the street.
The guaranteed money for this upcoming season was a kicker tied to us picking his contract for LAST season. It wasn't just a single year pick up. Like I said, we are going to be absorbing cap hits for Cousins through the 2027 season already because we continue to dick around with his contract and having to reshuffle his money to fit under the salary cap. Its an exercise the Vikings don't want to continue to engage in and the biggest reason we balked at the guarantees he wanted in yet another extension. They do not want to lock themselves in on more guaranteed money for Cousins
Quote: @bigbone62 said:
@ dadevike said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ PurplePastor said:
@ dadevike said:
Sunk cost. That is what you call the draft capital that SF gave up to draft Trey Lance. It really should not enter into consideration when considering trade offers for Lance. The only consideration is whether your team is better off with Trey lance or with whatever is being offered in a trade.
If SF values Lance as much as it values the 85th pick in the draft and it rejects the best trade offer by, say, Indy of pick # 80, then instead of making only one mistake (overpaying for Lance), it has made two (refusing to trade him for more than you think he is worth).
I agree with what you're saying. The caveat in these types of cases is whether the GM is willing to humble himself as making a mistake and moving on.
That's not even an issue. Lynch has already come out and said Purdy should be their starter and he's earned that right. The Purdy factor makes it much easier for them to move off Lance in a trade.
You greatly underestimate the power of ego. Lynch can start Purdy and keep Lance which saves his ego from having to admit a monstrous mismanagement in draft capital. Again QB position is costing them nothing. Trading him for what will be pennies on the dollar will be admitting that mismanagement of draft capital.
If he gets something good in return that is a different story, but that isn't happening. I know you're giddy about a possible KC trade but it isn't happening. Fun to talk about but nowhere near the realm of reality. That trade would be a really good way to tell Jefferson you might as well start eye balling what NFL city you want to call your next home.
I understand ego; I also understand delusion. If Lynch thinks that we have to wait for him to admit he made a made a mistake on Lance before we decide for ourselves that he made a mistake on Lance, then his ego is superseded by his delusion. And besides, even if his ego takes a hit on Lance, he can point to Brock Purdy and boast that he found a franchise QB with the last pick in the draft. Now his ego is back intact.
Or flip it around, if Lynch will demand huge compensation in a trade for Lance because he paid huge compensation in the draft, then he should logically take cheap compensation for Purdy because Purdy only cost him a 7th in the draft.
I dont recall saying fans had to wait for Lynch to admit a mistake for them to come to that conclusion so am unsure where you are going there. Little premature to boast about Purdy being a franchise QB. He has started all of 8 NFL games and tore an elbow ligament in his THROWING ARM. What could possibly go wrong? If only SF had the luxury of another young QB already on ther team, who knows the system and has so much "potential"? Wait, thats exactly what SF has. So why dump the other young guy with so much potential when your "franchise" guy is a question mark health wise? Again $15 million total invested in the QB room next year in SF, absolutely nonsensical to trade Lance if they see any shred of potential. As for your compensation theory, all I can say is that is some serious mental gymnastics. Thats about as good of an example of a false equivalence as I've seen in a while.
I thought your position was Lynch can't trade Lance because of Lynch's ego in having to admit a mistake. Now you're saying he shouldn't trade Lance if he still sees great potential. Those are 2 wildly different reasons for not trading Lance. The first one is nonsense. The second one is logical.
But the only question is whether you really think a GM SHOULD consider sunk costs in making a decision to trade or keep a player? It's a loaded question, I will grant you that. I am not asking whether a GM ever considers sunk costs. I understand that people do all kinds of stupid things. But I assume you do not advocate that they should do stupid things. Right?
Sometimes it takes a few years for the light to come on for a young quarterback. It appears that hasn't happened yet for Lance but it could, and maybe he needs a different team for that to happen. Maybe the coaching staff lost confidence in him and quickly decided he wasn't the guy after Purdy took over. Remember when Jalen Hurts came into the league how many thought he would become the highest paid quarterback in the league after a few years. Not saying this would or could happen with Lance but maybe it never would happen to Hooker or any other quarterback in this draft.
If Lance starts the season and shows promise everybody here will be bitching that the Vikings had a chance to get a young franchise quarterback and passed it up for an aging expensive Cousins. I'm not saying they should do a trade of Cousins for Lance and picks but then again maybe it's an alternative to throwing a dart on this years draft.
|
