Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
That was it  Thank you muchly, Mr. Barr
Quote: @prairieghost said:
@ PapaScott said:
@ prairieghost said:
The team came out publicly and said they wouldn't toll Teddy. If they went back on their word that would be complete BS. I think they have more respect for Teddy than that, no matter what they have or haven't invested in him.
When?
Do you want the exact date or something? It was something one of the talking heads said after either interviewing Rick or quoting him for a story. Whether or not it was speculating or actually a direct quote I cannot answer.
Either way, it would seem to be a bad business relationship move on the team's part, especially since they've got Teddy as the current backup to Case and it's clear they've seen enough to know he can play if needed.
I asked, because I don't think they have come out publicly and said so and when I "searched" I didn't find any statement from the Vikings. I found the Video that Barnone posted, but that is Rapport not the team saying they will not toll the contract. So if the Vikings publicly stated they would so something and then went against that , yes that's a bad move on their part. Doesn't seem like anyone really knows how the tolling thing works, it doesn't sound to me like it's an exercising an option thing, it sounds to me that it's an automatic type thing. I don't think the Vikings want to make a mess of things, and they have certainly shown to be on the "better" side of things especially with Adrian Peterson. Teams and players always seem to let the lawyers handle contract situations and not publicly make statements about them. The language of tolling is in the contracts for a reason. Is it right that Teddy has not been able to perform for the past year and a half, I would think there would be some give and take on both sides.
Quote: @PapaScott said:
@ prairieghost said:
@ PapaScott said:
@ prairieghost said:
The team came out publicly and said they wouldn't toll Teddy. If they went back on their word that would be complete BS. I think they have more respect for Teddy than that, no matter what they have or haven't invested in him.
When?
Do you want the exact date or something? It was something one of the talking heads said after either interviewing Rick or quoting him for a story. Whether or not it was speculating or actually a direct quote I cannot answer.
Either way, it would seem to be a bad business relationship move on the team's part, especially since they've got Teddy as the current backup to Case and it's clear they've seen enough to know he can play if needed.
I asked, because I don't think they have come out publicly and said so and when I "searched" I didn't find any statement from the Vikings. I found the Video that Barnone posted, but that is Rapport not the team saying they will not toll the contract. So if the Vikings publicly stated they would so something and then went against that , yes that's a bad move on their part. Doesn't seem like anyone really knows how the tolling thing works, it doesn't sound to me like it's an exercising an option thing, it sounds to me that it's an automatic type thing. I don't think the Vikings want to make a mess of things, and they have certainly shown to be on the "better" side of things especially with Adrian Peterson. Teams and players always seem to let the lawyers handle contract situations and not publicly make statements about them. The language of tolling is in the contracts for a reason. Is it right that Teddy has not been able to perform for the past year and a half, I would think there would be some give and take on both sides.
I guess technically the team didn't say it themselves publically, but I think that kind of information wouldn't see the light of day through any source of Rapoport's, or any other reporter's sources for that matter, if the team wasn't okay with said information being discussed on NFLN or ESPN.
This video is on the Vikings.com website so yeah I think they are ok with this "report". Rapport doesn't state the "Vikings are saying" he states that a source and say's "If Bridgewater is active, If Bridgewater plays they are going to Make sure the contract does not toll. They are not going to do anything to hurt him so don't expect it to be an issue". (because of the type of person , player he is)" It's really not clear, there is no precedent for tolling, so for me the underlying message is the Vikings don't want to make an issue out of this, it's not in anyone's best interest to make public statements about it. I don't think the Vikings are 100 percent taking the option off the table either. You could make the argument and the Vikings probably have every right to request Teddy meet them in the middle. They have been playing a wait and see, week by week game.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/29/minnes...gn=themmqb&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
Interesting last Paragraph:
There’s still a conversation to be had about what the Vikings should do after this season. Re-sign Keenum long-term? (Some would see this as hoping to catch lightning in a bottle twice, since Keenum’s history suggests he’s not a franchise quarterback.) Make a deal with Sam Bradford? Bank on Bridgewater? (The outsider vote here would be no.) But there should be no debate about what to do this season. The Vikings have the NFC’s best defense and an offense that, thanks to an overachieving fill-in QB, is playing great. And, as long as Bradford is shelved, there isn’t a better alternative on the roster anyway.
|
