Teddy leaving?

[kmillard]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...ree-agent/

Posted by Josh Alper on February 27, 2018, 7:53 AM EST

Getty Images

We know that two of the Vikings’ quarterbacks from last season are set for free agency on March 14 and it looks like the third will be joining them.
When last we checked in with the league about whether Teddy Bridgewater‘s contract would toll because he spent six games on the physically unable to perform list last season, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said they “will let you know when we have something.” That hasn’t changed, but another league employee reports all signs point toward Bridgewater hitting the open market.
Ian Rapoport of NFL Media reports that Bridgewater is expected to be a free agent come the start of the new league year. Rapoport adds that the Vikings are not “planning to assert” that Bridgewater’s rights should remain with them for another year.
That’s pretty much what Vikings General Manager Rick Spielman said early this month when he framed the Bridgewater contract question as a league matter rather than a team issue. Rapoport followed up his initial report to say “all parties” are in agreement in reply to our tweet about that characterization. If the league isn’t willing to make it an issue, part of the reason may be found in the recent loss of a grievance involving Bengals quarterback AJ McCarron.
McCarron argued he was improperly placed on the NFI list as a rookie and an arbitrator agreed, which leaves McCarron set for unrestricted rather than restricted free agency. Bridgewater could make a similar argument about being ready for medical clearance in Week One and that the Vikings’ more cautious approach had to do with roster machinations rather than his health.

[Guest]

Again, sounds like the Vikings are just going to let the NFL decide on this matter. The NFL will likely make this decision based on their interpretation of the rule, and not what the Vikings may or may not "assert." And that's likely why the Vikings have that stance. Keeps their hands clean. 

If nothing else, I think this sends another positive message to potential free agents. We could tag Keenum, but we're going to let him test the market. We could fight the tolling issue, but Teddy's earned the right to compete on the market. Total opposite of the way Cousins was treated in DC. 

[Guest]

KFAN was reporting that Teddy's contract won't be tolled, but I don't think it's "official" yet.  They were basing it off a Florio report.  Basically they're saying Teddy will be an unrestricted FA. 

https://247sports.com/nfl/minnesota-viki...-115574805

Teddy Bridgewater
is still waiting on word of whether or not he will be stopped from
being a free agent or if he is able to hit the open market this
offseason. The Minnesota Vikings have looked into his contract
potentially tolling into next season.

However, Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk
says that it is not likely and that he should be able to become a free
agent as he looks for his next contract to secure his future.

[Guest]

As of 3 weeks ago it sounded like the Vikings believed he contract might toll. At this point it sounds like they believe the opposite. PFT references the McCarron case and I think that will play a big part in the NFL's decision making. If the team is on the fence since they don't want to ruffle feathers and look like the bad guys and the NFL just lost its appeal, it may end up falling off their docket. Both cases (Bridgewater/McCarron) are different, but the precedence to taking the players side definitely makes you hesitate. 

Either way, this just means the contract won't toll. Teddy will have options but it doesn't mean the Vikings couldn't opt to resign him just like Case. 

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:
Again, sounds like the Vikings are just going to let the NFL decide on this matter. The NFL will likely make this decision based on their interpretation of the rule, and not what the Vikings may or may not "assert." And that's likely why the Vikings have that stance. Keeps their hands clean. 

If nothing else, I think this sends another positive message to potential free agents. We could tag Keenum, but we're going to let him test the market. We could fight the tolling issue, but Teddy's earned the right to compete on the market. Total opposite of the way Cousins was treated in DC. 

I don't know that it is a positive message, because the bigger picture that NFL players see is that the Vikings are not giving big fat contract extensions to these players. That's what players want. Now, we have done that with Smith, Rhodes, Griffen, Joseph, so our rep is probably OK. Yeah, it would be negative impact if we tried to lock up Bridgewater via tolling, but at best this just keeps perception of the franchise as neutral.

I'm kind of surprised because I thought the Vikings would try to utilize tolling to keep Bridgewater. Now, fairly or not, their non-interest in tolling him, and letting Bridgewater test the market, will raise questions about just how the Vikings' staff feels about Bridgewater's knee and overall recovery.

[Guest]

@Jor-El said:

@MaroonBells said:
Again, sounds like the Vikings are just going to let the NFL decide on this matter. The NFL will likely make this decision based on their interpretation of the rule, and not what the Vikings may or may not "assert." And that's likely why the Vikings have that stance. Keeps their hands clean. 

If nothing else, I think this sends another positive message to potential free agents. We could tag Keenum, but we're going to let him test the market. We could fight the tolling issue, but Teddy's earned the right to compete on the market. Total opposite of the way Cousins was treated in DC. 

I don't know that it is a positive message, because the bigger picture that NFL players see is that the Vikings are not giving big fat contract extensions to these players. That's what players want. Now, we have done that with Smith, Rhodes, Griffen, Joseph, so our rep is probably OK. Yeah, it would be negative impact if we tried to lock up Bridgewater via tolling, but at best this just keeps perception of the franchise as neutral.

I'm kind of surprised because I thought the Vikings would try to utilize tolling to keep Bridgewater. Now, fairly or not, their non-interest in tolling him, and letting Bridgewater test the market, will raise questions about just how the Vikings' staff feels about Bridgewater's knee and overall recovery.

I wouldn't call not pushing to toll the contract "non-interest". Its just a matter of league compliance. They don't want to look like the bad guys for the reasons you specified if the contract did toll at the NFL level. I can tell you first hand the Vikings do have interest in retaining Bridgewater in some capacity depending on how the QB market shapes up. They'll know more this week at the combine.

[Guest]

I'm not sure how much of an impact this stuff has on outside free agents. If anything, the Vikings may be more concerned about how they look to their current players. How are you treating the guy you once thought was going to be our franchise QB after he suffered a serious injury? It may have a demoralizing effect - us (players) vs them (management).

If the Vikings had sought to toll TB's contract and also offered Cousins $30M a year, I doubt Cousins would hesitate because the Vikings tried to toll TB's contract. All he would care about is his contract and whether he thought he could win with this team. The same goes for other FAs. Show me the money.

[Guest]

Retaining Bridgewater in 'some capacity' isn't what I'd call a ringing endorsement as the answer at QB. But they may have to look at him as a Plan B or fall back scenario potentially depending on how things go with either Cousins or Bradford. 

[Guest]

@StickyBun said:
Retaining Bridgewater in 'some capacity' isn't what I'd call a ringing endorsement as the answer at QB. But they may have to look at him as a Plan B or fall back scenario potentially depending on how things go with either Cousins or Bradford. 

How can you give a QB who hasn't been on the field in two years a ringing endorsement? I don't think a single NFL team would be able to definitively say that Bridgewater was the answer if they'd been in the Vikings shoes. That doesn't mean they wouldn't want him back however.  

[Guest]

@"Geoff Nichols" said:

@StickyBun said:
Retaining Bridgewater in 'some capacity' isn't what I'd call a ringing endorsement as the answer at QB. But they may have to look at him as a Plan B or fall back scenario potentially depending on how things go with either Cousins or Bradford. 

How can you give a QB who hasn't been on the field in two years a ringing endorsement? I don't think a single NFL team would be able to definitively say that Bridgewater was the answer if they'd been in the Vikings shoes. That doesn't mean they wouldn't want him back however.  

You can't, of course. But he's a Plan B at best right now. Vikings intentions will flesh out for real in the days to come.