Login

supafreak84 · (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 01:59 PM by supafreak84.)

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/4809...sues-swirl

The "for sale" sign has officially been planted

AGRforever · Yesterday, 02:11 PM

That would be interesting if we were to get a day 2 pick out of him. Not crazy about a day 3 pick for him, as I think he does quite a lot for Bflo.

supafreak84 · (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 02:38 PM by supafreak84.)

(Yesterday, 02:11 PM)AGRforever Wrote: That would be interesting if we were to get a day 2 pick out of him. Not crazy about a day 3 pick for him, as I think he does quite a lot for Bflo.

He's a very tradable asset from an age, production and contract standpoint. Still has two years left on a modest deal. Pass rushers are always in demand. I'd start by calling New England and offer Greenard, our 3rd (82) for their 1st (31). I wouldn't entertain anything from teams that didn't include a 2nd round pick.

MaroonBells · Yesterday, 02:58 PM

This seems closer to the truth...

Albert Breer@AlbertBreer
The Vikings' situation with OLB Jonathan Greenard is a bit complex—Greenard is seeking a market correction to his contract, per sources. He's due $19 million and would like a raise. Minnesota is comfortable with him at his current number.

The team views him as one of their best players, and won't just let him go. But if someone comes with a big offer, a deal could be had.

Vikesrock · (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 03:05 PM by Vikesrock.)

(Yesterday, 02:38 PM)supafreak84 Wrote: He's a very tradable asset from an age, production and contract standpoint. Still has two years left on a modest deal. Pass rushers are always in demand. I'd start by calling New England and offer Greenard, our 3rd (82) for their 1st (31). I wouldn't entertain anything from teams that didn't include a 2nd round pick.

I think it would be a mistake to trade him just for a pick where we would have to use to try and replace him. If we can get a couple of picks out of him and a chance to improve. My concern is we ship him off and then the depth behind him is crapola. Right now it's Tyler Batty and Chas Chambliss if Grenard isn't around.

It is smart to get rid of a player a year too early then too late though, so here I am contradicting myself...I would add though, if they are going to trade him, get assets for the 2027 draft. Much better draft I think.

AGRforever · Yesterday, 03:04 PM

(Yesterday, 02:58 PM)MaroonBells Wrote: This seems closer to the truth...

Albert Breer@AlbertBreer
The Vikings' situation with OLB Jonathan Greenard is a bit complex—Greenard is seeking a market correction to his contract, per sources. He's due $19 million and would like a raise. Minnesota is comfortable with him at his current number.

The team views him as one of their best players, and won't just let him go. But if someone comes with a big offer, a deal could be had.

I want a raise as well.

supafreak84 · Yesterday, 03:19 PM

(Yesterday, 03:04 PM)Vikesrock Wrote: I think it would be a mistake to trade him just for a pick where we would have to use to try and replace him. If we can get a couple of picks out of him and a chance to improve. My concern is we ship him off and then the depth behind him is crapola. Right now it's Tyler Batty and Chas Chambliss if Grenard isn't around.

It is smart to get rid of a player a year too early then too late though, so here I am contradicting myself...I would add though, if they are going to trade him, get assets for the 2027 draft. Much better draft I think.

I'd be very comfortable moving forward with Dallas Turner taking that spot and starting full time, but yes there would have to be some depth pieces added behind AVG and Turner. I think that might be a position where we could add a player or two in free agency on modest, backup type contracts. Maybe roll the dice on a guy like Kwite Paye who was a first round pick who hasn't lived up to expectations on his first stop? There's some names out there of interest

purplefaithful · Yesterday, 03:23 PM

I would be in the "no camp"

I think he's still got plenty in the tank and I dont know where Turner's ceiling is yet.

I'll take that back quickly if someone makes an offer we cant refuse - but I dont sense that tbh.

JR44 · Yesterday, 03:33 PM

Because of all the QB issues last year, one aspect that went under the radar was the huge difference in the defense when either Van Ginkel or Greenard were out. Turner is not close the level of either, he had looked so badly that the bar really dropped for him so anything he did remotely positive really stood out. Do not think he is nearly ready to take over.

SurfnRide · (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 03:40 PM by SurfnRide.)

(Yesterday, 03:04 PM)Vikesrock Wrote: I think it would be a mistake to trade him just for a pick where we would have to use to try and replace him. If we can get a couple of picks out of him and a chance to improve. My concern is we ship him off and then the depth behind him is crapola. Right now it's Tyler Batty and Chas Chambliss if Grenard isn't around.

It is smart to get rid of a player a year too early then too late though, so here I am contradicting myself...I would add though, if they are going to trade him, get assets for the 2027 draft. Much better draft I think.

This. I dont want to lose Greenard. It better be a good haul or I dont think it is worth getting rid of him. Turner has shown flashes but I dont think he is ready to be the main dog yet