Vikings DE Danielle Hunter Liked Multiple Tweets About Being Traded
Vikings DE Danielle Hunter Liked Multiple Tweets About Being TradedDo the Vikings have a situation on their hands? Hunter might not be happy with his current situation.Do the Vikings have another Stefon Diggs situation on their hands with a superstar player? It's too early to go that far, but the buzz around Danielle Hunter's unhappiness with his situation can't be ignored.
On Friday, a couple days after Vikings GM Rick Spielman denied being told that Hunter wanted to be the highest-paid defensive player in the NFL or be traded, Hunter liked three different tweets about being traded. The question to Spielman stemmed from an Ian Rapaport tweet last October where the NFL insider insinuated that those were Hunter's demands.It may not seem like much, but this should be taken seriously. Last offseason, Diggs used Twitter to force himself out of Minnesota. Hunter presumably isn't going to start firing off cryptic tweets, but he knew what he was doing by liking these tweets.
Hunter absolutely has a reason to want a raise. The five-year, $72 million deal he signed back in 2018 before truly blowing up is a massive bargain for the Vikings. His $14.4 million average annual value ranks outside the top 20 among NFL pass rushers. Yet, across 2018 and 2019, Hunter finished second in pressures (154, trailing only Aaron Donald) and third in sacks (29). He wants to be paid in the $25 million per year range like Joey Bosa, Myles Garrett, and Khalil Mack, and you can understand why.
The discussion of leverage here is an interesting one. Hunter is coming off of missing all of last season with a herniated disc in his neck that required surgery. With three years left on his contract and no guarantee that he'll return to his usual dominance after the injury, you'd think the Vikings would have the leverage. But Hunter's camp saw how horrendous Minnesota's pass rush was without their best player. They know the Vikings need Hunter, and they may want him to get paid before he steps on the field again. If his level of play goes down in 2021, that would diminish his leverage if they waited until next offseason to seek an extension or trade.
An extension could work out for both sides. The Vikings could add a few more years and a lot of guaranteed money to his current deal, while lowering his $17.75 million 2021 cap hit. They'd have to be confident in his medical situation to do that, but Hunter is the type of player you take risks on.
If the two sides can't agree on an extension — or if Hunter simply wants a new situation — trade talks could start to really heat up. The Vikings could likely get multiple first-round picks for Hunter like the Raiders did for Khalil Mack. A 26 year-old superstar pass rusher would generate an immense amount of interest on the trade market, even coming off of a major injury.
If the Vikings are going to end up in a situation where they're forced to trade Hunter, they'd want to do so before the NFL draft so they can use a first-round pick on his replacement. There's still a ways to go before that point, but this is a situation to keep an eye on as free agency begins later this month.
https://www.si.com/nfl/vikings/news/vikings-de-danielle-hunter-liked-tweets-trade-rumors-extension
Hurry-up Vikings, we ain't getting any younger!
https://www.sportscasting.com/vikings-defensive-end-danielle-hunter-has-a-scary-sounding-injury/
https://www.spine-health.com/conditions/herniated-disc/cervical-herniated-disc-symptoms-and-treatment-options
maybe nothing...maybe something he just is predisposed to and he shits his pants....
So Geoff, what could Vikings get in a deal for Hunter?
@"Lee 19" said: So Geoff, what could Vikings get in a deal for Hunter?I think he said somewhere that it would start with a deal similar to what Oakland got for Mack which was 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 6th.
The deal for Hunter that I was suggesting a while ago was Kirk, Hunter and draft picks for Deshaun Watson.
@"JimmyinSD" said:I think they would shoot for two 1st round picks. But more likely its a 1st and 2nd or two 1sts with the Viking's sending a pick back in 2022 similar to the Mack deal. Regardless, they could get a lot of Hunter. But that's arguably why you probably shouldn't trade him, you can't replace him.@"Lee 19" said: So Geoff, what could Vikings get in a deal for Hunter?I think he said somewhere that it would start with a deal similar to what Oakland got for Mack which was 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 6th.
@"Geoff Nichols" said:@"MarkSP18" said: JJ Watt had surgery for a herniated disc in his back and has had no relapse.The neck is different I suppose but if Sugarman signs off then that's all they need.
They better pay him now rather than wait for another double digit sack season that is for dang sure.
His cap hits the next 3 years are 17.75M, 17.75M, and 14.75M according to overthecap.
Give him a new 5 year 102.5M deal (adding two years really) with a 25M signing bonus.
He would get a 12M option bonus in 2023 spread over 3 years.
His salaries would be 7.75M, 7.75M, 10.5M, 19M, and 20.5M
His cap hits would be 17.75M, 17.75M, 21.5M, 28M, & 29.5M
He'll take home 32.5M in 2021, 7.75M in 2022, 22.5M in 2023, 19M in 2024, and 20.5M in 2025.63M over the next 3 years is good.
They can include some incentives based on snaps played to bump it up some.It puts him 300K average per year behind Frank Clark and 500K average per year behind Demarcus Lawrence.
That is pretty good and does not cost them any cap space the next two years.
It will basically cost them the 25M signing bonus.They can do it if they want to.
Its a pipe dream if you think he will sign for $20M/yr. It will be $25M per season or slightly above on an extension. Myles Garrett's deal is the benchmark and after what happened on his most recent deal there is no way he is going to settle and have others pass him over again. You can still manage the cap hits on a $25M/yr deal but you're entering the Kirk vs. Danielle debate since you might not be able to carry both of them plus high priced RBs and LBs.
If he is healthy enough then they can afford the 25M too.
Bump the signing bonus up to 35M and the option bonus up to 15M
His salaries would be 5.75M, 8.75M, 10.5M, 25M, and 25M
His cap hits would be 17.75M, 20.75M, 24.5M, 37M, & 37MIn 2023, they might be paying a rookie QB salary.
@"Geoff Nichols" said:hopefully his camp settles down for a while and doesnt push this, I dont see a way MN can do and extension right now without screwing the future cap to shit. get 1 more year to show that hes back to pre neck injury form and then see where the team is at in terms of Cousin, Barr, and any other bad contracts they should be looking to get out from under before committing long term to this kind of money.@"JimmyinSD" said:I think they would shoot for two 1st round picks. But more likely its a 1st and 2nd or two 1sts with the Viking's sending a pick back in 2022 similar to the Mack deal. Regardless, they could get a lot of Hunter. But that's arguably why you probably shouldn't trade him, you can't replace him.@"Lee 19" said: So Geoff, what could Vikings get in a deal for Hunter?I think he said somewhere that it would start with a deal similar to what Oakland got for Mack which was 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 6th.
To me, the ball is in his court if he wants to push it. Then it’s yes or no. If they can make it work, you do it. He’s worth the salary based on performance and age. This is assuming the injury is healed up, which it should be by now.
Like someone said though, between him and Kirk we’ll be getting pressed against the cap with a reduced(ing) cap right now. I’m not sure I like that and I have to think the team may feel the same way. I wouldn’t consider trading him for less than two firsts plus extra.
Then I lean on the same brain trust that discovered him, to do their due diligence and find his replacement. There will be one in this draft. Possibly a couple of players who can make a big difference over the next five years and save the cap. Realistically, we need at least two starter ready defensive lineman. Multiple firsts would help that.
If it’s me, I’d trade him. It sucks, but that’s the business.
@"Geoff Nichols" said:@"MarkSP18" said: JJ Watt had surgery for a herniated disc in his back and has had no relapse.The neck is different I suppose but if Sugarman signs off then that's all they need.
They better pay him now rather than wait for another double digit sack season that is for dang sure.
His cap hits the next 3 years are 17.75M, 17.75M, and 14.75M according to overthecap.
Give him a new 5 year 102.5M deal (adding two years really) with a 25M signing bonus.
He would get a 12M option bonus in 2023 spread over 3 years.
His salaries would be 7.75M, 7.75M, 10.5M, 19M, and 20.5M
His cap hits would be 17.75M, 17.75M, 21.5M, 28M, & 29.5M
He'll take home 32.5M in 2021, 7.75M in 2022, 22.5M in 2023, 19M in 2024, and 20.5M in 2025.63M over the next 3 years is good.
They can include some incentives based on snaps played to bump it up some.It puts him 300K average per year behind Frank Clark and 500K average per year behind Demarcus Lawrence.
That is pretty good and does not cost them any cap space the next two years.
It will basically cost them the 25M signing bonus.They can do it if they want to.
Its a pipe dream if you think he will sign for $20M/yr. It will be $25M per season or slightly above on an extension. Myles Garrett's deal is the benchmark and after what happened on his most recent deal there is no way he is going to settle and have others pass him over again. You can still manage the cap hits on a $25M/yr deal but you're entering the Kirk vs. Danielle debate since you might not be able to carry both of them plus high priced RBs and LBs.
I agree that at some point this could be a Danielle vs. Kirk debate. They should be able to keep both through the end of 2022, since whatever extension they give Hunter probably won't hit big until 2023. And Kirk has no money on the books in 2023 unless they extend him. That's when they will have to decide. So assuming they don't trade either one, they'll have two more years together to try to win a Super Bowl.
@"Geoff Nichols" said:I didn't think they could replace Diggs with 1 premium pick, but they did.@"JimmyinSD" said:I think they would shoot for two 1st round picks. But more likely its a 1st and 2nd or two 1sts with the Viking's sending a pick back in 2022 similar to the Mack deal. Regardless, they could get a lot of Hunter. But that's arguably why you probably shouldn't trade him, you can't replace him.@"Lee 19" said: So Geoff, what could Vikings get in a deal for Hunter?I think he said somewhere that it would start with a deal similar to what Oakland got for Mack which was 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 6th.I think they were incredibly lucky with Jefferson and should consider it a rare occurrence. But the team (FO or owners) could be overconfident after the Diggs-for-JJ swap.
@"Jor-El" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said:I didn't think they could replace Diggs with 1 premium pick, but they did.@"JimmyinSD" said:I think they would shoot for two 1st round picks. But more likely its a 1st and 2nd or two 1sts with the Viking's sending a pick back in 2022 similar to the Mack deal. Regardless, they could get a lot of Hunter. But that's arguably why you probably shouldn't trade him, you can't replace him.@"Lee 19" said: So Geoff, what could Vikings get in a deal for Hunter?I think he said somewhere that it would start with a deal similar to what Oakland got for Mack which was 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 6th.I think they were incredibly lucky with Jefferson and should consider it a rare occurrence. But the team (FO or owners) could be overconfident after the Diggs-for-JJ swap.
They've been around far too long to think that. We all know the draft is a crapshoot--and NFL front offices know it times 10. What's interesting is that you're counseling against overconfidence in finding suitable 1st round replacements for two players that were taken in the 3rd and 5th rounds. But you're not wrong.
Is there really such a thing a generational type player, or just a matter of an exceptional player only getting in the right situation to succeed about every 10 years or so? We think that Spielman does a great job of drafting, but yet we doubt his ability to take a basket full of picks and find another top 5 type player at DE or other positions?
I was trying to think of any decent replacement out there in FA, but have only come up with Bud Dupree so far. He’d probably be a very good defensive end in our scheme and has the size and athletic ability one looks for. He’s always played in the 3-4, but the vast majority of that time was rushing the passer.
I’m not sure what he’ll see in the open market with the reduced cap. I see Spotrac has him at $18 million a year, but we’d be talking about moving to a position that usually pays a little higher.
I forgot to add he’s coming off a torn ACL and wonder what that will do to value. I know Zimmer had interest before.
How much different would his contract look compared to what Hunter wants?
@"MaroonBells" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said:@"MarkSP18" said: JJ Watt had surgery for a herniated disc in his back and has had no relapse.The neck is different I suppose but if Sugarman signs off then that's all they need.
They better pay him now rather than wait for another double digit sack season that is for dang sure.
His cap hits the next 3 years are 17.75M, 17.75M, and 14.75M according to overthecap.
Give him a new 5 year 102.5M deal (adding two years really) with a 25M signing bonus.
He would get a 12M option bonus in 2023 spread over 3 years.
His salaries would be 7.75M, 7.75M, 10.5M, 19M, and 20.5M
His cap hits would be 17.75M, 17.75M, 21.5M, 28M, & 29.5M
He'll take home 32.5M in 2021, 7.75M in 2022, 22.5M in 2023, 19M in 2024, and 20.5M in 2025.63M over the next 3 years is good.
They can include some incentives based on snaps played to bump it up some.It puts him 300K average per year behind Frank Clark and 500K average per year behind Demarcus Lawrence.
That is pretty good and does not cost them any cap space the next two years.
It will basically cost them the 25M signing bonus.They can do it if they want to.
Its a pipe dream if you think he will sign for $20M/yr. It will be $25M per season or slightly above on an extension. Myles Garrett's deal is the benchmark and after what happened on his most recent deal there is no way he is going to settle and have others pass him over again. You can still manage the cap hits on a $25M/yr deal but you're entering the Kirk vs. Danielle debate since you might not be able to carry both of them plus high priced RBs and LBs.
I agree that at some point this could be a Danielle vs. Kirk debate. They should be able to keep both through the end of 2022, since whatever extension they give Hunter probably won't hit big until 2023. And Kirk has no money on the books in 2023 unless they extend him. That's when they will have to decide. So assuming they don't trade either one, they'll have two more years together to try to win a Super Bowl.
Agreed. If they move on from Barr you could finagle keeping both. But then you're quickly approaching paying Dantzler/Gladney/Jefferson. Personally I would pay Hunter since an elite edge player fixes a lot of problems and he simply can change the entire game in a single play. But we'll see what they do.
@"MaroonBells" said:@"Jor-El" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said:I didn't think they could replace Diggs with 1 premium pick, but they did.@"JimmyinSD" said:I think they would shoot for two 1st round picks. But more likely its a 1st and 2nd or two 1sts with the Viking's sending a pick back in 2022 similar to the Mack deal. Regardless, they could get a lot of Hunter. But that's arguably why you probably shouldn't trade him, you can't replace him.@"Lee 19" said: So Geoff, what could Vikings get in a deal for Hunter?I think he said somewhere that it would start with a deal similar to what Oakland got for Mack which was 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a 6th.I think they were incredibly lucky with Jefferson and should consider it a rare occurrence. But the team (FO or owners) could be overconfident after the Diggs-for-JJ swap.
They've been around far too long to think that. We all know the draft is a crapshoot--and NFL front offices know it times 10. What's interesting is that you're counseling against overconfidence in finding suitable 1st round replacements for two players that were taken in the 3rd and 5th rounds. But you're not wrong.
Where a player got picked becomes irrelevant once they prove themselves in the league. Since the Pats picked Brady in round 6, would they have assumed they could replace him with another 6th? Or even a 1st? I know it's an extreme example, but same principle with Diggs and Hunter. Once a player proves he can excel in the NFL, his value is 5x any draft pick IMO.And we could blow up any overconfidence in drafting by listing the 3 1st-round WRs picked by the Vikings in this decade.
If he actually wants out, get every bit you can for him and wish him well on his way out the door. If players don't want to be on the team, they easily become locker room cancers.
On the other hand, if it is a money/contract thing...I think getting a full medical update first is simple prudence.
This whole situation makes me laugh. Renegotiating a contract for a guy with 3 years left on his deal should be the least of their concerns heading into this season. If it's still an "issue" or "topic of discussion" after the season then negotiate something then or trade him for a good return.
Cant help but think that these situations remind me of the Mr. Deeds scene where they ask the player if he will play for less if he plays bad. Well, what happens if Danielle doesn't hit double digit sacks this year?
I would like to see the league just go to 100% guaranteed contracts with an out for career ending injuries. this is dumb as fuck that we are talking about a new deal for a guy that still has 6 million on the books from his last signing bonus. or make the signing bonus not able to be prorated out past the year that the guaranteed money comes to an end since thats when the agent is going to be demanding a new deal and nobody thinks the previous one should be honored anyway.
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.