Potential New Destination For Greenard

I'm still firmly in the trade Greenard camp for a 1st or 2nd round pick to help restock a depleted roster and turn things over to Turner who has earned the right to start. The fact that Greenard wants a new deal with more guaranteed money solidifies my belief that he should be traded. There would be a market for his services. The stupidity in not trading him is this;

1. He wants a new deal, and do they sign him to that new deal then immediately reduce his snaps by as much as 50% because you aren't keeping Dallas Turner off the field at this point.

2. Dallas Turner just turned 23 years old and led the team in sacks, pressures, and forced fumbles essentially playing in a part time role last year. Do you sabotage his potential as a player by bringing back Greenard and reducing Turner's snap count? That answer should be absolutely not.

To me this is essentially choosing Greenard on a new deal or choosing Turner on a rookie contract for another three years. It doesn't make sense to me to have them both back and we could use the draft capital a trade would yield in rebuilding the roster and getting younger.

I kind of think the Chiefs wouldn't really want to do it. I think they need to do a mini-rebuild and get cheaper while Mahomes is likely to have an off year due to his ACL injury.

I certainly wouldn't pack our 3rd into the mix. I'm not sure how I feel about trading that far up. I think you'd have to trade Greenard before the draft, so you don't really know who's going to be there. I haven't looked that hard at the players that should be there, but I think Downs would be the only one I'd be fixating on, and if you got stuck without him, I think you'd be trying to trade that pick down for a bit to regain some more draft capital hopefully.

I'd have to think about it more, but maybe I'd rather just take their 2nd (40) for Greenard straight up? IDK?

That said, I think either of those are options where we would be primed for taking players that probably are day one starters. If you get 9, maybe you get Downs or an outside shot at Love (which is still probably a bad trade to move up to get a RB, even though he's a stud.) and with 40 you're getting 2 day one starters.

I sure am glad we went 5-0 to finish the season.

JustInTime wrote:
I think I’d prefer the 4th the former first round bust.

With AVG and Turner, I don't think we necessarily need a 1st round pick to replace Greenard, but there's something unsettling about giving up Greenard and going from 9 picks to 8.

supafreak84 wrote:
I'm still firmly in the trade Greenard camp for a 1st or 2nd round pick to help restock a depleted roster and turn things over to Turner who has earned the right to start. The fact that Greenard wants a new deal with more guaranteed money solidifies my belief that he should be traded. There would be a market for his services. The stupidity in not trading him is this;

1. He wants a new deal, and do they sign him to that new deal then immediately reduce his snaps by as much as 50% because you aren't keeping Dallas Turner off the field at this point.

2. Dallas Turner just turned 23 years old and led the team in sacks, pressures, and forced fumbles essentially playing in a part time role last year. Do you sabotage his potential as a player by bringing back Greenard and reducing Turner's snap count? That answer should be absolutely not.

To me this is essentially choosing Greenard on a new deal or choosing Turner on a rookie contract for another three years. It doesn't make sense to me to have them both back and we could use the draft capital a trade would yield in rebuilding the roster and getting younger.

I agree with trading him if we could get a first round or early 2nd round pick.  Problem is, I don't think any teams have offered that to the Vikings.  If they did, I think the Vikings would jump at that to give Dallas Turner a starting spot, create more cap flexibility, and give us more early draft capital to get rookie starters/depth.

Vikings are playing this correct.  If no teams are willing to meet his contract demands AND give up appropriate compensation in a trade...  That helps the Vikings when negotiating an extension.  Other teams have set his contract valuation so it makes it easier for us to retain him on an extension if a trade doesn't happen.

Only way I would trade up to KC's spot is if I was assured of getting Love. I would not do it for Downs.

This trade wouldnt happen on my watch until the draft actually begins and it's KC's turn to pick - and I'm assured the kid from Notre Dame is there.

purplefaithful wrote:
Only way I would trade up to KC's spot is if I was assured of getting Love. I would not do it for Downs.

This trade wouldnt happen on my watch until the draft actually begins and it's KC's turn to pick - and I'm assured the kid from Notre Dame is there.

I would do it for a 2nd rounder, but then we have to use a draft pick for Edge3. That would shift the age and cost of the roster a bit. Also keep in mind, AVG is in a contract year, turns 31 before training camp and is somewhat injury prone.

I just don't see the value in trading one of our best defenders. I realize we're still stacked with Gink and Turner, but we're one injury away from being shorthanded again.

MaroonBells wrote:

I would do it for a 2nd rounder, but then we have to use a draft pick for Edge3. That would shift the age and cost of the roster a bit. Also keep in mind, AVG is in a contract year, turns 31 before training camp and is somewhat injury prone.

Yah, I was thinking Gink was starting to get up there...Dayum if he aint perfect for how BFlo uses him though. 

Dont know if they need to acquire a potential replacement this draft? Probably prioritize ILB, but yah over the next 2 they need to bring another Edge in.

Montana Tom wrote:
I just don't see the value in trading one of our best defenders.  I realize we're still stacked with Gink and Turner, but we're one injury away from being shorthanded again.

You trade him because of the playing time conflict, we have a young stud behind him, and if we trade him not only does it save us from giving him a new deal, but it also brings value in any type of trade that we could use to address a different roster hole. That's the value, and it's multi level value. We could still dip into free agency and bring in a Jadeveon Clowney or Joey Bosa to fill the 3rd edge rusher role and give us some insurance. Keeping Greenard on a new deal and continuing to stunt the growth and value of having Dallas Turner on a rookie deal is not only dumb, but it's the most Wilf thing ever

Montana Tom wrote:
I just don't see the value in trading one of our best defenders.  I realize we're still stacked with Gink and Turner, but we're one injury away from being shorthanded again.

I think it's about asset management and being as young and cost-efficient as possible. When it comes time to pay Turner, I don't think we want to be halfway through a crippling Greenard deal. If the Vikings do decide to keep JG, I think they give him one big year. Didn't they do something similar with Hunter in his final year in Minnesota?