For Whom the Contract Tolls

Vikings would be in for a fight if they try to toll Teddy Bridgewater’s contract

if they are going to do it,   then lets get it going already.   no reason for this to get drug out before the lawyers get involved.

I believe the NFL has and or will side with the Vikings. NFLPA will then be up to bat

Funny... down the stretch here we couldn't even begin a conversation that considered Teddy being "tolled."

I think the front office is willing to put "business" aside when it comes to Teddy; they probably can't help but put themselves in his shoes when it comes to tolling his contract and just can't pull the trigger. The issue I think is, by not tolling his deal, all you are doing is staying in good grace. Thats great for negotiations, but it doesn't seal a deal. And if they can't get a "team friendly" deal done, they probably will end up wishing they would have just pissed him off.

I don't think they are afraid of a legal battle, I think they are afraid of alienating him and creating a reason for him to not want to be here.

...I also wonder if renewing the speculation gets a "set" contract figure in his agents' mind, and maybe he would accept/appreciate a new one year deal that pays him more guaranteed money than the tolled deal would.

@"Ralphie" said: Vikes may try to toll Bridgewater's contract  "With the tolling, it’s not a Vikings , that’s an NFL and player union that will have to decide that."

Something doesn't add up with that headline.  Not sure what, but something seems off.

Of course they try to pin the blame on the blame shifting by the Vikings.

@"BlackMagic7" said: Funny... down the stretch here we couldn't even begin a conversation that considered Teddy being "tolled."

I think the front office is willing to put "business" aside when it comes to Teddy; they probably can't help but put themselves in his shoes when it comes to tolling his contract and just can't pull the trigger.

I also wonder if renewing the speculation gets a "set" contract figure in his agents' mind, and maybe he would accept/appreciate a new one year deal that pays him more guaranteed money than the tolled deal would. 

everything out of the front office earlier this year said that it wasnt going to happen.  it was really a moot point.   I am guessing that they had every intention of bringing Teddy back prior to this season and planned on having him back in the swing of things at some point,  but when Sam went down and Case didnt screw up... well it was pretty hard to get Ted in there to make their decision to extend him apparent.

I agree that the talk of allowing the league to handle it is likely very much part of contract posturing for the Vikings,  both with Teddys agent but also the other two.  They are most valuable to the Vikings (although that is diminished with a new OC IMO)  so if those agents think the Vikes may be able to save money on Teddy (who by all reports from those with first hand knowledge are positive) then that would diminish the leverage that Sam and Case would have with the team.  However at the same time the team can approach Teds agent with an extension based on him possibly having to play for his 4th year money unless they can "work something out".

This could be good for the team,  or really blow up in their face depending on how long it takes to resolve.  If this pushes ahead the Vikes need to sign another QB quickly,  Sam, Case, Cousins,.... who ever,  and then deal with Teddy once the courts decide as I doubt that Teddy's agent would be wanting to do a deal until the courts rules on the tolling issue.

@"BlackMagic7" said:

I don't think they are afraid of a legal battle, I think they are afraid of alienating him and creating a reason for him to not want to be here.

...I also wonder if renewing the speculation gets a "set" contract figure in his agents' mind, and maybe he would accept/appreciate a new one year deal that pays him more guaranteed money than the tolled deal would.

Two very key pieces right there.  I don't think the Vikings want to even approach that fight, but you are right, mentioning it as a league issue makes it an unstated negotiation point.  The Vikings can look like good guys by simply "renegotiating" now.

@"greediron" said:

@"BlackMagic7" said:

I don't think they are afraid of a legal battle, I think they are afraid of alienating him and creating a reason for him to not want to be here.

...I also wonder if renewing the speculation gets a "set" contract figure in his agents' mind, and maybe he would accept/appreciate a new one year deal that pays him more guaranteed money than the tolled deal would.

Two very key pieces right there.  I don't think the Vikings want to even approach that fight, but you are right, mentioning it as a league issue makes it an unstated negotiation point.  The Vikings can look like good guys by simply "renegotiating" now.

My theory is that the Vikings' FO knows that all 3 of their unsigned veteran QBs has some uncertainties  and they are afraid to bet on ONE of them. Ideally they would get 2 QBs (+Sloter) under contract for 2018. But it's also very likely all 3 are negotiating with the desire to be the ONLY one signed, a "you're going to be our starter" vote of confidence, and the other 2 will drop as soon as the teams signs or tags one of the others. And/or it isn't even some explicit "only me" demand, but the expected money might be too much to sign 2 QBs if each wants starter money ($15M/year or more).
The new tolling discussion lets the Vikings effectively cease any discussion with Bridgewater, and they can honestly tell Bradford and/or Keenum, "We don't know what's going on with Teddy." It also gives pause to any other team that's thinking, "Maybe we can sign Bridgewater". I know none of the wooing of free agents is supposed to happen yet, but...I think it does.
Their dream may be to sign Bradford to an injury-protected, but potentially valuable, contract, and still get Bridgewater as his backup. A total of less than $25M/year cap hit at QB will still let the team extend Barr, Kendricks, Hunter, Diggs...

@"JimmyinSD" said: if they are going to do it,   then lets get it going already.   no reason for this to get drug out before the lawyers get involved.

Why? I know we fans hate to wait, but if the Vikings do nothing for a few weeks, then near the end of February the NFL declares his contract will toll...then a week later the NFLPA challenges, and an arbiter meeting is set a couple weeks later...this could stretch out to late March, two weeks after the start of free agency, and Bridgewater's options will be reduced because other teams will have signed free agents. Yes, that would suck for Bridgewater but not necessarily for the Vikings.

@"Jor-El" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said: if they are going to do it,   then lets get it going already.   no reason for this to get drug out before the lawyers get involved.

Why? I know we fans hate to wait, but if the Vikings do nothing for a few weeks, then near the end of February the NFL declares his contract will toll...then a week later the NFLPA challenges, and an arbiter meeting is set a couple weeks later...this could stretch out to late March, two weeks after the start of free agency, and Bridgewater's options will be reduced because other teams will have signed free agents. Yes, that would suck for Bridgewater but not necessarily for the Vikings.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"BlackMagic7" said: Funny... down the stretch here we couldn't even begin a conversation that considered Teddy being "tolled."

I think the front office is willing to put "business" aside when it comes to Teddy; they probably can't help but put themselves in his shoes when it comes to tolling his contract and just can't pull the trigger.

I also wonder if renewing the speculation gets a "set" contract figure in his agents' mind, and maybe he would accept/appreciate a new one year deal that pays him more guaranteed money than the tolled deal would. 

everything out of the front office earlier this year said that it wasnt going to happen.  it was really a moot point.   I am guessing that they had every intention of bringing Teddy back prior to this season and planned on having him back in the swing of things at some point,  but when Sam went down and Case didnt screw up... well it was pretty hard to get Ted in there to make their decision to extend him apparent.

I agree that the talk of allowing the league to handle it is likely very much part of contract posturing for the Vikings,  both with Teddys agent but also the other two.  They are most valuable to the Vikings (although that is diminished with a new OC IMO)  so if those agents think the Vikes may be able to save money on Teddy (who by all reports from those with first hand knowledge are positive) then that would diminish the leverage that Sam and Case would have with the team.  However at the same time the team can approach Teds agent with an extension based on him possibly having to play for his 4th year money unless they can "work something out".

This could be good for the team,  or really blow up in their face depending on how long it takes to resolve.  If this pushes ahead the Vikes need to sign another QB quickly,  Sam, Case, Cousins,.... who ever,  and then deal with Teddy once the courts decide as I doubt that Teddy's agent would be wanting to do a deal until the courts rules on the tolling issue.

This is a very interesting issue. If this truly is a League decision, and is not brought forward by the Vikings for the League to make a decision, then I would assume that this is a normal process that the League has to sort through on any PUP player who is in the last year of their deal. It seems very cut and dry. If the player in question spent the first 6 weeks of the Season on the PUP list and was unavailable to the team how does the player, his agent, and the NFLPA have any leg to stand on based on the rules of the collective bargaining agreement? I know the NFLPA will argue that Teddy could have played at the beginning of the season, but how do they prove that? If he truly was at a level the Vikings felt would allow him to perform, he would have been the backup to Sam at the beginning of the season as the Vikings had no idea what they had in Keenum or Sloter. Has there been any other examples of this situation we can compare notes on?

if this does indeed come to fruition I can see players in the future fighting the PUP list and such to avoid such issues and that wont be good for teams.  who wants to have to carry an injured player for the first 6 weeks just to avoid having to cut them?  really I know this sounds good for the team right now,  but if this becomes more of an issue I could see it back firing on teams in terms of being able to retain their players rights coming out of camp.

Tolling has been the plan all along, since they didn't pick up the 5th year option.   I don't care what they said for public consumption and 'optics', tolling always was the reality.   They've invested years in the guy and he sat for the last 2 of them, they're going to get one more year on the cheap no matter what.

Putting it on the league and NFLPA is just a nice way of not having to say to Bridgewater "We're tolling your contract, see you in ota's" and yet get the same outcome.  And I would expect the league to beat the NFLPA legally on this one if a fight breaks out, because it beats them on most matters.

@"comet52" said: Tolling has been the plan all along, since they didn't pick up the 5th year option.   I don't care what they said for public consumption and 'optics', tolling always was the reality.   They've invested years in the guy and he sat for the last 2 of them, they're going to get one more year on the cheap no matter what.

Putting it on the league and NFLPA is just a nice way of not having to say to Bridgewater "We're tolling your contract, see you in ota's" and yet get the same outcome.  And I would expect the league to beat the NFLPA legally on this one if a fight breaks out, because it beats them on most matters.

Agreed. The NFLPA may not like the Bridgewater situation but they signed the Agreement and are free to try and change it the next time it comes up for negotiation. I think too many people are getting hung up on the money. If Teddy was making $10 million per year for these last two years, he would have been paid that amount while he was recovering from injury and on the PUP list. I think the hang up is that he is in the last year of his rookie deal which isn't paying him that much and he thinks he is worth more than that. I don't disagree with that, but the rookie wage scale is in place for a reason and he has enjoyed a salary the majority of us would love to have for playing in 1 quarter of a game the last two seasons while recovering. If this Tolls, I think he and the NFLPA will lose any legal challenge they bring forward. After thinking about it, I think the Vikings have wanted his contract to Toll all along and agree with you comet that they are pushing the decision off on the league so they can look like an innocent party in all of this when Teddy has to play at his $2 million salary next year, or the Vikings leverage him into a team friendly contract. Genius. 

This has GOT to be the most difficult (and fascinating) decision this organization has had to face in many years, arguably EVER.  The stakes are never higher than when you are talking anout a QB. We have three—all with serious reservations as well as possibilites regarding their futures.  added to that: what is appropriate money? Franchise QB money for one? lower end QB money for two with incentives?  How do we extend Barr, Diggs, Kendricks etc. and still sign one or more QBs.  How does the possibility of tolling Teddy’s contract figure into this?both in terms of money saved, weighed against creating an adversarial relationship with Teddy?  How does the NFL/NFLPA enter in and how does the upcoming CBA negotiations play out for both sides?  does either side want to use the situation as as a prescedent to get tough or appear concilliatory?  It goes on and on!  its like three dimentional chess. whereever you turn there are major questions and the stakes couldnt be higher!  this is truly an amazing offseason.

ok here is my 2cents— toll Teddy (disgruntled?  get over it—its business.  play well and you will be richer than croesus in 2 years) sign Case ‘cause he deserves it and we still have money to extend those contracts to Barr, Diggs, et al. Case doesnt work out.  Teddy cashes in. 

ps— on the other hand Cousins is there too...love what he brings!  

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Jor-El" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said: if they are going to do it,   then lets get it going already.   no reason for this to get drug out before the lawyers get involved.

Why? I know we fans hate to wait, but if the Vikings do nothing for a few weeks, then near the end of February the NFL declares his contract will toll...then a week later the NFLPA challenges, and an arbiter meeting is set a couple weeks later...this could stretch out to late March, two weeks after the start of free agency, and Bridgewater's options will be reduced because other teams will have signed free agents. Yes, that would suck for Bridgewater but not necessarily for the Vikings.

I dont see this being a matter that is settled in a few weeks.  I think this type of thing takes a few months to get resolved and the what do the Vikes win?  A pissed off QB?  wow!

I dont think they win anyway.  all Teddys crew has to do is say they should not have been IRd and could have been ready earlier and the race is on to try and disprove that statement.

look im the biggest bridgewater supporter.  but if we are allowed or forced by rule to toll the contract then the team better toll the contract and keep teddy on cheap for one year or maybe have leverage for a 2-3 year prove it deal that allows us to be flexible other ways. 

look teddy dealt with his mothers cancer, dropping in the draft, and almost losing his leg. i think he can understand business is business be happy to still be making millions playing football. and at 25 have plenty of time to write his story and achieve his goals

yes^