Report: Bridgewater’s camp does not think his contract will toll

This is stupid that it wasn't ruled on the day after the Vikings season ended....or sooner, like when he was made active or immediately after getting put on the IR to start the season .

@"JimmyinSD" said: This is stupid that it wasn't ruled on the day after the Vikings season ended....or sooner, like when he was made active or immediately after getting put on the IR to start the season .

Stupid is SOP for the NFL...

Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't. 

If this was Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton...this shit would be settled already. Heck, if this was Johnny Manziel it'd be settled already. I hate how anything critical to do with the Vikings seems to always hang in limbo.

It’s pretty ludicrous that this hasn’t been resolved yet.  This impacts Bridgewater, the Vikings, and
any team that could sign him in FA and prefers him over other options.  It’s not like they can just make a decision
at the last minute, because there needs to be time for him to make a grievance
and possibly sue the NFL in actual court (probably already too late for this).

@"StickyBun" said: Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't. 

For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:

a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year

@"Jor-El" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't. 

Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.

For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:

a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year

It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Jor-El" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't. 

Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.

For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:

a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year

It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.

was he physically unable to perform?   his playing status was as such,  but was Teddy actually physically not able to play the game for those first 6 weeks?  thats going to be the legal sticking point.  legal verbiage much less vague than this has led to supreme court rulings.   and I doubt that this will end up being only about Teddys situation.  this could be a battle that sets the stage for the next CBA which they will likely start working on in about a year,  neither side wants to lose these challenges now and go into the battle with a fresh scar on their resume.

@"Jor-El" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't. 

Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.

For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:

a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year

It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.

@"Jor-El" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Jor-El" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't. 

Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.

For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:

a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year

It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.

was he physically unable to perform?   his playing status was as such,  but was Teddy actually physically not able to play the game for those first 6 weeks?  thats going to be the legal sticking point.  legal verbiage much less vague than this has led to supreme court rulings.   and I doubt that this will end up being only about Teddys situation.  this could be a battle that sets the stage for the next CBA which they will likely start working on in about a year,  neither side wants to lose these challenges now and go into the battle with a fresh scar on their resume.

Good points - IF Bridgewater challenges. But the Vikings made a determination he was unable to perform by putting him on the physically unable to perform list. They made a decision. Sure, Bridgewater could challenge, and he and his agent will consider all the things you listed. But some swing both ways - your comment about the CBA and how neither side wants to lose challenges. Maybe the NFLPA is discouraging Bridgewater because their leadership fears this case could be a loss. I don't know that - all we know is that Bridgewater has not filed a challenge.

I'm not trying to predict who would win that legal debate. My main point is that the Vikings or the league are not dragging their feet or punishing the Vikings. Their opinion is that his contract tolled as soon as week 6 passed and Bridgewater was still on PUP. Why would they schedule a hearing if they have not been challenged? That would be like me asking for a hearing because I noticed some guy slip on my front sidewalk last week and I think it's possible he might file a lawsuit. The ball is in Bridgewater's hands and if he believes he has a strong case and wants this settled before free agency starts, he should file a grievance, not leak opinions via sources close to his "camp".

We're all predisposed by our hopes for the team and obviously we each have different ideas and hopes about each player. My own perspective is that Bridgewater's recovery, and how it interrupted his development, is highly uncertain until he has extended playing time, and makes any expectation he could start at the beginning of 2018 a terribly risky gamble. The best thing for the the Vikings would be to have another QB as starter and Bridgewater as his backup at a reasonable price. Obviously that might not be the best situation for Bridgewater personally.

@"Jor-El" said: We're all predisposed by our hopes for the team and obviously we each have different ideas and hopes about each player. My own perspective is that Bridgewater's recovery, and how it interrupted his development, is highly uncertain until he has extended playing time, and makes any expectation he could start at the beginning of 2018 a terribly risky gamble. The best thing for the the Vikings would be to have another QB as starter and Bridgewater as his backup at a reasonable price. Obviously that might not be the best situation for Bridgewater personally.

regardless of who they sign,  I dont want the job handed to anybody,  even if its cousins, I want a quality back up on the  roster to push him and/or be ready to take the reins if our string of QB snake bites were to continue.  one of the positives in not getting cousins would be being able to afford a more quality back up as well as adding better quality at other positions.  if we have Cousins as QB1 for 30 a year,  realistically how much more can we spend at the position?

but that horse's corpse cant take anymore abuse so IMO it will be what it will be and I will likely be fine with it.

I think it’s pretty clear that no one has ruled on it.  That’s why the team has said they are
deferring to the league and Teddy’s camp is saying they don’t think it will be
an issue.

Isn’t there an official list of players who’s contracts have been
tolled?  Shouldn’t their be a date when
this is released?

@"medaille" said: I think it’s pretty clear that no one has ruled on it.  That’s why the team has said they are deferring to the league and Teddy’s camp is saying they don’t think it will be an issue.

Isn’t there an official list of players who’s contracts have been
tolled?  Shouldn’t their be a date when
this is released?

Don't  matter to me because I would still sign Cousins.

If Teddy's deal tolls it makes him more valuable in a trade!

I was poking into the CBA again trying to figure out if I missed something, and I realized that there's a whole different side to this issue - cutting a player who can't play because of injury costs money.

With Spielman talking things through early in the season with the nfl management council, and with Teddy coming back and getting into a game I think the Vikings have done everything they could to show that he's not unable to perform.

I'm not saying to read into this one way or the other, but it seems to me that Rick was being straightforward when he talked about MN not wanting to toll Teddy and that it's the NFL's decision.

The only way that anyone would have any confidence that it wouldn't toll is that the management council gave a list of steps to take and they all got taken. 

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Jor-El" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't. 

Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.

For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:

a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year

It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.

Yes, everything you're saying is true, but if you are familiar with the law, you're aware that attorneys can and often dispute the language in an official agreement down to what the definition of "IS" is, so I would not be so confident. 

It's for this reason, and EVERYONE'S desire to avoid all that, I think the Vikings simply offer Teddy a reasonable short-term contract--one that allows them to sign another QB. T

he REAL question here is the timing. Do they do that BEFORE they approach Case, Kirk and/or Sam? What would the impact be on those negotiations if they feel the Vikings are attached to Teddy at the hip? Sam and Teddy are really the only option that allows you to keep two. And even that will be difficult. Every other option IMO requires you to commit to ONE. Case will not want to be here if we sign Teddy. And vice versa. No one will want to stay if we shoot the moon for Cousins.  All of these guys will want--and an argument could be made that each deserves a shot at--a starting opportunity. 

I base this on nothing, but my gut tells me the team really wants a long term solution here, and is trying to decide between Teddy and Kirk, while they flirt with the idea of tagging and trading Case, all the while hoping that no one offers Bradford a starting job.

But hey, no pressure, Rick. Nothing riding on this...

@"Jor-El" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Jor-El" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't. 

Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.

For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:

a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year

It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.

Yes, everything you're saying is true, but if you are familiar with the law, you're aware that attorneys can and often dispute the language in an official agreement down to what the definition of "IS" is, so I would not be so confident. 

It's for this reason, and EVERYONE'S desire to avoid all that, I think the Vikings simply offer Teddy a reasonable short-term contract--one that allows them to sign another QB. T

he REAL question here is the timing. Do they do that BEFORE they approach Case, Kirk and/or Sam? What would the impact be on those negotiations if they feel the Vikings are attached to Teddy at the hip? Sam and Teddy are really the only option that allows you to keep two. And even that will be difficult. Every other option IMO requires you to commit to ONE. Case will not want to be here if we sign Teddy. And vice versa. No one will want to stay if we shoot the moon for Cousins.  All of these guys will want--and an argument could be made that each deserves a shot at--a starting opportunity. 

I base this on nothing, but my gut tells me the team really wants a long term solution here, and is trying to decide between Teddy and Kirk, while they flirt with the idea of tagging and trading Case, all the while hoping that no one offers Bradford a starting job.

But hey, no pressure, Rick. Nothing riding on this...

As you say, attorneys can dispute meanings etc. I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. So: why doesn't Bridgewater sue the Vikings and/or the NFL to get his status clarified? The delay does not hurt the team. Think about it: the uncertainty prevents other teams from wooing him when FA starts, and even before then it means they are cautious to make plans about Bridgewater. Also, when the Vikings have contract discussions with Keenum or Bradford, either will ask who else is going to be their competition - as you said, each wants the starting job. The tolling lets the Vikings honestly say, "We aren't talking about a contract for Bridgewater".

Seriously, tell me how this dragging out hurts the Vikings? It bothers fans who want resolution, and it could have demonstrable (in the hands of one of those good lawyers) harm to Bridgewater's negotiating with both the Vikings and other teams. Again: why doesn't Bridgewater file a grievance with the NFL and NFLPA demanding that his status be resolved, just like AJ McCarron did?

I think the Vikings are trying to keep Bridgewater in their pocket as an inexpensive backup to Cousins or Keenum.