Post by whoskmoon on Jun 7, 2023 9:00:28 GMT -6
If this situation were reversed, and the Hunter was underperforming significantly for what he was being paid, none of us would be saying "the Vikings should just honor the contract they agreed to". Yet Hunter is grossly underpaid in his final year and is playing the only cards available to him, and he is on the verge of being childish? Come on man. He is looking out for his best interest in a league where ownership has most of the power and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Even if he did refuse to play hurt (everyone of these guys gets banged up to some degree during the pre season), I don't blame him.
I don't think it gets to that though, and I just don't see how a GM can look at the complete lack of talent on this D (especially the Dline) and go "yep, let's not extend by far the best player." They will work out a deal, likely one that has and an easy out after 3 seasons, and the most likely outcome is that Hunter retires a Viking, possibly after a HOF career.
I have said, again, on several occasions that players should get what they can, when their contract comes up, and when a team approaches them about a renegotiation.
Every player should get as much as they can guaranteed, preferably up front as a signing bonus...but they need to realize a point will come in their contract when the yearly salary goes down to compensate for the dynamics of getting so much right away. This comes up, every year, when teams sign a player to a massive extension. When Hockenson and Jefferson are extended, both of their year 1 salaries are probably going to be miniscule compared to the AAV of the contract. Because they are getting a ton up front in guarantees and signing bonus while the rest of the salary is (probably) backloaded.
And Hunter's contract is different only in respect to being frontloaded as opposed to backloaded. He got a huge chunk of cash And he asked for this, or his agents did, when they renegotiated this deal before...that's the other thing, this isn't the first time Hunter's camp is growling about his contract, it's the second time in two years it's been said he wouldn't play without a new deal. If it were the first time? That's one thing, but it was just last year the Vikings played tricks with his deal to give him $20 million last year. Again, that money has to come from somewhere and it was from what he was set to make this year.
Hunter signed a 5 year extension in 2018...nobody made him do that. It was a team-friendly deal...nobody made him do that. Hunter could have done the proverbial "bet on himself" and tested the market, or been tagged for $17.128 million. He could have, he didn't. He choose the security of a bird in the hand. But, the second part of that saying is "two in the bush", there is more available if you choose to risk it and are successful. Hunter is now on the verge of blaming the Vikings for his decision.
The Vikings agreed to pay Kendricks and Theilen a ton of money this season, but didn't honor that agreement. If the Vikings force Cook to take a paycut, aren’t they going against what they agreed upon based on the value he now provides.
Hunter's situation is the opposite, and if the Vikings can expect to pay less for services based on lower value provided despite agreeing to pay more previously, there is no issue with Hunter expecting more for providing more value than his current salary is worth.
... and neither is this Chris guy.