Mothman wrote:I'm beyond caring about the message restructuring Peterson's contract would send to people. I'm resigned to the fact that they'll see it as they choose to see it. To me, the idea that a revised deal would be rewarding bad behavior makes no logical sense. If they made such a deal, the Vikings wouldn't be giving Peterson a pat on the back and a "well done" for committing a crime, getting suspended, etc. On an intellectual level, I suspect everybody grasps that. What the Vikes would be doing is reaching a business agreement with a football player whose ability they value. I'm guessing that's obvious to everyone too. Consequently, the idea that his contract shouldn't be restructured because it would be a reward for bad behavior strikes me as a purely emotional response. It seems like a passive-aggressive form of continued punishment (ie: Peterson did something bad, therefore he shouldn't get something he wants). Does that really make logical or moral sense? Why would it be okay if he plays for the Vikings again, stays healthy and receives $45 million over the next 3 years but not okay if the exact same thing happens and some of the money in his contract is guaranteed? The only answer I can come up with is that it wouldn't be okay because the latter scenario involves giving him something he wants and since he's a bad man, he shouldn't be allowed to get something he wants.
Morally, if it's wrong to pay him and play him then it seems it should be every bit as wrong to do so under his current deal as under a new one. After all, he's still getting the privilege of playing in the NFL and receiving a $13 million dollar "reward' for bad behavior.
My feeling is that it's time to move on (but I'm not telling anybody to move on—if people want/need to stay angry or can't forgive Peterson, that's understandable). The crime's been done, the consequences faced and the team and player now have business to do. I think there's a very good chance Peterson and the Vikes were going to end up having a discussion about guaranteed money at this point in his contract anyway. It never looked to me like a deal that would play out "as is".
My apologies if the post above offends anyone. I tried hard not to offend...
I don't think there's anything offensive about your response at all.
I guess I believe there's a difference between honoring a commitment to a player and doing more for a player that hasn't done anything to warrant it. When you say the organization is "reaching a business agreement with a football player whose ability they value" I agree with that; it's called the contract he previously signed. I could justify committing more guaranteed money to Peterson in the manner you suggest if this never happened and he's still performing at a high level. As it stands he committed a pretty substantial crime and has played one game since 2013. Again, I suppose I'm fine with a small concession (guaranteeing part or all of his existing contract), but that's still problematic for me for the reasons stated above.
The fact remains that if the Vikings wanted to do something about Peterson's contract this year that would've happened by now. It's pretty clear to me they did not want to do that. Peterson wants them to, even in light of his transgressions. He seems to think he's entitled to that, which is where he loses me. Despite everything he's still the highest paid running back in the league. I suppose where I'm also struggling is that this is a special situation with a special player. The rules are different. Had this situation happened to, say, Shonn Greene, this would be quite different.
From a purely business perspective, I can see the Vikings (before this whole mess) wanting to re-structure at this point to lower his cap number and perhaps even total overall take home cash in exchange for some additional guarantees or new money. Now? Peterson would likely feel incredibly jaded if the concept of getting paid less was even mentioned (even though "less" is a relative term in this instance).