Percy Harvin placed on IR. Season over.

[Mothman]

How many super bowls did we go to with Moss? Peterson? Harvin?

What does that have to do with anything? People often throw variations of that question out but in a team game, it's a silly question. No team gets to the Super Bowl because of one player. At best, one player (even a great QB) can be a very big piece of the puzzle. I'll say this: Moss, Peterson and Harvin all helped them get close to the Super Bowl.

Unless you're talking about an impact QB, I disagree with you. This current team will never go to the super bowl if they hold on to a great player like harvin but surround him with mediocre players (i.e. Ponder).

I agree but they won't get there with a collection of mediocre players and no impact players either. You suggested trading Harvin for two decent players, How does subtracting an impact player like Harvin and adding two decent (ie: mediocre) players imrpve the team's Super Bowl chances?

The same could be said for Peterson (although I think he's a once in a lifetime player and would not want to lose him). The team needs to be solid at as many levels as possible.

I agree but "solid" doesn't win Super Bowls. A team needs some impact players to achieve that goal. Trade Harvin for 2 decent players and that leaves the Vikings with exactly one impact player on offense: Peterson. That's not enough.

[tmscr]

What does that have to do with anything? People often throw variations of that question out but in a team game, it's a silly question. No team gets to the Super Bowl because of one player. At best, one player (even a great QB) can be a very big piece of the puzzle. I'll say this: Moss, Peterson and Harvin all helped them get close to the Super Bowl.
I agree but they won't get there with a collection of mediocre players and no impact players either. You suggested trading Harvin for two decent players, How does subtracting an impact player like Harvin and adding two decent (ie: mediocre) players imrpve the team's Super Bowl chances?
I agree but "solid" doesn't win Super Bowls. A team needs some impact players to achieve that goal. Trade Harvin for 2 decent players and that leaves the Vikings with exactly one impact player on offense: Peterson. That's not enough.

Aside from Peterson, who isn't human, good defenses can key on your one great player and neutralize him. The vikings passing game is so anemic (and we can argue about why) that they need multiple threats. And even that doesn't cover the defensive side of the ball.

The bottom line, keep harvin and challenge for the playoffs. Trade him, get some good pieces, and challenge for a Super Bowl

[Mothman]

Aside from Peterson, who isn't human, good defenses can key on your one great player and neutralize him. The vikings passing game is so anemic (and we can argue about why) that they need multiple threats. And even that doesn't cover the defensive side of the ball.

I agree... but now it's almost as if you're arguing my point for me. A team needs more than one serious threat on offense. Harvin gives the Vikes a second serious threat after Peterson and helps the anemic passing game so how does getting rid of him for decent players improve the team? You still haven't answered that question. I get the basic "two players are better than one" concept you're endorsing but they'd have to be pretty darn good players to offset the loss of an impact player because the latter are much harder to find.

The bottom line, keep harvin and challenge for the playoffs. Trade him, get some good pieces, and challenge for a Super Bowl

I see you've upgraded from 'decent' to "good", which definitely helps your argument. The question then becomes: just how much could they get in return for Harvin? I'm not opposed to a trade in theory but it needs to pay off sufficiently to justify it and, if the Vikes trade away their only impact player in the passing game, they need to be able to add another one.

By the way, the bottom line isn't that keeping Harvin only means making the playoffs. Their only path to the Super Bowl doesn't lie in trading their best receiver away for two hypothetical players. That's framing the argument in extremes.

[tmscr]

I agree... but now it's almost as if you're arguing my point for me. A team needs more than one serious threat on offense. Harvin gives the Vikes a second serious threat after Peterson and helps the anemic passing game so how does getting rid of him for decent players improve the team? You still haven't answered that question. I get the basic "two players are better than one" concept you're endorsing but they'd have to be pretty darn good players to offset the loss of an impact player because the latter are much harder to find.
I see you've upgraded from 'decent' to "good", which definitely helps your argument. The question then becomes: just how much could they get in return for Harvin? I'm not opposed to a trade in theory but it needs to pay off sufficiently to justify it and, if the Vikes trade away their only impact player in the passing game, they need to be able to add another one.

By the way, the bottom line isn't that keeping Harvin only means making the playoffs. Their only path to the Super Bowl doesn't lie in trading their best receiver away for two hypothetical players. That's framing the argument in extremes.

I think they could make out very well in a trade. I agree that he has a huge impact on offense and special teams, and his KO return abilities could sweeten the deal even more. What is the alternative to trading him? Tying up lots of money in a guy who hasn't played a full season yet and stifling the rebuilding process?

I guess it just boils down to, how close do you think the vikings are to winning a championship? I think they've got a ways to go.

[Mothman]

I think they could make out very well in a trade. I agree that he has a huge impact on offense and special teams, and his KO return abilities could sweeten the deal even more. What is the alternative to trading him? Tying up lots of money in a guy who hasn't played a full season yet and stifling the rebuilding process?

I don't think it would necessarily stifle the rebuilding process. If it costs that much to keep him they'd be better off trading him. The injury concerns are legitimate but seem a bit overblown to me. Prior to his current extended absence he'd missed, what 3 games in 3 seasons? That's not much. He had to play hurt at times so that's an additional concern but in terms of availability, he's actually been pretty reliable. We're not talking about a Sidney Rice-like situation.

As I said, I'm open to a trade but it would have to be a pretty sweet deal. I think there's definitely a case to be made that Harvin isn't the right receiver to pay #1 receiver money too but the Vikings don't have another receiver worth that money and I'm not sure they'll get a shot at one in free agency . If they want to build a SB team, they're going to have to pay out big money to some star players. If not Harvin, someone else...

[Bill Carson]

Gotta agree here. Percy is a known quantity. no need to put unnecessary wear and tear on him in this year.

Why wouldn't the same argument apply to Peterson?

[mansquatch]

I disagree on trading him. Harvin is as capable of creating fear in a defense as AP. I think they should do whatever it takes to keep him in MN. The best thing they can do for him is find a decent (doesn’t have to be great) possession WR who can make grabs. That + Rudolph + AP should take enough pressure off of Harvin to limit the abuse he takes. They also need to address the QB issues.

What is sad is I’m fairly convinced this team could be extremely competitive without an elite QB. Their Defense is good enough to hold up against a passing attack. They just need a guy who can make “enough” plays as a passer to keep a defense honest. AP and Harvin can do the rest.

[tmscr]

I don't think it would necessarily stifle the rebuilding process. If it costs that much to keep him they'd be better off trading him. The injury concerns are legitimate but seem a bit overblown to me. Prior to his current extended absence he'd missed, what 3 games in 3 seasons? That's not much. He had to play hurt at times so that's an additional concern but in terms of availability, he's actually been pretty reliable. We're not talking about a Sidney Rice-like situation.

As I said, I'm open to a trade but it would have to be a pretty sweet deal. I think there's definitely a case to be made that Harvin isn't the right receiver to pay #1 receiver money too but the Vikings don't have another receiver worth that money and I'm not sure they'll get a shot at one in free agency . If they want to build a SB team, they're going to have to pay out big money to some star players. If not Harvin, someone else...

i agree. in the end, harvin himself is going to dictate a lot of it. he wasn't happy for whatever reason earlier this year and i would absolutely hate to see us lose him and get peanuts in return.

[mondry]

Only way you trade Harvin is if you think he's pissed and will leave no matter what. Even then we could get one more year out of him and franchise him for another, but if he became a cancer because of the situation he could become a big problem.

We just need to find a Julio jones, AJ green, Demarius Thomas in the draft AND maybe trade for someone like miles austin if cheap enough.

[joe h]

There is no way he isn't holding out this off season. We should have traded or paid him last summer. Now we will be lucky if they get a mid round compensatory pick in 2014. This is the third time Spielman let a franchise player go without any compensation, time to fire his ####.

[dkoby]

Why wouldn't the same argument apply to Peterson?

It does, that's why I thought they should have had Peterson out of the games at the end of last saeson

[Mothman]

i agree. in the end, harvin himself is going to dictate a lot of it. he wasn't happy for whatever reason earlier this year and i would absolutely hate to see us lose him and get peanuts in return.

That's one of the scenarios they absolutely need to avoid.

To me the question the Vikes have to answer about paying Harvin is this: does an unconventional #1 slot receiver deserve to be paid like one of the league's top outside receivers? I don't like the idea of trading him because he's an impact player. I think his presence on the field is extremely beneficial to the team. However, while he provides a serious threat in the passing game, it's not the kind of downfield threat top notch outside receivers like Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson or Brandon Marshall provide. Harvin's a mismatch in the open field because of his speed and athletic ability but he doesn't have great size or great hands (not that he has bad hands).

I think he's definitely worthy of a very lucrative contract... within reason.

[dkoby]

Only way you trade Harvin is if you think he's pissed and will leave no matter what. Even then we could get one more year out of him and franchise him for another, but if he became a cancer because of the situation he could become a big problem.

We just need to find a Julio jones, AJ green, Demarius Thomas in the draft AND maybe trade for someone like miles austin if cheap enough.

That's just the thing, with all this weird posturing during the offseason and the situation now, none of us know what the strains are between the Vikings and Percy. It's a no brainer to keep him on the team at a playmakers salary, but is he going to go all diva on the team with lots of younger guys in the locker room during the rebuilding process. I would hate to see him leave, but if he is not buying in..... you gotta let him go. Problem is.... none of us know what the deal is.
But, I agree with Jim's point, the compensation HAS to be equal or better.
Which begs the question..... what would you take for him? Crap, I hate this.

[dkoby]

To me the question the Vikes have to answer about paying Harvin is this: does an unconventional #1 slot receiver deserve to be paid like one of the league's top outside receivers? I don't like the idea of trading him because he's an impact player. I think his presence on the field is extremely beneficial to the team. However, while he provides a serious threat in the passing game, it's not the kind of downfield threat top notch outside receivers like Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson or Brandon Marshall provide. Harvin's a mismatch in the open field because of his speed and athletic ability but he doesn't have great size or great hands (not that he has bad hands).

Very difficult to put a value on him. His threat as a returner and the advantage in field position is huge along with the mismatches in the open field against linebackers and safetys. And, your right, he's not Calvin Johnson. How DO you pay him? Average No. 1 receiver like Boldin?

[Mothman]

That's just the thing, with all this weird posturing during the offseason and the situation now, none of us know what the strains are between the Vikings and Percy. It's a no brainer to keep him on the team at a playmakers salary, but is he going to go all diva on the team with lots of younger guys in the locker room during the rebuilding process. I would hate to see him leave, but if he is not buying in..... you gotta let him go. Problem is.... none of us know what the deal is.
But, I agree with Jim's point, the compensation HAS to be equal or better.
Which begs the question..... what would you take for him? Crap, I hate this.

I think the MOST important thing to remember here is that here has been no significant indication since that brief incident in the spring that Harvin would want to leave the Vikings or that there's any real strain in their relationship. A heated moment during the Seattle game was probably just that: competitive fire coming out. We see it from football players all the time. Keeping Harvin is probably as "simple" as reaching terms with him on a new contract and the only real obstacle is probably the terms of that new deal.