The discussions are continuining between the Minnesota Vikings and the Kansas City Chiefs and the Minnesota Vikings and defensive end Jared Allen regarding the transaction that would entail the Vikings giving picks and/or players to the Chiefs and plenty of money to Allen in order to acquire the league’s sack leader in 2008.
“It’s a multi-front type of [deal],” owner Zygi Wilf said on Friday. “You have to deal with Kansas City, you have to deal with Jared. It’s a whole aspect, and you have to weigh that with what’s best for the club. That’s ultimately what’s most important. What would be the best for this club and how we can get to the next level?”
Chiefs G.M. Carl Peterson, a hard-nosed negotiator who would request a sixth-round pick for a partially used stick of gum, claims that nothing is close. “[W]e’re talking in speculation right now,” Peterson said. “At this particular point, nothing has been done or consummated.”
The Minneapolis Star Tribune suggests that the Vikes would have to give up at a minimum first-round pick and a third-round pick in 2008. Charley Water of the St. Paul Pioneer Press suggests that the Vikes will offer their first-round pick this year and a second-round pick in 2009.
Neither package is much less than the two first-round picks that the Vikes would have to surrender if they deal directly with Allen and sign him to an offer sheet.
And even though coach Brad Childress says that the team wouldn’t give up two first-round picks for Allen, we think that the Vikings should strongly consider signing Allen to an offer sheet after the 2008 draft. If the Chiefs don’t match (a poison pill might be necessary to ensure that they won’t), the Vikings would give up their first-round picks in 2009 and 2010. And if Allen’s presence helps get the Vikings to the next level, the picks sacrificed in 2009 and 2010 would be low in round one.
It would be the biggest trade risk that the Vikings have taken since 1989, when they gave up three first-round picks, three second-round picks, a sixth-round pick, and five players for Herschel Walker, two third-round picks, a fifth-round pick, and a tenth-round pick. In comparison, however, a first-round pick in 2009 and a first-round pick in 2010 for the best defensive end to wear purple and gold since Chris Doleman would seem to be a small price to play.
_2.gif)






April 19th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Reading on a forum where the money/contract issue is already ironed out, it is now up to Carl Peterson to accept a 1st and one of the Vikes 3rds.
I do like the idea that if he baulks, to wait until after the draft and then sign with a poison pill to that offer sheet. The Vikes will lose hopefully the low 1st rounders and still have utilized this year’s #17 pick.
Carl, you can get paid now, or blow it and have to wait…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 8:39 am
And that’s why I continue to read PFT, for stuff like that. Why didn’t I think of that? Signing Allen after the draft would be an absolutely genius move if the Vikings can’t work out something they like now. If it’s true that draft picks are essentially worth a round later if they’re a year later, that scenario would be like giving the Chiefs a 2nd and a 3rd this year for Allen.
But the greatest part about this scenario is that they are the kind of team that seems to be poised to make a run now, or a run in 4 years, but not in 3 years. With aging players at important positions (P. Williams, Winfield, Sharper, Birk), the Vikes might not have what it takes to draft some guys this year, hope that they develop by ‘09, and make a run. But if the Vikings trade for Allen this year and give up, say their first and second this year, then that is one, possibly two immediate starters the team could lose. But if the Vikings give up firsts in ‘09 and ‘10 for Allen, they are in a position to draft either a DE opposite Allen (Merling?) or an O-lineman (C. Williams? Clady? Otah?) in the first, and then the other of those positions in the second or a DB (maybe Cason or Flowers falls? If not, King?), and then in the third they can pick up whichever of those positions we didn’t fill in the first 2 rds., plus a DT or DS or TE. The team would be in a position where it landed Allen (top-3 pass rushing DE in the league), a starter on its O-line, possibly another starting DE, and a fresh DB and TE to make a run NOW.
Florio, I knock you all the time, but I’ve got to hand it to you, this is good. This is real good.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 8:56 am
There is a risk to signing Allen after the draft to delay the 1st round picks for 2009 and 2010. If the Chiefs do match it, then the Vikings will not have the draft to fall back on to get another DE. And if they did attach a poison pill, as suggested, there’s still a chance the league could void that portion of the offer, which would allow the Chiefs to simply match and retain Allen. Didn’t the league reprimand the Vikings and Seahawks after it happened a couple of years ago and warn teams not to do it again? If the Vikings did it again, couldn’t the league void that portion of the contract?
BTW, I have to point out the two poison pill contracts that started this whole mess. The Vikings signed Hutchinson by paying him OT money as an OG. They guaranteed him that he would be the highest paid O lineman on his team, which prevented the Seahawks from keeping him since they couldn’t match the money and have him be the highest paid O lineman with Walter Jones on the team.
The Seahawks decided to get even by “stealing” Nate Burleson from the Vikings with an identical 7 year/$49 million contract (even though the majority of it was not guaranteed). And to stick it to the Vikings, they attached a poison pill that made the full contract guaranteed if he didn’t play a set number of games in Seattle.
So the Vikings stole a Pro Bowl lineman the Seahawks wanted to keep and the Seahawks signed a mediocre WR who the Vikings made expendable. Which team came away looking brilliant and which team came away looking childish and bitter?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Unless there are some provisions for the Vikings to recoup money, picks, etc. if Allen were to screw up again, there is just WAY to much risk involved.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Yes, he was the best DE in the league last year. But, he is one long island away from a long suspension.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 10:02 am
IMO, the Chiefs want too much. The Vikings should just rebuild through the draft. Their division should be wide open anyway. With Favre retiring, it wouldn’t shock me if the Vikings won their division.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Hey, Jared need help packing???
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
It would be the biggest trade risk that the Vikings have taken since 1989, when they gave up three first-round picks, three second-round picks, a sixth-round pick, and five players for Herschel Walker —
And we all know how well that worked for the Vikings and Cowboys. Pass the Vaseline, please.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
#17 is a known commodity. What will next year’s pick be if AP blows out his knee in week 2? Trading future first round picks because you’re “supposed” to be good is a recipe for failure. See 49ers, San Francisco.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Is that even allowed, to try to bypass this year’s draft? According to one Vikings’ column, they have a deadline of today to sign Allen to an offer sheet, because otherwise the Chiefs wouldn’t have the required 7 days to match it before the draft. If they could wait until after the draft, why would there be a deadline?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Having just the thought and possibility that we may do this may be all the leverage needed to get Carl Peterson off his high horse and accept the trade. In his mind, it is probably better to get the 1st and 3rd rounder this year, than to risk the Vikings waiting to give him hopefully an even lower valued #1 in 2009 and 2010. Thanks Mike for floating the idea out there.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
The top reasons why I think the Vikings should and probably will trade for Jared Allen
1.He is a top player at his possition
2.He would immediatly address a void with a known Quantity
3.We would need to fill our clubs need of entreprenuership. If Matt Birk (Matty B’s) decides to head on elsewhere.
4.We have a long tradition of drinking in Minnesota. from Tommy Kramer to the most recent example…Carl Eller.
5.We need to make a Serious playoff run this year to get Minnesotans to back a bill to build a new stadium.
6.In the event that #5 does not happen then We need to boost the value of the team In the event that owner Ziggy Wilf has a change of heart and considers selling.
7.How can you resist someone who wears #69
8.If the team gets moved to los angeles. they would need to Field a team that would fill those new purple seats.
9.Allens have always done well in Minnesota..Allen Page,Terry Allen…
10.There are many Friends of Bill in Minnesota.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
for the chiefs, it would be a good deal to drop Allen for the 17th this year and a second round pick in 2009. This is a multi-year rebuilding process for the chiefs, and its just more draft choices and a better one than the first round and third round pick this year. With the 5 and 17 picks the chiefs can get some o-line men and then get a qb like brian brohm in round 2 with our early pick there. Next year get a cornerback early and some more line-men with the two second round picks, this could work out to our advantage pretty well.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 19th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
#17 is a known commodity. What will next year’s pick be if AP blows out his knee in week 2? Trading future first round picks because you’re “supposed” to be good is a recipe for failure. See 49ers, San Francisco.
————————————————————————
#17 is a known quantity. However, the played who could be drafted with that pick is certainly not.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated