it was all contract.  Too bad Jared.  I really had more faith in him as player.  I will miss him in red and gold, but we need to move on I think.  What happens with the extra pick?  What round will it be in do we think?

...the Chiefs have all of the power in this arrangement.  If Jared Allen signs a contract, the Chiefs have right of first refusal...meaning we can match it if we want and he'll still be ours (and I think that means we'll have him for the full length of that contract).  That puts the Vikings in the position of having no almost no leverage with either the Chiefs or Allen...they'll either make a ridiculous contract offer we won't match that we would have been insane to have given Allen or they'll give him a market value deal that we can sign him to instead if they don't pony up the draft picks to make us happy (I'm assuming that it will be at least two 2008 draft picks...definitely the first rounder from this year).  And (best of all possible worlds) if they offer an insane contract that we don't feel like matching and don't come to an agreement, we get both their 2008 and 2009 first-rounders by default.

The Vikings' impatience and rush to sign Allen in this situation works to our advantage.

...if the Chiefs trade Allen and get the Vikings' 2008 and 2009 first rounders, we'll have four first rounders in two years.  This could actually allow to move up this year.  Think Parcells might consider the #17 pick this year and our two first rounders next year in exchange for the #1 overall in 2008?  We could snag Chris Long with the first pick and have a decent shot at Jake Long with the 5th.

Could Carl agree to a trade with another team while Jared finalizes a contract with a separate team, and then end up having to play for the team Carl made the deal with?

I just came across a Beer Launching mini fridge.

"While we're at it, can we move LJ?"

Thanks to King Carl we're stuck with Mr. No Block probably until the end of that contract (unless he does something stupid enough to get it voided).  Terrible, terrible contract...couldn't believe that Peterson forked over that much cash to an overworked 28 year old running back.

primetime,

Players we draft are NOT surefire impact players.  In fact, chances are one of them will be a bust.

Players drafted in the top five have much less of a chance of being a bust for us than players drafted in the middle of the first-round...that's why I'm saying that if we get a good deal for Allen we should try to get another top five pick this year by trading what we get from Minnesota (and our pick next year).  If we draft two of the top five, there's no guarantee they'll be great players.  But there's a lot better chance of them not being busts than if we're drafting 17th, or 20-somethingth (which is where those Vikings pick will be located in 2008 and 2009).  I'll take that gamble any day of the week.

Jared Allen's father Ron was a Minnesota Viking briefly.

of course, it largely depends on who we get, but here are what causes me to like trading him.

we need a true fresh start. i would love just a 2 year rebuild and to bounce back in 2010, but it aint gonna happen. instead, i think it will take 5 to 6 years to really build up this team to the point where it needs to be. where we string a couple good (if not great) drafts together and build through the bundles of youth we have on our current roster.

jared allen would be the perfect guy to be the face of the franchise in the between-time, giving the fans someone to root for.

but just like i thought we should have traded LJ (and still do), i want to trade jared. he is going to demand a lot of money after this season, and with us preparing to be in the shits anyways for awhile, there is not a whole lotta sense in dishing out big bucks to one person.

assuming we get the viks 1st and 2nd round picks this season i will be happy. i know im in the minority, but i cant wait for this trade to go down...

i want to win a super bowl, and in order for us to do that, i think we are going to have to endure a couple of really awful, three-win-type seasons.

"i think it will take 5 to 6 years to really build up this team to the point where it needs to be."

Not to single out TWSS...but this is a common sentiment that I've heard in different sites and it's not based in reality.  The reality is that NFL careers are extremely short because of the sheer brutality level of the sport so you don't build dynasties around one group of players.  Most players are finished by the time they hit 30...often in only three or four years.  We have a hard salary cap that forces teams to cut effective, often very good, players who make a little too much money which generates a pool of free agent talent every year (not necessarily star talent, but starting talent) that all teams have available to them.  We've had eight different teams win the Super Bowl in the last ten years and the only dynasty team in this era (the Patriots) have won with major turnover on their rosters.  

The idea that it takes teams 5-6 years to rebuild and be competitive is complete bullshit...teams that are continually bad or aren't in the Super Bowl hunt are that way because of bad coaching and/or bad management.  Period.  Some might have flukish issues with injuries (like St. Louis last year) but those are rare examples.  If we replace Carl Peterson with a competent GM who can attract the kind of free agent talent Peterson claimed he was going after this year rebuilding should be a two or three year job tops because we have a solid core of starting talent to build around (Bowe, Allen, D. Johnson, Hali, LJ, Gonzalez).  The reason we haven't gotten out of the first round of the playoffs for over a decade, though, is because we have a GM who can't consistently judge talent, who can't attract the best free agents, who's too much of a control freak and an asshole to negotiate contracts without drama, and who either doesn't have a plan he's capable of implementing or is just lying about having a plan.

The problems with the Chiefs are all about Peterson...that's it.  And when people blame Herm Edwards, or Dick Vermeil, or Mike Solari, or Greg Robinson, or Huard, or Croyle, or McGlockton, or Ryan Sims, or the o-line, or the defense or whoever/whatever they're all missing the fact that Peterson was solely responsible for all of it and has been for the last 19 years.  Get Peterson out of there and find somebody who can judge talent while being even half as capable with the finances as Peterson and we'll be competitive again shortly.  Right now the Chiefs are being run by a foul-mouthed, short-tempered, egomaniacal accountant, and that's why we're losing.

TWSS,

I agree with you that the Vikings 2008 1st and 2nd rounders would be a decent deal (although I'd still want both 1st rounders, of course :) ).  I also think that we should package them, along with our 2009 first rounder and try to get one of the picks ahead of us this year.  The top six players in this year's draft are simply too perfect for our team's needs not to try it.  If we could get two defensive linemen who could start immediately or (even better) Jake Long and a defensive lineman, that would go a long way towards making us better faster.

And I've got to say that, even though he's not a good coach, I think that Herm Edwards probably would be a very good general manager.  He appears to understand how to work a draft, I believe he is interested in winning games first and foremost, he seems to have an eye for talent, he isn't scared of young players, and (most importantly) he doesn't appear to have a huge chip on his shoulder or a need to take a combative approach to dealing with players (which I think is Peterson's biggest problem).

If Clark Hunt were to show Carl Peterson the door after 2008 I'm thinking he could do a lot worse than bumping his head coach upstairs to the front office and possibly looking at moving his offensive coordinator to HC (if he does a good job with this year's offense).  I think that would improve the Chiefs' fortunes considerably, without throwing away all of the good things the team has done over the last few years.