In yet another under-the-radar-but-could-be-good deal, the Vikes have signed former Bears cornerback Zack Bowman to a one year deal.
And really, we can't consider a Vikings free agency period official until we have signed a former Bears player coughbernardberrianbobbywadecough.
Bowman was a starter as recently as 2009, when he had six interceptions for the Bears as their #1 CB. He became more of a role player last year, but I think he should be a good fit for the Vikes. I mean, dude has a pulse and fogs a mirror when you put it up to his nostrils, so this is an upgrade if you ask this humble blogger.
So as we stand today, the Vikings CB depth looks a little better than it was at the end of last season, but still needs work. You'd have to think Zack Bowman will be in the mix for a starter job competing with Chris Cook, or at a minimum the nickel slot above Marcus Sherels and Asher Allen.
And in one of the threads I came across a very interesting theory regarding all of the one year contracts the Vikings are signing. I can't find the comment or the member who posted it, so please speak up in the thread if you were the person, so you can receive proper credit and acclaim.
And I will edit this post accordingly.
EDIT: Is was DN poster Byakhee who posited the Conspiracy Theory about the contracts, and it was right 'chere.
Anyway, the theory is...right after the jump.
So, the theory goes that the Vikings are doing all these one year contracts because if the new stadium doesn't get approved, he'll be in a good position financially to sell the team, as he'll have few long term contracts for players, other than the marquee guys, like Adrian Peterson and Jared Allen.
I'm generally not a Consiracy Theory Guy, but there might be a ring of truth to this. Remember the end days of the Red McCombs regime? He cut back on everything, to the point that then coach Mike Tice had to pay to fix the air conditioner at WInter Park out of his own pocket. He also cut back on contracts, and as one last coup de grace to the fans, he traded Randy Moss.
With a bunch of average guys on one year deals, it will be easier for a new owner to come in, hire his own front office, and then the new GM can re-build/assemble the roster based on his philosophy, and not be constrained by a bunch of long term deals, or risk a lot of salary cap implications by terminating contracts early.
Is that what's happening? I don't know, but I'm all about promoting decent conspiracy theories, and this is a good one.
Finally, I want to throw out an opinion on the NFL draft trade chart. Fearless Leader talked about it in his most recent post, and I've used it liberally in the past when discussing possible draft day trade scenarios as well. I understood the importance of it as rookie contracts exploded, as the money forked over for unproven players required that a team get 'value' or some sort of protection for trading up or down.
But does the trade value chart really apply anymore?
In the last two years, we've had two major trades that seemed to blow the trade value chart out of the water--last year's trade between Cleveland and Atlanta, and this year's trade between St. Louis and Washington. Maybe we can throw the Washington trade out the window because Dan Snyder is a complete moron, but it seems to me that the trade value chart is losing it's...value, see what I did there?... as the rookie wage scale has made these top 5 or 10 picks less of a financial risk as they used to be.
So, there's your Monday Musings. Thoughts?