7:00pm: Peterson took to Twitter again to clarify his remarks. “This is not against the Vikings. I am just frustrated that our union did not get guaranteed contracts for its players,” AD tweeted.
6:27pm: A source close to Peterson told Chris Tomasson of the Pioneer Press (on Twitter) that the running back was arguing for guaranteed contracts and not attacking the Vikings. According to the source (link), he was “referring to guys like [Greg] Jennings and other players [who are] cut [or] released if they do not take a pay cut.”
5:44pm: Someone close to Adrian Peterson told Matt Vensel of the Star Tribune (on Twitter) that the Vikings haven’t brought up the idea of a pay cut with the running back. Peterson took to Twitter to rant a bit today and some got the impression that Minnesota was seeking a salary adjustment.
“Question for the people, is a contract two sided or one?,” Peterson rhetorically asked his followers. “Ok great two sided! Well why [is it that] when one party decides … we [want] you to take a pay cut now or better yet flat out release you, there’s never no talk about honoring a contract?”
Peterson is entering his age-30 season and is slated to be the NFL’s highest paid running back. He’s scheduled to earn a great deal of money over the next three years, but Peterson is ostensibly perturbed because none of that money is guaranteed. As Luke Adams of PFR wrote earlier today, it’s hard to empathize with Peterson when you take everything into account.
On Wednesday, Mike Freeman of Bleacher Report heard from a league source that Peterson is unlikely to skip the entirety of the Vikings’ voluntary workouts. If AD shows up for work next week, he can still collect on his $250K workout bonus, so it would behoove him to do so. Later that day, Peterson released a statement to try and clarify his position.
“The reason I’m not attending OTAs has nothing to do with wanting to be traded. It’s about securing my future with the Vikings. It’s business, not personal and I understand that firsthand. Go Vikings.”