|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| "That tells you the level of value the league saw him as," Harris' co-agent Chad Speck said during a telephone interview with NJ Advance Media. "The Giants, they played against him twice a year the last four years. They know exactly what he is and they're getting a great football player. "And the Giants weren't the only team involved in the numbers that Dwayne ultimately signed for." |
I am slightly less qualified than the Giants FO at evaluating talent (ok, that's a joke), but he never stuck out to me as "oh crap, they have Harris back there" or "oh crap Harris is lined up as a wide out".
I never thought he was anything more than average.
And that's why the Giants have professionals doing this, not fans like me. I would not have signed him, nor would I have paid him that kind of money.
They're probably right, and I'm probably wrong.
Exactly. I have no problem signing him, but I think they could have gotten him, or someone like him, for far less of a guarantee. With all of our needs, spending that much on a PR is mind-boggling.
Not according to Coughlin.
like I said I don't see the allure or even if he's solid in the return game, I don't see the money.
Stats aren't everything and they don't always tell a complete story. I saw him ignite Dallas' sideline more than once last year.
As for the agent's remarks, would you rather he said, "Either I'm the world's smartest agent or Jerry Reese is the world's dumbest GM. Maybe both. $7MM guaranteed for Dwayne Harris? Are you kidding me?"
We have not had a strong gunner in a long time.
Quote:
news at 11.
Exactly. I have no problem signing him, but I think they could have gotten him, or someone like him, for far less of a guarantee. With all of our needs, spending that much on a PR is mind-boggling.
That's kind of the point. There aren't many (any?) other guys that are above average returners and punt/kick coverage guys. So it's likely they would've had to sign 2 guys to replace him (and use 2 game day roster spots).
It's also interesting that despite only getting ~11 offensive snaps/game last year, he still played 450 snaps, which is almost as many as DT Dan Williams played. Again, it's not your typical KR/PR that is out there for 5-6 snaps a game.
I mean come on.. these are the guys you win with.. maybe not sexy.. but you need these guys...
They did not pay that $$ for a returner but for their options/needs in using him.
Can't wait 'til he has his first big play of the year that no one expects. Then people will realize he is worth it.
Harris is 3rd among active players in avg yds per punt return
He is among a handful of the best returners - you absolutely can not find guys just as good
He also covers kicks and punts,
As others said - he gets OBJ off punt return duty.
Curious who they think who was cheaper and younger, and that was actually available.
I know there's a generation of Giants fans still walking around with PTSD over the Jason Sehorn injury, but I think they need to get better on returns by getting better guys on returns.
We have not had a strong gunner in a long time.
That is a great point. His kick coverage should really help our ST's. See, I feel better about it already!
You can't, however, just come on BBI and clamor that the Giants could have gotten someone equivalent at a cheaper price. It's just such back-seat driving.
State your opinions, but don't scoff at a FA move in March when you have no idea about a player's market, the coaches intentions or the front offices plan for the rest of the offseason.
Let's give the professionals a chance to do their job before ripping them for not knowing how to do their job.
People here were screaming for us to sign Suh for Christ sake's.
That's where a guy like Dwayne Harris helps you and what makes him valuable.
Good player to have. He'll make a positive difference even if it doesn't jump out at you.
And if you don't understand why signing a player for more money is worse than signing the same player for less money then my question is answered for me and it has become rhetorical.
People here were screaming for us to sign Suh for Christ sake's.
As if what they sign for is going to hamstring us moving forward or thwart us from signing other FAs if we care to
And if you don't understand why signing a player for more money is worse than signing the same player for less money then my question is answered for me and it has become rhetorical.
Who is the same player for less money? Please, tell me.
Quote:
is the only issue some people have with the signing.
And if you don't understand why signing a player for more money is worse than signing the same player for less money then my question is answered for me and it has become rhetorical.
Who is the same player for less money? Please, tell me.
I don't think you understand what I wrote.
Lets be honest we have missed on a shit load of these "under the radar" type signings lately. And even with the 7 mil and everyone talking about the contract this is still an under the radar signing. We need to hit on a few of these and fast. This off-season may pale in comparison to last but we need these 2015 signings to contribute every bit as much as last year's big three of DRC, Schwartz and Jennings.
Quote:
It's a 5 year deal. You aren't paying for it.
People here were screaming for us to sign Suh for Christ sake's.
As if what they sign for is going to hamstring us moving forward or thwart us from signing other FAs if we care to
I hear you...But do you really think that is the case? Or is it typically BBI "I would have offered X" horseshit?
You also used average return yard to suggest he's not an upgrade from Preston Parker to validate why we spent too much on Harris.
I am saying, you're evaluation of Harris' abilities is the issue here. Having a 14-team market on the opening day of FA indicates that a whole host of people far more connected than you think he is a very valuable commodity. The article above says that no one in the NFL is as versatile in his craft as Harris is.
The Giants are paying him more because he does more things and he does them better than most who he's compared against. Why does that not validate a higher contract?
11MM a year for a safety, who still might have turned down the offer?
I'm not a fan of the deal, but I'm 100% under control, no ire, no venom about it, no freaking out, not obsessing, just think it's too much money for this particular player.
And i don't think Harris is that great. I think he's a decent returner at best, not a difference maker at all. I think he's a slightly better Devin Thomas (maybe) who returns punts.
I hope it works out, and people can ridicule me for not thinking it was a great allocation of resources.
And none of us have the slightest idea if paying 7.1M guaranteed to Harris had an impact on other signings.
Maybe it meant they had to shave a million or two off the offer to McCourty. Maybe it meant they had to shave a million or two of an extension to JPP or maybe it means nothing and any player on the planet the Giants want they have room for.
Most of the time the Giants can do what they want to with the cap, but I don't think that's a 100% iron clad fact. Sometimes they can't.
My issue was with people casually acting like there is another, comparable guy that we could have for less money and make the same impact. Harris is a complete STer and a capable 4th receiver.
If you want to give a suggestion as to who you thought would be an equivalent player for less than fine, but just making a blanket statement that we could get the same guy for less elsewhere is nonsense.
I know this exercise is impossible, but if we pretend the Giants never signed Harris, but the Redskins did for 5 years 17.5M with 7.1M guaranteed, what do you think the reaction would be here?
LOLRedskins...is my guess.
There's at least one significant disadvantage to this approach: it makes your mistakes more costly. More subtly, it reduces the benefits of being right. In Reese's view, the trade-off is worth it. At any rate, he's consistent.
And that has nothing to do with the money we spent on Harris. We could have added more $ to the McCourty deal if they felt he was worth it regardless of signing Harris.
It is clear that McCourty wasn't purely in it for the $$. He wanted to stay with the Pats and they came up to meet his asking price. Pretty simple. I doubt we would have pried him away with an extra mil.
not THE example.
could be anyone really: McCourty, JPP, Prince, Eli, who knows.
cap space is finite.
Harris counts for $1.8M against the cap this year, hardly a cap buster. Next year he gets the balance of his guaranteed money, $2.125M of his $2.975M base salary.
After the first two years, the Giants can cut him if they choose to, at which point they start to recognize a cap savings. That savings obviously increases the deeper into the contract.
So please don't get swept up in thinking all that guaranteed money hamstrung the Giants from signing other FAs. It didn't. And don't fall I to the "Oh my God, $17 million is too much for a return specialist!" trap either.
If anything, Kevin Abrams has done a wonderful job, IMO, with how he's been structuring some of these contracts this offseason.
Speed
Physicality
I thought this was a good signing.
Harris counts for $1.8M against the cap this year, hardly a cap buster. Next year he gets the balance of his guaranteed money, $2.125M of his $2.975M base salary.
After the first two years, the Giants can cut him if they choose to, at which point they start to recognize a cap savings. That savings obviously increases the deeper into the contract.
So please don't get swept up in thinking all that guaranteed money hamstrung the Giants from signing other FAs. It didn't. And don't fall I to the "Oh my God, $17 million is too much for a return specialist!" trap either.
If anything, Kevin Abrams has done a wonderful job, IMO, with how he's been structuring some of these contracts this offseason.
Thanks Pat very informative..
I think your basic point was simply that the Giants are paying a hell of a lot for a player who does the things Harris does, and that overpaying players is a bad habit that eventually bears nasty consequences. Your point and Pat's don't really contradict each other.
You're right about bad contracts catching up with the teams that write them. The question remains whether Harris's contract is a bad one - and even if it's bad, is it bad in a big enough way to have a material effect? Hell, Barrett Green, Will Demps and Rocky Bernard (the first time) were sh!tty signings, but the Giants shrugged them off, ate the dead money and won Super Bowls within a year or two.
Personally, I see signings like Harris, Thomas and Casillas as the Giants' bitter medicine for ill-fated drafting. If the Giants had found a Dwayne Harris in the sixth round last year - as the Cowboys did in 2011 - they would be paying $510K to fill the same roles this year. Instead, they drafted Bennett Jackson, who was waived after multiple minor injuries and wound up needing microfracture surgery after tearing a hole in his knee on the practice squad. Sh!t happens. The roles still needed to be filled, and Harris was the best available option. He's way more expensive than a sixth-round pick, but he's also a much surer thing.
Patti didn't change my mind that I don't think much of Harris the player, but I've been wrong on player evaluation before (and will be again) LOL.
I've been a resolute defender of these signings, especially of their modest risk profile (see link below). But for Harris to actually be a successful signing, he has to be seriously good. Not Cross-between-Devin-Hester-Steve-Tasker-and-Wes-Welker good, but still...
NYG UFA Class of '15: A fair price for past errors - ( New Window )
If I'm going to tell you you're wrong, I'll say it flat out--and you're DEAD WRONG about the intention behind my initial post on this thread (how's THAT for clarity?)
I offered an opinion, which last I checked I'm entitled to. You are entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. I never said you were wrong or that my opinion was gospel.
I'm simply saying that paying a guy $7.1M in guaranteed money did not prevent them from signing other big-ticket free agents this year because you look at how the contract is structured and what the cap hits are.
With Harris, I think he's not only going to be the return specialist, but he's insurance in case Cruz isn't ready to go. Then next year, if Randle isn't on this roster, or heaven forbid Cruz is finished, now suddenly Harris has a chance to be your third or even second receiver based on what we know to be on the roster at this point.
And before you say, "Well, what has he done to warrant that kind of consideration," this goes on all the time. Martellus Bennett didn't have a lot of production playing behind Jason Witten and he worked out just fine for the short time he was here.
In Harris' case, he's played behind Dez Bryant and others who ended up getting the lion's share of the pass targets. There are only so many passes to go around each game so usually someone is going to have to take a back seat.
My opinion is that Abrams has done a solid job with how these contracts have been structured, not just this year but over the long haul.
FWIW, I thought the David Baas contract was one of the worst they handed out, from money to how it was structured.
I hope this clears things up.
Very few free agents signed from other teams to multiyear deals make it through the entire contract. Rolle was a recent exception that came to mind.
All I’m saying is that realistically speaking, NFL contracts are usually one-year deals unless there is guaranteed money involved on a base salary.
When I look at Harris’ contract, I see a two-year deal given the guaranteed money on the base salaries, and a three one-year deals where they can terminate the contract at any time after that second year and recognize a savings.
If he makes pass the first three years of the contract then the dead money appears to be limited to $825,000 in each of the next two years.
Link - ( New Window )
Not sure what I typed to upset you. No feathers were ruffled by me whatsoever.
sorry if you felt that way. I was just saying your explanation helped me change my opinion, since i felt like if Harris were signed for like a vet min deal I'd be happy with it and even looking forward to seeing him contribute - the money was the only thing I had a problem with.
I value your contributions here and love your twitter stuff, so whatever I poorly typed to give you the impression I was arguing with I apologize.
pjcas18 : 8:09 pm : link : reply
no better source for telling me to shut up my opinion is wrong than Pat (very politely of course).
I was being 100% facetious...your explanation corrected my opinion
So my apologies if I came across as too hard in response to your original post. There are no hard feelings on my end and I hope there are none on your end as well.
So my apologies if I came across as too hard in response to your original post. There are no hard feelings on my end and I hope there are none on your end as well.
LOL, no none at all and I did appreciate your explanation so thank you for that.
2. If it's unsuccessful, can the Giants get out of it in 2017 with minimal cap damage?
Clearly, the answer to #2 is "yes", for all the reasons you cite:
I disagree. If Harris is on the team for just two years, the dead money hit is what, $2.4M with a $1.4M cap savings.
Very few free agents signed from other teams to multiyear deals make it through the entire contract. Rolle was a recent exception that came to mind.
All I’m saying is that realistically speaking, NFL contracts are usually one-year deals unless there is guaranteed money involved on a base salary.
When I look at Harris’ contract, I see a two-year deal given the guaranteed money on the base salaries, and a three one-year deals where they can terminate the contract at any time after that second year and recognize a savings.
That brings us back to question #1. If the Giants cut Dwayne Harris in March 2017, it will likely mean he didn't play up to their expectations, and that they have chosen not to throw good money after bad. They will have paid $8MM over two years for a player who is closer to what pjcas18 thinks he is than what Jerry Reese thinks he is (setting aside the possibility of injury for the moment). That would make him a bad signing. The structure of the contract will mitigate the damage in 2017 and beyond; but it won't change 2015 and 2016, when the Giants will have counted on Dwayne Harris for a major contribution, paid him accordingly, and come up short.
Harris signed for five years, with $7.1MM guaranteed. The contract isn't heavily back-loaded, so if he plays well he could conceivably finish his career as a Giant in January 2020 without ever restructuring. In my view, the "tipping point" for the Harris signing is the 2017 season: if he's still here in January 2018, the signing was at least OK. If sticks though 2018, the signing looks good. You accurately describe the last three years of the deal as, essentially, team options. The more of those options the Giants exercise, the better the deal will probably look.
History supports this view. I used Eric's Free Agency Scorecards to look back at the Giants' signings under Accorsi and Reese. I couldn't find a single decent signing with any significant guarantees where the player didn't stick around for at least two-thirds of the original contract term.
Now, if Harris helps the Giants reach the Super Bowl this season, then blows out a knee and gets released in 2017, he will have earned every penny of his $8MM. In most realistic scenarios, though, only serving out 40% of his contract will reflect a bad signing.
RE: special teams - not just providing performance, will add leadership to our ST. When was the last time any player was considered a ST leader on the field?
He upgrades those 4 units with one signing. The yardage he makes and prevents every game will be substantial.
In filing all those roles, plus (let's say) 4th WR, he provides more flexibility on the 53 players on the roster and those active on game day.
I do admit that the numbers are higher than ideal, but it is fair to assume that offer was necessary to sign him. He is 27, has been durable, and adds to every aspect of ST. IMO, it was a very wise use of cap money.