Overpaid? Why Dwayne Harris may be worth every penny...

In comment 12206655 raever said:

Quote:

Not one guy you can look to and say we know what we will get from this player on gameday.

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.

In comment 12206839 YAJ2112 said:

Quote:

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.

as an example.

not THE example.

could be anyone really: McCourty, JPP, Prince, Eli, who knows.

cap space is finite.

That's a lot of guaranteed coin for a player whose claim to fame lies in 'hidden yardage'. It would be money better spent re-signing core starters JPP/Prince/Eli imo. The salary cap can be a stern taskmaster.

and renders him ineffective...then we'll talk.

The total guaranteed money paid to a player doesn't affect other FA moves. It's all in how the contract is structured.

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.

Versatility
Speed
Physicality

I thought this was a good signing.

no better source for telling me to shut up my opinion is wrong than Pat (very politely of course).

In comment 12207160 Pat from Inside Football said:

Quote:

The total guaranteed money paid to a player doesn't affect other FA moves. It's all in how the contract is structured. 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..

She's answering a different question: Will Dwayne Harris's contract constrain the Giants from making other moves they want to makeover the next few years? The answer is no, for several reasons, most of which Pat already cited.

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.

that Abrams is doing a solid job with these contracts and Harris can be released after two seasons painlessly. I feel like I'm pretty well versed in contracts and I'm not someone who says 17M, wtf? I get guaranteed money and how it works, and how contracts get paid, but Patti has a MUCH better grasp of what's well structured than I am.

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.

If Harris is only on the team for two years, it will probably mean he was a bad signing. While you're right that there's a net cap savings from cutting him in 2017, it's still a lousy outcome: He will have been paid $8MM for two years of performing at a level that got him cut. That's not good at any position, let alone special teamer/fourth receiver.

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...

Forgot the link to the earlier discussion.
NYG UFA Class of '15: A fair price for past errors - ( New Window )

are you guys regulars on this site where there have been numerous salary cap threads and still believing that a $7M guarantee spread out over five years is eating up significant cap space?

You're putting words into my mouth and quite honestly I'm not sure what I said to ruffle your feathers, so let's clear this up right now.

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.

It's not if he is here the full five years. But if he is cut in a year or two, it's a different story.

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.

I would have added the qualifier about affecting the first year but like others have said everything after year two becomes only a minor consideration.

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 )

I'm wrong. It's only $800,000 each season as he doesn't get the $25,000 per year workout bonus.

if anything I was complimenting you for explaining the contract and clarifying Abrams approach with all these recent signings.

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.

Quote:

I stand corrected 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

Obviously a drawback of communicating this way is you miss the person's tone, which can help you distinguish the intent behind the words.

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.

In comment 12207381 Pat from Inside Football said:

Quote:

Obviously a drawback of communicating this way is you miss the person's tone, which can help you distinguish the intent behind the words. 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.

Anytime.

1. What does it mean for the Harris signing to be "successful"?

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:

Quote:

Pat from Inside Football said: 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.

we're plugging him into Green Bay's offense not Dallas or the Giants' old offense.

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?

Realistically speaking, how many free agents who sign on for more than three years make it to the end of their contracts? Rolle was one, and I'm sure there might be others, but overall I'd guess there aren't many. So just because a FA doesn't finish a contract doesn't mean it was a bad signing. Team needs change over the course of contract...a young player might step up and make a veteran expendable.

Harris is very good and very reliable as a punt and kick returner and in punt and kick return coverage.

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.