for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Overthecap.com breakdown of Giants offseason salary cap

Dannyc58 : 2/8/2016 2:11 pm
(Hadn't seen it posted)
link - ( New Window )
The pie charts and bar charts distract from the real information.  
Big Blue Blogger : 2/8/2016 2:41 pm : link
The graphics seem to suggest that the Giants are much stingier with defensive linemen than with linebackers. The reality is basically the opposite. But with Beason, Casillas and Thomas all on the books at robust salaries and no lineman signed past their rookie deals, the committed dollars paint a very misleading picture. As long as you read below the headline numbers, the analysis is excellent.

Another illustration of a similar cautionary principle is Spotrac's "financial power rankings". The Giants have a ton of cap space, but because they have so many holes to fill, they are right in the middle of the financial pack.
Spotrac Financial Power Rankings. - ( New Window )
They think Cruz is on the chopping block  
BillT : 2/8/2016 2:41 pm : link
He isn't. He's in line for a salary reduction/performance based deal but the Giants aren't cutting him. Also, the salary reduction/performance based deal they will give him is better than he can get on the open market (including the years left on his current deal) so he's not going to force their hand either.
Bill  
RetroJint : 2/8/2016 3:07 pm : link
Is it time for your annual The Cowboys Are Screwed By the Cap analysis?
RE: They think Cruz is on the chopping block  
rich in DC : 2/8/2016 3:11 pm : link
In comment 12806539 BillT said:
Quote:
He isn't. He's in line for a salary reduction/performance based deal but the Giants aren't cutting him. Also, the salary reduction/performance based deal they will give him is better than he can get on the open market (including the years left on his current deal) so he's not going to force their hand either.


I think this confidence is misplaced. Cruz himself admitted he STILL is not running yet- and won't be for a while. The Giants simply cannot afford to wait for "maybe"- especially from a player who has proclaimed himself ready before- only to be reinjured. Loyalty has cost this team in recent years- and it is time to replace it with accountability and production based assessment.

One of the most overlooked aspects of this off-season is that THIS is the Giants chance to grab control of their current AND future cap. With around $50M in cap space, they can afford to take the cap hits from guys with significant accelerated bonus hits remaining if their projected value does not exceed what the team can get for less.

That is a fancy way of saying that the Giants should, and probably will, clean house on a number of overpaid, underperforming players- several of which some here will be "shocked" to see.
Cubed  
JonC : 2/8/2016 3:14 pm : link
Your final point is vital for understanding heading into the new league year and UFA.

I'm expecting Cruz and the team to find their way to a paycut or moving money to incentives, and he gets one more year to regain his form.
RE: Bill  
BillT : 2/8/2016 3:51 pm : link
In comment 12806591 RetroJint said:
Quote:
Is it time for your annual The Cowboys Are Screwed By the Cap analysis?

Hey, that's not my axe to grind but since you mentioned it, we did watch the Cowboys best defensive player, who they let go due to their salary cap problems, win the super Bowl last night wearing Orange. Just saying.
rich in DC  
BillT : 2/8/2016 3:57 pm : link
They can afford to wait on Cruz because he doesn't cost them anything until he makes the team. If he doesn't then it's pretty much the same as if they cut him tomorrow. And BTW, just who are these "overpaid, underperforming players" that they will cut that we will be so "shocked" about. Inquiring minds want to know.
RE: They think Cruz is on the chopping block  
djstat : 2/8/2016 4:26 pm : link
In comment 12806539 BillT said:
Quote:
He isn't. He's in line for a salary reduction/performance based deal but the Giants aren't cutting him. Also, the salary reduction/performance based deal they will give him is better than he can get on the open market (including the years left on his current deal) so he's not going to force their hand either.
If he balks at a pay cut he will get chopped...so he is on the block
RE: RE: They think Cruz is on the chopping block  
BillT : 2/8/2016 4:36 pm : link
In comment 12806741 djstat said:
Quote:
In comment 12806539 BillT said:


Quote:


He isn't. He's in line for a salary reduction/performance based deal but the Giants aren't cutting him. Also, the salary reduction/performance based deal they will give him is better than he can get on the open market (including the years left on his current deal) so he's not going to force their hand either.

If he balks at a pay cut he will get chopped...so he is on the block

And he'd balk at the pay cut so he could get released and get a one year, vet min "show me" deal from some other team and forfeit the remaining years of hid Giants' contract. I'm sure that's just what he'll do.
RE: rich in DC  
rich in DC : 2/8/2016 5:07 pm : link
In comment 12806686 BillT said:
Quote:
They can afford to wait on Cruz because he doesn't cost them anything until he makes the team. If he doesn't then it's pretty much the same as if they cut him tomorrow. And BTW, just who are these "overpaid, underperforming players" that they will cut that we will be so "shocked" about. Inquiring minds want to know.


We already can anticipate Beatty, Cruz, Schwartz, and Beason. However, do not be surprised if the Giants cut Vereen (even after just one season) and Jennings.

The goal is to get control of the cap going forward. That means you don't postpone decisions just because the guy MIGHT contribute next year. Quite simply, there is no real expectation that either Vereen or Jennings will perform to their contracts going forward, so why carry cap hits for multiple seasons if you do not have to?
RE: RE: rich in DC  
BillT : 2/8/2016 5:12 pm : link
In comment 12806829 rich in DC said:
Quote:
In comment 12806686 BillT said:


Quote:


They can afford to wait on Cruz because he doesn't cost them anything until he makes the team. If he doesn't then it's pretty much the same as if they cut him tomorrow. And BTW, just who are these "overpaid, underperforming players" that they will cut that we will be so "shocked" about. Inquiring minds want to know.



We already can anticipate Beatty, Cruz, Schwartz, and Beason. However, do not be surprised if the Giants cut Vereen (even after just one season) and Jennings.

The goal is to get control of the cap going forward. That means you don't postpone decisions just because the guy MIGHT contribute next year. Quite simply, there is no real expectation that either Vereen or Jennings will perform to their contracts going forward, so why carry cap hits for multiple seasons if you do not have to?

Cutting Beatty, Cruz, Schwartz, and Beason has been discussed endlessly here. No surprise. Now, if they cut Vereen you win. Even Jennings given the cap savings for him is only 1.7m. Don't hold your breath.
They aren't cutting vereen  
djm : 2/8/2016 6:37 pm : link
And probably not Jennings. Both guys play and are healthy. A rarity around these parts.
I'm starting to feel like  
LakeGeorgeGiant : 2/8/2016 6:48 pm : link
Cruz and Schwartz get one more year.

It sounds like they aren't very happy with Beatty, he's a goner.

Beason is an easy one.

Vereen and Jennings? No way in hell. Vereen is part of the solution, and Jennings is a bargain.
My BS meter is going off ...  
DonQuixote : 2/8/2016 7:46 pm : link
"It will be interesting to see if the team continues to diversify its contractual risk across a number of small contracts or instead concentrates the risk in a smaller number of larger contracts. A strategy based around a higher volume of smaller contracts would likely result in a smaller aggregate commitment/risk and greater future optionality, even if the aggregate stated value is equal to that of a smaller number of larger contracts."

In other words, the Gmen have invested in more FAs at lower salaries each, rather than the opposite. The rest is a restatement of the first sentence.
RE: RE: They think Cruz is on the chopping block  
BMac : 2/8/2016 7:57 pm : link
In comment 12806599 rich in DC said:
Quote:
In comment 12806539 BillT said:


Quote:


He isn't. He's in line for a salary reduction/performance based deal but the Giants aren't cutting him. Also, the salary reduction/performance based deal they will give him is better than he can get on the open market (including the years left on his current deal) so he's not going to force their hand either.



I think this confidence is misplaced. Cruz himself admitted he STILL is not running yet- and won't be for a while. The Giants simply cannot afford to wait for "maybe"- especially from a player who has proclaimed himself ready before- only to be reinjured. Loyalty has cost this team in recent years- and it is time to replace it with accountability and production based assessment.

One of the most overlooked aspects of this off-season is that THIS is the Giants chance to grab control of their current AND future cap. With around $50M in cap space, they can afford to take the cap hits from guys with significant accelerated bonus hits remaining if their projected value does not exceed what the team can get for less.

That is a fancy way of saying that the Giants should, and probably will, clean house on a number of overpaid, underperforming players- several of which some here will be "shocked" to see.


Good Lord, it's only the middle of February!
RE: RE: rich in DC  
JPinstripes : 2/9/2016 6:04 am : link
In comment 12806829 rich in DC said:
Quote:
In comment 12806686 BillT said:


Quote:


They can afford to wait on Cruz because he doesn't cost them anything until he makes the team. If he doesn't then it's pretty much the same as if they cut him tomorrow. And BTW, just who are these "overpaid, underperforming players" that they will cut that we will be so "shocked" about. Inquiring minds want to know.



We already can anticipate Beatty, Cruz, Schwartz, and Beason. However, do not be surprised if the Giants cut Vereen (even after just one season) and Jennings.

The goal is to get control of the cap going forward. That means you don't postpone decisions just because the guy MIGHT contribute next year. Quite simply, there is no real expectation that either Vereen or Jennings will perform to their contracts going forward, so why carry cap hits for multiple seasons if you do not have to?


So the Giants should cut the RB tandem that had close to 2,000 yards from scrimmage last year?

The tandem that averaged over 4.3 yards a carry and 1,100 yards on the ground?

The RB tandem that combined for 900 receiving yards?

It is shockingly retarded to consider cutting either one this year unless a very high draft pick is spent on a RB, which still would not guarantee either will be a cut in 2016.
I get their logic regarding Vereen and Jennings.  
Big Blue Blogger : 2/9/2016 7:21 am : link
If you strictly apply the cap discipline that OTC advocates, cutting one or both of them might be the right move. Jennings is overpaid for a 31-year-old running back who has always maxed out around 200 touches. However, he's not overpaid for a #1 running back. So, if he can handle a slightly heavier workload, he's pretty good value. OTC's view is that he's never done it, so why would you expect him to do it at 31? Reasonable position, but when you consider the Giants' alternatives, their best option might be to ride Rashad Jennings as long as he lasts. RB by Committee was successful in preserving Jennings, and a total failure by every other measure.

Vereen is overpaid for his narrow role as a third down back unless he's clearly elite in that role. Last year, he wasn't. The difference though, was just a few plays: a tipped ball that became an interception, a key third down play where he came up just short. Maybe he doesn't have the vision of Tiki Barber, or the downfield power of Derrick Ward. He's very good, though. The plays he didn't make were mostly hard ones to make - sometimes because Eli didn't hit him in stride, or the other receivers forgot to block, or simply because there were too many tacklers converging and the other team gets paid to make plays too. It's not as though Vereen habitually fell down, or forgot where the sticks were. Usually, he got closer than most backs would have. That may have been what made his season so frustrating.
RE: I get their logic regarding Vereen and Jennings.  
JPinstripes : 2/9/2016 7:40 am : link
In comment 12807200 Big Blue Blogger said:
Quote:
If you strictly apply the cap discipline that OTC advocates, cutting one or both of them might be the right move. Jennings is overpaid for a 31-year-old running back who has always maxed out around 200 touches. However, he's not overpaid for a #1 running back. So, if he can handle a slightly heavier workload, he's pretty good value. OTC's view is that he's never done it, so why would you expect him to do it at 31? Reasonable position, but when you consider the Giants' alternatives, their best option might be to ride Rashad Jennings as long as he lasts. RB by Committee was successful in preserving Jennings, and a total failure by every other measure.

Vereen is overpaid for his narrow role as a third down back unless he's clearly elite in that role. Last year, he wasn't. The difference though, was just a few plays: a tipped ball that became an interception, a key third down play where he came up just short. Maybe he doesn't have the vision of Tiki Barber, or the downfield power of Derrick Ward. He's very good, though. The plays he didn't make were mostly hard ones to make - sometimes because Eli didn't hit him in stride, or the other receivers forgot to block, or simply because there were too many tacklers converging and the other team gets paid to make plays too. It's not as though Vereen habitually fell down, or forgot where the sticks were. Usually, he got closer than most backs would have. That may have been what made his season so frustrating.


If you look at Jennings and Vereen as a tandem with almost 2,000 yards from scrimmage for a combined cost of 6-7 million dollars in salary, you have to say its good value.
RE: RE: I get their logic regarding Vereen and Jennings.  
rich in DC : 2/9/2016 10:09 am : link
In comment 12807204 JPinstripes said:
Quote:
In comment 12807200 Big Blue Blogger said:


Quote:


If you strictly apply the cap discipline that OTC advocates, cutting one or both of them might be the right move. Jennings is overpaid for a 31-year-old running back who has always maxed out around 200 touches. However, he's not overpaid for a #1 running back. So, if he can handle a slightly heavier workload, he's pretty good value. OTC's view is that he's never done it, so why would you expect him to do it at 31? Reasonable position, but when you consider the Giants' alternatives, their best option might be to ride Rashad Jennings as long as he lasts. RB by Committee was successful in preserving Jennings, and a total failure by every other measure.

Vereen is overpaid for his narrow role as a third down back unless he's clearly elite in that role. Last year, he wasn't. The difference though, was just a few plays: a tipped ball that became an interception, a key third down play where he came up just short. Maybe he doesn't have the vision of Tiki Barber, or the downfield power of Derrick Ward. He's very good, though. The plays he didn't make were mostly hard ones to make - sometimes because Eli didn't hit him in stride, or the other receivers forgot to block, or simply because there were too many tacklers converging and the other team gets paid to make plays too. It's not as though Vereen habitually fell down, or forgot where the sticks were. Usually, he got closer than most backs would have. That may have been what made his season so frustrating.



If you look at Jennings and Vereen as a tandem with almost 2,000 yards from scrimmage for a combined cost of 6-7 million dollars in salary, you have to say its good value.


In the same vein of silly assumptions, we could also look at Harris as a 1000 yard receivier at a cost a $5M. We could also look at Tye as a 880 yard 10 TD TE. I could also sneeze out unicorns tomorrow.

The reality is that Jennings can't stay on the field and Vereen is not a legitimate candidate to replace Jennings when he is out of the game. In short, he's an overpaid role player.

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting is that the Giants have a new coach with a new set of offensive priorities. People also forget that he has spent a large amount of time reviewing game film and going over the roster. It is highly doubtful he is just "familiarizing" himself with the team- he is making judgment calls on who fits and who doesn't- and some of that will include durability and effort.

McAdoo is almost certain to want a dual purpose back who can control the ball. He also is not likely to want to put his eggs in a basket where he can't be sure that guy will be available each week- durability will be an issue. Just a suspicion, but I bet that McAdoo does his best to get the Giants to go after Forte- though I believe NE wants him and will get him with the title allure.
The only silly assumption  
JPinstripes : 2/9/2016 10:21 am : link
is you suggesting the Giants will go after Forte, where did that come from?

Jennings and Vereen are complimentary backs of what they bring to the offense in tandem and the cumulative stats are a very fair way to assess the value as a 1-2 RB punch for the Giants.

Again, almost 2,000 combined yards from scrimmage with a cost of 6 million dollars is a very productive use of CAP dollars measured against performance and neither should or will be cut in 2016.

2017 is another story and a discussion for next year.
RE: The only silly assumption  
rich in DC : 2/9/2016 11:19 am : link
In comment 12807475 JPinstripes said:
Quote:
is you suggesting the Giants will go after Forte, where did that come from?

Jennings and Vereen are complimentary backs of what they bring to the offense in tandem and the cumulative stats are a very fair way to assess the value as a 1-2 RB punch for the Giants.

Again, almost 2,000 combined yards from scrimmage with a cost of 6 million dollars is a very productive use of CAP dollars measured against performance and neither should or will be cut in 2016.

2017 is another story and a discussion for next year.


Bad analysis leads to bad results.

The next time the NFL allows 2 guys to handle the ball at the same time, let me know. You can combine all the numbers you want- but only one guy has the ball at a time. Thus, we look at output of one player.

2000 yards total between 2 players- in other words, their upside is 1000 yards each. Total. Pass.

Let's put the receiving totals of Jennings and Vereen into perspective. The widely-maligned Ruben Randle had more yardage by himself than the two of them combined did- and he was a woeful underperformer who will almost certainly not return- and remember that Vereen is supposed to be some sort of great receiver.

For all the big talk about 2000 yards- Jennings AVERAGED 54 yards rushing and 18.5 yards receiving per GAME last year- or 72.5 yards a game. From the lead back.

Vereen averaged 16.3 yards rushing and 31 yards receiving per game last year. In other words, he was giving the Giants just over 47 yards PER GAME. 47.

The Giants paid $6M for TWO guys to give them 120 yards a game. It is a sign of how inept the RB situation was and I have no idea why would should be celebrating this- or accepting that they can't do better- with a single much more talented player.

Just because I cited him earlier- Forte gave the Bears- NOT a powerhouse offense- 99 yards per game by himself. HIS backup, Langford gave the Bears another 50 yards a game. In other words, 2 backs on a relatively bad team gave their offense 150 yards- and you are accepting that Vereen and Jennings gave the Giants 120 yards per as a good thing?

The days of the  
JPinstripes : 2/9/2016 11:33 am : link
25 touch RB in the NFL are long gone.

It's logical to look at your lead back and 3rd down back cumulative stats and associated salary, production and over all value of the position.

No need for me to continue the point here as I will have better results with a 2 hour head banging against wall session.

Anyway to close, the Giants are not cutting Vereen nor Jennings this year and they are not signing Forte and those will be the facts.
RE: The days of the  
rich in DC : 2/9/2016 2:13 pm : link
In comment 12807667 JPinstripes said:
Quote:
25 touch RB in the NFL are long gone.

It's logical to look at your lead back and 3rd down back cumulative stats and associated salary, production and over all value of the position.

No need for me to continue the point here as I will have better results with a 2 hour head banging against wall session.

Anyway to close, the Giants are not cutting Vereen nor Jennings this year and they are not signing Forte and those will be the facts.


This is called "I have no facts to back up anything I just claimed, so I'll insult you and walk away and declare victory."

Jennings had the 17th most carries in the NFL in 2015- and was tied for 23rd in yards per game. Not good.

Heck, even the heavily criticized Lamar Miller did better than that- and he regularly gets called "soft" and not able to get the hard yardage.

I think Forte is a good solution, but as I noted above- I think he goes to NE. Nice attempt to distract though.
RE: RE: rich in DC  
dg901 : 2/10/2016 8:32 am : link
In comment 12806829 rich in DC said:
Quote:
In comment 12806686 BillT said:


Quote:


They can afford to wait on Cruz because he doesn't cost them anything until he makes the team. If he doesn't then it's pretty much the same as if they cut him tomorrow. And BTW, just who are these "overpaid, underperforming players" that they will cut that we will be so "shocked" about. Inquiring minds want to know.



We already can anticipate Beatty, Cruz, Schwartz, and Beason. However, do not be surprised if the Giants cut Vereen (even after just one season) and Jennings.

The goal is to get control of the cap going forward. That means you don't postpone decisions just because the guy MIGHT contribute next year. Quite simply, there is no real expectation that either Vereen or Jennings will perform to their contracts going forward, so why carry cap hits for multiple seasons if you do not have to?

Beatty's dead money hit is $5M, with an additional $4.175M cost to keep this year. For a decent LT, that is an extremely low number, 11 RT's in the league make more than $4M a year!
RE: I get their logic regarding Vereen and Jennings.  
dg901 : 2/10/2016 8:44 am : link
In comment 12807200 Big Blue Blogger said:
Quote:
If you strictly apply the cap discipline that OTC advocates, cutting one or both of them might be the right move. Jennings is overpaid for a 31-year-old running back who has always maxed out around 200 touches. However, he's not overpaid for a #1 running back. So, if he can handle a slightly heavier workload, he's pretty good value. OTC's view is that he's never done it, so why would you expect him to do it at 31? Reasonable position, but when you consider the Giants' alternatives, their best option might be to ride Rashad Jennings as long as he lasts. RB by Committee was successful in preserving Jennings, and a total failure by every other measure.

Vereen is overpaid for his narrow role as a third down back unless he's clearly elite in that role. Last year, he wasn't. The difference though, was just a few plays: a tipped ball that became an interception, a key third down play where he came up just short. Maybe he doesn't have the vision of Tiki Barber, or the downfield power of Derrick Ward. He's very good, though. The plays he didn't make were mostly hard ones to make - sometimes because Eli didn't hit him in stride, or the other receivers forgot to block, or simply because there were too many tacklers converging and the other team gets paid to make plays too. It's not as though Vereen habitually fell down, or forgot where the sticks were. Usually, he got closer than most backs would have. That may have been what made his season so frustrating.

You do not cut a #1 RB, Jennings stays.
Back to the Corner