|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
Even before the Giants made any moves this offseason, they had $44 million under the salary cap to spend on free agents, extensions and draft picks. Already, just days after the completion of the Super Bowl and the 2015 season, that number has grown significantly. The Giants cut offensive linemen Will Beatty and Geoff Schwartz and middle linebacker Jon Beason retired before he was released. That freed another $12 million under the salary cap for the Giants this offseason. Do the math and that gives them $56 million to spend (if they so please), with it being a certainty there will be more. Giants players currently under contract for 2016: 50 Salaries counted against 2016 salary cap: $97.625 million Dead money vs. 2016 salary cap: $9.7 million Current total committed to cap (salaries + dead money): $107.3 million Giants projected salary cap for 2016: $152 million (estimate) + $11.2 million carryover from 2015 = $163.2 million Money available under cap: $55.9 million |
The pressure is really on Reese. He has to have a plan in place for FA - to go after the 2-3 big name guys he wants right away. He also needs to account for the increase in salaries in his calculations so he's not low-balling folks.
The pressure is really on Reese. He has to have a plan in place for FA - to go after the 2-3 big name guys he wants right away. He also needs to account for the increase in salaries in his calculations so he's not low-balling folks.
This is where Abrams' expertise in cap savvy comes into play
Not sure I understand the 1/2 mil point
We just have to hope the players become available (and it's not Franchise Tag-fest), and that the Giants pick the right ones. That's it - if those two happen, we'll be in great shape.
Or, to put it another way we could have kept Beatty and Schwartz for 2 million a piece.
Now I assume that's not right and I'm mixed up....so pls. someone explain....
Ahh, ok
Or, to put it another way we could have kept Beatty and Schwartz for 2 million a piece.
Now I assume that's not right and I'm mixed up....so pls. someone explain....
The $56m is a net number. The dead money is accounted for when that number is computed. A net gain for releasing a players is net of the accelerated bonus money.
Giants CAP situation - ( New Window )
Marshall (trade) - 9M
D. Harris (resigned) - 7.5M
Cromartie - 7M
Skrine - 6.5M
Gilchrist - 5M
Carpenter - 5M
Fitzpatrick -3.25M
6 of the 10 highest cap hits last year are from that list. I think it's very reasonable to expect that Reese will attempt to follow suit and add at least 5 players to the fold. I'd be shocked if we don't have at least 3 new front 7 players and 2 new secondary guys on defense. Probably at least 1 new OL now as well considering the Beatty/Schwartz moves.
BTW for some context on how much is possible, DRC's first year cap # was less than every name on that list so if they want to get creative they certainly can. Currently our 4th highest paid player is Vereer at $4M.
In general, capology isn't concerned about this year's cap, but the effect of this year's signings on future years and how that impacts being able to sign (or re-sign) players down the road. First year salary and impact is usually fairly low (as compared to 2 or 3 years down the road on a multi-year contract). Try to evenly load the contract to minimize the escalation and you end up with players forgetting they already got paid and only see that others are getting paid more when the back end of the contract rolls around(witness Osi, Strahan, and a host of others)
Or, to put it another way we could have kept Beatty and Schwartz for 2 million a piece.
Now I assume that's not right and I'm mixed up....so pls. someone explain....
If there was no dead money, they would have had $65 mill to spend, not $56 mill. The savings is the difference between what the players would have earned this year and the remaining averaged out bonus money already paid out to those players. Look at it this way, the dead money is that which is already in the players' bank account; the savings is what the players would have earned this year.
In reality, the last guy on the roster will no longer count against the cap. Thus removing his $500k or so. So signing a $5mm guy will move the cap from $100mm to $104.5mm, not $105mm. Sounds insignificant. But if yousign 5 guys, thats a net savings of $2.5mm. That could be an important role player.
Marshall (trade) - 9M
D. Harris (resigned) - 7.5M
Cromartie - 7M
Skrine - 6.5M
Gilchrist - 5M
Carpenter - 5M
Fitzpatrick -3.25M
6 of the 10 highest cap hits last year are from that list. I think it's very reasonable to expect that Reese will attempt to follow suit and add at least 5 players to the fold. I'd be shocked if we don't have at least 3 new front 7 players and 2 new secondary guys on defense. Probably at least 1 new OL now as well considering the Beatty/Schwartz moves.
BTW for some context on how much is possible, DRC's first year cap # was less than every name on that list so if they want to get creative they certainly can. Currently our 4th highest paid player is Vereer at $4M.
And I can imagine the BBI meltdown if we spent 1/3 of the cap money on two 30+ year old corners.
Quote:
Revis - 16M
Marshall (trade) - 9M
D. Harris (resigned) - 7.5M
Cromartie - 7M
Skrine - 6.5M
Gilchrist - 5M
Carpenter - 5M
Fitzpatrick -3.25M
6 of the 10 highest cap hits last year are from that list. I think it's very reasonable to expect that Reese will attempt to follow suit and add at least 5 players to the fold. I'd be shocked if we don't have at least 3 new front 7 players and 2 new secondary guys on defense. Probably at least 1 new OL now as well considering the Beatty/Schwartz moves.
BTW for some context on how much is possible, DRC's first year cap # was less than every name on that list so if they want to get creative they certainly can. Currently our 4th highest paid player is Vereer at $4M.
It still came down to how it was spent. Getting the play they got out of Fitzpatrick was a major bargain.
And I can imagine the BBI meltdown if we spent 1/3 of the cap money on two 30+ year old corners.
We will be players, perhaps significantly so..Agree about all that money for two 30+ players at those positions, as good as they are
Quote:
flush with cap money would be severe opponents of ours in securing FAs. While that may be true in a sense, the lure of NY monetary prospects and an opportunity for their families to enjoy the capital of the world, can not be underscored enough imo..Yes, there will be those who would not want the NY pressure, but by and large, I believe the opportunities that could present themselves could predominate if contracts offered are competitive with one another
And add NY-NJ taxes and housing costs. Not everyone is anxious to enjoy the fruits - and the burdens- of being in the "capitol of the world."
Point taken
this is the age of mass media. there are opportunities everywhere.
In reality, the last guy on the roster will no longer count against the cap. Thus removing his $500k or so. So signing a $5mm guy will move the cap from $100mm to $104.5mm, not $105mm. Sounds insignificant. But if yousign 5 guys, thats a net savings of $2.5mm. That could be an important role player.
But at this point the roster isn't full is it? Aren't there empty roster spots with the cuts?
BTW for some context on how much is possible, DRC's first year cap # was less than every name on that list so if they want to get creative they certainly can....
Eric's hit it on the nose in that post - these are the remaining years of Eli's career, our best chance to win with him is 2016 and 2017.
Nobody's going to worry about cap prudence for the future, because his window will start to close rapidly, and at that point the likelihood that we won't see another down cycle is slim. Go for broke, spend the money - just be sure it's on the right people.
I'll do it just for you BB'56. lol. How ya been by the way?
Anywho, I'll prolly have to get back on the salary cap horse again. I'll just say this: An analysis has to be made comparing the players who will be available in the draft come the Giants' picks vs. those available in FA who play positions that count the most against the cap in order to make the cost effective moves while not screwing up the cap. The positions that cost the most against the cap off the top of my head, excluding QB of course, are pass rushers, OTs (specifically LOTs), WRs, and CBs.
A projection of the expected salaries paid to these guys will also have to be made--which has in all likelihood already been done. We'll see moves made quickly at first, then the market wil stabilize, so teams like the Giants who have lots of cap room must be calculated at first and not veer away from their plan if it includes a player who's a "must-sign" player. IF he messes up the market, then steer clear of him. There's always wiggle room, but you can't go crazy.
Just some opening thoughts off the top of my head. P.S. Don't overpay--or draft highly for that matter--players who play positions that are easily fungible (e.g., Running Backs).
Exactamundo. This is the comment everyone must remember.
Here's a nice little read for those of you who're interested on reading up on the topic of the salary cap from one of the primary go to guys on the subject, Jason Fitzgerald:
A Guide to the NFL Salary Cap - (Posted on February 19, 2013) by Jason Fitzgerald - ( New Window )
Right on. Reese has to get this right, a la 2005 when the Giants signed Pierce, K-Mac, and Plax. Talk about a Home Run.
Quote:
the Giants will spend stupidly..They rarely do..I believe they'll spend impactfully..
Right on. Reese has to get this right, a la 2005 when the Giants signed Pierce, K-Mac, and Plax. Talk about a Home Run.
Agreed..Reese KNOWS he has to get this right. His rope might be shortening a great deal
I don't expect 4, but not because I think the Giants won't spend it (or are being cautious to not compromise the future).
I don't think we'll get 4 impact players because there aren't enough to go around. I'm thinking we hit on two top tier (>=$10M/yr), two mid-tier ($7-10M/yr) and then various others.
So it's going to be up to Abrams to be creative about structuring these new deals so that the cap hit is more front-loaded than in years past. Which, yeah, that doesn't seem like such a difficult thing to do (just replace signing bonus with fat salary in year one), but for some reason teams have been reluctant to stray from their usual formula.
Exciting off-season. We should know soon if our team has a good pulse on needs and quality players.
The 20 teams are 'flush with cap space' argument is irrelevant. Many of those teams have in house contracts to prioritize and then there are the other twelve teams that are vulnerable to raiding in free agency.
The Giants won't sit on this money. They'll spend the vast majority of it. Buckle up fellas this is going to be a helluva free agency ride.
*A note about the $11.5M rollover from 2015. That money can't be factored into the AAV of salaries going forward as it won't be available beyond 2016. It's a one shot deal to front load contracts or use as bonus money in year one. It isn't a recurring factor.
So it's going to be up to Abrams to be creative about structuring these new deals so that the cap hit is more front-loaded than in years past. Which, yeah, that doesn't seem like such a difficult thing to do (just replace signing bonus with fat salary in year one), but for some reason teams have been reluctant to stray from their usual formula.
Given the rate of inflation for NFL contracts, I think the other way to go might be to keep the contracts as-is, but use the remaining cap space to extend some of the younger talent (Richburg, Pugh) so that when we hit those seasons we won't have to worry about bracing the cap impact of retaining them.
Granted, that's dependent on them wanting the extensions, vs. wanting to wait for a bigger contract or test FA.
I have no idea if they're at all interested in making such a switch. If they are the players we target in free agency could look far different than what many of us have theorized.
Exciting off-season. We should know soon if our team has a good pulse on needs and quality players.
Randy - is there is a difference between Poo Poo and examining reality? Sometimes I'm not sure -- there have been days when Poo Poo was my reality - I've raised three children, 4 grandchildren, 5 dogs, 4 cats and several hundred chickens : )
I too am excited for the future -- but there will be Poo Poo
Not every destination is desirable even if teams have money to spend.
I have no idea if they're at all interested in making such a switch. If they are the players we target in free agency could look far different than what many of us have theorized.
Not that it means much, but Spagnuolo has never coached a 3-4 defense. Granted, all defenses show multiple looks, but the base defense has always been 4-3 by philosophy, that's what he learned under Johnson.
I would love to see a shift to the 3-4, but I think that ship sailed when they retained Spags.
Where do people think they're going to come from?
we HAVE TO sign a bunch of free agents. that's the reality. to think we won't is foolish
The Giants have the 3rd most and it will probably increase when the Cruz paycut is announced.
Agents know where the money is and the best way for them to get clients paid is to focus on the teams with the money to spend.
You have to consider the dynamics of the psychology involved in play. Free agents don't want to play the waiting game. They want to go in that first wave of big money signings to validate their status and their wallets.
Agents want to be seen leading the pack so future 1st Rounders see them as desirable commodities to sign with.
We are well positioned to significantly impact this roster in free agency.
Not every destination is desirable even if teams have money to spend.
The redskins have been terrible for 20 years and never seem to have a problem giving their money away.
I agree taxes can be a factor for some guys. So is winning potential and the increased marketability of starring in NY.
BTW I've long held the major sports should scale cap dollars to the markets taxes. Increasingly this is skewing the 'level playing field' intended by salary cap leagues. A discussion for another day.
:)
I hope the optimistic fans ultimately are correct, but common sense, percentages, and logic all suggest otherwise, imv.
And that's with Fitzpatrick who ended up playing QB...while he gives a worthy effort, hes still a ham n egger. But looks how much better with Eric Decker flanking Brandon Marshall (who got his head screwed on right and played very well)
Would love a guy like Decker as our #2. Not an all-pro, but plays hard, runs his routes and catches almost everything thrown his way
I don't want the Giants to shell out any big contracts in this FA period. 9 times out of 10 big FA deals end up as bad business. The guys that are worth paying big money (Miller, Berry) are going to be paid big money by the teams already paying them.
The approach this offseason should be the same as any other. Try to find good value for the cap space allotted. Odds are the Giants are better off signing 6 guys at low to mid range cap numbers than they are trying to make a big splash on 2 or 3.
Look at it this way...there's a fan in San Diego right now excited by the prospect of his team giving Prince $10 million/year. Or a guy on a 49er board saying they should pay JPP $13 million/year.
Those of us here that are sane find that ridiculous, but we know better than they do. Well Cleveland knows more than we do about Gipson, Denver about Trevathan, etc.
The best we should be hoping for is that a mid-range signing ends up a bargain (like Harris did last year).
It has a more reliable and significant impact on your ballclub. Now you don't just spend for the sake of it. If you have legitimate holes in your staring roster though that is the way to go.
Malik Jackson? Gipson? Trevathan? Nice players, but they're not worth paying like stars.
Overpaying is bad business whether you have 60 million in cap space or 6 million.
There are tiers in free agncy and the Giants should be active in the upper tiers this year. We should be targeting quality starting talent that will be paid market rates for their established productivity.
I'm doing really well, thanks..Yes, I tend to agree
Or, to put it another way we could have kept Beatty and Schwartz for 2 million a piece.
Now I assume that's not right and I'm mixed up....so pls. someone explain....
That's not right, and you are mixed up. Here's why:
The total dead money on Beatty, Schwartz and Beason is indeed about $8.4MM, broken down as follows:
Beatty: $5MM;
Schwartz: $1.92MM (might be more, but this is the consensus figure);
Beason: $1.47MM
But here's the key point: All of that money was already spent, and all of it would have hit the cap anyway - about 58% of it in 2016, the balance in 2017. In fact, the worst-case accelerated amortization from the three cuts in 2016 is less than $3.5MM:
Beatty: $2.5MM
Schwartz: $0.96MM
Beason: $0 (because 2016 was the last year of his contract).
It's worth emphasizing the distinction between total dead money and bonus acceleration. If you're looking for a negative cap impact from these cuts, the biggest number you should use is $3.5MM. I understand that the other $4.9MM has been "wasted"; my point is simply that it was already counted against the 2016 cap. By the way, it seems that the $3.5MM can be reduced to under $1MM by designating Beatty as a post-June 1 cut.
Regardless of how the unamortized bonus money is accounted for, the savings from not paying those three salaries are quite real, and they are not in any way eroded by dead money. The money that is now "dead" was going to hit the cap anyway, in addition to the salaries.
Last years player can become this years back-up, and would likely be better than last years, if he makes the team at all.
I have to believe that the top 2 draft picks, at a minimum, are day 1 starters, since there a just too many holes in the team, and more youth and speed are needed to be sprinkled in quickly, especially on D.
Malik Jackson at 7-8M AAV I could see Reese in, but not at 10M-12M AAV.
As for the Trevathon if he is looking for 6M AAV, the Giants will probably opt to re-sign Brinkley at 30% of that and draft a MLB round 3 or later.
The Giants are not going to go the way of Jones Cowboys or Snyders Skins, they will stick to their value boards in FA and the Draft and move accordingly.
The last two Super Bowl teams were right up against the cap because the team would sign the core players to extensions before free agency (Osi, Tuck, Webster, Eli, Snee, Diehl, etc.) taking up the bulk of the cap space allowing them for normally one or two big splashes every couple years to fill big holes (Burress, McKenzie, Pierce, Rolle)
DT Jaye Howard, CB Sean Smith, OLB Tamba Hali - I'd take all 3.
we're stuck in a hole and its either buy a bunch of UFA's or fill the slots with rookies and be the worst team in the league.
Quote:
W u on malik jackson and trevathon. Both would b excellent pickups and I suspect at least one will b a giant
Malik Jackson at 7-8M AAV I could see Reese in, but not at 10M-12M AAV.
As for the Trevathon if he is looking for 6M AAV, the Giants will probably opt to re-sign Brinkley at 30% of that and draft a MLB round 3 or later.
The Giants are not going to go the way of Jones Cowboys or Snyders Skins, they will stick to their value boards in FA and the Draft and move accordingly.
Points well taken. However, with Reese purportedly on the hot seat, I think his normal FA value board goes astray or very well might as compared to his normal m.o...
The last two Super Bowl teams were right up against the cap because the team would sign the core players to extensions before free agency (Osi, Tuck, Webster, Eli, Snee, Diehl, etc.) taking up the bulk of the cap space allowing them for normally one or two big splashes every couple years to fill big holes (Burress, McKenzie, Pierce, Rolle)
Factor in no 2nd contracts to Wilson, Phillips, Nicks, Steve Smith, JPP and Terrel Thomas because of injuries and then you are 100% correct.
Quote:
In comment 12812055 jtgiants said:
Quote:
W u on malik jackson and trevathon. Both would b excellent pickups and I suspect at least one will b a giant
Malik Jackson at 7-8M AAV I could see Reese in, but not at 10M-12M AAV.
As for the Trevathon if he is looking for 6M AAV, the Giants will probably opt to re-sign Brinkley at 30% of that and draft a MLB round 3 or later.
The Giants are not going to go the way of Jones Cowboys or Snyders Skins, they will stick to their value boards in FA and the Draft and move accordingly.
Points well taken. However, with Reese purportedly on the hot seat, I think his normal FA value board goes astray or very well might as compared to his normal m.o...
I don't think Mara will allow this. Regardless of Reese's standing with the team, Mara is not going to allow us to become the Saints and ruin our seemingly solid cap situation going forward for the next couple years.
Once again, I think we will be aggressive, but there are checks and balances (as Reese as even said himself with everyone being involved) and no way Mara, Abrams, etc. let him go tossing money around that isn't warranted. We may overpay, but very slightly compared to the last couple years.
I won't be surprised because I expect them to be very aggressive, I just don't think they are going to way overpay based on the market value they put on a player, that wouldn't be prudent.
They will earmark their top targets, go after them hard, and probably slightly overpay if there is a bidding war, but I don't expect them to set the market higher and raise the bar for said position like other teams have done in the past (Redskins)
we're stuck in a hole and its either buy a bunch of UFA's or fill the slots with rookies and be the worst team in the league.
You don't turn a team around by signing high priced free agents.
The draft pipeline stopped flowing from 2008-2012. That's the pain we're feeling now. The pipeline has started up again and will be the reason this team sinks or swims.
Overpaying Danny Trevathan isn't going to solve anything.
If you want some players this year you are going to have to loosen the value Board at least a little -- I'm not saying through all caution to the wind -- but values this year are going to go up because there is a lot of big money out there to spend
Overpaying is what free agency is about. What makes free agency a red herring is that players get paid for what they've done, not what they're going to do.
Guys like Trevathan and Jackson were lieutenants on Denver to Miller and Ware. Whomever pays them is going to pay them like a general, but that doesn't mean they'll be generals...especially with no Miller and Ware next to them.
The examples of this are countless and far exceed the number of big free agent signings that work out.
It wasn't that long ago we were excited about signing Schwartz and Beason.
If you want some players this year you are going to have to loosen the value Board at least a little -- I'm not saying through all caution to the wind -- but values this year are going to go up because there is a lot of big money out there to spend
They were willing to pay more for McCourty and he decided to take less and go back to the Patriots. How much more could they have done?
Quote:
last year -- look where it got us in the Safety department
If you want some players this year you are going to have to loosen the value Board at least a little -- I'm not saying through all caution to the wind -- but values this year are going to go up because there is a lot of big money out there to spend
They were willing to pay more for McCourty and he decided to take less and go back to the Patriots. How much more could they have done?
That's why we'll spend big if we NEED to imo..The flush of money is not for spending indiscriminately, rather it's for being ABLE TO COMPETE for players they highly covet
Could they reserve a portion with an eye to extending OBJ or other in house players in the near future? Absolutely. That still leaves them with 40-45M+ to distribute.
I'd rather sign 2-3 beasts in FA and save the rest for our own guys to re-sign rather than throw good money after bad just because of a need. You can fill holes with guys like Tye and Donnell and Wade for pennies rather than sign some overpaid vet and have him give you virtually the same production if not less.
It's
Quote:
In comment 12812231 gidiefor said:
Quote:
last year -- look where it got us in the Safety department
If you want some players this year you are going to have to loosen the value Board at least a little -- I'm not saying through all caution to the wind -- but values this year are going to go up because there is a lot of big money out there to spend
They were willing to pay more for McCourty and he decided to take less and go back to the Patriots. How much more could they have done?
That's why we'll spend big if we NEED to imo..The flush of money is not for spending indiscriminately, rather it's for being ABLE TO COMPETE for players they highly covet
I agree and has been Reese's MO over time when he really wants someone (Rolle, Canty, Boley) but as others have mentioned due to the amount of cap space out there some teams may drive the market out of whack for certain positions. The Giants will draw a line in the sand eventually
Quote:
In comment 12812254 Brandon Walsh said:
Quote:
In comment 12812231 gidiefor said:
Quote:
last year -- look where it got us in the Safety department
If you want some players this year you are going to have to loosen the value Board at least a little -- I'm not saying through all caution to the wind -- but values this year are going to go up because there is a lot of big money out there to spend
They were willing to pay more for McCourty and he decided to take less and go back to the Patriots. How much more could they have done?
That's why we'll spend big if we NEED to imo..The flush of money is not for spending indiscriminately, rather it's for being ABLE TO COMPETE for players they highly covet
I agree and has been Reese's MO over time when he really wants someone (Rolle, Canty, Boley) but as others have mentioned due to the amount of cap space out there some teams may drive the market out of whack for certain positions. The Giants will draw a line in the sand eventually
Totally agree with the line in the sand comment
There's enough talent in this free agent class to be optimistic we'll land several starters at positions that will immediately upgrade us heading into the Draft.
There's enough talent in this free agent class to be optimistic we'll land several starters at positions that will immediately upgrade us heading into the Draft.
The free agent DB pool looks like the strongest and deepest group and it's a match for the Giants as they have 3 big holes to fill at CB2, FS and Slot CB.
1. Guys who are good value because they will play multiple spots: Harris, Thomas, Casillas
2. Average players with some possible upside and who can fill holes but don't cost a lot, such as Schwartz, Newhouse, Jerry, Ayers and Walton
3. Guys who are talented but are undervalued for some reason (playing different position-Canty, character issues--Plax, or lack of opportunity--Boley, Harris at WR)
The difference this year is that the Giants have more cap space so they don't have to settle for guys. They can sign a Mitchell Schwartz rather than a Geoff because they have those extra millions, whereas previous years they had to take on injury-risk guys because that is all they could afford.
So, I think we will see the same approach from the Giants, only they will sign guys they really want rather than what they can afford. So, personnel will not be dictated as much by money--and that could make a huge difference.
Guys breaking down and declining when they're on their third contracts isn't bad luck - it's poor risk management.
That would include Malik Jackson, Tashaun Gipson, Cordy Glenn, Marvin Jones, Kelechi Osemele, Travis Benjamin, Robert Golden, and Rishard Mathews among others.
That is correct. Short memories
Where we can make an impact is signing 2nd tier players. solid players who all together can make a difference. We can afford a lot of those guys. the only question is whether there's enough of them to be had. this tier covers a lot of ground, IMO. At the top can be found OK-decent starters, at the bottom are depth guys who won't screw up too badly if pressed into starting (but who you really don't want starting).
We won't need to settle for bargain basement players. There'll still be plenty of them, but we're not going to find (or afford) enough 1st and second tier players to fill out the team, so they're still going to be a fact of life.
We've been gradually getting out of the need for the hordes of bargain basement guys as our cap has gotten better.
Maybe some impact players that can fill voids until this organization figures out how to draft and develop players properly. What has been going for years is in this regard is nothing but incompetence in the drafting and coaching development. Hopefully these new coaches now what the f they are doing and can instill some football consistency to avoid these game embarrassments.
That would include Malik Jackson, Tashaun Gipson, Cordy Glenn, Marvin Jones, Kelechi Osemele, Travis Benjamin, Robert Golden, and Rishard Mathews among others.
Jackson, Gipson, Jones please plus Mitchell Schwartz.