How much will it cost to franchise JPP?

estimated

not the fee for a second tag?

fee, only 2nd fee would be if it was in consecutive years.

and technically JPP hasn't played on the tag

player, what's the cost again? Isn't something like two 1st rounders?

In comment 13334824 MBavaro said:

Quote:

player, what's the cost again? Isn't something like two 1st rounders?

but I believe you can move him for less. I think

All I know is a player gets paid the average of the top 5 players at his position over the last 5 years or 120% of his prior year's salary. Since the FT is more than the 120% it will cost what the FT is.

In comment 13334831 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

All I know is a player gets paid the average of the top 5 players at his position over the last 5 years or 120% of his prior year's salary. Since the FT is more than the 120% it will cost what the FT is.

Year 2 of the FT is 120% of the prior year salary or the current year FT whichever is higher.

DE was 15.7 in 2016, so if someone were tagged in consecutive years they'd get 18.84 in 2017, which is more than the projected 2017 tag.

In comment 13334834 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 13334831 robbieballs2003 said: Quote: All I know is a player gets paid the average of the top 5 players at his position over the last 5 years or 120% of his prior year's salary. Since the FT is more than the 120% it will cost what the FT is. Year 2 of the FT is 120% of the prior year salary or the current year FT whichever is higher. DE was 15.7 in 2016, so if someone were tagged in consecutive years they'd get 18.84 in 2017, which is more than the projected 2017 tag.

Pj, that is what I wrote. This isn't exclusive to the second time a player is tagged. This can happen the first time too.

too, but the poster was under the impression JPP played on the FT previously, which hopefully has been clarified by now.

In the event a player is tagged consecutive years they will almost definitely play the 2nd year at a premium on the FT.

Though that is not the case with JPP.

...and he will be tagged if a compromise deal can't be reached. I expect the final number after many trials and tribulations to be in the 4 year/$58 million range.

If they sign him to a long term deal,he will get a good amount of guaranteed money.That will allow for his first year salary to be low and not count so much against the cap in 2017.

I'll be so pissed off I won't bother watching (much) in 2017.

In comment 13334901 mrvax said:

Quote:

I'll be so pissed off I won't bother watching (much) in 2017.

That's how I'd feel if we don't sign Hankins. But, I will still watch..😎

In comment 13334918 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 13334901 mrvax said: Quote: I'll be so pissed off I won't bother watching (much) in 2017. That's how I'd feel if we don't sign Hankins. But, I will still watch..😎

Really? I'd like both re-signed, JPP more than Hankins, but I feel like I'll give the FO a chance to see who they put on the field before judging anything.

You know initially we feel like there is no other option than JPP to play DE and Hankins to play DT, but who knows maybe Robert Thomas is better than Hankins. Or the Giants strike in the draft and get the next Cofield in the 4th.

Just throwing out some examples.

I have my opinions, but also have patience. (because I have no choice, LOL and I realize the FO might know more than me)

"A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five cap hits at the player's position for the previous five years applied to the current salary cap, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if the player signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation."

In comment 13334901 mrvax said:

Quote:

I'll be so pissed off I won't bother watching (much) in 2017.

Oh stop, you are not going to watch if the Giants decide to move on from a guy who can't play a full season?

In comment 13334938 MBavaro said:

Quote:

"A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five cap hits at the player's position for the previous five years applied to the current salary cap, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if the player signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation."

I'm not sure why they added the two first round picks to the language of the rule. It's negotiable.

To this day, I'm still amazed at how stupid the Panthers and Cowboys were for giving up two number ones for Gilbert and Galloway.

Cousins is a prime candidate for the NEFT and there is no way a team gives up two number ones AND pays him a fat contract.

Due to reup? That's guy they need to get.

...the Giants may let the market dictate their offer. There are a lot, really a lot, of very good DT's on the free agent market this year. They'd be fools to bid against themselves. I'd prefer to retain our homegrown talent but as long as we have a comparable player in place next to Snacks when we line up next season I'll be OK with it.

much. I'd let him go, but I think it's moot because some team is likely to offer him a monster deal that is beyond anything Reese would even consider. Same for Hankins.

If not for the fact that he is missing fingers on his hand, he would command Olivier Vernon money. His size, speed, and athleticism allow him to disrupt plays and impact what the offense is trying to do, but the missing fingers definitely effect his ability to disengage from blockers and also his ability to grasp and make tackles once he gets his hands on a ballcarrier. And there is also the issue of his injury history, but none of us can really say whether teams will view them as isolated injuries or part of a pattern. That's a medical question that requires more information than we are privy to.

So it's tough to gage what the market will make of him, but I think a team with lots of cap room and a desperate need at DE is going to back up the Brinks truck. Jacksonville, in particular, looks to be a team that might go all in on JPP. They were the team we edged out last year in the bidding war for Vernon, they have a lot of cap room, and they have Coughlin in charge. And Coughlin could be motivated for a variety of reasons to pay a little extra coin for JPP.

So if the Giants and JPP can't come to an agreement by the end of February, I think they gotta use the franchise tag. Or perhaps the transition tag if they're confident they can and will match any offer he receives. But you can't lose an asset like JPP without getting something in return, not when the franchise tag is available and you have the cap room to take advantage of it.

In my opinion signing JPP is significantly more important.

Playing next to Snacks a lot of tackles will shIneI think Hankins is gone.

franchise $$$ to JPP, and we should resign Hankins. Unless we want to be in the bottom of the league again, against the run and defense overall. Let the "consensus" make the call . LOL

RE: If the Giants lose JPP
Big Blue '56 : 1/21/2017 1:26 pm : link : reply
In comment 13334901 mrvax said:
Quote:
I'll be so pissed off I won't bother watching (much) in 2017.


That's how I'd feel if we don't sign Hankins. But, I will still watch....



if we don't re-sign Wade......

I definitely would franchise JPP. He has played his greatest in recent years when sniffing $$. I would prefer to franchise him then sign him long term.

I'd be ok re-allocating DRC $ to JPP. In my dream scenario, we trade DRC for a late rd pick to a team with a ton of cap space (like Cleveland that has more draft picks it can reasonably even use). The draft is so strong at CB, it's reasonable in RD 3 they can get a really good corner.

In comment 13335331 DavidinBMNY said:

Quote:

I definitely would franchise JPP. He has played his greatest in recent years when sniffing $$. I would prefer to franchise him then sign him long term. I'd be ok re-allocating DRC $ to JPP. In my dream scenario, we trade DRC for a late rd pick to a team with a ton of cap space (like Cleveland that has more draft picks it can reasonably even use). The draft is so strong at CB, it's reasonable in RD 3 they can get a really good corner.

Seriously? DRC is STILL one of the best CBs in the game and showing jo signs of slowing down. Why would you want to trade him? He makes our D that much stronger and our Secondary among the best in the league.

vs. when JPP was lost to us..

and I don't even think he had a particularly good couple of years. If they want him back nobody's breaking the bank for him.

JPP is a considerably better player than Hankins.

I was upset when Reese didn't pay Linval to stay; I don't think it's the same with Hank, nice player and worked well with Snacks, but if push came to shove...

In comment 13335355 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

and I don't even think he had a particularly good couple of years. If they want him back nobody's breaking the bank for him. JPP is a considerably better player than Hankins.

JPP > Hankins

Is good but he is not 17 mil good he had a good year not a great year

In comment 13336484 Dragon said:

Quote:

Is good but he is not 17 mil good he had a good year not a great year

Is he one of the five best DE good? The franchise tag is the average of the 5 highest salaries.