but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
RE: The Giants are lucky to have such good ownership
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
You're just figuring out this is a family business?
It's not hard to figure out. They aren't negotiating. They gave him an offer and told him to go see if he can find a better offer, if he doesn't, come back. Teams do this all the time, but it's the Giants in this case, so they must be stupid. They have a number they are comfortable with and if he finds better, good for him. If not, welcome back.
It's not hard to figure out. They aren't negotiating. They gave him an offer and told him to go see if he can find a better offer, if he doesn't, come back. Teams do this all the time, but it's the Giants in this case, so they must be stupid. They have a number they are comfortable with and if he finds better, good for him. If not, welcome back.
Yup. It doesn't cost them anything to keep their offer on the table. It's there if he wants it. If not, goodbye and good luck.
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
You're just figuring out this is a family business?
I'm just figuring out how little control Reese really has.
I've worked at a family business... a few years in they realized they had to hire people to run the business and take over their roles. They made themselves the board of directors. They meet monthly at most, quarterly at the least. For any family business it's a weird practice to hire an expert and pay them to work a full time job and then sporadically take over some of that person's job duties.
I get that tons of family businesses and NFL teams do this, doesn't make it a great business practice. For example I really doubt the Kraft family can tell Bill anything other than how long his contract is.
Kratch NJ.com: Who could be Giants' NFL Draft sleeper pick? | Mailbag
"Hankins, on the other hand, remains unsigned because, reportedly, his agent Kevin Poston (who has been known to make outlandish demands before and cause all kinds of free agency havoc) is apparently insisting Hankins wants a multi-year deal that pays him top-of-the-market money. If these demands are still being made, they they are delusional..." http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2017/03/giants_mailbag_victor_cruz_johnathan_hankins_draft.html
Yup. It doesn't cost them anything to keep their offer on the table. It's there if he wants it. If not, goodbye and good luck.
In a way, it does. If Hankins keeps holding out, that money cannot be used on his replacement, Mangold or another free agent they may be interested in. I think they should have pressured Hankins into a decision by now.
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Obviously the incompetent Reese is not making the calls and is lucky to have a job at all. P C at work again that he is not gone.
Yup. It doesn't cost them anything to keep their offer on the table. It's there if he wants it. If not, goodbye and good luck.
In a way, it does. If Hankins keeps holding out, that money cannot be used on his replacement, Mangold or another free agent they may be interested in. I think they should have pressured Hankins into a decision by now.
That ship sailed weeks ago. There's no point in playing hardball when there's nothing better out there to replace him with. It would just be a crummy optic.
They have money to spend if they want to go give Mangold a 1 year deal. They were probably not going to do that anyway if his price was high enough that they would need some of Hankins' money.
Have Luca Brazzi put a gun to his head? Clearly, the Giants want him back, but they want him back at their price. It doesn't appear to me that they're worried at all about him signing somewhere else. If he's expecting them to sweeten the deal in any way, I think he'll be sorely disappointed.
I don't think they're looking at any other UFA DTs, either. I wouldn't be surprised if they drafted a DT, though, regardless of what happens with Hankins. After all, Bromley and Thomas are both free agents next year, and there's no guarantee that they'll both get re-signed.
As for other free agents they might want to sign, if they have one in mind who's worth more to them than Hankins, I would expect them to then take his offer off the table if it came to that. Right now there's really no need to do that.
RE: RE: The Giants are lucky to have such good ownership
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Obviously the incompetent Reese is not making the calls and is lucky to have a job at all. P C at work again that he is not gone.
Were you saying that last year after Reese rebuilt the defense, or were you one of the folks complaining about how much it cost?
Regardless, I'm sorry that the color of Reese's skin offends you so much. Into each life a little rain must fall.
I think Mara needs to tell Tisch to be quite; everytime he talks its so far left of how Wellington or John would answer the question. He has little political savvy with the media and truly doesn't know how to answer a question without completely giving away the answer.
RE: RE: The Giants are lucky to have such good ownership
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Obviously the incompetent Reese is not making the calls and is lucky to have a job at all. P C at work again that he is not gone.
I'd bet good money that Reese is better at his job than you are at yours.
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Obviously the incompetent Reese is not making the calls and is lucky to have a job at all. P C at work again that he is not gone.
Of course you would say crap like this. Gonna shine a little context for anyone that might have forgot, but this is the guy who said Reese only got his job due to the Rooney Rule, which actually doesn't apply to GM's.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
You're just figuring out this is a family business?
Anyone know how is agent is?
I find it tough to believe that they would lose all leverage bu doing this.
It's not hard to figure out. They aren't negotiating. They gave him an offer and told him to go see if he can find a better offer, if he doesn't, come back. Teams do this all the time, but it's the Giants in this case, so they must be stupid. They have a number they are comfortable with and if he finds better, good for him. If not, welcome back.
Quote:
Must be a team friendly offer.
It's not hard to figure out. They aren't negotiating. They gave him an offer and told him to go see if he can find a better offer, if he doesn't, come back. Teams do this all the time, but it's the Giants in this case, so they must be stupid. They have a number they are comfortable with and if he finds better, good for him. If not, welcome back.
Yup. It doesn't cost them anything to keep their offer on the table. It's there if he wants it. If not, goodbye and good luck.
Anyone know how is agent is?
Sorry should read... does anyone know who his agent is?
Quote:
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
You're just figuring out this is a family business?
I'm just figuring out how little control Reese really has.
I've worked at a family business... a few years in they realized they had to hire people to run the business and take over their roles. They made themselves the board of directors. They meet monthly at most, quarterly at the least. For any family business it's a weird practice to hire an expert and pay them to work a full time job and then sporadically take over some of that person's job duties.
I get that tons of family businesses and NFL teams do this, doesn't make it a great business practice. For example I really doubt the Kraft family can tell Bill anything other than how long his contract is.
"Hankins, on the other hand, remains unsigned because, reportedly, his agent Kevin Poston (who has been known to make outlandish demands before and cause all kinds of free agency havoc) is apparently insisting Hankins wants a multi-year deal that pays him top-of-the-market money. If these demands are still being made, they they are delusional..."
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2017/03/giants_mailbag_victor_cruz_johnathan_hankins_draft.html
I take that back he has had some high profile candidates, but I feel like he is not helping Hankins right now.
Yup. It doesn't cost them anything to keep their offer on the table. It's there if he wants it. If not, goodbye and good luck.
In a way, it does. If Hankins keeps holding out, that money cannot be used on his replacement, Mangold or another free agent they may be interested in. I think they should have pressured Hankins into a decision by now.
When did Reese get "fleeced"? He paid big bucks last year for some excellent players and big bucks to JPP only, this year.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Quote:
Yup. It doesn't cost them anything to keep their offer on the table. It's there if he wants it. If not, goodbye and good luck.
In a way, it does. If Hankins keeps holding out, that money cannot be used on his replacement, Mangold or another free agent they may be interested in. I think they should have pressured Hankins into a decision by now.
That ship sailed weeks ago. There's no point in playing hardball when there's nothing better out there to replace him with. It would just be a crummy optic.
They have money to spend if they want to go give Mangold a 1 year deal. They were probably not going to do that anyway if his price was high enough that they would need some of Hankins' money.
I don't think they're looking at any other UFA DTs, either. I wouldn't be surprised if they drafted a DT, though, regardless of what happens with Hankins. After all, Bromley and Thomas are both free agents next year, and there's no guarantee that they'll both get re-signed.
As for other free agents they might want to sign, if they have one in mind who's worth more to them than Hankins, I would expect them to then take his offer off the table if it came to that. Right now there's really no need to do that.
Quote:
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Obviously the incompetent Reese is not making the calls and is lucky to have a job at all. P C at work again that he is not gone.
Were you saying that last year after Reese rebuilt the defense, or were you one of the folks complaining about how much it cost?
Regardless, I'm sorry that the color of Reese's skin offends you so much. Into each life a little rain must fall.
It is sometimes a good negotiating tactic to sweeten the deal just a bit while sending out a vague ultimatum.
Makes the player feel like his testing of free agency was not a completely foolish thing.
Quote:
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Obviously the incompetent Reese is not making the calls and is lucky to have a job at all. P C at work again that he is not gone.
I'd bet good money that Reese is better at his job than you are at yours.
Quote:
but it always bothers me when they weigh in with anything other than "no comment". If Jerry Reese is the GM he should be the guy being asked these questions and be the only one who has any real say.
Every year the picture gets more and more clear that ownership does in fact get involved with personnel decisions and contracts.
Obviously the incompetent Reese is not making the calls and is lucky to have a job at all. P C at work again that he is not gone.
Of course you would say crap like this. Gonna shine a little context for anyone that might have forgot, but this is the guy who said Reese only got his job due to the Rooney Rule, which actually doesn't apply to GM's.