...Giants are 20th with $22,882,780.
Cleveland is #1 with $108,919,295.
New York Jets are #2 with $92,083,128.
I know everyone is on the Norwell train, but there are a lot of team with (much) more cap flexibility than the Giants, such as San Fran ($67,029,331).
Here's the rest of our division:
12. Washington Redskins: $31,632,697
30. Dallas Cowboys: $1,578,082
31. Philadelphia Eagles: -9,133,036
Link - (
New Window )
I wouldn’t give Beckham a long term deal now.
The Giants have plenty of cap room to be as active they want to be in Free Agency.
Does that mean they are going to sign 5 top end guys? No, nor is that a good model for building a team so they shouldn't. They need a good mix of the right FAs and to nail the next couple of drafts.
There are a number of ways of creating more space. We are not in a free spending mode but we can get any player we truly want (assuming they want us).
The Browns cap situation should be a HUGE red flag to the NFL. Teams should be required to spend a min amount and should be penalized (perhaps draft position) based on that cap surplus. $108 mil available is crazy when the cap number is $177 ish...
Oline, Oline, Oline
There are a number of ways of creating more space. We are not in a free spending mode but we can get any player we truly want (assuming they want us).
The Browns cap situation should be a HUGE red flag to the NFL. Teams should be required to spend a min amount and should be penalized (perhaps draft position) based on that cap surplus. $108 mil available is crazy when the cap number is $177 ish...
Teams are required to spend a certain amount of cash over a 4 year span - and the spans reset each 4 years (ie 2013-2016 was a complete span, 2017-2020 is the current span). Here's a good article about the Browns in particular, that explains some of those rules
Link - ( New Window )
While I have no problem cutting Marshall at this point, the Giants can easily structure Norwell's deal to only eat up about 5 million of our cap room which leaves room for other signings and allows them to keep Marshall if they wish.
However, comparatively speaking, the Giants simply cannot afford to get in a bidding war on any free agents.
being 20th in cap space all things considered is not a good thing.
not sure why people feel the need to delude themselves.
not a catastrophic situation, but could clearly be better.
However, comparatively speaking, the Giants simply cannot afford to get in a bidding war on any free agents.
being 20th in cap space all things considered is not a good thing.
not sure why people feel the need to delude themselves.
not a catastrophic situation, but could clearly be better.
of course it would be better to have more room. But this isn't baseball where teams are just going to throw an extra $10 million at someone because they can afford it. Teams don't want to push the bar to far on a deal, because it impacts all future deals. They also don't want their cap to get out of whack at certain positions.
Norwell is going to get something like 5/65 and 25 guaranteed at signing (which beats Zeitler's 5/60 and 23 last year). No one is going to give him 5/75 and 35 just because they have the cap room.
Quote:
cap issue are correct, in a vacuum.
However, comparatively speaking, the Giants simply cannot afford to get in a bidding war on any free agents.
being 20th in cap space all things considered is not a good thing.
not sure why people feel the need to delude themselves.
not a catastrophic situation, but could clearly be better.
of course it would be better to have more room. But this isn't baseball where teams are just going to throw an extra $10 million at someone because they can afford it. Teams don't want to push the bar to far on a deal, because it impacts all future deals. They also don't want their cap to get out of whack at certain positions.
Norwell is going to get something like 5/65 and 25 guaranteed at signing (which beats Zeitler's 5/60 and 23 last year). No one is going to give him 5/75 and 35 just because they have the cap room.
Maybe, but if you look back historically the Giants were near the top (5th) in the league in available cap space (and considered themselves contenders) in 2016 and they added Snacks, Vernon, Jenkins, etc. Why didn't the 20th ranked team in cap space add those players?
Do you believe they could have if they wanted to, but simply chose not to or didn't have the need?
Why did the Jaguars add the most players over the past two years?
I agree the parameters of the deals probably won't change dramatically (though I disagree they won't change at all), but where the Giants may need to backload guarantees or year 2 salaries or something like that, other teams may not have to or they can structure contracts in more favorable ways.
IMO most free agent decisions are made 90% about money. cash, how much guaranteed and how soon, and some teams can simply offer more attractive contracts than the Giants.
Giants could give him an 18MM bonus, 2MM salary in 2018 and 5MM of salary guaranteed in 2019. There's 25 guaranteed, 20 mm in cash in year 1. That beats Zeitler's 23 and 18 for the same items.
Another team may prefer to give less in bonus, say 15MM and more in salary in 2018 - 7MM. Guarantees/cash are the same on the 2 deals.
Yr 1 cap hit for Giants is 5.6MM
Yr 1 cap hit for other team is 10 MM
Giants could give him an 18MM bonus, 2MM salary in 2018 and 5MM of salary guaranteed in 2019. There's 25 guaranteed, 20 mm in cash in year 1. That beats Zeitler's 23 and 18 for the same items.
Another team may prefer to give less in bonus, say 15MM and more in salary in 2018 - 7MM. Guarantees/cash are the same on the 2 deals.
Yr 1 cap hit for Giants is 5.6MM
Yr 1 cap hit for other team is 10 MM
Sorry, 2018 salary for other team would be 5MM not 7 and yr 1 cap hit would be 8MM not 10.
Regardless, the salary/bonus can be played with to get the cap hit you want in yr 1 while still giving the player the same $.
The Giants were slightly worse off, they had $13+M and were around 28th in the league in available space after the cap was set, pre free agency.
They added Marshall and Fluker and passed on all other OL and any other significant free agent additions.
Why do you think that was?
They may have said they like their OL, but reality is they couldn't afford to add significant free agents.
I've said being 20th in space doesn't mean it's a disaster, but to say it's not relevant or they can simply create more space is willfully ignorant or perhaps if that's too harsh it's optimistic.
I'm not saying they can't or won't add Norwell, for example, but the Giants absolutely need to be selective with their free agent additions and with the available space and potential player extensions, the Giants will not be major players in free agency IMO.
The Giants were slightly worse off, they had $13+M and were around 28th in the league in available space after the cap was set, pre free agency.
They added Marshall and Fluker and passed on all other OL and any other significant free agent additions.
Why do you think that was?
They may have said they like their OL, but reality is they couldn't afford to add significant free agents.
I've said being 20th in space doesn't mean it's a disaster, but to say it's not relevant or they can simply create more space is willfully ignorant or perhaps if that's too harsh it's optimistic.
I'm not saying they can't or won't add Norwell, for example, but the Giants absolutely need to be selective with their free agent additions and with the available space and potential player extensions, the Giants will not be major players in free agency IMO.
10MM is only slightly worse off? That's 2 high end players if you want to structure the deals as above.
Quote:
if cap space is so meaningless.
The Giants were slightly worse off, they had $13+M and were around 28th in the league in available space after the cap was set, pre free agency.
They added Marshall and Fluker and passed on all other OL and any other significant free agent additions.
Why do you think that was?
They may have said they like their OL, but reality is they couldn't afford to add significant free agents.
I've said being 20th in space doesn't mean it's a disaster, but to say it's not relevant or they can simply create more space is willfully ignorant or perhaps if that's too harsh it's optimistic.
I'm not saying they can't or won't add Norwell, for example, but the Giants absolutely need to be selective with their free agent additions and with the available space and potential player extensions, the Giants will not be major players in free agency IMO.
10MM is only slightly worse off? That's 2 high end players if you want to structure the deals as above.
Why couldn't they just create more space or structure the deals differently?
I'm expecting 1 OL starter (will prob cost 10M+, guess would be Norwell or Solder), 1 OL depth guy (someone versatile like Chris Hubbard probably in the range of what they paid Fluker last year), and 1 defensive starter - likely a young LB that fits the new system like Preston Brown.
Quote:
In comment 13852985 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
if cap space is so meaningless.
The Giants were slightly worse off, they had $13+M and were around 28th in the league in available space after the cap was set, pre free agency.
They added Marshall and Fluker and passed on all other OL and any other significant free agent additions.
Why do you think that was?
They may have said they like their OL, but reality is they couldn't afford to add significant free agents.
I've said being 20th in space doesn't mean it's a disaster, but to say it's not relevant or they can simply create more space is willfully ignorant or perhaps if that's too harsh it's optimistic.
I'm not saying they can't or won't add Norwell, for example, but the Giants absolutely need to be selective with their free agent additions and with the available space and potential player extensions, the Giants will not be major players in free agency IMO.
10MM is only slightly worse off? That's 2 high end players if you want to structure the deals as above.
Why couldn't they just create more space or structure the deals differently?
Maybe they didn't want to or didn't have the right players in their minds to do it for. They easily could have extended Eli to create more room, perhaps they didn't want to do that.
well, in fairness it wasn't a huge crop of FA OL, but no I don't think the Giants could have signed Whitworth (for example) and saying they were happy with their OL was fanspeak b/c they knew they couldn't afford to add OL without some painful measures that would either hurt the current team (restructure/cut) or severely backloaded contract.
I'm expecting 1 OL starter (will prob cost 10M+, guess would be Norwell or Solder), 1 OL depth guy (someone versatile like Chris Hubbard probably in the range of what they paid Fluker last year), and 1 defensive starter - likely a young LB that fits the new system like Preston Brown.
Giants may get to $35M, but why would that get them to 10th, you're assuming the 19 teams ahead of them (and some of the ones behind them) in cap space cut no one, and only the Giants can cut/restructure people to create more space.
Not according to this article
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
they weren't hindered from signing OL, they chose not to.
Not according to this article Link - ( New Window )
The one thing I would defend Reese upon (and there is noot much I would defend him on) was that each year over the last three or four years, including last year and I know how good Whitworth turned out to be, there were legitimate reasons for not singing the big name OL players.
cap space can always be created, but at a cost.
cap space can always be created, but at a cost.
I agree with this. Giants cap situation isn't great, but it's not all that bad either. They spent a lot in the recent years so they need to be a little careful, but they also have a ton of flexibility over the next year or two. They need to be fiscally responsible, can't just sign anyone and everyone, but they can definitely plan in the FA game.
cap space can always be created, but at a cost.
Or they can just push the bigger cap hit to next year when they can cut the likes of JPP/JJ/Vernon and get significant cap room. Lots of ways to peel the onion.
Quote:
I don't think the Giants cap situation will hinder them too much, but it's not as rosy a picture as some people paint.
cap space can always be created, but at a cost.
I agree with this. Giants cap situation isn't great, but it's not all that bad either. They spent a lot in the recent years so they need to be a little careful, but they also have a ton of flexibility over the next year or two. They need to be fiscally responsible, can't just sign anyone and everyone, but they can definitely plan in the FA game.
which is all I'm saying as well. They can't sign 10 top FAs, but they aren't going to be stopped from signing 2-3 if they really want them.
Whitworth was 36 years old and wanted a three year deal. The Bengals let him walk, and spending big money on him like 15 million guaranteed would probably have been a mistake at his age. You can go through each and every top lineman, and I said top lineman, and there were legitimate reasons not pay that particular person.
Quote:
I don't think the Giants cap situation will hinder them too much, but it's not as rosy a picture as some people paint.
cap space can always be created, but at a cost.
I agree with this. Giants cap situation isn't great, but it's not all that bad either. They spent a lot in the recent years so they need to be a little careful, but they also have a ton of flexibility over the next year or two. They need to be fiscally responsible, can't just sign anyone and everyone, but they can definitely plan in the FA game.
and I said "big name," nice to make a strawman argument.
Quote:
In comment 13853036 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I don't think the Giants cap situation will hinder them too much, but it's not as rosy a picture as some people paint.
cap space can always be created, but at a cost.
I agree with this. Giants cap situation isn't great, but it's not all that bad either. They spent a lot in the recent years so they need to be a little careful, but they also have a ton of flexibility over the next year or two. They need to be fiscally responsible, can't just sign anyone and everyone, but they can definitely plan in the FA game.
which is all I'm saying as well. They can't sign 10 top FAs, but they aren't going to be stopped from signing 2-3 if they really want them.
on 1 free agent target maybe you're right, but let's not forget the Giants were 2nd worst in the NFL last year. 3 of the top 5 worst teams (Browns, Colts, and Jets) are also in top 5 in cap space. Just means easier to add via FA to improve the team.
Before the injuries hit to Beckham and the rest of the WR's and Pugh, etc. they were still bad, so it wasn't all injuries, this team has holes. Injuries maybe turned 5 - 11 or 6 - 10 into 3 - 13, but the Giants have work to do and I think fans should be patient, I hope Gettleman is and doesn't try and get all the way back in one off-season (necessarily).
Quote:
sign FA OL?? Please share.
Whitworth was 36 years old and wanted a three year deal. The Bengals let him walk, and spending big money on him like 15 million guaranteed would probably have been a mistake at his age. You can go through each and every top lineman, and I said top lineman, and there were legitimate reasons not pay that particular person.
Um, no. First off, great example(s). You mention 1 guy and you even got that wrong. Whitworth was 35 at this time last year and he helped transform a bad line to a great line, so clearly the signing was great. You made the comment that Reese was smart to pass on all the OL talent, back it up. 0 for 1.
Quote:
In comment 13853039 Keith said:
Quote:
In comment 13853036 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I don't think the Giants cap situation will hinder them too much, but it's not as rosy a picture as some people paint.
cap space can always be created, but at a cost.
I agree with this. Giants cap situation isn't great, but it's not all that bad either. They spent a lot in the recent years so they need to be a little careful, but they also have a ton of flexibility over the next year or two. They need to be fiscally responsible, can't just sign anyone and everyone, but they can definitely plan in the FA game.
which is all I'm saying as well. They can't sign 10 top FAs, but they aren't going to be stopped from signing 2-3 if they really want them.
on 1 free agent target maybe you're right, but let's not forget the Giants were 2nd worst in the NFL last year. 3 of the top 5 worst teams (Browns, Colts, and Jets) are also in top 5 in cap space. Just means easier to add via FA to improve the team.
Before the injuries hit to Beckham and the rest of the WR's and Pugh, etc. they were still bad, so it wasn't all injuries, this team has holes. Injuries maybe turned 5 - 11 or 6 - 10 into 3 - 13, but the Giants have work to do and I think fans should be patient, I hope Gettleman is and doesn't try and get all the way back in one off-season (necessarily).
Signing 2-3 young fas to good money is not trying to go all in in one off-season. And as I said above, they need to nail FA and the next 2 drafts so I'm not suggesting they try to go all in.
Quote:
In comment 13853037 Keith said:
Quote:
sign FA OL?? Please share.
Whitworth was 36 years old and wanted a three year deal. The Bengals let him walk, and spending big money on him like 15 million guaranteed would probably have been a mistake at his age. You can go through each and every top lineman, and I said top lineman, and there were legitimate reasons not pay that particular person.
Um, no. First off, great example(s). You mention 1 guy and you even got that wrong. Whitworth was 35 at this time last year and he helped transform a bad line to a great line, so clearly the signing was great. You made the comment that Reese was smart to pass on all the OL talent, back it up. 0 for 1.
No, again, you just make things up. I said there were legitimate reasons to pass at the time. I didn't say looking back on it, it was the right move. So, again, I gave you legitimate reasons, I am 1 for 1. I would expect nothing less from the guy who constantly defends Jordan Raanan on here, are you his agent?
Again, they could have easily afforded him if they wanted. Reese chose not to.
I agree with this, and it seems like something Reese did a lot with his draft picks.
Quote:
and not just in hind sight, I think the Giants made a mistake not signing Whitworth and that's partly my point. I don't think they could have afforded him.
Again, they could have easily afforded him if they wanted. Reese chose not to.
We are only left to speculate, since I doubt we every truly know, so we can agree to disagree especially with the word "easily".
Quote:
In comment 13853048 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13853037 Keith said:
Quote:
sign FA OL?? Please share.
Whitworth was 36 years old and wanted a three year deal. The Bengals let him walk, and spending big money on him like 15 million guaranteed would probably have been a mistake at his age. You can go through each and every top lineman, and I said top lineman, and there were legitimate reasons not pay that particular person.
Um, no. First off, great example(s). You mention 1 guy and you even got that wrong. Whitworth was 35 at this time last year and he helped transform a bad line to a great line, so clearly the signing was great. You made the comment that Reese was smart to pass on all the OL talent, back it up. 0 for 1.
No, again, you just make things up. I said there were legitimate reasons to pass at the time. I didn't say looking back on it, it was the right move. So, again, I gave you legitimate reasons, I am 1 for 1. I would expect nothing less from the guy who constantly defends Jordan Raanan on here, are you his agent?
Who are you? I don't recall ever having a conversation with you.
I am not his agent, but I do know him personally and root for his success.
Flowers could have been moved to RT strengthening two spots on the OL, many highly drafted tackles have moved to other tackle spots or even guard spots and Reese wouldn't have looked bad at all. Once upon a time Pugh was drafted to play LT, then he was RT, then he was a guard.
There is no debate the Giants would have been better with Whitworth. Before the signing, during the season, and looking back.
Quote:
In comment 13853061 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
and not just in hind sight, I think the Giants made a mistake not signing Whitworth and that's partly my point. I don't think they could have afforded him.
Again, they could have easily afforded him if they wanted. Reese chose not to.
We are only left to speculate, since I doubt we every truly know, so we can agree to disagree especially with the word "easily".
Marshall signed after Whitworth and had a 4.5MM cap hit in year 1. We could have easily used that space to fit Whitworth in.
Whitworth got 3/33.75MM, with 15 guaranteed and 12.5 in cash (7.5 sal + 5 bonus) in year 1.
We could have given him a 12MM bonus and guaranteed yr 1 salary of 1MM for a year 1 cap hit of 5MM.
0-2.
I don't view it that way, but it's just my opinion. He (or the team) moved Pugh to guard after two seasons. If the specific o-lineman is providing solid play at any position I think the pick is considered a good one. Sure maybe you wouldn't have drafted a G or RT at the Flowers spot, but in the end good OL play is good OL play.
If Flowers moves from LT (where quietly he wasn't that bad last year), to RT and is also a decent player, but it allows for Whitworth to also be on the OL, who is going to fault Reese?
I know I wouldn't.
Quote:
In comment 13853069 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13853061 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
and not just in hind sight, I think the Giants made a mistake not signing Whitworth and that's partly my point. I don't think they could have afforded him.
Again, they could have easily afforded him if they wanted. Reese chose not to.
We are only left to speculate, since I doubt we every truly know, so we can agree to disagree especially with the word "easily".
Marshall signed after Whitworth and had a 4.5MM cap hit in year 1. We could have easily used that space to fit Whitworth in.
Whitworth got 3/33.75MM, with 15 guaranteed and 12.5 in cash (7.5 sal + 5 bonus) in year 1.
We could have given him a 12MM bonus and guaranteed yr 1 salary of 1MM for a year 1 cap hit of 5MM.
Possibly, but then maybe they wouldn't have been able to sign Marshall or Ellison and maybe the Giants knew with limited resources and higher pressing needs they couldn't sign them all. and none of these guys signed massive deals.
Quote:
even if that was possible, which I'm not sure every player can do, it would require Reese to admit that he made a mistake. He drafted Flowers as a long term LT and he doubled down. It ultimately cost him his job.
I don't view it that way, but it's just my opinion. He (or the team) moved Pugh to guard after two seasons. If the specific o-lineman is providing solid play at any position I think the pick is considered a good one. Sure maybe you wouldn't have drafted a G or RT at the Flowers spot, but in the end good OL play is good OL play.
If Flowers moves from LT (where quietly he wasn't that bad last year), to RT and is also a decent player, but it allows for Whitworth to also be on the OL, who is going to fault Reese?
I know I wouldn't.
I think this was more about Reese being stubborn and wanting to prove he made the right pick. When you look at the season as a whole, Flowers was ok, but he started the season brutally bad and that really just took with wind out of our sails.
Quote:
In comment 13853071 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13853069 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13853061 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
and not just in hind sight, I think the Giants made a mistake not signing Whitworth and that's partly my point. I don't think they could have afforded him.
Again, they could have easily afforded him if they wanted. Reese chose not to.
We are only left to speculate, since I doubt we every truly know, so we can agree to disagree especially with the word "easily".
Marshall signed after Whitworth and had a 4.5MM cap hit in year 1. We could have easily used that space to fit Whitworth in.
Whitworth got 3/33.75MM, with 15 guaranteed and 12.5 in cash (7.5 sal + 5 bonus) in year 1.
We could have given him a 12MM bonus and guaranteed yr 1 salary of 1MM for a year 1 cap hit of 5MM.
Possibly, but then maybe they wouldn't have been able to sign Marshall or Ellison and maybe the Giants knew with limited resources and higher pressing needs they couldn't sign them all. and none of these guys signed massive deals.
Clearly, signing Whitworth over Marshall would have been the right move, no? That Reese didn't do it is on him.
Marshall was coming off a decent year with the Jets and filled an absolute need on the Giants with his height and possession receiver qualities. So, for me to say I had an issue with the Marshall signing would be hypocritical.
But realistically if cap wasn't an issue Giants should have signed both Marshall and Whitworth. Hence my point.
Marshall was coming off a decent year with the Jets and filled an absolute need on the Giants with his height and possession receiver qualities. So, for me to say I had an issue with the Marshall signing would be hypocritical.
But realistically if cap wasn't an issue Giants should have signed both Marshall and Whitworth. Hence my point.
If they had 23MM in cap room last year and not 13MM, they could have signed both. Which is my point.
Quote:
absolutely, Whitworth over Marshall was the right move, many people thought so at the time, but I had no issue with the Marshall signing.
Marshall was coming off a decent year with the Jets and filled an absolute need on the Giants with his height and possession receiver qualities. So, for me to say I had an issue with the Marshall signing would be hypocritical.
But realistically if cap wasn't an issue Giants should have signed both Marshall and Whitworth. Hence my point.
If they had 23MM in cap room last year and not 13MM, they could have signed both. Which is my point.
I don't know how much they had, OTC said $13M and they're usually pretty good, and with $13M they clearly couldn't have signed Whitworth, Ellison, Marshall, Fluker, and their rookies and kept all their players they wanted to. I'm not sure they could have with $23M and still had space for all the in season moves.
Quote:
when he wrote a crap article. I knew there had to be some personal connection because nobody could defend Jordan and that article or his "work" in general, as it is terrible and more importantly it is all about Jordan. Engram stinks because he didn't know about it, etc etc.
0-2 on reading comprehension for keith.
fixed it.
Again, my point is that Reese had legitimate reasons for not signing Whitworth at the time; heck the Bengals didn't resign him to a long-term deal and despite them not winning the playoffs very much they had had a lot of success getting there in recent times before last year so not a team that you can just easily dismiss. Reese made a gamble about his belief that the continuity of the young players on the line would increase the performance, he was wrong and lost his job, and deservedly so, for it. But, people who think signing Whitworth was a slam dunk at the time, I do not buy that for a second. The one position in good prospect rarely hit the market is OT. Guards can be gotten in FA, Tackles are much harder to come by.
Quote:
In comment 13853114 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
absolutely, Whitworth over Marshall was the right move, many people thought so at the time, but I had no issue with the Marshall signing.
Marshall was coming off a decent year with the Jets and filled an absolute need on the Giants with his height and possession receiver qualities. So, for me to say I had an issue with the Marshall signing would be hypocritical.
But realistically if cap wasn't an issue Giants should have signed both Marshall and Whitworth. Hence my point.
If they had 23MM in cap room last year and not 13MM, they could have signed both. Which is my point.
I don't know how much they had, OTC said $13M and they're usually pretty good, and with $13M they clearly couldn't have signed Whitworth, Ellison, Marshall, Fluker, and their rookies and kept all their players they wanted to. I'm not sure they could have with $23M and still had space for all the in season moves.
They did all of that except Whitworth with 13, and I've already shown how Whitworth could have only cost them another 5. They would have had 5 left over for more moves or to absorb more of Whitworth's deal in year 1 - which the Rams did. Makes sense to do that with an older player if you have the room.
Quote:
In comment 13853117 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13853114 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
absolutely, Whitworth over Marshall was the right move, many people thought so at the time, but I had no issue with the Marshall signing.
Marshall was coming off a decent year with the Jets and filled an absolute need on the Giants with his height and possession receiver qualities. So, for me to say I had an issue with the Marshall signing would be hypocritical.
But realistically if cap wasn't an issue Giants should have signed both Marshall and Whitworth. Hence my point.
If they had 23MM in cap room last year and not 13MM, they could have signed both. Which is my point.
I don't know how much they had, OTC said $13M and they're usually pretty good, and with $13M they clearly couldn't have signed Whitworth, Ellison, Marshall, Fluker, and their rookies and kept all their players they wanted to. I'm not sure they could have with $23M and still had space for all the in season moves.
They did all of that except Whitworth with 13, and I've already shown how Whitworth could have only cost them another 5. They would have had 5 left over for more moves or to absorb more of Whitworth's deal in year 1 - which the Rams did. Makes sense to do that with an older player if you have the room.
Like I said "at a cost", Whitworth had a $9M cap number with the Rams. So if the Giants were forced to backload more of that contract it would then start to impact their ability to re-sign players like Beckham or Collins (if they want).
Whitworth's cap hit the last two years are ~12.5M each and he's not really cuttable even this year (year 2 of the 3 year deal), I don't see how the Giants afford that especially with your theoretical $5M cap hit and the same guarantees he got with the Rams without some pain (aka "the cost").
cap space can absolutely be created, but it comes at a cost.
Quote:
perhaps some of those other teams have room to maneuver also, but I think the point is they have some room to do things. More than twice as much room as last year when as PJ said they were able to add Marshall and Fluker at numbers that weren't insignificant.
I'm expecting 1 OL starter (will prob cost 10M+, guess would be Norwell or Solder), 1 OL depth guy (someone versatile like Chris Hubbard probably in the range of what they paid Fluker last year), and 1 defensive starter - likely a young LB that fits the new system like Preston Brown.
Giants may get to $35M, but why would that get them to 10th, you're assuming the 19 teams ahead of them (and some of the ones behind them) in cap space cut no one, and only the Giants can cut/restructure people to create more space.
I acknowledged that some of those teams may also have room to maneuver. Some may also have more of their own FA that they need to resign. My point is mostly that from all appearances and quotes from the FO, they have flexibility. They may not be among the teams with the most flexibility, but they don't appear to be cap strapped as some of the teams "ranked better" on that list are.
Quote:
In comment 13852999 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
perhaps some of those other teams have room to maneuver also, but I think the point is they have some room to do things. More than twice as much room as last year when as PJ said they were able to add Marshall and Fluker at numbers that weren't insignificant.
I'm expecting 1 OL starter (will prob cost 10M+, guess would be Norwell or Solder), 1 OL depth guy (someone versatile like Chris Hubbard probably in the range of what they paid Fluker last year), and 1 defensive starter - likely a young LB that fits the new system like Preston Brown.
Giants may get to $35M, but why would that get them to 10th, you're assuming the 19 teams ahead of them (and some of the ones behind them) in cap space cut no one, and only the Giants can cut/restructure people to create more space.
I acknowledged that some of those teams may also have room to maneuver. Some may also have more of their own FA that they need to resign. My point is mostly that from all appearances and quotes from the FO, they have flexibility. They may not be among the teams with the most flexibility, but they don't appear to be cap strapped as some of the teams "ranked better" on that list are.
agree. my only point was it's not a shoulder shrug, the Giants will have to make good choices and they do have limited resources.
Quote:
In comment 13853123 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13853117 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13853114 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
absolutely, Whitworth over Marshall was the right move, many people thought so at the time, but I had no issue with the Marshall signing.
Marshall was coming off a decent year with the Jets and filled an absolute need on the Giants with his height and possession receiver qualities. So, for me to say I had an issue with the Marshall signing would be hypocritical.
But realistically if cap wasn't an issue Giants should have signed both Marshall and Whitworth. Hence my point.
If they had 23MM in cap room last year and not 13MM, they could have signed both. Which is my point.
I don't know how much they had, OTC said $13M and they're usually pretty good, and with $13M they clearly couldn't have signed Whitworth, Ellison, Marshall, Fluker, and their rookies and kept all their players they wanted to. I'm not sure they could have with $23M and still had space for all the in season moves.
They did all of that except Whitworth with 13, and I've already shown how Whitworth could have only cost them another 5. They would have had 5 left over for more moves or to absorb more of Whitworth's deal in year 1 - which the Rams did. Makes sense to do that with an older player if you have the room.
Like I said "at a cost", Whitworth had a $9M cap number with the Rams. So if the Giants were forced to backload more of that contract it would then start to impact their ability to re-sign players like Beckham or Collins (if they want).
Whitworth's cap hit the last two years are ~12.5M each and he's not really cuttable even this year (year 2 of the 3 year deal), I don't see how the Giants afford that especially with your theoretical $5M cap hit and the same guarantees he got with the Rams without some pain (aka "the cost").
cap space can absolutely be created, but it comes at a cost.
The Rams would save 7MM if they cut Whitworth. The Giants likely wouldn't have save much if anything in my structure. So it would have been a risk for sure.
That said, Whitworth isn't getting cut so the risk would have been worth it.
These are the things we never hear about. The player and their spouses’ feelings about living in different parts of the country. Money doesn’t always win the day.
Yeah but that's mostly because you don't understand how the cap works.
Quote:
You can understand teams like Philly, New England, Atlanta, Pittsburgh having fewer cap resources...those are actually good teams. But to be one of the worst teams in football with a putrid roster AND be more limited than most teams against the cap is tough to swallow.
Yeah but that's mostly because you don't understand how the cap works.
How can I or anyone else take you seriously? What are you even talking about?
I think you do care, because if you didn't you wouldn't try to turn a thread about the salary cap a personal attack on me. As for being miserable to be around, I don't know. I guess you'd have to ask the people around me. But I'd suggest you read your last post and ask yourself who's actually miserable.
In the meantime, enjoy knowing more about the cap than I do.
You'd be much better off signing Norwell and one of those guys and then taking an OL at 34. While they could in theory sign all 3, that's not a good distribution of cap $ to have all of those contracts hit at once. Especially since Solder and Pugh have injury concerns.
agree. my only point was it's not a shoulder shrug, the Giants will have to make good choices and they do have limited resources.
Yup. They won't be as active as they were 2 years ago but I expect them to be able to do more than they did last year when they basically at 3 mid-tier starters on offense (Marshall, Ellison, Fluker). If I was going to guess they'll probably add 1 higher tier starter on the OL, 1 mid-tier OL, and a few guys on the defensive side.
The Browns cap situation should be a HUGE red flag to the NFL. Teams should be required to spend a min amount and should be penalized (perhaps draft position) based on that cap surplus. $108 mil available is crazy when the cap number is $177 ish...
Pretty sure from the last CBA, there is a penalty for teams that do not meet the floor for 2-3 years average. The penalty was taking the $ amount and paying it directly to the players on the team for that 2-3 year period.
I've never heard it used, however.