...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.