Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
The Giants have $6M in cap space. Their draft class will cost roughly $6M on the cap. Examining their avenues to create space. Also, digging into the incentives for Drew Lock and Devin Singletary, and the different kind of roster bonus the Giants used heavily this offseason: https://nytimes.com/athletic/5493547/2024/05/15/new-york-giants-salary-cap-space/
NYGfaninCLT
@clt_ny
·
45m
The if and when of Waller retiring is pivotal.
$11m+ post-June 1…
Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
·
32m
Yeah, and I don't think this has been some deliberate stall. But now that we're two weeks away, it would make sense to just delay the decision until after June 1, unless they don't want to push any money into 2025.
There will be contract restructures coming.
otc - ( New Window )
There will be contract restructures coming. otc - ( New Window )
I think it's Thomas, what's your guess?
Yes, but even if you do so, the cap space that is freed up does not hit the books until June 2nd (18 more days).
Quote:
in current cap space, and negative space after signing draft class.
There will be contract restructures coming. otc - ( New Window )
I think it's Thomas, what's your guess?
Gano needs to take a pay cut.
Is lack of cap space indicative of mismanagement (dumb), similar to bouncing a check, or is it indicative of playing things very close in order to take the fullest advantage of every dollar that is available (smart)?
As the Giants are frequently on the low end of cap room spectrum, have there been instances where lack of cap space has prevented the Giants from keeping players whom they wanted to keep, or prevented the Giants from acquiring players who were reasonably available?
Thanks in advance.
Quote:
in current cap space, and negative space after signing draft class.
There will be contract restructures coming. otc - ( New Window )
I think it's Thomas, what's your guess?
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
The -4.6M is reflective of the top 51 including the draft pool.
If history is any indication, the Giants will eventually need to create ~15M in space to get under the cap and operate.
11.6M might come by way of designated Darren Waller a post-June 1 cut.
Is lack of cap space indicative of mismanagement (dumb), similar to bouncing a check, or is it indicative of playing things very close in order to take the fullest advantage of every dollar that is available (smart)?
As the Giants are frequently on the low end of cap room spectrum, have there been instances where lack of cap space has prevented the Giants from keeping players whom they wanted to keep, or prevented the Giants from acquiring players who were reasonably available?
Thanks in advance.
Winning excuses everything. If you are a seriously contending team and up against the cap, it's not an indication of doing anything wrong.
If you are a bad team up against the cap every year, it's a sign of impatience and lack of realism about where you are.
Brian Burns may have a good year and may help the Giants win a game or two they wouldn't otherwise. But the alternative was to keep that high second round draft pick, draft a defensive starter (e.g., a legit starting outside CB) and be in a better cap position going forward.
Cap space doesn't disappear if you don't use it; it can be rolled over to a season where you might realistically seriously contend and have "earned" the right to splurge on that high cost player.
Quote:
in current cap space, and negative space after signing draft class.
There will be contract restructures coming. otc - ( New Window )
I think it's Thomas, what's your guess?
Waller’s retirement either pre or post June 1 would probably create enough cap space for the season. They’ll wait until that resolves before they do anything else.
Quote:
We have repeatedly seen the Giants with a very low cap number. Schoen doesn't react until he has to. And the current OTC number likely reflects the draft signings so far.
The -4.6M is reflective of the top 51 including the draft pool.
If history is any indication, the Giants will eventually need to create ~15M in space to get under the cap and operate.
11.6M might come by way of designated Darren Waller a post-June 1 cut.
Yes and as you say the top draft choices are part of that calculation. I think $15m sounds a bit high but that’s possible. But it’s not like Schoen doesn’t know all this as well. He’s got a plan as he’s shown before.
I do think Waller is done, so there will be some savings there.
So I think they'll conservatively need to move 15M that's on the books for 2024 either off or into future years.
I do think Waller is done, so there will be some savings there.
He still can restructure Thomas whenever he needs.
So you are suggesting that he never tried. Were you in the room? He is not going to announce that he had discussions with Thomas' representative but could not get the deal done back then.
Quote:
Not restructuring Thomas when he could have gotten an extra $4-5 mil back in March.
So you are suggesting that he never tried. Were you in the room? He is not going to announce that he had discussions with Thomas' representative but could not get the deal done back then.
He does not have to try. He just does it, no permission needed.
But to Rudy, Schoen didn't make a mistake. He chose not to do it. He does not like pushing money down the road. Just two schools of thought.
He does not have to try. He just does it, no permission needed.
But to Rudy, Schoen didn't make a mistake. He chose not to do it. He does not like pushing money down the road. Just two schools of thought.
Schoen has pushed money down the road on Dexter Lawrence (twice), Daniel Jones, Bobby Okereke and Darren Waller.
By trading a premium draft pick for Brian Burns, he knew he was creating a situation that would require more kicking of the can.
Schoen has shown he doesn't like restructuring players he knows or suspects he doesn't want to keep around beyond the current year. But that's the most one can say.
The evidence of good resource allocation and accounting is fielding a good team. The period of time where you have the highest level of certainty on your needs is the current year. So it's perfectly logical to prioritize this year, at the expense of future years. When you get to next year, you can do the same.
The team with the most cap space and fewest des dollars doesn't win a prize.
I've come to truly believe because of the flexibilities allowed for in the CBA, the only substantive cap mistake you can make is paying a player too much guaranteed money. And if you have several players making too much guaranteed money, your talent level overall suffers.
If the performance to dollars ratio is mostly in your favor, moving the dollars around on the spreadsheet is the easy part.
With this, I don't agree. For a bad team with a lot of holes, filling one of those holes, and your cap space, with an expensive player on the market isn't the way to go, particularly when you give up a premium draft pick in the process.
You're still not going to be a contender in that season; the space you could have rolled over to the following season is gone; and the player you acquired gets another year older.
If you're going to make a big, multi-year investment you have to be comfortable projecting (as comfortable as projections can be in a dangerous game) the player will play the right amount of good years for the money.
What I'm more talking about is an A'shawn Robinson deal last year, where they borrowed 2.1M from 2024, to add him in 2023. The compensation for the year was right, it just needed to be accounted for over two.