No argument here, but it was also going on as far back as Ernie Accorsi. 2020 is going to be the first time that I can recall that the Giants are going to have a bunch of cap room. How long has the cap been in place? Two decades?
Really hard to be in a good cap position when you don't draft well. Begins with that. Having to sign free agents when you already have drafted poorly at the same position. Kills your cap space.
Actually you’re right, I’m wrong. Crayola is fine, fire them off. I was thinking about it differently but I see your point.
We will lose 5 mil in cap space over two years. Practically, I don’t think it really hurts the club given the amount of cap space available next year and with a QB on a rookie deal.
The Solder deal is really the only eyesore on the roster moving forward. If that’s the only bad contract we’re in a good spot relative to the rest of the league.
If they do not chew up all their cap space over the next 2 years, then it won't matter.
But here is the thing. I hate these contracts with league minimum salaries the first year, but with huge signing bonuses. Its the same thing, essentially pushing the cap ihit for the 1st year salary into future years.
Yet almost every contract is structured like this. I would prefer the team to front load the salary and guarantee it taking the cap hits early in the contract lifetime. That way they have more flexibility later to walk away (cut or trade) without a cap hit, renegotiate etc... That is the far more responsible way to manage the cap.
But it's not as sexy as signing a whole bunch of players like we did in 2016. It would mean the 60 million we have next year won't go as far, but it will help future years. If the team is responsible managing the cap, then they should wind up using up most of that 60 million on just a few players.
I think the problem with front loading deals is that it makes the player more likely to hold out for a raise on the backend. This happened with Osi. They only see what their paycheck is going to be, not what they’ve already been paid.
Actually you’re right, I’m wrong. Crayola is fine, fire them off. I was thinking about it differently but I see your point.
We will lose 5 mil in cap space over two years. Practically, I don’t think it really hurts the club given the amount of cap space available next year and with a QB on a rookie deal.
The Solder deal is really the only eyesore on the roster moving forward. If that’s the only bad contract we’re in a good spot relative to the rest of the league.
If they do not chew up all their cap space over the next 2 years, then it won't matter.
But here is the thing. I hate these contracts with league minimum salaries the first year, but with huge signing bonuses. Its the same thing, essentially pushing the cap ihit for the 1st year salary into future years.
Yet almost every contract is structured like this. I would prefer the team to front load the salary and guarantee it taking the cap hits early in the contract lifetime. That way they have more flexibility later to walk away (cut or trade) without a cap hit, renegotiate etc... That is the far more responsible way to manage the cap.
But it's not as sexy as signing a whole bunch of players like we did in 2016. It would mean the 60 million we have next year won't go as far, but it will help future years. If the team is responsible managing the cap, then they should wind up using up most of that 60 million on just a few players.
I think the problem with front loading deals is that it makes the player more likely to hold out for a raise on the backend. This happened with Osi. They only see what their paycheck is going to be, not what they’ve already been paid.
This is a great point, which does lead to a careful balance between managing your cap in the present and future in a responsible manner while also keeping a carrot in front of players who need that to stay focused and motivated.
Drafting well is only part of it. Of course you'd like a stable of young, high character, cheap players. But realistically and statistically a good draft nets 3 starters.
Over a competitive window you'll need to draft well and then sign your own and other UFAs. Those good players you drafted can cost as much as players from other teams. Every bad dollar spent, is money you don't have.
Fans act like a team can control who becomes available or what resources the competition has -- you can't. That's why saving every dollar you can is crucial.
Lots of fans are all excited about this coming UFA season because Giants have 62M. But who's available? How much does the competition have? Look that up, and you might be less excited.
Hint, the Giants would be way better positioned with more money.
General management requires consistency in philosophy. Good GMs pick guys who fit the tactical and character goals of the team AND don't go over slot for them.
The last 2 GMs have made cardinal sins:
1) Reese gave up financial and character prudence because Mara gave him the fix it or else ultimatum
2) Gettleman overpaid to try and stabilize the team and fix the locker room, and has overpaid for good guys who are average players
Annual Cap is big enough to make some free agent splashes Â
and deal with injuries. It is not big enough to overcome years of bad drafting in combination with the two other items.
We all know, DG inherited a wealth of issues and we are digging out of them. Still some really big holes to fix and a team that has got to start finding its way in the NFL and particularly within the division.
Easier to see Giants playing better this versus playing well.
The biggest topic on our horizon as fans is the transition of the QB...
Next year the Giants will be in the enviable position of having a starting QB on a rookie deal.
They absolutely cannot negate that advantage by paying average players like Solder, Tate, and Jenkins 15-20M more than their value.
If you cut those 3 after the season -- my guess is Jenkins doesn't net more than a 5M salary, Solder no more than 10M, and Tate no more than 5M.
As it stands those 3 characters project to cost the Giants 34.7M.
Agreed, and to your point above. Having, now, 60 million against the cap next year, puts the Giants in the middle of the pack, league average is about 56 million.
Next year the Giants will be in the enviable position of having a starting QB on a rookie deal.
They absolutely cannot negate that advantage by paying average players like Solder, Tate, and Jenkins 15-20M more than their value.
If you cut those 3 after the season -- my guess is Jenkins doesn't net more than a 5M salary, Solder no more than 10M, and Tate no more than 5M.
As it stands those 3 characters project to cost the Giants 34.7M.
Agreed, and to your point above. Having, now, 60 million against the cap next year, puts the Giants in the middle of the pack, league average is about 56 million.
Yup -- importantly it's 60M out of 1.7B in open space.
The Giants are an average team with average cap space.
The idea they can be cavalier with any of their resources is one of the truly hilarious and flat out wrong takes by fans.
The Giants need to be much, much better at allocating money.
They aren't going to be picking in the top 10 next year, and they don't have any more good players to trade.
Gettleman must make every dollar count.
If Amari Cooper has his way with J Jenkins later today Â
All teams incur dead money hits and in this case, UNLESS DG MAKES THIS A TREND, not a concern at all..We’ll be fine (great?) with the cap moving forward
All teams incur dead money hits and in this case, UNLESS DG MAKES THIS A TREND, not a concern at all..We’ll be fine (great?) with the cap moving forward
The Giants aren't all teams -- they have operated with substantial dead money this and last year to the tune of 77M dollars. For arguments sake let's put that 100% on Reese. And the reason was bad contracts, right?
So next year, the unequivocal reality is the Giants aren't in great cap shape, they are in average cap shape.
Is Solder a good contract? Forget about why he was signed and any justifications, just simply is he under a good contract?
And again for arguments sake say 32-year-old Nate Solder going into his 10th year in the NFL, has shown signs of slipping for 2 straight years (same exact age David Diehl fell apart) -- and the Giants decide 19.5M is not just a bad value, but an unacceptable value.
The Giants are left eating 13.5M to save 6M. Seems a lot like what Gettleman was doing to clean up for Reese to me.
Kareem Martin
Alec Ogeltree
Golden Tate (starting next year)
Rhett Ellison
Janoris Jenkins
Chances are that Tate may be the only one left standing. All of these guys have targets on their backs
And that'll be another round of dead money if/when those cuts occur.
Yet another example of the consistent irresponsibility in our cap management - you want your players to play out their full contracts, because not only does that usually mean they're a player of enough value that they deserved to be a mainstay on your roster, but you also qualify for a potential compensatory pick if your players sign with another team after reaching free agency without being released. Teams like the Patriots and Eagles understand this and have successfully worked the comp pick system for years.
Those extra picks obviously let you load your roster with more preferred talent at a significant bargain rate. Cutting guys typically leaves you with dead money and now an additional need to expend finite resources, either through the draft or free agency.
It is a systemic flaw in the way the Giants approach roster construction and cap management.
Dunk, do you think that Gettleman has made a shift Â
and is working to change our dealings around the cap, or that it will be more of the same for us down the line.
I'm relatively optimistic about that, but I guess it will depend upon how well we draft down the line.
He definitely seems to value compensatory picks more than Reese did and the early returns on his draft picks have largely been a massive improvement vs. Reese. That alone will help dramatically - amassing young, cheap talent (that is actually talented) affords you so much more margin for error with the cap.
That said, I do still think there are enough indications so far that Gettleman might have some of his own weaknesses with the cap. The optimist in me hopes that's just a byproduct of the Reese mess, and that a better overall roster might help avoid those no-win decisions and thus preclude Gettleman from even being in a situation that could expose what appears to be his weak spot as it relates to the cap.
The cynic in me wonders how much of this is really just due to Abrams to the extent that the same neverending cycle of middling cap space and absorbing dead money to clear cap room is something we saw consistently through Reese's tenure, and Abrams is the executive in the same role for both GMs.
RE: RE: Dunk, do you think that Gettleman has made a shift Â
and is working to change our dealings around the cap, or that it will be more of the same for us down the line.
I'm relatively optimistic about that, but I guess it will depend upon how well we draft down the line.
He definitely seems to value compensatory picks more than Reese did and the early returns on his draft picks have largely been a massive improvement vs. Reese. That alone will help dramatically - amassing young, cheap talent (that is actually talented) affords you so much more margin for error with the cap.
That said, I do still think there are enough indications so far that Gettleman might have some of his own weaknesses with the cap. The optimist in me hopes that's just a byproduct of the Reese mess, and that a better overall roster might help avoid those no-win decisions and thus preclude Gettleman from even being in a situation that could expose what appears to be his weak spot as it relates to the cap.
The cynic in me wonders how much of this is really just due to Abrams to the extent that the same neverending cycle of middling cap space and absorbing dead money to clear cap room is something we saw consistently through Reese's tenure, and Abrams is the executive in the same role for both GMs.
Well said, my feelings exactly.
I am cautiously optimistic that the improved drafting will prevent a horrible cap mess. But, that's about it, can't say I am confident.
If you need to see what $35M in dead money looks like, Â
This is it. Remember that when you hit your knees tonight and worship the mediocrity of our cap guru, the immortal Kevin Abrams. I'm sure some of you still think he's fine (great?) in his role.
Here's the bright side: you might never again have to stay up past your bedtime on draft night so long as he's our cap guy.
Does Abrams choose or influence roster and drafting ?
Or does he execute contracts once choices are made, interact with agents and insure NFL contract compliance?
And since transitioning from Reese to Gettleman, the choices that theoretically precede Abrams’ involvement have mostly been better but the systemic cap management habits have remained the same. I suppose that’s a very feasible coincidence given the shared pedigree of Reese and Gettleman, but Occam’s Razor makes Abrams a more likely consideration.
Really hard to be in a good cap position when you don't draft well. Begins with that. Having to sign free agents when you already have drafted poorly at the same position. Kills your cap space.
Quote:
Actually you’re right, I’m wrong. Crayola is fine, fire them off. I was thinking about it differently but I see your point.
We will lose 5 mil in cap space over two years. Practically, I don’t think it really hurts the club given the amount of cap space available next year and with a QB on a rookie deal.
The Solder deal is really the only eyesore on the roster moving forward. If that’s the only bad contract we’re in a good spot relative to the rest of the league.
If they do not chew up all their cap space over the next 2 years, then it won't matter.
But here is the thing. I hate these contracts with league minimum salaries the first year, but with huge signing bonuses. Its the same thing, essentially pushing the cap ihit for the 1st year salary into future years.
Yet almost every contract is structured like this. I would prefer the team to front load the salary and guarantee it taking the cap hits early in the contract lifetime. That way they have more flexibility later to walk away (cut or trade) without a cap hit, renegotiate etc... That is the far more responsible way to manage the cap.
But it's not as sexy as signing a whole bunch of players like we did in 2016. It would mean the 60 million we have next year won't go as far, but it will help future years. If the team is responsible managing the cap, then they should wind up using up most of that 60 million on just a few players.
I think the problem with front loading deals is that it makes the player more likely to hold out for a raise on the backend. This happened with Osi. They only see what their paycheck is going to be, not what they’ve already been paid.
Quote:
In comment 14563113 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Actually you’re right, I’m wrong. Crayola is fine, fire them off. I was thinking about it differently but I see your point.
We will lose 5 mil in cap space over two years. Practically, I don’t think it really hurts the club given the amount of cap space available next year and with a QB on a rookie deal.
The Solder deal is really the only eyesore on the roster moving forward. If that’s the only bad contract we’re in a good spot relative to the rest of the league.
If they do not chew up all their cap space over the next 2 years, then it won't matter.
But here is the thing. I hate these contracts with league minimum salaries the first year, but with huge signing bonuses. Its the same thing, essentially pushing the cap ihit for the 1st year salary into future years.
Yet almost every contract is structured like this. I would prefer the team to front load the salary and guarantee it taking the cap hits early in the contract lifetime. That way they have more flexibility later to walk away (cut or trade) without a cap hit, renegotiate etc... That is the far more responsible way to manage the cap.
But it's not as sexy as signing a whole bunch of players like we did in 2016. It would mean the 60 million we have next year won't go as far, but it will help future years. If the team is responsible managing the cap, then they should wind up using up most of that 60 million on just a few players.
I think the problem with front loading deals is that it makes the player more likely to hold out for a raise on the backend. This happened with Osi. They only see what their paycheck is going to be, not what they’ve already been paid.
This is a great point, which does lead to a careful balance between managing your cap in the present and future in a responsible manner while also keeping a carrot in front of players who need that to stay focused and motivated.
Over a competitive window you'll need to draft well and then sign your own and other UFAs. Those good players you drafted can cost as much as players from other teams. Every bad dollar spent, is money you don't have.
Fans act like a team can control who becomes available or what resources the competition has -- you can't. That's why saving every dollar you can is crucial.
Lots of fans are all excited about this coming UFA season because Giants have 62M. But who's available? How much does the competition have? Look that up, and you might be less excited.
Hint, the Giants would be way better positioned with more money.
General management requires consistency in philosophy. Good GMs pick guys who fit the tactical and character goals of the team AND don't go over slot for them.
The last 2 GMs have made cardinal sins:
1) Reese gave up financial and character prudence because Mara gave him the fix it or else ultimatum
2) Gettleman overpaid to try and stabilize the team and fix the locker room, and has overpaid for good guys who are average players
We all know, DG inherited a wealth of issues and we are digging out of them. Still some really big holes to fix and a team that has got to start finding its way in the NFL and particularly within the division.
Easier to see Giants playing better this versus playing well.
The biggest topic on our horizon as fans is the transition of the QB...
They absolutely cannot negate that advantage by paying average players like Solder, Tate, and Jenkins 15-20M more than their value.
If you cut those 3 after the season -- my guess is Jenkins doesn't net more than a 5M salary, Solder no more than 10M, and Tate no more than 5M.
As it stands those 3 characters project to cost the Giants 34.7M.
They absolutely cannot negate that advantage by paying average players like Solder, Tate, and Jenkins 15-20M more than their value.
If you cut those 3 after the season -- my guess is Jenkins doesn't net more than a 5M salary, Solder no more than 10M, and Tate no more than 5M.
As it stands those 3 characters project to cost the Giants 34.7M.
that is an eye-rolling figure...
They absolutely cannot negate that advantage by paying average players like Solder, Tate, and Jenkins 15-20M more than their value.
If you cut those 3 after the season -- my guess is Jenkins doesn't net more than a 5M salary, Solder no more than 10M, and Tate no more than 5M.
As it stands those 3 characters project to cost the Giants 34.7M.
Agreed, and to your point above. Having, now, 60 million against the cap next year, puts the Giants in the middle of the pack, league average is about 56 million.
Kareem Martin
Alec Ogeltree
Golden Tate (starting next year)
Rhett Ellison
Janoris Jenkins
Chances are that Tate may be the only one left standing. All of these guys have targets on their backs
Quote:
Next year the Giants will be in the enviable position of having a starting QB on a rookie deal.
They absolutely cannot negate that advantage by paying average players like Solder, Tate, and Jenkins 15-20M more than their value.
If you cut those 3 after the season -- my guess is Jenkins doesn't net more than a 5M salary, Solder no more than 10M, and Tate no more than 5M.
As it stands those 3 characters project to cost the Giants 34.7M.
Agreed, and to your point above. Having, now, 60 million against the cap next year, puts the Giants in the middle of the pack, league average is about 56 million.
Yup -- importantly it's 60M out of 1.7B in open space.
The Giants are an average team with average cap space.
The idea they can be cavalier with any of their resources is one of the truly hilarious and flat out wrong takes by fans.
The Giants need to be much, much better at allocating money.
They aren't going to be picking in the top 10 next year, and they don't have any more good players to trade.
Gettleman must make every dollar count.
I promise to just scream in a couch pillow and not subject you guys to my anger.
The Giants aren't all teams -- they have operated with substantial dead money this and last year to the tune of 77M dollars. For arguments sake let's put that 100% on Reese. And the reason was bad contracts, right?
So next year, the unequivocal reality is the Giants aren't in great cap shape, they are in average cap shape.
Is Solder a good contract? Forget about why he was signed and any justifications, just simply is he under a good contract?
And again for arguments sake say 32-year-old Nate Solder going into his 10th year in the NFL, has shown signs of slipping for 2 straight years (same exact age David Diehl fell apart) -- and the Giants decide 19.5M is not just a bad value, but an unacceptable value.
The Giants are left eating 13.5M to save 6M. Seems a lot like what Gettleman was doing to clean up for Reese to me.
Quote:
As I posted earlier
Kareem Martin
Alec Ogeltree
Golden Tate (starting next year)
Rhett Ellison
Janoris Jenkins
Chances are that Tate may be the only one left standing. All of these guys have targets on their backs
And that'll be another round of dead money if/when those cuts occur.
Yet another example of the consistent irresponsibility in our cap management - you want your players to play out their full contracts, because not only does that usually mean they're a player of enough value that they deserved to be a mainstay on your roster, but you also qualify for a potential compensatory pick if your players sign with another team after reaching free agency without being released. Teams like the Patriots and Eagles understand this and have successfully worked the comp pick system for years.
Those extra picks obviously let you load your roster with more preferred talent at a significant bargain rate. Cutting guys typically leaves you with dead money and now an additional need to expend finite resources, either through the draft or free agency.
It is a systemic flaw in the way the Giants approach roster construction and cap management.
I'm relatively optimistic about that, but I guess it will depend upon how well we draft down the line.
Probably after week 1.
I'm relatively optimistic about that, but I guess it will depend upon how well we draft down the line.
He definitely seems to value compensatory picks more than Reese did and the early returns on his draft picks have largely been a massive improvement vs. Reese. That alone will help dramatically - amassing young, cheap talent (that is actually talented) affords you so much more margin for error with the cap.
That said, I do still think there are enough indications so far that Gettleman might have some of his own weaknesses with the cap. The optimist in me hopes that's just a byproduct of the Reese mess, and that a better overall roster might help avoid those no-win decisions and thus preclude Gettleman from even being in a situation that could expose what appears to be his weak spot as it relates to the cap.
The cynic in me wonders how much of this is really just due to Abrams to the extent that the same neverending cycle of middling cap space and absorbing dead money to clear cap room is something we saw consistently through Reese's tenure, and Abrams is the executive in the same role for both GMs.
Quote:
and is working to change our dealings around the cap, or that it will be more of the same for us down the line.
I'm relatively optimistic about that, but I guess it will depend upon how well we draft down the line.
He definitely seems to value compensatory picks more than Reese did and the early returns on his draft picks have largely been a massive improvement vs. Reese. That alone will help dramatically - amassing young, cheap talent (that is actually talented) affords you so much more margin for error with the cap.
That said, I do still think there are enough indications so far that Gettleman might have some of his own weaknesses with the cap. The optimist in me hopes that's just a byproduct of the Reese mess, and that a better overall roster might help avoid those no-win decisions and thus preclude Gettleman from even being in a situation that could expose what appears to be his weak spot as it relates to the cap.
The cynic in me wonders how much of this is really just due to Abrams to the extent that the same neverending cycle of middling cap space and absorbing dead money to clear cap room is something we saw consistently through Reese's tenure, and Abrams is the executive in the same role for both GMs.
Well said, my feelings exactly.
I am cautiously optimistic that the improved drafting will prevent a horrible cap mess. But, that's about it, can't say I am confident.
Here's the bright side: you might never again have to stay up past your bedtime on draft night so long as he's our cap guy.
Or does he execute contracts once choices are made, interact with agents and insure NFL contract compliance?
Or does he execute contracts once choices are made, interact with agents and insure NFL contract compliance?
His contract construction is elementary at best and detrimental at worst. But by all means, let’s keep celebrating his mediocrity.
Or does he execute contracts once choices are made, interact with agents and insure NFL contract compliance?
And since transitioning from Reese to Gettleman, the choices that theoretically precede Abrams’ involvement have mostly been better but the systemic cap management habits have remained the same. I suppose that’s a very feasible coincidence given the shared pedigree of Reese and Gettleman, but Occam’s Razor makes Abrams a more likely consideration.