No big surprise, of course. The "I'm sick of losing" angle seems like a real thing with hin. It's been beaten to death around here, but the thought of Gettleman renting him for part of a year when we are in rebuilding/non-contending mode and badly needed the picks he traded away is infuriating.
Now Leonard Williams is talking - (
New Window )
1. What exactly does LW do that we haven't been able to get from our current DTs at much cheaper contracts?
He does do some pretty obvious things our cheaper DT's don't. I'm surprised BBI's crystal ball-toting draft expert slash cap expert slash analytics expert even has to ask.
Quote:
....so why again didn’t Gettleman just wait for him to be a FA?
because he would pay more money in Free Agency than if you had him now with some leverage to get a team friendly deal. And, if Williams isn't willing to take less money, you franchise him until he will. The cost of this trade is the cap savings we make vs the value of the picks we gave up. Obviously, they can't be quantified directly against each other but if we save a whole bunch of cap money than losing the picks might be worth it because then we can spend the savings elsewhere on a proven NFL player as opposed to crapshoot.
That "team friendly deal" is never going to happen, and if you believed it I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Williams doesn't have an idiot for an agent, and the Giants never had any actual leverage because they're the ones who have already made the investment to acquire LW's rights.
Quote:
In comment 14708582 sb from NYT Forum said:
Quote:
....so why again didn’t Gettleman just wait for him to be a FA?
because he would pay more money in Free Agency than if you had him now with some leverage to get a team friendly deal. And, if Williams isn't willing to take less money, you franchise him until he will. The cost of this trade is the cap savings we make vs the value of the picks we gave up. Obviously, they can't be quantified directly against each other but if we save a whole bunch of cap money than losing the picks might be worth it because then we can spend the savings elsewhere on a proven NFL player as opposed to crapshoot.
That "team friendly deal" is never going to happen, and if you believed it I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Williams doesn't have an idiot for an agent, and the Giants never had any actual leverage because they're the ones who have already made the investment to acquire LW's rights.
Maybe so, but if LW never gets to the market that is a win for us. Second, in the NFL when a career can be over in a flash nobody is going to want to wait a year before the second contract--so I think the Giants have quite a bit of leverage given that the worst case scenario is we pay the franchise tag. I am not saying Gettleman can't--or won't--mess this up, but I see enough here to let it play out before I make that judgment.
any sane person should have known this was going to be the case from the start.
any sane person knows players/agents enter the process by expressing a desire to be well compensated.
I don't think DG is such a huge idiot that he didn't know LW was going to want top dollar. I'd be surprised if a dollar range wasn't agreed to before the trade. with that in mind, DG and Co decided before the trade that the picks and contract were going to be worth it. I'm a believer that DG does not act in a vacuum, so Mara has put his stamp of approval on it. Whether we, the fans, think it's worth it is immaterial.
There's nothing new to see here.
Its GM malpractice worthy of termination.
As Brett in particular has pointed out repeatedly, it's that the trade represents a poor allocation of resources.
And that still just skips past the most galling part of all this - that Gettleman TRADED 2 PICKS for the right to tag Williams. That's why people are upset - it's not 'consistent' because it's a completely different situation.
I'm specifically talking about the hyperbolic insistence on not utilizing the tag now, after the trade has already been made. That's basically arguing into the necessity of a long term deal which I think would be a more needless risk than making the deal in the first place.
Had they tagged LC for 2019 they surely would have listened to trade offers for him at the deadline as they did in 2018, same as they can do for LW next year if he's on a 1 year deal. That would give them the opportunity to recoup the picks traded in the first place if he doesn't work out on the field. Making this move in the first place was a gamble but there is a very easy way to mitigate that gamble at the expense of nothing but a little cap room for 1 season.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts.
His play is what was expected.
His contract demands are what was expected.
What did you guys expect? that he was going to come in and single handedly change the defense and/or sign for a song?
2) The Giants actually have a lot of negotiating leverage. The franchise tag (better than the transition tag) can be used and will give Williams every incentive to sign a market price deal. In fact, the tag makes it likely that having Williams on the roster for 2019 will help them save some money.
3) The Giants have no players to spend money on, the results of years of drawing failure. And there will be few good players on the market in the spring. With Williams, at least they can spend the money on a good young player who can help the team's depleted talent base instead of Nate Solder Part II.
There's a continual delusion on the part of fans that a cheap vet will fall into our laps during free agency. I guess there are examples of good economical signings out there, but they are few and far between. The trade market has been really important the last few years as a way for teams to get value of players that they won't be extending. Example: Dee Ford was traded last March by the Chiefs to the 49ers after the Chiefs applied a franchise tag.
I'm not a fan of all of Gettleman's moves, but I thought this was a transaction that makes sense.
In return for that option year, we had to give up 1 pick this year and 1 the following. But picks can be recouped if decide to not extend him by next year's trade deadline. Or if we tag again next year. This is a safe gamble - unless we overpay needlessly.
In return for that option year, we had to give up 1 pick this year and 1 the following. But picks can be recouped if decide to not extend him by next year's trade deadline. Or if we tag again next year. This is a safe gamble - unless we overpay needlessly.
How does signing Williams to 1 year at $17+M help the Giants and justify a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick?
How does that make sense to anyone as a good option and cause you to say good trade?
and Giants gonna give him 18 million a year!
How does signing Williams to 1 year at $17+M help the Giants and justify a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick?
How does that make sense to anyone as a good option and cause you to say good trade?
The same way signing players to a 1 year deal (or acquiring players with 1 option year left on their contract) would help any other team in any other sport? By having the player's rights for 1 year.
This isn't a great comparison bc you know I hate the other deal but the reason I hated the other deal is different here (mets not spending $), but this is a lot like the Stroman trade by the Mets. Adding a player for the following season when he is available at the trade deadline in season when you aren't in the playoff race. Adding Stroman for 2020 was fine, the issue I had was the Wilpons wouldn't spend to resign him long term even if he's great and let him walk like Wheeler. And they could have just resigned Wheeler who is a better player. We don't have a better player here and I don't think there would have been a better player available in FA (definitely not on a 1 year deal).
Its GM malpractice worthy of termination.
He has bungled the rebuild at every opportunity.
DG will have used a 1st (Dlaw), a high 3rd (BJ Hill), replaced that high third with another high third PLUS a 4th PLUS paying LW 10% our our cap space. (in addition to the 2017 2nd rounder)
For positions that theyre supposed to eat blockers and make room for the LBs to make tackles.
Any people still dont understand what I mean when I say DG does not understand asset allocation and positional value.
He is the worst general manager in the NFL. He has to go.
^^^THIS^^^
And this entire situation with Williams was 100% predictable to anyone with a brain.
And those of you saying mid round picks don't matter have no clue what you are talking about.
There is no defending this. There never was a valid reason to do it. It alone is a fireable offense.
Quote:
I
How does signing Williams to 1 year at $17+M help the Giants and justify a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick?
How does that make sense to anyone as a good option and cause you to say good trade?
The same way signing players to a 1 year deal (or acquiring players with 1 option year left on their contract) would help any other team in any other sport? By having the player's rights for 1 year.
This isn't a great comparison bc you know I hate the other deal but the reason I hated the other deal is different here (mets not spending $), but this is a lot like the Stroman trade by the Mets. Adding a player for the following season when he is available at the trade deadline in season when you aren't in the playoff race. Adding Stroman for 2020 was fine, the issue I had was the Wilpons wouldn't spend to resign him long term even if he's great and let him walk like Wheeler. And they could have just resigned Wheeler who is a better player. We don't have a better player here and I don't think there would have been a better player available in FA (definitely not on a 1 year deal).
Bad comparison because the NFL has a salary cap and you can front load contracts differently so when you do have space you can control to an extent when you realize the cap hit, making future years less risky (for example).
You (or someone) even said franchise him for a couple years.
It's a terrible use of resources. That would be $37M guaranteed dollars over 2 years.
Most likely that would be close to the total guarantees on a 5 year deal (or close).
I don't know how you can say that with absolute certainty. Let's say Dallas was the team that traded for him. Are they using their FT on Williams with Prescott and Cooper about to become FAs? I think it's very possible that a team other than the Giants could have traded for Williams as a rental for this season, with the hopes that they might re-sign him, but with no intent or realistic ability to tag him.
Let's say that the cost in trade would have to start with a 3rd round pick, since that's the presumed comp pick that the Jets could project (even though they're also unlikely to get comp picks next year due to their available cap space), or that the team receiving Williams could project to receive. In that case, the trade negotiations start with a 3rd rounder, although the comp pick you're trying to beat is a 2021 late 3rd rounder, not a 2020 early 3rd. So if you're Gettleman, you're already well ahead of the comp pick calculus giving up your 2020 early 3rd round pick. I'm not sure you need to go any further than that, even if you're completely locked onto the need to trade for him in the first place.
I still think Williams is a good player, but not the type of player that you sacrifice draft picks for solely to get the inside track for him as a FA. He's good enough to be one of your primary FA targets. Or he's good enough to trade for if he has multiple years left on his contract. But he's not good enough, IMO, to trade multiple picks just for the right to be the team with the tag in your pocket.
All that said, I'll even throw a bone to those that feel like the trade itself is defensible - I'd feel significantly better if the terms of the trade were reversed - if the 2020 pick was the 4th/5th with the re-signing condition attached to it and the 3rd round pick was for 2021. At least then the Giants would have an additional season to improve their record and hope to lower that pick's value, and it's still fair to the Jets since 2021 is when any comp pick for LW would occur. That would also mean that if the Giants do use the tag and then lose LW in 2021, they'd be better positioned to get a comp pick in 2022 which would only be one year removed from the 3rd round pick that they traded, instead of two years removed.
Those are all little details that probably feel like nitpicking to many fans, but I think those are the little nuances that our front office has been ignoring for too long. And do I know for sure that Gettleman ignored those details or didn't try to flip the terms of the trade in the way that I suggest? Of course not - this is definitely coming from a cynical view of this front office. But in the context of none of us knowing how the negotiations went, if you had a gun to your head, are you confident in saying that Gettleman definitely worked through every iterative computation?
2) The Giants actually have a lot of negotiating leverage. The franchise tag (better than the transition tag) can be used and will give Williams every incentive to sign a market price deal. In fact, the tag makes it likely that having Williams on the roster for 2019 will help them save some money.
For a minimum of $17M/yr, which is what the franchise tag will cost, what extra value does LW bring that we really need?
What force multiplier impact does he bring at that cost?
Quote:
2) The Giants actually have a lot of negotiating leverage. The franchise tag (better than the transition tag) can be used and will give Williams every incentive to sign a market price deal. In fact, the tag makes it likely that having Williams on the roster for 2019 will help them save some money.
For a minimum of $17M/yr, which is what the franchise tag will cost, what extra value does LW bring that we really need?
What force multiplier impact does he bring at that cost?
Well, he's a big body that you'd be pairing up with possibly our current linemen and also the kid from Ohio State.........that could be imposing from a run and pass defense standpoint.
I think DG made the trade with the idea they would sign him, but also have a period of negotiating w/ him exclusively.
The narrative that you let him go to FA from the Jets and simply sign him doesn't hold true.........there's no guarantee.
In fact there's no guarantee either way but you might slightly improve your chances once you get him in the locker room, culture, etc....but of course that's sorta be thrown out the window too given our nose dive........
Bad comparison because the NFL has a salary cap and you can front load contracts differently so when you do have space you can control to an extent when you realize the cap hit, making future years less risky (for example).
You (or someone) even said franchise him for a couple years.
It's a terrible use of resources. That would be $37M guaranteed dollars over 2 years.
Most likely that would be close to the total guarantees on a 5 year deal (or close).
The ability to manipulate cap hit in a long term deal is not lost on me but I disagree with the bolded statement for 2 reasons:
1- this year in particular we have more cap room than we can spend - so tagging LW this year is pretty painless. The 1 year/17m will be a smaller contract than every other comparable UFA that hits the market and they will still have $50m+ to spend on others (of which I doubt there will be many appealing options). And that's because...
2- ...unlike baseball, Rendon/Cole/Harper/Machado types do not hit FA. And the few prime aged tier 2 guys who get there (like Zack Wheeler) get paid what the Rendon/Cole types do because the competition is so fierce. That's how Solder and Vernon and Trent Brown and Trey Flowers end up with record setting contracts even though they are not nearly record setting players. So spending big via FA is sometimes necessary (as it probably was with Solder) but also an extremely risky use of significant resources that can set you back farther than any 1 year deal can. Cap space is generally better to use to lock down your own core on their 2nd year contracts as early as possible to get favorable terms, of which hopefully LW can prove he's worthy of becoming part of next year.
So if the cap room is there (as it is this year, and may be next year) I have no problem fully guaranteeing a 1 year deal at an inflated AAV in return for not having the future liability of dead cap space and lack of maneuverability. For LW it is a 'rent to own' and if we don't want to own we can trade him away or let him walk in 2021 (possibly for a comp pick).
I think this is the crux of the argument. Those who criticize the deal are well aware that there's no guarantee that he makes it to FA. And given his career production to date, they're ok with taking that chance.
For me personally, I'd have rolled the dice that he'd make to FA and then pursue him aggressively as one of the main UFA targets. And if he didn't make it to FA, so be it. It would mean that someone else made the inefficient move to sacrifice draft picks for the exclusive negotiating window with a player that is good but not great.
It's not just about each move improving the roster in a vacuum. It's about construction of the roster and the overall state of the rebuild. Those draft picks are important, whether they're used to choose players or to trade for other players who are under contract, or to trade up/down in the draft. And I like LW as a player, but not enough to want him at the exclusion of the added benefit of having those picks to do more for the rebuild in addition to LW.
It's become increasingly clear that the only thing the trade bought us was the opportunity to be the team who can tag LW. And IMO, he's not even good enough to be a tag candidate, so what it really comes down to was making one inefficient move (trading picks) solely for the right to make another (tagging LW).
he's a buffoon
So let’s say you franchise tag Williams, and he still wants to get his long term deal at $18 million per.
He’s either going to hold out or play under the tag and the Giants will have to either tag him at more money or again hand him a long term contract. Where’s the benefit for the Giants?
It's important to remember that unused cap space carries over. So issuing excessive short term guaranteed dollars to avoid future dead money isn't really more efficient - you're just guaranteeing that you're going to burn that money this year instead of hoping that you don't have to burn it as dead money in the future.
And worse yet, by tagging a player that you might ultimately want to keep beyond that one year, you're overspending for one year and then following it up with the same dead money risk that you're trying to avoid in the first place, but now doing it with a player that's another year older than he was before.
If aversion to future dead money and a desire to preserve cap maneuverability for the future is your goal, your approach should be to avoid bad contracts at all, regardless of whether they're for one year or for five. Wasting money just because you have it is still wasting money, and you're effectively still wasting future cap space if you overpay a player on a one-year deal.
Fools pay 17 million a year for run defenders. And I don't want to hear "he gets a lot of pressures".
Fools pay 17 million a year for run defenders. And I don't want to hear "he gets a lot of pressures".
Brandon Graham has never gotten ten sacks in his entire NFL career and all I hear is that he is one of the most valuable edge rushers because of his pressures. So, what is it? I understand a sack finishes it off, but is there no value in forcing the qb to throw it quickly?
Quote:
You don't pay top of the market, top of the position pay scale for guys who aren't proven pass rushers.
Fools pay 17 million a year for run defenders. And I don't want to hear "he gets a lot of pressures".
Brandon Graham has never gotten ten sacks in his entire NFL career and all I hear is that he is one of the most valuable edge rushers because of his pressures. So, what is it? I understand a sack finishes it off, but is there no value in forcing the qb to throw it quickly?
If the Giants get LW to sign the same exact contract as Graham (3 yrs/$40M), I'll gladly commend DG for his strategy on this one.
I don't see it playing out like that, though. I think we end up paying full price, which will be closer to double that in total contract value, and give up picks on top of it.
In three years, he will be traded for a 5th round pick by the next GM.
The few who are actually defending Gettleman are just trying to rationalizing something this supposedly professional GM did. It’s one thing to do that at the time of the trade, it’s another to do it now, we’ve lost four straight games with him and the team looks as bad as ever. I can understand if a contender traded for him for a playoff push. But we were/are fucking tanking for all intents and purposes?!?! This is as idiotic as it gets!! I’d feel better if Gettleman just comes out and says he was trying to save his job by mortgaging the future, which is probably the truth.
Let’s blame everything on Reese even though 80% of the roster is his making. Gettleman needs to go.
Current Proj. = $60m
Proj. vet cuts = +$20m ($80m total space)
Proj. draft pool = $13m ($67m space)
LW Tag = $17m ($50m space)
Below is a list of the top 50 free agents and frankly i's hard to pin point where they will be able to spend $40m. Among BBI's favorite FA targets:
Shaq Thompson - resigned
Ngakwe, Scherff, Barrett - likely to be tagged or resigned
Justin Simmons - Fangio indicated yesterday he's getting resigned long term
The best players I can envision being realistic as multi-year targets are probably Joe Schubert, James Bradberry, and Jack Conklin. And I personally don't have any interest in being the team to overpay Matt Judon, Kyle Van Noy, or Bud Dupree. Hunter Henry would be a great target too but I suspect he will get tagged by SD.
Top 50 2020 free agents - ( New Window )
Current Proj. = $60m
Proj. vet cuts = +$20m ($80m total space)
Proj. draft pool = $13m ($67m space)
LW Tag = $17m ($50m space)
Below is a list of the top 50 free agents and frankly i's hard to pin point where they will be able to spend $40m. Among BBI's favorite FA targets:
Shaq Thompson - resigned
Ngakwe, Scherff, Barrett - likely to be tagged or resigned
Justin Simmons - Fangio indicated yesterday he's getting resigned long term
The best players I can envision being realistic as multi-year targets are probably Joe Schubert, James Bradberry, and Jack Conklin. And I personally don't have any interest in being the team to overpay Matt Judon, Kyle Van Noy, or Bud Dupree. Hunter Henry would be a great target too but I suspect he will get tagged by SD. Top 50 2020 free agents - ( New Window )
I'm not sure what your point is. Because there are fewer impact free agents available, the Giants should overpay for one of them simply because they traded for him? Or is it that because the league average in cap carryover is a certain amount, that should be some sort of guiding light for how an efficient team should operate?
The Giants don't have a lot of players on their own roster worth extending right now (especially among those that are eligible for an extension), but they can absolutely stockpile their cap room for when they do have players worth extending and have a huge war chest at their disposal to add reinforcements for a roster that will be a lot closer to being a contender. That doesn't mean don't spend, but they don't have to be swimming in the Top 50 pool if they want to be assembling depth and balance for their roster. Especially if they're going to piss away mid-round picks that usually represent that depth and balance.
I stand by my reasoning that paying more up front to avoid dead money later is just paying cash for your cap inefficiencies instead of using your credit card. Just because it doesn't show up on the ledger later on as dead money doesn't mean you didn't waste some money along the way.
Also, it's DUNK. No R.
So let’s say you franchise tag Williams, and he still wants to get his long term deal at $18 million per.
He’s either going to hold out or play under the tag and the Giants will have to either tag him at more money or again hand him a long term contract. Where’s the benefit for the Giants?
The benefit to the Giants next year is if Williams helps them win games. Period. That is the immediate return on the $17m franchise tag investment. So if he holds out the trade was a disaster, though I doubt that happens since it rarely does outside the RB position. Next year is year 3 of a near complete roster turnover. Just because it will likely be a new head coach, the expectations should be in accordance with year 3 of any multi-year rebuild and year 2 of any potential franchise QB.
If they get to week 7 and the team is still a doormat they should trade him the same way the Jets did this year. The move will have been a failure to a certain degree depending on what kind of compensation they receive it could be close to zero sum. If that's the worst case scenario I don't think that's so bad given there's a best case that he's a very good DL.
In three years, he will be traded for a 5th round pick by the next GM.
The few who are actually defending Gettleman are just trying to rationalizing something this supposedly professional GM did. It’s one thing to do that at the time of the trade, it’s another to do it now, we’ve lost four straight games with him and the team looks as bad as ever. I can understand if a contender traded for him for a playoff push. But we were/are fucking tanking for all intents and purposes?!?! This is as idiotic as it gets!! I’d feel better if Gettleman just comes out and says he was trying to save his job by mortgaging the future, which is probably the truth.
Let’s blame everything on Reese even though 80% of the roster is his making. Gettleman needs to go.
Yeah, the Gettleman is good Reese is bad narrative should die now. This was a stupid trade, and I don't understand why we made it.
But don't compound it by overpaying Williams. Have a dollar amount, if he wants too much, you let him hit the market.
Well, he's a big body that you'd be pairing up with possibly our current linemen and also the kid from Ohio State.........that could be imposing from a run and pass defense standpoint.
I think DG made the trade with the idea they would sign him, but also have a period of negotiating w/ him exclusively.
The narrative that you let him go to FA from the Jets and simply sign him doesn't hold true.........there's no guarantee.
In fact there's no guarantee either way but you might slightly improve your chances once you get him in the locker room, culture, etc....but of course that's sorta be thrown out the window too given our nose dive........
Before LW arrived, after 8 games we had a total of 21 sacks. An average of 2.6 sacks per game.
Since LW arrived, we've played 4 games and totaled 4 sacks. An average of 1 per game.
Before LW arrived, our points allowed per game was 27+.
Since LW arrived, our points allowed per game is 30+.
I know it's a small sample, and there are other levers involved in this, but on just basic stats I think LW's addition to the same is negligible...
Does that feel like a good $18M/yr investment?
Also, it's DUNK. No R.
I've been misreading your handle for months and now you tell me? Don't know if I've done that before but if so my b.
Re: the rest - the main point was that as is almost always the case with teams who have a lot of cap room, there aren't enough good players who reach FA in the NFL to use it all effectively. This year appears to be no exception.
I agree that we need to be prudent with reserving future cap space to resign our own drafted players worthy of 2nd contracts, but that's why to me it makes a lot more sense to have LW on a 1 year deal than a large 4 or 5 year deal. At least until we know for sure that he is (or isn't) a core player. I don't like having to give up a 3rd round pick to do it, but they can get that pick back if they don't sign him long term either next deadline or via comp pick or via tag & trade next year.
Quote:
You don't pay top of the market, top of the position pay scale for guys who aren't proven pass rushers.
Fools pay 17 million a year for run defenders. And I don't want to hear "he gets a lot of pressures".
Brandon Graham has never gotten ten sacks in his entire NFL career and all I hear is that he is one of the most valuable edge rushers because of his pressures. So, what is it? I understand a sack finishes it off, but is there no value in forcing the qb to throw it quickly?
Is there? Olivier Vernon is Mr. QB Pressure, and we couldn't wait to run him out of town and lament how ineffective he is considering his contract. Pay the most money to guys who make plays. Let your younger, cheaper players worry about making the QB throw quickly.
Williams is a better run defender by some measure, but this league doesn't pay run defenders, because pass rush is a premium resource. You can find run pluggers. Good teams do.
If you're David Gettleman, you do it happily, that's how.
Quote:
Franchise tagged?
So let’s say you franchise tag Williams, and he still wants to get his long term deal at $18 million per.
He’s either going to hold out or play under the tag and the Giants will have to either tag him at more money or again hand him a long term contract. Where’s the benefit for the Giants?
The benefit to the Giants next year is if Williams helps them win games. Period. That is the immediate return on the $17m franchise tag investment. So if he holds out the trade was a disaster, though I doubt that happens since it rarely does outside the RB position. Next year is year 3 of a near complete roster turnover. Just because it will likely be a new head coach, the expectations should be in accordance with year 3 of any multi-year rebuild and year 2 of any potential franchise QB.
If they get to week 7 and the team is still a doormat they should trade him the same way the Jets did this year. The move will have been a failure to a certain degree depending on what kind of compensation they receive it could be close to zero sum. If that's the worst case scenario I don't think that's so bad given there's a best case that he's a very good DL.
What? Leonard Williams has yet to show in 5 years he impacts games enough to win games.
If you tag Williams and trade him the move won’t be seen as a failure to a degree, it will be an abject disaster. Trading will net less than a top 60 pick, so they would have essentially traded a top 60 pick for a lesser pick and wasted $17 million.
I didn’t think he should be fired earlier but clean house w him and this staff ASAP please