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 )
I personally would have had no problem tagging LC last year at the expense of some of the FA moves they made (or if they had to cut some others like Jenkins to make room).
The differences between the decisions make me think it's even more of a no-brainer for LW though, starting with the facts that 1) they have more room to afford it, 2) he's only played half a season here, and 3) they may not be able to get a good comp pick out of it like they presumably will for LC.
Collins had been an All Pro and a multiple Pro Bowl selection - to that point in his career, he had exhibited more than Leonard Williams.
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 personally would have had no problem tagging LC last year at the expense of some of the FA moves they made (or if they had to cut some others like Jenkins to make room).
The differences between the decisions make me think it's even more of a no-brainer for LW though, starting with the facts that 1) they have more room to afford it, 2) he's only played half a season here, and 3) they may not be able to get a good comp pick out of it like they presumably will for LC.
The situations are nowhere near the same.
One player was All Pro who had seasons were he played well.
The other player was acquired using draft capital and will command a big deal regardless of whether you franchise tag him.
Neither player should be tagged but tagging Williams is worse and doesn't make the trade any better.
Quote:
would be nice if there was some consistency because I'd imagine there's plenty of crossover between the people who think DG was a moron for letting LC walk and yet think tagging Williams would be blasphemy.
I personally would have had no problem tagging LC last year at the expense of some of the FA moves they made (or if they had to cut some others like Jenkins to make room).
The differences between the decisions make me think it's even more of a no-brainer for LW though, starting with the facts that 1) they have more room to afford it, 2) he's only played half a season here, and 3) they may not be able to get a good comp pick out of it like they presumably will for LC.
Collins had been an All Pro and a multiple Pro Bowl selection - to that point in his career, he had exhibited more than Leonard Williams.
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.
Collins was a liability while he was out there because he could not cover. So, yeah, he could be All-Pro all you want, Collins more often than not hurt his team. Williams, even if he is not an elite pass rusher or an all pro, is not a liability at all. The going rate for older, benched Defensive Lineman like Malik Jackson was 10 million a year. So what if we franchise him and pay him 17+ million next year. There is so much to legitimately criticize Gettleman about, this, to me, seems to be last on the list until we, at least, see how it plays out.
Williams is going to get paid, whether by us or someone else this offseason. We did gain the inside track with the trade and probably the majority of top tier players (excluding head cases and malcontents) wind up staying put in the long run.
The uncertainty with the coaching staff is obviously a negative.
2) Arguing about Williams true worth does us not good, the bigger question is what else can we do with the money we would be paying him. Would we rather have Leonard Williams for 12m a year, or an offensive tackle who can actually block? Or how about that money nets us a starting center and high end depth at LB? In other words, can it net us starters at thinner positions or even multiple starters.
3) For those looking at the potential comp picks for him, those would be for the 2021 draft and would probably be negated if we decide to spend big in free agency. So they really aren't worth even looking at.
Set a value for him, it goes over that, let him walk.
Collins was a liability while he was out there because he could not cover. So, yeah, he could be All-Pro all you want, Collins more often than not hurt his team. Williams, even if he is not an elite pass rusher or an all pro, is not a liability at all. The going rate for older, benched Defensive Lineman like Malik Jackson was 10 million a year. So what if we franchise him and pay him 17+ million next year. There is so much to legitimately criticize Gettleman about, this, to me, seems to be last on the list until we, at least, see how it plays out.
A few questions...
1. What exactly does LW do that we haven't been able to get from our current DTs at much cheaper contracts?
2. So that $17M FT on LW is more important for LW's skills than other needs we have?
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.
He is saying what he's supposed to say. Why on Earth would he be a moron and tell the media he doesn't want to be paid well? Let it play out.
Or continue hyperventilating over everything which is typical with sports and politics anymore.
Your choice.
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 )