for what 'good DT's' get in the current NFL. LW is a comparable or better player than most of the names on your list. The lowest salaries are Star Lotuleiei and Eddie Goldman in the $10M range. LW outproduces them both in most categories.
It's what the market is for these guys. Now I don't believe LW is in the $15M value group but $12-12.5 is in fact fair market value.
$12-$12.5M may be fair market value but it's fiction.
LW just made $14M this past season. The tag on him, regardless of whether it's franchise or transition, regardless of whether he's considered a DE or DT, is in the neighborhood of $17M. These are all factors that were available for even a layperson to be aware of at the time that the trade was executed.
If you're going to claim that "$12-12.5M is in fact fair market value," will you also acknowledge that LW is overpaid by your own definition of fair market value when he inevitably comes in at around $16M AAV (or more)?
of LW already on the team in Lawrence, Tomlinson, and Hill. Combined their cap hit in 2020 is around $6M. So paying a gargantuan amount of money for a player who isn’t discernibly better than his teammates at the same position is simply wasteful.
As I stated yesterday, LW is just superfluous.
We just have bigger needs.
Good post. You want to see the value of Lawrence Tomlinson and Hill...bring in some decent inside LBs versus spending superfluous $ on LW.
Just don’t use the 3rd round pick to do it because it’s gone.
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
"Gettleman seeking 15 million for Hand Of God GoFundMe page"
Because that's really what this is,an extension of other arguments.
But 1 thing people are not discussing in this debate,is the amount of players these days who are flaming out.Go back and take a look at recent drafts and see where a lot of these guys are.It's very alarming.
So if the Giants wanted to proceed with caution,that is,bring him into there environment and see if they felt comfortable paying him.I don't have much of a problem with it.
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
We can also predict that just like almost every contract in the NFL, the cap #'s each season will be manipulated with the highest 1 being the last year when he will be most maneuverable with a non-prohibitive amount of dead money.
Let's use Grady Jarrett's 17m AAV as an example. Last year he got tagged and then extended for 4/68m with 38m guaranteed. Here are his 4 season's cap numbers, as well as the (dead cap) if cut/traded:
year 1 - 11m (38m)
year 2 - 12m (27m)
year 3 - 20m (14.6m)
year 4 - 23m (7m)
So for all intents and purposes, that is a 3 year deal with a 14m AAV, with a 4th year as an option year.
The way they structured the $7m guaranteed in year 4 is more dead money than ideal in a final "option" year and obviously the Giants could get a little more creative - but even if they mirrored this exact structure with LW and simply scaled back each year's salary evenly by 2m to hit an overall "15m AAV", you are looking at a first 3 years AAV that = $12.3m, with a cuttable, tradable, or restructurable 4th year. Nate Solder's contract was actually structured pretty similarly actually, so maybe this is where things end up with a 4/60m.
I'd personally still prefer the tag to get 1 more years worth of performance to see if a deal like this is worthwhile, but I do think it'd be a fair contract for both sides based on what we know now.
RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
We can also predict that just like almost every contract in the NFL, the cap #'s each season will be manipulated with the highest 1 being the last year when he will be most maneuverable with a non-prohibitive amount of dead money.
Let's use Grady Jarrett's 17m AAV as an example. Last year he got tagged and then extended for 4/68m with 38m guaranteed. Here are his 4 season's cap numbers, as well as the (dead cap) if cut/traded:
year 1 - 11m (38m)
year 2 - 12m (27m)
year 3 - 20m (14.6m)
year 4 - 23m (7m)
So for all intents and purposes, that is a 3 year deal with a 14m AAV, with a 4th year as an option year.
The way they structured the $7m guaranteed in year 4 is more dead money than ideal in a final "option" year and obviously the Giants could get a little more creative - but even if they mirrored this exact structure with LW and simply scaled back each year's salary evenly by 2m to hit an overall "15m AAV", you are looking at a first 3 years AAV that = $12.3m, with a cuttable, tradable, or restructurable 4th year. Nate Solder's contract was actually structured pretty similarly actually, so maybe this is where things end up with a 4/60m.
I'd personally still prefer the tag to get 1 more years worth of performance to see if a deal like this is worthwhile, but I do think it'd be a fair contract for both sides based on what we know now.
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
Tag him if necessary and spend what you need to, to retain Â
him..This place would melt down even more than they do if we wound up very thin on the DL. Having 3 guys, 25 and younger anchor your line for many years (hopefully) is a requisite if you want to begin to vie for playoff position. It starts up front.
We get a third back for Landon Collins albeit lower in the round, but it’s still a 3rd and you can and should get quality in that round
RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
i agree with some of your points but you can structure contracts creatively and not suffer the pitfalls you list so profoundly.
for example, our contract last year with golden, while 4x38 was really a 2x22. and that's ok, it's not going poison our relationship with anyone or make us look like inauthentic business partners - that's the way the nfl operates and players and their agents have a responsibility to understand the contracts they're signing and the rights of the parties involved throughout its term.
exercising a negotiated right in your contract doesn't make you a bad business partner.
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
Completely agree - but the problem you are describing is the direct result of the poor output from the 2015-2016 drafts. Those are the guys whose contracts should be ending right now and we haven't even been able to get guys to the end of their affordable rookie contracts because the drafting was so poor. Collins is the only guy who made it to the end of his rookie deal and was worth a multi-year deal elsewhere.
Shepard is the only player from those 2 drafts who made it to a 2nd contract here so there are a lot of holes to fill from non-homegrown sources. Leonard Williams (another team's 2015 draft pick) is one of those hole fillers. Guys like Ngakwoue, Simmons, and Conklin are potentially others. I'm not saying they need to or should spend on all those guys, just pointing out why those needs are there in the first place.
The only way to get to the better position you describe in the future is to have multiple players from every draft not only be worthy of second contracts here, but also be worthy of big enough 2nd contracts elsewhere to return comp picks. As it is right now, the 2017 class looks a little better with Tomlinson and Engram both likely being good enough to get multi-year second contracts from someone else if we don't extend them.
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
Because the value of the tag becomes irrelevant if it falls below 120% of a player's prior year salary. In LW's case, 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M) will surpass all applicable tag values, so that's the 2020 salary number that will correspond to any tag placed on LW, whether that's franchise or transition, and similarly, whether he's defined as a DT or DE.
So any discussion of the various tag values, while interesting and mostly factually accurate, does not apply to LW.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
i didn't say in general. so please don't mischaracterize what i said. instead, i specifically said it in response to your idea of limiting your FA options - by taking creative contract structures off the table in order to try to get comp picks is the strategy i understand you saying that i'm disagreeing with.
as far as the teams you mention, i'd like to see which contracts you cite specifically and how they were structured as your evidence that led to them leading the league in total comp picks awarded. as far as my i can tell they mainly got those picks by developing their rookies.
i think we should start there too and then see what happens.
i want our tactics to support our strategy of getting the best players on the field. if you can show you have a tactic that furthers that then i'd be all ears. i'm not opposed to seeing your evidence and evaluating it and changing my view if it is compelling.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
You keep ignoring the obvious - to get those comp picks you have to draft well enough to have an excess of players other teams want to sign as FA. You can't just snap your fingers and materialize an overabundance of players other GM's value with multi-year 2nd contracts. That develops over multiple years of strong drafts, as Belichek + his GM's have done in NE and Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore, and Howie Roseman in Philly. That's why all 3 orgs have won SB's and executive of the year awards over the past decade.
Your argument is to complain over the spilled milk of the drafts from 2012-2016 which produced very few players who got 2nd contracts in the corresponding offseasons when those players first contracts ended. A quick count reveals 0 players from 2012 got multi-year second contracts in 2016, 1 such player from 2013 (Pugh), 2 from 2014 (Richburg, Kennard), and 1 from 2015 (Collins). Eli Apple is the lone candidate from the 2016 class, though obviously he already got traded for picks.
Good news though, Jerry Reese already got fired and DG seems to pay close attention to the comp pick formula in the moves he makes.
Still waiting for someone to point out of a worse NFL trade. Seriously, stupidest trade ever. And this thing about the Giants having to save face and sign him at a higher amount is exactly what many of us said would happen. Getty just isn’t a good GM.
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
Because the value of the tag becomes irrelevant if it falls below 120% of a player's prior year salary. In LW's case, 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M) will surpass all applicable tag values, so that's the 2020 salary number that will correspond to any tag placed on LW, whether that's franchise or transition, and similarly, whether he's defined as a DT or DE.
So any discussion of the various tag values, while interesting and mostly factually accurate, does not apply to LW.
Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify that. I appreciate your words. I think we should take a pass. When looking at the Jets performance after he left and our performance after he joined and the teams we played with him. I do not believe his protection warrants a big contract. I could definitely stomach one year at 14.2M If anyone team offers him a long contact with lots of guaranteed, I think we should let him walk. No to a big contract to save face PRETTY PLEASE.
'$12-$12.5M may be fair market value but it's fiction.' Â
The market will determine his value, not what he earned in 2019. That number was what was required by the 5th year 1st round option the Jets activated for their former #6 overall pick in the hopes his good play would become great play. It didn't. There could very well be a downward adjustment based on his actual production to date.
Or not. We won't know and certainly can't speculate with any accuracy until the chips fall.
Sorry my last comment was not edited and stupid. Â
TLDR I don't believe his production warrants a large contract. Transition for 1 year . DO NOT MATCH! Make him prove it over an entire year or let him walk.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
i didn't say in general. so please don't mischaracterize what i said. instead, i specifically said it in response to your idea of limiting your FA options - by taking creative contract structures off the table in order to try to get comp picks is the strategy i understand you saying that i'm disagreeing with.
as far as the teams you mention, i'd like to see which contracts you cite specifically and how they were structured as your evidence that led to them leading the league in total comp picks awarded. as far as my i can tell they mainly got those picks by developing their rookies.
i think we should start there too and then see what happens.
i want our tactics to support our strategy of getting the best players on the field. if you can show you have a tactic that furthers that then i'd be all ears. i'm not opposed to seeing your evidence and evaluating it and changing my view if it is compelling.
The comp pick strategy shows up in a number of ways among the teams that appear to have a goal of enhancing their opportunity to collect them: obviously and most importantly, they draft well so that they have a steady pipeline to allow fungible players to leave as FA.
But they also tend to target players who have been cut instead of players who reach FA on expired contracts, or sign 2nd tier free agents to 1-year prove-it contracts to bridge their talent pipeline with stopgap options that they then let walk for a comp pick. Occasionally, they'll even trade for impending free agents when they can identify an opportunity for the comp pick value to exceed the cost in trade value (or as a way of offsetting the trade value so that they essentially trade nothing for players that they use as in-season rentals).
I don't think comp picks need to be the driving factor in structuring free agency contracts, but it would appear to me that it has barely even been a minimal factor in the Giants' approach. I think DG/KA can do a much better job in this area. It's literally one of the few opportunities for a free advantage that exists in a league where every other resource is finite and equal across all 32 teams.
RE: '$12-$12.5M may be fair market value but it's fiction.' Â
The market will determine his value, not what he earned in 2019. That number was what was required by the 5th year 1st round option the Jets activated for their former #6 overall pick in the hopes his good play would become great play. It didn't. There could very well be a downward adjustment based on his actual production to date.
Or not. We won't know and certainly can't speculate with any accuracy until the chips fall.
I can appreciate your POV on this, but I think it's wishful thinking to assume that DG will divorce himself from the trade when it comes to the negotiations - that was clear to me when he lied to reporters about the comp pick he'd receive if LW didn't re-sign (or he just doesn't understand comp picks, which is a more worrisome scenario than him lying, IMO).
Whether we like it or not, and this is my speculation but I think it's fair, DG is not going to let LW walk. The idea that LW's market value will be tested is the part that I think is fictional.
I'm not going to try and read the GM's mind. I'm just analyzing how he got to the $14M in 2019 and why that contract was inflated beyond his actual production. We'll see how the open market values him soon enough. I won't be at all surprised if he ends up in that $12M range with some sack escalators as a performance incentive.
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
Grady Jarrett had 14 career sacks last year when he got tagged Â
and then extended at 17m AAV. Leonard Williams has 17.5 sacks in 5 years right now. Jarrett had never made a pro bowl prior to his extension, Williams has.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
and then extended at 17m AAV. Leonard Williams has 17.5 sacks in 5 years right now. Jarrett had never made a pro bowl prior to his extension, Williams has.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Jarrett, and even Jurrel Casey, is the right comp. But Jarrett was a 5th round pick. So his production has been gravy for the Falcons because of the expectations. He's been a find. They probably view him as draft capital well spent...
I wouldn't have paid that rate, but I could see why they felt good taking the chance.
Meanwhile, LW was a "lottery pick" and his production hasn't reflected that, especially, as you state, in his walk year.
It was a bad trade and we shouldn't further compound it by giving him a big deal when he just hasn't done the work to warrant it...
RE: RE: Grady Jarrett had 14 career sacks last year when he got tagged Â
and then extended at 17m AAV. Leonard Williams has 17.5 sacks in 5 years right now. Jarrett had never made a pro bowl prior to his extension, Williams has.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Jarrett, and even Jurrel Casey, is the right comp. But Jarrett was a 5th round pick. So his production has been gravy for the Falcons because of the expectations. He's been a find. They probably view him as draft capital well spent...
I wouldn't have paid that rate, but I could see why they felt good taking the chance.
Meanwhile, LW was a "lottery pick" and his production hasn't reflected that, especially, as you state, in his walk year.
It was a bad trade and we shouldn't further compound it by giving him a big deal when he just hasn't done the work to warrant it...
I agree, but now they are in a can't win. If they don't re-sign him, it makes the trade look even worse. If they sign him, they have to grossly overpay. And, the reality is there is little to no chance he plays at a level to warrant the picks or the salary.
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
$12M is too much. He really isn't worth all that much. Let someone else pay him.
Giving a player huge money and multiple years just because you made a bad trade makes one mistake worse.
If they walk away now, all they lose is a draft pick.
Signing him just to "save face" ties up the cap for years in a player who will never be worth what he is paid, and is effectively hurting you ability to go get a star pass rusher (or fill any other need).
Management already admitted they made a mistake in trying to win and rebuild at the same time. Just admit you made a mistake now and nobody will remeber this in a year.
Or we'll be complaining about Leonard Williams never being a pass rusher for the next 3-5 years.
Contemporary contracts are a good indication of the market rate, they are not a good indication of:
1) having been good decisions
2) a good value/contribution to the vision the new staff has for defense Giants defense
My view, if you're investing in a Jarret type of contract (4/68 38 guaranteed), you expect an impact not complimentary player, regardless of position.
We have been around the block on this argument, but in this instance we are in complete agreement - which is why I'd tag him and ensure that's what we are getting before signing that kind of deal. Like Ngakoue, Conklin, and Justin Simmons, LW is the exact type of very young/high upside FA I want them to target, so if you told me I could get any of them on a 1 year deal I'd be all over it - even at a high AAV.
If LW is willing to take less on a favorable structure longer term, let's say the 4th year is a true option year and the AAV of the first 3 is really more like 12m (my math is in a post above), then I'd be willing to extend now because if he has a good year next year (5+ sacks) he'd command more than Jarrett got.
RE: 'why did we need to trade draft picks for him' Â
Forget about the picks, they are a sunk cost. Add it to the long term evaluation of Gettleman, but shouldn't be a part of the re-signing calculation.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
$12M is too much. He really isn't worth all that much. Let someone else pay him.
It's a fair question.
The notable DG apologists will pretend they didn't see this thread because they only exist where there are polarizing arguments - there's literally no other way to defend Poughkeepsie's favorite driver's ed teacher.
Forget about the picks, they are a sunk cost. Add it to the long term evaluation of Gettleman, but shouldn't be a part of the re-signing calculation.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
I don't know you well enough to issue predictions, but I would be willing to bet that you and I both agree that DG is not going to view the picks traded away as a sunk cost. Instead, we, as fans, get to watch him piss away cap dollars in pursuit of the picks he already pissed away.
Even a feral cat knows when he has marked his territory. I'll stake my BBI credibility on the presumption that DG is not as smart as a feral cat.
Forget about the picks, they are a sunk cost. Add it to the long term evaluation of Gettleman, but shouldn't be a part of the re-signing calculation.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
I don't know you well enough to issue predictions, but I would be willing to bet that you and I both agree that DG is not going to view the picks traded away as a sunk cost. Instead, we, as fans, get to watch him piss away cap dollars in pursuit of the picks he already pissed away.
Even a feral cat knows when he has marked his territory. I'll stake my BBI credibility on the presumption that DG is not as smart as a feral cat.
Damn
I always thought "feral" was spelled "farrell". Like colin farrell.
I agree, but now they are in a can't win. If they don't re-sign him, it makes the trade look even worse. If they sign him, they have to grossly overpay. And, the reality is there is little to no chance he plays at a level to warrant the picks or the salary.
It's only a win if we sign LW and he turns into a player well above his pedestrian output to date. Then the traded picks are forgotten, etc.
But, and I think Torrag said this somewhere, if LW couldn't do something like that his walk year, why would we think he's going to do that with a lot more money?
If we let LW walk, many of us, against the trade in the first place, would consider that the less damaging option.
It's starting to feel like Maugham's Verger -- can you imagine what this defense would be with Williams and a double digit sack edge rusher?
Yes, 2019 Giants.
If he thinks he's elite, he may believe that he can get there.
And if anybody else in the league offers $14 straight up?
It's what the market is for these guys. Now I don't believe LW is in the $15M value group but $12-12.5 is in fact fair market value.
$12-$12.5M may be fair market value but it's fiction.
LW just made $14M this past season. The tag on him, regardless of whether it's franchise or transition, regardless of whether he's considered a DE or DT, is in the neighborhood of $17M. These are all factors that were available for even a layperson to be aware of at the time that the trade was executed.
If you're going to claim that "$12-12.5M is in fact fair market value," will you also acknowledge that LW is overpaid by your own definition of fair market value when he inevitably comes in at around $16M AAV (or more)?
As I stated yesterday, LW is just superfluous.
We just have bigger needs.
Good post. You want to see the value of Lawrence Tomlinson and Hill...bring in some decent inside LBs versus spending superfluous $ on LW.
Just don’t use the 3rd round pick to do it because it’s gone.
Quote:
...so offer $10-11 with a double digit incentive of $4-5.
If he thinks he's elite, he may believe that he can get there.
And if anybody else in the league offers $14 straight up?
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
Because that's really what this is,an extension of other arguments.
But 1 thing people are not discussing in this debate,is the amount of players these days who are flaming out.Go back and take a look at recent drafts and see where a lot of these guys are.It's very alarming.
So if the Giants wanted to proceed with caution,that is,bring him into there environment and see if they felt comfortable paying him.I don't have much of a problem with it.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
You have to figure the LW team knows that, right?
Which makes me wonder why - if you lend any credibility to the reports - the LW team isn't starting their ask too low at $15M/yr.
Or maybe that's their magnanimous gesture to give a home town discount.... ;)
Quote:
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
We can also predict that just like almost every contract in the NFL, the cap #'s each season will be manipulated with the highest 1 being the last year when he will be most maneuverable with a non-prohibitive amount of dead money.
Let's use Grady Jarrett's 17m AAV as an example. Last year he got tagged and then extended for 4/68m with 38m guaranteed. Here are his 4 season's cap numbers, as well as the (dead cap) if cut/traded:
year 1 - 11m (38m)
year 2 - 12m (27m)
year 3 - 20m (14.6m)
year 4 - 23m (7m)
So for all intents and purposes, that is a 3 year deal with a 14m AAV, with a 4th year as an option year.
The way they structured the $7m guaranteed in year 4 is more dead money than ideal in a final "option" year and obviously the Giants could get a little more creative - but even if they mirrored this exact structure with LW and simply scaled back each year's salary evenly by 2m to hit an overall "15m AAV", you are looking at a first 3 years AAV that = $12.3m, with a cuttable, tradable, or restructurable 4th year. Nate Solder's contract was actually structured pretty similarly actually, so maybe this is where things end up with a 4/60m.
I'd personally still prefer the tag to get 1 more years worth of performance to see if a deal like this is worthwhile, but I do think it'd be a fair contract for both sides based on what we know now.
Quote:
In comment 14807916 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
We can also predict that just like almost every contract in the NFL, the cap #'s each season will be manipulated with the highest 1 being the last year when he will be most maneuverable with a non-prohibitive amount of dead money.
Let's use Grady Jarrett's 17m AAV as an example. Last year he got tagged and then extended for 4/68m with 38m guaranteed. Here are his 4 season's cap numbers, as well as the (dead cap) if cut/traded:
year 1 - 11m (38m)
year 2 - 12m (27m)
year 3 - 20m (14.6m)
year 4 - 23m (7m)
So for all intents and purposes, that is a 3 year deal with a 14m AAV, with a 4th year as an option year.
The way they structured the $7m guaranteed in year 4 is more dead money than ideal in a final "option" year and obviously the Giants could get a little more creative - but even if they mirrored this exact structure with LW and simply scaled back each year's salary evenly by 2m to hit an overall "15m AAV", you are looking at a first 3 years AAV that = $12.3m, with a cuttable, tradable, or restructurable 4th year. Nate Solder's contract was actually structured pretty similarly actually, so maybe this is where things end up with a 4/60m.
I'd personally still prefer the tag to get 1 more years worth of performance to see if a deal like this is worthwhile, but I do think it'd be a fair contract for both sides based on what we know now.
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
We get a third back for Landon Collins albeit lower in the round, but it’s still a 3rd and you can and should get quality in that round
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
i agree with some of your points but you can structure contracts creatively and not suffer the pitfalls you list so profoundly.
for example, our contract last year with golden, while 4x38 was really a 2x22. and that's ok, it's not going poison our relationship with anyone or make us look like inauthentic business partners - that's the way the nfl operates and players and their agents have a responsibility to understand the contracts they're signing and the rights of the parties involved throughout its term.
exercising a negotiated right in your contract doesn't make you a bad business partner.
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
Completely agree - but the problem you are describing is the direct result of the poor output from the 2015-2016 drafts. Those are the guys whose contracts should be ending right now and we haven't even been able to get guys to the end of their affordable rookie contracts because the drafting was so poor. Collins is the only guy who made it to the end of his rookie deal and was worth a multi-year deal elsewhere.
Shepard is the only player from those 2 drafts who made it to a 2nd contract here so there are a lot of holes to fill from non-homegrown sources. Leonard Williams (another team's 2015 draft pick) is one of those hole fillers. Guys like Ngakwoue, Simmons, and Conklin are potentially others. I'm not saying they need to or should spend on all those guys, just pointing out why those needs are there in the first place.
The only way to get to the better position you describe in the future is to have multiple players from every draft not only be worthy of second contracts here, but also be worthy of big enough 2nd contracts elsewhere to return comp picks. As it is right now, the 2017 class looks a little better with Tomlinson and Engram both likely being good enough to get multi-year second contracts from someone else if we don't extend them.
Quote:
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
Quote:
In comment 14807929 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
Because the value of the tag becomes irrelevant if it falls below 120% of a player's prior year salary. In LW's case, 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M) will surpass all applicable tag values, so that's the 2020 salary number that will correspond to any tag placed on LW, whether that's franchise or transition, and similarly, whether he's defined as a DT or DE.
So any discussion of the various tag values, while interesting and mostly factually accurate, does not apply to LW.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
Quote:
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
i didn't say in general. so please don't mischaracterize what i said. instead, i specifically said it in response to your idea of limiting your FA options - by taking creative contract structures off the table in order to try to get comp picks is the strategy i understand you saying that i'm disagreeing with.
as far as the teams you mention, i'd like to see which contracts you cite specifically and how they were structured as your evidence that led to them leading the league in total comp picks awarded. as far as my i can tell they mainly got those picks by developing their rookies.
i think we should start there too and then see what happens.
i want our tactics to support our strategy of getting the best players on the field. if you can show you have a tactic that furthers that then i'd be all ears. i'm not opposed to seeing your evidence and evaluating it and changing my view if it is compelling.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
You keep ignoring the obvious - to get those comp picks you have to draft well enough to have an excess of players other teams want to sign as FA. You can't just snap your fingers and materialize an overabundance of players other GM's value with multi-year 2nd contracts. That develops over multiple years of strong drafts, as Belichek + his GM's have done in NE and Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore, and Howie Roseman in Philly. That's why all 3 orgs have won SB's and executive of the year awards over the past decade.
Your argument is to complain over the spilled milk of the drafts from 2012-2016 which produced very few players who got 2nd contracts in the corresponding offseasons when those players first contracts ended. A quick count reveals 0 players from 2012 got multi-year second contracts in 2016, 1 such player from 2013 (Pugh), 2 from 2014 (Richburg, Kennard), and 1 from 2015 (Collins). Eli Apple is the lone candidate from the 2016 class, though obviously he already got traded for picks.
Good news though, Jerry Reese already got fired and DG seems to pay close attention to the comp pick formula in the moves he makes.
Quote:
In comment 14807947 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14807929 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
Because the value of the tag becomes irrelevant if it falls below 120% of a player's prior year salary. In LW's case, 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M) will surpass all applicable tag values, so that's the 2020 salary number that will correspond to any tag placed on LW, whether that's franchise or transition, and similarly, whether he's defined as a DT or DE.
So any discussion of the various tag values, while interesting and mostly factually accurate, does not apply to LW.
Or not. We won't know and certainly can't speculate with any accuracy until the chips fall.
Quote:
In comment 14808045 MM_in_NYC said:
Quote:
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
i didn't say in general. so please don't mischaracterize what i said. instead, i specifically said it in response to your idea of limiting your FA options - by taking creative contract structures off the table in order to try to get comp picks is the strategy i understand you saying that i'm disagreeing with.
as far as the teams you mention, i'd like to see which contracts you cite specifically and how they were structured as your evidence that led to them leading the league in total comp picks awarded. as far as my i can tell they mainly got those picks by developing their rookies.
i think we should start there too and then see what happens.
i want our tactics to support our strategy of getting the best players on the field. if you can show you have a tactic that furthers that then i'd be all ears. i'm not opposed to seeing your evidence and evaluating it and changing my view if it is compelling.
The comp pick strategy shows up in a number of ways among the teams that appear to have a goal of enhancing their opportunity to collect them: obviously and most importantly, they draft well so that they have a steady pipeline to allow fungible players to leave as FA.
But they also tend to target players who have been cut instead of players who reach FA on expired contracts, or sign 2nd tier free agents to 1-year prove-it contracts to bridge their talent pipeline with stopgap options that they then let walk for a comp pick. Occasionally, they'll even trade for impending free agents when they can identify an opportunity for the comp pick value to exceed the cost in trade value (or as a way of offsetting the trade value so that they essentially trade nothing for players that they use as in-season rentals).
I don't think comp picks need to be the driving factor in structuring free agency contracts, but it would appear to me that it has barely even been a minimal factor in the Giants' approach. I think DG/KA can do a much better job in this area. It's literally one of the few opportunities for a free advantage that exists in a league where every other resource is finite and equal across all 32 teams.
Or not. We won't know and certainly can't speculate with any accuracy until the chips fall.
I can appreciate your POV on this, but I think it's wishful thinking to assume that DG will divorce himself from the trade when it comes to the negotiations - that was clear to me when he lied to reporters about the comp pick he'd receive if LW didn't re-sign (or he just doesn't understand comp picks, which is a more worrisome scenario than him lying, IMO).
Whether we like it or not, and this is my speculation but I think it's fair, DG is not going to let LW walk. The idea that LW's market value will be tested is the part that I think is fictional.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
Offer him $12M with a $500K bonus for 5 sacks. $1.5M for 10 sacks and an additional $100K for each additional sack above that.
If he's confident in his claim he's an elite DE he shouldn't have a problem betting on himself.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Jarrett, and even Jurrel Casey, is the right comp. But Jarrett was a 5th round pick. So his production has been gravy for the Falcons because of the expectations. He's been a find. They probably view him as draft capital well spent...
I wouldn't have paid that rate, but I could see why they felt good taking the chance.
Meanwhile, LW was a "lottery pick" and his production hasn't reflected that, especially, as you state, in his walk year.
It was a bad trade and we shouldn't further compound it by giving him a big deal when he just hasn't done the work to warrant it...
Quote:
and then extended at 17m AAV. Leonard Williams has 17.5 sacks in 5 years right now. Jarrett had never made a pro bowl prior to his extension, Williams has.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Jarrett, and even Jurrel Casey, is the right comp. But Jarrett was a 5th round pick. So his production has been gravy for the Falcons because of the expectations. He's been a find. They probably view him as draft capital well spent...
I wouldn't have paid that rate, but I could see why they felt good taking the chance.
Meanwhile, LW was a "lottery pick" and his production hasn't reflected that, especially, as you state, in his walk year.
It was a bad trade and we shouldn't further compound it by giving him a big deal when he just hasn't done the work to warrant it...
Quote:
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
If they walk away now, all they lose is a draft pick.
Signing him just to "save face" ties up the cap for years in a player who will never be worth what he is paid, and is effectively hurting you ability to go get a star pass rusher (or fill any other need).
Management already admitted they made a mistake in trying to win and rebuild at the same time. Just admit you made a mistake now and nobody will remeber this in a year.
Or we'll be complaining about Leonard Williams never being a pass rusher for the next 3-5 years.
1) having been good decisions
2) a good value/contribution to the vision the new staff has for defense Giants defense
My view, if you're investing in a Jarret type of contract (4/68 38 guaranteed), you expect an impact not complimentary player, regardless of position.
1) having been good decisions
2) a good value/contribution to the vision the new staff has for defense Giants defense
My view, if you're investing in a Jarret type of contract (4/68 38 guaranteed), you expect an impact not complimentary player, regardless of position.
We have been around the block on this argument, but in this instance we are in complete agreement - which is why I'd tag him and ensure that's what we are getting before signing that kind of deal. Like Ngakoue, Conklin, and Justin Simmons, LW is the exact type of very young/high upside FA I want them to target, so if you told me I could get any of them on a 1 year deal I'd be all over it - even at a high AAV.
If LW is willing to take less on a favorable structure longer term, let's say the 4th year is a true option year and the AAV of the first 3 is really more like 12m (my math is in a post above), then I'd be willing to extend now because if he has a good year next year (5+ sacks) he'd command more than Jarrett got.
Offer him $12M with a $500K bonus for 5 sacks. $1.5M for 10 sacks and an additional $100K for each additional sack above that.
If he's confident in his claim he's an elite DE he shouldn't have a problem betting on himself.
Good idea. Incentives reached make him affordable still.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
Quote:
In comment 14808257 Torrag said:
Quote:
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
$12M is too much. He really isn't worth all that much. Let someone else pay him.
It's a fair question.
The notable DG apologists will pretend they didn't see this thread because they only exist where there are polarizing arguments - there's literally no other way to defend Poughkeepsie's favorite driver's ed teacher.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
I don't know you well enough to issue predictions, but I would be willing to bet that you and I both agree that DG is not going to view the picks traded away as a sunk cost. Instead, we, as fans, get to watch him piss away cap dollars in pursuit of the picks he already pissed away.
Even a feral cat knows when he has marked his territory. I'll stake my BBI credibility on the presumption that DG is not as smart as a feral cat.
Quote:
Forget about the picks, they are a sunk cost. Add it to the long term evaluation of Gettleman, but shouldn't be a part of the re-signing calculation.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
I don't know you well enough to issue predictions, but I would be willing to bet that you and I both agree that DG is not going to view the picks traded away as a sunk cost. Instead, we, as fans, get to watch him piss away cap dollars in pursuit of the picks he already pissed away.
Even a feral cat knows when he has marked his territory. I'll stake my BBI credibility on the presumption that DG is not as smart as a feral cat.
Damn
I always thought "feral" was spelled "farrell". Like colin farrell.
Mind blown.
He did cut Omameh mid-season, so I do think he is capable of cutting losses.
For me, I just don't see Williams as the type of player to be wrapping up time and resources around. I view him as a secondary target in UFA.
If he hadn't been acquired, and was the "prize" of UFA this off season, I'd be underwhelmed.
I agree, but now they are in a can't win. If they don't re-sign him, it makes the trade look even worse. If they sign him, they have to grossly overpay. And, the reality is there is little to no chance he plays at a level to warrant the picks or the salary.
It's only a win if we sign LW and he turns into a player well above his pedestrian output to date. Then the traded picks are forgotten, etc.
But, and I think Torrag said this somewhere, if LW couldn't do something like that his walk year, why would we think he's going to do that with a lot more money?
If we let LW walk, many of us, against the trade in the first place, would consider that the less damaging option.