The TFL are indeed 18, not 13. But I had those backwards. I knew one of them showed a greater bump with LW in the line-up. I did a quick review, but it looks like 7.5 pre, 10.5 with LW.
I’m not sure he’s a good player or reliable starter. He’s definitely ok but the sack numbers can be misread on both sides. Golden’s 10.5 number is just as misleading as Williams and his .5 number. I’d like golden back but he’s likely getting paid a lot more than what he’s worth. I am not sure he duplicates that 10.5 number again as his overall pass rush pressure numbers weren’t that great.
Improve its run stuffing numbers and be definitely applied some pressure to the qb. Honestly, I noticed him a lot more than golden. How did golden help the pass rush this season? It still basically sucked. The run defense did not suck.
That’s why I’d spend money on Williams. He helped the cause. To me golden was just another passenger on the shitty back seven unit. He was the best of a bad lot. Williams was the best of a good lot. The DL is good in my view. The LBs were terrible. If golden were cheap and controlled he’d be fine but that won’t be the case....
I’m not sure he’s a good player or reliable starter. He’s definitely ok but the sack numbers can be misread on both sides. Golden’s 10.5 number is just as misleading as Williams and his .5 number. I’d like golden back but he’s likely getting paid a lot more than what he’s worth. I am not sure he duplicates that 10.5 number again as his overall pass rush pressure numbers weren’t that great.
Golden had 12.5 sacks in 2016 with the Cards. So he's shown double digit sacks capabilities...
There were some marginal improvements in some areas and marginal dips in others the 2nd half of the year.
What didn't get better is the actual defense or the team.
Is Williams better than BJ Hill? Yes. Is Williams a single-handed difference maker? No.
Do the Giants need many more, better defensive players. Yes.
Leonard Williams is not the type of player to get yourself wrapped around a pole about and build your off season and defense around. If he were a Jet still, I find it hard to believe many Giants would be scraping the barrel to find reasons to make him paid like the upper tier interior lineman.
Hopefully the Giants acquire several more good defensive players. If Leonard Williams is among them, cool.
And then we traded a 3 and a 4 for the right to over pay for the guy.
Just trading a 3 for a guy looking for too much money is grounds for firing the GM. He gave up more.
This team isn’t close. They should have traded veterans for draft picks. Not the other way around.
The jets did it right. We did not. Not close.
Now we’re debating whether this “good” player should be one of the highest paid players on the team. While in 2 months, the jets will be getting a very good prospect at the top of round 3.
but the fair contract for LW is whatever the market dictates.
And for me, we shouldn't be in that market competing.
If we could get LW for $8M/year, which I know is ridiculous under the circumstances, it would be much more worthwhile. But that's the point, really. What we should be willing to pay for LW is nowhere near his overrated market value...
isn't taking into account how much the cap is going up. The Giants have cap space and need to convince multiple defensive players to sign in a state with a high income tax. We won't improve on the defensive side of the ball unless we start to put resources there. The latest big blue banter podcast was eye opening on how little the Giants a paying on the defensive side of the ball. Paying LW market rate will not negate us from signing other defensive players. The problem is good young players don't often hit FA and when they do teams typically have to overpay for them.
With LW, the Jets were conceding over 26ppg. After LW was traded, it dropped to 18ppg.
They had 22 out their 35 sacks as a team after LW left.
Their rushing D improved.
So how are those signs of a "plus player"...as you call LW...
BW, you constantly remind me of a phrase my late Botanical Ecology professor at Berkeley, Professor Herbert Baker, taught me, as a warning against using statistics to support your argument. Too many (academic authors, he was referring to) "use statistic like a blind man uses a street lamp: for support rather than illumination."
That describes you to a T!
Why you need to discerdit DG any way you possibly can is your issue, not mine. I see an improving club at the LOS vs what Reese concocted over years of serious mis-allocation of draft picks. I saw an improved OL last year despite Solder falling into very hard times.
You see what you want to see, and certainly we haven't earned any wins to validate the improvement I see. We have a very young roster, getting younger too I imagine when one of our big FA signings will in all likelihood be the 25 year old Williams.
RE: To assume he is going to get less then 13 a year Â
isn't taking into account how much the cap is going up. The Giants have cap space and need to convince multiple defensive players to sign in a state with a high income tax. We won't improve on the defensive side of the ball unless we start to put resources there. The latest big blue banter podcast was eye opening on how little the Giants a paying on the defensive side of the ball. Paying LW market rate will not negate us from signing other defensive players. The problem is good young players don't often hit FA and when they do teams typically have to overpay for them.
The problem is LW plays position that has become commoditized. DTs are just getting easier to find. Big guys who can fill gaps and provide just enough to disruption to be effective. Which is basically LW. A good, solid player.
So why overpay? Unless you get a generational talent like Aaron Donald, who plays with a skill set the overlaps DT and DE, save the cap space and pay for more needed positions on defense...
Why you need to discerdit DG any way you possibly can is your issue, not mine. I see an improving club at the LOS vs what Reese concocted over years of serious mis-allocation of draft picks. I saw an improved OL last year despite Solder falling into very hard times.
You see what you want to see, and certainly we haven't earned any wins to validate the improvement I see. We have a very young roster, getting younger too I imagine when one of our big FA signings will in all likelihood be the 25 year old Williams.
Our OTs were one of the worst duos in the NFL at pass blocking. And our overall run blocking was in the bottom third of the league. Just read Sy's reviews. Not sure why anyone would want to hitch their wagon to that...
I do find it amusing the lengths many here go to suggest LW is somehow this force multiplier and makes our D so much better. The Jets D got materially better without him - +8 ppg improvement - and our D may have gotten, and I'll be kind, a little better.
Commoditized isn't exactly right when you look at who pays top DTs Â
Donald is obviously in a league of his own @ 22.5m, but the Rams also pay Michael Brockers $11m per year.
Fletcher Cox is the highest paid player on Philly @ 17.5m.
Grady Jarrett is the 5th highest paid player on Atl @ 17m.
Geno Atkins is the 2nd highest paid player on the Cin @16.5m.
Jurrell Casey is the 2nd highest paid player on Ten @ 15.1m.
Brandon Williams is the 3rd highest paid player on Bal @ 10.5m.
Star Lotuleiei is the 2nd highest paid player on Buff @ 10m.
2 of the Bears top 5 salaries are Edddie Goldman (10.5m) & Akiem Hicks (12.5m).
Linval Joseph is the 7th highest paid player on Min @ 12.5m.
KC (Chris Jones), Seattle (Jarran Reed), SF (Armstead), Houston (DJ Reader), and Pittsburgh (Hargrave) will likely all soon join that list since they are getting new contracts this year.
Most of those guys aren't putting up big sack numbers and yet quite a few well run playoff organizations still gave them big contracts.
Kawann Short (16.1m) is another as the 2nd highest paid player on CAR Â
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.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Please stop trying to justify a bad trade... Â
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Plausible deniability. If Williams walks there's no denying the trade was a waste, a team going nowhere losing two draft picks for 8 games (in the hopes that a comp pick could possibly offset one of them) would be an outright, undeniable waste of resources.
If they sign him, then they can at least try to play up his value.
I just don't see what in LW's career trajectory anyone sees that warrants him being paid $15M a season. So far, the best case argument is 'well, the Giants have a lot of money to burn and so does everyone else', but that still stops short of explaining why they'd give up a 3rd, a 4th, and $15M a season to keep this guy.
Perfectly stated. I thought the trade made no sense then and still think that. If they had interest as him as a FA but never traded for him, I would think they were nuts for considering $15M. But, to give up 2 picks in addition? Now, they have to re-sign him, or that trade looks even more ridiculous.
And then we traded a 3 and a 4 for the right to over pay for the guy.
Just trading a 3 for a guy looking for too much money is grounds for firing the GM. He gave up more.
This team isn’t close. They should have traded veterans for draft picks. Not the other way around.
The jets did it right. We did not. Not close.
Now we’re debating whether this “good” player should be one of the highest paid players on the team. While in 2 months, the jets will be getting a very good prospect at the top of round 3.
Yup fire the guy who made this move.
Another excellent post.
“Comparable or better player than most on that list” Â
Tomlinson's snap count remained about the same as before the acquisition of Williams. B.J. Hill's, however, took a big hit, and McIntosh's became almost non-existent.
I know Hill's took a big hit, hadn't really considered McIntosh as a factor, but still wondered if Dalvin's decreased.
Other individual metrics are skewed by LW taking plays away from other DL, and I truly prefer eyeballing to stat counts. Especially if one doesn't factor in situational stats.
I strongly believe the DL unit now is much stronger than it was even with Damon Harrison on it because they are better in short yardage. The eyeball test tells me LW, DL, and DT don't lose as much territory at the LOS, our DL is often playing the game on our opponents' side if the LOS, and that will increase with continued experience on DL's part and Hill's part and fewer snaps for individuals and more rotation.
Whatever, I'm in favor of a dominant DL and while we are not there yet, we are approaching that goal if we re-sign LW.
Everyone know we really need an elite or close to elite edge guy, but was it a mistake to pass on Allen for Jones? Can't make that call yet, can we?
Williams is a plus player. Moreso if a plus than Golden IMO.
While I agree stats are not the end all, be all, and I also place a value on what we see, I do not think he passes that eyeball test. The Jets traded him because they took him with a very high pick and he never amounted to more than a good player. He is not a playmaker, dominant player, or a difference maker. That was the case on their team and still the case. He is a nice guy to have. But, he certainly isn't someone worthy of being in the top 5 paid DL.
I think Gettleman is a good talent evaluator in general Â
But he's made some suspect moves and this trade was one of them. If they had been able to negotiate an extension with him at the time of the trade it would make more sense and the argument would only be over whether or not he was worth the money.
Gettleman's argument for doing it the way he did is two-fold, one part which makes very little sense and one part that makes no sense at all. The part that makes no sense at all is the part where he claims they will gain a comp pick if he leaves via free agency (because it's highly unlikely that the Giants lose more A- and B-list free agents than they sign this year). The part that makes at least a little bit of sense is the part where he claims having him in the Giants locker room and learning the system gives them a leg up on assessing his free agent value (character? work ethic? teammate? etc). Gettleman may not have been anticipating the coaching change so the value of him learning the system and the coaches learning him was lost, but he did benefit from learning his teammates.
The problem with that is the confirmation bias that comes from having already invested 3rd and 4th (or 5th) round picks in him. Will Gettleman (and Abrams) be able to put an unbiased market value on Williams that allows him to test the free agent waters?
p.s.--The biggest humiliation would be if Williams leaves the Giants for the Jets in free agency.
RE: To assume he is going to get less then 13 a year Â
isn't taking into account how much the cap is going up. The Giants have cap space and need to convince multiple defensive players to sign in a state with a high income tax. We won't improve on the defensive side of the ball unless we start to put resources there. The latest big blue banter podcast was eye opening on how little the Giants a paying on the defensive side of the ball. Paying LW market rate will not negate us from signing other defensive players. The problem is good young players don't often hit FA and when they do teams typically have to overpay for them.
The 'we'll have money to burn' and the 'the cap is going up' angles have already been exhausted in this thread. They didn't get much mileage the first time around, and for good reason.
The Giants do need to spend on the defensive side of the ball. They do not need, nor can they afford to, waste on either side, let alone on defense. Williams @ $15M a year, even if it was effectively $13M pre-cap raise, is a waste of resources, worsened by the fact that two cost controlled entities were disposed of for the right to pay him that money.
Williams is a young player. He's a good player, at best thus far in his career and getting older, his play is more likely to decline than improve. Paying him $15M a year would be abject stupidity from a team that exhibits boatloads of it.
RE: Commoditized isn't exactly right when you look at who pays top DTs Â
Donald is obviously in a league of his own @ 22.5m, but the Rams also pay Michael Brockers $11m per year.
Fletcher Cox is the highest paid player on Philly @ 17.5m.
Grady Jarrett is the 5th highest paid player on Atl @ 17m.
Geno Atkins is the 2nd highest paid player on the Cin @16.5m.
Jurrell Casey is the 2nd highest paid player on Ten @ 15.1m.
Brandon Williams is the 3rd highest paid player on Bal @ 10.5m.
Star Lotuleiei is the 2nd highest paid player on Buff @ 10m.
2 of the Bears top 5 salaries are Edddie Goldman (10.5m) & Akiem Hicks (12.5m).
Linval Joseph is the 7th highest paid player on Min @ 12.5m.
KC (Chris Jones), Seattle (Jarran Reed), SF (Armstead), Houston (DJ Reader), and Pittsburgh (Hargrave) will likely all soon join that list since they are getting new contracts this year.
Most of those guys aren't putting up big sack numbers and yet quite a few well run playoff organizations still gave them big contracts.
You can't include Donald and Cox. They are the crossover guys I was talking about - DT with DE/pass-rushing skills.
Even Atkins has 75.5 sacks in his career with three double digit sacks season.
And the players from Brandon Williams down, are more reasonably paid. They are in a salary range that reflect LW's production...granted, going against the current flow of the market.
'Comparable or better player than most on that list'- Um...no he isnt Â
By any reasonable statistical comparison he is. Not the top 3 guys but the rest he is their equal or better. Their salaries range from $12.5M to $10M.
With the increased salary cap room for all teams reflecting increased revenue on the coming free agent market LW's market is squarely in that field.
People can cling to their narratives and opinions but Eric's post laid it bare. Accept it or not those are the facts supported by existing DT salaries and their statistical production on the field when examined as a group.
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.
If you sign Leonard Williams to a fair-market-value deal... Â
What do you do next year with Dalvin Tomlinson? I'm pretty sure he'd want a fair-market-value deal, too. Just how much of the cap - no matter how large it is - do you want to tie up in two DT's that offer little as pass-rushers?
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.
The TFL are indeed 18, not 13. But I had those backwards. I knew one of them showed a greater bump with LW in the line-up. I did a quick review, but it looks like 7.5 pre, 10.5 with LW.
That was for Torrag.
That’s why I’d spend money on Williams. He helped the cause. To me golden was just another passenger on the shitty back seven unit. He was the best of a bad lot. Williams was the best of a good lot. The DL is good in my view. The LBs were terrible. If golden were cheap and controlled he’d be fine but that won’t be the case....
Golden had 12.5 sacks in 2016 with the Cards. So he's shown double digit sacks capabilities...
What didn't get better is the actual defense or the team.
Is Williams better than BJ Hill? Yes. Is Williams a single-handed difference maker? No.
Do the Giants need many more, better defensive players. Yes.
Leonard Williams is not the type of player to get yourself wrapped around a pole about and build your off season and defense around. If he were a Jet still, I find it hard to believe many Giants would be scraping the barrel to find reasons to make him paid like the upper tier interior lineman.
Hopefully the Giants acquire several more good defensive players. If Leonard Williams is among them, cool.
Just trading a 3 for a guy looking for too much money is grounds for firing the GM. He gave up more.
This team isn’t close. They should have traded veterans for draft picks. Not the other way around.
The jets did it right. We did not. Not close.
Now we’re debating whether this “good” player should be one of the highest paid players on the team. While in 2 months, the jets will be getting a very good prospect at the top of round 3.
Yup fire the guy who made this move.
And for me, we shouldn't be in that market competing.
If we could get LW for $8M/year, which I know is ridiculous under the circumstances, it would be much more worthwhile. But that's the point, really. What we should be willing to pay for LW is nowhere near his overrated market value...
But no draft picks from moron GMs.
They had 22 out their 35 sacks as a team after LW left.
Their rushing D improved.
So how are those signs of a "plus player"...as you call LW...
BW, you constantly remind me of a phrase my late Botanical Ecology professor at Berkeley, Professor Herbert Baker, taught me, as a warning against using statistics to support your argument. Too many (academic authors, he was referring to) "use statistic like a blind man uses a street lamp: for support rather than illumination."
That describes you to a T!
Why you need to discerdit DG any way you possibly can is your issue, not mine. I see an improving club at the LOS vs what Reese concocted over years of serious mis-allocation of draft picks. I saw an improved OL last year despite Solder falling into very hard times.
You see what you want to see, and certainly we haven't earned any wins to validate the improvement I see. We have a very young roster, getting younger too I imagine when one of our big FA signings will in all likelihood be the 25 year old Williams.
The problem is LW plays position that has become commoditized. DTs are just getting easier to find. Big guys who can fill gaps and provide just enough to disruption to be effective. Which is basically LW. A good, solid player.
So why overpay? Unless you get a generational talent like Aaron Donald, who plays with a skill set the overlaps DT and DE, save the cap space and pay for more needed positions on defense...
Why you need to discerdit DG any way you possibly can is your issue, not mine. I see an improving club at the LOS vs what Reese concocted over years of serious mis-allocation of draft picks. I saw an improved OL last year despite Solder falling into very hard times.
You see what you want to see, and certainly we haven't earned any wins to validate the improvement I see. We have a very young roster, getting younger too I imagine when one of our big FA signings will in all likelihood be the 25 year old Williams.
Our OTs were one of the worst duos in the NFL at pass blocking. And our overall run blocking was in the bottom third of the league. Just read Sy's reviews. Not sure why anyone would want to hitch their wagon to that...
I do find it amusing the lengths many here go to suggest LW is somehow this force multiplier and makes our D so much better. The Jets D got materially better without him - +8 ppg improvement - and our D may have gotten, and I'll be kind, a little better.
Fletcher Cox is the highest paid player on Philly @ 17.5m.
Grady Jarrett is the 5th highest paid player on Atl @ 17m.
Geno Atkins is the 2nd highest paid player on the Cin @16.5m.
Jurrell Casey is the 2nd highest paid player on Ten @ 15.1m.
Brandon Williams is the 3rd highest paid player on Bal @ 10.5m.
Star Lotuleiei is the 2nd highest paid player on Buff @ 10m.
2 of the Bears top 5 salaries are Edddie Goldman (10.5m) & Akiem Hicks (12.5m).
Linval Joseph is the 7th highest paid player on Min @ 12.5m.
KC (Chris Jones), Seattle (Jarran Reed), SF (Armstead), Houston (DJ Reader), and Pittsburgh (Hargrave) will likely all soon join that list since they are getting new contracts this year.
Most of those guys aren't putting up big sack numbers and yet quite a few well run playoff organizations still gave them big contracts.
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.
Quote:
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Plausible deniability. If Williams walks there's no denying the trade was a waste, a team going nowhere losing two draft picks for 8 games (in the hopes that a comp pick could possibly offset one of them) would be an outright, undeniable waste of resources.
If they sign him, then they can at least try to play up his value.
I just don't see what in LW's career trajectory anyone sees that warrants him being paid $15M a season. So far, the best case argument is 'well, the Giants have a lot of money to burn and so does everyone else', but that still stops short of explaining why they'd give up a 3rd, a 4th, and $15M a season to keep this guy.
Just trading a 3 for a guy looking for too much money is grounds for firing the GM. He gave up more.
This team isn’t close. They should have traded veterans for draft picks. Not the other way around.
The jets did it right. We did not. Not close.
Now we’re debating whether this “good” player should be one of the highest paid players on the team. While in 2 months, the jets will be getting a very good prospect at the top of round 3.
Yup fire the guy who made this move.
Quote:
Tomlinson's snap count remained about the same as before the acquisition of Williams. B.J. Hill's, however, took a big hit, and McIntosh's became almost non-existent.
I know Hill's took a big hit, hadn't really considered McIntosh as a factor, but still wondered if Dalvin's decreased.
Other individual metrics are skewed by LW taking plays away from other DL, and I truly prefer eyeballing to stat counts. Especially if one doesn't factor in situational stats.
I strongly believe the DL unit now is much stronger than it was even with Damon Harrison on it because they are better in short yardage. The eyeball test tells me LW, DL, and DT don't lose as much territory at the LOS, our DL is often playing the game on our opponents' side if the LOS, and that will increase with continued experience on DL's part and Hill's part and fewer snaps for individuals and more rotation.
Whatever, I'm in favor of a dominant DL and while we are not there yet, we are approaching that goal if we re-sign LW.
Everyone know we really need an elite or close to elite edge guy, but was it a mistake to pass on Allen for Jones? Can't make that call yet, can we?
Williams is a plus player. Moreso if a plus than Golden IMO.
Gettleman's argument for doing it the way he did is two-fold, one part which makes very little sense and one part that makes no sense at all. The part that makes no sense at all is the part where he claims they will gain a comp pick if he leaves via free agency (because it's highly unlikely that the Giants lose more A- and B-list free agents than they sign this year). The part that makes at least a little bit of sense is the part where he claims having him in the Giants locker room and learning the system gives them a leg up on assessing his free agent value (character? work ethic? teammate? etc). Gettleman may not have been anticipating the coaching change so the value of him learning the system and the coaches learning him was lost, but he did benefit from learning his teammates.
The problem with that is the confirmation bias that comes from having already invested 3rd and 4th (or 5th) round picks in him. Will Gettleman (and Abrams) be able to put an unbiased market value on Williams that allows him to test the free agent waters?
p.s.--The biggest humiliation would be if Williams leaves the Giants for the Jets in free agency.
The 'we'll have money to burn' and the 'the cap is going up' angles have already been exhausted in this thread. They didn't get much mileage the first time around, and for good reason.
The Giants do need to spend on the defensive side of the ball. They do not need, nor can they afford to, waste on either side, let alone on defense. Williams @ $15M a year, even if it was effectively $13M pre-cap raise, is a waste of resources, worsened by the fact that two cost controlled entities were disposed of for the right to pay him that money.
Williams is a young player. He's a good player, at best thus far in his career and getting older, his play is more likely to decline than improve. Paying him $15M a year would be abject stupidity from a team that exhibits boatloads of it.
Fletcher Cox is the highest paid player on Philly @ 17.5m.
Grady Jarrett is the 5th highest paid player on Atl @ 17m.
Geno Atkins is the 2nd highest paid player on the Cin @16.5m.
Jurrell Casey is the 2nd highest paid player on Ten @ 15.1m.
Brandon Williams is the 3rd highest paid player on Bal @ 10.5m.
Star Lotuleiei is the 2nd highest paid player on Buff @ 10m.
2 of the Bears top 5 salaries are Edddie Goldman (10.5m) & Akiem Hicks (12.5m).
Linval Joseph is the 7th highest paid player on Min @ 12.5m.
KC (Chris Jones), Seattle (Jarran Reed), SF (Armstead), Houston (DJ Reader), and Pittsburgh (Hargrave) will likely all soon join that list since they are getting new contracts this year.
Most of those guys aren't putting up big sack numbers and yet quite a few well run playoff organizations still gave them big contracts.
You can't include Donald and Cox. They are the crossover guys I was talking about - DT with DE/pass-rushing skills.
Even Atkins has 75.5 sacks in his career with three double digit sacks season.
And the players from Brandon Williams down, are more reasonably paid. They are in a salary range that reflect LW's production...granted, going against the current flow of the market.
With the increased salary cap room for all teams reflecting increased revenue on the coming free agent market LW's market is squarely in that field.
People can cling to their narratives and opinions but Eric's post laid it bare. Accept it or not those are the facts supported by existing DT salaries and their statistical production on the field when examined as a group.
As I stated yesterday, LW is just superfluous.
We just have bigger needs.
If he thinks he's elite, he may believe that he can get there.
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.