The giants don't have to sign him - and they have a couple capable players in Lawrence and Tomlinson. The idea that the Giants have to sign him no matter what is just fiction.
Totally agree. That's been my position all along. We have players who are younger, cheaper and produce similarly. So there is a redundancy to LW's addition...
Which is why, btw, I was against the trade in the first place.
The giants don't have to sign him - and they have a couple capable players in Lawrence and Tomlinson. The idea that the Giants have to sign him no matter what is just fiction.
The leverage story only holds water if you accept the theory DG will budge because he doesn't want to lose face over the draft picks.
I don't expect DG to factor that in at all.
Much later, and separately I do hope Mara evaluates whether trading for him was a good general management move, as part of his overall assessment of DG.
Michael Brockers - $11 million per
Donkey Kong Suh - $9.8 Million per
Derek Wolfe - $9 Million per
Gerald McCoy - $8 million per.
So a 50% bump from the next highest paid guy in one year??? No freaking way.
Let's approach it this way. The projected franchise tag for DTs in 2020 is projected to be $15M+. DG should know that, and so should Team LW. Not knowing that is negligence for either side.
But there is one more layer. For the player, it's either the $15M or 120% of his last year's total comp, whichever is >. For LW, he made $14.2M in 2019. Thus, 120% of that = $17M. Which means $17M isn't actually out of whack due to the actual market.
And based on recent contracts for similar players in Grady Jarrett ($17M) and Jurrell Casey ($15M), and knowing the compensation for one year franchise tag, why wouldn't LW want at LEAST $15M to start a multi-year deal?
The giants don't have to sign him - and they have a couple capable players in Lawrence and Tomlinson. The idea that the Giants have to sign him no matter what is just fiction.
Totally agree. That's been my position all along. We have players who are younger, cheaper and produce similarly. So there is a redundancy to LW's addition...
Agree with all this. I mean, who needs this guy? A waste.
Michael Brockers - $11 million per
Donkey Kong Suh - $9.8 Million per
Derek Wolfe - $9 Million per
Gerald McCoy - $8 million per.
So a 50% bump from the next highest paid guy in one year??? No freaking way.
Let's approach it this way. The projected franchise tag for DTs in 2020 is projected to be $15M+. DG should know that, and so should Team LW. Not knowing that is negligence for either side.
But there is one more layer. For the player, it's either the $15M or 120% of his last year's total comp, whichever is >. For LW, he made $14.2M in 2019. Thus, 120% of that = $17M. Which means $17M isn't actually out of whack due to the actual market.
And based on recent contracts for similar players in Grady Jarrett ($17M) and Jurrell Casey ($15M), and knowing the compensation for one year franchise tag, why wouldn't LW want at LEAST $15M to start a multi-year deal?
You keep using Grady Jarrett as some kind of proof that Williams should start there. Let me ask you something. How many teams have used Nate Solders deal to set the market on mediocre RTs? Two years later and he’s still the second highest paid LT in the NFL this upcoming season. Mediocre players that sucker poorly managed teams in to overpaying aren’t going to be indicative of future deals leaguewide. Not one other mediocre LT has signed a contract anywhere in the stratosphere as Solder. So Jarretts Deal has absolutely nothing to do with what Williams gets. Sure, he can ask for that. Doesn’t mean that’s his market value. His market value is what the market says it is and nobody knows what that may be.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, please stop using the franchise tag value as some sort of starting point for a long term deal. That’s not how this works. Teams do not pay mediocre players long term deals based on the one year franchise tag number that averages out the top 5 players at the position in the entire league. Again, the market will dictate what Williams is worth, not last years signing and certainly not the franchise tag number.
The way I read LW's comments in that instagram chat, I took it to mean that he thought it was stupid to name is price because he felt he could possibly get MORE than $15M. The guy I was discussing it with felt LW was saying "No, $15M is too much". I think that's the dumbest interpretation of that ever.
LW is saying the dumbest thing you can do is name a price. So why would he imply that $15M is "too much". That's essentially setting a a ceiling for yourself and indirectly doing what you're saying is a stupid thing to do in the first place.
I guess we'll see but I don't think this is going to be an easy negotiation.
the tag threat and the fact (maybe) the LW wants to stay in Ny area.
There is no reason to compare LW to the highest paid DTs in the NFL, he will not get that type of money. He is simply not that good. He's good, but not top 5 money good
is getting $17 mill with 1/2 sack the previous season. My guess is $12-14 maybe..but should be $10-$12 mill since he is young, uninjured and pushes the pocket while being stout against the run.
I agree. I think he ends up with $13million a year
I place heavier value and upside on Williams than Many here, but the most important thing is that DG DOES AS WELL.
With Expanded FA Dollars and Limted Players, DG WANTED the franchise tag as Leverage.
Yes...Williams might get TAGGED for a year at $17m...or he might like a longer deal with $30-40Million Guaranteed, at a Lower per Annum.
EVERYONE who tried to Trade for Williams did so with the idea of gaining the Leverage of the FT...otherwise, everyone would have waited...and had ZERO Negotiating Leverage.
“I know that I want to get a big contract, and I know that I am worth a lot.”
On hitting free agency:
Quote:
“If I don’t think they’re giving me what I think I’m worth, then obviously I think hitting free agency would make sense. Everything is going to have to match up.”
On where he ranks himself and what position he considers himself:
Quote:
“I definitely think I’m a top-tier interior defensive lineman, in that top percentage of the d-linemen. I wouldn’t say Aaron Donald [level]. But I would definitely put myself up there with a lot of those other top guys.”
If he thinks he’s a top tier interior defensive lineman, just below Donald, I’d say his expectations are closer to Jarret dollars than, 12M a year. Does the market with 1.6B in cap dollars agree?
Of course the franchise tag is in play. But that isn’t, and has never been your point. You’ve been adamant that franchise tag number is the starting point for the annual salary on a long term deal. It’s not. You are simply wrong. It’s been your mapping focal point, in fact. Maybe for the player, sure. But the important thing is the team and what they deem as proper value. The franchise number means absolutely nothing when it comes to a long term deal with a non elite player.
And again, Garrett Jackson also means nothing. You never answered my question. How many teams have rushed out to sign mediocre LTs to top 5 money since Solder signed his ludicrous deal? The answer is, it hasn’t happened. Williams may WANT a deal similar to Jackson’s deal, sure. That doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. Isn’t THAT the important thing?
Maybe he will or won't, but I wouldn't hang my hat on an ambiguous quote someone screen shot from Instagram, in their Twitter, and the quote doesn't remotely support the notion he won't ask for 15M.
Of course the franchise tag is in play. But that isn’t, and has never been your point. You’ve been adamant that franchise tag number is the starting point for the annual salary on a long term deal. It’s not. You are simply wrong. It’s been your mapping focal point, in fact. Maybe for the player, sure. But the important thing is the team and what they deem as proper value. The franchise number means absolutely nothing when it comes to a long term deal with a non elite player.
And again, Garrett Jackson also means nothing. You never answered my question. How many teams have rushed out to sign mediocre LTs to top 5 money since Solder signed his ludicrous deal? The answer is, it hasn’t happened. Williams may WANT a deal similar to Jackson’s deal, sure. That doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. Isn’t THAT the important thing?
I have no idea why you would say GJarrett means nothing. He's a very similar player. Just look at the stats I listed. Sorry, but comps absolutely matter. Just like they do when you are buying a house...
Furthermore, I believe my position has been that Team LW would know LW's market worth by (1) comps of similar players and (2) being able to compare that to the FT for DTs. As it turned out, both (1) and (2) just happen to overlap. And therefore it would make sense for that to be Team LW's starting point for contract talks.
LW's 2019 comp put him at a franchise tag level of $17M and Grady Jarrett's contract, signed in July 2019, was basically worth $68M/4 yrs, an AAV of $17M. So it's really less about my opinion and more about what the market has dictated.
Now, I agree that doesn't mean that's where DG will start and where he thinks LW's true value is. And we could get lucky and get a number that is team friendly.
But if Team LW does their job, they should have a lot of market material to make a strong case for $17M.
what exactly is the point of suggesting potential ranges of $12-14M in this thread?
Obviously the structure will have guaranteed and base, but are you suggesting LW thinks he is getting worse as a player?
Where does everyone keep coming up with $14 Million for Williams’ 2019 salary? I’ve seen it posted here numerous times. According to both Spotrac and OTC his salary was nowhere near that. It looks like the $14M people keep looking as is the dead cap on his 5th year option if he was released or traded, of which the Jets got hit with $10M of. I’m not pretending to be a cap expert, maybe there’s something I’m not seeing? Spotrac - ( New Window )
The 5th year option is a publicly documented figure. Not sure why this is causing ANY confusion, but yet again, here's some help:
FROM OTC (your link - under "CONTRACT NOTES"):
Quote:
The Jets picked up Leonard Williams fifth year option for 2019. The option is worth $14.2 million and is guaranteed for injury. If he is on the roster on the first day of the 2019 league year his salary will become fully guaranteed.
FROM SPOTRAC (also your link):
Here's a little more complicated (you have to do some addition - not sure if this kind of advanced math is your thing): take the $10,682,353 listed as "dead money" for the Jets in 2019 (which is what the money they had paid him became once they traded him) and add it to the salary amount listed for the Giants, which is $3,517,647. If you total those up, what do you get?
$14.2M
Can we please put this confusion to bed now? LW made $14.2M last year. This should not be an open question.
In both the Franchise or Transition tag situation for LW, he will get $17,040,000.
The rules for the tags are the same. for the franchise tag its the average of the top 5 players or a 20% increase in salary whichever is higher. for the transition tag its the average of the top 10 players or a 20% increase in salary whichever is higher.
LW was paid $14,200,000 last year so not matter which tag you use its going to be at the $17m number. I dont think we are tagging him. You can't tag a guy and pay him less than he was making, thats not how it works. He played on the 5th year option which is all salary which was $14,200,000. He's not taking less than that unless its a long term deal.
Isn't the last year in the contract always the biggest?
Why do you always have to be an insufferable arrogant prick? I clearly stated I wasn’t an expert on the cap and asked what I wasn’t seeing. You couldn’t just answer the question? Nope, you had to resort to fucking insults? What an epic piece of shit. I think it’s time you grow up.
Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
they are so workable and rubbery that it's interesting that we (loosely as not all of us do), as fans, put so much stock in them when they are so fluid.
Well, it feels as if there are a lot of fans hoping one way to
justify this LW deal is if Gettleman can negotiate a favorable below market contract. Which is probably why you see some way too optimistic salary ranges being forecasted.
LW is going to get market dollars (or maybe even more if you believe DG possibly doubles-down) and that's above what he gets now.
Like or dislike having LW on the team based on his attributes because its not going to be some cheap deal for the Giants on top of the lost draft picks.
RE: Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
they are so workable and rubbery that it's interesting that we (loosely as not all of us do), as fans, put so much stock in them when they are so fluid.
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out. The real professional capologists like Kevin Abrams don't get paid millions of dollars to sit on their ass and plug OTC.com numbers into an excel spreadsheet as if they're balancing a checking account. They are paid what they're paid because they're expert manipulators.
RE: Well, it feels as if there are a lot of fans hoping one way to
justify this LW deal is if Gettleman can negotiate a favorable below market contract. Which is probably why you see some way too optimistic salary ranges being forecasted.
LW is going to get market dollars (or maybe even more if you believe DG possibly doubles-down) and that's above what he gets now.
Like or dislike having LW on the team based on his attributes because its not going to be some cheap deal for the Giants on top of the lost draft picks.
I'm hopeful that Leonard Williams is a solid, contributing, fairly paid player for us.
I don't pretend to know much more than that.
RE: RE: Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
they are so workable and rubbery that it's interesting that we (loosely as not all of us do), as fans, put so much stock in them when they are so fluid.
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out. The real professional capologists like Kevin Abrams don't get paid millions of dollars to sit on their ass and plug OTC.com numbers into an excel spreadsheet as if they're balancing a checking account. They are paid what they're paid because they're expert manipulators.
haha
I'm sure the 4 computer guys that got hired can also help out
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out.
It's a flexible financial system, and there is maneuverability.
There are plenty of fans who work on more complex systems in their real life, who can have a casual but informed discussion.
As in any industry there are entities who use their financial system and resources well and others who don't.
There's a material difference between making a single contract work, and making a series of contracts at the right value and mix work in concert to produce a successful output.
Do you feel the Giants have done that well the last several years?
RE: I'm sure the 4 computer guys that got hired can also help out
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out.
It's a flexible financial system, and there is maneuverability.
There are plenty of fans who work on more complex systems in their real life, who can have a casual but informed discussion.
As in any industry there are entities who use their financial system and resources well and others who don't.
There's a material difference between making a single contract work, and making a series of contracts at the right value and mix work in concert to produce a successful output.
Do you feel the Giants have done that well the last several years?
What would you know about the complexity of the salary cap or how to maneuver through it? Get real.
It is virtually impossible to always know when a contract is made, what value it will bring afterwards. Unless you have a crystal ball. Players get injured. Things happen. Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time)
RE: RE: RE: RE: Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
What would you know about the complexity of the salary cap or how to maneuver through it? Get real.
It is virtually impossible to always know when a contract is made, what value it will bring afterwards. Unless you have a crystal ball. Players get injured. Things happen. Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time)
Well for one I run predictive analytics and forecast modeling on a multi-billion dollar business. A business that serves fixed expenditure clients in a rollover, penalty model. So the NFL salary cap isn't Sphinx's riddle.
So you believe the Giants have been bad because of bad luck, and they've built their roster just as well as a majority of teams?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
What would you know about the complexity of the salary cap or how to maneuver through it? Get real.
It is virtually impossible to always know when a contract is made, what value it will bring afterwards. Unless you have a crystal ball. Players get injured. Things happen. Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time)
[quote]Well for one I run predictive analytics and forecast modeling on a multi-billion dollar business. A business that serves fixed expenditure clients in a rollover, penalty model. So the NFL salary cap isn't Sphinx's riddle.
Sphinx's riddle? Way to exaggerate.
Quote:
So you believe the Giants have been bad because of bad luck, and they've built their roster just as well as a majority of teams?
Either your reading comprehension is really poor or you're distorting my words on purpose in an attempt to bait me.
I'm really not interested. Find another sucker.
RE: RE: RE: Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
they are so workable and rubbery that it's interesting that we (loosely as not all of us do), as fans, put so much stock in them when they are so fluid.
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out. The real professional capologists like Kevin Abrams don't get paid millions of dollars to sit on their ass and plug OTC.com numbers into an excel spreadsheet as if they're balancing a checking account. They are paid what they're paid because they're expert manipulators.
haha
Says the guy who doesn't know how to use a spreadsheet in the first place.
Why do you always have to be an insufferable arrogant prick? I clearly stated I wasn’t an expert on the cap and asked what I wasn’t seeing. You couldn’t just answer the question? Nope, you had to resort to fucking insults? What an epic piece of shit. I think it’s time you grow up.
Your own fucking links had the correct answer in them. Don't take your low self-esteem out on me just because your reading comprehension is subpar.
Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time.
I'm not trying to manipulate your words. If the Giants haven't made more bad roster decisions than the majority of teams, why have they been demonstrably worse than they majority of teams?
Do you believe it's simply on coaching? Do you believe the Giants have had disproportionate bad luck?
RE: Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time.
I'm not trying to manipulate your words. If the Giants haven't made more bad roster decisions than the majority of teams, why have they been demonstrably worse than they majority of teams?
Do you believe it's simply on coaching? Do you believe the Giants have had disproportionate bad luck?
It's a fool's errand to try to simplify issues or neatly categorize them. The reason for the team being poor has been multi-faceted. Poor drafts. Failed FA signings. Bad coaching. Injuries.
The roster decisions may not be terrible in relation to other teams, but pile everything together and it adds up - and what history has shown us is that teams who have terrible drafts, pay a price for it 4-5 years down the road. It happened to the Raiders. The Browns. The Jets. The Bills. And the Giants.
And once you lose the base of building a team through the draft - it puts a microscope on other areas to be much better - or you can't overcome those drafts
RE: RE: Salaries and the Salary Cap are such a funny thing....
The roster decisions may not be terrible in relation to other teams, but pile everything together and it adds up - and what history has shown us is that teams who have terrible drafts, pay a price for it 4-5 years down the road. It happened to the Raiders. The Browns. The Jets. The Bills. And the Giants.
I agree -- to be a team with double digits losses in 5 out 6 consecutive years -- all levels of talent acquisition and coaching have added up to subpar. Hopefully the last 2 drafts are improvements and signal more good things to come.
I don't agree the Giants have done as good of a job as a majority of teams in the NFL acquiring veteran players and allocating resources.
The Reese 2017 team and the Gettleman 2019 team had some really standout overpaid, underperforming players for instance. Players who many in the media and fans shook their heads at in terms of salary and contract.
don't know how the Giants stack up in acquiring veteran players or allocating resources. They generally have been one of the better teams in managing the cap, but even that has been subpar in the past 3-4 years.
What has been shown in comparison to other teams is that they have been among the worst, if not the worst, at drafting. Both in homegrown player retention and in drafting players who contribute to any team.
don't know how the Giants stack up in acquiring veteran players or allocating resources. They generally have been one of the better teams in managing the cap, but even that has been subpar in the past 3-4 years.
What has been shown in comparison to other teams is that they have been among the worst, if not the worst, at drafting. Both in homegrown player retention and in drafting players who contribute to any team.
I agree the Giants have drafted poorly for a number of years. I believe draft success is a product of scouting + coaching.
When you go back 5 years, the Giants have put a decent amount of guys who have stuck around in the league. Why so many of them didn't succeed as Giants, I suspect is a combination of bad coaching and bad personality fit (on the players part).
Poorly over a prolonged period leads to teams relying on free agency to bring in too many resources, which always leads to bad contracts. That is why we need to walk away from Williams, lose the picks and let the GM look like a fool. This deal can only get worse. The only way it gets better is if Williams outperforms his contract, no way that happens. So resigning is a mistake, unless he gets paid far less then our experts tell us he will get, it is called throwing bad money after bad money. Live with the moronic trade and move on, if we don't, this team will never learn.
Quote:
The giants don't have to sign him - and they have a couple capable players in Lawrence and Tomlinson. The idea that the Giants have to sign him no matter what is just fiction.
Totally agree. That's been my position all along. We have players who are younger, cheaper and produce similarly. So there is a redundancy to LW's addition...
Which is why, btw, I was against the trade in the first place.
The leverage story only holds water if you accept the theory DG will budge because he doesn't want to lose face over the draft picks.
I don't expect DG to factor that in at all.
Much later, and separately I do hope Mara evaluates whether trading for him was a good general management move, as part of his overall assessment of DG.
Michael Brockers - $11 million per
Donkey Kong Suh - $9.8 Million per
Derek Wolfe - $9 Million per
Gerald McCoy - $8 million per.
So a 50% bump from the next highest paid guy in one year??? No freaking way.
Let's approach it this way. The projected franchise tag for DTs in 2020 is projected to be $15M+. DG should know that, and so should Team LW. Not knowing that is negligence for either side.
But there is one more layer. For the player, it's either the $15M or 120% of his last year's total comp, whichever is >. For LW, he made $14.2M in 2019. Thus, 120% of that = $17M. Which means $17M isn't actually out of whack due to the actual market.
And based on recent contracts for similar players in Grady Jarrett ($17M) and Jurrell Casey ($15M), and knowing the compensation for one year franchise tag, why wouldn't LW want at LEAST $15M to start a multi-year deal?
Quote:
The giants don't have to sign him - and they have a couple capable players in Lawrence and Tomlinson. The idea that the Giants have to sign him no matter what is just fiction.
Totally agree. That's been my position all along. We have players who are younger, cheaper and produce similarly. So there is a redundancy to LW's addition...
Agree with all this. I mean, who needs this guy? A waste.
Quote:
He's a 3-4 DE and the top 3 at OTC are as follows
Michael Brockers - $11 million per
Donkey Kong Suh - $9.8 Million per
Derek Wolfe - $9 Million per
Gerald McCoy - $8 million per.
So a 50% bump from the next highest paid guy in one year??? No freaking way.
Let's approach it this way. The projected franchise tag for DTs in 2020 is projected to be $15M+. DG should know that, and so should Team LW. Not knowing that is negligence for either side.
But there is one more layer. For the player, it's either the $15M or 120% of his last year's total comp, whichever is >. For LW, he made $14.2M in 2019. Thus, 120% of that = $17M. Which means $17M isn't actually out of whack due to the actual market.
And based on recent contracts for similar players in Grady Jarrett ($17M) and Jurrell Casey ($15M), and knowing the compensation for one year franchise tag, why wouldn't LW want at LEAST $15M to start a multi-year deal?
You keep using Grady Jarrett as some kind of proof that Williams should start there. Let me ask you something. How many teams have used Nate Solders deal to set the market on mediocre RTs? Two years later and he’s still the second highest paid LT in the NFL this upcoming season. Mediocre players that sucker poorly managed teams in to overpaying aren’t going to be indicative of future deals leaguewide. Not one other mediocre LT has signed a contract anywhere in the stratosphere as Solder. So Jarretts Deal has absolutely nothing to do with what Williams gets. Sure, he can ask for that. Doesn’t mean that’s his market value. His market value is what the market says it is and nobody knows what that may be.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, please stop using the franchise tag value as some sort of starting point for a long term deal. That’s not how this works. Teams do not pay mediocre players long term deals based on the one year franchise tag number that averages out the top 5 players at the position in the entire league. Again, the market will dictate what Williams is worth, not last years signing and certainly not the franchise tag number.
Jackson comp is completely worthwhile. Same age, same position, same draft. Similar career production YTD.
Jackson - 77 games, 21 sacks, 248 total tackles, 133 solos, 5 forced fumbles, 43 tackles for loss, 56 QB hits.
LW - 78 games, 17.5 sacks, 266 total tackles, 135 solos, 3 forced fumbles, 34 tackles for loss, 101 QB hits.
In fact, it's almost the perfect comp...
LW is saying the dumbest thing you can do is name a price. So why would he imply that $15M is "too much". That's essentially setting a a ceiling for yourself and indirectly doing what you're saying is a stupid thing to do in the first place.
I guess we'll see but I don't think this is going to be an easy negotiation.
There is no reason to compare LW to the highest paid DTs in the NFL, he will not get that type of money. He is simply not that good. He's good, but not top 5 money good
I agree. I think he ends up with $13million a year
With Expanded FA Dollars and Limted Players, DG WANTED the franchise tag as Leverage.
Yes...Williams might get TAGGED for a year at $17m...or he might like a longer deal with $30-40Million Guaranteed, at a Lower per Annum.
EVERYONE who tried to Trade for Williams did so with the idea of gaining the Leverage of the FT...otherwise, everyone would have waited...and had ZERO Negotiating Leverage.
On what he thinks he’s worth:
On hitting free agency:
On where he ranks himself and what position he considers himself:
If he thinks he’s a top tier interior defensive lineman, just below Donald, I’d say his expectations are closer to Jarret dollars than, 12M a year. Does the market with 1.6B in cap dollars agree?
Jackson comp is completely worthwhile. Same age, same position, same draft. Similar career production YTD.
Jackson - 77 games, 21 sacks, 248 total tackles, 133 solos, 5 forced fumbles, 43 tackles for loss, 56 QB hits.
LW - 78 games, 17.5 sacks, 266 total tackles, 135 solos, 3 forced fumbles, 34 tackles for loss, 101 QB hits.
In fact, it's almost the perfect comp...
Of course the franchise tag is in play. But that isn’t, and has never been your point. You’ve been adamant that franchise tag number is the starting point for the annual salary on a long term deal. It’s not. You are simply wrong. It’s been your mapping focal point, in fact. Maybe for the player, sure. But the important thing is the team and what they deem as proper value. The franchise number means absolutely nothing when it comes to a long term deal with a non elite player.
And again, Garrett Jackson also means nothing. You never answered my question. How many teams have rushed out to sign mediocre LTs to top 5 money since Solder signed his ludicrous deal? The answer is, it hasn’t happened. Williams may WANT a deal similar to Jackson’s deal, sure. That doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. Isn’t THAT the important thing?
I gotta start writing this stuff down
I gotta start writing this stuff down
Maybe he will or won't, but I wouldn't hang my hat on an ambiguous quote someone screen shot from Instagram, in their Twitter, and the quote doesn't remotely support the notion he won't ask for 15M.
Quote:
But the franchise tag is in play as a solution here. You don't think that was a consideration when DG traded for LW?
Jackson comp is completely worthwhile. Same age, same position, same draft. Similar career production YTD.
Jackson - 77 games, 21 sacks, 248 total tackles, 133 solos, 5 forced fumbles, 43 tackles for loss, 56 QB hits.
LW - 78 games, 17.5 sacks, 266 total tackles, 135 solos, 3 forced fumbles, 34 tackles for loss, 101 QB hits.
In fact, it's almost the perfect comp...
Of course the franchise tag is in play. But that isn’t, and has never been your point. You’ve been adamant that franchise tag number is the starting point for the annual salary on a long term deal. It’s not. You are simply wrong. It’s been your mapping focal point, in fact. Maybe for the player, sure. But the important thing is the team and what they deem as proper value. The franchise number means absolutely nothing when it comes to a long term deal with a non elite player.
And again, Garrett Jackson also means nothing. You never answered my question. How many teams have rushed out to sign mediocre LTs to top 5 money since Solder signed his ludicrous deal? The answer is, it hasn’t happened. Williams may WANT a deal similar to Jackson’s deal, sure. That doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. Isn’t THAT the important thing?
I have no idea why you would say GJarrett means nothing. He's a very similar player. Just look at the stats I listed. Sorry, but comps absolutely matter. Just like they do when you are buying a house...
Furthermore, I believe my position has been that Team LW would know LW's market worth by (1) comps of similar players and (2) being able to compare that to the FT for DTs. As it turned out, both (1) and (2) just happen to overlap. And therefore it would make sense for that to be Team LW's starting point for contract talks.
LW's 2019 comp put him at a franchise tag level of $17M and Grady Jarrett's contract, signed in July 2019, was basically worth $68M/4 yrs, an AAV of $17M. So it's really less about my opinion and more about what the market has dictated.
Now, I agree that doesn't mean that's where DG will start and where he thinks LW's true value is. And we could get lucky and get a number that is team friendly.
But if Team LW does their job, they should have a lot of market material to make a strong case for $17M.
Obviously the structure will have guaranteed and base, but are you suggesting LW thinks he is getting worse as a player?
Obviously the structure will have guaranteed and base, but are you suggesting LW thinks he is getting worse as a player?
Where does everyone keep coming up with $14 Million for Williams’ 2019 salary? I’ve seen it posted here numerous times. According to both Spotrac and OTC his salary was nowhere near that. It looks like the $14M people keep looking as is the dead cap on his 5th year option if he was released or traded, of which the Jets got hit with $10M of. I’m not pretending to be a cap expert, maybe there’s something I’m not seeing?
Spotrac - ( New Window )
OTC - ( New Window )
Obviously the structure will have guaranteed and base, but are you suggesting LW thinks he is getting worse as a player?
What are these facts you speak of? Can you confirm?
You need to add what the Jets paid him to what the Giants paid him.
The salary tracking sites have those broken apart in a weird way, but he was paid 10.6 from the Jets and 3.5 by the Giants.
FROM OTC (your link - under "CONTRACT NOTES"):
FROM SPOTRAC (also your link):
Here's a little more complicated (you have to do some addition - not sure if this kind of advanced math is your thing): take the $10,682,353 listed as "dead money" for the Jets in 2019 (which is what the money they had paid him became once they traded him) and add it to the salary amount listed for the Giants, which is $3,517,647. If you total those up, what do you get?
$14.2M
Can we please put this confusion to bed now? LW made $14.2M last year. This should not be an open question.
geez.
And I am not against having LW on team, just the silly wasteful manner in which it may happen.
The rules for the tags are the same. for the franchise tag its the average of the top 5 players or a 20% increase in salary whichever is higher. for the transition tag its the average of the top 10 players or a 20% increase in salary whichever is higher.
LW was paid $14,200,000 last year so not matter which tag you use its going to be at the $17m number. I dont think we are tagging him. You can't tag a guy and pay him less than he was making, thats not how it works. He played on the 5th year option which is all salary which was $14,200,000. He's not taking less than that unless its a long term deal.
LW is going to get market dollars (or maybe even more if you believe DG possibly doubles-down) and that's above what he gets now.
Like or dislike having LW on the team based on his attributes because its not going to be some cheap deal for the Giants on top of the lost draft picks.
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out. The real professional capologists like Kevin Abrams don't get paid millions of dollars to sit on their ass and plug OTC.com numbers into an excel spreadsheet as if they're balancing a checking account. They are paid what they're paid because they're expert manipulators.
LW is going to get market dollars (or maybe even more if you believe DG possibly doubles-down) and that's above what he gets now.
Like or dislike having LW on the team based on his attributes because its not going to be some cheap deal for the Giants on top of the lost draft picks.
I'm hopeful that Leonard Williams is a solid, contributing, fairly paid player for us.
I don't pretend to know much more than that.
Quote:
they are so workable and rubbery that it's interesting that we (loosely as not all of us do), as fans, put so much stock in them when they are so fluid.
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out. The real professional capologists like Kevin Abrams don't get paid millions of dollars to sit on their ass and plug OTC.com numbers into an excel spreadsheet as if they're balancing a checking account. They are paid what they're paid because they're expert manipulators.
haha
It's a flexible financial system, and there is maneuverability.
There are plenty of fans who work on more complex systems in their real life, who can have a casual but informed discussion.
As in any industry there are entities who use their financial system and resources well and others who don't.
There's a material difference between making a single contract work, and making a series of contracts at the right value and mix work in concert to produce a successful output.
Do you feel the Giants have done that well the last several years?
Great - the February 2020 dupe is back at it again!
Trying to maintain the 75% threshold of posts railing against the GM? What do you win - a cookie?
Quote:
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out.
It's a flexible financial system, and there is maneuverability.
There are plenty of fans who work on more complex systems in their real life, who can have a casual but informed discussion.
As in any industry there are entities who use their financial system and resources well and others who don't.
There's a material difference between making a single contract work, and making a series of contracts at the right value and mix work in concert to produce a successful output.
Do you feel the Giants have done that well the last several years?
What would you know about the complexity of the salary cap or how to maneuver through it? Get real.
It is virtually impossible to always know when a contract is made, what value it will bring afterwards. Unless you have a crystal ball. Players get injured. Things happen. Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time)
It is virtually impossible to always know when a contract is made, what value it will bring afterwards. Unless you have a crystal ball. Players get injured. Things happen. Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time)
Well for one I run predictive analytics and forecast modeling on a multi-billion dollar business. A business that serves fixed expenditure clients in a rollover, penalty model. So the NFL salary cap isn't Sphinx's riddle.
So you believe the Giants have been bad because of bad luck, and they've built their roster just as well as a majority of teams?
Quote:
What would you know about the complexity of the salary cap or how to maneuver through it? Get real.
It is virtually impossible to always know when a contract is made, what value it will bring afterwards. Unless you have a crystal ball. Players get injured. Things happen. Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time)
[quote]Well for one I run predictive analytics and forecast modeling on a multi-billion dollar business. A business that serves fixed expenditure clients in a rollover, penalty model. So the NFL salary cap isn't Sphinx's riddle.
Sphinx's riddle? Way to exaggerate.
Either your reading comprehension is really poor or you're distorting my words on purpose in an attempt to bait me.
I'm really not interested. Find another sucker.
Quote:
In comment 14813033 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
they are so workable and rubbery that it's interesting that we (loosely as not all of us do), as fans, put so much stock in them when they are so fluid.
I'm in agreement with Dan Schneiers take that the salary cap is essentially a myth. It's a fan thing because fans cling to anything that helps them feel like they're part of the inner workings of the team. Really, these teams know how to work the numbers and stay out of the red. If they want a player, they can figure it out. The real professional capologists like Kevin Abrams don't get paid millions of dollars to sit on their ass and plug OTC.com numbers into an excel spreadsheet as if they're balancing a checking account. They are paid what they're paid because they're expert manipulators.
haha
Says the guy who doesn't know how to use a spreadsheet in the first place.
Your own fucking links had the correct answer in them. Don't take your low self-esteem out on me just because your reading comprehension is subpar.
I'm not trying to manipulate your words. If the Giants haven't made more bad roster decisions than the majority of teams, why have they been demonstrably worse than they majority of teams?
Do you believe it's simply on coaching? Do you believe the Giants have had disproportionate bad luck?
Quote:
Yes, sometimes teams make bad decisions and the Giants are not an exception, but they also haven't done any worse than the majority of other teams in the league. It's easy to look back on things after the fact and make judgments (an armchair GM's favorite past time.
I'm not trying to manipulate your words. If the Giants haven't made more bad roster decisions than the majority of teams, why have they been demonstrably worse than they majority of teams?
Do you believe it's simply on coaching? Do you believe the Giants have had disproportionate bad luck?
It's a fool's errand to try to simplify issues or neatly categorize them. The reason for the team being poor has been multi-faceted. Poor drafts. Failed FA signings. Bad coaching. Injuries.
The roster decisions may not be terrible in relation to other teams, but pile everything together and it adds up - and what history has shown us is that teams who have terrible drafts, pay a price for it 4-5 years down the road. It happened to the Raiders. The Browns. The Jets. The Bills. And the Giants.
And once you lose the base of building a team through the draft - it puts a microscope on other areas to be much better - or you can't overcome those drafts
I agree -- to be a team with double digits losses in 5 out 6 consecutive years -- all levels of talent acquisition and coaching have added up to subpar. Hopefully the last 2 drafts are improvements and signal more good things to come.
I don't agree the Giants have done as good of a job as a majority of teams in the NFL acquiring veteran players and allocating resources.
The Reese 2017 team and the Gettleman 2019 team had some really standout overpaid, underperforming players for instance. Players who many in the media and fans shook their heads at in terms of salary and contract.
What has been shown in comparison to other teams is that they have been among the worst, if not the worst, at drafting. Both in homegrown player retention and in drafting players who contribute to any team.
What has been shown in comparison to other teams is that they have been among the worst, if not the worst, at drafting. Both in homegrown player retention and in drafting players who contribute to any team.
I agree the Giants have drafted poorly for a number of years. I believe draft success is a product of scouting + coaching.
When you go back 5 years, the Giants have put a decent amount of guys who have stuck around in the league. Why so many of them didn't succeed as Giants, I suspect is a combination of bad coaching and bad personality fit (on the players part).
2015 - Flowers, Collins, Hart
2016 - Apple, Shepard, Thompson, Goodson
2017 - Engram, Tomlinson, Gallman, Moss
If the Giants had those other 6 guys on performing at league average or better on this team, things would be a little better.