The franchise carries a salary cap hit and salary for Williams of $16.1 million. The Giants have no intention of having Williams play out the season on that one-year deal. They can significantly lower the cap hit by coming to an agreement with Williams on a long-term deal that likely would be in the $10-12 million a year range.
I think DG saw that coming and that's why the trade. To secure him from another team. I have mixed feelings on the trade like many but that's the only logical thing I see for the reason for it.
That said I don't like the FT in play. I would have used the TT and allowed market forces to set his value. That said the FT may be a precursor to a deal and locks out other teams from interfering. Now we wait.
It makes sense if there is a deal in place to use the Franchise Tag
Williams stated he wanted to stay in New York area. Also, look at the landscape in terms of successful careers many Giant players are having post playing years. Williams is a weapon on defense that this team can use and with good coaching, he can become an even better and more valuable player. So, if Williams' deal is a good one for both him and the Giants, then the trade, goes from being a dumb one to a smart one.
I had read the "other" Williams thread earlier and hadn't intended to return to it. This thread title caught my eye and provided valuable info.
So because you happen to behave in a way that's counter to a message board's function of being an ongoing discussion, we should have new threads for details related to a larger thread just so that you don't have to return to the previous thread?
If you read it before this detail entered that discussion, maybe you're not done reading it?
I had read the "other" Williams thread earlier and hadn't intended to return to it. This thread title caught my eye and provided valuable info.
So because you happen to behave in a way that's counter to a message board's function of being an ongoing discussion, we should have new threads for details related to a larger thread just so that you don't have to return to the previous thread?
If you read it before this detail entered that discussion, maybe you're not done reading it?
Why are you so confrontational? I agree that multiple threads are no needed but this is new/different information that the one posted above. Relax.
RE: I believe a deal (general terms) was in place before trade was made.
Williams stated he wanted to stay in New York area. Also, look at the landscape in terms of successful careers many Giant players are having post playing years. Williams is a weapon on defense that this team can use and with good coaching, he can become an even better and more valuable player. So, if Williams' deal is a good one for both him and the Giants, then the trade, goes from being a dumb one to a smart one.
That's still in the eye of the beholder. If you think LW solves a need, and he will make us better, than the move would look smarter on cheaper terms.
If you think that money could be better spent solving other issues, and you think we already have enough quality already at DT, than the trade is problematic.
I fall into the second bucket.
RE: RE: I believe a deal (general terms) was in place before trade was made.
Williams stated he wanted to stay in New York area. Also, look at the landscape in terms of successful careers many Giant players are having post playing years. Williams is a weapon on defense that this team can use and with good coaching, he can become an even better and more valuable player. So, if Williams' deal is a good one for both him and the Giants, then the trade, goes from being a dumb one to a smart one.
That's still in the eye of the beholder. If you think LW solves a need, and he will make us better, than the move would look smarter on cheaper terms.
If you think that money could be better spent solving other issues, and you think we already have enough quality already at DT, than the trade is problematic.
I fall into the second bucket.
Not many young good healthy players out there, probably not even for a 3rd.
I had read the "other" Williams thread earlier and hadn't intended to return to it. This thread title caught my eye and provided valuable info.
So because you happen to behave in a way that's counter to a message board's function of being an ongoing discussion, we should have new threads for details related to a larger thread just so that you don't have to return to the previous thread?
If you read it before this detail entered that discussion, maybe you're not done reading it?
Why are you so confrontational? I agree that multiple threads are no needed but this is new/different information that the one posted above. Relax.
Because the underlying concept of welcoming a new thread entirely because a poster has determined for himself that he did not intend to return to a previous thread on a related topic simply because he was finished reading it is asinine in a message board setting. Want to say that this was a significant detail that deserved its own thread? Sure, I can support that. But "I already read that thread and didn't want to go back to it" is dumb. By that logic, every new comment to every thread can be a new thread simply because at the time that someone chooses to comment, they've already finished reading the thread.
I was confronting the idiocy of the comment, not the worthiness of the new thread.
I had read the "other" Williams thread earlier and hadn't intended to return to it. This thread title caught my eye and provided valuable info.
So because you happen to behave in a way that's counter to a message board's function of being an ongoing discussion, we should have new threads for details related to a larger thread just so that you don't have to return to the previous thread?
If you read it before this detail entered that discussion, maybe you're not done reading it?
Why are you so confrontational? I agree that multiple threads are no needed but this is new/different information that the one posted above. Relax.
Because the underlying concept of welcoming a new thread entirely because a poster has determined for himself that he did not intend to return to a previous thread on a related topic simply because he was finished reading it is asinine in a message board setting. Want to say that this was a significant detail that deserved its own thread? Sure, I can support that. But "I already read that thread and didn't want to go back to it" is dumb. By that logic, every new comment to every thread can be a new thread simply because at the time that someone chooses to comment, they've already finished reading the thread.
I was confronting the idiocy of the comment, not the worthiness of the new thread.
Don't be an ass.
I stated an OPINON that I thought the thread provided valuable info and didn't think it should be deleted. Others agreed. The decision to keep or delete the thread was always up to Vin and/or the mods.
because Williams wants to stay in NYC. Sure both sides had options but that was discussed based in Wuilliams performance and attitude last year. Good for DG (and the team) ifs he worked this out and it works out
RE: Agree that this deal was probably set up before the trade
because Williams wants to stay in NYC. Sure both sides had options but that was discussed based in Wuilliams performance and attitude last year. Good for DG (and the team) ifs he worked this out and it works out
Set up before the trade but still needed to use the tag to complete it?
With Armstead at 17 and Brockers at 10, you're probably splitting the difference there.
Although it's possible with the cap flexibility provided by Jones. A 3 year deal with high guarantees and the potential for another big pay day could be incentive enough to keep it in that ballpark.
This is on the main Williams thread
+1
Yes, a 3rd round pick this year and a 5th in 2021
I still think there are bigger needs to spend money on, but if Team LW is feeling magnanimous you have to more seriously consider re-signing him...
Quote:
Which makes me skeptical it will happen.
+1
Great outlook.
Agreed.
Fine with the deal if it happens. That's not bad value for Williams.
10-12 mill is a very fair deal for a DT/3-4 DE with still some pass rush upside who plays the run very well and has versatility.
So because you happen to behave in a way that's counter to a message board's function of being an ongoing discussion, we should have new threads for details related to a larger thread just so that you don't have to return to the previous thread?
If you read it before this detail entered that discussion, maybe you're not done reading it?
Quote:
I had read the "other" Williams thread earlier and hadn't intended to return to it. This thread title caught my eye and provided valuable info.
So because you happen to behave in a way that's counter to a message board's function of being an ongoing discussion, we should have new threads for details related to a larger thread just so that you don't have to return to the previous thread?
If you read it before this detail entered that discussion, maybe you're not done reading it?
Why are you so confrontational? I agree that multiple threads are no needed but this is new/different information that the one posted above. Relax.
That's still in the eye of the beholder. If you think LW solves a need, and he will make us better, than the move would look smarter on cheaper terms.
If you think that money could be better spent solving other issues, and you think we already have enough quality already at DT, than the trade is problematic.
I fall into the second bucket.
Quote:
Williams stated he wanted to stay in New York area. Also, look at the landscape in terms of successful careers many Giant players are having post playing years. Williams is a weapon on defense that this team can use and with good coaching, he can become an even better and more valuable player. So, if Williams' deal is a good one for both him and the Giants, then the trade, goes from being a dumb one to a smart one.
That's still in the eye of the beholder. If you think LW solves a need, and he will make us better, than the move would look smarter on cheaper terms.
If you think that money could be better spent solving other issues, and you think we already have enough quality already at DT, than the trade is problematic.
I fall into the second bucket.
Not many young good healthy players out there, probably not even for a 3rd.
Quote:
In comment 14836960 Jim in Tampa said:
Quote:
I had read the "other" Williams thread earlier and hadn't intended to return to it. This thread title caught my eye and provided valuable info.
So because you happen to behave in a way that's counter to a message board's function of being an ongoing discussion, we should have new threads for details related to a larger thread just so that you don't have to return to the previous thread?
If you read it before this detail entered that discussion, maybe you're not done reading it?
Why are you so confrontational? I agree that multiple threads are no needed but this is new/different information that the one posted above. Relax.
Because the underlying concept of welcoming a new thread entirely because a poster has determined for himself that he did not intend to return to a previous thread on a related topic simply because he was finished reading it is asinine in a message board setting. Want to say that this was a significant detail that deserved its own thread? Sure, I can support that. But "I already read that thread and didn't want to go back to it" is dumb. By that logic, every new comment to every thread can be a new thread simply because at the time that someone chooses to comment, they've already finished reading the thread.
I was confronting the idiocy of the comment, not the worthiness of the new thread.
Quote:
In comment 14837035 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14836960 Jim in Tampa said:
Quote:
I had read the "other" Williams thread earlier and hadn't intended to return to it. This thread title caught my eye and provided valuable info.
So because you happen to behave in a way that's counter to a message board's function of being an ongoing discussion, we should have new threads for details related to a larger thread just so that you don't have to return to the previous thread?
If you read it before this detail entered that discussion, maybe you're not done reading it?
Why are you so confrontational? I agree that multiple threads are no needed but this is new/different information that the one posted above. Relax.
Because the underlying concept of welcoming a new thread entirely because a poster has determined for himself that he did not intend to return to a previous thread on a related topic simply because he was finished reading it is asinine in a message board setting. Want to say that this was a significant detail that deserved its own thread? Sure, I can support that. But "I already read that thread and didn't want to go back to it" is dumb. By that logic, every new comment to every thread can be a new thread simply because at the time that someone chooses to comment, they've already finished reading the thread.
I was confronting the idiocy of the comment, not the worthiness of the new thread.
Don't be an ass.
I stated an OPINON that I thought the thread provided valuable info and didn't think it should be deleted. Others agreed. The decision to keep or delete the thread was always up to Vin and/or the mods.
Set up before the trade but still needed to use the tag to complete it?
Although it's possible with the cap flexibility provided by Jones. A 3 year deal with high guarantees and the potential for another big pay day could be incentive enough to keep it in that ballpark.