Williams is looking for premier pass rusher money, between $18 to $20 million annually.
Gettleman is all in on Williams, but others in the organization may not be.
The two sides have until July 15th to work out a long term deal, or play on the franchise tag for the year.
Link below.
If this has been posted, I will delete.
Link - (
New Window )
officially distracted now
+1
If you’re his agent, why wouldn’t you think the Giants would pay him in line with the very good tackles?
In the midst of a losing season, the Giants sought him out. Then they franchised him. The Giants keep doing things to show how important he is and how much they like him.
The only way to really lose that trade was to let him walk for nothing or cave and overpay. I am more than content riding it out the tag route, it's the least risky route.
thoughts?
thoughts?
Not sure what incentive the Chiefs would have unless they think Jones won't play under the tag.
Giants in prime position to trade for Chris Jones - ( New Window )
Agreed! Dak too. He should sign a long term deal because this is as good as it gets.
If he and his agent are living in fantasy land we let him walk after the season and see how the comp pick formula works out next year.
At that point, we assess whether we can keep him with another tag OR let him walk and we hope to get a #3 tag.
I still think we overpaid for him at mid-season simply because he had no more contract left AND I don't know if we had that much competition. I don't think the trade was completely horrible but it certainly would have been fine to have traded for him at the end of pre-season or heck even after 1 or 2 or 3 games even when we were still potentially "in it" but we were done when we got him.
My gut says he plays on the stage and plays well but not premier pass rusher well. I see him as a "top 5th of the league" as a run defender and "middle of the pack" as a pass rusher, making him a very good player but not a star.
At that point, we assess whether we can keep him with another tag OR let him walk and we hope to get a #3 tag.
I still think we overpaid for him at mid-season simply because he had no more contract left AND I don't know if we had that much competition. I don't think the trade was completely horrible but it certainly would have been fine to have traded for him at the end of pre-season or heck even after 1 or 2 or 3 games even when we were still potentially "in it" but we were done when we got him.
My gut says he plays on the stage and plays well but not premier pass rusher well. I see him as a "top 5th of the league" as a run defender and "middle of the pack" as a pass rusher, making him a very good player but not a star.
if he kills it this year fine tag him again and work out a good deal if you want
more likely is he will be mediocre and will leave after the year and hopefully the giants get a comp pick
if he kills it this year fine tag him again and work out a good deal if you want
more likely is he will be mediocre and will leave after the year and hopefully the giants get a comp pick
Totally agree. Make him earn it. 18-20 million for a DT with no proven track record of consistent pass rush is insane. You are also setting the bar that much higher for the great player that actually deserves that money in the future.
if he kills it this year fine tag him again and work out a good deal if you want
more likely is he will be mediocre and will leave after the year and hopefully the giants get a comp pick
Lets be kind and say he is 90th percentile against the run but perhaps 60th against the pass. If he improves to 70th percentile, he still isn't close to premier.
Play on the tag and see what happens this season is obviously the right answer here. Let’s see if Getty can keep from fucking this up even more than he already has. Doubt it. But let’s see.
Probably why the Giants used the wrong tag on Williams. If they used the Transition Tag, they could of gotten a real market value on Williams, instead of what he thinks he is. Now the Giants don't know what Williams TRUE value is around the league, but they also have to pay him premier DT money for a season when he hasn't produced like one.
Quite a few people on this board kept arguing that the Giants obviously already had a gentleman's agreement with LW when they acquired him -- that of COURSE they wouldn't have traded for him without a contract framework in place that would have been cheaper than if they'd pursued him as an UFA.
It's like these people can't believe the Giants are as capable of making the weird ass mistakes they clearly make often.
No way we give long-term contracts to both, not with Dexter around. We could sign or franchise one, and let the other walk. Or, if we really like both and aren't cap-strapped, we could sign one and franchise the other (not likely but possible). If one walks, hopefully we get a high comp pick. That's how I see this playing out.
Meanwhile Williams needs to show up big time during a "franchise tagged" year.
He or his agent imagines he can receive a long term deal at the annual.cost of the tag?
Bwahahahaha.
Hopefully both Tomlinson and Lawrence flat out out play him this year, and the long term DL money deflects to them.
He's playing with fire...
But it isn't April 22nd. This isn't seeing how dumb Gettleman is. This truly looks like Williams values himself above what we are offering.
Quote:
This was a good trade at any point? The second it happened people were laughing at the giants
Quite a few people on this board kept arguing that the Giants obviously already had a gentleman's agreement with LW when they acquired him -- that of COURSE they wouldn't have traded for him without a contract framework in place that would have been cheaper than if they'd pursued him as an UFA.
It's like these people can't believe the Giants are as capable of making the weird ass mistakes they clearly make often.
A poster on here says he has knowledge that professionals around various NFL management circles praised the move to obtain Williams and referred to DG as pulling off a shrewd deal. So BBI shouldn’t be calling this a mistake.
That's not how comp picks work.
If this report is true and Williams wants that much then the Giants should let him play out this season. He will obviously be motivated to have a huge year to secure the contract that he wants which is obviously good news for the Giants. He will help their defense this year and then land them a high comp pick when he leaves.
The bolded is exactly why it made sense to tag him (along with the fact that there weren't many better uses of $ to acquire talent).
The trade was highly bizarre, but once done the tag was the best option. Minimize risk, retain the talent. They could have untagged him at any point if there was a better use of resource but as expected there wasn't.
Rinse and repeat next offseason if doesn't sign long term.
More often than not it seems like the players who don't seem eager to be on the tag, drag out a hold out and/or don't report until they have to (week 10 I believe) and then are often times a non-factor on the field.
I don't know that him playing on the tag is a win for the Giants especially if he decides not to show up until week 10.
Dude, they clearly meant a gettleman’s agreement. It’s where he says garble, garble, garble, then none of it comes true, but it’s not what he meant so it’s OK, and then something weird happens.
Quote:
Pat Kirwin would always say that about the FT. A team just told the player they value them at least at the tag number if not more. They are right that his value isn't that high but once they did that they lost all leverage. He'd rather play the year out and test FA. The Giants should have let him test FA. The problem is they would want to recoup a third or fourth comp pick. That wasn't happening this year.
The bolded is exactly why it made sense to tag him (along with the fact that there weren't many better uses of $ to acquire talent).
The trade was highly bizarre, but once done the tag was the best option. Minimize risk, retain the talent. They could have untagged him at any point if there was a better use of resource but as expected there wasn't.
Rinse and repeat next offseason if doesn't sign long term.
My point about the tag was that it killed the negotiation. When you tag a guy for roughly 16 mil you are telling the player that you value him at 16 mil or more. That's why I am saying it was the worst thing they could have done. I think we all realize that a deal should have been ironed out as part of the trade not after. I am not saying we shouldn't have tagged him. What I am saying is it was the worst thing for negotiating. And the Giants could have allowed him to shop himself to get an understanding of what he's worth.
More often than not it seems like the players who don't seem eager to be on the tag, drag out a hold out and/or don't report until they have to (week 10 I believe) and then are often times a non-factor on the field.
I don't know that him playing on the tag is a win for the Giants especially if he decides not to show up until week 10.
He already signed his tag. When players have held out in the past (Gordon and Bell - even JPP here) they were refusing to sign the tag. I believe both sides have been quoted as not having issues with the tag.
Williams play on the field will be whatever it is. The contract he plays on has very little impact on that so long as he plays, and in a normal season he'd have very little leverage to not play (C-19 is an unknown that could impact his decision).
And in a future offseason where a comp pick is more possible the team's risk is hedged and leverage is increased to not tag him and let him shop the market as you described.
I would not be opposed to a long term deal right now if the price is really fair but we are working with limited info on the player relative to other teams who have typically had their tagged players for multiple seasons. As much as our scouts may like him he needs to more firmly establish his value on the field.
players under contract hold out all the time, and signing the tag or not, he gets a full year of service by reporting week 10.
And the contract absolutely has a bearing on how he plays on the field (or if). The players don't like the FT b/c it doesn't guarantee anything beyond the current year. So if you're a player on the FT you absolutely have a right not to even get on the field until you absolutely have to so you get the accrued season.
And in a future offseason where a comp pick is more possible the team's risk is hedged and leverage is increased to not tag him and let him shop the market as you described.
I would not be opposed to a long term deal right now if the price is really fair but we are working with limited info on the player relative to other teams who have typically had their tagged players for multiple seasons. As much as our scouts may like him he needs to more firmly establish his value on the field.
Yes, that is a different question. If he's not worth a long term deal then it is even a worse trade.
players under contract hold out all the time, and signing the tag or not, he gets a full year of service by reporting week 10.
And the contract absolutely has a bearing on how he plays on the field (or if). The players don't like the FT b/c it doesn't guarantee anything beyond the current year. So if you're a player on the FT you absolutely have a right not to even get on the field until you absolutely have to so you get the accrued season.
Correct but it could affect his price tag under the FT next year if 120% would be more than the FT for 2021.
It was awful.
players under contract hold out all the time, and signing the tag or not, he gets a full year of service by reporting week 10.
And the contract absolutely has a bearing on how he plays on the field (or if). The players don't like the FT b/c it doesn't guarantee anything beyond the current year. So if you're a player on the FT you absolutely have a right not to even get on the field until you absolutely have to so you get the accrued season.
Has any player ever signed their tag and then not reported?
Why would the chiefs do this unless the Giants add a high pick? Jones is a FAR superior talent. Is this just a classic case of Giants fans overvaluing our teams assets ?
and forget comp picks. Shouldn't even be brought up with the Giants and the discussions for this trade, since the Giants are not a team that routinely manages their free agency needs well enough to count on getting a pick - like the Ravens, Eagles or Patriots.
Quote:
doesn't force him to report. I think all it did was mean Gettleman couldn't rescind it like he did to Josh Norman.
players under contract hold out all the time, and signing the tag or not, he gets a full year of service by reporting week 10.
And the contract absolutely has a bearing on how he plays on the field (or if). The players don't like the FT b/c it doesn't guarantee anything beyond the current year. So if you're a player on the FT you absolutely have a right not to even get on the field until you absolutely have to so you get the accrued season.
Has any player ever signed their tag and then not reported?
No idea, but also no idea why he'd be different than any other player who doesn't report.
(and I'm not saying he won't report to camp or will hold out, we'll cross that bridge when we get there - only saying signing his FT maybe doesn't indicate what you think and he now holds all the cards)
Quote:
I'm not certain mine is yet. I'd like to see him on the field this year first and if I were a new coach on the staff I'd feel even stronger in that opinion. It may ultimately increase the contract he gets but to me that information is invaluable making the correct decision. It could also decrease the price tag.
And in a future offseason where a comp pick is more possible the team's risk is hedged and leverage is increased to not tag him and let him shop the market as you described.
I would not be opposed to a long term deal right now if the price is really fair but we are working with limited info on the player relative to other teams who have typically had their tagged players for multiple seasons. As much as our scouts may like him he needs to more firmly establish his value on the field.
Yes, that is a different question. If he's not worth a long term deal then it is even a worse trade.
They clearly think he is worth a long term deal as evidenced by the fact that they've tried to negotiate a long term deal since acquiring him.
There is also clearly a disagreement on value - which is not uncommon and not easily solvable before seeing him on the field.
The thing I've feared the most since the trade was announced was impatiently rushing into an extension to justify the trade and overcommitting. That would compound a bad trade and make it worse with a bad signing.
Treating the tag like 1 year option was the best option to patiently evaluate LW and improve the likelihood of making a good decision w/r/t signing him long term (or not). If he plays like garbage it was a bad trade, if he makes the pro bowl then I guess they got it right and they will pay him, in the most likely outcome that he plays somewhere in between it's a judgement call based on whatever the market bears - but one I'd rather make with more info and the possibility of a comp pick coming back (2 things we didn't have this year).
He better hope he doesn't get injured this year.
Both players refused to sign their restricted free agent tenders with the team, which is a requirement before they can report to their team.
All of the recent holdouts appear to have happened only when players refuse to sign their tags/tenders. I believe that's because once they sign they can be fined for not reporting.
Vincent Jackson Reportedly Ending Holdout, Will Report To San Diego Chargers - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14929004 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
I'm not certain mine is yet. I'd like to see him on the field this year first and if I were a new coach on the staff I'd feel even stronger in that opinion. It may ultimately increase the contract he gets but to me that information is invaluable making the correct decision. It could also decrease the price tag.
And in a future offseason where a comp pick is more possible the team's risk is hedged and leverage is increased to not tag him and let him shop the market as you described.
I would not be opposed to a long term deal right now if the price is really fair but we are working with limited info on the player relative to other teams who have typically had their tagged players for multiple seasons. As much as our scouts may like him he needs to more firmly establish his value on the field.
Yes, that is a different question. If he's not worth a long term deal then it is even a worse trade.
They clearly think he is worth a long term deal as evidenced by the fact that they've tried to negotiate a long term deal since acquiring him.
There is also clearly a disagreement on value - which is not uncommon and not easily solvable before seeing him on the field.
The thing I've feared the most since the trade was announced was impatiently rushing into an extension to justify the trade and overcommitting. That would compound a bad trade and make it worse with a bad signing.
Treating the tag like 1 year option was the best option to patiently evaluate LW and improve the likelihood of making a good decision w/r/t signing him long term (or not). If he plays like garbage it was a bad trade, if he makes the pro bowl then I guess they got it right and they will pay him, in the most likely outcome that he plays somewhere in between it's a judgement call based on whatever the market bears - but one I'd rather make with more info and the possibility of a comp pick coming back (2 things we didn't have this year).
See, he doesn't need to prove anything to me. He is what he is at this point. He is a very good DL who hasn't produced in the passing game like many hoped. So, he should have been paid accordingly. That way he gets what he IS worth and not what he think his ceiling is. Don't pay on potential. Imo, a long term deal should have been done for what he is. He is very dependable if people stop trying to downgrade him for his sacks. He is not that player. But a 12 to 13 per year player is understandable. Of he has crazy aspirations of 18-20 then it is time to move on. Even one year of production doesn't make me believe he'll be that player every year of his contract.
I'd also agree that even if he has a career year this season it would still be non-ideal to have to fork over Aaron Donald money on the hope that it's not an outlier. But if he plays that well you can bet they'd at minimum get a 3rd round comp pick or possibly even enough leverage to tag and trade him for even more than that. Or just tag him and try to get 1 more great year out of him.
The tag is a relatively risk-free 1 year option. The speculation that comes along with it is way over dramatized.
I'd also agree that even if he has a career year this season it would still be non-ideal to have to fork over Aaron Donald money on the hope that it's not an outlier. But if he plays that well you can bet they'd at minimum get a 3rd round comp pick or possibly even enough leverage to tag and trade him for even more than that. Or just tag him and try to get 1 more great year out of him.
The tag is a relatively risk-free 1 year option. The speculation that comes along with it is way over dramatized.
Because 12 to 13 is already a lot. Look at players making that much. Then look at the players making 18-20 like he supposedly wants. He's not that player.
Everybody always talks about how the Pats run their teams. They don't overpay for players like Williams. They get players like Cam on prove it deals. So, yes, if Williams is asking for that much it is time to move on. Doesn't mean he cannot play this year and leave next. He's just not a guy that should be getting that money. I'd rather give that money to Tomlinson at this point and whatever we have left sign someone else. Also, by signing him to the FT is 16 mil less than we have on next year's cap. Yes, we have a lot of room and that is a great thing but we have our own guys coming up soon.
I am a Williams fan. I think he gets way too much criticism. But the reason he gets the criticism is everybody expected more sacks. Take that out of the equation. That is his value. He's versatile, stout, and gets pressure. Pay him accordingly. If not, move on.
Javon Hargrave was a very closely comparable player in this year's FA class who got 3/39m from the Eagles. If LW had hit the open market I think it's likely that's the floor of what he'd have gotten (he's younger and been the slightly more productive player). DJ Reader was another and he got a 4 year 53m contract at a similar $13.25m AAV.
I would be fine with a similar contract for LW but most certainly would not be happy with anything dramatically higher than what those guys got if the rumors are correct and that's what he's asking for. But it doesn't really matter what his ask is. They have the right to tag him close to what I would appraise his real value as - which is why they correctly did so.
So, once you're boxed into this corner sure apply the FT to him - no choice in the matter - because if you don't you spend a high 3rd round pick for 8 games in a 2 - 6 season. the optics would have been awful.
So, once you're boxed into this corner sure apply the FT to him - no choice in the matter - because if you don't you spend a high 3rd round pick for 8 games in a 2 - 6 season. the optics would have been awful.
If LW signed the exact same contract as DJ Reader tomorrow, the dominant reaction would be that he was overpaid.
If I were GM I'd sign him to that deal because like Robbie I think he's proven to be a solid if unspectacular player and I think that's FMV.
None of us can accurately predict with any certainty whether which is correct. I would have wanted to sign Landon Collins to a FMV extension and as things worked out, it was probably for the best that we got a draft pick and moved on. The benefit of the tag and extra season of practices/games is that it will help identify which group is right.
Lou Lamoriello likes to say "if you have time, use it" and I think it applies here. The tag gives us 1 season of time at very close to FMV to make a more informed decision. The endless speculation doesn't really matter.
16m = 8% of salary cap.
13m = 6.5% of salary cap.
For 1 season that's not a meaningful difference. And I'd remind that the Jets picked up Williams' 5th year option at $14m - which didn't exactly create a tidal wave of outrage, I recall the reaction at the time as a fairly obvious decision.
If you sign Williams long-term in theory you'd be able to control when the guarantees hit the cap and take advantage of various situations (front load, back load, structure as roster bonuses vs signing bonus, etc.)
Now Williams counts 100% of his contract guaranteed with no ability to take advantage of that.
So yes, Reader's contract for Williams would be awesome if Williams "only" got $20M guaranteed like Reader.
Essentially Williams could be cuttable after this year with little pain (should the Giants decide to structure the contract that way and cut him after the season), and if not, and he played up to the contract then you don't mind paying him.
The flexibility is the key and after this year the Giants will have sunk 16+M into Williams with nothing to show for it long-term.
I think of it how Belichick does in his negotiations with Wes Welker. Welker played on the tag in 2012. After that year when it came time to discuss a new deal Belichick said (unofficially) he viewed Welker's year playing on the tag as part of the guarantees he was willing to include in a LT deal and it's partly why Welker wound up leaving and going to DEN (partly). Anyway I view it similarly but not exactly the same.
That $16.1M Williams would get on the tag this year does not go as far as it would in a long-term contract.
This isn't a serious question, is it?
Not that Williams doesn’t find a way to impact games, but 18-20 million dollars is an amount reserved for D-Lineman that get double digit sacks. His .5 last year and good run defense don’t warrant that type of a contract.
At this point I wouldn’t sign him long term at all. Extend Tomlinson, trade Williams at the deadline if we’re out of it or just let him walk after the season and get our comp pick. Don’t tie up future resources in a guy when we have other players on the team that can handle his position.
Not that Williams doesn’t find a way to impact games, but 18-20 million dollars is an amount reserved for D-Lineman that get double digit sacks. His .5 last year and good run defense don’t warrant that type of a contract.
At this point I wouldn’t sign him long term at all. Extend Tomlinson, trade Williams at the deadline if we’re out of it or just let him walk after the season and get our comp pick. Don’t tie up future resources in a guy when we have other players on the team that can handle his position.
The simple fact is that the NFL may continue to lose viewership too and that will hurt the cap immensely along with COVID.
Me, I'd take the BIG money NOW, best the Giants can offer and be happy I got paid big TWICE in this league at least.
Why in the world would Williams not think he’s in line for a pay day that puts him atop 16M a year?
Why in the world would Williams not think he’s in line for a pay day that puts him atop 16M a year?
Agreed. 2 older and arguably similar/lesser players got 13m. There's no credible argument to make right now that FMV is below that. On the open market in March he'd have gotten somewhere between $13-16m. We are paying a higher end rate for a player our scouts presumably believe in, with the added benefit of no long term risk. giving up draft compensation to do so was not ideal but that's a different argument.
More often than not it seems like the players who don't seem eager to be on the tag, drag out a hold out and/or don't report until they have to (week 10 I believe) and then are often times a non-factor on the field.
I don't know that him playing on the tag is a win for the Giants especially if he decides not to show up until week 10.
that's fine if he does this. roll the cap savings over into next year. they aren't winning anything this year with him, they can lose just as well without him
players under contract hold out all the time, and signing the tag or not, he gets a full year of service by reporting week 10.
And the contract absolutely has a bearing on how he plays on the field (or if). The players don't like the FT b/c it doesn't guarantee anything beyond the current year. So if you're a player on the FT you absolutely have a right not to even get on the field until you absolutely have to so you get the accrued season.
Didn’t they change that week 10 thing with this new CBA? I’m pretty sure they did and that a player must show up before week 1 to accrue the service time. I’m not positive but I remember watching a show where they discussed this and the way around it for the players was to simply show up and fake an injury, like a back injury that can’t be detected, necessarily. Similar to the stunt Ramsey pulled in Jax last season.
Quote:
doesn't force him to report. I think all it did was mean Gettleman couldn't rescind it like he did to Josh Norman.
players under contract hold out all the time, and signing the tag or not, he gets a full year of service by reporting week 10.
And the contract absolutely has a bearing on how he plays on the field (or if). The players don't like the FT b/c it doesn't guarantee anything beyond the current year. So if you're a player on the FT you absolutely have a right not to even get on the field until you absolutely have to so you get the accrued season.
Didn’t they change that week 10 thing with this new CBA? I’m pretty sure they did and that a player must show up before week 1 to accrue the service time. I’m not positive but I remember watching a show where they discussed this and the way around it for the players was to simply show up and fake an injury, like a back injury that can’t be detected, necessarily. Similar to the stunt Ramsey pulled in Jax last season.
I'm not qualified to interpret contract language, but it doesn't seem like anything has changed wrt to the accrued season calculation, from the latest CBA:
Latest CBA - ( New Window )
Holdouts
Increased fines for holdouts and players who leave training camp without permission
Players under contract who fail to report to camp on time or leaves the team for more than five days without permission will no longer be eligible to earn an accrued season for that year
Link - ( New Window )
Holdouts
Increased fines for holdouts and players who leave training camp without permission
Players under contract who fail to report to camp on time or leaves the team for more than five days without permission will no longer be eligible to earn an accrued season for that year Link - ( New Window )
thanks, interesting, like I said I am not qualified to interpret this, lol.
I'm still not 100% sure if it's changed since it mentioned camp, but if it has changed then Eric was probably right, singing the FT not just guarantees it, but also forces Williams to report. Not sure though if that's the right interpretation.
Oh well we move on and hope he plays like an $18M player should. If he does play up to that level it makes it bearable especially if we make the playoffs.
You would think they would have done enough homework last year to know he was going to command a ridiculously high salary before trading for him. Guess not.
9 days left to get this sealed up. Or conversely, only 9 days left before the DG bashers and supporters will likely go at it again.
With Jimmy Googs (LBH15) leading the way.
In comment 14929400 LBH15 said:
9 days left to get this sealed up. Or conversely, only 9 days left before the DG bashers and supporters will likely go at it again.
I am not saying tagging again is an ideal outcome, I think it's highly unlikely, just that we have control of his rights for 2 years. And we have the flexibility to let him walk. Isn't the right to let him walk if we choose worth more than saving a couple million against the cap?
I mentioned this before, it's about maximizing the return on guaranteed dollars.
You brought up the DJ Reader contract.
Reader got $20M guaranteed for 4 years (4 year $53M, 20M guaranteed).
Williams will have $16.1M guaranteed for this year only. I hope you can see that is not a good return on using guaranteed dollars. He's 26 years old these are his prime years, signing him long-term can help structure the contract and guarantees so the team has maximum payroll flexibility in the out years.
I think Williams will get more than Reader, but even if Williams get 4 years $60M $30M guaranteed - front loading those guaranteed dollars to do something like guarantee year 1 salary and a small pro-rated SB, by year 3 he's cuttable or restructurable without much pain.
it's about avoiding untenable cap situations, so by playing this year on the cap, it's like a complete reset for the guaranteed $$$. I used the Welker example previously and it's a good one I think - they way some front office view a situation like this.
I am not saying tagging again is an ideal outcome, I think it's highly unlikely, just that we have control of his rights for 2 years. And we have the flexibility to let him walk. Isn't the right to let him walk if we choose worth more than saving a couple million against the cap?
At some point this LW deal needs to grow up and you know...be an adult.
It just keeps turning into the thing that actually can’t get done right so let’s go with the next least worst alternative.
You are 100% correct that a better outcome would have been guaranteeing something like $30-35m over the life of a deal, with this year's $16m being about half of that - but if LW would have accepted that deal (or any other in the ballpark of Reader/Hargrave) it would have been done by now.
I think the $18-20m ask is likely bs but I don't think it's too far off what he's likely asking for. Prior to Hargrave/Reader signing what Grady Jarrett (17m aav) got last year after getting tagged by the Falcons seemed like a very solid comp (4 years, 68m, 42 gtd).
So while a DJ Reader contract is a no brainer for NYG and $18m+ is a no way, the Jarrett level deal is more of a gray area which is where the compromise likely lies - and i'm not sure I'd do that now. I'd prefer to see him play really well for a full year before giving that out. If he doesn't play great we may prefer to resign Tomlinson in the range of Hargraves/Reader and let LW walk for the comp pick (Hargraves is projected to return a 4th rd pick to Pitt, so either LW has a bad year and we can resign him for the price we want or he has a good year, costs more, and either resigns or returns a 3rd via comp pick).
The biggest unknown to me is how much impact he will have on the field. At this point I'd rather try to solve for that unknown as best as I can before deciding. Unless he's will to take the bare minimum which would be a Reader/Hargraves deal - though I think his agent would get fired on the spot by all his other clients if was willing to take less AAV than he's already guaranteed by his signed tag.
recent history disagrees. They did really well to negotiate their comp pick for Collins last year even with signing Tate and a few others. The new regime has done very well with the comp pick system and while it's not the primary motivator of this decision it is a factor that can't be ignored.
At some point this LW deal needs to grow up and you know...be an adult.
He signed his tag and hasn't been a squeaky wheel publicly threatening to skip camp until he gets a new deal. He didn't ask to get traded for, or tagged. If he and his agent think he's worth as much as Grady Jarrett they might end up wrong but it's not crazy. He was the last run stuffing DT who got tagged after his first contract so the contract extension he signed on July 15th of last year before camp while tagged would seem to be a reasonable ask at the moment.
Quote:
At some point this LW deal needs to grow up and you know...be an adult.
He signed his tag and hasn't been a squeaky wheel publicly threatening to skip camp until he gets a new deal. He didn't ask to get traded for, or tagged. If he and his agent think he's worth as much as Grady Jarrett they might end up wrong but it's not crazy. He was the last run stuffing DT who got tagged after his first contract so the contract extension he signed on July 15th of last year before camp while tagged would seem to be a reasonable ask at the moment.
I am not blaming LW at all. He is doing what is in his best interest. And the Giants keep responding with something that tries to keep this ridiculous thing alive.
It should have never happened. Or it should have just happened in normal free agency dealings and been done.
An example of how not to run a club.
I still think trading for him that late was perhaps a mistake but given all the positive posts I'll hold out judgment until the end of this year - assuming we have some kind of year!
I am not blaming LW at all. He is doing what is in his best interest. And the Giants keep responding with something that tries to keep this ridiculous thing alive.
It should have never happened. Or it should have just happened in normal free agency dealings and been done.
An example of how not to run a club.
I think that remains to be seen to a degree. I thought the same thing about the Cowboys trading a 1 for Cooper - and I was still a big Cooper fan at that point. It just seemed like a bizarre deal. Then he was an instant fit with Dak who has since justified both the trade a huge extension without ever hitting UFA for any teams that may have wanted him but didn't want to trade for him.
I'm not saying that makes this trade or any in season trade by a team going nowhere good move, just that the results are still TBD. If LW returns to his pro bowl form and leads a good defense this year and beyond I won't mind as much that we didn't have a 3rd rd pick this year.
So we wait and see if two draft picks and $20M+ were just pissed away for a season and a half when the team wasn’t going anywhere anyway during this time.
If the Giants are going to invest 30M+ in Williams over the next two years in franchise tags, they should at a minimum gain the option for a 3rd year of control.
The Bradberry deal is a great model — ~32M guaranteed money with 43 overall. The Giants can either choose to pay him for the 3rd year or walk away with minimal dead money.
BUT, as so often happens around here sone have lost perspective and it has been blown into something way larger than it actually is. People act as though they spent a first rounder.
They rolled the dice. Can we stop whining about it yet?
I suppose not since I still need to hear about Linval Joseph at least a couple times a year.
Out of all the other shit that gets discussed on here, this is probably the one thing that should be discussed.
On that I think he's right. But getting to the discussion because I agree with you, it is probably the most worthy of a discussion right now. Here's a hypothetical choice for anyone interested in partaking, which would you prefer:
option 1 - play the season on tag.
option 2 - sign him to the same deal Grady Jarrett got last year (4/68m/42.5m gtd). So essentially a 3/52m extension tacked on top of the tag plus an extra 26m guaranteed.
Jarrett as mentioned was tagged as a DT and signed on 7/15 right before camp making him a direct recent comp to Williams situation. The fact that both were tagged at the same level by their respective teams implies their values on the field as similar and while DT stats are somewhat limited their production is comparable too. Both produced more behind the LOS (TFL, sacks, pressures, hits) than Reader/Hargrave so I think it's a lot more realistic of a comp right now than the latter 2 deals.
If the Giants are going to invest 30M+ in Williams over the next two years in franchise tags, they should at a minimum gain the option for a 3rd year of control.
The Bradberry deal is a great model — ~32M guaranteed money with 43 overall. The Giants can either choose to pay him for the 3rd year or walk away with minimal dead money.
Agree Christian. Unless they work out a team friendly deal it seems more financially prudent to tag him for two years if necessary.
BUT, as so often happens around here sone have lost perspective and it has been blown into something way larger than it actually is. People act as though they spent a first rounder.
They rolled the dice. Can we stop whining about it yet?
I suppose not since I still need to hear about Linval Joseph at least a couple times a year.
4-12 teams rolling the dice on a silly deal deserve to be whined at by their fans.
As do fans that think they have perspective but are really just complacent.
BUT, as so often happens around here sone have lost perspective and it has been blown into something way larger than it actually is. People act as though they spent a first rounder.
They rolled the dice. Can we stop whining about it yet?
I suppose not since I still need to hear about Linval Joseph at least a couple times a year.
+1
This is the "look at me" affect that BBI has on some of the folks here.
BUT, as so often happens around here sone have lost perspective and it has been blown into something way larger than it actually is. People act as though they spent a first rounder.
They rolled the dice. Can we stop whining about it yet?
I suppose not since I still need to hear about Linval Joseph at least a couple times a year.
It's worth whining about on principle alone. Bad teams should be looking to acquire draft capital, not trade it away, especially not for an unexceptional player who expects to get paid like an exceptional one. It wasn't just "a bad deal," it was a monumentally bad deal on several levels.
Quote:
was a bad deal
BUT, as so often happens around here sone have lost perspective and it has been blown into something way larger than it actually is. People act as though they spent a first rounder.
They rolled the dice. Can we stop whining about it yet?
I suppose not since I still need to hear about Linval Joseph at least a couple times a year.
+1
This is the "look at me" affect that BBI has on some of the folks here.
-1
The Giants want to be on the patient side. I think the reasonable middle ground here is that DJ showed some promise and if he hits it covers up what appear to be large errors in judgement and process as of now. I agree that if DJ becomes a star and Barkley stays healthy and a top back in this league this offense could be great. We could form a winning team around those two and heavy investment in OL and defense.
There are other stories though, there is the story where DJ is a star but we don't win BECAUSE of the assets we invested in a position with declining relative positional value like RB and both draft picks and too much money in an upper middle level player.
If DJ doesn't hit this is likely to be the worst period in franchise history.
I think to how Frank Costanza once screamed at George Steinbrenner in an episode of Seinfeld, “How could you give $12 million to Hideki Irabu?!!!" while his son was on trial.
This is the NY sports market. You get to be deified if you stand out a winner and never ending ridicule if the opposite is true.
DG made some moves that went against more modern theories of team building. If in doing that he builds a winner, I'll be here waving the pom poms with everyone. If he doesn't, if some of these moves keep looking every bit as head scratching as people were able to say immediately with far less information and resources than him, there isn't enough ink to spill about it.
This kind of update makes this deal even more frustrating. What exactly are people suggesting. We ignore this thread? we come here and say well that's an honest mistake?
Sorry. No. Many pointed out at the time of this trade that we were putting ourselves in a pretty terrible position in terms of leverage with LW and as was also suggested he is using every bit of it. It's the job of a good management team to anticipate these things not be victims of it.
It’s a tough sale if the outcome is a 3rd, 5th and 18M for 24 games.
You look at the offseason now as it’s almost wrapped up, and it’s clear he was a priority and a part of the plan. If you can’t get him under team control for 3 years, bad on the GM.
It’s a tough sale if the outcome is a 3rd, 5th and 18M for 24 games.
You look at the offseason now as it’s almost wrapped up, and it’s clear he was a priority and a part of the plan. If you can’t get him under team control for 3 years, bad on the GM.
I'd still rather have the flexibility than the 3rd year, but maybe that's just the recent memory of being wrong about Landon Collins and that situation having worked out for the best.
The Bradberry deal is the perfect example — the Giants either keep him for 2 years at ~30M or 3 years at ~44M. That’s a great contract for both sides.
It takes two of course, but it’s within the realm of possibilities, and it’s a better outcome for the Giants. I’d much rather the Giants sign Williams to a 3/48 with 35 guaranteed than effectively 2/32 with 32 guaranteed.
The Bradberry deal is the perfect example — the Giants either keep him for 2 years at ~30M or 3 years at ~44M. That’s a great contract for both sides.
It takes two of course, but it’s within the realm of possibilities, and it’s a better outcome for the Giants. I’d much rather the Giants sign Williams to a 3/48 with 35 guaranteed than effectively 2/32 with 32 guaranteed.
That makes sense and I suspect the reason that deal isn't done is that he wants something closer to what Jarrett got and a 4th year.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they meet somewhere in the middle in the next few weeks. If I were a player facing an unknown season and I was in a city I wanted to be in I'd rather take the guaranteed security now - even if it ends up a little bit below whatever target I'd set for myself going in. 4 years / 60m-66m seems like a fair deal for both sides. That would make Williams the 6th highest paid DT, 1 spot ahead of DJ Reader by a few million and close behind Atkins/Jarrett/Cox. Buckner and Donald are the top 2 and even LW admitted he knows he's not on that tier a while back.
Deadlines spur action and that's exactly how the most comparable recent extension happened last year (Jarrett). Perhaps LW was comfortable trying to prove himself this year, but nothing short of double digit sack year is getting him paid like Buckner/Donald (and that may not even get it done). And now add in the extra risk of the season just being interrupted in general. If there's an offer around $60m on the table he'd be wise to take it, but I'm not so sure there is. I suppose we will find out in the next couple weeks.
If he is a cornerstone player then Gettleman should probably give him the $18M per year.
Except, of course...he's not.
7 days left.
Judge is definitely the swing vote here. If he likes him I think he will get signed in the next week. If he's uncertain I think he plays on the tag.
We saw with Jones that Judge's original blank slate posture was a little bit of fluff and after a certain point he was willing to articulate strong opinions on the roster prior to getting fully on the field. As you said, his team faced Williams a number of times in his career so he should have a relatively informed opinion.
If the Cowboys had made this trade there would be a 1000 post thread laughing our asses off at what an idiot Jerry Jones is.
There is NO OTHER TRADE LIKE THIS IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL since free agency started.
Remember when the Jets traded two mid rounds picks, one that turned out to be a top 70 pick, for a guy who would be a free agent in 8 games let alone when they were 2-6? Or the Browns? Or the Redskins? Or the Jags? Cards? Bueller? Any of the joke NFL franchises ever do this?
Nope. NONE. NOT ONE.
But carry on.