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 )
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.