Mike Garafolo
@MikeGarafolo
The #Giants have agreed to a two-year extension with OL Nick Gates, who started three games last year. The deal has a base value of $6.825 million and could max out at $10.325 million. A former undrafted free agent who spent his first year on IR, Gates cashes in.
A bit much...that's starter money...
generally speaking early extensions for players below FMV (which this appears to be) are a positive. There still seems to be confusion about whether the extension makes this a 3 year deal or 4 year deal but even if it's the former the base would appears to be 2m AAV, with incentives that could max it out somewhere between 3m-4m AAV. And as long as the signing bonus is $1.5m there's minimal dead money.
it's also more than a little ironic to speculate they should have waited to understand the full cap considerations of this when we've gotten about 3 small nuggets of info re: the contract whereas they wrote the contract, are infinitely more aware of the impacts of the already agreed upon parameters of this season and how they project in the minimum cap for next year.
Again, it’s people like you acting like just because the Giants did something it means that it’s smart even if the details to make that assessment aren’t readily available. Suddenly the Giants aren’t just football forecasting experts but infectious disease modelers as well!
He gave up 2 years of his career for a $1.5m SB. That is a pretty minuscule amount of guaranteed money for a potential starter (less than 1/2 of what Mayo got when he resigned a few months ago).
Next offseason I believe he would have been eligible for an RFA tender - and whichever tender they gave him would have likely resulted in a $2m+ salary.
So yes, I believe the NYG did better in this transaction based on what we know right now than the player did. But everyone's situation is unknown and I can understand wanting some guaranteed money right now with the uncertainty of things. Especially for someone making the minimum.
The RFA tenders are classified as follows:
First-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $4.641 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. If the player's original team decides not to match an offer sheet signed with another team, it is entitled to a first-round draft pick from the player's new team. Unless received two days or later prior to the NFL draft, draft compensation for each tender is due in the same league year as the offer sheet is signed.
A signed offer sheet with a new team includes Principal Terms that must be matched by the prior club. However, if the new team includes terms that waive or limit its ability to designate the RFA a franchise player, the old team will not have to match this term if it has tendered the player with an offer worth $500,000 more than the first-round tender ($5.141 million in 2020).
Second-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $3.259 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. Draft-choice compensation: second-round pick.
Original-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $2.133 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. Draft-choice compensation: a pick in the round the player was originally drafted in.
Right-of-first-refusal tender: One-year contract worth $2.133 million. Team has the right to match any offer sheet signed with another team, but there is no draft compensation tied to this tender.
You are the one that doesn’t have enough information before essentially suggesting that Gates was driven to accept a deal because he was worried. Perhaps Gates and his agent thought that he was getting offered a great deal based on how much he’s proven? Why do you have to imply that the Giants got a deal just because of COVID?
Again, it’s people like you acting like just because the Giants did something it means that it’s smart even if the details to make that assessment aren’t readily available. Suddenly the Giants aren’t just football forecasting experts but infectious disease modelers as well!
Reductive insults and ironic projection aside, the key details to assess this positively are pretty simple - it's the $1.5m signing bonus because that's all they guaranteed to get 2 extra years of control. If the max risk of $1.5m in dead money if they cut him tomorrow is the hill you want to die on that's your prerogative.
You really push the boundaries of ridiculous. You some how just took a factual statement and falsely twisted it into supporting a counter argument against an argument no one is making.
No one is freaking out and the contract literally is worth up to $10.3M.
If the facts are bothersome to you, maybe just see yourself away from the conversation.
If he proves to be a good NFL center — pay him. If he has 2 good years under his belt, you’re going to redo his contract anyway for 2022.
None of this is a tragedy, it’s a low to medium sized transaction. I think the most likely outcome is he’s a back up player in 2021 on a slightly overpaid contract like Spencer Pulley.
If he proves to be a good NFL center — pay him. If he has 2 good years under his belt, you’re going to redo his contract anyway for 2022.
None of this is a tragedy, it’s a low to medium sized transaction. I think the most likely outcome is he’s a back up player in 2021 on a slightly overpaid contract like Spencer Pulley.
From the best I can tell from what's been reported, that's very close to what the base of this contract will pay him. Pat reported that his salary remains the same this year ($675k) and based on the total values reported that would likely mean his base is close to $2m next year. The only difference is adding on the extra option year on top of your scenario as well as the $1.5m bonus.
In the limited amount we've seen Gates I've been a lot more intrigued with his ability than Pulley. If they were up against the cap right now I'd have had zero issue cutting Pulley to do this deal with Gates which is why I'm so surprised they were able to get it done for less $ than they gtd Pulley a few years ago. In more time on the field Pulley has had none of the positive flashes Gates had and has far less of the positional versatility.
2020: 675K salary
2021: ~2.1M tender
Total: 2.85M, 0 dead money
With extension:
2020: 500K bonus, 675 salary
2021: 500K bonus, ~2.66M (minimum)
Total: 4.33M, 500K dead money
At a minimum he will cost 2M more dollars across the next 2 seasons. Again not a tragedy, I just think he’s a nobody, and the type of player you let play it out. Maybe he surprises, maybe he doesn’t.
No tape, but Sy'56 wrote this after the season finale against Philly:
But I guess it all depends on the view of Gates. In his brief playing time I think he showed more ability than a typical journeyman OL like Flemming because he literally appeared to be our best OL in those games. And now he's under contract at a fraction of the cost which is a positive even if he's only a backup. If he proves to be a starter this deal will be a steal and he may have had to get tendered at the $3.2m+ level any way.
He’s also barely (if at all) been on the field in front of this staff. I think it’s weird to extend a player the staff hasn’t coached live.
For what amounts to ~2M extra dollars at a minimum, over the next years for a relative nobody I think it’s silly. Hopefully he blows the doors off and and becomes a starter.
We won't know for sure until we see the full details but I don't think this deal raised the amount he was likely to pocket the next 2 years if at all, it just gave him some security (the guaranteed $1.5m + this year's base) and possible incentives in return for the giants getting full control of his rights for 2 years after this one.
Is it not possible that what they've recognized in him this move is very low risk high reward. I think they've identified him as someone that at the very least is your quintessential 6th olineman who can play multiple positions at a decent level. But what if he turns out to be more than that? He'd price himself out completely. Sure if he shows no progress it might turn out to be a slight overpay, but it could end up saving us a ton of money. Possibly DG has seen some things that give him hope he turns into a solid starter in this league.
omameh Immediately comes to mind. But it’s not isolated. And also, maybe things have changed in the many years DG has been doing this and recent history is more relevant.
He had a nice run in Carolina with some late round guys, but what bearing does that have on the Giants now? He’s been a mixed bag in NY, so I’m not penciling in any move as a forgone success.
I think Gates was a mixed bag, and looked a lot better at tackle than guard. But I don’t think the sample size and competition is enough to draw a conclusion.
I’d rather the Giants had let him prove himself more on the field, with this staff. If he presented himself really well next year, tender him.
Flowers was a Gettleman pick?
Flowers was a Gettleman pick?
Lots of fans weren’t excited about Solder and felt it was an unwise contract at the time. If Remmers was in such bad physical shape, the Giants should not have signed him. Gettleman had a choice to make with Flowers, and instead of cutting, trading, or burying him on the depth chart — he put in motion the scenario that landed Flowers still starting, and incredibly, sucking even more.
omameh Immediately comes to mind. But it’s not isolated. And also, maybe things have changed in the many years DG has been doing this and recent history is more relevant.
What is "recent history"?
IDK, but I think the most recent history would be drafting Thomas, Peart, and Lemieux in rounds 1,3,5 and signing the Rhode Island kid as a priority UDFA. Before than, Big George in round 7, before that Hernandez in round 2, Gates as a priority UDFA, and signing Solder and Omameh.
Not too much before those moves you had DG drafting Trai Turner, Daryl Williams, and signing Norwell as a priority UDFA.
I've linked an article below about Dan Shonka's thoughts about Nick Gates. He graded Gates as a 3rd or 4th round value...
Some folks thought Lemieux was a 2nd or 3rd round value.
One thing in common among Gates, Lemieux, Peart, and above all Andrew Thomas, these guys all started a whole lot of college games, began starting as redshirt freshmen or even as true freshmen and earned at least honorable mention all conference or all conference or even all American recognition.
But best of all, they played like every freaking game they were asked to, or very close to that.
There's a record there with these guys, first and foremost, plenty of tape, and in some cases some rare athletic talent to boot.
But it seems the rare athletic traits are the last thing Gettleman is looking for in the OL rookies he's brought in. Maybe above all it's reliability and consistency.
Maybe that's more hope than reality, we'll see soon enough.
Nick Gates gets a 3rd or 4th round grade from Ourlads Shonka. - ( New Window )
What are DGs OL wins to balance against those here?
We have Thomas and Peart is presumptive wins already? Isn’t it about asset allocation though? You could pick OL with premium picks every year and you’ll surely have a good OL eventually
No, we don’t all agree. Gettleman’s successes in Carolina on OL have not continued as a NY Giant. In fact, if the guys he drafted on the OL this year do not pan out, and quickly, he is finished in football.
Flowers was a Gettleman pick?
Nobody?
This is the poster child post to being DG defender.
An impossible situation...haha!
Quote:
like DG knows the OL other than Solder that it’s just like to what end?
omameh Immediately comes to mind. But it’s not isolated. And also, maybe things have changed in the many years DG has been doing this and recent history is more relevant.
What is "recent history"?
IDK, but I think the most recent history would be drafting Thomas, Peart, and Lemieux in rounds 1,3,5 and signing the Rhode Island kid as a priority UDFA. Before than, Big George in round 7, before that Hernandez in round 2, Gates as a priority UDFA, and signing Solder and Omameh.
Not too much before those moves you had DG drafting Trai Turner, Daryl Williams, and signing Norwell as a priority UDFA.
I've linked an article below about Dan Shonka's thoughts about Nick Gates. He graded Gates as a 3rd or 4th round value...
Some folks thought Lemieux was a 2nd or 3rd round value.
One thing in common among Gates, Lemieux, Peart, and above all Andrew Thomas, these guys all started a whole lot of college games, began starting as redshirt freshmen or even as true freshmen and earned at least honorable mention all conference or all conference or even all American recognition.
But best of all, they played like every freaking game they were asked to, or very close to that.
There's a record there with these guys, first and foremost, plenty of tape, and in some cases some rare athletic talent to boot.
But it seems the rare athletic traits are the last thing Gettleman is looking for in the OL rookies he's brought in. Maybe above all it's reliability and consistency.
Maybe that's more hope than reality, we'll see soon enough.
Nick Gates gets a 3rd or 4th round grade from Ourlads Shonka. - ( New Window )
I think the guys just drafted need to play a few games as a Giant before you can use them as support to defend DG on his offensive line prowess. The Carolina examples are good but his recent work as the NY Giant GM kind of deflate that goodwill.
Your or any other fans' "goodwill" doesn't do shit for me, or the team. You and other dummies here don't get it.
What matters to a real fan is whether or not DG has the skill to identify superior players, and to draft them at appropriate slots or scoop them up as UDFAs.
The Gates extension is a sign, at least a faintly lit sign, that DG got his signing right. And DG has skins on the wall to point out he's done it before, more than once. My bet right now is Gates turns out about as useful as Justin Pugh or Weston Richburg, that cost Reese first and second round picks, respectively.
Hell if Gates is even close to their utility, he's a far superior signing by value.
I think we would've seen a different approach on the unwise vet signings if DG wasn't trying to give Eli one more shot at the big dance.
So yeah he's made big mistakes, but over-drafting a dud OL for the Giants hasn't been one of them, yet.
Quote:
The Carolina examples are good but his recent work as the NY Giant GM kind of deflate that goodwill.
Your or any other fans' "goodwill" doesn't do shit for me, or the team. You and other dummies here don't get it.
What matters to a real fan is whether or not DG has the skill to identify superior players, and to draft them at appropriate slots or scoop them up as UDFAs.
The Gates extension is a sign, at least a faintly lit sign, that DG got his signing right. And DG has skins on the wall to point out he's done it before, more than once. My bet right now is Gates turns out about as useful as Justin Pugh or Weston Richburg, that cost Reese first and second round picks, respectively.
Hell if Gates is even close to their utility, he's a far superior signing by value.
I think we would've seen a different approach on the unwise vet signings if DG wasn't trying to give Eli one more shot at the big dance.
So yeah he's made big mistakes, but over-drafting a dud OL for the Giants hasn't been one of them, yet.
Ok, a handful to unpack here.
I think the goodwill I referred to is the same thing you are referring to as "skins on the wall". You call it out even though it doesn't seem to do shit for you?
What matters to a fan is a GM has a plan to build and sustain a winning roster and succeeds doing it. For real or probably even fake ones. TBD in year 3 to be generous.
The Gates signing is a sign of nothing. We don't even know if he is a starter yet for one of the weaker OL teams in the league. Maybe and if he can do well the team is better off, but would like to think there are stronger supporting examples than this for DG's keen ability to id superior signings that you are promoting.
And the different approach you refer to than give Eli one more shot at the big dance is probably better referred to as the proper approach.
What are DGs OL wins to balance against those here?
We have Thomas and Peart is presumptive wins already? Isn’t it about asset allocation though? You could pick OL with premium picks every year and you’ll surely have a good OL eventually
Recent history is DG's current tenure with the Giants as GM?
Well then you can't possibly ding him so far as drafted OL and UDFA pickups go, because your "recent history" has zero historical record, Duh'oh.
From his very first year as GM, we have Hernandez and Gates, period. Has either been in the league playing long enough to even receive a grade,No!
So I call BS on your baloney definition of "recent history." You're doing what every phoney does, drawing up a straw man to justify your previously formed opinion.
I thought you were at least a little brighter than that.
I came on this thread because I was wondering why the Giants moves didn't have more apparent logic to them. This isn't the kind of move you see often. And it came right after the Solder opt out, which again, the timing shouldn't really trigger an extension when a highly overpaid player at the same position extends the length of their contracted tenure with a team.
Somehow on this thread we had people:
- "Zero risk"
- Intimating the only person that could be upset about this is Gates representatives
No you ask me to define recent history and you want to reject my definition? As if a term of 2.5 years isn't fair to use with the term recent history?
And then you imply that just because I won't chalk up people that have never played a down as NFL football as wins? Or this suggestion you seem to be making that we should ignore poor FA acquisitions that Gettleman has made for the OL and evaluate him solely on drafted players? Who made that distinction? Other than you randomly
Sorry not everyone wants to get out the pom poms for a player that has started 3 games. How many players get signed to extensions after 3 starts would you say? Does it not make even less sense to do this when the cap might be going down an unknown amount? As I said very simply at before it doesn't seem like other teams are doing things like this, are there other examples i'm missing?
Maybe people do feel like they need to say something so we don't get these ridiculous statements like no one would have ever called the Solder move a bad move at the time
Many have projected he would be cut (given a normal 2020 season, his continued poor or at best mediocre play, and Thomas looking as the Giants and many scouts thought he would at the NFL level, like a future franchise LT) after 2020 and prior to 2021, with one year of guaranteed bonus money left as his dead cap hit.
Guess what? Sitting out 2020 HAS NOT AFFECTED THAT AT ALL. The portion of his contract that tolled, or "extended" as you put it, is not one white due him if he is cut.
Can you at least figure that out? Look it up. I heard this discussed in detail in a few podcasts.
Also the way I'm reading the RFA rules I posted in this thread, next year they would have had to tender Gates at more than $3m in order to protect his rights (setting him up as a UFA the following year) or else his original round tender ($2m+) would basically make him a defacto UFA next offseason. Which of those outcomes was preferable? Let me guess, the unicorn shitting rainbows option - if he plays well use the powers of persuasion to keep him without having to pay a lot more than a $1.5m bonus?
The 'crap on everything the giants do' routine is truly insufferable when directed at even the most inconsequential of moves. Gates last year looked like 1 of the first promising young OL prospects we've seen in a years - so naturally the giants are morons for keeping him around! Even if he never progresses beyond being a swing 6th man like he was last year, is this an organization in a position to allow any promising OL to walk for nothing? Certainly not when they can get his name on a 3 year extension for the equivalent of next to nothing ($1.5m sb).
"Nick Bosa's trade demand and record setting $150m extension with to Giants scuttled by cap hell resulting from Nick Gates' $1.5m signing bonus. Gettleman says 'computers guys thought juice was worth the squeeze'"
Same type of risk here. If I can’t pay my mortgage after my decision to play the lottery and if the Giants can’t get better players in here despite this minuscule amount of guaranteed money, then there’s much larger problems at play.
Dying on anthills is going to be the new normal because he's been swallowed up by the sinkholes.
The risk/reward on this heavily favors the reward.
- Gettleman has strung together arguably the worst offensive line two years running, so he’s not infallible in player selection
- Nick Gates has logged 3 total NFL starts
- None of the dollars at play are tragic
- One potential downside — what are the accelerators for the upper bounds of 21 and 22? My first blush fear is the 21 salary gets guaranteed based on an easy to achieve 20 factor. For example games started in 2020. I’d hate for Gates to cost 5M in 21 just because he logs a bunch of stinkers this year.
Depends on the position — if he is the starting center in 21/22 at ~5M AAV — currently that would slot him right in the middle of position salary band. So I would call it market, not below market.
Wouldn't Gates get $4.9M only if he achieves all of the incentives?
Like UConn said - this is a very low-risk move and one the analytics guys should like. That they are quibbling about it seems like there's a different agenda at hand.
Wouldn't Gates get $4.9M only if he achieves all of the incentives?
Like UConn said - this is a very low-risk move and one the analytics guys should like. That they are quibbling about it seems like there's a different agenda at hand.
Seems weirdly paranoid to think stating the presumed numbers is agenda driven. It's a real possible outcome.
The only interesting question left is what are the incentives? If they are easy to achieve and guarantee his salaries in 21 and 22, this isn't a crafty analytical achievement.
If his 21 salary is guaranteed at the upper end because his suits and sucks in 2020 -- we'd all agree that's not to the teams benefit, right?
Quote:
make anyway. If Gates ends up being a solid starter we will have that at below market rate.
Depends on the position — if he is the starting center in 21/22 at ~5M AAV — currently that would slot him right in the middle of position salary band. So I would call it market, not below market.
Not on new deals it wouldn't. This is currently the 18th/19th highest yearly average salary but its has almost no guarantees and several others haven't gotten their next contract yet.
Its basically at the top of the bottom 1/3 for Center money.
I wouldn't call our takes paranoid. We are simply pointing out that an analytics guy is citing this contract down to the penny when in reality its exactly the type of deal that positional value/analytics focused people would like.
Its $6.8 base with a $10.325 max, which includes a $1.5m signing bonus. This is practically as low risk as it gets.
Quote:
In comment 14943693 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
make anyway. If Gates ends up being a solid starter we will have that at below market rate.
Depends on the position — if he is the starting center in 21/22 at ~5M AAV — currently that would slot him right in the middle of position salary band. So I would call it market, not below market.
Not on new deals it wouldn't. This is currently the 18th/19th highest yearly average salary but its has almost no guarantees and several others haven't gotten their next contract yet.
Its basically at the top of the bottom 1/3 for Center money.
Christian is a smart guy, he knew that. He's arguing like a lawyer would, trying to push an agenda, and that is why it is so hard to talk anything on the internet anymore.
The heavy investment in the draft this year on the OL was basically mandatory with deteriorating Solder and the open positions at Tackle and Center staring DG in the face. And Hernandez also wasn't earning too many game balls with his poor second year either.
How many GMs and Head Coaches does this franchise have to churn before they get this OL stabilized? That's a rhetorical.
Quote:
$5M number is probably referenced on the high side for a particular reason.
Wouldn't Gates get $4.9M only if he achieves all of the incentives?
Like UConn said - this is a very low-risk move and one the analytics guys should like. That they are quibbling about it seems like there's a different agenda at hand.
Seems weirdly paranoid to think stating the presumed numbers is agenda driven. It's a real possible outcome.
The only interesting question left is what are the incentives? If they are easy to achieve and guarantee his salaries in 21 and 22, this isn't a crafty analytical achievement.
If his 21 salary is guaranteed at the upper end because his suits and sucks in 2020 -- we'd all agree that's not to the teams benefit, right?
Paranoid?? No. Like UConn said - why would you report the highest possible number while trying to position the move as if it isn't all that great of a deal?? Two things:
1) If he plays well and hits the high limit of the contract (of which we don't know what the incentives are), then it is well worth the lower than average contract.
2) If he doesn't play all that great, it likely is a contract no where near $5M.
We want the "real possible outcome" to happen. And even if it does, the contract is still a bargain.
It has to be tough to be a constant contrarian and have to avoid the pitfalls of arguing against situations you've previously argued for!
Something as simple as number of starts maybe?