So yeh, it's binary. In that vain, it's always been binary. That was always the prize after acquiring him for a high draft pick - the ability to sign him at whatever his current market value was or let him walk. A year ago, he was playing well but not in the stat column...so it was "overpay a potential guy" or lease to buy at the low cost of 17 million for one year. Well the great news is he played well, the bad news is we're not forced to buy at his peak value. That's the fault in the trade.
This is a silly take I cannot understand. Who cares whether money is guaranteed or not if it's a 1 year deal and the player isn't getting cut under any circumstance. It's completely irrelevant.
The choice is have LW at a fair AAV or don't. It's binary. And a simple, obvious decision just as it was this year (if they can't agree on an extension).
You’re missing the point — the far superior outcome is the multi-year deal. And when you’re giving the player fully guaranteed dollars with no extra years in return, you’re on the short end.
Two of the unequivocal benefits of guaranteed money are not exploited on year-to-year deals — 1) the money is not spread across cap years 2) the money is not used as leverage for more years of team control at fair terms as the cap presumably rises.
The Colts gave Buckner 44M guaranteed and got 4 additional years (5 total) of team control, and can cut him after 3 with zero dead dollars.
If the Giants tender Williams again they will have given him 35.4 guaranteed over 2 years and he will be UFA and they’ll have no rights.
That's what was traded... if you could draft a 3rd rounder in nthe next Draft, and Pay him %18 million, and He performed as well as LW...would you?
Or you just draft a 3rd rounder and use the 18m in the open market on a free agent. For one year. That's the most simplistic breakdown of the trade. There's more involved here too.
We traded for him without an extension in place so we're just boosting the price tag of an impending FA. Could have locked him up for cheap and now we have to either overpay to keep him or let him walk. Great move!
Dude relax with the fucking money already. Great move? You act like the giants just chose to NOT sign the guy last offseason. Do you have any idea how the agent negotiating nfl thing works? Gms are backed into corners all the time. They don’t want to over pay. You have no clue how this shit works nor do I but I’m not holding the GMs feet to the fire either.
The world will keep spinning if the giants pay Williams a lot of money. It’s gonna be ok.
And how’s he’s gonna get that same mint from the giants this offseason because he’s fucking earned it. About to earn his second pro bowl and maybe an all pro (alternate) nod as well.
Some of you are nuts. Can we enjoy anything? Guy plays well and some of you still bash DG. Gimme a fucking break.
The song of the truly clueless. It won’t hinder the Giants
And how’s he’s gonna get that same mint from the giants this offseason because he’s fucking earned it. About to earn his second pro bowl and maybe an all pro (alternate) nod as well.
Some of you are nuts. Can we enjoy anything? Guy plays well and some of you still bash DG. Gimme a fucking break.
Last year's mint isn't this year's mint. He's earned leverage. Good for him and I've enjoyed it for sure but that's always been the monkey's paw...the better he plays the more we pay (or don't).
He's getting paid what he's worth....without furture obligation
Still more telling why he isn’t signed. It’s almost as if DG was trying to outsmart Team LW and the opposite happened.
Now he really has to ante up.
You do understand that LW has to agree to a contract, right? Is that so darn hard to understand? Remember he wanted to be paid as a DE, not a DT.
And the difference between last year and this year is he is getting to the QB because the QB has to hold the ball this year. I think he lead the league or close to the top in hurries or hits last year.
Is he playing for a contract? absolutely. But I believe he will play the same after the contract. He may price himself out of New York, true. If he does, he does.
RE: He's getting paid what he's worth....without furture obligation
what's really so bad about that!!?? The team paid about $50 million in Guaranteed Money for a Tackle who was cooked on arrival
Long Term contracts for big bucks are filled with problems everywhere...maybe half of those long and large commitments are even reasonably successful.
There's nothing wrong with that. What we did here was pay a premium (top 70 pick) for the ability to negotiate a contract that can go either way.
Leonard Willaims is playing his best football. How he plays only benefits the Giants in the moment, like right now. Outside of that? We're paying market value, which is elevated. So now the Giants have the option of paying him at his peak value (while letting a homegrown Dalvin Tomlinson walk) or letting him leave for what will likely be no value.
Still more telling why he isn’t signed. It’s almost as if DG was trying to outsmart Team LW and the opposite happened.
Now he really has to ante up.
You do understand that LW has to agree to a contract, right? Is that so darn hard to understand? Remember he wanted to be paid as a DE, not a DT.
And the difference between last year and this year is he is getting to the QB because the QB has to hold the ball this year. I think he lead the league or close to the top in hurries or hits last year.
Is he playing for a contract? absolutely. But I believe he will play the same after the contract. He may price himself out of New York, true. If he does, he does.
You seem to not understand that he wants to be paid as much as you all on this thread, and every other weekly thread on LW, says he’s worth. So why doesn’t DG agree with LW and you guys? Don’t argue with me...yell at the Giants for allowing him to drive his price up further.
I am not arguing that he will take a dive after getting a deal either, never have.
But, I have to agree with bw. Paying him $18M is not a bi g bargain from $20M. He is a good to very good player, but he isn't a dominating, top 5 DE in the game player. He is below that level. He wants to be paid at that level. It will eat up a ton of cap space. I am not sure I'd do it.
The list of players the Giants Wanted and did not sign because of money is who exactly over the years.
If they want Williams he will be here
Young, very good, healthy players do not sign below market value contracts. He is going to get Paid
I think right now he is a better player than F. Cox, G. Jackson, K. Clark, K. Short, G. Atkins, etc. All of them are making over 16M per year
Sign him for 4-76 and give him 1/2 guaranteed. You get him for years 26-29
We don’t have to argue how good he is. You have to convince DG because he is the one holding up this deal, not me. If he met my vision as a GM and I had to have him so bad that I traded picks for him in the middle of a losing season, I sure as hell would have gotten him signed by now.
But the Giants are in overpay-zone now so hopefully it doesn’t go up much further. Or I guess it can with every additional sack...that’s how Team LW is looking at it. How are you?
This is a silly take I cannot understand. Who cares whether money is guaranteed or not if it's a 1 year deal and the player isn't getting cut under any circumstance. It's completely irrelevant.
The choice is have LW at a fair AAV or don't. It's binary. And a simple, obvious decision just as it was this year (if they can't agree on an extension).
You’re missing the point — the far superior outcome is the multi-year deal. And when you’re giving the player fully guaranteed dollars with no extra years in return, you’re on the short end.
Two of the unequivocal benefits of guaranteed money are not exploited on year-to-year deals — 1) the money is not spread across cap years 2) the money is not used as leverage for more years of team control at fair terms as the cap presumably rises.
The Colts gave Buckner 44M guaranteed and got 4 additional years (5 total) of team control, and can cut him after 3 with zero dead dollars.
If the Giants tender Williams again they will have given him 35.4 guaranteed over 2 years and he will be UFA and they’ll have no rights.
I'm not missing the point - you have lost the plot. Like the other usual suspects you are searching far and wide for something to dislike about Leonard Williams, and since the 'overpaid' and 'underperforming' arguments are no longer du jour you're making a pedantic argument about ROI against guaranteed money.
What's odd is that you are using a 21m AAV player as your basis of comparison and citing factually incorrect numbers because practically speaking Buckner actually received 56.378m of guarantees per OTC:
Quote:
Per Florio Buckner will receive $56.378 million in guarantees of which $39.378 million is fully guaranteed at signing. The full guarantee is made up of Buckner's 2020 salary and a $16 million 2020 roster bonus and $11 million 2021 roster bonus. If on the roster on the 5th day of the 2021 league year he will have his base salary for that year guaranteed and another $5 million roster bonus that becomes guaranteed. He has roster bonuses due on the 5th day of the 2022 and 2023 league year.
I think it's pretty obvious in the offseason LW's team wanted a deal close to what Buckner received and the NYG weren't prepared to go that far. It's pretty hilarious that here we are less than a year later and those that were loudest claiming LW was overpaid with the tag in march now think the NYG erred by not just handing him exactly the kind of more lucrative multi-year contract his team was supposedly crazy for asking for, sight unseen with the new staff. https://overthecap.com/player/deforest-buckner/4720/ - ( New Window )
The list of players the Giants Wanted and did not sign because of money is who exactly over the years.
If they want Williams he will be here
Young, very good, healthy players do not sign below market value contracts. He is going to get Paid
I think right now he is a better player than F. Cox, G. Jackson, K. Clark, K. Short, G. Atkins, etc. All of them are making over 16M per year
Sign him for 4-76 and give him 1/2 guaranteed. You get him for years 26-29
We don’t have to argue how good he is. You have to convince DG because he is the one holding up this deal, not me. If he met my vision as a GM and I had to have him so bad that I traded picks for him in the middle of a losing season, I sure as hell would have gotten him signed by now.
But the Giants are in overpay-zone now so hopefully it doesn’t go up much further. Or I guess it can with every additional sack...that’s how Team LW is looking at it. How are you?
You do realize there are rules re: extensions for players on the franchise tag right? There's a deadline and everything.
Is he playing for a contract? absolutely. But I believe he will play the same after the contract.
Good for you for admitting LW is indeed playing for a contract. It's an important point. However, if it helps the team, great. Let's take the effort.
But your last sentence is really the great roll of the dice. Will paying a player who has been light on production for his career suddenly parlay one excellent year in many more?
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
It’s one of the few things Gettleman has gotten right. But somehow I imagine he’ll find a way to mess it up.
The problem people have is they don’t realize Williams has not changed as a player this year with a contract at stake. He has been the same player - a guy who stops the run, commands double teams and gets a push. He is consistently a top guy on QB hits from his position thru his career. This year the sacks are coming
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
The problem people have is they don’t realize Williams has not changed as a player this year with a contract at stake. He has been the same player - a guy who stops the run, commands double teams and gets a push. He is consistently a top guy on QB hits from his position thru his career. This year the sacks are coming
Because opposing QB's are holding the ball longer...
Because Logan Ryan and James Bradberry are in the secondary not Antoine Bethea and Corey Balentine...
And Patrick Graham is >>>>> James Bettcher.
The list of players the Giants Wanted and did not sign because of money is who exactly over the years.
If they want Williams he will be here
Young, very good, healthy players do not sign below market value contracts. He is going to get Paid
I think right now he is a better player than F. Cox, G. Jackson, K. Clark, K. Short, G. Atkins, etc. All of them are making over 16M per year
Sign him for 4-76 and give him 1/2 guaranteed. You get him for years 26-29
We don’t have to argue how good he is. You have to convince DG because he is the one holding up this deal, not me. If he met my vision as a GM and I had to have him so bad that I traded picks for him in the middle of a losing season, I sure as hell would have gotten him signed by now.
But the Giants are in overpay-zone now so hopefully it doesn’t go up much further. Or I guess it can with every additional sack...that’s how Team LW is looking at it. How are you?
You do realize there are rules re: extensions for players on the franchise tag right? There's a deadline and everything.
Uh yeah. They had to July to give him closer to what he wanted. And per you all now he deserves it. Except now the price is more.
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
Everything you argue says he should have been signed by now then.
So why isn’t he? Maybe DG thinks differently than the you think.
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
If you really break down the Buckner deal, the only guarantees are in year 1 and 2. They can literally walk away after next year with no dead money (no reason to unless he’s injured). That’s the flexibility front loading a contract with guaranteed money buys.
Years 3-5 are essentially locked-in, price controlled options at 16M, 19.7M, and 20.25M. They’ve taken the guess work out of it. If he’s still good they’ve locked in price control and pay him. If not they cut ties with no penalty.
No reason the Giants shouldn’t enjoy similar flexibility with Williams.
Does anyone know how salaries, signing bonuses and the cap...
would have been handled this year if we had a COVID shortened/cancelled season?
I do not know the answer to this but it is possible the thread of a shut down and its impact on contracts like this could have played a role in the decision.
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
Everything you argue says he should have been signed by now then.
So why isn’t he? Maybe DG thinks differently than the you think.
Incorrect - I've said from the day the trade went down the tag was the best option for this year. And even with the benefit of hindsight I still feel that way. Locking him in at anything close to Buckner $ over multiple years would have been enormously risky if he didn't fit into the new defensive scheme.
Now whether they sign him multi-year, or tag him again, or let him walk, the entire organization is making an informed decision with hands on experience from Judge/Graham based on how easy they think it will be to find another player who can do what he's done. They may think BJ Hill can fill that role adequately and decide to let him walk. I doubt that but who knows?
Whatever % change there is in guaranteed money or AAV was well worth ensuring he was worth signing long term in the first place. And with the cap coming down he may not even end up taking more than he was asking for last year. The entire market remains to be seen. The only certainty is that if his ask is unreasonable they can just tag him again.
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
If you really break down the Buckner deal, the only guarantees are in year 1 and 2. They can literally walk away after next year with no dead money (no reason to unless he’s injured). That’s the flexibility front loading a contract with guaranteed money buys.
Years 3-5 are essentially locked-in, price controlled options at 16M, 19.7M, and 20.25M. They’ve taken the guess work out of it. If he’s still good they’ve locked in price control and pay him. If not they cut ties with no penalty.
No reason the Giants shouldn’t enjoy similar flexibility with Williams.
I suspect they likely will. The only question was timing and when to commit.
Do you think they should have given him something close to the Buckner in March, sight unseen with the new staff, or after letting him prove himself on the field this year?
Based on your reaction to the Gates early extension I think I can guess how you'd have reacted to giving Williams an early extension in March - which would have been infinitely riskier.
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
Everything you argue says he should have been signed by now then.
So why isn’t he? Maybe DG thinks differently than the you think.
Incorrect - I've said from the day the trade went down the tag was the best option for this year. And even with the benefit of hindsight I still feel that way. Locking him in at anything close to Buckner $ over multiple years would have been enormously risky if he didn't fit into the new defensive scheme.
Now whether they sign him multi-year, or tag him again, or let him walk, the entire organization is making an informed decision with hands on experience from Judge/Graham based on how easy they think it will be to find another player who can do what he's done. They may think BJ Hill can fill that role adequately and decide to let him walk. I doubt that but who knows?
Whatever % change there is in guaranteed money or AAV was well worth ensuring he was worth signing long term in the first place. And with the cap coming down he may not even end up taking more than he was asking for last year. The entire market remains to be seen. The only certainty is that if his ask is unreasonable they can just tag him again.
Wasn't suggesting how you thought about this deal from day one.
While there is some merit in coaches seeing how he plays in their scheme, I think that sounds moreso a fall back reason as to not getting terms agreed upon before versus the true reason. He is certainly talented enough to find a home in most, if not all, defenses or an experienced GM doesn't move two draft picks in a walk year otherwise.
And btw, another certainty is that if his ask is unreasonable they can also let him become a free agent. They can always match his offer and be done with it.
they only get a right to match if they transition tag
I'd be open to that. Especially if they can get Tomlinson under contract reasonably first. Williams is playing so well though I'd probably just franchise him if it gets that far though. The few million may not be worth the risk of letting another team do something stupid (like the Landon Collins contract).
RE: they only get a right to match if they transition tag
I'd be open to that. Especially if they can get Tomlinson under contract reasonably first. Williams is playing so well though I'd probably just franchise him if it gets that far though. The few million may not be worth the risk of letting another team do something stupid (like the Landon Collins contract).
I didn't mean use the transition tag (although that is another option). I meant just head to free agency. Assume he likes his surroundings in NY so if money is same or slightly better than he would just accept a NY Giant offer.
And the risk of letting another team do something stupid benefits the Giants, and also may not out-weigh the inherent savings if he gets a lot lower offers that we can beat.
I suspect they likely will. The only question was timing and when to commit.
Do you think they should have given him something close to the Buckner in March, sight unseen with the new staff, or after letting him prove himself on the field this year?
Based on your reaction to the Gates early extension I think I can guess how you'd have reacted to giving Williams an early extension in March - which would have been infinitely riskier.
Teams sign UFA all of the time "sight unseen" to the staff.
The Giants signed Martinez and Bradberry to very lucrative and fair deals in March sight unseen to Judge. Williams isn't a unicorn.
If the Giants had signed Williams to a 4/60 deal, with 35M guaranteed with all the guarantees in the first three years , I would have thought it was a little rich, but not irresponsible.
Something like:
- Year 1: 10M salary guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 2: 10M salary guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 3: 10M salary not guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 4: 15M salary not guaranteed
I suspect they likely will. The only question was timing and when to commit.
Do you think they should have given him something close to the Buckner in March, sight unseen with the new staff, or after letting him prove himself on the field this year?
Based on your reaction to the Gates early extension I think I can guess how you'd have reacted to giving Williams an early extension in March - which would have been infinitely riskier.
Teams sign UFA all of the time "sight unseen" to the staff.
The Giants signed Martinez and Bradberry to very lucrative and fair deals in March sight unseen to Judge. Williams isn't a unicorn.
If the Giants had signed Williams to a 4/60 deal, with 35M guaranteed with all the guarantees in the first three years , I would have thought it was a little rich, but not irresponsible.
Something like:
- Year 1: 10M salary guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 2: 10M salary guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 3: 10M salary not guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 4: 15M salary not guaranteed
This never ending merry go round is both tedious and silly. It's pretty well established LW was looking for 18-20m in AAV so your fictional scenario where he takes a $1m paycut over what he's making on the tag this year is nothing more than a keyboard fantasy. Add it to the pile of "they should have signed player X for less money".
And yes teams sign UFA's all the time sight unseen - because they have no other alternative. When it's your own player you have the option of a franchise tag whereas other team's players they don't.
No agent or player uses AAV as a measure, it's a fantasy marketing number.
Extract the secondary factors and just look at the real, actual guaranteed dollars in play.
- On a 5 year deal Bucker received $39,378,000 fully guaranteed, and the Colts can cut him after 2 years with zero dead money. The Colts effectively signed him to a 2 year deal, with 3 team options with a potential of 84M.
- I think it would have been perfectly fair to sign Williams to a 4 year deal with $35 guaranteed, and the Giants able to cut him after 2 years with 5M in dead money. The Giants effectively would have signed him to a 2 year deal, with 2 team options with a potential of 60M.
Those are pretty similar contracts. I think Williams is just a tad less good than Buckner. Hell, the Giants could have added a make believe 5th year at 20M like Buckner has and make it 5/80.
Agreeing with the trade or signing him can be, and in many cases here are, independent of liking or not liking Williams as a player. I like what he has done here as a player. But, independent of that, I still evaluate the trade and subsequent decisions on more than if I like him.
The trade, to me, made little sense to give up valuable draft assets for a player destined to be a FA who already expressed a desire to stay in NY. I understand trading him gave the Giants exclusive rights, which is what allowed the tag. But, I argue, that even that was not worth it because he isn't a player worthy of the tag.
The franchise tag pays a player the average of the top 5 players at that position, unless they already had a high salary, where the 120% of previous salary would be higher. Either way, the tag recipient is being paid as a top 5 player. Williams was good last year and very good this year. But, I think most would agree he is not one of the top 5 DEs in the league. As good as he has been for our D, he isn't, in my estimation, a great, dominating, or game changing player. That is the only place I am coming from when I say not to sign him. He clearly wants in excess of $18M/year, which is too steep, in my opinion. The notion of him taking significantly less are pipe dreams right now. If that is all the rest of the market will bear, then great. But, I wouldn't allocate that kind of cap space for him.
I also agree with those who at least question his output in what is deemed a contract year. Even at that, his tackle totals are not out of line with most of his career and this is only the second time in his career he has had more than 5 sacks (the last being 5 seasons ago in 2016). Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe it isn't. I just don't think there is enough history there to assume he will repeat this season. After all, the Jets were trading him in the first place because they felt they weren't getting anywhere near 1st round production and didn't want to pay him themselves. Granted, he has been much better for us than he was the last year and half with the Jets. But, he hasn't been $18M plus better.
No agent or player uses AAV? is that a serious statement?
It's in literally every agent's first press release. That is the metric by which Nate Solder was the "highest paid LT in the NFL".
The #1 goal is guaranteed $ and the #2 goal is AAV relative to other players at the position. Most everything else is window dressing for cap purposes. AAV is likely exactly what Leonard Williams was referencing when he said he knew he wasn't in Aaron Donald's tier but wanted to get paid similar to the guys in "the next tier down" - later corroborated by Ralph Vachiano that LW was looking for $18-20m.
What is so hard about acknowledging 2 things that are true at the same time:
- Leonard Williams bet that he was worth more than the world thought
- The NYG were right to make him prove it before paying out
Why does there need to be some magical, and non-evidenced, 3rd option? Just to say the NYG did something stupid?
Because it's not magical nor non-evidenced that the process
Agreeing with the trade or signing him can be, and in many cases here are, independent of liking or not liking Williams as a player. I like what he has done here as a player. But, independent of that, I still evaluate the trade and subsequent decisions on more than if I like him.
The trade, to me, made little sense to give up valuable draft assets for a player destined to be a FA who already expressed a desire to stay in NY. I understand trading him gave the Giants exclusive rights, which is what allowed the tag. But, I argue, that even that was not worth it because he isn't a player worthy of the tag.
The franchise tag pays a player the average of the top 5 players at that position, unless they already had a high salary, where the 120% of previous salary would be higher. Either way, the tag recipient is being paid as a top 5 player. Williams was good last year and very good this year. But, I think most would agree he is not one of the top 5 DEs in the league. As good as he has been for our D, he isn't, in my estimation, a great, dominating, or game changing player. That is the only place I am coming from when I say not to sign him. He clearly wants in excess of $18M/year, which is too steep, in my opinion. The notion of him taking significantly less are pipe dreams right now. If that is all the rest of the market will bear, then great. But, I wouldn't allocate that kind of cap space for him.
I also agree with those who at least question his output in what is deemed a contract year. Even at that, his tackle totals are not out of line with most of his career and this is only the second time in his career he has had more than 5 sacks (the last being 5 seasons ago in 2016). Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe it isn't. I just don't think there is enough history there to assume he will repeat this season. After all, the Jets were trading him in the first place because they felt they weren't getting anywhere near 1st round production and didn't want to pay him themselves. Granted, he has been much better for us than he was the last year and half with the Jets. But, he hasn't been $18M plus better.
He got tagged as a DT not DE. I think most would not agree with your assessment that he has not been 1 of the top 5 DTs in the NFL this year. His numbers across the board point to a top 5 DT.
Among DTs:
#2 Sacks (behind only Donald)
#1 TFL (tied with Donald)
#3 QB Hits (behind Donald + Chris Jones)
#6 Tackles (tied with a bunch of guys but actually ahead of Donald)
He is ahead of Deforest Buckner in every one of those categories btw.
RE: Because it's not magical nor non-evidenced that the process
It's in literally every agent's first press release. That is the metric by which Nate Solder was the "highest paid LT in the NFL".
Exactly - thus:
Quote:
No agent or player uses AAV as a measure, it's a fantasy marketing number.
None of the principals measure a deal in AAV. It's a phony number no one takes seriously. If Williams made less AAV in a longterm deal, but got an extraordinary amount guaranteed, he'd be much happier. In no universe would he feel like he took a "pay cut" as you put it.
Back to my original point, if the Giants franchise Williams again they will have paid:
- 20/21, 2/35.64 in fully guaranteed money with no future team control
- 20/21 the Colts will pay Buckner 2/39.37 (+1M not guaranteed) with 3 years of additional team control and zero dead money if cut at any time
I sure know which one is better.
so when he signs an extension similar to Buckner's in a few months
If the actual pertinent contractual elements are there, yes, absolutely. That's what I wanted them to do last year too.
- Little to no guaranteed money after 2 or 3 years
- Spread some of the guaranteed money in bonuses to lower the initial cap hit (especially in 2021 with the lower cap)
- 2-3 years of additional control with no dead money in the back half of the deal
And most importantly, if it means not paying him 19M next year with no future assurances or control.
Prediction: Panthers sign Williams for four-years, $72 million ($18M APY): $37.5M total guaranteed, $27.5M fully guaranteed at signing.
I think that contract is right in the ballpark of what he will end up getting, though I'd be surprised if it's not here - because I think they will tag him if necessary to hammer it out. I could see the guaranteed money coming in a little higher than that though.
the Giants will resign him and let Leonard Williams walk for 18 mil per year (from the Panthers.)
Quote:
Tomlinson and 2019 first-round pick Dexter Lawrence could form a formidable tandem on the defensive interior for years to come.
Prediction: Giants sign Tomlinson for four years, $52.5 million ($13.125M APY): $26.5 million total guaranteed, $16.5 million fully guaranteed at signing.
The choice is have LW at a fair AAV or don't. It's binary. And a simple, obvious decision just as it was this year (if they can't agree on an extension).
You’re missing the point — the far superior outcome is the multi-year deal. And when you’re giving the player fully guaranteed dollars with no extra years in return, you’re on the short end.
Two of the unequivocal benefits of guaranteed money are not exploited on year-to-year deals — 1) the money is not spread across cap years 2) the money is not used as leverage for more years of team control at fair terms as the cap presumably rises.
The Colts gave Buckner 44M guaranteed and got 4 additional years (5 total) of team control, and can cut him after 3 with zero dead dollars.
If the Giants tender Williams again they will have given him 35.4 guaranteed over 2 years and he will be UFA and they’ll have no rights.
Now he really has to ante up.
Or you just draft a 3rd rounder and use the 18m in the open market on a free agent. For one year. That's the most simplistic breakdown of the trade. There's more involved here too.
A player having his best season in his contract year is a red flag...
That’s a myth.
Dude relax with the fucking money already. Great move? You act like the giants just chose to NOT sign the guy last offseason. Do you have any idea how the agent negotiating nfl thing works? Gms are backed into corners all the time. They don’t want to over pay. You have no clue how this shit works nor do I but I’m not holding the GMs feet to the fire either.
The world will keep spinning if the giants pay Williams a lot of money. It’s gonna be ok.
Some of you are nuts. Can we enjoy anything? Guy plays well and some of you still bash DG. Gimme a fucking break.
Lord.
Some of you are nuts. Can we enjoy anything? Guy plays well and some of you still bash DG. Gimme a fucking break.
Last year's mint isn't this year's mint. He's earned leverage. Good for him and I've enjoyed it for sure but that's always been the monkey's paw...the better he plays the more we pay (or don't).
Long Term contracts for big bucks are filled with problems everywhere...maybe half of those long and large commitments are even reasonably successful.
Now he really has to ante up.
You do understand that LW has to agree to a contract, right? Is that so darn hard to understand? Remember he wanted to be paid as a DE, not a DT.
And the difference between last year and this year is he is getting to the QB because the QB has to hold the ball this year. I think he lead the league or close to the top in hurries or hits last year.
Is he playing for a contract? absolutely. But I believe he will play the same after the contract. He may price himself out of New York, true. If he does, he does.
Long Term contracts for big bucks are filled with problems everywhere...maybe half of those long and large commitments are even reasonably successful.
There's nothing wrong with that. What we did here was pay a premium (top 70 pick) for the ability to negotiate a contract that can go either way.
Leonard Willaims is playing his best football. How he plays only benefits the Giants in the moment, like right now. Outside of that? We're paying market value, which is elevated. So now the Giants have the option of paying him at his peak value (while letting a homegrown Dalvin Tomlinson walk) or letting him leave for what will likely be no value.
Quote:
Still more telling why he isn’t signed. It’s almost as if DG was trying to outsmart Team LW and the opposite happened.
Now he really has to ante up.
You do understand that LW has to agree to a contract, right? Is that so darn hard to understand? Remember he wanted to be paid as a DE, not a DT.
And the difference between last year and this year is he is getting to the QB because the QB has to hold the ball this year. I think he lead the league or close to the top in hurries or hits last year.
Is he playing for a contract? absolutely. But I believe he will play the same after the contract. He may price himself out of New York, true. If he does, he does.
You seem to not understand that he wants to be paid as much as you all on this thread, and every other weekly thread on LW, says he’s worth. So why doesn’t DG agree with LW and you guys? Don’t argue with me...yell at the Giants for allowing him to drive his price up further.
I am not arguing that he will take a dive after getting a deal either, never have.
If they want Williams he will be here
Young, very good, healthy players do not sign below market value contracts. He is going to get Paid
I think right now he is a better player than F. Cox, G. Jackson, K. Clark, K. Short, G. Atkins, etc. All of them are making over 16M per year
Sign him for 4-76 and give him 1/2 guaranteed. You get him for years 26-29
If they want Williams he will be here
Young, very good, healthy players do not sign below market value contracts. He is going to get Paid
I think right now he is a better player than F. Cox, G. Jackson, K. Clark, K. Short, G. Atkins, etc. All of them are making over 16M per year
Sign him for 4-76 and give him 1/2 guaranteed. You get him for years 26-29
We don’t have to argue how good he is. You have to convince DG because he is the one holding up this deal, not me. If he met my vision as a GM and I had to have him so bad that I traded picks for him in the middle of a losing season, I sure as hell would have gotten him signed by now.
But the Giants are in overpay-zone now so hopefully it doesn’t go up much further. Or I guess it can with every additional sack...that’s how Team LW is looking at it. How are you?
Quote:
This is a silly take I cannot understand. Who cares whether money is guaranteed or not if it's a 1 year deal and the player isn't getting cut under any circumstance. It's completely irrelevant.
The choice is have LW at a fair AAV or don't. It's binary. And a simple, obvious decision just as it was this year (if they can't agree on an extension).
You’re missing the point — the far superior outcome is the multi-year deal. And when you’re giving the player fully guaranteed dollars with no extra years in return, you’re on the short end.
Two of the unequivocal benefits of guaranteed money are not exploited on year-to-year deals — 1) the money is not spread across cap years 2) the money is not used as leverage for more years of team control at fair terms as the cap presumably rises.
The Colts gave Buckner 44M guaranteed and got 4 additional years (5 total) of team control, and can cut him after 3 with zero dead dollars.
If the Giants tender Williams again they will have given him 35.4 guaranteed over 2 years and he will be UFA and they’ll have no rights.
I'm not missing the point - you have lost the plot. Like the other usual suspects you are searching far and wide for something to dislike about Leonard Williams, and since the 'overpaid' and 'underperforming' arguments are no longer du jour you're making a pedantic argument about ROI against guaranteed money.
What's odd is that you are using a 21m AAV player as your basis of comparison and citing factually incorrect numbers because practically speaking Buckner actually received 56.378m of guarantees per OTC:
I think it's pretty obvious in the offseason LW's team wanted a deal close to what Buckner received and the NYG weren't prepared to go that far. It's pretty hilarious that here we are less than a year later and those that were loudest claiming LW was overpaid with the tag in march now think the NYG erred by not just handing him exactly the kind of more lucrative multi-year contract his team was supposedly crazy for asking for, sight unseen with the new staff.
https://overthecap.com/player/deforest-buckner/4720/ - ( New Window )
Quote:
The list of players the Giants Wanted and did not sign because of money is who exactly over the years.
If they want Williams he will be here
Young, very good, healthy players do not sign below market value contracts. He is going to get Paid
I think right now he is a better player than F. Cox, G. Jackson, K. Clark, K. Short, G. Atkins, etc. All of them are making over 16M per year
Sign him for 4-76 and give him 1/2 guaranteed. You get him for years 26-29
We don’t have to argue how good he is. You have to convince DG because he is the one holding up this deal, not me. If he met my vision as a GM and I had to have him so bad that I traded picks for him in the middle of a losing season, I sure as hell would have gotten him signed by now.
But the Giants are in overpay-zone now so hopefully it doesn’t go up much further. Or I guess it can with every additional sack...that’s how Team LW is looking at it. How are you?
You do realize there are rules re: extensions for players on the franchise tag right? There's a deadline and everything.
Is he playing for a contract? absolutely. But I believe he will play the same after the contract.
Good for you for admitting LW is indeed playing for a contract. It's an important point. However, if it helps the team, great. Let's take the effort.
But your last sentence is really the great roll of the dice. Will paying a player who has been light on production for his career suddenly parlay one excellent year in many more?
I'm very dubious...
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
It’s one of the few things Gettleman has gotten right. But somehow I imagine he’ll find a way to mess it up.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
Because opposing QB's are holding the ball longer...
Because Logan Ryan and James Bradberry are in the secondary not Antoine Bethea and Corey Balentine...
And Patrick Graham is >>>>> James Bettcher.
Gotta spend money to make money.
Quote:
In comment 15060601 stretch234 said:
Quote:
The list of players the Giants Wanted and did not sign because of money is who exactly over the years.
If they want Williams he will be here
Young, very good, healthy players do not sign below market value contracts. He is going to get Paid
I think right now he is a better player than F. Cox, G. Jackson, K. Clark, K. Short, G. Atkins, etc. All of them are making over 16M per year
Sign him for 4-76 and give him 1/2 guaranteed. You get him for years 26-29
We don’t have to argue how good he is. You have to convince DG because he is the one holding up this deal, not me. If he met my vision as a GM and I had to have him so bad that I traded picks for him in the middle of a losing season, I sure as hell would have gotten him signed by now.
But the Giants are in overpay-zone now so hopefully it doesn’t go up much further. Or I guess it can with every additional sack...that’s how Team LW is looking at it. How are you?
You do realize there are rules re: extensions for players on the franchise tag right? There's a deadline and everything.
Uh yeah. They had to July to give him closer to what he wanted. And per you all now he deserves it. Except now the price is more.
Quote:
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
Everything you argue says he should have been signed by now then.
So why isn’t he? Maybe DG thinks differently than the you think.
Quote:
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
If you really break down the Buckner deal, the only guarantees are in year 1 and 2. They can literally walk away after next year with no dead money (no reason to unless he’s injured). That’s the flexibility front loading a contract with guaranteed money buys.
Years 3-5 are essentially locked-in, price controlled options at 16M, 19.7M, and 20.25M. They’ve taken the guess work out of it. If he’s still good they’ve locked in price control and pay him. If not they cut ties with no penalty.
No reason the Giants shouldn’t enjoy similar flexibility with Williams.
I do not know the answer to this but it is possible the thread of a shut down and its impact on contracts like this could have played a role in the decision.
Quote:
In comment 15060662 christian said:
Quote:
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
Everything you argue says he should have been signed by now then.
So why isn’t he? Maybe DG thinks differently than the you think.
Incorrect - I've said from the day the trade went down the tag was the best option for this year. And even with the benefit of hindsight I still feel that way. Locking him in at anything close to Buckner $ over multiple years would have been enormously risky if he didn't fit into the new defensive scheme.
Now whether they sign him multi-year, or tag him again, or let him walk, the entire organization is making an informed decision with hands on experience from Judge/Graham based on how easy they think it will be to find another player who can do what he's done. They may think BJ Hill can fill that role adequately and decide to let him walk. I doubt that but who knows?
Whatever % change there is in guaranteed money or AAV was well worth ensuring he was worth signing long term in the first place. And with the cap coming down he may not even end up taking more than he was asking for last year. The entire market remains to be seen. The only certainty is that if his ask is unreasonable they can just tag him again.
Quote:
In comment 15060662 christian said:
Quote:
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
If you really break down the Buckner deal, the only guarantees are in year 1 and 2. They can literally walk away after next year with no dead money (no reason to unless he’s injured). That’s the flexibility front loading a contract with guaranteed money buys.
Years 3-5 are essentially locked-in, price controlled options at 16M, 19.7M, and 20.25M. They’ve taken the guess work out of it. If he’s still good they’ve locked in price control and pay him. If not they cut ties with no penalty.
No reason the Giants shouldn’t enjoy similar flexibility with Williams.
I suspect they likely will. The only question was timing and when to commit.
Do you think they should have given him something close to the Buckner in March, sight unseen with the new staff, or after letting him prove himself on the field this year?
Based on your reaction to the Gates early extension I think I can guess how you'd have reacted to giving Williams an early extension in March - which would have been infinitely riskier.
Quote:
In comment 15060670 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 15060662 christian said:
Quote:
The Giants defensive line is the first good unit on either side of the ball they’ve put together since the 2016 secondary.
They should lean into it and sign Tomlinson and Williams. It’s going to a turbulent offseason, and the Giants shouldn’t get cute. If the Colts can sign the younger and better Buckner for what amounts to a 3/56M extension at it’s core, the Giants should be able extend Williams to something just south of that neighborhood.
On this we agree and what I expect to likely happen (3x56m).
If it doesn't though I won't mind a (1x18-19m?) tag. It's an acceptable albeit imperfect consolation prize.
All of these roads are leading to roughly the same place it's just a matter of what makes the most sense to guarantee vs. risk taking year by year. The NYG have shown they see value in the DL and are willing to invest and they've also shown spending discipline. Whichever road they choose is fine with me because either way could be right or wrong and the variance isn't so wide. We are talking about 1 year vs. 3 years at roughly similar AAV's. It's literally just a guessing game in terms of how many prime years LW has left - which nobody knows.
Everything you argue says he should have been signed by now then.
So why isn’t he? Maybe DG thinks differently than the you think.
Incorrect - I've said from the day the trade went down the tag was the best option for this year. And even with the benefit of hindsight I still feel that way. Locking him in at anything close to Buckner $ over multiple years would have been enormously risky if he didn't fit into the new defensive scheme.
Now whether they sign him multi-year, or tag him again, or let him walk, the entire organization is making an informed decision with hands on experience from Judge/Graham based on how easy they think it will be to find another player who can do what he's done. They may think BJ Hill can fill that role adequately and decide to let him walk. I doubt that but who knows?
Whatever % change there is in guaranteed money or AAV was well worth ensuring he was worth signing long term in the first place. And with the cap coming down he may not even end up taking more than he was asking for last year. The entire market remains to be seen. The only certainty is that if his ask is unreasonable they can just tag him again.
Wasn't suggesting how you thought about this deal from day one.
While there is some merit in coaches seeing how he plays in their scheme, I think that sounds moreso a fall back reason as to not getting terms agreed upon before versus the true reason. He is certainly talented enough to find a home in most, if not all, defenses or an experienced GM doesn't move two draft picks in a walk year otherwise.
And btw, another certainty is that if his ask is unreasonable they can also let him become a free agent. They can always match his offer and be done with it.
I didn't mean use the transition tag (although that is another option). I meant just head to free agency. Assume he likes his surroundings in NY so if money is same or slightly better than he would just accept a NY Giant offer.
And the risk of letting another team do something stupid benefits the Giants, and also may not out-weigh the inherent savings if he gets a lot lower offers that we can beat.
Do you think they should have given him something close to the Buckner in March, sight unseen with the new staff, or after letting him prove himself on the field this year?
Based on your reaction to the Gates early extension I think I can guess how you'd have reacted to giving Williams an early extension in March - which would have been infinitely riskier.
Teams sign UFA all of the time "sight unseen" to the staff.
The Giants signed Martinez and Bradberry to very lucrative and fair deals in March sight unseen to Judge. Williams isn't a unicorn.
If the Giants had signed Williams to a 4/60 deal, with 35M guaranteed with all the guarantees in the first three years , I would have thought it was a little rich, but not irresponsible.
Something like:
- Year 1: 10M salary guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 2: 10M salary guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 3: 10M salary not guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 4: 15M salary not guaranteed
Quote:
I suspect they likely will. The only question was timing and when to commit.
Do you think they should have given him something close to the Buckner in March, sight unseen with the new staff, or after letting him prove himself on the field this year?
Based on your reaction to the Gates early extension I think I can guess how you'd have reacted to giving Williams an early extension in March - which would have been infinitely riskier.
Teams sign UFA all of the time "sight unseen" to the staff.
The Giants signed Martinez and Bradberry to very lucrative and fair deals in March sight unseen to Judge. Williams isn't a unicorn.
If the Giants had signed Williams to a 4/60 deal, with 35M guaranteed with all the guarantees in the first three years , I would have thought it was a little rich, but not irresponsible.
Something like:
- Year 1: 10M salary guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 2: 10M salary guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 3: 10M salary not guaranteed, 5M bonus
- Year 4: 15M salary not guaranteed
This never ending merry go round is both tedious and silly. It's pretty well established LW was looking for 18-20m in AAV so your fictional scenario where he takes a $1m paycut over what he's making on the tag this year is nothing more than a keyboard fantasy. Add it to the pile of "they should have signed player X for less money".
And yes teams sign UFA's all the time sight unseen - because they have no other alternative. When it's your own player you have the option of a franchise tag whereas other team's players they don't.
Extract the secondary factors and just look at the real, actual guaranteed dollars in play.
- On a 5 year deal Bucker received $39,378,000 fully guaranteed, and the Colts can cut him after 2 years with zero dead money. The Colts effectively signed him to a 2 year deal, with 3 team options with a potential of 84M.
- I think it would have been perfectly fair to sign Williams to a 4 year deal with $35 guaranteed, and the Giants able to cut him after 2 years with 5M in dead money. The Giants effectively would have signed him to a 2 year deal, with 2 team options with a potential of 60M.
Those are pretty similar contracts. I think Williams is just a tad less good than Buckner. Hell, the Giants could have added a make believe 5th year at 20M like Buckner has and make it 5/80.
The trade, to me, made little sense to give up valuable draft assets for a player destined to be a FA who already expressed a desire to stay in NY. I understand trading him gave the Giants exclusive rights, which is what allowed the tag. But, I argue, that even that was not worth it because he isn't a player worthy of the tag.
The franchise tag pays a player the average of the top 5 players at that position, unless they already had a high salary, where the 120% of previous salary would be higher. Either way, the tag recipient is being paid as a top 5 player. Williams was good last year and very good this year. But, I think most would agree he is not one of the top 5 DEs in the league. As good as he has been for our D, he isn't, in my estimation, a great, dominating, or game changing player. That is the only place I am coming from when I say not to sign him. He clearly wants in excess of $18M/year, which is too steep, in my opinion. The notion of him taking significantly less are pipe dreams right now. If that is all the rest of the market will bear, then great. But, I wouldn't allocate that kind of cap space for him.
I also agree with those who at least question his output in what is deemed a contract year. Even at that, his tackle totals are not out of line with most of his career and this is only the second time in his career he has had more than 5 sacks (the last being 5 seasons ago in 2016). Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe it isn't. I just don't think there is enough history there to assume he will repeat this season. After all, the Jets were trading him in the first place because they felt they weren't getting anywhere near 1st round production and didn't want to pay him themselves. Granted, he has been much better for us than he was the last year and half with the Jets. But, he hasn't been $18M plus better.
The #1 goal is guaranteed $ and the #2 goal is AAV relative to other players at the position. Most everything else is window dressing for cap purposes. AAV is likely exactly what Leonard Williams was referencing when he said he knew he wasn't in Aaron Donald's tier but wanted to get paid similar to the guys in "the next tier down" - later corroborated by Ralph Vachiano that LW was looking for $18-20m.
What is so hard about acknowledging 2 things that are true at the same time:
- Leonard Williams bet that he was worth more than the world thought
- The NYG were right to make him prove it before paying out
Why does there need to be some magical, and non-evidenced, 3rd option? Just to say the NYG did something stupid?
The trade, to me, made little sense to give up valuable draft assets for a player destined to be a FA who already expressed a desire to stay in NY. I understand trading him gave the Giants exclusive rights, which is what allowed the tag. But, I argue, that even that was not worth it because he isn't a player worthy of the tag.
The franchise tag pays a player the average of the top 5 players at that position, unless they already had a high salary, where the 120% of previous salary would be higher. Either way, the tag recipient is being paid as a top 5 player. Williams was good last year and very good this year. But, I think most would agree he is not one of the top 5 DEs in the league. As good as he has been for our D, he isn't, in my estimation, a great, dominating, or game changing player. That is the only place I am coming from when I say not to sign him. He clearly wants in excess of $18M/year, which is too steep, in my opinion. The notion of him taking significantly less are pipe dreams right now. If that is all the rest of the market will bear, then great. But, I wouldn't allocate that kind of cap space for him.
I also agree with those who at least question his output in what is deemed a contract year. Even at that, his tackle totals are not out of line with most of his career and this is only the second time in his career he has had more than 5 sacks (the last being 5 seasons ago in 2016). Maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe it isn't. I just don't think there is enough history there to assume he will repeat this season. After all, the Jets were trading him in the first place because they felt they weren't getting anywhere near 1st round production and didn't want to pay him themselves. Granted, he has been much better for us than he was the last year and half with the Jets. But, he hasn't been $18M plus better.
He got tagged as a DT not DE. I think most would not agree with your assessment that he has not been 1 of the top 5 DTs in the NFL this year. His numbers across the board point to a top 5 DT.
Among DTs:
#2 Sacks (behind only Donald)
#1 TFL (tied with Donald)
#3 QB Hits (behind Donald + Chris Jones)
#6 Tackles (tied with a bunch of guys but actually ahead of Donald)
He is ahead of Deforest Buckner in every one of those categories btw.
Sure it was. The defense hasn't been better at all.
This was already one of the stupidest topics of discussion on BBI but it has gone galactic in the last few weeks.
Exactly - thus:
None of the principals measure a deal in AAV. It's a phony number no one takes seriously. If Williams made less AAV in a longterm deal, but got an extraordinary amount guaranteed, he'd be much happier. In no universe would he feel like he took a "pay cut" as you put it.
Back to my original point, if the Giants franchise Williams again they will have paid:
- 20/21, 2/35.64 in fully guaranteed money with no future team control
- 20/21 the Colts will pay Buckner 2/39.37 (+1M not guaranteed) with 3 years of additional team control and zero dead money if cut at any time
I sure know which one is better.
- Little to no guaranteed money after 2 or 3 years
- Spread some of the guaranteed money in bonuses to lower the initial cap hit (especially in 2021 with the lower cap)
- 2-3 years of additional control with no dead money in the back half of the deal
And most importantly, if it means not paying him 19M next year with no future assurances or control.
No, because imv LW isn't worth those dollars nor where resources need to flow on roster.
But will accept it if at least can show another team offered similar in free agency.
It's an interesting thought...
I think that contract is right in the ballpark of what he will end up getting, though I'd be surprised if it's not here - because I think they will tag him if necessary to hammer it out. I could see the guaranteed money coming in a little higher than that though.
They also predict that the NYG sign Galloday if the Lions don't tag him and have a very lackluster projection for Bud Dupree (which I think is wrong).
nfl-2021-free-agency-ranking-the-nfls-top-50-free-agents - ( New Window )
Prediction: Giants sign Tomlinson for four years, $52.5 million ($13.125M APY): $26.5 million total guaranteed, $16.5 million fully guaranteed at signing.