He at least had consecutive years with 12 and 8 sacks with the 9ers. And he has essentially averaged 2X the sacks over his career versus LW. Not that this matters, but over the last three years when you talked about the best DTs in the NFL, Buckner was in the discussion.
I'm sticking with my original position:
(1) Let LW test the market to see what his true value is. If he walks, thanks for the last year of service.
(2) If the decision is to keep him, then we re-apply the tag. I don't trust DTs to have multiple great years unless they are from another planet like Donald.
The actuals in Buckner's deal are much more straight forward and less scary than the $84M/$21M AAV boogiemen numbers.
It's effectively a 2/$40.378 deal, with three 1 year options with zero guaranteed money in the last 3 years.
For 2/40M the Colts got 3 additional years of penalty free team control. Hell, in 2022 his cap hit is 16M total -- or they can cut him with no dead money.
William's franchise tender is going to be $19.35M. The most idiotic thing the team could do is pay him another 20M fully guaranteed with no future team control.
in light of his rapidly improving performance, and the appearance of their strategy to build the defense from the inside out, making a multiple DL a foundation piece as the pass rush engine.
The question is can they agree somewhere between $18-20M or does Camp LW hold the Giants up further, using Chris Jones' recent deal as a benchmark.
Make no mistake, the Giants made the trade trying to lock him in sooner, and LW chose to bet himself and he has won.
William's franchise tender is going to be $19.35M. The most idiotic thing the team could do is pay him another 20M fully guaranteed with no future team control.
I just see it differently. I think it's actually a smart hedge. Let's see LW do it again.
Good point on the Buckner deal. But now that the details are out of the bag on that, I can't imagine Team LW signing that deal.
Nor should they, btw. They should ask for the moon. We just shouldn't give it to him...
in light of his rapidly improving performance, and the appearance of their strategy to build the defense from the inside out, making a multiple DL a foundation piece as the pass rush engine.
The question is can they agree somewhere between $18-20M or does Camp LW hold the Giants up further, using Chris Jones' recent deal as a benchmark.
Make no mistake, the Giants made the trade trying to lock him in sooner, and LW chose to bet himself and he has won.
Always appreciate your insight JonC. As LW's performance, value and price rises, does that preclude signing Tomlinson altogether? Is there some point at which LW's market value and demands risw that the Giants would turn to resigning Tomlinson PLUS RYAN as a better value investment than allicating ~ 20+ mil per to Williams alone?
I even can imagine that signing Tomlinson plus Ryan plus extending BJ Hill would be seen as the better "value" play than paying LW over 20 mil per AAV...
I know your take has been, for quite awhile, that they would let Dalvin walk since the see him as more of a two down player, and ultimately more readily replaceable. In fact I think Lawrence getting snaps at 0 and 1 tech is a sort of preview for how the DL would work if DT is allowed to walk as an FA.
Do you have any insight as to how they currently wiew Hill and his upside?
in light of his rapidly improving performance, and the appearance of their strategy to build the defense from the inside out, making a multiple DL a foundation piece as the pass rush engine.
The question is can they agree somewhere between $18-20M or does Camp LW hold the Giants up further, using Chris Jones' recent deal as a benchmark.
Make no mistake, the Giants made the trade trying to lock him in sooner, and LW chose to bet himself and he has won.
It would suck the heart out the team to let him go. Listen to him. That smile. It is a big deal to have a guy play like, IE all the dirty work, rush the passer too and be a guy that brings the locker room up? He was holding pocket Aces and flopped another pair in Seattle.
I want him signed even it costs us Tomlinson. If the cost was Barkley, I would rather have money tied in LW. He showed up with big plays in the most important game we have played in years.
You can't give the coaching staff credit for LW without also crediting DG. The GM is supposed to find players that have something. Coaches are supposed to get that something out of them.
They tried for some time to trade him, and we've seen much more of Hill this season as well. DT is a position where players like DT are more readily found, and the Giants themselves have shown it works over the years.
My take is they won't look to re-sign everyone. They will re-sign LW and Ryan, two of their best defenders right now, and DT is gone to a higher bidder. He would make a lot of sense for the Cowboys, if you're looking for a team that could move to drive up the price.
Dexter looks the part, a shame McIntosh can't get off the bench but Hill and Johnson have contributed.
They tried for some time to trade him, and we've seen much more of Hill this season as well. DT is a position where players like DT are more readily found, and the Giants themselves have shown it works over the years.
My take is they won't look to re-sign everyone. They will re-sign LW and Ryan, two of their best defenders right now, and DT is gone to a higher bidder. He would make a lot of sense for the Cowboys, if you're looking for a team that could move to drive up the price.
Dexter looks the part, a shame McIntosh can't get off the bench but Hill and Johnson have contributed.
LW is a load 1v1. Coaching staff seems to be scheming to get him that.
William's franchise tender is going to be $19.35M. The most idiotic thing the team could do is pay him another 20M fully guaranteed with no future team control.
I just see it differently. I think it's actually a smart hedge. Let's see LW do it again.
Good point on the Buckner deal. But now that the details are out of the bag on that, I can't imagine Team LW signing that deal.
Nor should they, btw. They should ask for the moon. We just shouldn't give it to him...
Sorry, my snark is more tongue in cheek, not directed at you.
I'm just a firm believer in using guaranteed money as leverage to secure future cost/control. Eric in Li have argued the meat square off the bones with this one!
My view is if the Giants franchise him again, they'll have paid him $35.42M fully guaranteed in 20/21, which is approaching the fully dollars the top guys are getting in their whole deals. Last year was the time to sign him.
Chris Jones is another example -- his deal is 4/80M -- but in reality it's 2/37.6M. Years 3 and 4 are effectively team options.
Reminds me of the Cranberries record - "Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?"
William's franchise tender is going to be $19.35M. The most idiotic thing the team could do is pay him another 20M fully guaranteed with no future team control.
I just see it differently. I think it's actually a smart hedge. Let's see LW do it again.
Good point on the Buckner deal. But now that the details are out of the bag on that, I can't imagine Team LW signing that deal.
Nor should they, btw. They should ask for the moon. We just shouldn't give it to him...
Sorry, my snark is more tongue in cheek, not directed at you.
I'm just a firm believer in using guaranteed money as leverage to secure future cost/control. Eric in Li have argued the meat square off the bones with this one!
My view is if the Giants franchise him again, they'll have paid him $35.42M fully guaranteed in 20/21, which is approaching the fully dollars the top guys are getting in their whole deals. Last year was the time to sign him.
Chris Jones is another example -- his deal is 4/80M -- but in reality it's 2/37.6M. Years 3 and 4 are effectively team options.
Reminds me of the Cranberries record - "Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?"
We tried to sign him last year. Spilled milk. We don't beat Seattle without him. I can't imagine him not on the team next year. I would hate it. We should have met his demands this year. Whaddya gunna do?
is the fact that this thread and discussion is even taking place is a good thing. It means Williams is having a great season and played to a level that makes the Giants seriously consider re-signing him. I think the worst case scenario going into the off season would have been him playing like last year. He was playing very well, but nowhere near what could be considered elite. That would have left them with a much tougher decision. On the other hand, if he just stunk up the joint, it would probably mean the Giants still sucked, but at least it would also cement the decision not to sign him. With his play, it probably cements the decision to try to re-sign him.
Matt - with all do respect, I don't follow this logic. LW was specifically targeted and trade for by a losing team in the middle of the 2019 season. He was already exactly what they were looking for otherwise they shouldn't have done the deal. And I would think they saw more in him than he showed for the Jets otherwise why not see who else becomes available during free agency.
With that, they would have been far better off coming to an agreement (or had one in hand). Now I realize it takes two parties to agree to get it done, by how was the dynamic ever going to change and why would LW's price tag ever go down? Right now, it's Christmas time for Team LW under the cap and our guys made it happen.
What is not to understand? Yes, they targeted him because they saw something. So what? That doesn't guarantee delivery. They felt their best shot was to secure his rights. I disagree, but that is irrelevant. Williams was looking for a huge contract. Maybe they miscalculated his perceived worth. Maybe they expected a little more from him last year. Maybe they got gun shy. I don't know. But, they agreed to the tag, which played out exactly as both sides should hope. That is why we have this discussion. He elevated his game, so he put up. Now, it is their turn or they lose him.
We tried to sign him last year. Spilled milk. We don't beat Seattle without him. I can't imagine him not on the team next year. I would hate it. We should have met his demands this year. Whaddya gunna do?
What you should do is sign him to a new deal that has no more than 40M guaranteed dollars, and give you near penalty-free flexibility over the 3rd and 4th year.
You just described many reasons as to why this was
We tried to sign him last year. Spilled milk. We don't beat Seattle without him. I can't imagine him not on the team next year. I would hate it. We should have met his demands this year. Whaddya gunna do?
What you should do is sign him to a new deal that has no more than 40M guaranteed dollars, and give you near penalty-free flexibility over the 3rd and 4th year.
Yeah. I think 4 years, $76M and $40M guaranteed is what I typed a few weeks ago as "reasonable" now.
Team LW may want to go above $80M and a higher guarantee at this point as he knows they know he is killing it on the field.
Got to be able to keep it within reason in order to still invest in the overall roster.
The other stuff that factors in that we are not privy to
is being brought up in the last several posts. How, if at all, does re-signing or not impact the rest of their FA approach? Does re-signing him mean they can only re-sign one of Tomlinson or Ryan? (I would choose Ryan)? Does it mean they re-sign neither? I don't know enough about the cap impact and what they are looking for or what the Giants thoughts are, so I am not speculating. But, I bring it up because these are the types of considerations that cause some people to pause at $18-20M. It could very well have an impact on other moves, especially with Solder's contract back on the books.
I am not saying definitively not to sign him. I am saying I have reservations doing so at that level based off a single season. I do admit that last Sunday goes a long way toward convincing anyone to pony up the money. His season overall has been great. But a performance like that against that opponent with what is at stake in December says something. If he can maintain this play through the next 4 weeks and have a big playoff game, I admit it is basically impossible not to pay him. But, that still doesn't guarantee that this year isn't the fluke.
Again, to be clear, because a lot of posts have been misrepresented by the opposing view, that doesn't mean he sucks or I think he will suck. It means he was nice player before who has elevated his game. There are many possible explanations as to why. Some, all, or none may be right. I think to bw's point, at this stage in his career it is hard to say you are confident you will get a repeat of 2020 once, let alone 2-3 times. If you don't, he is still a good player. He just isn't a $20M player outside of 2020.
FA in general is a risk. Nobody can be certain what the next season will bring, when a player starts to slow down, injury, etc. But, some players have 2 or more seasons to look at with past production to reasonably expect it. Williams doesn't have that. It doesn't discount this season. It merely allows for the question to be asked.
I don't, at any point, expect him to suck. No matter what, I expect a good player, because he has been that. The only question is will he continue beyond 2020 to be a great player. How does anyone not see that as a fair question?
Matt - as you state this has nothing to do with not wanting LW
He is good player having a great year. This also has nothing to do with giving up picks for good players, unless they are wasted because you didn't think thru the process well well and/or couldn't close the deal.
Hell, maybe the Giants win it all this season and we can tell him to just test free agency!
That seems "fair" but fair value is an elusive concept. I think there is a lot of good thought on this thread.
The challenge with LW is I don't think he wanted fair value last offseason and I don't necessarily think he will want fair value this offseason. Makes me think more, can you build a winner if you are overpaying for a player non QB player? (Think there is plenty of precedent where paying a franchise QB like that you can win a SB so I won't delve into that)
Not calling this a statistically comprehensive analysis by any means but what jumps up at me immediately is for the Eagles and Pats at the top of the food chain you've got Foles at 7.65% of the cap and Brady at 8.36% of the cap. The next down for those teams are our buddy Solder at 6.66% and Cox at 6.39%.
The Chiefs had Sammy Watkins at 10.11% of the cap and then all the way down to Laurent Duvernay-Tardif at 4.35% of the cap. Looking at that I would not be surprised to hear they were doing aggressive accounting practices with NLTBE's to pay out all the big deals this year. That being said, it is well documented that having a star QB like Mahomes on a rookie deal gets you a lot of flexibility. And you have Tyreek Hill at 1.16% of the cap as well. Totaling 11.27% of the cap for the top 2 receivers.
Now let's look at the Giants, who have their top 2 receivers at 9.55% of the cap this year. LW is taking up 8.17% or just a tick less than Brady. No doubt keeping him will count more. He is definitely going to increase that number this year, which to me, especially in a potentially sinking cap begs the question, can you win with him at a higher % and Jones not on a rookie deal? I'm not sure that makes sense to me, especially if you are paying Saquon too at a position not traditionally allocated to.
This rudimentary analysis would also kind of point to paying DT and LW perhaps as too much of an overallocation especially beyond a Jones rookie deal. (The Chiefs are paying both Hill and Watkins this year but Mahomes has a $5M cap hit which is even lower than most QB rookie deals of QBs that are impact starters)
I think especially because this roster doesn't have a lot of current star power, I'm certainly not saying you let LW walk. I'm just not sure our assets are lining up correctly for a championship squad given this roster. Would love to see counter examples further back if people have them. I'd also argue that with each passing year winning is more about allocating well and building a system around that allocation where you can let players that want to be overpaid walk than ever before. The exception being finding a player like Brady who will sign under market to give you a competitive advantage.
Regardless, you take a player like Bradberry, who is just as good at his position as LW and is just looking for a "fair" deal every time. I'm worried LW and the way we set up the leverage may have been doomed from the start, as dominant as he's looking this year inclusive of that. As it is with most high value assets, and athletes might be some of the highest value assets in the world on a unit basis, it's more about price, leverage, if you are able to project them forward better than your competition in some explainable way, etc.
A lot of really good points. The posts above mine are excellent. I "think" LW will perform after he gets his money. I believe he is a high character guy and this coaching staff found a way to use him.
That seems "fair" but fair value is an elusive concept. I think there is a lot of good thought on this thread.
The challenge with LW is I don't think he wanted fair value last offseason and I don't necessarily think he will want fair value this offseason. Makes me think more, can you build a winner if you are overpaying for a player non QB player? (Think there is plenty of precedent where paying a franchise QB like that you can win a SB so I won't delve into that)
You sure about that? Pretty sure it's Colin Cowherd, but not sure, loves to hammer home is that a QB has never won a SB making more than 15 percent of the cap. Now Brady obviously skews those numbers, but I don't think there is any evidence that teams can win a SB with their QB making a large percentage of the cap. Personally, for these type of arguments, I like to choose making a SB. The sample size of teams that win SB is just too small and things are always evolving in NFL so you can never go too far back.
Aaron Rodgers was on a big deal when he won I think. 15% is kind of an arbitrary cutoff too... Brady was making 12.2% of the cap when they won in 2019.
Don't have time to dig more but honestly it's more about can you overpay for a position player and not have a QB on a rookie deal and win to me.
I'd still do one more FT maneuver, but this seems reasonable if you want something longer term.
I just can't see Team LW taking this. They are going big game hunting...
The reality is big game hunting at DT above that band gets you to the Fletcher Cox, Aaron Donald area. I can see him getting a few more bucks guaranteed in years 3 & 4, and maybe some make believe dollars at the end.
I don't see the Giants applying the 2nd consecutive tender (19M, 125% of his salary this year), in a year with a cap reduction. It's a huge part of a smaller pie.
He's the second best player on our defense and we have the cap room
Because people here treat the cap and contracts with the intensity of a nuclear warhead.
You are in this business to keep guys like Williams. Again, I remind you all to go back to the Giants teams of the 2000s that were winning more often than not. Those teams were packed to the gills with over stuffed contracts and highly paid players. They still managed things year after year. All we do is worry about money around here. First time in years this team has a defense and some of you can't let these players walk fast enough.
Williams is going to get paid a mint from the Giants. Just friggin deal with it.
He's the second best player on our defense and we have the cap room
Because people here treat the cap and contracts with the intensity of a nuclear warhead.
You are in this business to keep guys like Williams. Again, I remind you all to go back to the Giants teams of the 2000s that were winning more often than not. Those teams were packed to the gills with over stuffed contracts and highly paid players. They still managed things year after year. All we do is worry about money around here. First time in years this team has a defense and some of you can't let these players walk fast enough.
Williams is going to get paid a mint from the Giants. Just friggin deal with it.
And because we made the “egregious” mistake of trading for him, we now have the option of franchising him again, IF NECESSARY..That’s why DG went after him at his age of 25 with solid years ahead of him: To either workout a long term contract and if necessary FT him until and when something is worked out. I was elated with the move when it happened, was not all that concerned with losing a 3rd and am even more elated now.
We need to get rid of all our good players because we will have to
There is only one tackle in top 30 of real guaranteed dollars in the NFL -- Aaron Donald.
When you shake off the window dressing of numbers, Williams will probably get ~40-45M real guaranteed dollars, which after next offseason might get him into the top 30.
He's not getting paid like a top 15 player, where the numbers really shoot up.
He's having a career year in a franchise tag year. Typically, that is a red flag. This is the same guy the Jets decided was expendable, who garnered 1 sack last season and was the anchor of defense that couldn't stop anything.
Now you pay through the nose for a long term deal structured for cap relief(and remember, they couldn't reach a deal after last season when he was pretty meh) or you eat up a ton of the cap on one more franchise tag at an average of the top 5 at his position and you still have to try and sign him to a long term deal. Would still have made more sense to pay him after his meh last season than now if they were that convicted about his prospects.
RE: We need to get rid of all our good players because we will have to
I know I've posted this before, but a team in the Giants situation isn't letting go good players because they just can't sign all of the good ones on their roster. They are doing so to redeploy the dollars and sign another vet FA from another team. The argument is that those signings are much more risky than just retaining someone who is playing well in your team concept. (In the case of the ER vs a DT argument, ERs are also more expensive.)
Summary: optimizing roster management by letting go your high-performing vets has less of a benefit/risk ratio than simply keeping your players.
A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.
Reading some of the posts on here, you would think the cap
doesn't apply to the NY Giants, at all. And that overpaying players, even the really good ones, doesn't affect any part of the rest of the roster in that year and future years.
And this from guys who have seemingly been Giant fans for years, and have lost their minds because of a 4-game winning streak.
Keep this in mind, Leonard Williams is not signed yet because Gettleman & Front Office doesn't subscribe to your thinking.
RE: RE: We need to get rid of all our good players because we will have to
or let them all walk. It is posed as a risk to overpay one player at the top of the league scale, when he has exactly one season that would qualify him for this level vs. perhaps using that money to re-sign 2 players, perhaps. This also doesn't mean the Giants shouldn't or won't pay him. It is worth exploring as a risk, however. The cap will impact moves, especially with another huge contract (Solder) coming back on the books.
RE: We need to get rid of all our good players because we will have to
He's having a career year in a franchise tag year. Typically, that is a red flag. This is the same guy the Jets decided was expendable, who garnered 1 sack last season and was the anchor of defense that couldn't stop anything.
Now you pay through the nose for a long term deal structured for cap relief(and remember, they couldn't reach a deal after last season when he was pretty meh) or you eat up a ton of the cap on one more franchise tag at an average of the top 5 at his position and you still have to try and sign him to a long term deal. Would still have made more sense to pay him after his meh last season than now if they were that convicted about his prospects.
Ah yes, the Jets decided he was expendable...
How’s that working out for them? Do you EVER think before posting your nonsense? The Jets? Why should we give a damn about their decision making?
It's funny that BigBlueShock accuses others of being arrogant
doesn't apply to the NY Giants, at all. And that overpaying players, even the really good ones, doesn't affect any part of the rest of the roster in that year and future years.
And this from guys who have seemingly been Giant fans for years, and have lost their minds because of a 4-game winning streak.
Keep this in mind, Leonard Williams is not signed yet because Gettleman & Front Office doesn't subscribe to your thinking.
Our defense just had its best performance in years and people are talking about letting the guy go, that glues the whole thing together, over for 1 or 2 million a year?
This isn't Madden. People are hilarious. You act like you are professional capologists. (I invent words.) You set up ab imaginary deal and put up a big red line in the proverbial sand and proclaim, a penny more and I let him walk. I am laughing at you.
We have been the worst team in football for 3 years and you guys want to run the players out of town that are bringing us back from the ledge because you have decided you are some kind of cap guru. I think some of you are so used to being miserable that it has become your comfortable.
We don't have to worry about this today.
Today it is December 9th.
We are playing meaningful games.
We appear to be ascending as a team.
Let's keep the team together, if only in our heads.
He at least had consecutive years with 12 and 8 sacks with the 9ers. And he has essentially averaged 2X the sacks over his career versus LW. Not that this matters, but over the last three years when you talked about the best DTs in the NFL, Buckner was in the discussion.
I'm sticking with my original position:
(1) Let LW test the market to see what his true value is. If he walks, thanks for the last year of service.
(2) If the decision is to keep him, then we re-apply the tag. I don't trust DTs to have multiple great years unless they are from another planet like Donald.
The actuals in Buckner's deal are much more straight forward and less scary than the $84M/$21M AAV boogiemen numbers.
It's effectively a 2/$40.378 deal, with three 1 year options with zero guaranteed money in the last 3 years.
For 2/40M the Colts got 3 additional years of penalty free team control. Hell, in 2022 his cap hit is 16M total -- or they can cut him with no dead money.
William's franchise tender is going to be $19.35M. The most idiotic thing the team could do is pay him another 20M fully guaranteed with no future team control.
The question is can they agree somewhere between $18-20M or does Camp LW hold the Giants up further, using Chris Jones' recent deal as a benchmark.
Make no mistake, the Giants made the trade trying to lock him in sooner, and LW chose to bet himself and he has won.
William's franchise tender is going to be $19.35M. The most idiotic thing the team could do is pay him another 20M fully guaranteed with no future team control.
I just see it differently. I think it's actually a smart hedge. Let's see LW do it again.
Good point on the Buckner deal. But now that the details are out of the bag on that, I can't imagine Team LW signing that deal.
Nor should they, btw. They should ask for the moon. We just shouldn't give it to him...
The question is can they agree somewhere between $18-20M or does Camp LW hold the Giants up further, using Chris Jones' recent deal as a benchmark.
Make no mistake, the Giants made the trade trying to lock him in sooner, and LW chose to bet himself and he has won.
Always appreciate your insight JonC. As LW's performance, value and price rises, does that preclude signing Tomlinson altogether? Is there some point at which LW's market value and demands risw that the Giants would turn to resigning Tomlinson PLUS RYAN as a better value investment than allicating ~ 20+ mil per to Williams alone?
I even can imagine that signing Tomlinson plus Ryan plus extending BJ Hill would be seen as the better "value" play than paying LW over 20 mil per AAV...
I know your take has been, for quite awhile, that they would let Dalvin walk since the see him as more of a two down player, and ultimately more readily replaceable. In fact I think Lawrence getting snaps at 0 and 1 tech is a sort of preview for how the DL would work if DT is allowed to walk as an FA.
Do you have any insight as to how they currently wiew Hill and his upside?
The question is can they agree somewhere between $18-20M or does Camp LW hold the Giants up further, using Chris Jones' recent deal as a benchmark.
Make no mistake, the Giants made the trade trying to lock him in sooner, and LW chose to bet himself and he has won.
I want him signed even it costs us Tomlinson. If the cost was Barkley, I would rather have money tied in LW. He showed up with big plays in the most important game we have played in years.
You can't give the coaching staff credit for LW without also crediting DG. The GM is supposed to find players that have something. Coaches are supposed to get that something out of them.
Pay dat man his munny.
He earned it.
Straight up.
My take is they won't look to re-sign everyone. They will re-sign LW and Ryan, two of their best defenders right now, and DT is gone to a higher bidder. He would make a lot of sense for the Cowboys, if you're looking for a team that could move to drive up the price.
Dexter looks the part, a shame McIntosh can't get off the bench but Hill and Johnson have contributed.
My take is they won't look to re-sign everyone. They will re-sign LW and Ryan, two of their best defenders right now, and DT is gone to a higher bidder. He would make a lot of sense for the Cowboys, if you're looking for a team that could move to drive up the price.
Dexter looks the part, a shame McIntosh can't get off the bench but Hill and Johnson have contributed.
Side note, seeing some dog in Peppers.
I like this D.
Quote:
William's franchise tender is going to be $19.35M. The most idiotic thing the team could do is pay him another 20M fully guaranteed with no future team control.
I just see it differently. I think it's actually a smart hedge. Let's see LW do it again.
Good point on the Buckner deal. But now that the details are out of the bag on that, I can't imagine Team LW signing that deal.
Nor should they, btw. They should ask for the moon. We just shouldn't give it to him...
Sorry, my snark is more tongue in cheek, not directed at you.
I'm just a firm believer in using guaranteed money as leverage to secure future cost/control. Eric in Li have argued the meat square off the bones with this one!
My view is if the Giants franchise him again, they'll have paid him $35.42M fully guaranteed in 20/21, which is approaching the fully dollars the top guys are getting in their whole deals. Last year was the time to sign him.
Chris Jones is another example -- his deal is 4/80M -- but in reality it's 2/37.6M. Years 3 and 4 are effectively team options.
Reminds me of the Cranberries record - "Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?"
Quote:
In comment 15072551 christian said:
Quote:
William's franchise tender is going to be $19.35M. The most idiotic thing the team could do is pay him another 20M fully guaranteed with no future team control.
I just see it differently. I think it's actually a smart hedge. Let's see LW do it again.
Good point on the Buckner deal. But now that the details are out of the bag on that, I can't imagine Team LW signing that deal.
Nor should they, btw. They should ask for the moon. We just shouldn't give it to him...
Sorry, my snark is more tongue in cheek, not directed at you.
I'm just a firm believer in using guaranteed money as leverage to secure future cost/control. Eric in Li have argued the meat square off the bones with this one!
My view is if the Giants franchise him again, they'll have paid him $35.42M fully guaranteed in 20/21, which is approaching the fully dollars the top guys are getting in their whole deals. Last year was the time to sign him.
Chris Jones is another example -- his deal is 4/80M -- but in reality it's 2/37.6M. Years 3 and 4 are effectively team options.
Reminds me of the Cranberries record - "Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?"
Quote:
is the fact that this thread and discussion is even taking place is a good thing. It means Williams is having a great season and played to a level that makes the Giants seriously consider re-signing him. I think the worst case scenario going into the off season would have been him playing like last year. He was playing very well, but nowhere near what could be considered elite. That would have left them with a much tougher decision. On the other hand, if he just stunk up the joint, it would probably mean the Giants still sucked, but at least it would also cement the decision not to sign him. With his play, it probably cements the decision to try to re-sign him.
Matt - with all do respect, I don't follow this logic. LW was specifically targeted and trade for by a losing team in the middle of the 2019 season. He was already exactly what they were looking for otherwise they shouldn't have done the deal. And I would think they saw more in him than he showed for the Jets otherwise why not see who else becomes available during free agency.
With that, they would have been far better off coming to an agreement (or had one in hand). Now I realize it takes two parties to agree to get it done, by how was the dynamic ever going to change and why would LW's price tag ever go down? Right now, it's Christmas time for Team LW under the cap and our guys made it happen.
What you should do is sign him to a new deal that has no more than 40M guaranteed dollars, and give you near penalty-free flexibility over the 3rd and 4th year.
Quote:
We tried to sign him last year. Spilled milk. We don't beat Seattle without him. I can't imagine him not on the team next year. I would hate it. We should have met his demands this year. Whaddya gunna do?
What you should do is sign him to a new deal that has no more than 40M guaranteed dollars, and give you near penalty-free flexibility over the 3rd and 4th year.
Yeah. I think 4 years, $76M and $40M guaranteed is what I typed a few weeks ago as "reasonable" now.
Team LW may want to go above $80M and a higher guarantee at this point as he knows they know he is killing it on the field.
Got to be able to keep it within reason in order to still invest in the overall roster.
I am not saying definitively not to sign him. I am saying I have reservations doing so at that level based off a single season. I do admit that last Sunday goes a long way toward convincing anyone to pony up the money. His season overall has been great. But a performance like that against that opponent with what is at stake in December says something. If he can maintain this play through the next 4 weeks and have a big playoff game, I admit it is basically impossible not to pay him. But, that still doesn't guarantee that this year isn't the fluke.
Again, to be clear, because a lot of posts have been misrepresented by the opposing view, that doesn't mean he sucks or I think he will suck. It means he was nice player before who has elevated his game. There are many possible explanations as to why. Some, all, or none may be right. I think to bw's point, at this stage in his career it is hard to say you are confident you will get a repeat of 2020 once, let alone 2-3 times. If you don't, he is still a good player. He just isn't a $20M player outside of 2020.
FA in general is a risk. Nobody can be certain what the next season will bring, when a player starts to slow down, injury, etc. But, some players have 2 or more seasons to look at with past production to reasonably expect it. Williams doesn't have that. It doesn't discount this season. It merely allows for the question to be asked.
I don't, at any point, expect him to suck. No matter what, I expect a good player, because he has been that. The only question is will he continue beyond 2020 to be a great player. How does anyone not see that as a fair question?
Hell, maybe the Giants win it all this season and we can tell him to just test free agency!
Yeah. I think 4 years, $76M and $40M guaranteed is what I typed a few weeks ago as "reasonable" now.
Team LW may want to go above $80M and a higher guarantee at this point as he knows they know he is killing it on the field.
Got to be able to keep it within reason in order to still invest in the overall roster.
I'd like to see 4/70M, with 40M guaranteed at signing, 50M total guaranteed.
- 15M signing bonus
- 21/22 salaries guaranteed at signing
- 23 salary guaranteed first day of league year
2021 - 12.5M salary*, 5M bonus*
2022 - 12.5M salary*, 5M bonus*
2023 - 10M salary, 5M bonus*
2024 - 20M salary
The challenge with LW is I don't think he wanted fair value last offseason and I don't necessarily think he will want fair value this offseason. Makes me think more, can you build a winner if you are overpaying for a player non QB player? (Think there is plenty of precedent where paying a franchise QB like that you can win a SB so I won't delve into that)
Looking at the last 3 SB Champs:
2017 Pats
2018 Eagles
2019 Chiefs
Not calling this a statistically comprehensive analysis by any means but what jumps up at me immediately is for the Eagles and Pats at the top of the food chain you've got Foles at 7.65% of the cap and Brady at 8.36% of the cap. The next down for those teams are our buddy Solder at 6.66% and Cox at 6.39%.
The Chiefs had Sammy Watkins at 10.11% of the cap and then all the way down to Laurent Duvernay-Tardif at 4.35% of the cap. Looking at that I would not be surprised to hear they were doing aggressive accounting practices with NLTBE's to pay out all the big deals this year. That being said, it is well documented that having a star QB like Mahomes on a rookie deal gets you a lot of flexibility. And you have Tyreek Hill at 1.16% of the cap as well. Totaling 11.27% of the cap for the top 2 receivers.
Now let's look at the Giants, who have their top 2 receivers at 9.55% of the cap this year. LW is taking up 8.17% or just a tick less than Brady. No doubt keeping him will count more. He is definitely going to increase that number this year, which to me, especially in a potentially sinking cap begs the question, can you win with him at a higher % and Jones not on a rookie deal? I'm not sure that makes sense to me, especially if you are paying Saquon too at a position not traditionally allocated to.
This rudimentary analysis would also kind of point to paying DT and LW perhaps as too much of an overallocation especially beyond a Jones rookie deal. (The Chiefs are paying both Hill and Watkins this year but Mahomes has a $5M cap hit which is even lower than most QB rookie deals of QBs that are impact starters)
I think especially because this roster doesn't have a lot of current star power, I'm certainly not saying you let LW walk. I'm just not sure our assets are lining up correctly for a championship squad given this roster. Would love to see counter examples further back if people have them. I'd also argue that with each passing year winning is more about allocating well and building a system around that allocation where you can let players that want to be overpaid walk than ever before. The exception being finding a player like Brady who will sign under market to give you a competitive advantage.
Regardless, you take a player like Bradberry, who is just as good at his position as LW and is just looking for a "fair" deal every time. I'm worried LW and the way we set up the leverage may have been doomed from the start, as dominant as he's looking this year inclusive of that. As it is with most high value assets, and athletes might be some of the highest value assets in the world on a unit basis, it's more about price, leverage, if you are able to project them forward better than your competition in some explainable way, etc.
The challenge with LW is I don't think he wanted fair value last offseason and I don't necessarily think he will want fair value this offseason. Makes me think more, can you build a winner if you are overpaying for a player non QB player? (Think there is plenty of precedent where paying a franchise QB like that you can win a SB so I won't delve into that)
You sure about that? Pretty sure it's Colin Cowherd, but not sure, loves to hammer home is that a QB has never won a SB making more than 15 percent of the cap. Now Brady obviously skews those numbers, but I don't think there is any evidence that teams can win a SB with their QB making a large percentage of the cap. Personally, for these type of arguments, I like to choose making a SB. The sample size of teams that win SB is just too small and things are always evolving in NFL so you can never go too far back.
I'd like to see 4/70M, with 40M guaranteed at signing, 50M total guaranteed.
- 15M signing bonus
- 21/22 salaries guaranteed at signing
- 23 salary guaranteed first day of league year
2021 - 12.5M salary*, 5M bonus*
2022 - 12.5M salary*, 5M bonus*
2023 - 10M salary, 5M bonus*
2024 - 20M salary
I'd still do one more FT maneuver, but this seems reasonable if you want something longer term.
I just can't see Team LW taking this. They are going big game hunting...
Don't have time to dig more but honestly it's more about can you overpay for a position player and not have a QB on a rookie deal and win to me.
I just can't see Team LW taking this. They are going big game hunting...
The reality is big game hunting at DT above that band gets you to the Fletcher Cox, Aaron Donald area. I can see him getting a few more bucks guaranteed in years 3 & 4, and maybe some make believe dollars at the end.
I don't see the Giants applying the 2nd consecutive tender (19M, 125% of his salary this year), in a year with a cap reduction. It's a huge part of a smaller pie.
No system is gonna make him look better than PG's is, so he got lucky here, IMO.
Exactly, he's an anchor and you don't let those go
Because people here treat the cap and contracts with the intensity of a nuclear warhead.
You are in this business to keep guys like Williams. Again, I remind you all to go back to the Giants teams of the 2000s that were winning more often than not. Those teams were packed to the gills with over stuffed contracts and highly paid players. They still managed things year after year. All we do is worry about money around here. First time in years this team has a defense and some of you can't let these players walk fast enough.
Williams is going to get paid a mint from the Giants. Just friggin deal with it.
Quote:
He's the second best player on our defense and we have the cap room
Because people here treat the cap and contracts with the intensity of a nuclear warhead.
You are in this business to keep guys like Williams. Again, I remind you all to go back to the Giants teams of the 2000s that were winning more often than not. Those teams were packed to the gills with over stuffed contracts and highly paid players. They still managed things year after year. All we do is worry about money around here. First time in years this team has a defense and some of you can't let these players walk fast enough.
Williams is going to get paid a mint from the Giants. Just friggin deal with it.
And because we made the “egregious” mistake of trading for him, we now have the option of franchising him again, IF NECESSARY..That’s why DG went after him at his age of 25 with solid years ahead of him: To either workout a long term contract and if necessary FT him until and when something is worked out. I was elated with the move when it happened, was not all that concerned with losing a 3rd and am even more elated now.
When you shake off the window dressing of numbers, Williams will probably get ~40-45M real guaranteed dollars, which after next offseason might get him into the top 30.
He's not getting paid like a top 15 player, where the numbers really shoot up.
Now you pay through the nose for a long term deal structured for cap relief(and remember, they couldn't reach a deal after last season when he was pretty meh) or you eat up a ton of the cap on one more franchise tag at an average of the top 5 at his position and you still have to try and sign him to a long term deal. Would still have made more sense to pay him after his meh last season than now if they were that convicted about his prospects.
Specious argument. Put some bones on it, at least.
Remember the impending Cowboys cap apocalypse (acapalypse - hey, did I make that up)? Yeah, me, too.
Quote:
pay them more. Thats how you build a team.
Specious argument. Put some bones on it, at least.
Why, no one else here does.
Summary: optimizing roster management by letting go your high-performing vets has less of a benefit/risk ratio than simply keeping your players.
A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.
And this from guys who have seemingly been Giant fans for years, and have lost their minds because of a 4-game winning streak.
Keep this in mind, Leonard Williams is not signed yet because Gettleman & Front Office doesn't subscribe to your thinking.
Quote:
pay them more. Thats how you build a team.
Specious argument. Put some bones on it, at least.
What kind of bones are you looking for?
I read this as you being facetious, yes?
Now you pay through the nose for a long term deal structured for cap relief(and remember, they couldn't reach a deal after last season when he was pretty meh) or you eat up a ton of the cap on one more franchise tag at an average of the top 5 at his position and you still have to try and sign him to a long term deal. Would still have made more sense to pay him after his meh last season than now if they were that convicted about his prospects.
Ah yes, the Jets decided he was expendable...
How’s that working out for them? Do you EVER think before posting your nonsense? The Jets? Why should we give a damn about their decision making?
Seems like a fairly stupid and arrogant way to exist on a message board.
Quote:
In comment 15073540 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
pay them more. Thats how you build a team.
Specious argument. Put some bones on it, at least.
What kind of bones are you looking for?
Plenty have added the bones, intelligently, including in this thread.
A) I won't throw the first stone against a poster, not my style, I will throw them back at people that throw them at me
B) Typical response from you, the % of your posts that are insulting people vs. actually trying to benefit a discussion is laughable
C) Clearly you've been muzzled / neutered because you would never change on your own
Again, I feel bad for you. Living inside your head is probably the most unpleasant place to be of all.
And this from guys who have seemingly been Giant fans for years, and have lost their minds because of a 4-game winning streak.
Keep this in mind, Leonard Williams is not signed yet because Gettleman & Front Office doesn't subscribe to your thinking.
Have to talk in ways they understand.
Lotsa Cap
Good Cap (Abramsian)
Cap Hell
To translate here, is LW good cap? Y/N? Y!!
This isn't Madden. People are hilarious. You act like you are professional capologists. (I invent words.) You set up ab imaginary deal and put up a big red line in the proverbial sand and proclaim, a penny more and I let him walk. I am laughing at you.
We have been the worst team in football for 3 years and you guys want to run the players out of town that are bringing us back from the ledge because you have decided you are some kind of cap guru. I think some of you are so used to being miserable that it has become your comfortable.
We don't have to worry about this today.
Today it is December 9th.
We are playing meaningful games.
We appear to be ascending as a team.
Let's keep the team together, if only in our heads.
For a few minutes at least?
FFS.