I have seen on a number of different threads, people saying that the Giants don't have their 4th round pick, or saying that if we sign him to a long-term deal, we lose our 4th round pick.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way this reads, the Giants are missing their 5th round pick, and there's no way it can change: "Big Blue acquired former first-round pick Leonard Williams from the New York Jets in exchange for a third-round pick and a 2021 fifth-rounder, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported Monday, per a source informed. The fifth-rounder could become a fourth if the Giants re-sign Williams before the start of the new league year, Rapoport added."
This article was written in October 2019, so the time for the pick to change to the 4th rounder has passed, correct?
Link - (
New Window )
linky link - ( New Window )
What is this based on? That site has been legit in the past...
That's the thing...I can't find a good source on it. All the articles are so vaguely written, or gloss over the contingencies. I had looked it up a number of times, and I see some people posting offseason plans with no 5th rounder, and some with no 4th rounder. So I know I'm far from the only one unclear on it.
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah, I guess it's going to be a mystery. But luckily we're only giving our 5th.
Back it up.
Back it up.
what is your problem? It was on the "Realistic Offseason Plan" thread. I don't remember what other threads, but I have seen it on a few threads. I thought the condition expired last season, but I had seen enough people posting like we were missing the 4th that I was clarifying. Sorry your feelings are hurt.
Oh, it's no big deal. I have seen other posts about it.
Agreed. I would assume they'll tag him to negotiate.
Thanks. I would have thought the same.
:-)
The tag is ~19 mill if my memory serves me. That is around what he'd want per season, so it wouldn't be a huge problem.
Quote:
because of the cost. They need to sign him or let him go. I want to sign him. Who really cares whether its a 4th or a 5th at best they are rotational guys. All you have to do is look at who we have drafted in the 4th or the 5th and realize it does not matter for every good pick there is 5 or more others that have failed. Especially in the Jerry Reese era.
The tag is ~19 mill if my memory serves me. That is around what he'd want per season, so it wouldn't be a huge problem.
What he'd want per season isn't what his cap number would be in the first year of a multi-year contract. The Giants could satisfy his demands and keep their cap managed more strictly in a multi-year deal than they could by going year-by-year with the tag.
Re-using the FT on LW would be a mistake that would indicate a failure to negotiate a mutually beneficial contract.
Re-using the FT on LW would be a mistake that would indicate a failure to negotiate a mutually beneficial contract.
Quote:
Re-using the FT on LW would be a mistake that would indicate a failure to negotiate a mutually beneficial contract.
No, reusing the tag would be a wise use of the only leverage they have in negotiations with a player coming off a career year. It will prevent him from testing the free market where he would likely get outrageous money. And then it will be Williams's choice: does he bet on himself having another great year (free of serious injury) at a salary of $19.4M or does he agree to a reasonable deal with $50M(+/-) in guarantees? It's a win-win for the Giants if he plays on the tag, because another great year like last will make him worth every extra dime it costs and 2022 can be the first year of his longterm deal where the salary cap hit is at its lowest.
1) Williams proved last year that he is worth $19.4M (in terms of market value) and would like get north of that in average salary on a longterm deal.
2) The Giants can create the room under the cap to make it do-able (without sacrificing the ability to make moves in free agency, because as you say, the first year of multi-year deals is always the cheapest against the cap).
Quote:
Re-using the FT on LW would be a mistake that would indicate a failure to negotiate a mutually beneficial contract.
No, reusing the tag would be a wise use of the only leverage they have in negotiations with a player coming off a career year. It will prevent him from testing the free market where he would likely get outrageous money. And then it will be Williams's choice: does he bet on himself having another great year (free of serious injury) at a salary of $19.4M or does he agree to a reasonable deal with $50M(+/-) in guarantees? It's a win-win for the Giants if he plays on the tag, because another great year like last will make him worth every extra dime it costs and 2022 can be the first year of his longterm deal where the salary cap hit is at its lowest.
Another year on the franchise tag is not leverage for the Giants. Likelihood is Williams would probably think about that for about 10 seconds and sign the tag papers.
$36M in guaranteed payments in 2020 & 2021 and the Giants would enjoy no control whatsoever over this prized player going forward? The Giants would continue to lose the leverage game, and would be back at the negotiating table again a year from now.
Another year on the franchise tag is not leverage for the Giants. Likelihood is Williams would probably think about that for about 10 seconds and sign the tag papers.
There's a lot that goes into deciding whether or not to use the franchise tag on a player, but one general rule I have is: if the cost of the franchise tag is less than he would get in average salary on a longterm deal, use it! This was the case negotiating with him in 2020 and it's again the case in 2021. Williams bet on himself last year and won. If he bets on himself again this year, good luck to him. It's a win-win for the Giants.
Quote:
Another year on the franchise tag is not leverage for the Giants. Likelihood is Williams would probably think about that for about 10 seconds and sign the tag papers.
Really? When he could get north of $100M on a five year deal with $50M-$60M guaranteed on the open market.
Quote:
$36M in guaranteed payments in 2020 & 2021 and the Giants would enjoy no control whatsoever over this prized player going forward? The Giants would continue to lose the leverage game, and would be back at the negotiating table again a year from now.
If the Giants lose the leverage game because Williams has another career year I can live with that. Good for Williams for betting on himself and delivering. On the other hand, what if he doesn't have a career year? What if he has a career-ending injury? Or somewhere in between?
There's a lot that goes into deciding whether or not to use the franchise tag on a player, but one general rule I have is: if the cost of the franchise tag is less than he would get in average salary on a longterm deal, use it! This was the case negotiating with him in 2020 and it's again the case in 2021. Williams bet on himself last year and won. If he bets on himself again this year, good luck to him. It's a win-win for the Giants.
Would suggest if Williams can get north of $100M and $60M guaranteed on the open market then the Giants should let him try to do so. And in the meanwhile they can do their own window-shopping, and if they decide he is still the best investment for that money then they can make the best offer.
As to your other scenarios, not having another career year isn't going to lower his asking price. Did he just give in at the end of 2019 to the Giants? The injury thing is a risk at any time to any player, and affects both sides mindsets so not sure that changes the calculus unless you can tell me who is more risk-averse right now.
The Giants arguably need at least 4 new starters on both the Offense & Defense and that volume of players cannot come in just one or two drafts. They have to be prudent but flexible enough to be able to compete for other free agents to more efficiently create a competitive overall roster. And one that can be a threat for the Super Bowl again someday.
This is actually a very valid approach, except that LW's cap number for 2021 on a multi-year deal will very likely be substantially lower than the AAV of that deal.
So in a down-cap cycle, you're not just budgeting against the AAV, you're budgeting against the actual cap. Short term decisions that you make this year WILL impact cap flexibility for years to come, even as the cap is restored to previous levels.
Teams that manage the cap well, and have cap experts that are at least as good as if not better than Abrams will modify their budgets in such a manner that it will minimize the carryover effect. Some teams will be forced to borrow against 2022 and beyond (looking at you, Saints and Eagles), but sound cap management here is about leveling the cap hits to land appropriately into each year's projected cap.
What ends up happening with a repeated tag for LW is that not only are you absorbing his full long-term AAV in a down-cap cycle, but you're also putting him back on the market next year in a spiked economy. EVERY team is going to have massive cap room next year, simply by function of the cap deflation this year and presumed restoration next year.
That's not a market to be hunting for big game. Too many guns, not enough antlers. Sign him now or let him walk now. Do not tag him again this year.