Well there is actually. As of now, cutting him outright comes with a 10.5 mill cap his. If you restructure him to where he makes more than the two guys mentioned but less than that dead cap, it absolutely makes sense to bring him back for say 6/7 mill. Plus, he is a better player than both the guys you mentioned.
That's not how it works at all.
The 10.5M dead cap the Giants would incur from cutting Solder is inescapable. That is bonus that has been paid. It will either hit all in 2021, or split between 21/22.
Nate Solder's hypothetical cap charge in 2021 will be 6.5M plus any salary.
In what world does it make sense to pay Nate Solder another 7M dollars, when the going rate for a swing tackle is far below that number?
That video christian posted... sweet football Jesus on roller skates! Solder was horrible. Yeah, this guy should just be cut. Not sure wth Giants are thinking here.
That video christian posted... sweet football Jesus on roller skates! Solder was horrible. Yeah, this guy should just be cut. Not sure wth Giants are thinking here.
Solder is getting a certain amount of $ regardless, so if he takes that amount as a pay cut, and next season basically the dead cap to cut him is minimal fine. If NYG were to try and re-sign Fleming (just an example of a swing tackle) that’d be $2-$3M on top of them cutting Solder. If there’s a way to keep him at that number, fine and worst case is he says no and gets cut.
Having said that, you can't pay a swing big money. Solder only has leverage because of Covid and the big cap hit.
Bottom line is if he can still play like he did the 2nd half of 2018, well, he may still start with Peart the swing. But after his horrible 2019 and a year off how can anyone be sure he isn't more than camp fodder? I just don't know but am hopefully all three rookies from last year pan out and are solid NFL starters who market his offense finally click.
Just for context, remember the Cardinals paid Kelvin Beachum $1M dollars to be their swing tackle last year, and the Giants paid Cam Fleming $3.4M dollars.
That is your going rate for a swing tackle. Both of those guys are available, and played better football when called upon than Nate Solder did in 2019.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason Nate Solder should earn more than that next year.
yes. Solder’s max base salary should be $1.5mm and I am skeptical he can make it out of training camp even with that reduction.
Just for context, remember the Cardinals paid Kelvin Beachum $1M dollars to be their swing tackle last year, and the Giants paid Cam Fleming $3.4M dollars.
That is your going rate for a swing tackle. Both of those guys are available, and played better football when called upon than Nate Solder did in 2019.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason Nate Solder should earn more than that next year.
yes. Solder’s max base salary should be $1.5mm and I am skeptical he can make it out of training camp even with that reduction.
He wouldn't go...
I haven’t found an answer on the treatment of incentives...
... for players who opted out in 2020. If the LTBE baseline is the 2020 season, playing time incentives could be a useful part of any negotiation with Solder’s agent: all incentives would be NLTBE; even if Solder earned the money, it would hit the cap in 2022, when the Giants will have more room for maneuver. More likely, he wouldn’t get the money and the incentives would never affect cap space.
If the baseline is 2019, straightforward playing time incentives would be LTBE, because Solder started every game that year. That means the incentives would tie up 2021 cap space. Anything he didn’t earn would add cap space in 2022, but they need the space now. Of course, they could restructure other deals in anticipation of having extra space in 2022, but every move has a cost.
My guess is that 2019 will be the baseline. That’s just an inference, based on the contracts having tolled for a year. Anyone have better info on this point?
BBB I suspect all the rights and privileges roll back to the previous year (accrued seasons, contract length, and as you mention calculations for incentives).
The spirit of the opt out was to make it like 2020 didn't happen for the player. So I suspect any incentives would be based on 2019.
1. Yeah he sucks but we gotta pay him anyway.
2. Yeah, he sucked but trust Judge knows best and can fix him.
3. Yeah, he sucked but maybe he’s better now that he took a year off.
4. Yeah, he sucked but maybe we can get him as cheap as other guys who suck.
I don’t find any of these arguments compelling or likely to help the Giants get better. None of this gives me confidence in the leadership of the team. Color me simple but I just feel like if a guy sucks, he shouldn’t be on the team. If you make a bad decision, learn and move on as quickly as possible. Solder was a bad decision. Time to move on.
It's an incredible amount of maneuvering for a guy who's never played good football for the Giants and is going to be 33.
I'll channel Go Terps for a moment. If the Giants hadn't spent big resources on him in the first place, and he played this bad, would they go in circles to keep him?
Carl Banks uses this term for guys that are drafted high or have some other investment from management. These are guys that are not performing on the field but which the Giants won’t move on from because it’s an admission of poor choice. Solder’s sunk cost is no reason to keep him on the team.
Carl Banks uses this term for guys that are drafted high or have some other investment from management. These are guys that are not performing on the field but which the Giants won’t move on from because it’s an admission of poor choice. Solder’s sunk cost is no reason to keep him on the team.
Absolutely not. But my guess at the Giants' offer of a "restructure" to Solder is something like this:
"Dude you're a backup OT right now with some small chance of starting at RT if you clearly beat out Matt Peart, who is more or less the spittin' image of who you were about 12 years ago. If your camp bsttle is close, Peart will start and you'll be the swing backup."
"Considering what we are ALREADY overpaying for your services to play (or to sit on the bench) we'll add one - two million per year (maybe more but only tied to actual snap counts as performance bonuses) to your dead cap amortized signing bonus to keep you around for another two years just to get something, ANYTHING, back from the outrageous overpay we doled out to you 3 years ago."
He'd better cost less in additional salary to what it would take to retain Fleming.
If the League has addressed the question of LTBE vs. NLTBE for players who opted out, the baseline has probably been set as 2019. That’s the logical answer.
On the other hand, if the League has been mute on this topic, I guess by default the regular rules would apply and all the baselines for individual incentives would be set at zero. That would create a neat loophole or, as clickbait headline writers would put it: “ONE WEIRD TRICK SMART GMs ARE USING TO SAVE CAP SPACE IN 2021!”
What Solder is really thinking will take a while to play out. If he retired, wouldn’t he be liable to pay back a portion of his signing bonus? Maybe the reports were right, he is leaning to retirement, but wants NYG to make the move, which would let him off the hook. Who knows.
Very astute. We’d have to read the contract but Solder refusing of his own volition to abide by its terms might trigger such a repayment and it could be as high as $8mm (the unamortized portion of his signing bonus). Note that there is no $4mm roster bonus due this March, unlike in 2020 and 2021, so it’s not like he’s hoping for a payout while the Giants delay a decision, but the bonus clawback is a possibility.
MojoEd/Cosmicj: Right. There s no necessary contradiction...
... between these two premises:
1) The Giants are unlikely to pursue a clawback of Nate Solder’s bonus;
and
2) The possibility of a clawback may be affecting the communication from Solder’s side.
Also, it could be in the team’s interest to maintain the threat of a clawback, even if they have no intention of pursuing one.
It was a shitty deal because he never performed as was expected. Get rid of him. Move on. Quit beating a dead horse.
Part of me feels this exact same way! Bad deal, part ways, move on.
Then I realize the cap and the need for a swing tackle. I do believe Peart will win the RT job and Thomas stays at LT. The key is how bad does Solder really want it? And is he capable at his age and after missing a year.
...I mean, who could have foreseen that he'd be THAT bad. Worse than Flowers even...
But this probably will go down as the worst free agent signing is Giants history.
The entire blueprint for the 2018 Giants was ill-conceived: A final title run for Eli Manning behind a line of Solder-Hernandez-Halapio-Omameh-Flowers, with a running back whose pass-blocking ability was pure projection? And the offense was supposed to be the team’s strength.
Overall, the 2018 NYG FA class was one for the history books.
Here are the vets they have more than one-year
qualifying deals:
LB/DE Kareem Martin (Signed by Giants; 3-Years, $15 million)
LT Nate Solder (Signed by Giants; 4-Years, $62 million)
OG Patrick Omameh (Signed by Giants; 3-Years, $15 million)
WR Cody Latimer (Signed by Giants; 1-Year, $2.5 million)
S Michael Thomas (Signed by Giants; 2-Years, $4 million)
LB Connor Barwin (Signed by Giants; 2-Years, $5 million)
RB Jonathan Stewart (Signed by Giants; 2-Years, $6.9 million)
Thomas was a special-teams leader and not horrible when he had to play defense. The rest? Yikes.
The vet-min signings like Riley and Mauro stunk too, but at least they were cheap.
The graph in the link is illustrative of how bad the Giants have performed in FA since 2017, and how big spending on FA doesn't correlate to wins. Link - ( New Window )
The graph in the link is illustrative of how bad the Giants have performed in FA since 2017, and how big spending on FA doesn't correlate to wins. Link - ( New Window )
Go Terps -- Tampa Bay is right there with the Giants on that chart
But obviously performed much better in their spending. But look at the general trend. The upper right quadrant (teams that have spent a lot AND enjoyed success on the field) is almost empty.
The bottom right quadrant (which includes the Giants) is heavily populated by what would generally be thought of as the worst run teams in the NFL.
generally I think it's true that spending your way out problems doesn't work -- but that chart does not support the theory you are advancing as Cleveland and Buffalo are to the right of the Giants on spending and have had better results - particularly Buffalo
That's because Buffalo is far more competently run than NYG
I didn't create the graph. It's pretty clear: the best teams over the last four years spend the least in FA. The worst spend the most. We can probably infer that's in large part due to poor drafting and general poor management by the poor teams, of which the Giants clearly are one.
It's fine that you don't like that reality. I don't either. But pretending the situation is otherwise is pretty silly.
Spending a lot of money in FA is typically not the
best strategy to build a consistent winner, but it works if it’s a player here or there.
The only free agent spending spree we have went on in the modern FA era that panned out was 2005 when we got Pierce, McKenzie, and Plax. Unless you want to count the mirage of 2016.
Carl Banks uses this term for guys that are drafted high or have some other investment from management. These are guys that are not performing on the field but which the Giants won’t move on from because it’s an admission of poor choice. Solder’s sunk cost is no reason to keep him on the team.
I asked Carl Banks about this on Twitter and he said he doesn’t consider Solder to be a scholarship player. He said Solders issues were talent and health. I guess I misunderstood that part of being a scholarship player was a lack of work effort. I remember CB used to say that Eli Apple was a scholarship player. Can’t remember some of the others. Anyway... how cool is that CB has conversations with the fans on Twitter?!
Well there is actually. As of now, cutting him outright comes with a 10.5 mill cap his. If you restructure him to where he makes more than the two guys mentioned but less than that dead cap, it absolutely makes sense to bring him back for say 6/7 mill. Plus, he is a better player than both the guys you mentioned.
That's not how it works at all.
The 10.5M dead cap the Giants would incur from cutting Solder is inescapable. That is bonus that has been paid. It will either hit all in 2021, or split between 21/22.
Nate Solder's hypothetical cap charge in 2021 will be 6.5M plus any salary.
In what world does it make sense to pay Nate Solder another 7M dollars, when the going rate for a swing tackle is far below that number?
And you really think Solder is better? - ( New Window )
I didn't realize that dead cap was IN ADDITION to what he is being paid.
I DO think he is a better option than Fleming, though not be a lot. Youre correct in that he is not worth 7 mill if thats the case. It would have to be down to 4/5 million to be worthwhile for us to not end it with him. I would take him for that.
Like I mentioned earlier $3-4M a year (total), or see ya....
The guy didn't even play last season and our OL was improved/better! He has a clear distraction in his family life, is aging, and is over paid at this point. I think he retires and he should.
- His head's not in winning SB's; it's in preserving what little he has left in his tank for $$$.
- He already raped us in a ROI perspective since we signed him.
What makes anyone think he would be better even at a lower cost? The guy has sucked since we took him on and is a backup from here on out, at best.
Kev in Cali: We really have little idea what Solder is in 2021.
He was a huge disappointment in 2018 and 2019, and a predictable scratch in 2020. It's anyone's guess where his head and body are after a year off.
I think you're out of line assuming that his motives for not retiring are exclusively financial, and your assertion that he "raped" the Giants implies a level of malice and deceit on his part that has never been in evidence. (There's also no reason to use that language - there are probably 50 other words that describe his NYG tenure more aptly.)
The team needs to assess Solder without prejudice. His bonus money is a sunk cost, and his past poor performance is only one factor. If there is a price at which he potentially makes the Giants a better team in 2021, Gettleman and Abrams should pursue a deal on that basis.
I didn't create the graph. It's pretty clear: the best teams over the last four years spend the least in FA. The worst spend the most. We can probably infer that's in large part due to poor drafting and general poor management by the poor teams, of which the Giants clearly are one.
It's fine that you don't like that reality. I don't either. But pretending the situation is otherwise is pretty silly.
If you are basing these comments on the graph then your graph does not support your statement at all - it contradicts you emphatically with a big Buffalo and smaller Tampa Bay and Cleveland. As usual your narrative is independent of any factual basis to back it up. I'm sure it matters not to you -- but the rest of us like to indulge ourselves with actual evidence as opposed to empty statements without support which is what you have written above -
What constitutes 'free agent spending'? If you re-sign your own UFAs, is that excluded from the graph? I'm guessing "Yes" (coincidentally many of those teams in the middle/upper left have high priced QBs they drafted/traded for long ago), which then begs the question...why? Why does it matter if you spend your $$ retaining players you drafted vs players drafted elsewhere?
What constitutes 'free agent spending'? If you re-sign your own UFAs, is that excluded from the graph? I'm guessing "Yes" (coincidentally many of those teams in the middle/upper left have high priced QBs they drafted/traded for long ago), which then begs the question...why? Why does it matter if you spend your $$ retaining players you drafted vs players drafted elsewhere?
I think the chart is being used to support the argument that acquiring free agents from other teams to address identified gaps does not often correlate to improvement.
I guess as far as cause and effect go, what makes the most sense is simply this: there are a lot of poorly run teams in the NFL, probably more than well-run ones. And teams poorly run enough to assemble a weak roster through the draft are likely poorly run enough to acquire the wrong players and/or give them the wrong contracts in FA.
That's not how it works at all.
The 10.5M dead cap the Giants would incur from cutting Solder is inescapable. That is bonus that has been paid. It will either hit all in 2021, or split between 21/22.
Nate Solder's hypothetical cap charge in 2021 will be 6.5M plus any salary.
In what world does it make sense to pay Nate Solder another 7M dollars, when the going rate for a swing tackle is far below that number?
And you really think Solder is better? - ( New Window )
Exactly. I have all the compassion in the world for the guy. He was a champion with NE, and his child's health is an unimaginable situation.
But Solder played well in NE through his own health struggles and his son's.
I think pinning his poor play on his off-the-field life is a disservice to how well he played previously.
He's just old, not very good anymore, and playing on far less talented team, with a far less good position coach, with a far less good QB.
Solder is getting a certain amount of $ regardless, so if he takes that amount as a pay cut, and next season basically the dead cap to cut him is minimal fine. If NYG were to try and re-sign Fleming (just an example of a swing tackle) that’d be $2-$3M on top of them cutting Solder. If there’s a way to keep him at that number, fine and worst case is he says no and gets cut.
The best I'd offer him is a $2M non-guaranteed.
The best I'd offer him is a $2M non-guaranteed.
Seriously, this isn't really about the money.
He's done...
This said.....I'd pay him $3-4MIL as a reserve. He's toast.
Bottom line is if he can still play like he did the 2nd half of 2018, well, he may still start with Peart the swing. But after his horrible 2019 and a year off how can anyone be sure he isn't more than camp fodder? I just don't know but am hopefully all three rookies from last year pan out and are solid NFL starters who market his offense finally click.
That is your going rate for a swing tackle. Both of those guys are available, and played better football when called upon than Nate Solder did in 2019.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason Nate Solder should earn more than that next year.
Quote:
Just for context, remember the Cardinals paid Kelvin Beachum $1M dollars to be their swing tackle last year, and the Giants paid Cam Fleming $3.4M dollars.
That is your going rate for a swing tackle. Both of those guys are available, and played better football when called upon than Nate Solder did in 2019.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason Nate Solder should earn more than that next year.
yes. Solder’s max base salary should be $1.5mm and I am skeptical he can make it out of training camp even with that reduction.
He wouldn't go...
If the baseline is 2019, straightforward playing time incentives would be LTBE, because Solder started every game that year. That means the incentives would tie up 2021 cap space. Anything he didn’t earn would add cap space in 2022, but they need the space now. Of course, they could restructure other deals in anticipation of having extra space in 2022, but every move has a cost.
My guess is that 2019 will be the baseline. That’s just an inference, based on the contracts having tolled for a year. Anyone have better info on this point?
The spirit of the opt out was to make it like 2020 didn't happen for the player. So I suspect any incentives would be based on 2019.
1. Yeah he sucks but we gotta pay him anyway.
2. Yeah, he sucked but trust Judge knows best and can fix him.
3. Yeah, he sucked but maybe he’s better now that he took a year off.
4. Yeah, he sucked but maybe we can get him as cheap as other guys who suck.
I don’t find any of these arguments compelling or likely to help the Giants get better. None of this gives me confidence in the leadership of the team. Color me simple but I just feel like if a guy sucks, he shouldn’t be on the team. If you make a bad decision, learn and move on as quickly as possible. Solder was a bad decision. Time to move on.
I'll channel Go Terps for a moment. If the Giants hadn't spent big resources on him in the first place, and he played this bad, would they go in circles to keep him?
Absolutely not. But my guess at the Giants' offer of a "restructure" to Solder is something like this:
"Dude you're a backup OT right now with some small chance of starting at RT if you clearly beat out Matt Peart, who is more or less the spittin' image of who you were about 12 years ago. If your camp bsttle is close, Peart will start and you'll be the swing backup."
"Considering what we are ALREADY overpaying for your services to play (or to sit on the bench) we'll add one - two million per year (maybe more but only tied to actual snap counts as performance bonuses) to your dead cap amortized signing bonus to keep you around for another two years just to get something, ANYTHING, back from the outrageous overpay we doled out to you 3 years ago."
He'd better cost less in additional salary to what it would take to retain Fleming.
On the other hand, if the League has been mute on this topic, I guess by default the regular rules would apply and all the baselines for individual incentives would be set at zero. That would create a neat loophole or, as clickbait headline writers would put it: “ONE WEIRD TRICK SMART GMs ARE USING TO SAVE CAP SPACE IN 2021!”
Multiple reporters had stories saying that Solder was going to retire.
I understand that he may have not known that point, or maybe they were misinformed, but then don’t report the story.
I think it is very clear that at this point, the bloggers, podcasters, and fans have a stronger understanding of this team in the reporters do.
Now this I disagree with. Fans may see it this way but fans often want players to be punished for lack of performance by firing them.
The reality is rookies are cheap labor. There's no rush to cut them.
1) The Giants are unlikely to pursue a clawback of Nate Solder’s bonus;
and
2) The possibility of a clawback may be affecting the communication from Solder’s side.
Also, it could be in the team’s interest to maintain the threat of a clawback, even if they have no intention of pursuing one.
Then I realize the cap and the need for a swing tackle. I do believe Peart will win the RT job and Thomas stays at LT. The key is how bad does Solder really want it? And is he capable at his age and after missing a year.
But this probably will go down as the worst free agent signing is Giants history.
But this probably will go down as the worst free agent signing is Giants history.
qualifying deals:
LB/DE Kareem Martin (Signed by Giants; 3-Years, $15 million)
LT Nate Solder (Signed by Giants; 4-Years, $62 million)
OG Patrick Omameh (Signed by Giants; 3-Years, $15 million)
WR Cody Latimer (Signed by Giants; 1-Year, $2.5 million)
S Michael Thomas (Signed by Giants; 2-Years, $4 million)
LB Connor Barwin (Signed by Giants; 2-Years, $5 million)
RB Jonathan Stewart (Signed by Giants; 2-Years, $6.9 million)
Thomas was a special-teams leader and not horrible when he had to play defense. The rest? Yikes.
The vet-min signings like Riley and Mauro stunk too, but at least they were cheap.
Link - ( New Window )
Go Terps -- Tampa Bay is right there with the Giants on that chart
The bottom right quadrant (which includes the Giants) is heavily populated by what would generally be thought of as the worst run teams in the NFL.
but Buffalo, Cleveland and Tampa's position on that graph refute your comment.
Clearly there's a message in that graph: spending big in FA isn't a route to success in the NFL.
It's fine that you don't like that reality. I don't either. But pretending the situation is otherwise is pretty silly.
The only free agent spending spree we have went on in the modern FA era that panned out was 2005 when we got Pierce, McKenzie, and Plax. Unless you want to count the mirage of 2016.
I asked Carl Banks about this on Twitter and he said he doesn’t consider Solder to be a scholarship player. He said Solders issues were talent and health. I guess I misunderstood that part of being a scholarship player was a lack of work effort. I remember CB used to say that Eli Apple was a scholarship player. Can’t remember some of the others. Anyway... how cool is that CB has conversations with the fans on Twitter?!
Quote:
Well there is actually. As of now, cutting him outright comes with a 10.5 mill cap his. If you restructure him to where he makes more than the two guys mentioned but less than that dead cap, it absolutely makes sense to bring him back for say 6/7 mill. Plus, he is a better player than both the guys you mentioned.
That's not how it works at all.
The 10.5M dead cap the Giants would incur from cutting Solder is inescapable. That is bonus that has been paid. It will either hit all in 2021, or split between 21/22.
Nate Solder's hypothetical cap charge in 2021 will be 6.5M plus any salary.
In what world does it make sense to pay Nate Solder another 7M dollars, when the going rate for a swing tackle is far below that number?
And you really think Solder is better? - ( New Window )
I didn't realize that dead cap was IN ADDITION to what he is being paid.
I DO think he is a better option than Fleming, though not be a lot. Youre correct in that he is not worth 7 mill if thats the case. It would have to be down to 4/5 million to be worthwhile for us to not end it with him. I would take him for that.
- His head's not in winning SB's; it's in preserving what little he has left in his tank for $$$.
- He already raped us in a ROI perspective since we signed him.
What makes anyone think he would be better even at a lower cost? The guy has sucked since we took him on and is a backup from here on out, at best.
I think you're out of line assuming that his motives for not retiring are exclusively financial, and your assertion that he "raped" the Giants implies a level of malice and deceit on his part that has never been in evidence. (There's also no reason to use that language - there are probably 50 other words that describe his NYG tenure more aptly.)
The team needs to assess Solder without prejudice. His bonus money is a sunk cost, and his past poor performance is only one factor. If there is a price at which he potentially makes the Giants a better team in 2021, Gettleman and Abrams should pursue a deal on that basis.
It's fine that you don't like that reality. I don't either. But pretending the situation is otherwise is pretty silly.
If you are basing these comments on the graph then your graph does not support your statement at all - it contradicts you emphatically with a big Buffalo and smaller Tampa Bay and Cleveland. As usual your narrative is independent of any factual basis to back it up. I'm sure it matters not to you -- but the rest of us like to indulge ourselves with actual evidence as opposed to empty statements without support which is what you have written above -
I think the chart is being used to support the argument that acquiring free agents from other teams to address identified gaps does not often correlate to improvement.
I guess as far as cause and effect go, what makes the most sense is simply this: there are a lot of poorly run teams in the NFL, probably more than well-run ones. And teams poorly run enough to assemble a weak roster through the draft are likely poorly run enough to acquire the wrong players and/or give them the wrong contracts in FA.
Low free agent spending in a window of time is a symptom of 3 things:
- Rolling over money
- Small purchases
- Getting good returns as older, larger contract mature
The top left quadrant is absolutely where you want to be. Six of the eight Super Bowl participants are in that quadrant.