|
|
|
| Quote: |
“New England was good,” an evaluator said. “It cost a lot of money, but they had to do something to try to turn it around there. I put the Giants in the same category. They spent too much money relative to what they acquired, but they needed to acquire what they acquired Some teams operate from a position of strength during free agency. The 2021 Giants were not one of them. Leonard Williams held the leverage in negotiations as a player the team acquired via trade, helping him land a three-year, $63 million contract to rank behind only Joey Bosa, Myles Garrett and Aaron Donald among defensive linemen. The Giants paid $18 million a year for Kenny Golladay when the next receiver in free agency earned $12.5 million. They paid $13 million a year for cornerback Adoree Jackson, who actually got a raise over what he was earning from Tennessee, the team that cut him. “What they paid was ridiculous to me, but who they got wasn’t a problem,” an exec said. “They had trouble getting receivers to go there, so the Golladay deal is kind of what happens. I don’t know how they got Adoree Jackson to $13 million. Adoree is talented but has been hurt a lot. Kyle Rudolph can be a good signing because they can go to 12 personnel now and be really good.” Giants owner John Mara acknowledged the high prices, joking that critics can call the team stupid, but not cheap. “The Adoree Jackson deal was inexcusable,” an exec said. “And then they went and jeopardized their future cap by converting guys to get all these deals done. The potential for disaster is high.” The team is betting on Golladay, who missed 11 games last season, and Jackson, who missed 18 games over the past two seasons. Rudolph is 31 and missed four games last season after a five-year run without missing any. “Going into free agency, the cap was lower and a lot of teams did not have much ammo,” an evaluator said. “The longer you waited, the bigger the bargains were going to be. Adoree Jackson was late in the process. He should have been a bargain, and he wasn’t. That was questionable.” |
WR didn't want to go to Giants...really? Ridiculous
Lets see what players sign for next year....when cap starts to skyrocket
Garafolo compared it to the Cardinals dropping the 5th yr option on Antrel Rolle. They did it with intentions to bring him back at a reduced price. Giants plucked him and gave him big money. We all know how that ended. Risky? Sure, but every move be it FA or the draft carries a risk.
Here is the operative phrase ". . .who they got wasn’t a problem." Exactly. I am sure some of these execs are jealous because Mara and Tisch handed the checkbook over to Dave and Joe and these execs had to go shop the discounted items aisle. I am sure some of them now have issues extending their own players after seeing guys with injury issues cash in. And no doubt there are some who don't think the spending was very wise.
Don't care. They got players and these other execs can cry a river when we are in the playoffs.
Ultimately, the QB is a massive advantage financially for the next couple years, and they need to take advantage of that window.
A related point I've seen noted is that Kraft played the key role in new NFL media deal negotiations, and likely has as good a sense as any owner in future cap value. And he of course spent a boatload this offseason like the Giants, perhaps seeing it as an opportunity before the new deal kicked in.
I thought that point would be acknowledged by a NFL exec. His salary isn't prohibitive.
On top of that, the way the contracts are structured, we could reasonably move on from most of these guys after a couple of years if needed. And the cap is expected to rise significantly.
Golladay is a little bit on the higher end of the WR landscape but he still got 12m less guaranteed than Amari Cooper did last year and 2m less per year. He got a similar deal to what Stephon Diggs ($72m) received. And Robert Woods ($65m). 2 years ago Brandon Cooks got $81 with $50m in guarantees. Again there's injury risk with Golladay but I don't think there's much question about what he brings on the field and $28m guaranteed is not excessive.
And it is objectively false that he's being paid like a top receiver. Hopkins' $27.25m AAV is almost $10m more per year. Julio Jones is at $22m. When Tyreek Hill hits UFA in a couple years he will easily exceed $20m/year if he keeps playing well. Davante Adams is likely to extend at some point over the next 12 months and I'd guess he tops Hopkins.
Washington gave William Jackson III more money. Is he some uncovered stud stuck in Cincinnati? No, he's a good player and he's also already 28. Adoree is 25. Who got the better value there? Let's ask the exec...
If these FA signings improve the Giants significantly, then no one is gonna criticize these figures all that much.
And if these FA signings amount to nothing at all, well then, release the hounds.
Also, can we stop with the Golladay contract being compared to one year deals. If the Giants offer him lets say $14 mil per year then he laughs, moves on, and takes the best one year deal to get to FA next year with a larger cap hit.
What this article also seems to miss is this is like buying expensive houses prior to the pandemic. Nobody is looking at someone who bought an expensive house in 2019 and saying 8t wasn't worth it now. Everyone and their mother knows this cap is going to significantly increase so the time to buy was this year.
I have been adamant how the Giants completely mishandled the Leonard Williams situation and I wasn't even mad at the initial trade. I wouldn't have done that but I understood the thought process. What I didn't agree with was tagging him last year. At the best they should have either given him the TT or the non-exclusive tag and let him shop himself around. Tagging him gave him a floor to negotiate from. Tagging him a second time made that floor higher. I wouldn't have done that but it is done and Leonard Williams is a great player and teammate so it is time to move on.
They did not fuck up their cap for the future. They won't be big spenders in the future but they aren't crippled by it either. And, as the article says, the Giants weren't in a position of strength. If this FA period pays off then in the future they will be negotiating from a position of strength giving them the ability to be patient and get deals to fill in the cracks. The key is drafting well. We were bad for so long that some of these moves were necessary to help fast track us to a better team while not destroying our future cap.
Quote:
at the money Jackson got is hilarious to me. His contract makes him the 15th highest paid CB in the NFL.
I thought that point would be acknowledged by a NFL exec. His salary isn't prohibitive.
On top of that, the way the contracts are structured, we could reasonably move on from most of these guys after a couple of years if needed. And the cap is expected to rise significantly.
Exactly, the longest deal we have out was 4 years to Golladay and I believe we have an out after year 3 if it doesn’t work out. It’s not like we signed these players to 5 or 6 year contracts.
The off-season has been a shocker but definetly a positive surprise. That is how I see ... as they say "scared money don't win."
The rest, would look as bad as the exec said if not for the fact the cap will go up quite a bit. It's calculated, but I've seen this franchise make worse financial decisions.
The Giants wanted to find guys they liked, and lock them down. All players have injury risk. Some of these guys will miss time. That’s the NFL. But if they mostly stay mostly healthy, we got better. We needed to do that badly. These guys are proven NFL players, not “hope they develop” draft picks.
But, isn't that basically always the case?
If you look across the roster the only mainstay that is up for a new contract next year is Peppers, who I feel will not ask for a fortune to stay here as he seems happy to be a Giant given the recruiting he has been doing. I’m sure he’ll get paid but I see him possibly being extended this offseason or during the season.
We have a lot of young players on cost controlled contracts for the next few years is my point overall. That gives you the flexibility to overspend a little to fill in the gaps.
The Giants spent $170 million on three players this offseason. If any of those three have to be cut, or get injured, we have a huge cap hit that will prevent the team from keeping its own players (see Tomlinson as the latest example).
The counter-argument has always been, "What choice did the Giants have?!"
The did have a choice. They could have chosen not to give huge contracts to Olivier Vernon, Nate Solder, etc., bit the bullet, acquired draft picks (including comp picks), and rebuilt through the draft and cheap free agents.
The Giants are obviously all-in for the upcoming season. The division isn't very good and they know it. But if you look at the schedule, it's a bitch. We play both Super Bowl teams. If the Giants are 10-6, then the fans will be happy. But if this team is 6-10 again?
The question with him is durability and suiting up. If he's healthy he's a high quality corner and a huge upgrade from what they had.
New York Giants Player Salaries - ( New Window )
The only part that matters is the guaranteed dollars and the cap hits associated with them spread out over the length.
If the Giants did nothing - I imagine you would have said "well - now we are only relying on Gettleman to find good players in the draft, and his draft record has been below average" or something to that effect.
There has to be some type of balance.
The Giants spent $170 million on three players this offseason. If any of those three have to be cut, or get injured, we have a huge cap hit that will prevent the team from keeping its own players (see Tomlinson as the latest example).
The counter-argument has always been, "What choice did the Giants have?!"
The did have a choice. They could have chosen not to give huge contracts to Olivier Vernon, Nate Solder, etc., bit the bullet, acquired draft picks (including comp picks), and rebuilt through the draft and cheap free agents.
The Giants are obviously all-in for the upcoming season. The division isn't very good and they know it. But if you look at the schedule, it's a bitch. We play both Super Bowl teams. If the Giants are 10-6, then the fans will be happy. But if this team is 6-10 again?
I agree there is risk Eric, but the signings this season seemed a lot more targeted than Reese’s splurge on Vernon, Jenkins, and Snacks. Golladay has been a more established player and fits a need we have had for years which is a tall receiver who can make contested catches and he is still young. Jackson is only 25 and is a perfect complement to Bradberry. There are also connections between him and Logan Ryan and Peppers which should bring some continuity to the team. The rest of the signings are mostly low cost low risk 1-2 year deals.
The Giants nailed free agency with the players and the executed contracts and these other executives are just missing it?
i don't think any of their "name" FA signings are a lock to make it through a full season. far from it. so it's not somuch that they overpayed, it's that they overpaid for injury-prone skill position players, on a team already full of injury-prone skill position players (shepard, engram, barkley).
I'm not trying to wring my hands about something that has a great many unknowns. Cap increase/player development/contract details.
IMV, the other GMs are just a bit jelly.
The only part that matters is the guaranteed dollars and the cap hits associated with them spread out over the length.
Yes and no. The Giants have backloaded a number of contracts to a serious degree. Yes, all teams do this, but look at the base salaries of Bradberry, Martinez, Williams, Golladay, Shepard, Rudolph, Jackson, and Ryan. They explode in coming years. The Giants had to switch salary to bonus money with the contracts of Bradberry and Martinez ONLY after one year just to create room because they have so much dead money. What happens with Jones and Barkley get their second contracts?
Everyone keeps saying the salary cap is going to go way, way up. The Giants had better pray it does. (Many of the other teams are not acting like they are convinced it will.... on average, teams are currently over $14 million under the cap).
Significant yes but a far cry from what they did in 2016 when they gave out $106m to free agents who had never put on a jersey here.
The Pats spent on $168m in full guarantees this offseason and I believe almost all of that was for UFAs (not extensions).
As mentioned earlier the big risk difference I see is on the injury side, not the $ side.
Would you rather have a run stuffer or athletic CB? That’s rhetorical in today’s NFL.
And escalating salaries are irrelevant. That structure is preferable to bonuses. If they player does not perform, he is cut with limited dead money. Fine by me.
The Giants nailed free agency with the players and the executed contracts and these other executives are just missing it?
I don't think they are missing it, but id be curious to know which Execs it is so we can all look at their resumes.
What they say is fair but atleast from what's posted here, none address that the cap will go back up and these can technically all be discount contracts as soon as 2022.
Should NFL executives provide that level of detail in their analysis?
The object is to win. You don't get a field goal multiplier for being the team with the least risk.
It's a sport.
"Wtf is Tyree doing in there?"
Perfect example of critique by complaining about risk.
" Just make sure they have to throw it to Manningham "
Some of us have gotten so used to complaining we complain "something could go wrong" as if that truth is useful analysis.
It's also true that if you get out of bed and get hit by lightning walking to your car in the driveway...its on you for taking that risk. Anyone live that way? Then why obssess about the risks needed to win in a sport?
Hell, NE took hell of a risk on one QB for 10 years or more. The risk of severe injury and not winning again against 31 other teams only goes up. Why pay a dime for that? Something could go wrong.
Why station three carriers north of Midway? Something could go wrong.
Why ride a bicycle? Something could go wrong.
Why enter the event Mr Phelps? You could drown.
Would you rather have a run stuffer or athletic CB? That’s rhetorical in today’s NFL.
And escalating salaries are irrelevant. That structure is preferable to bonuses. If they player does not perform, he is cut with limited dead money. Fine by me.
The "irrelevant" argument has been made by BBIers for the past 10 years. The results seem to suggest it may be relevant after all.
A significant chunk of this team's salary cap is being taken up by players who are no longer on the roster. Again.
No draft choices and no contracts. We keep the money.
After all, we would lose 17 games at the most but we would have spent nothing.
The above it true. Is it insightful?
The object is to win. You don't get a field goal multiplier for being the team with the least risk.
It's a sport.
"Wtf is Tyree doing in there?"
Perfect example of critique by complaining about risk.
" Just make sure they have to throw it to Manningham "
Some of us have gotten so used to complaining we complain "something could go wrong" as if that truth is useful analysis.
It's also true that if you get out of bed and get hit by lightning walking to your car in the driveway...its on you for taking that risk. Anyone live that way? Then why obssess about the risks needed to win in a sport?
Hell, NE took hell of a risk on one QB for 10 years or more. The risk of severe injury and not winning again against 31 other teams only goes up. Why pay a dime for that? Something could go wrong.
Why station three carriers north of Midway? Something could go wrong.
Why ride a bicycle? Something could go wrong.
Why enter the event Mr Phelps? You could drown.
Also if we accept the premise that WR was the teams #1 need pre-KG to the point that the first round pick "almost had to be" a WR, a rookie WR would have come with just as many if not more risks. The risk calculation goes both ways - a risk taken on was a different risk hedged.