|
|
|
| Quote: |
Williams is No. 7 on a list of the NFL’s best defensive tackles assembled by ESPN. The list was compiled by asking more than 50 coaches, execs, and scouts from across the NFL. The participants gave their best 10 to 15 players at the positing and then ESPN collated the information to formulate their list. Defensive tackle has arguablybeen the Giants strongest position group on the roster, and the deepest. New York just retained Williams by signing him to a three-year, $63 million deal with $45 million guaranteed. Let’s take a look at the rest of the list: Aaron Donald, Rams Chris Jones, Chiefs DeForest Buckner, Colts Cam Heyward, Steelers Fletcher Cox, Eagles Jeffery Simmons, Titans Leonard Williams, Giants Stephon Tuitt, Steelers Vita Vea, Buccaneers Grady Jarrett, Falcons Also receiving votes were Washington’s Jonathan Allen, Jets’ Quinnen Williams, Cardinals’ J.J. Watt, Bears’ Akiem Hicks, Saints’ David Onyemata, Chiefs Jarran Reed, 49ers Arik Armstead, and Ravens’ Calais Cambell. The list is full of talented players, so it’s not a huge surprise that Williams is not ranked higher. He’s coming off a season with the highest amount of pressures and sacks which earned him the contract extension. He aligned all over Patrick Graham’s defense and did an excellent job with just about everything he was asked to do. |
You have no leverage as a GM; but you do have leverage if a player is franchise tagged.
A great move to get a 6th overall pick in his prime for a 3rd round pick.
Boy did that trade work out. We got lucky there.
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
I have a hard time putting anyone but Aaron Donald and Chris Jones above him.
Quote:
terrible thought process to obtain...
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
Actually it wasn’t. It was poorly executed from the start. But they got their man in the end despite the delay and eventual higher cost to obtain.
And it’s a not a DG thing. He targeted a good player, he just couldn’t figure out a way to sign on him on NYG terms...
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
LW arrived midway through'19 and was solid, not great. So the advantage seemed to be with the Giants heading into that offseason negotiation.
Yet, DG couldn't get a deal and Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.
So now that the ink is dry on the contract, how exactly did DG "win"?
Quote:
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
LW arrived midway through'19 and was solid, not great. So the advantage seemed to be with the Giants heading into that offseason negotiation.
Yet, DG couldn't get a deal and Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.
So now that the ink is dry on the contract, how exactly did DG "win"?
Is that a serious question? He “won” because he signed a 26 year-old stud in his prime. Sure it was higher than he would have liked, but he secured the guy he wanted. That’s a win as I see it
Some here are so stuck on there track they’r ride it like a train off a cliff in Back to the Future III!
Some of you guys are absolutely something; absurd, delusional, moronic, stubborn, pessimistic, bitter, who knows.
Not name calling - just attributes - temporary or permanent.
If anyone said we could trade 3rd pick for an elite DT in his prime and he we had him signed for long-term deal who would complain.
The same people complaining couldn’t sniff an NFL GM position if they lived 10 lifetimes.
Is that a serious question? He “won” because he signed a 26 year-old stud in his prime. Sure it was higher than he would have liked, but he secured the guy he wanted. That’s a win as I see it
Exactly. But remember who you’re arguing with.
Quote:
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
LW arrived midway through'19 and was solid, not great. So the advantage seemed to be with the Giants heading into that offseason negotiation.
Yet, DG couldn't get a deal and Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.
So now that the ink is dry on the contract, how exactly did DG "win"?
You do understand that you contradict yourself here.
“Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.”
As you admit, it was team LW that made that call which they could do no matter what DG wanted or tried to do. DG couldn’t force them to sign. They played their hand and won. That’s not on DG that’s a good move by team LW as you yourself explained.
Quote:
In comment 15300334 BillT said:
Quote:
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
LW arrived midway through'19 and was solid, not great. So the advantage seemed to be with the Giants heading into that offseason negotiation.
Yet, DG couldn't get a deal and Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.
So now that the ink is dry on the contract, how exactly did DG "win"?
You do understand that you contradict yourself here.
“Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.”
As you admit, it was team LW that made that call which they could do no matter what DG wanted or tried to do. DG couldn’t force them to sign. They played their hand and won. That’s not on DG that’s a good move by team LW as you yourself explained.
Thank you. I m reading these criticisms of DG not being able to get a deal done, and I m thinking, how is it his fault that Williams wanted to gamble on himself and wait for elite money.
Quote:
In comment 15300362 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15300334 BillT said:
Quote:
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
LW arrived midway through'19 and was solid, not great. So the advantage seemed to be with the Giants heading into that offseason negotiation.
Yet, DG couldn't get a deal and Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.
So now that the ink is dry on the contract, how exactly did DG "win"?
You do understand that you contradict yourself here.
“Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.”
As you admit, it was team LW that made that call which they could do no matter what DG wanted or tried to do. DG couldn’t force them to sign. They played their hand and won. That’s not on DG that’s a good move by team LW as you yourself explained.
Thank you. I m reading these criticisms of DG not being able to get a deal done, and I m thinking, how is it his fault that Williams wanted to gamble on himself and wait for elite money.
Because he should have KNOWN BETTER and not made the trade. 😎
Some here are so stuck on there track they’r ride it like a train off a cliff in Back to the Future III!
Some of you guys are absolutely something; absurd, delusional, moronic, stubborn, pessimistic, bitter, who knows.
Not name calling - just attributes - temporary or permanent.
If anyone said we could trade 3rd pick for an elite DT in his prime and he we had him signed for long-term deal who would complain.
The same people complaining couldn’t sniff an NFL GM position if they lived 10 lifetimes.
I remember the good old days where bitching about LW's "massive" deal meant we couldn't possibly have any cap room to sign any other free agents and we'd have to stand pat. If those guys couldn't sniff a GM position, hell would freeze over before they could be capologists!
It was so poorly executed from the start yet he's a Giant despite the fact that 31 other teams would love to have it...
Quote:
In comment 15300321 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
terrible thought process to obtain...
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
Actually it wasn’t. It was poorly executed from the start. But they got their man in the end despite the delay and eventual higher cost to obtain.
And it’s a not a DG thing. He targeted a good player, he just couldn’t figure out a way to sign on him on NYG terms...
Quote:
Thank you!
Some here are so stuck on there track they’r ride it like a train off a cliff in Back to the Future III!
Some of you guys are absolutely something; absurd, delusional, moronic, stubborn, pessimistic, bitter, who knows.
Not name calling - just attributes - temporary or permanent.
If anyone said we could trade 3rd pick for an elite DT in his prime and he we had him signed for long-term deal who would complain.
The same people complaining couldn’t sniff an NFL GM position if they lived 10 lifetimes.
I remember the good old days where bitching about LW's "massive" deal meant we couldn't possibly have any cap room to sign any other free agents and we'd have to stand pat. If those guys couldn't sniff a GM position, hell would freeze over before they could be capologists!
This right here.
There is no way we can sign LW and other free agents! What? we signed some free agents? Ummm no no it was a bad trade all along because he couldn't be signed. Argument changes every time but the base line is the same. Gettleman hate
To each there own
If he’s a bust now it will be joke on the Giants but if he puts up a few more seasons like 2020 then no one but dug in Giants fans will care about the negotiations.
I say it all the time but I speak daily in group chat with my fantasy league team members, non are Giants fans and none of them even bring this stupid argument up. Pretty much no one thinks this is significant unless you are one one side of BBI or writing an article for clicks.
Quote:
Thank you!
Some here are so stuck on there track they’r ride it like a train off a cliff in Back to the Future III!
Some of you guys are absolutely something; absurd, delusional, moronic, stubborn, pessimistic, bitter, who knows.
Not name calling - just attributes - temporary or permanent.
If anyone said we could trade 3rd pick for an elite DT in his prime and he we had him signed for long-term deal who would complain.
The same people complaining couldn’t sniff an NFL GM position if they lived 10 lifetimes.
I remember the good old days where bitching about LW's "massive" deal meant we couldn't possibly have any cap room to sign any other free agents and we'd have to stand pat. If those guys couldn't sniff a GM position, hell would freeze over before they could be capologists!
Yup, I remember the good old days of early March 2021, when a lot of posters declared DG and Abrams abject failures bc we couldn’t sign any free agents - before free agency even began.
Signing LW at a home town discount was never going to happen, and wasn’t a pre-requisite for the trade to be a win for the Giants.
As others have said, I just really hope he continues to perform at or close to 2020 level for most of his deal. But he seems a pretty sound gamble on that front
Quote:
In comment 15300362 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15300334 BillT said:
Quote:
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
LW arrived midway through'19 and was solid, not great. So the advantage seemed to be with the Giants heading into that offseason negotiation.
Yet, DG couldn't get a deal and Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.
So now that the ink is dry on the contract, how exactly did DG "win"?
You do understand that you contradict yourself here.
“Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.”
As you admit, it was team LW that made that call which they could do no matter what DG wanted or tried to do. DG couldn’t force them to sign. They played their hand and won. That’s not on DG that’s a good move by team LW as you yourself explained.
Thank you. I m reading these criticisms of DG not being able to get a deal done, and I m thinking, how is it his fault that Williams wanted to gamble on himself and wait for elite money.
I don't think you can blame DG for LW betting on himself, but I do think it's a little bit funny (and very convenient) that all of the supporters of the trade at the time very vocally claimed that DG must already have a handshake agreement with LW and that he'd be signed to a new deal before free agency even opened (in 2020) - and that the deal would be team-friendly or else why would DG have traded for LW in the first place?
Instead, it took two tags and a top of the market contract.
DG got his man. But a lot of the nonsense that supporters of the trade were trying to claim at the time was pure fiction, as are most of their contortions to defend DG at all costs.
Quote:
In comment 15300381 Daniel in Kentucky said:
Quote:
Thank you!
Some here are so stuck on there track they’r ride it like a train off a cliff in Back to the Future III!
Some of you guys are absolutely something; absurd, delusional, moronic, stubborn, pessimistic, bitter, who knows.
Not name calling - just attributes - temporary or permanent.
If anyone said we could trade 3rd pick for an elite DT in his prime and he we had him signed for long-term deal who would complain.
The same people complaining couldn’t sniff an NFL GM position if they lived 10 lifetimes.
I remember the good old days where bitching about LW's "massive" deal meant we couldn't possibly have any cap room to sign any other free agents and we'd have to stand pat. If those guys couldn't sniff a GM position, hell would freeze over before they could be capologists!
Yup, I remember the good old days of early March 2021, when a lot of posters declared DG and Abrams abject failures bc we couldn’t sign any free agents - before free agency even began.
Signing LW at a home town discount was never going to happen, and wasn’t a pre-requisite for the trade to be a win for the Giants.
As others have said, I just really hope he continues to perform at or close to 2020 level for most of his deal. But he seems a pretty sound gamble on that front
As long as you also remember the posters on the other side of the argument who spent the end of the 2019 season claiming that DG already had a handshake agreement in place with LW and that it would indeed be a team-friendly price tag.
Or are we only remembering one side getting it wrong?
Quote:
In comment 15300397 BillT said:
Quote:
In comment 15300362 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15300334 BillT said:
Quote:
As it turned out it actually was quite a good thought process. But then there are those who wouldn’t give DG credit for anything no matter.
LW arrived midway through'19 and was solid, not great. So the advantage seemed to be with the Giants heading into that offseason negotiation.
Yet, DG couldn't get a deal and Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.
So now that the ink is dry on the contract, how exactly did DG "win"?
You do understand that you contradict yourself here.
“Team LW bet on themselves heading into '20.”
As you admit, it was team LW that made that call which they could do no matter what DG wanted or tried to do. DG couldn’t force them to sign. They played their hand and won. That’s not on DG that’s a good move by team LW as you yourself explained.
Thank you. I m reading these criticisms of DG not being able to get a deal done, and I m thinking, how is it his fault that Williams wanted to gamble on himself and wait for elite money.
I don't think you can blame DG for LW betting on himself, but I do think it's a little bit funny (and very convenient) that all of the supporters of the trade at the time very vocally claimed that DG must already have a handshake agreement with LW and that he'd be signed to a new deal before free agency even opened (in 2020) - and that the deal would be team-friendly or else why would DG have traded for LW in the first place?
Instead, it took two tags and a top of the market contract.
DG got his man. But a lot of the nonsense that supporters of the trade were trying to claim at the time was pure fiction, as are most of their contortions to defend DG at all costs.
That s true, I wasn’t one of those guys though, I just wanted Williams.
Quote:
In comment 15300440 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
In comment 15300381 Daniel in Kentucky said:
Quote:
Thank you!
Some here are so stuck on there track they’r ride it like a train off a cliff in Back to the Future III!
Some of you guys are absolutely something; absurd, delusional, moronic, stubborn, pessimistic, bitter, who knows.
Not name calling - just attributes - temporary or permanent.
If anyone said we could trade 3rd pick for an elite DT in his prime and he we had him signed for long-term deal who would complain.
The same people complaining couldn’t sniff an NFL GM position if they lived 10 lifetimes.
I remember the good old days where bitching about LW's "massive" deal meant we couldn't possibly have any cap room to sign any other free agents and we'd have to stand pat. If those guys couldn't sniff a GM position, hell would freeze over before they could be capologists!
Yup, I remember the good old days of early March 2021, when a lot of posters declared DG and Abrams abject failures bc we couldn’t sign any free agents - before free agency even began.
Signing LW at a home town discount was never going to happen, and wasn’t a pre-requisite for the trade to be a win for the Giants.
As others have said, I just really hope he continues to perform at or close to 2020 level for most of his deal. But he seems a pretty sound gamble on that front
As long as you also remember the posters on the other side of the argument who spent the end of the 2019 season claiming that DG already had a handshake agreement in place with LW and that it would indeed be a team-friendly price tag.
Or are we only remembering one side getting it wrong?
Because there are probably a bunch of people like myself who thought it was a solid trade for the most part but wanted to take a wait and see approach approach before going too crazy. Those people should definitely have some fun at the expense of the dummies who thought this trade was so offensive. As for you bringing up posters who claimed there was a "handshake deal" in place, I'm guessing that was a very small minority, unlike the number of people who killed the deal from the moment it was announced.
Nothing. You don't lose anything. Just like I don't lose anything for having thought the trade itself was a headscratcher, but now being happy to have LW on the team going forward.
I just think the service of crow gets a little one-sided sometimes.
are from Mississippi State.
Quote:
maybe they did and LW balked at the 11th hour, I don't know. So, joke's on me for thinking something and it not happening? What do I lose?
Nothing. You don't lose anything. Just like I don't lose anything for having thought the trade itself was a headscratcher, but now being happy to have LW on the team going forward.
I just think the service of crow gets a little one-sided sometimes.
Ehh, you guys earn it. This board is blessed with non-stop bashing at any and everything at all times it seems. And no one here is even gloating, or gloating repeatedly which is really my only beef with people that are negative - it just never stops and gets beaten to death.
LW wasn't signed how I envisioned it but he's a good player and I'm glad he's on the team.
When you factor in the franchise tag this past year, the Giants gave up a high 3rd round pick+ just for the right to sign Leonard Williams to 4y/82M contract with 64M Guaranteed. So draft capital and a contract WELL ABOVE his market value at the time he was acquired. It was a bad process and there's not a whole lot of margin for error there. He's a rare talent, especially for this scheme, so there's an argument to be made for overpaying for him but that can turn into a massive overpay pretty quickly.
Quote:
In comment 15300477 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
maybe they did and LW balked at the 11th hour, I don't know. So, joke's on me for thinking something and it not happening? What do I lose?
Nothing. You don't lose anything. Just like I don't lose anything for having thought the trade itself was a headscratcher, but now being happy to have LW on the team going forward.
I just think the service of crow gets a little one-sided sometimes.
Ehh, you guys earn it. This board is blessed with non-stop bashing at any and everything at all times it seems. And no one here is even gloating, or gloating repeatedly which is really my only beef with people that are negative - it just never stops and gets beaten to death.
LW wasn't signed how I envisioned it but he's a good player and I'm glad he's on the team.
The reason for the bashing is that this franchise is 18-46 over the past four years and 48-80 over the past eight seasons.
There's a lot to bash when a franchise is in an extended funk like that. I'm sure some posters bash for the sake of bashing. And others bash the team out of frustration and genuinely wanting them to improve, often seeing some the same mistakes repeating themselves at times.
It does appear that this team is on the right track, and some brighter days are ahead. I suspect a lot of the bashing will subside when that happens, and it won't be because all the fans who bashed the team are just that fickle. It'll be that their frustration will have finally waned, IMO.
Quote:
In comment 15300479 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15300477 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
maybe they did and LW balked at the 11th hour, I don't know. So, joke's on me for thinking something and it not happening? What do I lose?
Nothing. You don't lose anything. Just like I don't lose anything for having thought the trade itself was a headscratcher, but now being happy to have LW on the team going forward.
I just think the service of crow gets a little one-sided sometimes.
Ehh, you guys earn it. This board is blessed with non-stop bashing at any and everything at all times it seems. And no one here is even gloating, or gloating repeatedly which is really my only beef with people that are negative - it just never stops and gets beaten to death.
LW wasn't signed how I envisioned it but he's a good player and I'm glad he's on the team.
The reason for the bashing is that this franchise is 18-46 over the past four years and 48-80 over the past eight seasons.
There's a lot to bash when a franchise is in an extended funk like that. I'm sure some posters bash for the sake of bashing. And others bash the team out of frustration and genuinely wanting them to improve, often seeing some the same mistakes repeating themselves at times.
It does appear that this team is on the right track, and some brighter days are ahead. I suspect a lot of the bashing will subside when that happens, and it won't be because all the fans who bashed the team are just that fickle. It'll be that their frustration will have finally waned, IMO.
What does franchise record have to do with being irrationally dumb? Forget about LW, go back and read the Beckham trade thread or the Rhule signs with Carolina thread. These are all things that given some time, appear to have worked out or are working out for NYG.
When something good happens you get some posts about it and then people move on. When something bad happens you hear about it constantly and for months if not years. Its a miserable way to operate, IMO. And maybe some of you enjoy it but I definitely dont, so i just participate less. My problem not yours, but that's my solution.
When something good happens you get some posts about it and then people move on. When something bad happens you hear about it constantly and for months if not years. Its a miserable way to operate, IMO. And maybe some of you enjoy it but I definitely dont, so i just participate less. My problem not yours, but that's my solution.
And again, I think the relative lifespan of threads, be they positive or negative, is in direct correlation to the state of the team.
Part of why positive threads die quickly right now is that there's often something negative that happens soon after. And the negative occurrences tend to be more frequent recently - that's just the nature of a team in a down cycle.
If we win 9+ games this year, I think you'll see a more even split of positive/negative threads (and posts within threads). If/when we become a consistent 11+ win team, the positive posts and threads will overtake the negatives.
Fan sentiment is a reflection of the team's status.
Quote:
In comment 15300484 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15300479 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15300477 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
maybe they did and LW balked at the 11th hour, I don't know. So, joke's on me for thinking something and it not happening? What do I lose?
Nothing. You don't lose anything. Just like I don't lose anything for having thought the trade itself was a headscratcher, but now being happy to have LW on the team going forward.
I just think the service of crow gets a little one-sided sometimes.
Ehh, you guys earn it. This board is blessed with non-stop bashing at any and everything at all times it seems. And no one here is even gloating, or gloating repeatedly which is really my only beef with people that are negative - it just never stops and gets beaten to death.
LW wasn't signed how I envisioned it but he's a good player and I'm glad he's on the team.
The reason for the bashing is that this franchise is 18-46 over the past four years and 48-80 over the past eight seasons.
There's a lot to bash when a franchise is in an extended funk like that. I'm sure some posters bash for the sake of bashing. And others bash the team out of frustration and genuinely wanting them to improve, often seeing some the same mistakes repeating themselves at times.
It does appear that this team is on the right track, and some brighter days are ahead. I suspect a lot of the bashing will subside when that happens, and it won't be because all the fans who bashed the team are just that fickle. It'll be that their frustration will have finally waned, IMO.
What does franchise record have to do with being irrationally dumb? Forget about LW, go back and read the Beckham trade thread or the Rhule signs with Carolina thread. These are all things that given some time, appear to have worked out or are working out for NYG.
And there are several instances where the so-called bashers wound up being correct. Lately, probably more of those scenarios than the few you plucked here.
Terps is often painted as one of the most vocal bashers on the board, but he's also been right pretty frequently in recent years. Even JonC has expressed frustration with some of the decisions that the franchise has made, and he's as even-keeled and informed a fan as there is on this board.
It's just the way it goes when a team sucks for an extended period of time.
From what I can tell we've got a coach that knows what he's doing, we signed several impact players, and had a pretty damn good draft (TBD of course but the picks generated aren't debatable). Everything else is old news.
You have no leverage as a GM; but you do have leverage if a player is franchise tagged.
A great move to get a 6th overall pick in his prime for a 3rd round pick.
From what I can tell we've got a coach that knows what he's doing, we signed several impact players, and had a pretty damn good draft (TBD of course but the picks generated aren't debatable). Everything else is old news.
Fair. But we've also lived exactly this scenario. How many fans felt really good about the team going into 2017, coming off of the 11-5 season in 2016?
Then the wheels fell off, the team bottomed out, Reese, Ross, McAdoo were all canned, and the DG era began.
The offseasons have been the highlight of being a fan recently. I definitely understand wanting to be optimistic and hopeful - that's a big part of what being a fan is about - but I also think it's nuts that fans that view this team through an exceedingly critical lens are looked down upon by some here.
In any other facet of life, wouldn't you wait for someone to prove that things have changed before you took them at their word? If your favorite restaurant all of sudden started to go way downhill and the quality of the food and service sucked, you'd be pretty bummed it, right? And you might keep giving them the benefit of the doubt and giving them chances to improve while they tell you that they hired a new chef, new manager, whatever. But you'd probably stop recommending the place to your friends and family until you actually experienced some sort of improvement firsthand, right?
I agree that sports are different.
Using my own restaurant example, if my favorite restaurant turned to crap and started serving gruel more often than not, I'd find a new favorite restaurant. Same with just about any consumer category.
But sports are different. I can't imagine what it would take for me to separate myself from the Giants. But that's also why it's so frustrating when they suck for an extended period of time.
As far as the Beckham trade goes I thought the day it was made it was one of the best choices DG made in his first two years. At some point Beckham may have another elite season although I doubt it. He wasn't worth the trouble anymore when the Giants dumped him.
The thing with Ruhle that didn't sit well at the time with many Giant fans was that Mara said the contract was too rich for him (he said it was the years and the years = $). I didn't and don't know enough about Ruhle to guess whether he was worth the money or not. But I don't ever want to hear NY teams backing off someone they want over money especially when there is no cap involved.
Quote:
In comment 15300440 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
In comment 15300381 Daniel in Kentucky said:
Quote:
Thank you!
Some here are so stuck on there track they’r ride it like a train off a cliff in Back to the Future III!
Some of you guys are absolutely something; absurd, delusional, moronic, stubborn, pessimistic, bitter, who knows.
Not name calling - just attributes - temporary or permanent.
If anyone said we could trade 3rd pick for an elite DT in his prime and he we had him signed for long-term deal who would complain.
The same people complaining couldn’t sniff an NFL GM position if they lived 10 lifetimes.
I remember the good old days where bitching about LW's "massive" deal meant we couldn't possibly have any cap room to sign any other free agents and we'd have to stand pat. If those guys couldn't sniff a GM position, hell would freeze over before they could be capologists!
Yup, I remember the good old days of early March 2021, when a lot of posters declared DG and Abrams abject failures bc we couldn’t sign any free agents - before free agency even began.
Signing LW at a home town discount was never going to happen, and wasn’t a pre-requisite for the trade to be a win for the Giants.
As others have said, I just really hope he continues to perform at or close to 2020 level for most of his deal. But he seems a pretty sound gamble on that front
As long as you also remember the posters on the other side of the argument who spent the end of the 2019 season claiming that DG already had a handshake agreement in place with LW and that it would indeed be a team-friendly price tag.
Or are we only remembering one side getting it wrong?
Not understanding the point, my friend. As an armchair GM, I thought at the time, a handshake agreement was in place. Obviously it wasn’t, but I ALWAYS loved that trade
Quote:
In comment 15300440 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
In comment 15300381 Daniel in Kentucky said:
Quote:
Thank you!
Some here are so stuck on there track they’r ride it like a train off a cliff in Back to the Future III!
Some of you guys are absolutely something; absurd, delusional, moronic, stubborn, pessimistic, bitter, who knows.
Not name calling - just attributes - temporary or permanent.
If anyone said we could trade 3rd pick for an elite DT in his prime and he we had him signed for long-term deal who would complain.
The same people complaining couldn’t sniff an NFL GM position if they lived 10 lifetimes.
I remember the good old days where bitching about LW's "massive" deal meant we couldn't possibly have any cap room to sign any other free agents and we'd have to stand pat. If those guys couldn't sniff a GM position, hell would freeze over before they could be capologists!
Yup, I remember the good old days of early March 2021, when a lot of posters declared DG and Abrams abject failures bc we couldn’t sign any free agents - before free agency even began.
Signing LW at a home town discount was never going to happen, and wasn’t a pre-requisite for the trade to be a win for the Giants.
As others have said, I just really hope he continues to perform at or close to 2020 level for most of his deal. But he seems a pretty sound gamble on that front
As long as you also remember the posters on the other side of the argument who spent the end of the 2019 season claiming that DG already had a handshake agreement in place with LW and that it would indeed be a team-friendly price tag.
Or are we only remembering one side getting it wrong?
First and foremost, hope you’re well GD, always happy to see you posting, even when we disagree
And your post here is fair - I was firing a shot across the bow at those who were posting about 2021 free agency being a failure bc of DG and Abrams’ incompetence - before free agency even started
I generally lean on the let’s wait and see how it plays out side of things. It was fair to question the trade, but to declare it an outright mistake or failure at the time was foolish. So was declaring it a success without seeing how William’s played
I always thought it was a reasonable risk/reward gamble. Draft picks are valuable, but 3rd and 5th round picks rarely turn into pro bowlers across the league.
He’s played well enough to prove it a good trade, he’s a true game changer and one of the better defensive players in football. DG and the Giants gambled on his upside and so far, they’ve been proven right.
2021 free agency and the LW contract is now another story, the conclusion of which is also unknown. I once again think it was a reasonable risk - he strikes me as the kind of player who will continue to work hard and produce at a high level.
But it’s always possible it turns out to be like an Olivier Vernon deal - one big season then he fades, whether due to injury or lack of commitment after getting paid or both. We won’t know the answer until 2-3 years from now.
If he’s a bust now it will be joke on the Giants but if he puts up a few more seasons like 2020 then no one but dug in Giants fans will care about the negotiations.
What if he's neither a bust nor what he was in 2020? What if he goes back to the player he's been for most of his career - good, but far from great?
It isn't easy even signing a player like Williams in FA and we had him here for 1.5 seasons prior to that long term signing. What if the Giants were better in 2019 and Williams helped them make the playoffs? Or 2020? What if they went 8-8 and won a playoff game BEFORE signing Williams to that long term deal?
It was a great move. I don't know how on earth anyone can sit here and argue this. But that's why i cannot even debate this shit anymore because the internet turns topics into horse shit debates. Just argue.
We got an all pro player here. Thanks Jets.
Quote:
but so did the Giants (unless of course he just stinks now). He bet on himself and because of that the “DG couldn’t get a deal done” narrative is highly flawed.
If he’s a bust now it will be joke on the Giants but if he puts up a few more seasons like 2020 then no one but dug in Giants fans will care about the negotiations.
What if he's neither a bust nor what he was in 2020? What if he goes back to the player he's been for most of his career - good, but far from great?
Then you could apply that same doom and gloom logic to any player and player acquisition known to man.
Again, the Giants got an all pro talent. How many of these guys spring free? Maybe one per offseason? These guys are worth a lot more than dime a dozen.
Yeah he could fall apart. But he's in his prime and has done nothing but play well here for nearly 2 seasons now. He's as safe a bet as any.
Ask the Jets if they'd take him back today and all those WFAN callers and hosts who were literally (laughably) thanking the Giants for taking Williams off their hands.
The Jets fucked this up. Giants took advantage. If Williams keeps playing like this for 3-4 more years it's going to be one of the most hilarious moves in Jets history. They have a few now.
Wasn't he second team in 2020? Ok fine if not. He's still an elite talent.
We're better off making the trade. Jets blew it yet again.
Link - ( New Window )
Last year represented a big upgrade in performance for him over 2019, and most of the rest of his career for that matter. If the 2019 Williams is who he is going forward, he a)is not one of the best DTs in the league, as you've repeatedly said he is b)is a rather large overpay.
Quote:
but so did the Giants (unless of course he just stinks now). He bet on himself and because of that the “DG couldn’t get a deal done” narrative is highly flawed.
If he’s a bust now it will be joke on the Giants but if he puts up a few more seasons like 2020 then no one but dug in Giants fans will care about the negotiations.
What if he's neither a bust nor what he was in 2020? What if he goes back to the player he's been for most of his career - good, but far from great?
Then it’s probably our loss but not a complete failure, rather straight forward, no? Insert any player into this argument by the way, this isn’t specific to the Giants. Even more so is when players stink I often see opposing GMs getting applauded for cutting bait or trading them early, so we can look forward to that as well, right?
It was also reported he trained with R. Seymour in the '20 offseason and I think you could see some technique improvements last year (I saw him do something I don't recall ever seeing & I assumed he learned it from Seymour or a new Giants coach).
Everything we've heard from Graham and Judge is that LW is a very hard worker. And he's durable.
Of course I could be wrong, but based on all of the above, I don't think last year was an anomaly. It was the beginning of a nice Giants career.
It was also reported he trained with R. Seymour in the '20 offseason and I think you could see some technique improvements last year (I saw him do something I don't recall ever seeing & I assumed he learned it from Seymour or a new Giants coach).
Everything we've heard from Graham and Judge is that LW is a very hard worker. And he's durable.
Of course I could be wrong, but based on all of the above, I don't think last year was an anomaly. It was the beginning of a nice Giants career.
The argument not to pay this guy still doesn't make any sense to me. He doesn't play a position that gets aged out early, its more when injuries start piling up. He's 27, healthy, and if you look at the list, I'd say it's Darnold and then the next 6 guys are pretty interchangeable as far as talent goes.
Quote:
but so did the Giants (unless of course he just stinks now). He bet on himself and because of that the “DG couldn’t get a deal done” narrative is highly flawed.
If he’s a bust now it will be joke on the Giants but if he puts up a few more seasons like 2020 then no one but dug in Giants fans will care about the negotiations.
What if he's neither a bust nor what he was in 2020? What if he goes back to the player he's been for most of his career - good, but far from great?
Then we paid a 3rd, 5th, and an immense amount of guaranteed money under the tag and an elite money contract for a relatively good interior lineman.
That's when the "win-win" deal becomes the "win-not so much" one...
Here comes the cavalry.
Quote:
In comment 15300455 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
but so did the Giants (unless of course he just stinks now). He bet on himself and because of that the “DG couldn’t get a deal done” narrative is highly flawed.
If he’s a bust now it will be joke on the Giants but if he puts up a few more seasons like 2020 then no one but dug in Giants fans will care about the negotiations.
What if he's neither a bust nor what he was in 2020? What if he goes back to the player he's been for most of his career - good, but far from great?
Then you could apply that same doom and gloom logic to any player and player acquisition known to man.
Again, the Giants got an all pro talent. How many of these guys spring free? Maybe one per offseason? These guys are worth a lot more than dime a dozen.
Yeah he could fall apart. But he's in his prime and has done nothing but play well here for nearly 2 seasons now. He's as safe a bet as any.
Ask the Jets if they'd take him back today and all those WFAN callers and hosts who were literally (laughably) thanking the Giants for taking Williams off their hands.
The Jets fucked this up. Giants took advantage. If Williams keeps playing like this for 3-4 more years it's going to be one of the most hilarious moves in Jets history. They have a few now.
He played great for ONE year. He played pretty well for a portion of another year.
I am absolutely HOPING that 2020 represents LW's future going forward, but here's the difference between you and me: I recognize that 2020 might well be an outlier for LW. You're locked in and ready to pretend that he's just going to replicate that every year going forward.
The pollyanna shit is just as tiresome as the bashing.
Quote:
call it what you will. He's an elite player. Link - ( New Window )
Here comes the cavalry.
And that's what we are talking about, nicely done!
Quote:
In comment 15300671 djm said:
Quote:
call it what you will. He's an elite player. Link - ( New Window )
Here comes the cavalry.
And that's what we are talking about, nicely done!
Ditto.
You do realize that YOU proved MY point, right?
Done on this thread, enjoy guys.
1) Would a top 10 pick, who was a mild disappointment, put it all together in his 6th year
2) Would the Giants be able to sign him to an extension commensurate with reasonable, expected performance
I always felt the declarations on one side or the other were premature. Turns out, both those things happened. The ends justified the means. But it certainly had the potential to go the other way.
The team has been awful and deserves every bit of criticism it gets.
What I don't understand is the blind optimism. If you're watching a plane crash into a mountain you don't tell yourself everyone on board is ok.
The Giants have been a decade long series of mistakes and bad decisions. You want to tell yourself each offseason that the same bad methodology is going to yield different results, that's up to you.
Done on this thread, enjoy guys.
And the bashing continues.
Don't blame the board when your own fortitude is to blame.
People are right, that putting yourself at a disadvantage in a negotiation can work out in the end absolutely. But he 100% needs to live up to this contract first to justify that review. And there is no denying the Giants increased the risk of this move not working out because of the way it was handled.
Including but not at all limited to the fact that the Giants very much have to prove they know how to allocate resources properly to build a winning team. They get no credit from me if LW is a bowler the next 3 years and the team on the whole still sucks.
It's honestly these pronounced victory laps that people seem to want to take at the smallest signs that there are competent people running the Giants org that has me barely able to read this site anymore.
We have a chance to be decent for the first time in a long time this year, yes, I'd agree. But the fact that we have a #2, #4 and #6 overall pick on a unit that could very well flop is still a blight on the front office who has quite frankly been one of the more embarrassing GMs I've ever had to root for.
I don't think you can blame DG for LW betting on himself, but I do think it's a little bit funny (and very convenient) that all of the supporters of the trade at the time very vocally claimed that DG must already have a handshake agreement with LW and that he'd be signed to a new deal before free agency even opened (in 2020) - and that the deal would be team-friendly or else why would DG have traded for LW in the first place?
Instead, it took two tags and a top of the market contract.
DG got his man. But a lot of the nonsense that supporters of the trade were trying to claim at the time was pure fiction, as are most of their contortions to defend DG at all costs.
This for sure. This was a common refrain from the supporters of this trade - that DG heisted the Jets and there has to be a gentlemen's agreement in place. And that we would have a cap friendly, hometown discount in place once 2019 ended. Many of us, however, at the time, predicted this was not going to be a lay-up; and the market price for LW was substantially > than this magical hometown was a mirage. Which it was...
So these victory laps are bit disingenuous because there is some convenient amnesia taking hold...
Quote:
I don't think you can blame DG for LW betting on himself, but I do think it's a little bit funny (and very convenient) that all of the supporters of the trade at the time very vocally claimed that DG must already have a handshake agreement with LW and that he'd be signed to a new deal before free agency even opened (in 2020) - and that the deal would be team-friendly or else why would DG have traded for LW in the first place?
Instead, it took two tags and a top of the market contract.
DG got his man. But a lot of the nonsense that supporters of the trade were trying to claim at the time was pure fiction, as are most of their contortions to defend DG at all costs.
This for sure. This was a common refrain from the supporters of this trade - that DG heisted the Jets and there has to be a gentlemen's agreement in place. And that we would have a cap friendly, hometown discount in place once 2019 ended. Many of us, however, at the time, predicted this was not going to be a lay-up; and the market price for LW was substantially > than this magical hometown was a mirage. Which it was...
So these victory laps are bit disingenuous because there is some convenient amnesia taking hold...
Again, there are no victory laps. Many of us thought there would be a deal in place, that’s what us armchair GMs thought. We were wrong. BFD. we STILL WANTED A TALENTED 25 YEAR-OLD with his prime years ahead. We didn’t care what we spent because we felt that money would be there one way or the other for him and FAs we coveted. That’s what experts like Abrams do FOR A LIVING. And, do it without kicking the can down the road while being mindful of the good cap shape we’d be in in the few years thereafter..
And hopefully not the real GM...
If the cap wasn't moving much it has the potential to be burdensome but they took a shot on 3 players in a discounted year and structured the deals to hit when the cap skyrockets. That's a sound strategy (although not the original strategy with LW). And if we actually start hitting on these draft picks like we hope we will with Judge, that will give us even more flexibility (like letting Peppers walk if McKinney is the goods, Ojulari being a + ER and not having to sign a top tier FA, etc.).
Again, there are no victory laps. Many of us thought there would be a deal in place, that’s what us armchair GMs thought. We were wrong. BFD. we STILL WANTED A TALENTED 25 YEAR-OLD with his prime years ahead. We didn’t care what we spent because we felt that money would be there one way or the other for him and FAs we coveted. That’s what experts like Abrams do FOR A LIVING. And, do it without kicking the can down the road while being mindful of the good cap shape we’d be in in the few years thereafter..
Hey, I didn't start this thread or make comments about how DG basically had the last laugh here (not saying you did). But that's where this started to go quite early.
And being a student of Giants history, I was, as usual, glad to help... ;)
If the cap wasn't moving much it has the potential to be burdensome but they took a shot on 3 players in a discounted year and structured the deals to hit when the cap skyrockets. That's a sound strategy (although not the original strategy with LW). And if we actually start hitting on these draft picks like we hope we will with Judge, that will give us even more flexibility (like letting Peppers walk if McKinney is the goods, Ojulari being a + ER and not having to sign a top tier FA, etc.).
Stated better than I would. Or could..👍🏿👍
Gettleman's Giants have gone 15-33. FYI.
Sounds good. As long as you promise to come along as well so we have someone who will order lunch...
If my iPhone breaks after two weeks and I'm like the quality of this product sucks now, they aren't the organization they used to be, maybe they should consider some bigger changes at the top. Are people like WELL DO YOU WANT TO REPLACE TIM COOK? ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE SMARTER? CAN YOU PROGRAM AN IPHONE?
Honestly, it's downright embarrassing some of the moves and things the Giants have done that are just so horrible from a strategy and game theory perspective that, I honestly wish it wasn't so easy to see how bad they were.
But regardless there is this false equivalency drawn here all the time that professionals running an organization worth billions of dollars are somehow beyond critique. If the organization was better at assessing itself we wouldn't be the laughing stocks we are.
If my iPhone breaks after two weeks and I'm like the quality of this product sucks now, they aren't the organization they used to be, maybe they should consider some bigger changes at the top. Are people like WELL DO YOU WANT TO REPLACE TIM COOK? ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE SMARTER? CAN YOU PROGRAM AN IPHONE?
Honestly, it's downright embarrassing some of the moves and things the Giants have done that are just so horrible from a strategy and game theory perspective that, I honestly wish it wasn't so easy to see how bad they were.
But regardless there is this false equivalency drawn here all the time that professionals running an organization worth billions of dollars are somehow beyond critique. If the organization was better at assessing itself we wouldn't be the laughing stocks we are.
Who gives a shit what the Giants did before Judge? It’s history..Judge has assembled what looks like a terrific OVERALL staff (we’ll see what Garrett does with the weapons he’ll have) and DG and JJ seem to be working well..It’s this team with health and an influx of talent that matters now..No one but the “usuals” give a rat’s ass how they’ve done pre Judge..I certainly don’t.
Pass
1) Judge is just the coach, there are layers and layers of management above him that have proven to be one of the worst executive teams in the league the last 10 years.
2) The "Judge" Giants were still 6-10 in the worst division in Football, an actually historically bad division
3) Let's stick with the tech product example. If you were buying a phone and there were statistics saying that the phones more than any other phones the last 10 years but a little less than average last year with an "exciting" new VP at the company. Would you be like, let me buy that phone! Who cares that all the old ones broke?! No.
1) Judge is just the coach, there are layers and layers of management above him that have proven to be one of the worst executive teams in the league the last 10 years.
2) The "Judge" Giants were still 6-10 in the worst division in Football, an actually historically bad division
3) Let's stick with the tech product example. If you were buying a phone and there were statistics saying that the phones more than any other phones the last 10 years but a little less than average last year with an "exciting" new VP at the company. Would you be like, let me buy that phone! Who cares that all the old ones broke?! No.
You’re insufferable. Lawd. Will not waste my time on you any longer. Wash. Rinse. Repeat..Good day.
You'd like to think that having two SB wins over the dynasty team would be sufficient - and yet, you'd be dead fucking wrong.
Let's root for the Lions!!
Come on NFD. MetLife is a palace - "John's World" clearly outshines "Jerry's World".
What a gift to the fans... ;)
Quote:
fairly insufferable.
Come on NFD. MetLife is a palace - "John's World" clearly outshines "Jerry's World".
What a gift to the fans... ;)
Have never been there, but I’ve heard that the Stadium could have been so much better (Retractable dome, etc)
Quote:
fairly insufferable.
Come on NFD. MetLife is a palace - "John's World" clearly outshines "Jerry's World".
What a gift to the fans... ;)
I mean, would fans prefer he spent more taxpayer $? Or charged more for PSL's? The more these things cost the more fans end up paying one way or another.
Quote:
In comment 15300999 NoGainDayne said:
Quote:
fairly insufferable.
Come on NFD. MetLife is a palace - "John's World" clearly outshines "Jerry's World".
What a gift to the fans... ;)
Have never been there, but I’ve heard that the Stadium could have been so much better (Retractable dome, etc)
it could still be just as cool as SoFi Stadium if they decide to spend another $3bn.
Come on NFD. MetLife is a palace - "John's World" clearly outshines "Jerry's World".
What a gift to the fans... ;)
Have never been there, but I’ve heard that the Stadium could have been so much better (Retractable dome, etc)
ML is not impressive. Just big and dull. No personality.
I'm anti-roof, btw, so that wasn't a show stopper for me. I like the elements factor...
Quote:
Come on NFD. MetLife is a palace - "John's World" clearly outshines "Jerry's World".
What a gift to the fans... ;)
Have never been there, but I’ve heard that the Stadium could have been so much better (Retractable dome, etc)
ML is not impressive. Just big and dull. No personality.
I'm anti-roof, btw, so that wasn't a show stopper for me. I like the elements factor...
Back in 2008 I went with Phil in Az to the Giants/Cards game. It was oppressively hot as I recall and they closed the roof. The loudness and echoes were beyond brutal.
Let me tell you something my Fat Friend in Charlotte.
If you think anybody remotely considers MetLife a Jet stadium first, and a Giants stadium second, you are officially out of your mind.
Let me guess - when you think Staples Center you think Clippers first...
Quote:
is the most ever both in amount and percentage. Not sure why that isn't being factored here.
If the cap wasn't moving much it has the potential to be burdensome but they took a shot on 3 players in a discounted year and structured the deals to hit when the cap skyrockets. That's a sound strategy (although not the original strategy with LW). And if we actually start hitting on these draft picks like we hope we will with Judge, that will give us even more flexibility (like letting Peppers walk if McKinney is the goods, Ojulari being a + ER and not having to sign a top tier FA, etc.).
Stated better than I would. Or could..👍🏿👍
It’s just weird to me that people so keen on cap flexibility don’t talk about this. Not shocked it wasn’t talked about before or after I posted about it. Like I said on the other thread when there are things to talk about where complaining is less accessible, it’s often times just gets glosses over.
Im not even pumping DG or saying he’s a mastermind or anything close to being over the top. But the cap rise is an absolute fact and it has to be factored into the LW signing, along with the other signings. Each deal has a shot at being a bargain along with better than usual risk mitigation. And this is coming from someone who didn’t even really want Golladay but after looking at the contract, it makes more sense.
If the cap wasn't moving much it has the potential to be burdensome but they took a shot on 3 players in a discounted year and structured the deals to hit when the cap skyrockets. That's a sound strategy (although not the original strategy with LW). And if we actually start hitting on these draft picks like we hope we will with Judge, that will give us even more flexibility (like letting Peppers walk if McKinney is the goods, Ojulari being a + ER and not having to sign a top tier FA, etc.).
There is no question that DG and KA astutely saw an opportunity to be aggressive in a marketplace where they correctly assumed that much of their competition would be conservative. They zigged while everyone else was zagging, and they really did a fantastic job this offseason.
And I was one of the posters who was vocally (maybe the MOST vocal) claiming that the Giants wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful in free agency this year. I could not have been more wrong. The way that DG and KA leveraged next year's cap jump to capitalize on this year's free agency class was nothing short of fantastic.
Quote:
is the most ever both in amount and percentage. Not sure why that isn't being factored here.
If the cap wasn't moving much it has the potential to be burdensome but they took a shot on 3 players in a discounted year and structured the deals to hit when the cap skyrockets. That's a sound strategy (although not the original strategy with LW). And if we actually start hitting on these draft picks like we hope we will with Judge, that will give us even more flexibility (like letting Peppers walk if McKinney is the goods, Ojulari being a + ER and not having to sign a top tier FA, etc.).
There is no question that DG and KA astutely saw an opportunity to be aggressive in a marketplace where they correctly assumed that much of their competition would be conservative. They zigged while everyone else was zagging, and they really did a fantastic job this offseason.
And I was one of the posters who was vocally (maybe the MOST vocal) claiming that the Giants wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful in free agency this year. I could not have been more wrong. The way that DG and KA leveraged next year's cap jump to capitalize on this year's free agency class was nothing short of fantastic.
👍🏿👍
That's frustrating as a fan. It's even more frustrating to feel like Jones could have a bad year and still keep the job because our management can be very stubborn about things.
Also I can be happy about this offseason and also say if we did miss on Jones, we didn't do very well with an important concept in the NFL which is making sure you have players lined up to win in the same window and manage the cap alongside that.
Giants are in great financial shape going forward. This is documented all over the web. If this team wins in 2021 it’s a team with staying power and one that can sustain things for a while.
First they need to win.
Cheers! Be proud.
Quote:
Much has been made about how much money the Giants spent this offseason, and how much has been deferred to future years.
Giants are in great financial shape going forward. This is documented all over the web. If this team wins in 2021 it’s a team with staying power and one that can sustain things for a while.
First they need to win.
At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth as badly as I did in March, the team is in decent shape going forward, but not extraordinarily great. If any of this year's signings bust, it's going to hurt pretty badly. And much of the next couple of years' worth of flexibility was leveraged this year with creatively backloaded contracts that landed low cap numbers into the 2021 roster.
They went into this offseason with what appeared to be limited room for 2021 but plenty of flexibility for the future. In order to sign as many high profile FAs as they did this year, they effectively flipped that. Future flexibility is what DG & KA used to afford this offseason's new additions.
We'll probably see a limited FA period next year, with the focus on re-signing and extending our own players. The draft will be our big coup in 2022 given the trove of picks DG assembled. And we may see a limited FA period in 2023 as well, depending on how rapidly the cap escalation is restored. Don't kid yourself - DG/KA did a great job this offseason, but they did leverage a bit of future cap space in the process. That's simply the way it works.
Quote:
In comment 15300659 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 15300455 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
but so did the Giants (unless of course he just stinks now). He bet on himself and because of that the “DG couldn’t get a deal done” narrative is highly flawed.
If he’s a bust now it will be joke on the Giants but if he puts up a few more seasons like 2020 then no one but dug in Giants fans will care about the negotiations.
What if he's neither a bust nor what he was in 2020? What if he goes back to the player he's been for most of his career - good, but far from great?
Then you could apply that same doom and gloom logic to any player and player acquisition known to man.
Again, the Giants got an all pro talent. How many of these guys spring free? Maybe one per offseason? These guys are worth a lot more than dime a dozen.
Yeah he could fall apart. But he's in his prime and has done nothing but play well here for nearly 2 seasons now. He's as safe a bet as any.
Ask the Jets if they'd take him back today and all those WFAN callers and hosts who were literally (laughably) thanking the Giants for taking Williams off their hands.
The Jets fucked this up. Giants took advantage. If Williams keeps playing like this for 3-4 more years it's going to be one of the most hilarious moves in Jets history. They have a few now.
He played great for ONE year. He played pretty well for a portion of another year.
I am absolutely HOPING that 2020 represents LW's future going forward, but here's the difference between you and me: I recognize that 2020 might well be an outlier for LW. You're locked in and ready to pretend that he's just going to replicate that every year going forward.
The pollyanna shit is just as tiresome as the bashing.
Locked in to what? He’s been a force ever since 2019. His sack numbers were low but sack numbers aren’t the whole story.
I’m locked in to Williams being a force, yet again. He’s in the right system and in his prime and did it here already. Why wouldn’t I believe in him going forward? Why wouldn’t anyone? 11 sacks again? Who knows. But he’s gonna generate pressure as well as any DT and smash the run. That’s being a consistent force. My eyes told me that in 2019 much like they told me strahan was a force even when he only had 5-6 sacks one year. Williams beats his man time and time again.
Giants got a player worth building around. This place CRUSHED DG days after the trade. Jets callers laughed at the giants. Wfan hosts laughed too. So did most of BBi. Many of you were wrong. Admit it and move on or bail out. No one cares if anyone was wrong but to sit here now and talk about all the giants failures (terps) from the last ten years of scream “pump the brakes” is just lame.
We’re arguing over a slam dunk success story here. Why?
We’re fine. We need to win. It’s time. If they win they won’t lose players they can’t afford to lose other than the guys they deem good but somewhat replaceable. It’s 2005 all over again. We just need to win. We’ll see.
We acquired and retained an impact defender, who appears to be on a steep ascent to stardom. It's a very promising addition to the foundation. At the same time, if you choose to overlook certain mgmt mistakes as a fan, it's your choice, but they do exist and loom large in the immediate future of NYG. You can find scenarios and examples where it does and does not impact. To try and use it against those with a different opinion as being negative, or strictly anti-DG etc, is disingenuous.
I encourage accepting a mutual grasp and letting it go. Re-reading the debate (one among many) is tiresome and unproductive.
We acquired and retained an impact defender, who appears to be on a steep ascent to stardom. It's a very promising addition to the foundation. At the same time, if you choose to overlook certain mgmt mistakes as a fan, it's your choice, but they do exist and loom large in the immediate future of NYG. You can find scenarios and examples where it does and does not impact. To try and use it against those with a different opinion as being negative, or strictly anti-DG etc, is disingenuous.
I encourage accepting a mutual grasp and letting it go. Re-reading the debate (one among many) is tiresome and unproductive.
This is a false argument at least as it relates specifically to LW. Which specific part of LW's acquisition "looms large"?
The lost picks that became Ashtyn Davis (who I actually think was a really good pick) and Michael Davis?
Or his tagged salary last year which proved to be under market relative to his play? And turned out to not be prohibitive in them having their best offseason in a decade+ (Bradberry, Martinez, Ryan)?
Or his current contract? Which also turned out to not be prohibitive in having another very active offseason?
We’re fine. We need to win. It’s time. If they win they won’t lose players they can’t afford to lose other than the guys they deem good but somewhat replaceable. It’s 2005 all over again. We just need to win. We’ll see.
"We need to win" is not the same as "we're in great shape going forward with the cap."
We leveraged a ton of cap flexibility in order to be as active as we were this offseason. It appears to have been a very savvy strategy, as the rest of the league seemed to be flatfooted while the Giants were making moves.
But your position of "we're in great cap shape going forward" is at least a little bit outdated right now.
Quote:
on the LW trade topic. I remain ok with the trade and the issue really is about the financial miscalculation by the front office. Being unwilling to include financial impact in the calculus while claiming it has no real impact, is typically false and/or illogical. It also has bearing because it's part of the pattern of mismanagement looming over the football operations.
We acquired and retained an impact defender, who appears to be on a steep ascent to stardom. It's a very promising addition to the foundation. At the same time, if you choose to overlook certain mgmt mistakes as a fan, it's your choice, but they do exist and loom large in the immediate future of NYG. You can find scenarios and examples where it does and does not impact. To try and use it against those with a different opinion as being negative, or strictly anti-DG etc, is disingenuous.
I encourage accepting a mutual grasp and letting it go. Re-reading the debate (one among many) is tiresome and unproductive.
This is a false argument at least as it relates specifically to LW. Which specific part of LW's acquisition "looms large"?
The lost picks that became Ashtyn Davis (who I actually think was a really good pick) and Michael Davis?
Or his tagged salary last year which proved to be under market relative to his play? And turned out to not be prohibitive in them having their best offseason in a decade+ (Bradberry, Martinez, Ryan)?
Or his current contract? Which also turned out to not be prohibitive in having another very active offseason?
The players that another team chose with those picks are irrelevant. That's a horseshit argument.
If you need the rest explained to you (and I suspect you don't, you're smarter than that), I'll leave it to Jon.
You don't know any of that is true. The guy refused to resign a longterm deal and best on himself twice and won. Beyond the two draft picks traded (Christ - I thought we were past those), your entire paragraph is speculation.
The players that another team chose with those picks are irrelevant. That's a horseshit argument.
If you need the rest explained to you (and I suspect you don't, you're smarter than that), I'll leave it to Jon.
It's more of a horseshit argument to throw open the "they could have selected anyone with those picks". The median value of those picks is what they traded, not the best case outcome or the worst (and Ashtyn Davis likely already closer to the best case than the worst).
If there's more to explain outside of the minuscule chance they would have used those picks on players who defied the odds of where they were drafted I'd be happy to hear it (from you or Jon).
Quote:
on the LW trade topic. I remain ok with the trade and the issue really is about the financial miscalculation by the front office. Being unwilling to include financial impact in the calculus while claiming it has no real impact, is typically false and/or illogical. It also has bearing because it's part of the pattern of mismanagement looming over the football operations.
We acquired and retained an impact defender, who appears to be on a steep ascent to stardom. It's a very promising addition to the foundation. At the same time, if you choose to overlook certain mgmt mistakes as a fan, it's your choice, but they do exist and loom large in the immediate future of NYG. You can find scenarios and examples where it does and does not impact. To try and use it against those with a different opinion as being negative, or strictly anti-DG etc, is disingenuous.
I encourage accepting a mutual grasp and letting it go. Re-reading the debate (one among many) is tiresome and unproductive.
This is a false argument at least as it relates specifically to LW. Which specific part of LW's acquisition "looms large"?
The lost picks that became Ashtyn Davis (who I actually think was a really good pick) and Michael Davis?
Or his tagged salary last year which proved to be under market relative to his play? And turned out to not be prohibitive in them having their best offseason in a decade+ (Bradberry, Martinez, Ryan)?
Or his current contract? Which also turned out to not be prohibitive in having another very active offseason?
All of yours are actually the false arguments.
The LW process to get to a signing was a flawed one and ultimately more expensive and time-consuming than a non-flawed one. A more efficient one would ultimately been cheaper and/or given them even more flexibility with other roster building decisions under a fixed cap.
Much credit to targeting/scouting an impact player, no credit on executing the deal.
Right. And there's also no way Landon Collins gets paid big off an injury riddled poor season in 2018. I'd imagine you don't negotiate your own salary cuts the way you do others?
imo the only thing we can say with some certainty is that Leonard Williams seemed quite content to sit on his 35m in career earnings and play last year on a prove it deal. And if he did so at 5m, 10m, or 15m and had the same season he just had on the field he'd have ended up in the exact same spot his is now, just possibly with another team.
- Do the Jets franchise or re-sign him? Seems unlikely given he underachieved there. And we know after the fact they were willing to trade him.
- Does Williams sign somewhere else? Possible, but we heard he wanted to stay in New York, and the Giants had the cap space and appetite to pay him - they ended up paying him more 2020 cap space under the franchise tag than Dante Fowler (who set the FA edge market at $15M AAV).
- Even after the trade, Paul Schwartz reported that Williams's open market value was $10M-$12M. Yeah Williams bet on himself and won...but only because the trade have him the leverage to make that bet in the first place. The Giants aren't paying him $12M AAV as a result; they're paying him $21M AAV. What could that $9M difference get you? Well Dalvin Tomlinson's average salary is $10.5M, so...
Asset allocation matters.
"No credit"?? Considering a deal was done and it hasn't prevented us from acquiring other players to build the roster, a statement like "no credit" is absurd.
But you don't shy away from absurdity, you embrace it.
- Do the Jets franchise or re-sign him? Seems unlikely given he underachieved there. And we know after the fact they were willing to trade him.
Your hypothetical ends here - the NYJ trade him to one of the other teams rumored to be in on him and who knows what that other team decides to do (and how he plays).
It's presumable that any other team trading for him would have been a team in playoff contention. It's a virtual guarantee they were 1 of the 30 other teams with a much better roster than the '19 NYG & NYJ. It's possible he went to a better team and gotten more recognition for his impact. Amari Cooper pretty quickly flipped the narrative around him when Dallas got him out of Oakland and because of that he never hit UFA.
Quote:
Much credit to targeting/scouting an impact player, no credit on executing the deal.
"No credit"?? Considering a deal was done and it hasn't prevented us from acquiring other players to build the roster, a statement like "no credit" is absurd.
But you don't shy away from absurdity, you embrace it.
"I'm glad this plane landed where I wanted to go but no credit for that because there was flying time and the ticket cost more money than I think it should have"
I didn't quite realize it until now but LW is kind of a karen test.
Quote:
Pretend the trade doesn't happen...
- Do the Jets franchise or re-sign him? Seems unlikely given he underachieved there. And we know after the fact they were willing to trade him.
Your hypothetical ends here - the NYJ trade him to one of the other teams rumored to be in on him and who knows what that other team decides to do (and how he plays).
It's presumable that any other team trading for him would have been a team in playoff contention. It's a virtual guarantee they were 1 of the 30 other teams with a much better roster than the '19 NYG & NYJ. It's possible he went to a better team and gotten more recognition for his impact. Amari Cooper pretty quickly flipped the narrative around him when Dallas got him out of Oakland and because of that he never hit UFA.
There were other teams interested in trading for him? I don't recall that being the case, but I could be wrong.
Quote:
The players that another team chose with those picks are irrelevant. That's a horseshit argument.
If you need the rest explained to you (and I suspect you don't, you're smarter than that), I'll leave it to Jon.
It's more of a horseshit argument to throw open the "they could have selected anyone with those picks". The median value of those picks is what they traded, not the best case outcome or the worst (and Ashtyn Davis likely already closer to the best case than the worst).
If there's more to explain outside of the minuscule chance they would have used those picks on players who defied the odds of where they were drafted I'd be happy to hear it (from you or Jon).
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Quote:
Much credit to targeting/scouting an impact player, no credit on executing the deal.
"No credit"?? Considering a deal was done and it hasn't prevented us from acquiring other players to build the roster, a statement like "no credit" is absurd.
But you don't shy away from absurdity, you embrace it.
Last we saw you, you had your foot in your mouth on the Justin Herbert article I posted. Attempting to redeem yourself here or go 2 for 2?
Regarding this, the absurdity is not being able to think beyond your normal NYG defense mechanisms. Paying elite money to LW when his market value was less than that before the 2020 season absolutely limited the NYG somewhere and somehow.
Did you have their original shopping lists over the past two offseasons? While they have added some good assets, its not hard to presume they missed out (or backed out) on some others. A Tight End younger and better than Rudolph is a perfect example as we know they were targeting others. Was Fulton all they wanted to do on the OL this offseason...beats me but I am guessing no.
Quote:
In comment 15301550 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Pretend the trade doesn't happen...
- Do the Jets franchise or re-sign him? Seems unlikely given he underachieved there. And we know after the fact they were willing to trade him.
Your hypothetical ends here - the NYJ trade him to one of the other teams rumored to be in on him and who knows what that other team decides to do (and how he plays).
It's presumable that any other team trading for him would have been a team in playoff contention. It's a virtual guarantee they were 1 of the 30 other teams with a much better roster than the '19 NYG & NYJ. It's possible he went to a better team and gotten more recognition for his impact. Amari Cooper pretty quickly flipped the narrative around him when Dallas got him out of Oakland and because of that he never hit UFA.
There were other teams interested in trading for him? I don't recall that being the case, but I could be wrong.
See below from Shefter - I remember later it was specifically reported the Cowboys were 1 of the teams who called the Jets and they did end up trading for a DL (Michael Bennett) which sort of implies they were in market at the time.
Sources: Multiple teams interested in trade for Jets' Leonard Williams - ( New Window )
Quote:
Quote:
Much credit to targeting/scouting an impact player, no credit on executing the deal.
"No credit"?? Considering a deal was done and it hasn't prevented us from acquiring other players to build the roster, a statement like "no credit" is absurd.
But you don't shy away from absurdity, you embrace it.
"I'm glad this plane landed where I wanted to go but no credit for that because there was flying time and the ticket cost more money than I think it should have"
I didn't quite realize it until now but LW is kind of a karen test.
I heard this line earlier and kind of liked it...
"Offering more money than anyone else to free agents isn't exactly a skill."
It's not often you're able to add a LT or #1 pass rusher via UFA, but you can certainly add stronger complimentary pieces already established in the NFL, and add more of them across the roster. They had to make choices, eg Adoree over Leonard Floyd, when they needed both.
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Ok, we are in complete agreement re: the best way to value the trade via the currency of draft picks (pick 68 = 250 points, pick 154 = 30 points). From that POV using the trade value chart it cost the NYG the equivalent of about 300 value points in a draft where their total draft capital was north of 2500 value points (I used last year's aggregate to make this simpler even though 1 of the picks lost was this year's draft).
Trading 10% of a single year's draft pool seems pretty insignificant for what ended up being a pro bowl level season, no?
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm - ( New Window )
- Do the Jets franchise or re-sign him? Seems unlikely given he underachieved there. And we know after the fact they were willing to trade him.
- Does Williams sign somewhere else? Possible, but we heard he wanted to stay in New York, and the Giants had the cap space and appetite to pay him - they ended up paying him more 2020 cap space under the franchise tag than Dante Fowler (who set the FA edge market at $15M AAV).
- Even after the trade, Paul Schwartz reported that Williams's open market value was $10M-$12M. Yeah Williams bet on himself and won...but only because the trade have him the leverage to make that bet in the first place. The Giants aren't paying him $12M AAV as a result; they're paying him $21M AAV. What could that $9M difference get you? Well Dalvin Tomlinson's average salary is $10.5M, so...
Asset allocation matters.
Forgive us if Paul Schwartz's assessment of DL market value isn't the compelling argument you think it is. These beat reporters are wrong about everything just about all of the time.
Dante Fowler? The guy has multiple off-the-field issues, including a suspension by none other than Tom Coughlin. Fowler's also an EDGE, an outside guy in a 3/4. Fowler's contract has no impact whatsoever on Williams.
Quote:
In comment 15301552 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Quote:
Much credit to targeting/scouting an impact player, no credit on executing the deal.
"No credit"?? Considering a deal was done and it hasn't prevented us from acquiring other players to build the roster, a statement like "no credit" is absurd.
But you don't shy away from absurdity, you embrace it.
"I'm glad this plane landed where I wanted to go but no credit for that because there was flying time and the ticket cost more money than I think it should have"
I didn't quite realize it until now but LW is kind of a karen test.
I heard this line earlier and kind of liked it...
"Offering more money than anyone else to free agents isn't exactly a skill."
the NYG only paid LW the CBA determined raise off what he'd made the prior year and due to his losing his grievance for positional classification as DE it ended up being less than the full 20% in the CBA and almost the same salary as the 5th year option (which if memory serves the NYJ picked up at the DE price). Either way the NYG paid him 16m the year after another team paid him 14m.
Williams handled the situation beautifully. His options before the trade were limited: sign with whichever team gave you the best deal. He was at the mercy of the market.
But once the Giants traded for him that dynamic changed. That gave him leverage over the Giants and he milked it as far as he could. He turned what should have been around a 4 year, $45M contract into essentially a 4 year $79M contract. $30M+ of cap space over a 4 year period for one player is not a small amount of money.
This is only one of several asset allocation errors that characterize the Gettleman era.
Williams handled the situation beautifully. His options before the trade were limited: sign with whichever team gave you the best deal. He was at the mercy of the market.
But once the Giants traded for him that dynamic changed. That gave him leverage over the Giants and he milked it as far as he could. He turned what should have been around a 4 year, $45M contract into essentially a 4 year $79M contract. $30M+ of cap space over a 4 year period for one player is not a small amount of money.
This is only one of several asset allocation errors that characterize the Gettleman era.
Once again, "what could have been" is nothing but speculation.
If the Giants signed him to a longterm deal at 10-12 million a per on the back of a 1.5 sack season, you'd have criticized Gettleman for such a large investment into a mediocre player. If they let him walk in FA, you'd have criticized him for trading away picks just to let a guy walk. They signed a premier DT/DE coming off a double-digit sack season and you criticize Gettleman.
You're making my point for me. EDGE players don't set the market for DT/DE in a 3/4. Dante Fowler, the wonderful EDGE making $12M per tallied 3 sacks last season.
So would you rather have Fowler right now or Williams?
"Probably" being the operative word. You, nor I, nor Paul Schwartz really have any clue what the going rate is for players. Otherwise, we would be working in a FO somewhere. So to base any argument around "asset allocation" is folly.
In my view it was a long shot a 6th year player was going to put it all together and prove his ceiling was a top tier player. Not just pretty good, but really good.
It was improbable, but it worked out. The contract is fair and clean. If he produces like last year, it’s the right resource allocation.
There’s plenty to knock Gettleman on — on this one he got it right — however improbable it was.
Quote:
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Ok, we are in complete agreement re: the best way to value the trade via the currency of draft picks (pick 68 = 250 points, pick 154 = 30 points). From that POV using the trade value chart it cost the NYG the equivalent of about 300 value points in a draft where their total draft capital was north of 2500 value points (I used last year's aggregate to make this simpler even though 1 of the picks lost was this year's draft).
Trading 10% of a single year's draft pool seems pretty insignificant for what ended up being a pro bowl level season, no? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm - ( New Window )
Again, that's a post transaction value. What he became since the trade is not relevant to the trade itself. If you buy a picture frame at a yard sale that happens to contain a Honus Wagner rookie card, you didn't intentionally buy a Honus Wagner rookie card. In this case, I do think we owe a bit of a hat tip to Gettleman and Pettit that they recognized LW's upside when they made the trade. But bundling that into your argument retroactively robs them of the upside they acquired, who was no sure thing at the time.
They traded X amount of draft capital for the player they acquired at the time. His value AT THAT TIME was right around the level of the value that was traded for him, perhaps a bit beneath that, but close. Still, he was a post-hype prospect of such massive proportions that he represents a scenario that is very difficult to quantify.
That said, to simplify it (IMO), LW is such an interesting example because he represents an example of a trade where we overpaid for the player he was when we acquired him, and ultimately underpaid for the player he has been for us since.
It feeds both arguments: he's been a fantastic player for us, one who we probably would not have been able to acquire on the open market. Except that he wasn't that player when he was originally going to hit the open market, and might have been a bargain signing even if we had overpaid for him in 2020 dollars. But because he was such an enigma at the time, DG (understandably) let his contract negotiations wait a year, which spiked LW's price tag even in a down cap year.
It's not exactly what anyone could consider a savvy cap maneuver, but it's also not a scenario that has a ton of precedent in terms of acquiring A+ talent like LW was this past year (and we hope he continues to be).
It's ultimately BBI's wet dream, right? Both the posters who were in favor of the trade and those who were opposed to the trade end up being right, and the Giants ultimately end up with a potential superstar in the process.
And trading for him ended up keeping him on the team, just as another team trading for him likely would have done.
We talk so often about needing to get better as a team. The Giants do that by signing Williams and the mantra is still that he could have been gotten more cheaply. Or more laughably, that there is "no credit" given for signing him.
Realistically, he'd have been a lot cheaper for us if we didn't trade for him because he probably isn't ever seeing free agency and we have no shot at signing him.
When supposition is the backbone of an argument, it likely isn't a very strong one.
Quote:
The point is the trade never should have been made in the first place, and Williams probably could have been had for cheaper had the trade never occurred at all.
"Probably" being the operative word. You, nor I, nor Paul Schwartz really have any clue what the going rate is for players. Otherwise, we would be working in a FO somewhere. So to base any argument around "asset allocation" is folly.
You really think LW even sniffs Deforest Buckner-type money after his 2019 season?
Wake up...
Why is it so hard for you to admit you don't have any clue what a given athlete's value is?
I also agree the lead up to the extension was inefficient, and was not management’s best work.
I wouldn’t have burned the powder on Williams, but all things equal now, if the Giants get 2 years of 2020 production, they did well.
Quote:
The going rate for Leonard Williams in October 2019 was not $21M/year. It was not even $16M/year. That was also not the going rate for him in March 2020. He was not viewed as an elite player at that time, because he hadn't been.
Why is it so hard for you to admit you don't have any clue what a given athlete's value is?
Dante Fowler, your own example, had not ever been an "elite player" either. He had 16 career sacks in 5 NFL seasons (one being lost due to ACL injury) before LAR handed him $14M. He's now gone back to sucking on ATL.
And yet:
Realistically, he'd have been a lot cheaper for us if we didn't trade for him because he probably isn't ever seeing free agency and we have no shot at signing him.
When supposition is the backbone of an argument, it likely isn't a very strong one.
The supposition that is not a very strong one is that LW couldn't have made it to free agency and/or that the NYG couldn't have targeted and paid him his lower market salary at that point. Hell, even somewhat of a premium if need be.
Terps - i'd disagree with you that they overpaid him for most of the answers I've given above. Mainly that they were still able to maneuver the cap around him and the draft picks given up were not prohibitive.
I am not blind to alternatives so I do think there are other positive scenarios that could have worked out resourcing the assets differently, just none that I can envision as both realistic and clearly better. So I don't see much point in quibbling over what has already been a great outcome on the off chance it could have been super great if they made the perfect draft picks and somehow found just as much production in FA. The only way I can get to a better outcome is if they picked day 1 starter like the all pro guard the Pats took last year in the 7th round and then put the money towards both resigning Tomlinson and adding another FA who turned out great like Daryl Williams, but how realistic is that? Had they wanted Williams they still could have signed him at the time instead of Fackrell but they didn't and it had nothing to do with LW. So more realistically the pick would have been last year's Ojulari Zack Baun (who I also liked just as much as everyone else and I believe the asshats said the NYG liked) and I'm pretty sure given the choice right now I'd take Williams > Baun + Tomlinson. So at best it feels like quibbling over 6 in one and half dozen in the other (with a lot of room for worse outcomes that would have been more popular with most fans/observers like signing Clowney as an example).
My long term (minority) opinion from the moment the trade was made was that it was bizarre timing but the opportunity cost was way over dramatized, and that was with the tag being assumed. God willing his healthy track record will continue along with his impact level performance.
In October 2019 the going rate for him was 14m. Because that's the rate he was under contract for.
Quote:
The going rate for Leonard Williams in October 2019 was not $21M/year. It was not even $16M/year. That was also not the going rate for him in March 2020. He was not viewed as an elite player at that time, because he hadn't been.
In October 2019 the going rate for him was 14m. Because that's the rate he was under contract for.
That was the last year of his rookie deal, which under the CBA was valued according to his draft slot. His first FA deal was going to be dependent on his performance with the Jets.
Quote:
In comment 15301563 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Ok, we are in complete agreement re: the best way to value the trade via the currency of draft picks (pick 68 = 250 points, pick 154 = 30 points). From that POV using the trade value chart it cost the NYG the equivalent of about 300 value points in a draft where their total draft capital was north of 2500 value points (I used last year's aggregate to make this simpler even though 1 of the picks lost was this year's draft).
Trading 10% of a single year's draft pool seems pretty insignificant for what ended up being a pro bowl level season, no? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm - ( New Window )
Again, that's a post transaction value. What he became since the trade is not relevant to the trade itself. If you buy a picture frame at a yard sale that happens to contain a Honus Wagner rookie card, you didn't intentionally buy a Honus Wagner rookie card. In this case, I do think we owe a bit of a hat tip to Gettleman and Pettit that they recognized LW's upside when they made the trade. But bundling that into your argument retroactively robs them of the upside they acquired, who was no sure thing at the time.
They traded X amount of draft capital for the player they acquired at the time. His value AT THAT TIME was right around the level of the value that was traded for him, perhaps a bit beneath that, but close. Still, he was a post-hype prospect of such massive proportions that he represents a scenario that is very difficult to quantify.
That said, to simplify it (IMO), LW is such an interesting example because he represents an example of a trade where we overpaid for the player he was when we acquired him, and ultimately underpaid for the player he has been for us since.
It feeds both arguments: he's been a fantastic player for us, one who we probably would not have been able to acquire on the open market. Except that he wasn't that player when he was originally going to hit the open market, and might have been a bargain signing even if we had overpaid for him in 2020 dollars. But because he was such an enigma at the time, DG (understandably) let his contract negotiations wait a year, which spiked LW's price tag even in a down cap year.
It's not exactly what anyone could consider a savvy cap maneuver, but it's also not a scenario that has a ton of precedent in terms of acquiring A+ talent like LW was this past year (and we hope he continues to be).
It's ultimately BBI's wet dream, right? Both the posters who were in favor of the trade and those who were opposed to the trade end up being right, and the Giants ultimately end up with a potential superstar in the process.
Again, my opinion then and now is that the price paid at the time was and continues to be overstated. I like Aaron Robinson as much as the next guy but would I be shocked if he's not even as good as Darnay Holmes was last year or even an outright bust like Sam Beal? No. because the most likely outcome of any 3rd round pick is not a full time starter (pre-transactional value as you put it). And while I would not have predicted LW to have the kind of ascent he has had he was a 4.5 year starter at the time of the trade.
Quote:
In comment 15301599 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The point is the trade never should have been made in the first place, and Williams probably could have been had for cheaper had the trade never occurred at all.
"Probably" being the operative word. You, nor I, nor Paul Schwartz really have any clue what the going rate is for players. Otherwise, we would be working in a FO somewhere. So to base any argument around "asset allocation" is folly.
You really think LW even sniffs Deforest Buckner-type money after his 2019 season?
Wake up...
Did you foresee Landon Collins becoming one of the highest paid DBs in the NFL after his 0 interception 2018 which ended on IR after 12 games?
Imagine the hand-wringing if Gettleman stayed pat and let L. Williams go to Dallas, where he put double-sack seasons. Those 3rd and 5th picks would have been meaningless as our anemic DL struggled to put any pressure on opposing QBs. Gettleman would be asleep at the wheel while division opponents improved leveraging draft picks.
Imagine if Gettleman let L. Williams walk in FA and Williams went on to make the pro-bowl the next several seasons while we continued to rely on the likes of Carter, Golden, et al to apply pressure. Hey, at least we would still have Dalvin Tomlinson!
That's one I will never be able to understand. We were 2-6 when we traded for LW. The smarter move was to be sellers, not buyers. Because we were clearly going nowhere in terms of the playoffs.
Several of us did some comp analysis when we acquired LW. And based on recent contracts and production at the time, Grady Jackson and Jurrell Casey were the most reasonable comps. And that was around $15M AAV.
So if we didn't trade for him, and pursued him in the open market, I would bet the contract to buy would have been 4yrs/$60M...tops.
Instead, we gave up multiple picks, franchise tagged him for a year, and then re-signed him this year for 3yrs/$63M with $45M guaranteed. Basically, all rolled up, a 4 year contract for $80M with $60M+ guaranteed.
That's a significant difference. And why Gettleman absolutely mishandled this situation and got schooled by Team LW.
Quote:
and as long as he keeps putting up years just like 2020 then all is good...
Imagine the hand-wringing if Gettleman stayed pat and let L. Williams go to Dallas, where he put double-sack seasons. Those 3rd and 5th picks would have been meaningless as our anemic DL struggled to put any pressure on opposing QBs. Gettleman would be asleep at the wheel while division opponents improved leveraging draft picks.
Imagine if Gettleman let L. Williams walk in FA and Williams went on to make the pro-bowl the next several seasons while we continued to rely on the likes of Carter, Golden, et al to apply pressure. Hey, at least we would still have Dalvin Tomlinson!
You still don't understand that the trade is what's at issue. He never should have traded for him in the first place. The odds of being able to acquire him in FA were still pretty good, and if they didn't it means picks and money to use elsewhere.
The Jets were trading him. Somebody was going to get LW mid-season. Why wouldn't the team that traded for him be the favorites to keep him, just like we ended up being?
The odds to get him in FA may have been very poor, especially if he was signed or tagged by the team who acquired him. Just like it played out when we got him....
I think it's safe to assume the Jets floor was a 3rd round pick since they would likely get that as a comp pick.
Who knows what the market outside of the Giants was.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume the Jets would necessarily trade him, when there was viable compensation available if they didn't.
Quote:
and as long as he keeps putting up years just like 2020 then all is good...
Imagine the hand-wringing if Gettleman stayed pat and let L. Williams go to Dallas, where he put double-sack seasons. Those 3rd and 5th picks would have been meaningless as our anemic DL struggled to put any pressure on opposing QBs. Gettleman would be asleep at the wheel while division opponents improved leveraging draft picks.
Imagine if Gettleman let L. Williams walk in FA and Williams went on to make the pro-bowl the next several seasons while we continued to rely on the likes of Carter, Golden, et al to apply pressure. Hey, at least we would still have Dalvin Tomlinson!
I think we've moved past the actual trade compensation, except for the gaggers who tried to claim that DG had a handshake deal in place with LW at the time of the trade and have never once walked that back since.
Somehow that nod/nod/wink/wink handshake deal turned into two consecutive franchise tags and a top of the market contract.
LW earned every penny of that deal with his play this past season. But that's hindsight, right? And the bargain that represented relative to the tag last season became a top-of-market contract this past offseason. That's the nature of the tag nuance, it could have gone either way. But the team's side of the table never should get credit when the tag turns into a prove-it deal that does get proven. Even if they're able to navigate the cap around that scenario (as DG/KA have), it's still not optimal.
Our front office managed the way that they did. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't even great. But the outcome worked out in our favor even though the price tag was inflated as a result. Whatever.
But when posters try to "what if" the argument into LW playing for the Cowboys or anyone else? Sorry, but you don't get to play fiction unobstructed. What if LW had decided to take up a career in figure skating? What if he had decided that he only wanted to be a punter? The "what if" narratives are silly.
The Giants traded for him. There is a greater than zero chance that he would have reached FA anyway. There is also a greater than zero chance that he would have been traded elsewhere.
The Giants tagged LW in 2020. There is a greater than zero chance that he might have signed a multi-year contract if he wasn't working against the tag; there's also a greater than zero chance that he would have signed elsewhere to latch onto a defense that might have appeared to be more favorable a year ago.
There are so many factors in play here that trying to back into a singular moment from which a butterfly effect might have taken off seems silly. But to use the current outcome as a defense beyond debate for everything that preceded it is just as silly, IMO. We took a bumpy path to a favorable outcome. Anyone who denies the bumps is just as ridiculous as anyone who denies the favorability of the outcome.
The Jets were trading him. Somebody was going to get LW mid-season. Why wouldn't the team that traded for him be the favorites to keep him, just like we ended up being?
The odds to get him in FA may have been very poor, especially if he was signed or tagged by the team who acquired him. Just like it played out when we got him....
The Jets traded Williams almost two full days to go before the trading deadline expired. If there was a bigger market, why didn't the Jets wait for the best offer? My guess is there wasn't a robust market at all for LW and the Giants gave them something that met their reasonable standards. So the Jets pulled the trigger.
I mean, giving up a third and conditional pick isn't the best ROI for a former 6th pick in the draft.
Quote:
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Ok, we are in complete agreement re: the best way to value the trade via the currency of draft picks (pick 68 = 250 points, pick 154 = 30 points). From that POV using the trade value chart it cost the NYG the equivalent of about 300 value points in a draft where their total draft capital was north of 2500 value points (I used last year's aggregate to make this simpler even though 1 of the picks lost was this year's draft).
Trading 10% of a single year's draft pool seems pretty insignificant for what ended up being a pro bowl level season, no? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm - ( New Window )
10% of a single year's draft pool on top of $80M in guaranteed money, right?
Quote:
it be stated that the odds to acquire him in FA were still pretty good?
The Jets were trading him. Somebody was going to get LW mid-season. Why wouldn't the team that traded for him be the favorites to keep him, just like we ended up being?
The odds to get him in FA may have been very poor, especially if he was signed or tagged by the team who acquired him. Just like it played out when we got him....
The Jets traded Williams almost two full days to go before the trading deadline expired. If there was a bigger market, why didn't the Jets wait for the best offer? My guess is there wasn't a robust market at all for LW and the Giants gave them something that met their reasonable standards. So the Jets pulled the trigger.
I mean, giving up a third and conditional pick isn't the best ROI for a former 6th pick in the draft.
You don't think that's a good offer? Funny for a guy who would give Jones up for a similar "haul"....
I can barely tolerate their thoughts typed into words let alone the thought of actually spending time with these individuals. So I assume these are some lonely people.
The only mistake in acquiring LW was not extending him after his first year here. He was/is worth the draft picks used to acquire him. The FO did a good job projecting what he could be not what he was with the Jets.
LW is an impact player on the defensive front. He makes everyone around him better. He helps the LBs behind him. If any of these JAG edge players on the roster are worth a shit they’ll thrive playing with LW. That type of presence didn’t exist on the defense before he was acquired and alone more than justifies the compensation surrendered.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
Quote:
In comment 15301563 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Ok, we are in complete agreement re: the best way to value the trade via the currency of draft picks (pick 68 = 250 points, pick 154 = 30 points). From that POV using the trade value chart it cost the NYG the equivalent of about 300 value points in a draft where their total draft capital was north of 2500 value points (I used last year's aggregate to make this simpler even though 1 of the picks lost was this year's draft).
Trading 10% of a single year's draft pool seems pretty insignificant for what ended up being a pro bowl level season, no? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm - ( New Window )
10% of a single year's draft pool on top of $80M in guaranteed money, right?
$61m guaranteed over 4 years (ages 26-29). OTC has current deal at 45m fully guaranteed and I added in last years 16m since that was technically guaranteed even though it was an irrelevant guarantee. I say that because guaranteed vs. non-guaranteed only matters for cap purposes if dead money hits. If the cash gets paid out to the player it counts the same whether it was guaranteed or not, so even if last year's deal was 100% non-guaranteed nothing would have changed in the accounting of it. There was 0 chance of dead money last year because it was a 1 year deal and the NYG wanted to keep the player (as most teams do when they tag players). The tag money guarantee was likely an easy non-concession by the owners in the CBA negotiations to get something that was actually mattered to them.
back to Williams, the thing I like most about how they've (presumably abrams) structured his term with the team is that there's a very small dead money risk. There was no chance he got cut midseason last year, and there's no chance he gets cut midseason this year. It's hard to envision any reason why he'd get cut after this year (other than a career ending injury or something legal). Assuming that to be the case, there's really on $7.5m in dead money risk if they decide to dump LW a year early - which itself is pretty low probability since it's only his a29 season. It may be more likely they are trying to extend him than cut him. But even if they did cut him early I'm pretty sure that would end up a much lower amount of dead money than all the other recent big contracts they paid on JPP, Vernon, Snacks, OBJ, Jenkins. Progress.
The only mistake in acquiring LW was not extending him after his first year here. He was/is worth the draft picks used to acquire him. The FO did a good job projecting what he could be not what he was with the Jets.
LW is an impact player on the defensive front. He makes everyone around him better. He helps the LBs behind him. If any of these JAG edge players on the roster are worth a shit they’ll thrive playing with LW. That type of presence didn’t exist on the defense before he was acquired and alone more than justifies the compensation surrendered.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
I’ve been stating similar opinions for quite some time, but we’re up against the stubborn narrative that keeps rearing it’s head. I try my best to scroll on by.
The Jets traded Williams almost two full days to go before the trading deadline expired. If there was a bigger market, why didn't the Jets wait for the best offer? My guess is there wasn't a robust market at all for LW and the Giants gave them something that met their reasonable standards. So the Jets pulled the trigger.
I mean, giving up a third and conditional pick isn't the best ROI for a former 6th pick in the draft.
You don't think that's a good offer? Funny for a guy who would give Jones up for a similar "haul"....
For the Jets? No.
For NYG? Based on the two picks offered - yes.
But you can't discard the other piece of failing to finalize a contract at the end of 2019. Because that was a big narrative when we acquired LW - he liked NY, wanted to stay, and, supposedly, there was a gentlemen's agreement in place. Everything was in place.
Until it was clear our GM was playing checkers while Team LW was playing chess.
As for Jones, I have said I would take the same deal the Panthers gave up for Darnold.
Quote:
Has been a foundational piece of the defense since the day he walked into the Giants locker room. The people who say he just had one good year don’t know what they’re watching.
The only mistake in acquiring LW was not extending him after his first year here. He was/is worth the draft picks used to acquire him. The FO did a good job projecting what he could be not what he was with the Jets.
LW is an impact player on the defensive front. He makes everyone around him better. He helps the LBs behind him. If any of these JAG edge players on the roster are worth a shit they’ll thrive playing with LW. That type of presence didn’t exist on the defense before he was acquired and alone more than justifies the compensation surrendered.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
Quote:
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
I’ve been stating similar opinions for quite some time, but we’re up against the stubborn narrative that keeps rearing it’s head. I try my best to scroll on by.
I don’t even think it’s a narrative. The board was pretty polarized before/after the trade so it’s just a common situation here where people who were wrong try to defend their shitty position to justify how they weren’t wrong.
Bottom line is LW is an impact player at an impact position for the Giants who’s young and should have plenty of years ahead of him. They didn’t have that on the roster before they acquired him. A 3rd and future 5th is easily worth locking that up even if there’s a chance he’s a FA and wants to stay in NY.
Quote:
In comment 15301842 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Has been a foundational piece of the defense since the day he walked into the Giants locker room. The people who say he just had one good year don’t know what they’re watching.
The only mistake in acquiring LW was not extending him after his first year here. He was/is worth the draft picks used to acquire him. The FO did a good job projecting what he could be not what he was with the Jets.
LW is an impact player on the defensive front. He makes everyone around him better. He helps the LBs behind him. If any of these JAG edge players on the roster are worth a shit they’ll thrive playing with LW. That type of presence didn’t exist on the defense before he was acquired and alone more than justifies the compensation surrendered.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
Quote:
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
I’ve been stating similar opinions for quite some time, but we’re up against the stubborn narrative that keeps rearing it’s head. I try my best to scroll on by.
I don’t even think it’s a narrative. The board was pretty polarized before/after the trade so it’s just a common situation here where people who were wrong try to defend their shitty position to justify how they weren’t wrong.
Bottom line is LW is an impact player at an impact position for the Giants who’s young and should have plenty of years ahead of him. They didn’t have that on the roster before they acquired him. A 3rd and future 5th is easily worth locking that up even if there’s a chance he’s a FA and wants to stay in NY.
To me, this was a crystal clear no-brainer.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
Looking forward to his 2021 being just as good as his 2020...
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
That would have been a prudent, logical process to follow.
When it became obvious he didn't, those posters then switched to how it made sense not to have a deal yet because more important to see how LW looked in the NYG defense. Nice pivot...
I still don't really understand the fighting on this one. It didn't go perfectly, but he's now one of the most important players on the team and anchored a defense that actually put us in playoff contention last year after a decade in the gutter. The major money he's owed comes after a salary cap surge and hit in his 20s with flexibility getting out of it on the back end.
It didn't go perfectly but i'm happy with the outcome.
Forget 7th ranked, in reality there's really only 1 DT who was unquestionably above him last year (and I don't care about any year prior for the reasons I listed above).
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are studies about the benefits (better health, relationships, success, etc.) of being positive. Some have said that not being negative and staying away from negative people is a key to a happy life.
Hint hint.
Forget 7th ranked, in reality there's really only 1 DT who was unquestionably above him last year (and I don't care about any year prior for the reasons I listed above).
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are studies about the benefits (better health, relationships, success, etc.) of being positive. Some have said that not being negative and staying away from negative people is a key to a happy life.
Hint hint.
Cool, so you'll be staying away from here?
Sounds like a win/win.
Forget 7th ranked, in reality there's really only 1 DT who was unquestionably above him last year (and I don't care about any year prior for the reasons I listed above).
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are studies about the benefits (better health, relationships, success, etc.) of being positive. Some have said that not being negative and staying away from negative people is a key to a happy life.
Hint hint.
Username: Dr. D.
Liar.
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
With certain folks, it's different day, same negative shit.
Have a nice day!
With certain folks, it's different day, same negative shit.
Have a nice day!
^Ha!
Maybe learn to use the quote function, doc.
So considering the bizarre timing of the trade so close to UFA giving the FO minimal leverage, Leonard Williams not being a fully established known quantity, and a new coaching staff coming in with a new scheme, a 1 year "prove it" deal was the logical and imo preferred outcome from day 1 (barring LW being willing to sign an under market deal - which if we are being honest is something very few of us would do).
In the end LW probably increased his value from 16-17m per year to 19-20m per year but I think that 15% premium paid was worth it to see that the player could in fact be a difference maker in the new scheme. Had he proven otherwise the NYG could have decided to go in the completely different direction this year and been no worse off. If he didn't outplayed Tomlinson by as much as he did they could have just brought back the cheaper of the 2, reinvested additional saved $ elsewhere, and played for the comp pick. As things went they came very close to getting a 4th for Tomlinson (imo they should have maneuvered better to get that, though i'm not sure that would have been possible while also signing KG).
Quote:
people complaining about the way we acquired and signed a great impact player. The type of player our defense really needed. The type that don't grow on trees (or come in the 3rd rd, generally).
Forget 7th ranked, in reality there's really only 1 DT who was unquestionably above him last year (and I don't care about any year prior for the reasons I listed above).
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are studies about the benefits (better health, relationships, success, etc.) of being positive. Some have said that not being negative and staying away from negative people is a key to a happy life.
Hint hint.
Quote:
I'm no doctor
Username: Dr. D.
Liar.
I've posted several times that I'm not a doctor (I'm a chemical engineer). Dr. D was a nickname given to me by old friends/coworkers. Won't bore you with details.
I've also admitted I regret choosing it as my handle (may've been tipsy at the time, don't remember). If there was an easy way to change it, I would.
Have a nice day!
Quote:
In comment 15301979 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
Quote:
No, but I do skim past many posts.
With certain folks, it's different day, same negative shit.
Have a nice day!
^Ha!
Maybe learn to use the quote function, doc.
I'm quite aware, have used it often, thanks.
I'm also aware the site has had issues, possibly with bandwidth and on some of these threads, about half the space is quotes and sometimes they aren't necessary.
Have a nice day!
Lol, sorry Brett. I never know around here.
Seems some people are just looking for a fight.
Quote:
In comment 15301982 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15301979 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
Fair, but you weren't who I was referring to here.
I absolutely have come around to view the trade as defensible.
I'm just not willing to issue a pass to the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs, no matter what contortions are necessary. That entire group swore up and down that DG definitely had a deal in place with LW; they were supposedly reading the tea leaves - in hindsight, they must be coffee drinkers, because it's very likely that they've never even seen a tea leaf.
The DG acolytes tend to be among the first to line up to serve crow when the situation calls for it. I'm just wondering why they have no appetite themselves.
Probably because they're too busy taking victory laps and starting threads about offseason workouts.
Quote:
In comment 15302029 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301982 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15301979 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
Fair, but you weren't who I was referring to here.
I absolutely have come around to view the trade as defensible.
I'm just not willing to issue a pass to the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs, no matter what contortions are necessary. That entire group swore up and down that DG definitely had a deal in place with LW; they were supposedly reading the tea leaves - in hindsight, they must be coffee drinkers, because it's very likely that they've never even seen a tea leaf.
The DG acolytes tend to be among the first to line up to serve crow when the situation calls for it. I'm just wondering why they have no appetite themselves.
Probably because they're too busy taking victory laps and starting threads about offseason workouts.
Disclaimer: I was not happy with the DG hire. That said, he really had to gut this team MISTAKES notwithstanding..I was totally WRONG about the Shurmur hire. I thought he’d do wonders with our O. I should have known better. As a fan, that’s on me. I’m loving the JJ hire and especially like who he has surrounded himself with. I’ll reserve Judgement on Garrett given the tools he now has or will have to work with.
Also of importance, imv, is how well DG and JJ seem to work together.
Quote:
In comment 15302052 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15302029 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301982 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15301979 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
Fair, but you weren't who I was referring to here.
I absolutely have come around to view the trade as defensible.
I'm just not willing to issue a pass to the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs, no matter what contortions are necessary. That entire group swore up and down that DG definitely had a deal in place with LW; they were supposedly reading the tea leaves - in hindsight, they must be coffee drinkers, because it's very likely that they've never even seen a tea leaf.
The DG acolytes tend to be among the first to line up to serve crow when the situation calls for it. I'm just wondering why they have no appetite themselves.
Probably because they're too busy taking victory laps and starting threads about offseason workouts.
Disclaimer: I was not happy with the DG hire. That said, he really had to gut this team MISTAKES notwithstanding..I was totally WRONG about the Shurmur hire. I thought he’d do wonders with our O. I should have known better. As a fan, that’s on me. I’m loving the JJ hire and especially like who he has surrounded himself with. I’ll reserve Judgement on Garrett given the tools he now has or will have to work with.
Also of importance, imv, is how well DG and JJ seem to work together.
Fiddy, you're a reasonable and balanced person. And fan.
And I think you recognize that there was a phase where DG gutted the roster of JR's mistakes. And then a subsequent stretch where DG gutted the roster of his own mistakes.
No one, other than the DG acolytes actually expects DG to be infallible. Of course, when DG carries himself with an air of arrogance in the face of his mistakes, it does get tiresome, but that's neither here nor there. He has done a much better job since the 2020 offseason.
Thank God Judge saved DG from himself.
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Re. the idea that DG had a deal in place when the trade was made, I had no idea and wasn't surprised when there wasn't. I don't know how that could even work. Isn't that tampering?
Even if some people thought there was a deal, is it really that BAFD?
(btw, notice how I efficiently used the quote function?)
Quote:
the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Re. the idea that DG had a deal in place when the trade was made, I had no idea and wasn't surprised when there wasn't. I don't know how that could even work. Isn't that tampering?
Even if some people thought there was a deal, is it really that BAFD?
(btw, notice how I efficiently used the quote function?)
Is there really a bloc like this? Yes.
Would you like me to list the posters who are part of it?
Quote:
the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Of course there is a faction on the site that will defend DG adamantly.
Many of them do it proactively providing litany of excuses, changing time-lines or whatever their style is. Others do it by just attacking the posters that are DJ's critics. And there is another group that will never post a negative thing about DG ever, but are ready to jump in quickly and praise him for a good deal. And those posts often include taking a shot at his critics as well.
Quote:
In comment 15302070 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Re. the idea that DG had a deal in place when the trade was made, I had no idea and wasn't surprised when there wasn't. I don't know how that could even work. Isn't that tampering?
Even if some people thought there was a deal, is it really that BAFD?
(btw, notice how I efficiently used the quote function?)
Is there really a bloc like this? Yes.
Would you like me to list the posters who are part of it?
Ha ha. No, definitely not. But thanks for the offer.
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
The picks weren't really a problem for me. The bigger, real issue for me was the actual trade considering we were 2-6 (maybe on a 4 game losing streak?) with the playoffs very likely a lost cause. Selling players made much more sense.
We'll likely never know the details, but if I had to guess DG really misunderstood the marketplace value of LW and very likely lowballed him expecting a "I love the NY area" discount from LW.
These miscalculations led to NO contract at the end of '19, and the eventual FT. Had DG understood the market, he should have been willing to pay that market value - around 4yrs/$60-64M - and then lock him in.
That would have been significantly cheaper than what was ultimately paid; and set us much better heading into this off-season and beyond.
Sure, DG got his man, but he paid much more than he should have paid. And that, to me, is worth examining despite what others say in their attempts to write it off as insignificant.
Quote:
In comment 15302177 Dr. D said:
Quote:
In comment 15302070 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Re. the idea that DG had a deal in place when the trade was made, I had no idea and wasn't surprised when there wasn't. I don't know how that could even work. Isn't that tampering?
Even if some people thought there was a deal, is it really that BAFD?
(btw, notice how I efficiently used the quote function?)
Is there really a bloc like this? Yes.
Would you like me to list the posters who are part of it?
Ha ha. No, definitely not. But thanks for the offer.
Then I guess you'll STFU on that particular topic?
Then I guess you'll STFU on that particular topic?
You're a real pleasant fellow.
Have a nice day.
Then I guess you'll STFU on that particular topic?
If I wanted to play your games (and waste more time than I already have), I would ask you to provide actual quotes by members of this "bloc" where they've defended every single move DG has made.
But I don't really give a shit. So, have a nice day.
Quote:
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
The picks weren't really a problem for me. The bigger, real issue for me was the actual trade considering we were 2-6 (maybe on a 4 game losing streak?) with the playoffs very likely a lost cause. Selling players made much more sense.
We'll likely never know the details, but if I had to guess DG really misunderstood the marketplace value of LW and very likely lowballed him expecting a "I love the NY area" discount from LW.
These miscalculations led to NO contract at the end of '19, and the eventual FT. Had DG understood the market, he should have been willing to pay that market value - around 4yrs/$60-64M - and then lock him in.
That would have been significantly cheaper than what was ultimately paid; and set us much better heading into this off-season and beyond.
Sure, DG got his man, but he paid much more than he should have paid. And that, to me, is worth examining despite what others say in their attempts to write it off as insignificant.
Sure, DG got his man, but he paid much more than he should have paid. And that, to me, is worth examining despite what others say in their attempts to write it off as insignificant.
Oh come on Brian, how in the world do you know “he paid much more than he should have paid?” He played his cards, LW and Agent played theirs through no fault of either party. So yes, as is done so often, a player was tagged as they continued to negotiate. Again, both sides negotiated and they finally came to an agreement.
Given how much he wanted LW, at 25 and approaching primehood, he paid higher than he would have liked, but still, was able to have a terrific FA (on paper)…
So, tell me EXACTLY what you would have done assuming you wanted LW as much as DG did?
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
Quote:
Then I guess you'll STFU on that particular topic?
If I wanted to play your games (and waste more time than I already have), I would ask you to provide actual quotes by members of this "bloc" where they've defended every single move DG has made.
But I don't really give a shit. So, have a nice day.
You replied to my post twice five minutes apart.
You're right; you don't give a shit at all.
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
Yes agreed, there are too many examples of this over his tenure here.
Also don't understand why its hard to imagine LW's market price being lower at end of 2019 versus what he negotiated for himself in spring of 2021. Again, if DG "had to have" LW before he hit free agency because he viewed him as a centerpiece player, then he needed to better understand the market dynamics he set into motion by trading for him...
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
too often stockpiling draft capital instead of finding a way to identify and select difference makers?
point being that the ideal GM probably has to strike a balance between boldy going for players they believe in and knowing when to take a more asset collecting approach?
Oh come on Brian, how in the world do you know “he paid much more than he should have paid?” He played his cards, LW and Agent played theirs through no fault of either party. So yes, as is done so often, a player was tagged as they continued to negotiate. Again, both sides negotiated and they finally came to an agreement.
Given how much he wanted LW, at 25 and approaching primehood, he paid higher than he would have liked, but still, was able to have a terrific FA (on paper)…
So, tell me EXACTLY what you would have done assuming you wanted LW as much as DG did?
The market in '19 for DTs similar to LW was 4yrs/$60M+. Why wouldn't Team LW sign that at the time? Especially knowing the FT tag was going to be around $15-16M...
Instead, LW signed 3 yrs/$63M in March, or 4 yrs/$80M if you include the FT from '20.
So in my eyes, not getting the better market deal in '19, DG overpaid LW by $15-20M.
I give credit where credit is due here - Team LW played their cards beautifully at the end of '19. It seems clear they bluffed Ole Dave, who at the time had the better hand, and got Dave to fold by giving them the FT. Bet on themselves in '20 and drew a full house.
Quote:
Oh come on Brian, how in the world do you know “he paid much more than he should have paid?” He played his cards, LW and Agent played theirs through no fault of either party. So yes, as is done so often, a player was tagged as they continued to negotiate. Again, both sides negotiated and they finally came to an agreement.
Given how much he wanted LW, at 25 and approaching primehood, he paid higher than he would have liked, but still, was able to have a terrific FA (on paper)…
So, tell me EXACTLY what you would have done assuming you wanted LW as much as DG did?
The market in '19 for DTs similar to LW was 4yrs/$60M+. Why wouldn't Team LW sign that at the time? Especially knowing the FT tag was going to be around $15-16M...
Instead, LW signed 3 yrs/$63M in March, or 4 yrs/$80M if you include the FT from '20.
So in my eyes, not getting the better market deal in '19, DG overpaid LW by $15-20M.
I give credit where credit is due here - Team LW played their cards beautifully at the end of '19. It seems clear they bluffed Ole Dave, who at the time had the better hand, and got Dave to fold by giving them the FT. Bet on themselves in '20 and drew a full house.
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
Quote:
In comment 15302293 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
Oh come on Brian, how in the world do you know “he paid much more than he should have paid?” He played his cards, LW and Agent played theirs through no fault of either party. So yes, as is done so often, a player was tagged as they continued to negotiate. Again, both sides negotiated and they finally came to an agreement.
Given how much he wanted LW, at 25 and approaching primehood, he paid higher than he would have liked, but still, was able to have a terrific FA (on paper)…
So, tell me EXACTLY what you would have done assuming you wanted LW as much as DG did?
The market in '19 for DTs similar to LW was 4yrs/$60M+. Why wouldn't Team LW sign that at the time? Especially knowing the FT tag was going to be around $15-16M...
Instead, LW signed 3 yrs/$63M in March, or 4 yrs/$80M if you include the FT from '20.
So in my eyes, not getting the better market deal in '19, DG overpaid LW by $15-20M.
I give credit where credit is due here - Team LW played their cards beautifully at the end of '19. It seems clear they bluffed Ole Dave, who at the time had the better hand, and got Dave to fold by giving them the FT. Bet on themselves in '20 and drew a full house.
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
How is that any different from the group of posters who were certain that DG had a handshake deal with LW in place at the time of the trade and was just biding his time to game the conditional pick?
The market in '19 for DTs similar to LW was 4yrs/$60M+. Why wouldn't Team LW sign that at the time? Especially knowing the FT tag was going to be around $15-16M...
Instead, LW signed 3 yrs/$63M in March, or 4 yrs/$80M if you include the FT from '20.
So in my eyes, not getting the better market deal in '19, DG overpaid LW by $15-20M.
I give credit where credit is due here - Team LW played their cards beautifully at the end of '19. It seems clear they bluffed Ole Dave, who at the time had the better hand, and got Dave to fold by giving them the FT. Bet on themselves in '20 and drew a full house.
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
I'm surmising that LW would have signed a 4yr/$60M+ at the end of '19. I didn't claim it as fact.
Everything else is factual.
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
Which is why you hear posters like bw, JonC, GD and myself saying Gettleman targeted and acquired a damn nice player, and for that he deserves a lot of credit.
But when it comes to how that player finally got put under contract, he missed it. Yes, he got his guy but it still ultimately required elite-level money to secure the services for a guy who showed elite-level production in 2020. So keep things in perspective...
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
Quote:
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
Which is why you hear posters like bw, JonC, GD and myself saying Gettleman targeted and acquired a damn nice player, and for that he deserves a lot of credit.
But when it comes to how that player finally got put under contract, he missed it. Yes, he got his guy but it still ultimately required elite-level money to secure the services for a guy who showed elite-level production in 2020. So keep things in perspective...
Don't include yourself in that group. You've bitched from day 1 that DG fucked up trading for Williams and even complained about Williams performance year 1.
You've yet to give DG "a lot of credit" for anything.
You're rewriting a lot of history today, Clownshoes. First, you're telling other posters they are derailing threads, while that is one of your M.O.'s, now you're acting as if you've give Gettleman credit for getting Williams.
Quote:
Wanting players enough to be willing to overpay (or overdraft) is one of Gettleman's biggest weaknesses. He falls in full bloom love with someone that was touched by the hand of God, and decides that the juice is worth the squeeze.
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
too often stockpiling draft capital instead of finding a way to identify and select difference makers?
point being that the ideal GM probably has to strike a balance between boldy going for players they believe in and knowing when to take a more asset collecting approach?
I'd say the Patriots' approach has worked well over the years, wouldn't you?
How has Gettleman's?
Quote:
In comment 15302298 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Wanting players enough to be willing to overpay (or overdraft) is one of Gettleman's biggest weaknesses. He falls in full bloom love with someone that was touched by the hand of God, and decides that the juice is worth the squeeze.
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
too often stockpiling draft capital instead of finding a way to identify and select difference makers?
point being that the ideal GM probably has to strike a balance between boldy going for players they believe in and knowing when to take a more asset collecting approach?
I'd say the Patriots' approach has worked well over the years, wouldn't you?
How has Gettleman's?
Patriots’ approach worked because of Brady. If you look at the rest of the drafting they make Marc Ross look like a genius.
The next time the Giants are over .500 under Gettleman will be the first.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
I agree with some of your outline.
However, after the trade and the end of the '19 season, I contend Team LW takes a deal very similar to the one Jurrell Casey signed in the summer of 2019 with the Titans - 4yrs/$60M+ with $40M guaranteed.
Why? Because LW didn't have a great year in 2019 with either us or the Jets. They didn't have a strong case to stand on and pitch. So I think it's reasonable to conclude it would have been very hard for Team LW to walk away from that Casey deal. And therefore he likely signs it...
One more thing - why would Team LW feel good about the trade to the Giants when the package was a third and a fifth? That's not a deal that reflects a great player. It reflects, to me, the Jets just wanted to get LW off their roster. And were willing to take quite a loss for their 6th pick in the 2015 draft.
Quote:
In comment 15302382 PwndPapi said:
Quote:
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
Which is why you hear posters like bw, JonC, GD and myself saying Gettleman targeted and acquired a damn nice player, and for that he deserves a lot of credit.
But when it comes to how that player finally got put under contract, he missed it. Yes, he got his guy but it still ultimately required elite-level money to secure the services for a guy who showed elite-level production in 2020. So keep things in perspective...
Don't include yourself in that group. You've bitched from day 1 that DG fucked up trading for Williams and even complained about Williams performance year 1.
You've yet to give DG "a lot of credit" for anything.
You're rewriting a lot of history today, Clownshoes. First, you're telling other posters they are derailing threads, while that is one of your M.O.'s, now you're acting as if you've give Gettleman credit for getting Williams.
I know you haven’t had a very good week and have put your foot in your own mouth with poorly thought out comments more than once, but you want to continue that trend? Probably just feeling hurt and yours knows nothing other than to attack or look for an escape hatch, so this must just be the former...for now.
Williams clearly showed he could be an impact player for Giants as the 2020 season went along. And DG should get the credit for seeing that kind of player in him while also absorbing the fact that Team LW handled him quite easily at the bargaining table several times. DG should always gets credit where he adds the value and it has been nice to see more of that as of late. Lord knows it’s been a long time coming.
Unfortunately, you just continue to show you have a big mouth and are running out of feet...
Quote:
In comment 15302298 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Wanting players enough to be willing to overpay (or overdraft) is one of Gettleman's biggest weaknesses. He falls in full bloom love with someone that was touched by the hand of God, and decides that the juice is worth the squeeze.
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
too often stockpiling draft capital instead of finding a way to identify and select difference makers?
point being that the ideal GM probably has to strike a balance between boldy going for players they believe in and knowing when to take a more asset collecting approach?
I'd say the Patriots' approach has worked well over the years, wouldn't you?
How has Gettleman's?
It's well known that the Pats drafting has been spotty despite their unbelievable ability to stockpile extra draft capital. N'Keal Harry being the latest in that lineage. Unbelievably you have to go back to like 2012/2013 to find their last good first round picks (Hightower and Chandler Jones, who was the one player I can recall them actually trading up for).
That's not a defense of DG as much a statement of reality when it comes to the draft. Sometimes bold moves work out like trading up for Julio Jones or Pat Mahomes or the Steelers moving up for Devin Bush. Sometimes they don't like the Jets for Darnold or Bears with Trubisky.
There's no 1 strategy that's the gold standard other than scouting well and picking the right players whenever you are on the clock.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
This was one of the arguments that the trade's detractors made all along.
There's been a lot of chirping from the posters who supported the trade all along that they were right and those who opposed the trade were wrong, but from my perspective, both sides actually had valid points.
Those who supported the trade based solely on the talent and potential that LW represented wound up being 100% correct.
And those who expressed concern about the trade because it created a scenario where DG effectively gift-wrapped negotiating leverage to LW's agent also wound up being right.
As far as I can tell, only one side of those debates has come back to the middle at all. Somehow the trade's supporters are acting as though they're vindicated despite the fact that the negotiations did actually play out almost exactly like the detractors predicted.
It's an odd dynamic.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
That's a fair take.
And I'll be sure to reference it when some of well-known DG is infallible, NYG can do no wrong crew pops up.
Because there are a handful of them that are long-standing members here who absolutely consider themselves reasonable.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
In the case of Shurmer, why was he hired (outside of lack of options)?
Quote:
Blindly defends DG at every turn.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
That's a fair take.
And I'll be sure to reference it when some of well-known DG is infallible, NYG can do no wrong crew pops up.
Because there are a handful of them that are long-standing members here who absolutely consider themselves reasonable.
Gato, in fairness, I don’t know even one BBIer who has felt/stated that DG was infallible. AT BEST, in defending his moves at times, posters will effectively say, “sure he’s made mistakes, but…..”
Quote:
Wasn’t going to ever get a deal on LW unless he got hurt or played like dogshit.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
This was one of the arguments that the trade's detractors made all along.
There's been a lot of chirping from the posters who supported the trade all along that they were right and those who opposed the trade were wrong, but from my perspective, both sides actually had valid points.
Those who supported the trade based solely on the talent and potential that LW represented wound up being 100% correct.
And those who expressed concern about the trade because it created a scenario where DG effectively gift-wrapped negotiating leverage to LW's agent also wound up being right.
As far as I can tell, only one side of those debates has come back to the middle at all. Somehow the trade's supporters are acting as though they're vindicated despite the fact that the negotiations did actually play out almost exactly like the detractors predicted.
It's an odd dynamic.
Pretty well stated...
Quote:
Blindly defends DG at every turn.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
In the case of Shurmer, why was he hired (outside of lack of options)?
this is speculation but I think 2 reasons.
1. they prioritized "maturity" after McAdoo. wanted someone who seemed like an adult in terms of personality. Mara has said this publicly so not really speculation. Ironically maturity in dealing with the media may have been 1 of Shurmur's biggest weaknesses.
2. they valued his skill as a QB coach knowing there was a transition on the horizon. He had just gotten a great year out of Keenum. He'd had experience with some more modern offenses (Philly w/ Chip Kelly during Vick's big year). I think this was perhaps the most logical piece of the equation, and should Jones end up being a franchise QB i'd give Shurmur some credit for that.
Quote:
In comment 15302583 djm said:
Quote:
Blindly defends DG at every turn.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
That's a fair take.
And I'll be sure to reference it when some of well-known DG is infallible, NYG can do no wrong crew pops up.
Because there are a handful of them that are long-standing members here who absolutely consider themselves reasonable.
Gato, in fairness, I don’t know even one BBIer who has felt/stated that DG was infallible. AT BEST, in defending his moves at times, posters will effectively say, “sure he’s made mistakes, but…..”
There are a few who carry that infallibility in most their posts, some expressly and some implied. Some hide behind the veil of protecting DG's actions from this supposed army of detractors (presumably I'm at least an NCO in that corps by now, although I think you can vouch for the fact that I'm overtly critical but also willing to eat crow when deserved).
And it's not worth naming names because this doesn't need to be a callout thread, but I think it's one of those things where you know it when you see it. A handful of them are very prominent long-time posters here, so it's not just the fly-by-night dupes like "gettledogman" was. There are definitely some posters who don't bother with the disclaimer that you're suggesting (though many do) - I guess they've just become white noise for genuinely considerate and thoughtful posters such as yourself, which is ironic, because I wish I could bring myself to ignore them; it might actually result in me having a more reasonable take instead of digging my heels in against the victory lap posse.
Quote:
Wasn’t going to ever get a deal on LW unless he got hurt or played like dogshit.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
I agree with some of your outline.
However, after the trade and the end of the '19 season, I contend Team LW takes a deal very similar to the one Jurrell Casey signed in the summer of 2019 with the Titans - 4yrs/$60M+ with $40M guaranteed.
Why? Because LW didn't have a great year in 2019 with either us or the Jets. They didn't have a strong case to stand on and pitch. So I think it's reasonable to conclude it would have been very hard for Team LW to walk away from that Casey deal. And therefore he likely signs it...
One more thing - why would Team LW feel good about the trade to the Giants when the package was a third and a fifth? That's not a deal that reflects a great player. It reflects, to me, the Jets just wanted to get LW off their roster. And were willing to take quite a loss for their 6th pick in the 2015 draft.
1. No one knows what was offered and what was declined
2. Again, LW had leverage. They knew the Giants weren’t going to let him just walk and flush a 3rd down the toilet.
Quote:
Wasn’t going to ever get a deal on LW unless he got hurt or played like dogshit.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
This was one of the arguments that the trade's detractors made all along.
There's been a lot of chirping from the posters who supported the trade all along that they were right and those who opposed the trade were wrong, but from my perspective, both sides actually had valid points.
Those who supported the trade based solely on the talent and potential that LW represented wound up being 100% correct.
And those who expressed concern about the trade because it created a scenario where DG effectively gift-wrapped negotiating leverage to LW's agent also wound up being right.
As far as I can tell, only one side of those debates has come back to the middle at all. Somehow the trade's supporters are acting as though they're vindicated despite the fact that the negotiations did actually play out almost exactly like the detractors predicted.
It's an odd dynamic.
The Giants gave up what they believe they needed to in order to secure his rights. Whether or not they needed to trade for him, or whether they could’ve just bought him in FA is pure speculation. We’ll never know. But the fact remains that a lot of conditions would’ve have to have been met in order to just acquire him in FA and it wouldn’t have been a contract at some random player comp.
The Giants were going to overpay to acquire him. They sucked and there was no draw to come here. If the bean counters want to say it was a bad move because they overpaid then whatever. He’s arguably the most talented player on the roster at an impact position. I say they paid what they needed to to make sure they got him.
1. No one knows what was offered and what was declined
2. Again, LW had leverage. They knew the Giants weren’t going to let him just walk and flush a 3rd down the toilet.
On #2, LW had enormous leverage at the end of '20. Undoubtedly.
At the end of '19? Sorry, but that's a hard sell with his combined Jets/Giants stats - .05 sack, 1 forced fumble, near career low in total tackles, and, at that point, his lowest number of QB hits (39th in the league).
Quote:
1. No one knows what was offered and what was declined
2. Again, LW had leverage. They knew the Giants weren’t going to let him just walk and flush a 3rd down the toilet.
On #2, LW had enormous leverage at the end of '20. Undoubtedly.
At the end of '19? Sorry, but that's a hard sell with his combined Jets/Giants stats - .05 sack, 1 forced fumble, near career low in total tackles, and, at that point, his lowest number of QB hits (39th in the league).
Ok, what’s your point? If you watched what he did when he got here you could see the impact, stats or not. The roster was trash. Are you suggesting the Giants lowballed him? Are you suggesting LW wanted too much? They obviously didn’t reach an agreement and the Giants definitely offered him something.
They didn’t reach an agreement. I guess DG should be lauded for not overpaying at the time given the stats?