Contract negotiation 101 for anyone who’s negotiated an agreement professionally: absolutely never eliminate an outcome.
I’d imagine preferred outcome #1 was trade Bradberry for a mid round pick,
#2 agree to a substantially decreased 2022 cost, #3 cut him, #4 extend him, #5 do nothing.
Schoen should have come out publicly early and said we think James is a really good corner and we have all the tools to keep him. I’m always open to listen, but right now we’re planning on James playing really well for us this year.
And when Bradberry wouldn’t agree to terms with a new team, and the trade partners started drying up — he should have said the exact same thing again.
he said this - he said he had contingency plans and when pressed on it he said he's been in contact with James' agents and they'd like to keep him.
the comment that's being made into a mountain was just as nebulous and non-specific as saying he had contingency plans.
the main people who kept saying bradberry's release were imminent were the beat writers who lacked an understanding of the market. they were writing those articles literally while schoen had accepted offers in hand from other teams that only fell apart because bradberry chose to play for less money this year to reach UFA next march. they lacked an understanding of the situation and created a false narrative that the whole world knew bradberry was going to get released. the houston texans didn't know that, they were willing to trade draft picks for him but immediately moved on to signing Steven Nelson for just 2.5m less guaranteed than Bradberry got when their negotiation was allegedly $5m apart.
The NFL is filled with GM who kick the can down the road. Schoen had no track record.
There is nothing to gain in revealing plans publicly.
This reminds me of the argument I've had with Giants fans on this site who have argued "everyone knew who the Giants were going to draft, why are you so concerned they are indicating their intentions?"
Again, I kinda see your point but anyone can look at the cuts that left dead cap space, the FA departures and the 1 year deals and draw the obvious conclusion. The Giants were gutting the roster and getting rid of as many bad contracts as possible. I honestly don't see how his public stance is connected to his ability to trade Bradberry. His contract was untradeable as it was. There was no market for that contract. Bradberry wouldn't come to terms with a new team so he got cut. There was never an option for him to stay on that contract. I don't see how subterfuge would have changed the market conditions around JB and his contract. No one wanted it, which is again an indication that cutting him and getting out from the contract was probably necessary, if painful.
Bradberry did not want to be a Giant.
He could have resigned with the Giants by extending his contract with a voidable year.
He would have made more money and reduced his CAP hit to a palatable number. But he chose not to.
I do not think that Bradberry wanted to be on a rebuilding team and knew he had no future here.
In addition to his wanting to leave the team, he also did not ingratiate himself by not agreeing to signing a long term contract with Giants trade partners.
The Giants had to release him or they would have to deal with a disgruntled player who could destroy the team chemistry.
But again, there was no advantage to revealing plans.
was there an advantage saying neal and icky were 'side by side'? or that they had 6 they liked with an emergency #7? or that they had 160 players with draftable grades?
was there an advantage saying they were open to trading down or would it have been better posturing to say they would only do so if blown away?
was there an advantage to saying they were open for business and willing to talk about any player on their roster, including in answer to questions about specific players?
they get asked questions, they give answers, none of it actually impacts decisions they or any other team makes. if they liked bradberry more they'd have kept him. if other teams liked bradberry more they'd have given him the contract he wanted.
i personally appreciate that schoen seems to be pretty forthright and smart in the answers he gives.
because Bradberry isn't part of the solution for NYG. They need to determine whether or not Barkley will be. When you expect a difficult season unwinding past mistakes, you need to be smart about how you do it.
I don't think there's a realistic scenario where paying Barkley makes sense. Even if he has a massive statistical year, a look around the league tells us that paying running backs is folly.
And that's the high end of the range of possible outcomes. More likely his low current value will only depreciate further, and in December 2022 we'll be wishing we had traded him in April 2022 for whatever we could get.
I wish Schoen had been more aggressive in ripping this down. It's going to happen anyway.
with the cost of WR's exploding a RB who does well in receiving game
could be an interesting value play - especially on a 1 year tag.
Is Barkley's rookie year worth the same thing Marquez Valdez Scantling cost the Chiefs or Evan Engram cost the Jags? that question answers itself.
the question is how degraded physically is he from the player he was his rookie year? which i think is what jonc is saying is worth finding out (i agree).
Was borderline elite in 2020, but slightly above average last year. I think it’s more likely we see an even lesser version of what we saw last year than it is he returns to 2020 form.
29 years old is right around the age that most corners begin trending downwards. JB already showed signs of regression last year.
Daboll didn't feature RBs in the pass game in Buffalo
I don't think he will here either. If they make Barkley a slot receiver that's a different story. I'd be fine with that.
Still not a reason to pay him though. Slot receivers grow on trees in college.
grow on trees yes but also getting picked in the first or second round in abundance. is a first or second round pick worth a 10m cap hit?
as a rookie barkley had 9 plays go 40+ yards which was among the most in the NFL - even compared to WRs (that's tied with the most tyreek hill had in his best season for example).
he tied Randy Moss as the only other rookie to have 5 tds 50+ yards.
he broke the rookie record for receptions by a RB and hit the fastest ball carrier GPS speeds other than Tyreek Hill.
if they didn't have a role in mind for him they wouldn't have kept him and my guess is that it's going to be hybrid. again just a guess but i think he will get 10 or so carries per game and 5+ receptions from all different alignments - wide, slot, backfield, jet motion - obviously health withstanding.
the notion that daboll didn't use his running backs is also a bit off - he didn't use 1 specific running back a lot but he did use his committee a good amount. last year's bills offense had about 100 targets to RBs, with only Beasley (112) and Diggs (164) the only targets getting more than that. the RB number doesn't count McKenzie so it may actually be a bit higher.
RE: with the cost of WR's exploding a RB who does well in receiving game
could be an interesting value play - especially on a 1 year tag.
Is Barkley's rookie year worth the same thing Marquez Valdez Scantling cost the Chiefs or Evan Engram cost the Jags? that question answers itself.
the question is how degraded physically is he from the player he was his rookie year? which i think is what jonc is saying is worth finding out (i agree).
Interesting point, although as an aside, i think the WR market is looney and will be unsustainable. Wouldn't touch those contracts unless i was about to win the SB and had decent cap space. But good point about using him as a faux WR (we might need to given our underwhelming crop).
I am not arguing the Giants should or should not have kept Bradberry.
That's moot.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
As a fan, it was great to hear in January that the Giants wanted to cut $40 million from their salary cap. But Schoen revealed his intentions at that point. He was not going to kick the can down the road, which MANY teams do. Once he revealed those plans, it was clear they were not going to keep Bradberry unless he accepted a paycut (unlikely).
The $40 million reduction was NOT inevitable. There were other ways to handle the cap. It would have been better for Schoen to not say anything about the team's cap plans.
The results are what we saw... before the draft, teams low-balled the Giants (Mara also didn't help matters when he said at the owners' meeting the team may have to cut Bradberry).
Would the results ultimately have been the same? Possible. But there was nothing to gain by revealing intentions. On the other hand, it might have hurt the team's ability to shop him before the draft.
It's water under the bridge at this point, but it was a rookie mistake.
Eric has a point here despite it being likely that other teams/agents already knowing what the NYG were likely to do. No reason to cement it.
And that was also likely before everyone realized Barkley had no appetite for blocking. Throwing with him in the backfield is, IMO, inviting a lot of trouble.
I'm all for getting him out of the backfield and getting the ball in his hands 5-8 yards past the LOS. All for it.
Remember also what Schoen has said about paying premium positions.
Optimus - it wasn't just likely that teams/agents knew what was up
it's likely that the team let Bradberry's agents go out and seek out willing suitors. Schoen insinuated as much in his interviews post-draft, his interests were entirely aligned with Bradberry's agent to find the team that wanted him the most. In this situation there was no downside to outsourcing that expedition for a bunch of reasons.
Nothing Schoen said publicly made a difference. The whole damn world knew our situation. We had ZERO leverage and all the teams knew that. There were no rookie mistakes. I am laughing.
The Giants had offers to trade him. This is reported news. The reason a trade didn't happen is teams could not come to an agreement with Bradberry's agent on contract terms.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
Warren Sharp
@SharpFootball
the Giants have a larger dead cap hit ($11.7M) to have James Bradberry play for the Eagles than the Eagles are actually paying him ($10M)
Warren Sharp
@SharpFootball
the Giants have a larger dead cap hit ($11.7M) to have James Bradberry play for the Eagles than the Eagles are actually paying him ($10M)
And that's the high end of the range of possible outcomes. More likely his low current value will only depreciate further, and in December 2022 we'll be wishing we had traded him in April 2022 for whatever we could get.
Fortunately, there will be a second window at the trade deadline this year. If SB is playing well and healthy, it would be foolish not to pull all the stops to find a buyer.
There continues to be a long learning curve here at BBI with posters who just can't see the light and how fungible the RB position is.
As far as I'm concerned, the best way to build the RB position is by committee only, like New England, Ravens, etc. I'd love to have a Derrick Henry, but he is rare and from another galaxy.
The Giants had offers to trade him. This is reported news. The reason a trade didn't happen is teams could not come to an agreement with Bradberry's agent on contract terms.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
exactly right. teams liked him but not at the price the nyg had him.
And that's the high end of the range of possible outcomes. More likely his low current value will only depreciate further, and in December 2022 we'll be wishing we had traded him in April 2022 for whatever we could get.
Fortunately, there will be a second window at the trade deadline this year. If SB is playing well and healthy, it would be foolish not to pull all the stops to find a buyer.
There continues to be a long learning curve here at BBI with posters who just can't see the light and how fungible the RB position is.
As far as I'm concerned, the best way to build the RB position is by committee only, like New England, Ravens, etc. I'd love to have a Derrick Henry, but he is rare and from another galaxy.
Yeah but if Barkley was traded this offseason, even if it was for peanuts, we'd be able to retain Bradberry (or at least had a better shot to) -- as opposed to paying more to him than the Eagles are for him to go to philly
The Giants had offers to trade him. This is reported news. The reason a trade didn't happen is teams could not come to an agreement with Bradberry's agent on contract terms.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
NFL Insider
@AngryNFLInsider
·
6h
James Bradberry to the #Eagles is a nice get for them. Eagles truly do have the best roster in the NFC East. Dave Gettlemans mess continues to haunt the #Giants in many ways. #NFL
I don't think the Giants should have moved other people to retain Bradberry. Bradberry should just have been part of a larger group of people that were moved with the purpose of creating a cleaner slate with which to begin 2023.
The more trades, cuts, and cap pain in 2022 the better. That points to a better 2023 and beyond.
RE: RE: This argument is approaching a vicious cycle.
The Giants had offers to trade him. This is reported news. The reason a trade didn't happen is teams could not come to an agreement with Bradberry's agent on contract terms.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
What's the comparison here? This is not a "shoen didn't get it done" situation to me. He has no control over what Bradberry's agent wants or what the Chiefs or other teams want to offer Bradberry's agent. Those trades are out of his hands. He said himself they had deals in place.
Not one person on here can state an upside for Schoen
blabbing his mouth about our cap strategy. They best they can come up with is "it did not matter." Nobody here is definitively saying that it did, my point and I think others have been, there was no upside to blabbing.
Team has multiple options. 1. they can trade his contract if another team will take it. 2. they can kick the can down the road and let him play 3. they can restructure 4. they can cut him etc.
Schoen told the world what option he was taking, so Bradberry had no incentive to play along with the trade aspect of it, he was getting cut as he knew and he could control his own destiny. If Schoen keeps his cards close to his vest, Bradberry's agent has to guess what the Giants will do.
Again, there was no upside on going on a press tour and announcing we are clearing 40 million in cap.
RE: RE: This argument is approaching a vicious cycle.
The Giants had offers to trade him. This is reported news. The reason a trade didn't happen is teams could not come to an agreement with Bradberry's agent on contract terms.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
should have hired someone with the NE pedigree.
RE: Not one person on here can state an upside for Schoen
blabbing his mouth about our cap strategy. They best they can come up with is "it did not matter." Nobody here is definitively saying that it did, my point and I think others have been, there was no upside to blabbing.
Team has multiple options. 1. they can trade his contract if another team will take it. 2. they can kick the can down the road and let him play 3. they can restructure 4. they can cut him etc.
Schoen told the world what option he was taking, so Bradberry had no incentive to play along with the trade aspect of it, he was getting cut as he knew and he could control his own destiny. If Schoen keeps his cards close to his vest, Bradberry's agent has to guess what the Giants will do.
Again, there was no upside on going on a press tour and announcing we are clearing 40 million in cap.
this makes no sense. bradberry's agent was specifically motivated to try to accommodate the nyg situation precisely because he knew he was on the chopping block. you realize Bradberry lost almost $6m this year because of how things went right? he did not come out of this a winner by any stretch of the imagination.
RE: RE: Not one person on here can state an upside for Schoen
blabbing his mouth about our cap strategy. They best they can come up with is "it did not matter." Nobody here is definitively saying that it did, my point and I think others have been, there was no upside to blabbing.
Team has multiple options. 1. they can trade his contract if another team will take it. 2. they can kick the can down the road and let him play 3. they can restructure 4. they can cut him etc.
Schoen told the world what option he was taking, so Bradberry had no incentive to play along with the trade aspect of it, he was getting cut as he knew and he could control his own destiny. If Schoen keeps his cards close to his vest, Bradberry's agent has to guess what the Giants will do.
Again, there was no upside on going on a press tour and announcing we are clearing 40 million in cap.
this makes no sense. bradberry's agent was specifically motivated to try to accommodate the nyg situation precisely because he knew he was on the chopping block. you realize Bradberry lost almost $6m this year because of how things went right? he did not come out of this a winner by any stretch of the imagination.
if you are looking at this for one year it doesn't make sense, but that was not what Bradberry was doing. But Bradberry clearly was not looking at this for 2022, his entire game was his next contract. He wanted to control where he played. Bradberry turned down more money to take the Eagles offer. Bradberry and his agent weren't playing the short game here.
the most important thing to Bradberry was to control his own destiny. He realizes a good 2022 gets him a multiyear deal. A bad 2022, he is signing 1 year 3 million contract next year. He thinks going to the Eagles--- playing in a zone heavy scheme, and playing in this crap division is the best way to get that moving his way. He turned down more money from other teams by all reports to take the Eagles offer because it suited his long term goal.
RE: RE: RE: This argument is approaching a vicious cycle.
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
What's the comparison here? This is not a "shoen didn't get it done" situation to me. He has no control over what Bradberry's agent wants or what the Chiefs or other teams want to offer Bradberry's agent. Those trades are out of his hands. He said himself they had deals in place.
Why isn't this on Schoen? Bradberry didn't have a no-trade clause where it limited Schoen's market.
By tipping his hand early in the process, Schoen lost his leverage with the market and Bradberry because it was clear that the Giants were desperate for a conclusion one way or the other. And a release was inevitable.
So, any potential partner and Team Bradberry could drag their feet and just wait for that release firewall.
would have called our bluff and we would have released him. But, telling him that, takes away any such advantage you had in him saying, well what if the Giants keep me in this man defense.
this was not his plan A - see image below from last week
there are approximately 5.9m reasons he'd rather be making 13.4m this year than 7.5m.
it's rumored he wanted $5m more than Houston was willing to go on an extension per year, my guess is the league was willing to pay him close to 10m AAV but he wanted $15m, and he turned it down thinking he had more leverage than he had (possibly including thinking the nyg were bluffing about cutting him outright).
either way his retweet would seemingly imply he didn't view the giants actions as "giving him what he wanted".
the texans rumors came from aaron wilson who is very reliable
It appears the Giants found a taker for James Bradberry‘s contract, but discussions on a prospective extension scuttled the deal, leading the veteran cornerback to free agency.
Aaron Wilson
@AaronWilson_NFL
Texans and former Giants corner James Bradberry were at least $5 million apart in contract discussion in prospective trade talks, per league sources. Not expected to be revisited after team drafted Derek Stingley Jr. third overall and signed veteran corner Steven Nelson.
their presumed pivot Steven Nelson got 2 years, 9m announced on april 13th.
He wasn't sniffing 13.4M as a Giant the moment Gettleman retired. That's a non-starter. He actually wasn't sniffing that after giving up a league high 8 TDs.
He's got a path to 10M this year, chose his destination, and is an UFA.
RE: RE: RE: RE: This argument is approaching a vicious cycle.
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
What's the comparison here? This is not a "shoen didn't get it done" situation to me. He has no control over what Bradberry's agent wants or what the Chiefs or other teams want to offer Bradberry's agent. Those trades are out of his hands. He said himself they had deals in place.
Why isn't this on Schoen? Bradberry didn't have a no-trade clause where it limited Schoen's market.
By tipping his hand early in the process, Schoen lost his leverage with the market and Bradberry because it was clear that the Giants were desperate for a conclusion one way or the other. And a release was inevitable.
So, any potential partner and Team Bradberry could drag their feet and just wait for that release firewall.
I really think you're imagining leverage that never existed. It's not about a no trade clause. Several teams made offers. The Giants were happy with the compensation they would have gotten if Bradberry could have signed an extension deal. That was the turning point, not that the Giants somehow failed to properly mask their intentions.
RE: Not one person on here can state an upside for Schoen
If Schoen keeps his cards close to his vest, Bradberry's agent has to guess what the Giants will do.
Again, there was no upside on going on a press tour and announcing we are clearing 40 million in cap.
I think you're turning this into a Hollywood poker showdown. You don't have to be a CIA agent to know the Giant weren't going to be able to keep the player at his cost. The player told you he wasn't re-negotiating his deal after making restructures in previous years. There was never a threat of "well we'll just keep you". The Giants couldn'tfinancially go along with his money going into the league year. They needed his cap money.
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
What's the comparison here? This is not a "shoen didn't get it done" situation to me. He has no control over what Bradberry's agent wants or what the Chiefs or other teams want to offer Bradberry's agent. Those trades are out of his hands. He said himself they had deals in place.
Why isn't this on Schoen? Bradberry didn't have a no-trade clause where it limited Schoen's market.
By tipping his hand early in the process, Schoen lost his leverage with the market and Bradberry because it was clear that the Giants were desperate for a conclusion one way or the other. And a release was inevitable.
So, any potential partner and Team Bradberry could drag their feet and just wait for that release firewall.
I really think you're imagining leverage that never existed. It's not about a no trade clause. Several teams made offers. The Giants were happy with the compensation they would have gotten if Bradberry could have signed an extension deal. That was the turning point, not that the Giants somehow failed to properly mask their intentions.
and in the process bradberry ended up with a 3-6m paycut.
the people who may have misplayed this are bradberry and his agent.
weird position to take from someone who thinks his play is in decline
He wasn't sniffing 13.4M as a Giant the moment Gettleman retired. That's a non-starter. He actually wasn't sniffing that after giving up a league high 8 TDs.
He's got a path to 10M this year, chose his destination, and is an UFA.
the path to 10m is expected to be not likely to be earned by definition for cap purposes, which means something has to go better this year than last year like making the pro bowl.
the path to getting the kind of multi-year deal he seems to want next year is similar.
so if you are on the side of thinking he wasn't very good last year and is in decline, wouldn't you also think passing on a multi-year extension above $7.5m AAV for a 1 year deal at that amount was a mistake?
there is only 1 way team bradberry crushes it - and that's him turning back the clock to 2020 having another career-best season. this move is a gamble and it's odds of success are essentially whatever the odds you think he has to make the pro bowl this year.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Part of him going to the Eagles is on Joe Schoen
as much as we are in the honeymoon period, he did not have to tell the world how much money he wanted to cut from cap. That was an unforced error that he did not need to make public. But, he did and all the actors in the Bradberry saga knew this and they acted accordingly.
An intern could figure out how much cap we needed to save. Bradberry's agent wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't know the cap situations for each of his clients.
Schoen tried trading him, had offers, and I guess Bradberry didn't like the extension offers. So he chose to wait it out and sign a 1 year deal. Its fairly cut and dry. Schoen saying we needed to save money was a "no shit" statement.
He gave a dollar amount.
dude stop.
Schoen made it public so that people understood why he was about to cut Logan Ryan and not sign back Giants FA's also to validate why he could only get 1yr deal players at the start of FA.
Also it was already public knowledge.
Again stop
point of fact, cutting logan ryan saved nothing, and may in fact cost more then keeping him.
I don't think announcing what he wanted to cut dollar wise was neccessary or particularly smart, but I don't think it was a blunder. The blunder is what happened next. JB situation was mishandled. The CB situation was either a bad plan, a poorly exucated plan, or no plan. The secondary in general is counting on a lot of things we have never seen, with no depth, and little competition
cutting logan ryan saved them money off next year's cap
That’s a lot of assumptions to back into a premise.
1) Maybe the extra 2.5M is all NLTB, maybe it’s not
2) We both know making a pro bowl is not a prerequisite for 10M AAV for a corner, especially next offseason
3) We don’t know the guarantees or structure of any extension he was offered elsewhere
4) He got to choose his destination, and secured 7.5M in guarantees after the draft
Bradberry bet on himself, picks his destination, and gets a shot to prove he’s not in decline. That’s a great outcome for him.
He’s had a million chances to secure a contract for the 2023 season since he signed with the Giants. It’s obvious he wants to reach UFA.
was bradberry the guy who gave up more yards/tds than any CB in football last year who you suggested move to safety?
or is he now all of a sudden a good bet to bounce back big enough to get paid entering his age 30 season?
just to contextualize how tall a task Bradberry has ahead of him there are only about 20 corners over $10m, and only 1 of them was 30 years old+ at signing (Gilmore who signed for 2/20m in April). Gilmore's actually the only a30+ corner at the time of signing for over $6m+ AAV.
the extension Gilmore signed is likely similar to the deals Bradberry passed on in April, ending up with less this year with nothing guaranteed in the future on low % play to do better next year. if i was his agent i'd have told him to take advantage of whatever leverage he had then because the odds are he probably won't get it again.
I’d imagine preferred outcome #1 was trade Bradberry for a mid round pick,
#2 agree to a substantially decreased 2022 cost, #3 cut him, #4 extend him, #5 do nothing.
Schoen should have come out publicly early and said we think James is a really good corner and we have all the tools to keep him. I’m always open to listen, but right now we’re planning on James playing really well for us this year.
And when Bradberry wouldn’t agree to terms with a new team, and the trade partners started drying up — he should have said the exact same thing again.
he said this - he said he had contingency plans and when pressed on it he said he's been in contact with James' agents and they'd like to keep him.
the comment that's being made into a mountain was just as nebulous and non-specific as saying he had contingency plans.
the main people who kept saying bradberry's release were imminent were the beat writers who lacked an understanding of the market. they were writing those articles literally while schoen had accepted offers in hand from other teams that only fell apart because bradberry chose to play for less money this year to reach UFA next march. they lacked an understanding of the situation and created a false narrative that the whole world knew bradberry was going to get released. the houston texans didn't know that, they were willing to trade draft picks for him but immediately moved on to signing Steven Nelson for just 2.5m less guaranteed than Bradberry got when their negotiation was allegedly $5m apart.
There is nothing to gain in revealing plans publicly.
This reminds me of the argument I've had with Giants fans on this site who have argued "everyone knew who the Giants were going to draft, why are you so concerned they are indicating their intentions?"
Again, I kinda see your point but anyone can look at the cuts that left dead cap space, the FA departures and the 1 year deals and draw the obvious conclusion. The Giants were gutting the roster and getting rid of as many bad contracts as possible. I honestly don't see how his public stance is connected to his ability to trade Bradberry. His contract was untradeable as it was. There was no market for that contract. Bradberry wouldn't come to terms with a new team so he got cut. There was never an option for him to stay on that contract. I don't see how subterfuge would have changed the market conditions around JB and his contract. No one wanted it, which is again an indication that cutting him and getting out from the contract was probably necessary, if painful.
And as far as Schoen not having a track record, read this article and tell me if it sounds familiar. He was brought in to do a similar teardown and rebuild.
Schoen had no track record? Well, he was in buffalo - - ( New Window )
Bradberry did not want to be a Giant.
He could have resigned with the Giants by extending his contract with a voidable year.
He would have made more money and reduced his CAP hit to a palatable number. But he chose not to.
I do not think that Bradberry wanted to be on a rebuilding team and knew he had no future here.
In addition to his wanting to leave the team, he also did not ingratiate himself by not agreeing to signing a long term contract with Giants trade partners.
The Giants had to release him or they would have to deal with a disgruntled player who could destroy the team chemistry.
But again, there was no advantage to revealing plans.
was there an advantage saying neal and icky were 'side by side'? or that they had 6 they liked with an emergency #7? or that they had 160 players with draftable grades?
was there an advantage saying they were open to trading down or would it have been better posturing to say they would only do so if blown away?
was there an advantage to saying they were open for business and willing to talk about any player on their roster, including in answer to questions about specific players?
they get asked questions, they give answers, none of it actually impacts decisions they or any other team makes. if they liked bradberry more they'd have kept him. if other teams liked bradberry more they'd have given him the contract he wanted.
i personally appreciate that schoen seems to be pretty forthright and smart in the answers he gives.
I don't think there's a realistic scenario where paying Barkley makes sense. Even if he has a massive statistical year, a look around the league tells us that paying running backs is folly.
And that's the high end of the range of possible outcomes. More likely his low current value will only depreciate further, and in December 2022 we'll be wishing we had traded him in April 2022 for whatever we could get.
I wish Schoen had been more aggressive in ripping this down. It's going to happen anyway.
Is Barkley's rookie year worth the same thing Marquez Valdez Scantling cost the Chiefs or Evan Engram cost the Jags? that question answers itself.
the question is how degraded physically is he from the player he was his rookie year? which i think is what jonc is saying is worth finding out (i agree).
29 years old is right around the age that most corners begin trending downwards. JB already showed signs of regression last year.
Still not a reason to pay him though. Slot receivers grow on trees in college.
Still not a reason to pay him though. Slot receivers grow on trees in college.
grow on trees yes but also getting picked in the first or second round in abundance. is a first or second round pick worth a 10m cap hit?
as a rookie barkley had 9 plays go 40+ yards which was among the most in the NFL - even compared to WRs (that's tied with the most tyreek hill had in his best season for example).
he tied Randy Moss as the only other rookie to have 5 tds 50+ yards.
he broke the rookie record for receptions by a RB and hit the fastest ball carrier GPS speeds other than Tyreek Hill.
if they didn't have a role in mind for him they wouldn't have kept him and my guess is that it's going to be hybrid. again just a guess but i think he will get 10 or so carries per game and 5+ receptions from all different alignments - wide, slot, backfield, jet motion - obviously health withstanding.
the notion that daboll didn't use his running backs is also a bit off - he didn't use 1 specific running back a lot but he did use his committee a good amount. last year's bills offense had about 100 targets to RBs, with only Beasley (112) and Diggs (164) the only targets getting more than that. the RB number doesn't count McKenzie so it may actually be a bit higher.
Is Barkley's rookie year worth the same thing Marquez Valdez Scantling cost the Chiefs or Evan Engram cost the Jags? that question answers itself.
the question is how degraded physically is he from the player he was his rookie year? which i think is what jonc is saying is worth finding out (i agree).
Interesting point, although as an aside, i think the WR market is looney and will be unsustainable. Wouldn't touch those contracts unless i was about to win the SB and had decent cap space. But good point about using him as a faux WR (we might need to given our underwhelming crop).
I am not arguing the Giants should or should not have kept Bradberry.
That's moot.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
As a fan, it was great to hear in January that the Giants wanted to cut $40 million from their salary cap. But Schoen revealed his intentions at that point. He was not going to kick the can down the road, which MANY teams do. Once he revealed those plans, it was clear they were not going to keep Bradberry unless he accepted a paycut (unlikely).
The $40 million reduction was NOT inevitable. There were other ways to handle the cap. It would have been better for Schoen to not say anything about the team's cap plans.
The results are what we saw... before the draft, teams low-balled the Giants (Mara also didn't help matters when he said at the owners' meeting the team may have to cut Bradberry).
Would the results ultimately have been the same? Possible. But there was nothing to gain by revealing intentions. On the other hand, it might have hurt the team's ability to shop him before the draft.
It's water under the bridge at this point, but it was a rookie mistake.
Eric has a point here despite it being likely that other teams/agents already knowing what the NYG were likely to do. No reason to cement it.
I'm all for getting him out of the backfield and getting the ball in his hands 5-8 yards past the LOS. All for it.
Remember also what Schoen has said about paying premium positions.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
@SharpFootball
the Giants have a larger dead cap hit ($11.7M) to have James Bradberry play for the Eagles than the Eagles are actually paying him ($10M)
thanks for all you did Dave Gettleman
Let’s all just “move on” though.
Quote:
Warren Sharp
@SharpFootball
the Giants have a larger dead cap hit ($11.7M) to have James Bradberry play for the Eagles than the Eagles are actually paying him ($10M)
thanks for all you did Dave Gettleman
Let’s all just “move on” though.
Nope.
And that's the high end of the range of possible outcomes. More likely his low current value will only depreciate further, and in December 2022 we'll be wishing we had traded him in April 2022 for whatever we could get.
Fortunately, there will be a second window at the trade deadline this year. If SB is playing well and healthy, it would be foolish not to pull all the stops to find a buyer.
There continues to be a long learning curve here at BBI with posters who just can't see the light and how fungible the RB position is.
As far as I'm concerned, the best way to build the RB position is by committee only, like New England, Ravens, etc. I'd love to have a Derrick Henry, but he is rare and from another galaxy.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
exactly right. teams liked him but not at the price the nyg had him.
Quote:
And that's the high end of the range of possible outcomes. More likely his low current value will only depreciate further, and in December 2022 we'll be wishing we had traded him in April 2022 for whatever we could get.
Fortunately, there will be a second window at the trade deadline this year. If SB is playing well and healthy, it would be foolish not to pull all the stops to find a buyer.
There continues to be a long learning curve here at BBI with posters who just can't see the light and how fungible the RB position is.
As far as I'm concerned, the best way to build the RB position is by committee only, like New England, Ravens, etc. I'd love to have a Derrick Henry, but he is rare and from another galaxy.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
@AngryNFLInsider
·
6h
James Bradberry to the #Eagles is a nice get for them. Eagles truly do have the best roster in the NFC East. Dave Gettlemans mess continues to haunt the #Giants in many ways. #NFL
The more trades, cuts, and cap pain in 2022 the better. That points to a better 2023 and beyond.
Quote:
The Giants had offers to trade him. This is reported news. The reason a trade didn't happen is teams could not come to an agreement with Bradberry's agent on contract terms.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
What's the comparison here? This is not a "shoen didn't get it done" situation to me. He has no control over what Bradberry's agent wants or what the Chiefs or other teams want to offer Bradberry's agent. Those trades are out of his hands. He said himself they had deals in place.
Team has multiple options. 1. they can trade his contract if another team will take it. 2. they can kick the can down the road and let him play 3. they can restructure 4. they can cut him etc.
Schoen told the world what option he was taking, so Bradberry had no incentive to play along with the trade aspect of it, he was getting cut as he knew and he could control his own destiny. If Schoen keeps his cards close to his vest, Bradberry's agent has to guess what the Giants will do.
Again, there was no upside on going on a press tour and announcing we are clearing 40 million in cap.
Quote:
The Giants had offers to trade him. This is reported news. The reason a trade didn't happen is teams could not come to an agreement with Bradberry's agent on contract terms.
Is that not proof enough that whatever Shoen said really had no impact?
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
should have hired someone with the NE pedigree.
Team has multiple options. 1. they can trade his contract if another team will take it. 2. they can kick the can down the road and let him play 3. they can restructure 4. they can cut him etc.
Schoen told the world what option he was taking, so Bradberry had no incentive to play along with the trade aspect of it, he was getting cut as he knew and he could control his own destiny. If Schoen keeps his cards close to his vest, Bradberry's agent has to guess what the Giants will do.
Again, there was no upside on going on a press tour and announcing we are clearing 40 million in cap.
this makes no sense. bradberry's agent was specifically motivated to try to accommodate the nyg situation precisely because he knew he was on the chopping block. you realize Bradberry lost almost $6m this year because of how things went right? he did not come out of this a winner by any stretch of the imagination.
Quote:
blabbing his mouth about our cap strategy. They best they can come up with is "it did not matter." Nobody here is definitively saying that it did, my point and I think others have been, there was no upside to blabbing.
Team has multiple options. 1. they can trade his contract if another team will take it. 2. they can kick the can down the road and let him play 3. they can restructure 4. they can cut him etc.
Schoen told the world what option he was taking, so Bradberry had no incentive to play along with the trade aspect of it, he was getting cut as he knew and he could control his own destiny. If Schoen keeps his cards close to his vest, Bradberry's agent has to guess what the Giants will do.
Again, there was no upside on going on a press tour and announcing we are clearing 40 million in cap.
this makes no sense. bradberry's agent was specifically motivated to try to accommodate the nyg situation precisely because he knew he was on the chopping block. you realize Bradberry lost almost $6m this year because of how things went right? he did not come out of this a winner by any stretch of the imagination.
if you are looking at this for one year it doesn't make sense, but that was not what Bradberry was doing. But Bradberry clearly was not looking at this for 2022, his entire game was his next contract. He wanted to control where he played. Bradberry turned down more money to take the Eagles offer. Bradberry and his agent weren't playing the short game here.
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
What's the comparison here? This is not a "shoen didn't get it done" situation to me. He has no control over what Bradberry's agent wants or what the Chiefs or other teams want to offer Bradberry's agent. Those trades are out of his hands. He said himself they had deals in place.
Why isn't this on Schoen? Bradberry didn't have a no-trade clause where it limited Schoen's market.
By tipping his hand early in the process, Schoen lost his leverage with the market and Bradberry because it was clear that the Giants were desperate for a conclusion one way or the other. And a release was inevitable.
So, any potential partner and Team Bradberry could drag their feet and just wait for that release firewall.
it's rumored he wanted $5m more than Houston was willing to go on an extension per year, my guess is the league was willing to pay him close to 10m AAV but he wanted $15m, and he turned it down thinking he had more leverage than he had (possibly including thinking the nyg were bluffing about cutting him outright).
either way his retweet would seemingly imply he didn't view the giants actions as "giving him what he wanted".
Aaron Wilson
@AaronWilson_NFL
Texans and former Giants corner James Bradberry were at least $5 million apart in contract discussion in prospective trade talks, per league sources. Not expected to be revisited after team drafted Derek Stingley Jr. third overall and signed veteran corner Steven Nelson.
their presumed pivot Steven Nelson got 2 years, 9m announced on april 13th.
I don't think it's a stretch to assume their multi-year offer to Bradberry was somewhere between 5-10m in AAV and then his demand another 5m+ higher than that number.
Giants, Texans Had James Bradberry Trade In Place - ( New Window )
Even Howie probably had the script laid out
He wasn't sniffing 13.4M as a Giant the moment Gettleman retired. That's a non-starter. He actually wasn't sniffing that after giving up a league high 8 TDs.
He's got a path to 10M this year, chose his destination, and is an UFA.
Quote:
In comment 15712672 bw in dc said:
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
What's the comparison here? This is not a "shoen didn't get it done" situation to me. He has no control over what Bradberry's agent wants or what the Chiefs or other teams want to offer Bradberry's agent. Those trades are out of his hands. He said himself they had deals in place.
Why isn't this on Schoen? Bradberry didn't have a no-trade clause where it limited Schoen's market.
By tipping his hand early in the process, Schoen lost his leverage with the market and Bradberry because it was clear that the Giants were desperate for a conclusion one way or the other. And a release was inevitable.
So, any potential partner and Team Bradberry could drag their feet and just wait for that release firewall.
I really think you're imagining leverage that never existed. It's not about a no trade clause. Several teams made offers. The Giants were happy with the compensation they would have gotten if Bradberry could have signed an extension deal. That was the turning point, not that the Giants somehow failed to properly mask their intentions.
Again, there was no upside on going on a press tour and announcing we are clearing 40 million in cap.
I think you're turning this into a Hollywood poker showdown. You don't have to be a CIA agent to know the Giant weren't going to be able to keep the player at his cost. The player told you he wasn't re-negotiating his deal after making restructures in previous years. There was never a threat of "well we'll just keep you". The Giants couldn'tfinancially go along with his money going into the league year. They needed his cap money.
Quote:
In comment 15712678 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15712672 bw in dc said:
Meanwhile, in New England, Belichick says absolutely nothing about his strategy and constantly pulls off trades, despite his reputation as an aggressive trader who has a great touch with moving players at their expiration date.
What's the comparison here? This is not a "shoen didn't get it done" situation to me. He has no control over what Bradberry's agent wants or what the Chiefs or other teams want to offer Bradberry's agent. Those trades are out of his hands. He said himself they had deals in place.
Why isn't this on Schoen? Bradberry didn't have a no-trade clause where it limited Schoen's market.
By tipping his hand early in the process, Schoen lost his leverage with the market and Bradberry because it was clear that the Giants were desperate for a conclusion one way or the other. And a release was inevitable.
So, any potential partner and Team Bradberry could drag their feet and just wait for that release firewall.
I really think you're imagining leverage that never existed. It's not about a no trade clause. Several teams made offers. The Giants were happy with the compensation they would have gotten if Bradberry could have signed an extension deal. That was the turning point, not that the Giants somehow failed to properly mask their intentions.
and in the process bradberry ended up with a 3-6m paycut.
the people who may have misplayed this are bradberry and his agent.
He wasn't sniffing 13.4M as a Giant the moment Gettleman retired. That's a non-starter. He actually wasn't sniffing that after giving up a league high 8 TDs.
He's got a path to 10M this year, chose his destination, and is an UFA.
the path to 10m is expected to be not likely to be earned by definition for cap purposes, which means something has to go better this year than last year like making the pro bowl.
the path to getting the kind of multi-year deal he seems to want next year is similar.
so if you are on the side of thinking he wasn't very good last year and is in decline, wouldn't you also think passing on a multi-year extension above $7.5m AAV for a 1 year deal at that amount was a mistake?
there is only 1 way team bradberry crushes it - and that's him turning back the clock to 2020 having another career-best season. this move is a gamble and it's odds of success are essentially whatever the odds you think he has to make the pro bowl this year.
Quote:
In comment 15712267 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15712247 Essex said:
Quote:
as much as we are in the honeymoon period, he did not have to tell the world how much money he wanted to cut from cap. That was an unforced error that he did not need to make public. But, he did and all the actors in the Bradberry saga knew this and they acted accordingly.
An intern could figure out how much cap we needed to save. Bradberry's agent wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't know the cap situations for each of his clients.
Schoen tried trading him, had offers, and I guess Bradberry didn't like the extension offers. So he chose to wait it out and sign a 1 year deal. Its fairly cut and dry. Schoen saying we needed to save money was a "no shit" statement.
He gave a dollar amount.
dude stop.
Schoen made it public so that people understood why he was about to cut Logan Ryan and not sign back Giants FA's also to validate why he could only get 1yr deal players at the start of FA.
Also it was already public knowledge.
Again stop
point of fact, cutting logan ryan saved nothing, and may in fact cost more then keeping him.
I don't think announcing what he wanted to cut dollar wise was neccessary or particularly smart, but I don't think it was a blunder. The blunder is what happened next. JB situation was mishandled. The CB situation was either a bad plan, a poorly exucated plan, or no plan. The secondary in general is counting on a lot of things we have never seen, with no depth, and little competition
1) Maybe the extra 2.5M is all NLTB, maybe it’s not
2) We both know making a pro bowl is not a prerequisite for 10M AAV for a corner, especially next offseason
3) We don’t know the guarantees or structure of any extension he was offered elsewhere
4) He got to choose his destination, and secured 7.5M in guarantees after the draft
Bradberry bet on himself, picks his destination, and gets a shot to prove he’s not in decline. That’s a great outcome for him.
He’s had a million chances to secure a contract for the 2023 season since he signed with the Giants. It’s obvious he wants to reach UFA.
or is he now all of a sudden a good bet to bounce back big enough to get paid entering his age 30 season?
just to contextualize how tall a task Bradberry has ahead of him there are only about 20 corners over $10m, and only 1 of them was 30 years old+ at signing (Gilmore who signed for 2/20m in April). Gilmore's actually the only a30+ corner at the time of signing for over $6m+ AAV.
the extension Gilmore signed is likely similar to the deals Bradberry passed on in April, ending up with less this year with nothing guaranteed in the future on low % play to do better next year. if i was his agent i'd have told him to take advantage of whatever leverage he had then because the odds are he probably won't get it again.
Good luck to him. Hope they go 0-16 though.
Untrue - the Giants had deals for Bradberry. Bradberry turned down extensions from a few teams who wanted to take him.