I am far from a cap expert but our cash spending this year is basically the fourth least in the league, but our cap is near the highest. The amount of mismanagement that went on during the Gettleman years is beyond crazy. That Abrams still has a job is just offensive to me.
See link below
Link - (
New Window )
Some people were upset that Schoen decided to let Bradberry go rather than extending his contract, which would have cut into the CAP next season. (It is clear that a few teams tried to trade for Bradberry but he would not agree to proffered extensions.) Schoen correctly determined that Bradberry did not have a future with the Giants and could not be afforded - the antithesis of DG's regime. The can was not kicked down the road.
Next year it is likely a few more contracts will be eaten in similar fashion.
So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't according to BBI.
As far as Abrams - I don't know what he actually does, but if he was not the CAP guy, why is he being blamed for it? If Schoen wanted him gone, he would have been gone. KA must do something that Schoen likes or he would not be with the Giants.
As far as Chris Mara - how do you fire an owner? Remember he owns as large a share as John. Unless the other owners of the Mara family want him removed, he is there as long as he wants - Just like John.
I’m not sure what kind of future KA has with the Giants but if the only reason to keep him is that he was just taking orders, well, that’s not a compelling argument for such a prominent position.
Also, KA wanted and was for years reportedly being groomed for the GM job. I have no idea why he would want to stick around having missed the opportunity to ascend (two or three times now). More important, why would Schoen want someone like that around his team? Doesn’t make any sense to me.
If KA is still with the Giants in a year that could be some cause for legitimate Maranoia.
Abrams is basically unemployable. He is a salary cap expert. There are 32 organizations in the world who need those skills. Abrams comes from among the worst, most dysfunctional organizations. He is not getting hired by another team.
If he gets fired, where does he go? He probably has a comfortable executive lifestyle now. He's not getting that anywhere else. Seriously, what kind of job is he getting? Data entry? Some kind of low level Excel jockey?
Mara will take care of him forever. I don't know what that means for his actual role, but expect him to be here for a long time.
But using UFA to build the team is never a good idea. You sign UFA's that fit your time at reasonable prices to replace guys who left or positions which are depleted. You sign big money guys ONLY if they are a missing piece to a big playoff run or SB.
I see why DG did what he did but he misfired. The big money signings didn't really work out overall as Bradberry had one great year along with Martinez and Galloday sucked. The list goes on and on but we never fixed the OL. Perhaps this new regime has done just that?
the above is true and what's most ironic is that generally speaking big signings = bigger cash spending. so criticisms of the team not spending more cash in the last several years are basically criticisms that they have been too fiscally prudent.
the only way to have more cash spending would have been to give out more upfront money to big free agents in previous years, and this year to have kept logan ryan and restructured bradberry (as you pointed out). Schoen could have spent a lot more cash if he restructured 10-20m more from KG/LW and then used that room to sign a bunch of other free agents on deflated cap #'s like the Eagles/Saints did.
spending cash above the cap isn't a sign of cap health it's the literal act of "kicking the can".
Overvaluing their play/impact and signing them to deals that make little sense is irresponsible. Particularly since the Giants were bargaining against themselves with some of these guys as well.
GM of the Year, four straight years before retiring...
Overvaluing their play/impact and signing them to deals that make little sense is irresponsible. Particularly since the Giants were bargaining against themselves with some of these guys as well.
GM of the Year, four straight years before retiring...
backwards as usual. all 3 got contracts right in line with what was projected ahead of time, maybe even a little lower.
the issue was the choices of Golladay and Jackson since they both had histories of being unreliable, which was exactly how things played out. not to mention the opportunity cost of having chosen to pay those guys instead of retaining more reliable players like Zeitler or Tomlinson or upgrading on the edges.
Projecting & Predicting the Top NFL Free Agents (2021) - ( New Window )
I know, I know...if we only had more franchise tags to divvy up.
I know, I know...if we only had more franchise tags to divvy up.
not what i said at all. golladay and jackson are both very under water - which is why i said the exact opposite that they were bad signings. you were the one who seemed to imply they weren't the wrong players to go after wrapped in your favorite fairy tale of magical thinking that somehow there's a way to make other people agree to take less money.
Quote:
this time remove yourself from your cheerleading posts that everybody on the NYG roster is at fair market value for their level of play.
I know, I know...if we only had more franchise tags to divvy up.
not what i said at all. golladay and jackson are both very under water - which is why i said the exact opposite that they were bad signings. you were the one who seemed to imply they weren't the wrong players to go after wrapped in your favorite fairy tale of magical thinking that somehow there's a way to make other people agree to take less money.
Actually no. I said there was nothing wrong with targeting better players for the roster. But overevaluating their play/impact leading to material overpays and bad contracts is irresponsible.
The magical way credible GMs deal with this phenomenon is to walk away from the bargaining table sometimes.
The fairy tale is thinking these were reasonable signings while we wind up with a 4-win team every year that has no trouble spending all of our cap money...
Overvaluing their play/impact and signing them to deals that make little sense is irresponsible. Particularly since the Giants were bargaining against themselves with some of these guys as well.
GM of the Year, four straight years before retiring...
I would have gone a different route in FA to solve the issue at WR, but I understood the theory behind buying KG.
The LW trade and signing were both daft moves. I still can't get over that one. The money spent on LW could have been used for much bigger needs. It was a classic "save face" signing by DG because he needed to justify the trade.
Signing AJax at the time was overkill due to the amount of resources DG invested in the corner position. I would have been supportive of rolling with JB on one side and the young, unproven pups on the other side going into 2021. Now, we may get lucky here because AJax gives Martindale a vet to work with, so one side should be okay. But I would have been fine this rolling with unproven corners and letting Martindale do the other aspect of his job - development.
But maybe both fit...
:-)
Quote:
to improve the roster is one thing.
Overvaluing their play/impact and signing them to deals that make little sense is irresponsible. Particularly since the Giants were bargaining against themselves with some of these guys as well.
GM of the Year, four straight years before retiring...
I would have gone a different route in FA to solve the issue at WR, but I understood the theory behind buying KG.
The LW trade and signing were both daft moves. I still can't get over that one. The money spent on LW could have been used for much bigger needs. It was a classic "save face" signing by DG because he needed to justify the trade.
Signing AJax at the time was overkill due to the amount of resources DG invested in the corner position. I would have been supportive of rolling with JB on one side and the young, unproven pups on the other side going into 2021. Now, we may get lucky here because AJax gives Martindale a vet to work with, so one side should be okay. But I would have been fine this rolling with unproven corners and letting Martindale do the other aspect of his job - development.
Getts was outnegotiated in each of these instances. As you said he was behind the 8-ball clearly with LW and taken to cleaners. Golladay and Jackson were desperation signings because his prior signings/draft picks at these positions were collosal failures...and ones where not sure anybody else was bidding, at least not at these levels.
Along these line I never understand the justification of "hey Kevin Abrams isn't doing anything anymore, you should be happy" or Chris Mara is "just a title."
First of all no, they are voices in the room of the senior decision makers and they aren't sitting in the corner with dunce caps on. It's a joke of a position to assume anyone with a title of SVP or co-owner doesn't have an impact.
Furthermore, the Giants aren't some team that spends unlimited funds. If these were positions that were just title that we were paying for, carrying that dead weight isn't helping us become a better organization. That money that is going to them could be going to other people that get the job purely based on merit, proven success and aptitude.
Maybe the team can win with the folks they have there now. But it doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence these people are good at their jobs. Isn't that what we should want at fans? To be able to point to things and say hey look at this move, here is an example of them being good at their jobs! Instead some would prefer to dance around and talk about lack of complete and total proof they are bad. Why do that?
All of this Kevin Abrams only did the negotiating stuff is just a stupid distinction, he worked with the cap in the past. Shouldn't the person doing the negotiating have an intimate knowledge of the cap situation and the cap affect?
It's like man, I'm only guessing here Kenny but sure we can pay you that. I haven't really looked at the books or anything but you know I like the cut of your jib and we are DESPERATE for a WR. You aren't making Kevin Abrams look any better at his job by making this distinction.
Along these line I never understand the justification of "hey Kevin Abrams isn't doing anything anymore, you should be happy" or Chris Mara is "just a title."
First of all no, they are voices in the room of the senior decision makers and they aren't sitting in the corner with dunce caps on. It's a joke of a position to assume anyone with a title of SVP or co-owner doesn't have an impact.
since they still have voices in the room, did they get better at cap management this year?
or is it more likely the direction of the team is most influenced by whoever the GM/HC is?
Along these line I never understand the justification of "hey Kevin Abrams isn't doing anything anymore, you should be happy" or Chris Mara is "just a title."
First of all no, they are voices in the room of the senior decision makers and they aren't sitting in the corner with dunce caps on. It's a joke of a position to assume anyone with a title of SVP or co-owner doesn't have an impact.
Furthermore, the Giants aren't some team that spends unlimited funds. If these were positions that were just title that we were paying for, carrying that dead weight isn't helping us become a better organization. That money that is going to them could be going to other people that get the job purely based on merit, proven success and aptitude.
Maybe the team can win with the folks they have there now. But it doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence these people are good at their jobs. Isn't that what we should want at fans? To be able to point to things and say hey look at this move, here is an example of them being good at their jobs! Instead some would prefer to dance around and talk about lack of complete and total proof they are bad. Why do that?
All of this Kevin Abrams only did the negotiating stuff is just a stupid distinction, he worked with the cap in the past. Shouldn't the person doing the negotiating have an intimate knowledge of the cap situation and the cap affect?
It's like man, I'm only guessing here Kenny but sure we can pay you that. I haven't really looked at the books or anything but you know I like the cut of your jib and we are DESPERATE for a WR. You aren't making Kevin Abrams look any better at his job by making this distinction.
Get a competent GM that is a better evaluator of players and the family stuff will fall in line and/or become irrelevent.
Or you can keep guessing, like above, that these guys specifically are negative contributors...
More people with good and valuable opinions maximizes your chances of winning it's as simple as that.
Also that statement completely disregards the fact that you could have a highly competent GM completely undermined by Mara
More people with good and valuable opinions maximizes your chances of winning it's as simple as that.
Also that statement completely disregards the fact that you could have a highly competent GM completely undermined by Mara
And you're disregarding that maybe those guys actually provide valuable opinions at times, or that Schoen is incapable of filtering good from bad.
And if Mara was undermining Gettleman's high competency levels, then what would be the point in replacing him? Why would a young, up-and-coming professional like Schoen even stick around if that undermining was already occurring?
You're like one step away from the c-word...
It's actually fairly contradictory logic.
And if the argument is that say Abrams did have valuable opinions and he was overruled often those problems could very well still exist.
It's actually fairly contradictory logic.
And if the argument is that say Abrams did have valuable opinions and he was overruled often those problems could very well still exist.
I didn't suggest that there are only valuable opinions being spouted off. If you want to proceed down this path and only bring up extremes to force your point then we aren't getting anywhere in this debate.
The team has sucked for a decade but it's the GM that drives the bus here in NY. And when things go awry and even spiral then my view is the family gets more involved (or more worried) because they have been sold a "bill of goods" by that GM. Mara is ultimately the one to face the music because its his hires but a better GM, running better processes, putting a better coach in place and hiring his own better team members will right the ship. And then the family moves into watch & enjoy mode versus you worrying about why they have those titles and are they possibly overruling everything...
Abrams was a cap genius in the same way that Marc Ross had day 1-2 grades on every single draft pick. It was a talking point for public consumption. Abrams wasn't generally a liability in cap management, but he also wasn't doing anything extraordinary to provide any sort of advantage.
You do bring up a good point, however - the cap is always going to look worse when the players are bad. The value of the contracts is not there; players are more likely to get cut/replaced, which has a very obvious effect on dead money; outside free agents are more likely to be signed instead of a viable talent pipeline through the draft (and/or re-signing players already on the roster at a time when it can be cap-favorable, such as an extension after y3 of a rookie contract); and the imbalance in free agency (signing more players from other teams than are signed from your own team) precludes many comp pick opportunities, which further limits the access to cheap talent with which to build a roster pipeline.
Good teams enjoy the opposite of most, if not all, of the effects listed above. And that provides much more cap flexibility as a result. But good teams can have cap inefficiencies that they can survive; bad teams can have savvy cap management that goes ignored. Generally, those are uncommon except at the beginning and end of a competitive window.
As it relates to Abrams, he was never as good at cap management as many here (and throughout the Giants fan community at large) held him out to be, and he's not singularly responsible for the current cap mess (the blame there should point squarely at DG for yet another misread of his roster, which led to an ill-timed and way-too-aggressive spending spree). He's the front office executive version of a JAG.
Okay with general sentiment. But would suggest the better comment is the bad decisions made far outweighed the good ones to create the situation.
Who had the highest volume of good or bad opinions is far less relevant than the decision-making process the GM took and relied upon in executing his own player choices and related contracts. As far you know Gettleman executed his strategies based on his own bad opinions and additionally filtered out some of the good ones he received from others in the building.