Tom Rock
@TomRock_Newsday
·
4m
Giants & WR Darius Slayton agreed to paycut that will keep him on team source says. Drops his salary from $2.54m to league min ($965k). Saves Giants about $1.6 against cap. Slayton has a chance to earn some back with playtime incentives. He’ll be on the field for practice today.
Maybe fans can show him some respect now, and get behind him and root for him to have a big year. If for nothing else but to raise his value for a comp pick...go get that big contract Slay.
Slayton could not remain on this team with his previous cap number. It was either trade, get released, or take a pay cut. The two players they needed to create room under the cap from are these Leo Williams and Slayton. I could also see them approaching Nick Gates at some point going forward with regards to an extension. It all depends on his health. He's a FA after the season. Giants are going to now be around $6.7 M under the cap.
Easy decision for him -- get cut and hope you get to picked up or stay on the Giants. In both scenarios he makes the vet minimum. There's a role for Slayton in a 4 WR set.
while I think DEAD money gets overblown (all that matters is how much cap space do you have), look at how much the Eagles have for 2023. They are pushing $30 mil.
No trade interest/market for him
He would get Vet Min for any team that may pick him up.
He may have to wait to get picked up.
He knows that Shep, Golladay, and Toney are Brittle, so he has a good chance at playing time.
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
while I think DEAD money gets overblown (all that matters is how much cap space do you have), look at how much the Eagles have for 2023. They are pushing $30 mil.
So the concept of dead money is overblown but available cap space is what matters?
uh huh...
A look at 2022 cap space vs each teams estimated cap space for 2023:
its the best place for him to be, and he brings something to the tablet that can't be taught- speed! He gives them ore wiggle room. Schoen hasn't been perfect but he's doing a good job under tough circumstances.
RE: Good. Anybody else that needs to be at the vet minimum
Think about the emotion Slayton went through to swallow his pride and take the paycut to stay a giant rather than be cut. This took alot of character and i am rooting for him to succeed.
When the hell was the last time you saw a player opted for a paycut?
I had mentioned this on another thread (maybe yesterday), but the only reason why Slayton's salary had become inflated in the first place was that he had reached performance benchmarks set by the league.
The fact that the league can say "we think you have outperformed your contract, so here's additional money" and have it turn Slayton into a potential cap casualty in the process is already counter to what the league probably intended in the first place, but then for a team to be able to go back to the player and say "yeah, that's cool that the league awarded you a higher salary, but if you want any salary at all, you'll go back to the league minimum that you were set to earn before they started meddling" seems even more odd.
No trade interest/market for him
He would get Vet Min for any team that may pick him up.
He may have to wait to get picked up.
He knows that Shep, Golladay, and Toney are Brittle, so he has a good chance at playing time.
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
^This. His contract with the Giants, even after the pay cut, is guaranteed because he'll now be on an NFL roster as of week one. That wouldn't happen if he was signed after week one by another team, who would also likely just give him the veteran minimum. And he can earn some of the money back by playing well. Doing so also obviously improves his marketability as a FA next offseason.
I had mentioned this on another thread (maybe yesterday), but the only reason why Slayton's salary had become inflated in the first place was that he had reached performance benchmarks set by the league.
The fact that the league can say "we think you have outperformed your contract, so here's additional money" and have it turn Slayton into a potential cap casualty in the process is already counter to what the league probably intended in the first place, but then for a team to be able to go back to the player and say "yeah, that's cool that the league awarded you a higher salary, but if you want any salary at all, you'll go back to the league minimum that you were set to earn before they started meddling" seems even more odd.
It does seem odd. I wonder if this is something the union will try and correct in the next CBA.
I had mentioned this on another thread (maybe yesterday), but the only reason why Slayton's salary had become inflated in the first place was that he had reached performance benchmarks set by the league.
The fact that the league can say "we think you have outperformed your contract, so here's additional money" and have it turn Slayton into a potential cap casualty in the process is already counter to what the league probably intended in the first place, but then for a team to be able to go back to the player and say "yeah, that's cool that the league awarded you a higher salary, but if you want any salary at all, you'll go back to the league minimum that you were set to earn before they started meddling" seems even more odd.
That’s an interesting point. Kinda follows the idea that the current format favors upper tier players getting overpaid, often for past performance (Golladay), and teams filling in around them with bargain basement rookies or very young players. The 3-4 year veteran types who are middling players get squeezed out pretty quickly.
Unless they’re willing to get marked back down to league minimum rate, which is apparently what Slayton was willing to do to keep his job
RE: RE: Good. Anybody else that needs to be at the vet minimum
Correct. This should put them 12th now, between the Bears and Packers.
Salary Cap Space rankings for all 32 NFL teams (unofficially as of 9-7-22) - OverTheCap.com - ( New Window )
I assume that between Slayton's pay cut and LW's restructure, we now have enough cap space to get through the season.
It also likely means he had ZERO trade value in a player-for-player swap, or too low of a draft pick to make it worth while. Having him on the roster at a cap friendly price is better than a 6th or a 7th round pick.
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
This is not accurate. It's vested vets with four years of service who have their contracts guaranteed for the year if they are on the first week roster, but Slayton only has three years.
He can still be cut at any time with no obligation by the Giants.
This ties into the other point being discussed about the limited significance of the performance incentive boosters for players on rookie deals.
These incentives do not change the fundamental tilt of the CBA that only guarantees the contracts of first round draft picks, while tying all rookies to a low wage structure for four years at the option of the drafting team.
The practical significance of the performance booster feature is that a high performing rookie gets a modest increase in pay from his original team OR the option of escaping to the free agent market.
In this case, Slayton and his agent recognized that he would not be an attractive free agent, so he might as well sign back with NYG.
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
This is not accurate. It's vested vets with four years of service who have their contracts guaranteed for the year if they are on the first week roster, but Slayton only has three years.
He can still be cut at any time with no obligation by the Giants.
This ties into the other point being discussed about the limited significance of the performance incentive boosters for players on rookie deals.
These incentives do not change the fundamental tilt of the CBA that only guarantees the contracts of first round draft picks, while tying all rookies to a low wage structure for four years at the option of the drafting team.
The practical significance of the performance booster feature is that a high performing rookie gets a modest increase in pay from his original team OR the option of escaping to the free agent market.
In this case, Slayton and his agent recognized that he would not be an attractive free agent, so he might as well sign back with NYG.
Thanks. I didn't know that. I thought every player on a roster week one had their contract guaranteed.
1. this isn't the first time this has happened, it happened last year with Yiadom who did the same thing because he was similarly on the bubble.
2. the nyg likely let slayton and his agent look around to see what kind of offers were out there for him. there very well may have only been practice squad opportunities (which would have cut his pay 3x smaller). or another minimum salary 5th/6th/7th receiver job in a new offense he doesn't know with a new team that requires him to move.
so this is probably better than a cut for both sides.
based on the health histories of just about everyone in front of him he will probably eventually get on the field.
when he does he will probably run by DBs.
the only question is if he can hang onto a few balls?
if he does he'll get paid in the offseason the nyg will also get a comp pick.
Gatorade Dunk: I think the system works as intended.
If the player is worth the escalated salary, the team pays it. If not, the team can either waive him or threaten to do so and try to claw back all or part of the raise as a salary reduction. At worst, the player is back where he started, making the fourth-year minimum. If he isn't even worth that much, he'd be waived whether the escalator had kicked in or not.
So, while the escalator might seem to hurt a marginal player like Slayton, it really doesn't. It's pure upside.
they shopped him. No takers, at least at $2.5M, he went home, talked it over with whomever, and thought: I better take this offer.
I hope he earns all his incentives.
they shopped him. No takers, at least at $2.5M, he went home, talked it over with whomever, and thought: I better take this offer.
I hope he earns all his incentives.
RE: Gatorade Dunk: I think the system works as intended.
If the player is worth the escalated salary, the team pays it. If not, the team can either waive him or threaten to do so and try to claw back all or part of the raise as a salary reduction. At worst, the player is back where he started, making the fourth-year minimum. If he isn't even worth that much, he'd be waived whether the escalator had kicked in or not.
So, while the escalator might seem to hurt a marginal player like Slayton, it really doesn't. It's pure upside.
correct - and also to that point, every player wants to get to UFA as fast as possible. getting cut is only a negative if your FMV is less than the veteran's minimum (i.e. not good enough for guaranteed playing time).
the only thing that has hurt slayton is his performance since his rookie year.
Maybe the best deep threat on the team. With defenses now more likely to,play the run and Giants offense more geared towards shorter passes and runs, Slayton will most likely face single coverage deep and has a good chance to catch some deep balls if he catches them.
...history of missing games, how could one argue against DS and his agent taking a gamble that he will get reps in 2022 in a system he prepped for all summer and a QB who knows him?
I had mentioned this on another thread (maybe yesterday), but the only reason why Slayton's salary had become inflated in the first place was that he had reached performance benchmarks set by the league.
The fact that the league can say "we think you have outperformed your contract, so here's additional money" and have it turn Slayton into a potential cap casualty in the process is already counter to what the league probably intended in the first place, but then for a team to be able to go back to the player and say "yeah, that's cool that the league awarded you a higher salary, but if you want any salary at all, you'll go back to the league minimum that you were set to earn before they started meddling" seems even more odd.
Howard Cross mentioned this the other day - when they start asking you to take a pay cut it's time to look for another team. Maybe they looked and realized best to stay put because there's no there there.
From his perspective, he's lucky he wasn't cut (now or earlier in the summer) and he wasn't likely to fare much better on the FA market. From their perspective, he get some more cap space while keeping a veteran WR.
Personally, I'm not sure how he made the team, considering where he is on the depth chart and the fact that he offers nothing on ST. But, if he's heree, it might as well be smart.
RE: Gatorade Dunk: I think the system works as intended.
If the player is worth the escalated salary, the team pays it. If not, the team can either waive him or threaten to do so and try to claw back all or part of the raise as a salary reduction. At worst, the player is back where he started, making the fourth-year minimum. If he isn't even worth that much, he'd be waived whether the escalator had kicked in or not.
So, while the escalator might seem to hurt a marginal player like Slayton, it really doesn't. It's pure upside.
Fair point, and I appreciate your perspective on it. I guess my only response to it is, what exactly is the point of the escalator in the first place? What narrow category of player does it serve?
A player who is anything other than a first round draft pick only has to weather four years of team control (+ potential tags), and has the opportunity for an extension after his third season. The escalator only kicks in for the fourth year, which comes after the window for an extension has already opened.
A hidden gem late round pick who blossoms into a star over his first three years will likely have an extension available to him after his third year, and has the leverage of a holdout to force the issue. The nominal escalator doesn't do much to force the team to the negotiating table, and certainly doesn't do nearly as much as a holdout might.
A middling (or worse) late round pick probably isn't qualifying for the escalator in the first place; if anything, a late-round pick who hasn't qualified by some escalators is fighting for a roster spot by the time his fourth year rolls around, assuming he's even still with the same team who drafted him (and if not, he's likely to have had a swing at some form of FA by then).
So this escalator impacts only those players who have statistically outplayed their draft slot, but not by enough that they could otherwise tempt a team to give them an extension after three seasons. We've eliminated the players who are essentially just roster fodder because they probably don't qualify for the escalators; we've eliminated the players who far exceed their original draft slot because they are likely to get new/additional money via extension after their third season. We're left with players, like Slayton, who may have had 1-2 good seasons in their first three years, but for whatever reason, have not been good enough or consistent enough for a team to commit to them.
In those instances, how many of those players actually get the additional money granted by the escalators? Or do most of them ultimately get squeezed back down to their original salary and then have to earn those escalators all over again by way of contractual incentives?
What did Slayton gain by those escalators? He wound up where he started, and had to deal with being a trade candidate much of the offseason. If he had enough leverage to get the new money in the first place, he also would probably have had trade value. He appears to have had neither of those things. I suspect this is not a unique outcome for the category of player who is good enough to earn the escalators but not good enough to have earned an extension or have trade value to another team.
So who do the escalators benefit, and who actually ever gets paid those dollars? The bottom end never earns the escalators. The top end never reach the 4th year of their rookie contract because they're extended before that. And the middle end lacks enough value or leverage to hold onto the escalator money if the team decides they need it back for cap space.
Correct. This should put them 12th now, between the Bears and Packers.
Salary Cap Space rankings for all 32 NFL teams (unofficially as of 9-7-22) - OverTheCap.com - ( New Window )
I assume that between Slayton's pay cut and LW's restructure, we now have enough cap space to get through the season.
This is true Acid. When I was running my cap blog/site, I used to keep track of in-season cap spending. I don't have the figures in front of me from the past, but this should be enough. They can always tack on more voidable years to create more space if need be to LW's deal.
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
This is not accurate. It's vested vets with four years of service who have their contracts guaranteed for the year if they are on the first week roster, but Slayton only has three years.
He can still be cut at any time with no obligation by the Giants.
This ties into the other point being discussed about the limited significance of the performance incentive boosters for players on rookie deals.
These incentives do not change the fundamental tilt of the CBA that only guarantees the contracts of first round draft picks, while tying all rookies to a low wage structure for four years at the option of the drafting team.
The practical significance of the performance booster feature is that a high performing rookie gets a modest increase in pay from his original team OR the option of escaping to the free agent market.
In this case, Slayton and his agent recognized that he would not be an attractive free agent, so he might as well sign back with NYG.
You're correct shyster. I got lost with how many vested years Slayton had. I thought he was a 5th year vet. Losing track of these scrubs is something I'm proud of now, lol.
If the player is worth the escalated salary, the team pays it. If not, the team can either waive him or threaten to do so and try to claw back all or part of the raise as a salary reduction. At worst, the player is back where he started, making the fourth-year minimum. If he isn't even worth that much, he'd be waived whether the escalator had kicked in or not.
So, while the escalator might seem to hurt a marginal player like Slayton, it really doesn't. It's pure upside.
Fair point, and I appreciate your perspective on it. I guess my only response to it is, what exactly is the point of the escalator in the first place? What narrow category of player does it serve?
A player who is anything other than a first round draft pick only has to weather four years of team control (+ potential tags), and has the opportunity for an extension after his third season. The escalator only kicks in for the fourth year, which comes after the window for an extension has already opened.
A hidden gem late round pick who blossoms into a star over his first three years will likely have an extension available to him after his third year, and has the leverage of a holdout to force the issue. The nominal escalator doesn't do much to force the team to the negotiating table, and certainly doesn't do nearly as much as a holdout might.
A middling (or worse) late round pick probably isn't qualifying for the escalator in the first place; if anything, a late-round pick who hasn't qualified by some escalators is fighting for a roster spot by the time his fourth year rolls around, assuming he's even still with the same team who drafted him (and if not, he's likely to have had a swing at some form of FA by then).
So this escalator impacts only those players who have statistically outplayed their draft slot, but not by enough that they could otherwise tempt a team to give them an extension after three seasons. We've eliminated the players who are essentially just roster fodder because they probably don't qualify for the escalators; we've eliminated the players who far exceed their original draft slot because they are likely to get new/additional money via extension after their third season. We're left with players, like Slayton, who may have had 1-2 good seasons in their first three years, but for whatever reason, have not been good enough or consistent enough for a team to commit to them.
In those instances, how many of those players actually get the additional money granted by the escalators? Or do most of them ultimately get squeezed back down to their original salary and then have to earn those escalators all over again by way of contractual incentives?
What did Slayton gain by those escalators? He wound up where he started, and had to deal with being a trade candidate much of the offseason. If he had enough leverage to get the new money in the first place, he also would probably have had trade value. He appears to have had neither of those things. I suspect this is not a unique outcome for the category of player who is good enough to earn the escalators but not good enough to have earned an extension or have trade value to another team.
So who do the escalators benefit, and who actually ever gets paid those dollars? The bottom end never earns the escalators. The top end never reach the 4th year of their rookie contract because they're extended before that. And the middle end lacks enough value or leverage to hold onto the escalator money if the team decides they need it back for cap space.
the escalators benefit the 50+ players from every draft who get paid more at a time in their careers when it's significant.
In comment 15805463 I Love Clams Casino said:
[quote] he performed like he was drafted in the 2nd round..... and then the bottom fell out and he performed like a 5th rounder.
What I'm curious about is where that performance came from?
Think about the emotion Slayton went through to swallow his pride and take the paycut to stay a giant rather than be cut. This took alot of character and i am rooting for him to succeed.
When the hell was the last time you saw a player opted for a paycut?
is that Schoen probably did get trade offers for Slayton, but none to his liking. So when nobody met his asking price, he recognized the leverage he did have (Slayton wasn't going to make $2.5 million on the open market if he were released), and negotiated the paycut.
As a new GM, you'd think other teams would be trying to test Schoen in negotiations and see what they can get away with. The lesson they may be in the process of learning is "not very much."
If I'm right about this, Schoen's willingness and ability to deal from a position of strength (even when he doesn't have very much) is going to pay off very nicely for us down the road. Sometimes in poker, you win a big pot just by having the stones to bluff your ass off.
RE: One encouraging takeaway from this development
is that Schoen probably did get trade offers for Slayton, but none to his liking. So when nobody met his asking price, he recognized the leverage he did have (Slayton wasn't going to make $2.5 million on the open market if he were released), and negotiated the paycut.
As a new GM, you'd think other teams would be trying to test Schoen in negotiations and see what they can get away with. The lesson they may be in the process of learning is "not very much."
If I'm right about this, Schoen's willingness and ability to deal from a position of strength (even when he doesn't have very much) is going to pay off very nicely for us down the road. Sometimes in poker, you win a big pot just by having the stones to bluff your ass off.
doubt they got a trade offer for him in the last week. if they did that means the team was willing to pay him $2m, and if there was a team willing to pay him $2m he wouldn't have taken the paycut. He'd have gotten released and signed with that team.
RE: RE: One encouraging takeaway from this development
is that Schoen probably did get trade offers for Slayton, but none to his liking. So when nobody met his asking price, he recognized the leverage he did have (Slayton wasn't going to make $2.5 million on the open market if he were released), and negotiated the paycut.
As a new GM, you'd think other teams would be trying to test Schoen in negotiations and see what they can get away with. The lesson they may be in the process of learning is "not very much."
If I'm right about this, Schoen's willingness and ability to deal from a position of strength (even when he doesn't have very much) is going to pay off very nicely for us down the road. Sometimes in poker, you win a big pot just by having the stones to bluff your ass off.
doubt they got a trade offer for him in the last week. if they did that means the team was willing to pay him $2m, and if there was a team willing to pay him $2m he wouldn't have taken the paycut. He'd have gotten released and signed with that team.
Is it safe to assume Slayton would've known about a prospective deal?
RE: RE: RE: One encouraging takeaway from this development
Is it safe to assume Slayton would've known about a prospective deal?
i think so because i think he's been on the block all offseason. agents are generally looking for landing spots for their players in that situation and i wouldn't be surprised if the nyg told them they'd be open to any offer they could find.
you do that if you are nyg because it makes it a much easier decision for the player when presented with a potential pay cut to know that the grass isn't greener.
RE: RE: RE: RE: One encouraging takeaway from this development
Is it safe to assume Slayton would've known about a prospective deal?
i think so because i think he's been on the block all offseason. agents are generally looking for landing spots for their players in that situation and i wouldn't be surprised if the nyg told them they'd be open to any offer they could find.
you do that if you are nyg because it makes it a much easier decision for the player when presented with a potential pay cut to know that the grass isn't greener.
I guess I'm wondering whether tampering rules would apply. Slayton's under contract. Can another team just call his agent to tell them they're angling for a trade with his current team? If the Giants want to pass that information along to him, I'm sure that would be fine - though I don't know why they'd do that.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: One encouraging takeaway from this development
I guess I'm wondering whether tampering rules would apply. Slayton's under contract. Can another team just call his agent to tell them they're angling for a trade with his current team? If the Giants want to pass that information along to him, I'm sure that would be fine - though I don't know why they'd do that.
they would if the team didn't give permission but teams in recent years have seemed more inclined to give permission.
they do that because light tampering is almost to stop and will lead to players thinking they are getting screwed if their agent is in their ear saying "they are screwing you".
light tampering = agents finding out that team x is looking for y during the course of normal business.
there's no downside to allowing an agent to explore the market for a player you are already willing to cut (as was the likely outcome here if he didn't accept the paycut).
Slayton's production actually slipped end of rookie season
doesn't this make Slayton a more attractive trade candidate at some point this season?
I don't think he's off the block entirely.
sure but money wasnt the problem in trade talks. the giants would have probably paid the $ difference to get a pick if they could.
ironically though the better slayton plays there may be less chance he gets traded because he'd all of sudden look like a potential compensation pick formula eligible free agent (which could end up a 5th or 6th, so a team would have to really change their tune on what he's worth in a short period of time).
Slayton as a 4th or 5th WR will thrive. Thats where he fits best, he can run his deep routes against the other teams 3rd thru 5t coverage guy and have success.
Its so terrible tat every single player had their worst years under Judge/Garrett. Maybe Slayton can get some of is rookie magic back and be a promising player again. He probably will have more TDs than Golladay.
Slayton as a 4th or 5th WR will thrive. Thats where he fits best, he can run his deep routes against the other teams 3rd thru 5t coverage guy and have success.
Its so terrible tat every single player had their worst years under Judge/Garrett. Maybe Slayton can get some of is rookie magic back and be a promising player again. He probably will have more TDs than Golladay.
It doesn't usually work out that way that your 4th or 5th WR draws his counterpart DB unless you're scheming to draw as many DBs onto the field as possible with a 4 or 5 WR set.
Otherwise, Slayton (or any 4th/5th WR) will more often slide into the role that he's filling at that time (standard XYZ receiver roles), so he may be up against another team's CB1 or CB2 depending on their scheme, their depth, etc.
Just because Slayton is WR4 or WR5 doesn't mean he gets to play against the equivalent DB on the other team. This isn't preseason. He faces whoever he faces.
And, as others have noted, given the fact that Slayton doesn't contribute on specials, there are probably going to be a lot of weeks where he just doesn't dress at all even though he's technically higher on the WR depth chart than some of the WRs who do get a shirt on game day.
@TomRock_Newsday
·
4m
Giants & WR Darius Slayton agreed to paycut that will keep him on team source says. Drops his salary from $2.54m to league min ($965k). Saves Giants about $1.6 against cap. Slayton has a chance to earn some back with playtime incentives. He’ll be on the field for practice today.
Maybe fans can show him some respect now, and get behind him and root for him to have a big year. If for nothing else but to raise his value for a comp pick...go get that big contract Slay.
Daniel Jones and Saquon Barkley have been excused from practice today.
(I kid)
Nick Gates - Center - NYG - OverTheCap.com - ( New Window )
He would get Vet Min for any team that may pick him up.
He may have to wait to get picked up.
He knows that Shep, Golladay, and Toney are Brittle, so he has a good chance at playing time.
Correct. This should put them 12th now, between the Bears and Packers.
Salary Cap Space rankings for all 32 NFL teams (unofficially as of 9-7-22) - OverTheCap.com - ( New Window )
He would get Vet Min for any team that may pick him up.
He may have to wait to get picked up.
He knows that Shep, Golladay, and Toney are Brittle, so he has a good chance at playing time.
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
Quote:
an excused absence midweek with Schoen and Daboll, you either disappear or take a pay cut....
Daniel Jones and Saquon Barkley have been excused from practice today.
(I kid)
LOL You got me!
Paulie? Won’t see him no more
So the concept of dead money is overblown but available cap space is what matters?
uh huh...
@Jason_OTC - A look at 2022 cap space vs each teams estimated cap space for 2023 - 10:19 AM · Sep 6, 2022 ·Twitter Web App - ( New Window )
Golladay!!!
When the hell was the last time you saw a player opted for a paycut?
The fact that the league can say "we think you have outperformed your contract, so here's additional money" and have it turn Slayton into a potential cap casualty in the process is already counter to what the league probably intended in the first place, but then for a team to be able to go back to the player and say "yeah, that's cool that the league awarded you a higher salary, but if you want any salary at all, you'll go back to the league minimum that you were set to earn before they started meddling" seems even more odd.
Quote:
No trade interest/market for him
He would get Vet Min for any team that may pick him up.
He may have to wait to get picked up.
He knows that Shep, Golladay, and Toney are Brittle, so he has a good chance at playing time.
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
^This. His contract with the Giants, even after the pay cut, is guaranteed because he'll now be on an NFL roster as of week one. That wouldn't happen if he was signed after week one by another team, who would also likely just give him the veteran minimum. And he can earn some of the money back by playing well. Doing so also obviously improves his marketability as a FA next offseason.
The fact that the league can say "we think you have outperformed your contract, so here's additional money" and have it turn Slayton into a potential cap casualty in the process is already counter to what the league probably intended in the first place, but then for a team to be able to go back to the player and say "yeah, that's cool that the league awarded you a higher salary, but if you want any salary at all, you'll go back to the league minimum that you were set to earn before they started meddling" seems even more odd.
It does seem odd. I wonder if this is something the union will try and correct in the next CBA.
What I'm curious about is where that performance came from?
weird
The fact that the league can say "we think you have outperformed your contract, so here's additional money" and have it turn Slayton into a potential cap casualty in the process is already counter to what the league probably intended in the first place, but then for a team to be able to go back to the player and say "yeah, that's cool that the league awarded you a higher salary, but if you want any salary at all, you'll go back to the league minimum that you were set to earn before they started meddling" seems even more odd.
That’s an interesting point. Kinda follows the idea that the current format favors upper tier players getting overpaid, often for past performance (Golladay), and teams filling in around them with bargain basement rookies or very young players. The 3-4 year veteran types who are middling players get squeezed out pretty quickly.
Unless they’re willing to get marked back down to league minimum rate, which is apparently what Slayton was willing to do to keep his job
Quote:
on this roster?
Golladay!!!
If Golladay starts dogging it on Sunday in any way then they need give him an offer he can't refuse...
Quote:
an excused absence midweek with Schoen and Daboll, you either disappear or take a pay cut....
Daniel Jones and Saquon Barkley have been excused from practice today.
(I kid)
Quote:
Top half of the league.
Correct. This should put them 12th now, between the Bears and Packers.
Salary Cap Space rankings for all 32 NFL teams (unofficially as of 9-7-22) - OverTheCap.com - ( New Window )
I assume that between Slayton's pay cut and LW's restructure, we now have enough cap space to get through the season.
Quote:
an excused absence midweek with Schoen and Daboll, you either disappear or take a pay cut....
Paulie? Won’t see him no more
LOL - Martinez sleeps with the fishes
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
This is not accurate. It's vested vets with four years of service who have their contracts guaranteed for the year if they are on the first week roster, but Slayton only has three years.
He can still be cut at any time with no obligation by the Giants.
This ties into the other point being discussed about the limited significance of the performance incentive boosters for players on rookie deals.
These incentives do not change the fundamental tilt of the CBA that only guarantees the contracts of first round draft picks, while tying all rookies to a low wage structure for four years at the option of the drafting team.
The practical significance of the performance booster feature is that a high performing rookie gets a modest increase in pay from his original team OR the option of escaping to the free agent market.
In this case, Slayton and his agent recognized that he would not be an attractive free agent, so he might as well sign back with NYG.
Quote:
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
This is not accurate. It's vested vets with four years of service who have their contracts guaranteed for the year if they are on the first week roster, but Slayton only has three years.
He can still be cut at any time with no obligation by the Giants.
This ties into the other point being discussed about the limited significance of the performance incentive boosters for players on rookie deals.
These incentives do not change the fundamental tilt of the CBA that only guarantees the contracts of first round draft picks, while tying all rookies to a low wage structure for four years at the option of the drafting team.
The practical significance of the performance booster feature is that a high performing rookie gets a modest increase in pay from his original team OR the option of escaping to the free agent market.
In this case, Slayton and his agent recognized that he would not be an attractive free agent, so he might as well sign back with NYG.
Thanks. I didn't know that. I thought every player on a roster week one had their contract guaranteed.
2. the nyg likely let slayton and his agent look around to see what kind of offers were out there for him. there very well may have only been practice squad opportunities (which would have cut his pay 3x smaller). or another minimum salary 5th/6th/7th receiver job in a new offense he doesn't know with a new team that requires him to move.
so this is probably better than a cut for both sides.
based on the health histories of just about everyone in front of him he will probably eventually get on the field.
when he does he will probably run by DBs.
the only question is if he can hang onto a few balls?
if he does he'll get paid in the offseason the nyg will also get a comp pick.
So, while the escalator might seem to hurt a marginal player like Slayton, it really doesn't. It's pure upside.
I hope he earns all his incentives.
I hope he earns all his incentives.
So, while the escalator might seem to hurt a marginal player like Slayton, it really doesn't. It's pure upside.
correct - and also to that point, every player wants to get to UFA as fast as possible. getting cut is only a negative if your FMV is less than the veteran's minimum (i.e. not good enough for guaranteed playing time).
the only thing that has hurt slayton is his performance since his rookie year.
Daniel Jones and Saquon Barkley have been excused from practice today.
(I kid) [/quote]
Here in Las Vegas it is still fairly early. I just sat down with my first coffee and read your post.
You got me! Well done!
Max Garcia and Ryan Connelly are also clients:
Slayton's agent M. Perrett - client list - ( New Window )
His best attribute is being on the same page with Jones. Why not hope to prove himself this year
The fact that the league can say "we think you have outperformed your contract, so here's additional money" and have it turn Slayton into a potential cap casualty in the process is already counter to what the league probably intended in the first place, but then for a team to be able to go back to the player and say "yeah, that's cool that the league awarded you a higher salary, but if you want any salary at all, you'll go back to the league minimum that you were set to earn before they started meddling" seems even more odd.
Howard Cross mentioned this the other day - when they start asking you to take a pay cut it's time to look for another team. Maybe they looked and realized best to stay put because there's no there there.
His best attribute is being on the same page with Jones. Why not hope to prove himself this year
precisely
Personally, I'm not sure how he made the team, considering where he is on the depth chart and the fact that he offers nothing on ST. But, if he's heree, it might as well be smart.
So, while the escalator might seem to hurt a marginal player like Slayton, it really doesn't. It's pure upside.
Fair point, and I appreciate your perspective on it. I guess my only response to it is, what exactly is the point of the escalator in the first place? What narrow category of player does it serve?
A player who is anything other than a first round draft pick only has to weather four years of team control (+ potential tags), and has the opportunity for an extension after his third season. The escalator only kicks in for the fourth year, which comes after the window for an extension has already opened.
A hidden gem late round pick who blossoms into a star over his first three years will likely have an extension available to him after his third year, and has the leverage of a holdout to force the issue. The nominal escalator doesn't do much to force the team to the negotiating table, and certainly doesn't do nearly as much as a holdout might.
A middling (or worse) late round pick probably isn't qualifying for the escalator in the first place; if anything, a late-round pick who hasn't qualified by some escalators is fighting for a roster spot by the time his fourth year rolls around, assuming he's even still with the same team who drafted him (and if not, he's likely to have had a swing at some form of FA by then).
So this escalator impacts only those players who have statistically outplayed their draft slot, but not by enough that they could otherwise tempt a team to give them an extension after three seasons. We've eliminated the players who are essentially just roster fodder because they probably don't qualify for the escalators; we've eliminated the players who far exceed their original draft slot because they are likely to get new/additional money via extension after their third season. We're left with players, like Slayton, who may have had 1-2 good seasons in their first three years, but for whatever reason, have not been good enough or consistent enough for a team to commit to them.
In those instances, how many of those players actually get the additional money granted by the escalators? Or do most of them ultimately get squeezed back down to their original salary and then have to earn those escalators all over again by way of contractual incentives?
What did Slayton gain by those escalators? He wound up where he started, and had to deal with being a trade candidate much of the offseason. If he had enough leverage to get the new money in the first place, he also would probably have had trade value. He appears to have had neither of those things. I suspect this is not a unique outcome for the category of player who is good enough to earn the escalators but not good enough to have earned an extension or have trade value to another team.
So who do the escalators benefit, and who actually ever gets paid those dollars? The bottom end never earns the escalators. The top end never reach the 4th year of their rookie contract because they're extended before that. And the middle end lacks enough value or leverage to hold onto the escalator money if the team decides they need it back for cap space.
Quote:
In comment 15805378 BillT said:
Quote:
Top half of the league.
Correct. This should put them 12th now, between the Bears and Packers.
Salary Cap Space rankings for all 32 NFL teams (unofficially as of 9-7-22) - OverTheCap.com - ( New Window )
I assume that between Slayton's pay cut and LW's restructure, we now have enough cap space to get through the season.
This is true Acid. When I was running my cap blog/site, I used to keep track of in-season cap spending. I don't have the figures in front of me from the past, but this should be enough. They can always tack on more voidable years to create more space if need be to LW's deal.
Leonard Williams - DL - NYG - Current contract details - OverTheCap.com - ( New Window )
Quote:
Plus he's got a guaranteed contract for the rest of the year. Had he been cut now, he wouldn't be signed until after Week 1, meaning his contract would no longer be guaranteed---he'd get paid week to week. That's why we'll see some signings on Tuesday of next week around the league, so as to save money against the cap. He's got a shot to get incentives here too, and make that money back, which is plenty fair and better than going anywere else.
This is not accurate. It's vested vets with four years of service who have their contracts guaranteed for the year if they are on the first week roster, but Slayton only has three years.
He can still be cut at any time with no obligation by the Giants.
This ties into the other point being discussed about the limited significance of the performance incentive boosters for players on rookie deals.
These incentives do not change the fundamental tilt of the CBA that only guarantees the contracts of first round draft picks, while tying all rookies to a low wage structure for four years at the option of the drafting team.
The practical significance of the performance booster feature is that a high performing rookie gets a modest increase in pay from his original team OR the option of escaping to the free agent market.
In this case, Slayton and his agent recognized that he would not be an attractive free agent, so he might as well sign back with NYG.
You're correct shyster. I got lost with how many vested years Slayton had. I thought he was a 5th year vet. Losing track of these scrubs is something I'm proud of now, lol.
Darius Slayton - WR - NYG - Current contract details - OverTheCap.com - ( New Window )
Quote:
If the player is worth the escalated salary, the team pays it. If not, the team can either waive him or threaten to do so and try to claw back all or part of the raise as a salary reduction. At worst, the player is back where he started, making the fourth-year minimum. If he isn't even worth that much, he'd be waived whether the escalator had kicked in or not.
So, while the escalator might seem to hurt a marginal player like Slayton, it really doesn't. It's pure upside.
Fair point, and I appreciate your perspective on it. I guess my only response to it is, what exactly is the point of the escalator in the first place? What narrow category of player does it serve?
A player who is anything other than a first round draft pick only has to weather four years of team control (+ potential tags), and has the opportunity for an extension after his third season. The escalator only kicks in for the fourth year, which comes after the window for an extension has already opened.
A hidden gem late round pick who blossoms into a star over his first three years will likely have an extension available to him after his third year, and has the leverage of a holdout to force the issue. The nominal escalator doesn't do much to force the team to the negotiating table, and certainly doesn't do nearly as much as a holdout might.
A middling (or worse) late round pick probably isn't qualifying for the escalator in the first place; if anything, a late-round pick who hasn't qualified by some escalators is fighting for a roster spot by the time his fourth year rolls around, assuming he's even still with the same team who drafted him (and if not, he's likely to have had a swing at some form of FA by then).
So this escalator impacts only those players who have statistically outplayed their draft slot, but not by enough that they could otherwise tempt a team to give them an extension after three seasons. We've eliminated the players who are essentially just roster fodder because they probably don't qualify for the escalators; we've eliminated the players who far exceed their original draft slot because they are likely to get new/additional money via extension after their third season. We're left with players, like Slayton, who may have had 1-2 good seasons in their first three years, but for whatever reason, have not been good enough or consistent enough for a team to commit to them.
In those instances, how many of those players actually get the additional money granted by the escalators? Or do most of them ultimately get squeezed back down to their original salary and then have to earn those escalators all over again by way of contractual incentives?
What did Slayton gain by those escalators? He wound up where he started, and had to deal with being a trade candidate much of the offseason. If he had enough leverage to get the new money in the first place, he also would probably have had trade value. He appears to have had neither of those things. I suspect this is not a unique outcome for the category of player who is good enough to earn the escalators but not good enough to have earned an extension or have trade value to another team.
So who do the escalators benefit, and who actually ever gets paid those dollars? The bottom end never earns the escalators. The top end never reach the 4th year of their rookie contract because they're extended before that. And the middle end lacks enough value or leverage to hold onto the escalator money if the team decides they need it back for cap space.
the escalators benefit the 50+ players from every draft who get paid more at a time in their careers when it's significant.
it's a pretty fringe case where players play enough to earn escalators but not well enough to be worth that amount on the open market.
https://overthecap.com/proven-performance-escalator - ( New Window )
@Jason_OTC - A look at 2022 cap space vs each teams estimated cap space for 2023 - 10:19 AM · Sep 6, 2022 ·Twitter Web App - ( New Window )
The Bears are in good position to start over next year. Wow.
WTF,,WTF WTF is that?
[quote] he performed like he was drafted in the 2nd round..... and then the bottom fell out and he performed like a 5th rounder.
What I'm curious about is where that performance came from?
weird______________________________________________
He was in a more wide open offense that both QBs were comfortable with in his first year and Slayton was the deep threat. Then, Judge took over.
He would get Vet Min for any team that may pick him up.
He may have to wait to get picked up.
He knows that Shep, Golladay, and Toney are Brittle, so he has a good chance at playing time.
Yup. He showed maturity. Assessed his options and took the most realistic one.
Looked like a draft steal his first season. Been on the slippery slope since.
When the hell was the last time you saw a player opted for a paycut?
Blake Martinez and they still cut him
As a new GM, you'd think other teams would be trying to test Schoen in negotiations and see what they can get away with. The lesson they may be in the process of learning is "not very much."
If I'm right about this, Schoen's willingness and ability to deal from a position of strength (even when he doesn't have very much) is going to pay off very nicely for us down the road. Sometimes in poker, you win a big pot just by having the stones to bluff your ass off.
As a new GM, you'd think other teams would be trying to test Schoen in negotiations and see what they can get away with. The lesson they may be in the process of learning is "not very much."
If I'm right about this, Schoen's willingness and ability to deal from a position of strength (even when he doesn't have very much) is going to pay off very nicely for us down the road. Sometimes in poker, you win a big pot just by having the stones to bluff your ass off.
doubt they got a trade offer for him in the last week. if they did that means the team was willing to pay him $2m, and if there was a team willing to pay him $2m he wouldn't have taken the paycut. He'd have gotten released and signed with that team.
Quote:
is that Schoen probably did get trade offers for Slayton, but none to his liking. So when nobody met his asking price, he recognized the leverage he did have (Slayton wasn't going to make $2.5 million on the open market if he were released), and negotiated the paycut.
As a new GM, you'd think other teams would be trying to test Schoen in negotiations and see what they can get away with. The lesson they may be in the process of learning is "not very much."
If I'm right about this, Schoen's willingness and ability to deal from a position of strength (even when he doesn't have very much) is going to pay off very nicely for us down the road. Sometimes in poker, you win a big pot just by having the stones to bluff your ass off.
doubt they got a trade offer for him in the last week. if they did that means the team was willing to pay him $2m, and if there was a team willing to pay him $2m he wouldn't have taken the paycut. He'd have gotten released and signed with that team.
Is it safe to assume Slayton would've known about a prospective deal?
Is it safe to assume Slayton would've known about a prospective deal?
i think so because i think he's been on the block all offseason. agents are generally looking for landing spots for their players in that situation and i wouldn't be surprised if the nyg told them they'd be open to any offer they could find.
you do that if you are nyg because it makes it a much easier decision for the player when presented with a potential pay cut to know that the grass isn't greener.
Quote:
Is it safe to assume Slayton would've known about a prospective deal?
i think so because i think he's been on the block all offseason. agents are generally looking for landing spots for their players in that situation and i wouldn't be surprised if the nyg told them they'd be open to any offer they could find.
you do that if you are nyg because it makes it a much easier decision for the player when presented with a potential pay cut to know that the grass isn't greener.
I guess I'm wondering whether tampering rules would apply. Slayton's under contract. Can another team just call his agent to tell them they're angling for a trade with his current team? If the Giants want to pass that information along to him, I'm sure that would be fine - though I don't know why they'd do that.
I guess I'm wondering whether tampering rules would apply. Slayton's under contract. Can another team just call his agent to tell them they're angling for a trade with his current team? If the Giants want to pass that information along to him, I'm sure that would be fine - though I don't know why they'd do that.
they would if the team didn't give permission but teams in recent years have seemed more inclined to give permission.
they do that because light tampering is almost to stop and will lead to players thinking they are getting screwed if their agent is in their ear saying "they are screwing you".
light tampering = agents finding out that team x is looking for y during the course of normal business.
there's no downside to allowing an agent to explore the market for a player you are already willing to cut (as was the likely outcome here if he didn't accept the paycut).
Then the last three games of the season he caught only 5 total.
And last two seasons, he has been the guy who caught 5 passes in 3 games, not the guy who caught 25 passes in 4 games.
I don't think he's off the block entirely.
I don't think he's off the block entirely.
sure but money wasnt the problem in trade talks. the giants would have probably paid the $ difference to get a pick if they could.
ironically though the better slayton plays there may be less chance he gets traded because he'd all of sudden look like a potential compensation pick formula eligible free agent (which could end up a 5th or 6th, so a team would have to really change their tune on what he's worth in a short period of time).
From your lips to God's ears.
Its so terrible tat every single player had their worst years under Judge/Garrett. Maybe Slayton can get some of is rookie magic back and be a promising player again. He probably will have more TDs than Golladay.
Its so terrible tat every single player had their worst years under Judge/Garrett. Maybe Slayton can get some of is rookie magic back and be a promising player again. He probably will have more TDs than Golladay.
It doesn't usually work out that way that your 4th or 5th WR draws his counterpart DB unless you're scheming to draw as many DBs onto the field as possible with a 4 or 5 WR set.
Otherwise, Slayton (or any 4th/5th WR) will more often slide into the role that he's filling at that time (standard XYZ receiver roles), so he may be up against another team's CB1 or CB2 depending on their scheme, their depth, etc.
Just because Slayton is WR4 or WR5 doesn't mean he gets to play against the equivalent DB on the other team. This isn't preseason. He faces whoever he faces.
And, as others have noted, given the fact that Slayton doesn't contribute on specials, there are probably going to be a lot of weeks where he just doesn't dress at all even though he's technically higher on the WR depth chart than some of the WRs who do get a shirt on game day.