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.
@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