This tweet from Duggan/Joel Corry had the FT lower than we've been using as an estimate (last year's tag) so I checked OTC and as it turns out, I think they are right and it will be lower though whether calculated by cap # or cash # im getting closer to 11m than 10m (not sure which is the correct salary input).
Dan Duggan @DDuggan21
1m
Joel projects the RB franchise tag at $10.1M. Much lower than the $12.5M projections out there.
Joel Corry @corryjoel
A new Inside The Cap on Saquon Barkley's future with the New York Giants (free agency, franchise tag or long-term deal). |
so what happened? I think because the panthers restructured CMC back in March and the traded him, this year his cap number is basically a minimum salary and even his cash is outside the top 5. most of his money got eaten by carolina as dead money, so i think it knocked a big salary out of the calculation.
the good news is the tag is low because the RB market has cratered to rock bottom during the covid cap years just in time for the barkley negotiation (or using it for the year and having him play on it).
the bad news is i think that market has overcorrected and is about to swing back the other way with barkley getting a contract that starts momentum back up instead of down. I think he will end up getting an extension similar to what CMC got (which practically ended up being about 3 years 40m deal for CAR).
The best way to manage this is year by year. Paying for services rendered is dumb, and you just can't trust the projection for RBs.
here was brandt's commentary to the aaron jones contract negotiations ahead of UFA (he ultimately extended for 4x12m). he liked the henry deal and talked about how the recent rb deals looked good relative to the bigger deals several years ago. id imagine he feels similarly re barkley.
Andrew Brandt: Aaron Jones in - ( New Window )
which at that point may as well be a 4 year extension (which is practically a 2 year deal w/ options).
but i agree - that's what id predict. a 4x55m or something like that and 25-30m guaranteed. easy outs after 2024.
Quote:
doesn’t really give you a financial boost. The lower tag represents a new floor to start extension negotiations though (assuming they want him for multiple years). Only way it makes sense to tag is if you plan on doing it twice and then letting him walk, IMO.
which at that point may as well be a 4 year extension (which is practically a 2 year deal w/ options).
but i agree - that's what id predict. a 4x55m or something like that and 25-30m guaranteed. easy outs after 2024.
Agreed. It really comes down to how long they want him for.
He’s also one guy who might be willing to not demand stupid money. Less money with more guaranteed cash which can be tied to games played etc.
Gettleman sucked but Reese was just horrible at resigning the few good picks he actually did make.
Let’s hope Schoen has more of a clue than the last two morons in locking up players the team needs. Barkley is a no brainer at 12-14 million per season.
While Barkley has a low amount of career carries, the reason is because he was hurt a bunch. And the net effect on his body might be a wash.
I won’t be surprised if they comes to terms on a ~2/25M agreement. That allows Barkley a Hail Mary chance to get another bite at the free agency apple.
While Barkley has a low amount of career carries, the reason is because he was hurt a bunch. And the net effect on his body might be a wash.
I won’t be surprised if they comes to terms on a ~2/25M agreement. That allows Barkley a Hail Mary chance to get another bite at the free agency apple.
SB has agents for a reason. Now you could be right, but just my opinion they are looking for a long term deal...you only get a few (maybe just one especially for an RB) shot at this and I cant see his representation or himself accepting that in the slightest. Very unlikely to me.
You realize the player can't decline the FT...
The team has all of the leverage here.
Quote:
or his agents playing under the franchise tag.
You realize the player can't decline the FT...
The team has all of the leverage here.
Not sure about that. Depends on many things:
1. Do they want to franchise Jones
2. If no to the above, do they want a rookie here with less weapons
3. Not paying your best player could be a negative
4. The overall contract value will be fairly small for a big impact player so the risk isn’t all that great
Not really sure who has leverage matters all that much.
Quote:
In comment 15912980 The Dude said:
Quote:
or his agents playing under the franchise tag.
You realize the player can't decline the FT...
The team has all of the leverage here.
Not sure about that. Depends on many things:
1. Do they want to franchise Jones
2. If no to the above, do they want a rookie here with less weapons
3. Not paying your best player could be a negative
4. The overall contract value will be fairly small for a big impact player so the risk isn’t all that great
Not really sure who has leverage matters all that much.
all of this is right. and we know they have already expressed interest in an extension (today it was even reported they weren't far off there just wasnt enough time).
9h
Extension talks between Saquon Barkley and #Giants were "encouraging," I'm told. Reason a deal never got close was bye-week time crunch more than because terms on multiple exchanged offers were far apart.
Where they go from here...
another good couple quotes from article from Corry:
Corry set Barkley’s settling floor at $13 million per year, which “is more or less Nick Chubb’s deal adjusted for the [increasing] salary cap” and still represents a better option than playing on back-to-back franchise tags in 2023 and 2024. The tag is the Giants’ fallback leverage to keep him off the market, where the Bears ($110.8 million in cap space and in need of playmakers) pose a threat. In that case, Barkley likely would earn about $22 million combined in two seasons.
I agree with him that 30m guaranteed is the key metric that makes sense for both sides. the rest is going to be window dressing.
Giants’ Saquon Barkley proving to be ‘exception’ to this running back trend - ( New Window )
You realize the player can't decline the FT...
The team has all of the leverage here.
Not sure about that. Depends on many things:
1. Do they want to franchise Jones
2. If no to the above, do they want a rookie here with less weapons
3. Not paying your best player could be a negative
4. The overall contract value will be fairly small for a big impact player so the risk isn’t all that great
Not really sure who has leverage matters all that much.
My point is the team controls the final decision where the SB situation starts. SB has no control over whether the brass decides to apply the FT or not.
#2 is a fair point.
I don't know what #3 or #4 have to do with leverage. SB isn't our best player. He's a very good player who plays the RB position. If you are concerned about team blowback if we let SB walk, it's professional football. The team will be just fine if we have the right set of coaches to manage the personalities.
You'll never convince me that it's a good idea to pay any "star" RB a multi-year QB after his rookie contract. One-year contracts are the safest hedge at the position.
not sure why there is a sticking point for so many on 3 years. a 4 or 5 year deal would give the giants more financial flexability. I would put my money on a 4yr/60m 43m guaranteed
Just more proof that the owners have dominated the NFLPA for decades in labor negotiations.
A compromise should have been reached in the last CBA where a player can only be FT'd once. But the players continue to be too stupid on almost everything bargained.
I agree we can expect to see the total guarantees in the 30M range on 3 or 4 year deal. But years 3 and 4 don’t benefit him most likely. Those are team control years with little guaranteed money probably.
I think Barkley would be better off taking 2/25 and controlling where he plays the last few years of his career.
I agree we can expect to see the total guarantees in the 30M range on 3 or 4 year deal. But years 3 and 4 don’t benefit him most likely. Those are team control years with little guaranteed money probably.
I think Barkley would be better off taking 2/25 and controlling where he plays the last few years of his career.
that's price of getting 3x guaranteed today. The team would prefer to spend an extra $5m guaranteed to get the 3rd year, and Barkley gets 30m guaranteed today instead of 10m (tag).
like Corry said I would guess Barkley will want some guaranteed salary in year 3 to make it harder to cut him and make it practically more of a 3 year 40m deal. which is exactly what CMC's ended up in CAR.
They all got 2nd contracts. I’d be shocked if Barkley isn’t back next year and based on Dunleavy’s article today it seems an extension is likely.
That type of agreement puts all the cards in the team's hands. And they control if/when he's cut and where he'd go if he's traded.
I'm saying Barkley might prefer a 2-year deal, so that he has some control over how much new money he can earn and where he plays in the out years.
They all got 2nd contracts. I’d be shocked if Barkley isn’t back next year and based on Dunleavy’s article today it seems an extension is likely.
Henry is a unicorn. A freak. Carve him out.
AJones was a fifth-round pick, so the spend was very cheap early on. And I think the Packers overpaid to keep him.
For every Henry, there is a Kamara, Gurley, CMC, LBell, Foster, etc who have not lived up to their second contracts.
That type of agreement puts all the cards in the team's hands. And they control if/when he's cut and where he'd go if he's traded.
I'm saying Barkley might prefer a 2-year deal, so that he has some control over how much new money he can earn and where he plays in the out years.
he can prefer it but then what is to stop the team from saying ok then lets just do 2 tags? the only reason for the team to do it is if they need the tag for Jones, but even then they'd be smarter/prefer to not cave and get the extra year.
$25m fully guaranteed would be the 5th most fully guaranteed $ to a RB, it's just a very unlikely scenario for that to happen in a 2 year deal instead of a more traditional multi-year deal where the player leverages themselves into more total $ and the team gets more control. barkley can easily leverage 30m guaranteed into almost 30m of cash in the first 2 years (10m SB, 10m gtd salaries year 1, 5m guaranteed/10m total years 2/3).
Quote:
People love bringing up Zeke, but what about Derrick Henry? Dalvin Cook? Aaron Jones?
They all got 2nd contracts. I’d be shocked if Barkley isn’t back next year and based on Dunleavy’s article today it seems an extension is likely.
Henry is a unicorn. A freak. Carve him out.
AJones was a fifth-round pick, so the spend was very cheap early on. And I think the Packers overpaid to keep him.
For every Henry, there is a Kamara, Gurley, CMC, LBell, Foster, etc who have not lived up to their second contracts.
CMC cost the panthers 40m over 3 years and brought back 4 top 120 picks. I'm sure there's unanimous disappointment about the injuries and how the Rhule era went but the contract itself worked out fine.
Barkley will be in his 8th season 2.5 years from the beginning of next season. They won't likely benefit from the same type of potential trade value, so I don't think they look at 3/40M in the same lense Carolina did.
I think a 3/40M agreement with 27M guaranteed is perfectly reasonable. But again, I could see Barkley willing to take a small amount less in guaranteed money to get another crack at free agency.
Barkley will be in his 8th season 2.5 years from the beginning of next season. They won't likely benefit from the same type of potential trade value, so I don't think they look at 3/40M in the same lense Carolina did.
I think a 3/40M agreement with 27M guaranteed is perfectly reasonable. But again, I could see Barkley willing to take a small amount less in guaranteed money to get another crack at free agency.
I think things end up with a 4/55m that's effectively a 3/40m with 30m guaranteed.
the big downside to the deal Carolina signed with CMC was that they kept the first 3 year base salaries artificially low so they got hit with a balloon dead money from signing bonuses. the 3/40m structured PAYG with a low-ish SB (10m or less) would make it pretty easy to get out year 3 or year 4.
10m sb
year 1 10m gtd
year 2 10m gtd
year 3 12m non-gtd (5m dead money risk, 7m saved if cut/traded)
year 4 13m non-gtd (2.5m dead money risk, 10.5m saved if cut/traded)
im sure his agent will push to get some guaranteed $ in year 3 but hard to see him passing on that regardless of whatever structure the giants look to get in years 3/4.
I suspect the Giants will pay a lot of cash upfront, and with very few guarantees later.
And I'll be very surprised if Team Barkley commits to more than 3 years.
My guess is 3/40M 27M fully guaranteed.
2023: 6.6M signing bonus, 7M salary guaranteed
2024: 6.6M signing bonus, 8M salary non-guaranteed
2025: 6.6M signing bonus, 5M salary non-guaranteed
And Schoen really needs to be evaluating RBs in the upcoming draft and invest in one, possibly even as early as Round 3. And maybe even another one late with a good hands/3rd down type.
Barkley is in a really weak negotiation position if he wants a record setting deal.
Barkley is in a really weak negotiation position if he wants a record setting deal.
because if it ends up practically being 3/40m - which is exactly how CMC deal turned out - it's 1 extra option year the team controls beyond the 2 for 23 you're suggesting, and it's a happy player instead of an acrimonious 2 year contract negotiation. and frees up the tag for others if nec both years (jones, mckinney, lawrence).
People really need to adjust their stance to the times. It’s a cheap position and if I’m going to get burned on a contract I’d much rather it be a RB than a WR, or really any other position just about.
Quote:
The years we'd really want from him are next year and possibly the year after. If we can get those for like 23 M, why in the world would he offer him 60 for 4?
Barkley is in a really weak negotiation position if he wants a record setting deal.
because if it ends up practically being 3/40m - which is exactly how CMC deal turned out - it's 1 extra option year the team controls beyond the 2 for 23 you're suggesting, and it's a happy player instead of an acrimonious 2 year contract negotiation. and frees up the tag for others if nec both years (jones, mckinney, lawrence).
+1.
People really need to adjust their stance to the times. It’s a cheap position and if I’m going to get burned on a contract I’d much rather it be a RB than a WR, or really any other position just about.
the best place to use the tag is where there's the biggest delta between a players asking price and the tag amount - and that is going to be QB.
the current AAV of top 10 QBs is 40m+ and it's going to rise rapidly to 46m+ since that's what Kyler/Watson got and Lamar/Hurts/Burrow/Herbert are all on deck this offseason. There is no 2nd contract QB who is going to sign for less than 40-45m # right now, so the delta between any first contract QB and the tag amount is $10-15m+.
the delta between a record setting RB contract at $16.1m and the tag is still a lot less than that.
CMC had fewer years and injuries on him when he got extended. He then put up 2.5 disappointing seasons at a cost of 40M.
The Panthers traded him as soon as his value improved, and got good value back because of his age and the 3.5 commitment free years left on his deal.
No matter the terms, if the Giants get similar 2.5 years of productivity at 40M from Barkley, the entire football world will view it as a collosal failure.
And no one is trading anything of value for Barkley, no matter what's left on his deal at that point. His career is probably over.
The reason you tag or extend him is because you're very confident he will contribute to the next few years like he is doing now. And that future look has to consider his time missed and what typically happens to RBs on second contracts.
If you're not very confident, then offer a deal commensurate to the risk profile and see what happens.
Locker room morale will be fine if the Giants invest in another RB or two in the draft and they produce.
for barkley, he will make a lot of money on outside endorsements if he says with the giants and probably more than if he goes somewhere else.
It is? Kamara signed his extension in 2020, which was his highwater mark of production. Look at his production since. His rushing yardage, YPC and TDs are down, and so are his catch totals. Let's be honest. Right now, he's really another piece in the Saints RBBC system along with Hill and Ingram.
Despite playing in the hideous NFCS, I was surprised the Saints didn't unload him at the trade deadline.
Henry is a unicorn. A freak. Carve him out.
AJones was a fifth-round pick, so the spend was very cheap early on. And I think the Packers overpaid to keep him.
For every Henry, there is a Kamara, Gurley, CMC, LBell, Foster, etc who have not lived up to their second contracts.
CMC cost the panthers 40m over 3 years and brought back 4 top 120 picks. I'm sure there's unanimous disappointment about the injuries and how the Rhule era went but the contract itself worked out fine.
Okay, I'll give you the picks part, but the Panthers didn't sign CMC with the idea of getting future picks. They signed him to be an elite offensive player, which he hasn't been.