What are the Giants doing with Barkley? Very little news coming out after they tagged him. Initially, many speculated that they would have a deal in place before the start of free agency. Then the RB market tanked beyond anyone's imagination.
What's next? Does SB insist upon getting his 14+MM? Do the Giants go back to the 12-12.5MM they were proposing during the bye? Do they now prefer that he just play on the tag? It's completely understandable if they tell him that the market has changed and that their offer is no longer on the table (after all, if the market went up, SB would insist on a HIGHER contract to reflect these unexpected changes). But would pulling the offer and making him play on the tag be a douche move by the organization? Would he even play on it?
What's the compromise here? Is 12-12.5MM still an option or has it been retracted? I'm guessing that SB is pretty unhappy with the current situation.
I believe they'd have to negotiation before signing him. For example, lets say the bears like SB. They call the giants and agree to compensation and then talk to SB about his contract.
Think about a few things that are now public information:
1. Post Reporter Ryan Dunleavy states (Valentine podcast) that the Giants offered Barkley a 3 year $36 mil deal during the bye week that was turned down. States that in the 48 hours before the Jones deal was signed, the Giants increased the offer to 3 years $39 mil, but that Barkley wanted 4 years. And he adds that negotiations stopped after that.
1. Analyst Marc Ross implies the Giants interest in RB Devin Singletary of the Bills (laughed off initially by BBI)
2. Reporter Aaron Wilson reports the Giants were interested in RB D'Onta Foreman of Carolina (IMO, gives some credibility to what Ross said-another RB well known to Giant coaches)
3. Giants GM Joe Schoen goes to dinner with RB Tyjae Spears of Tulane- not just any RB, but the 2nd or 3rd best back in the draft and certainly a Day Two pick.
One could argue that these events were all in the interest of finding a complimentary back to add to Barkley.
I just can't see the Giants making the next move here. IMO, its time for Barkley and his agent to face reality of the current market and reach out to Schoen. A year on the Franchise Tag is not in the best interest of either side.
Great post Y28.
There is a cat and mouse game going on here. Giants offer definitely seems more than fair for a back with his injury history.
And pay no attention to the Market Value on the list of those not yet signed. Those projections by Spotrac were done PRIOR to the start of Free Agency. Clearly the value for each of those is now lower.
(attached)
Link - ( New Window )
Do not discount the point made above about Barkley's very poor play of staying inbounds multiple times in game where if he stays inbounds the outcome never becomes in doubt. Add in that failed 4th down play against Dallas where a not great pass still made it to Barkley but he drops it (something he does a bit more than most admit). I think the rejected contract at the break shouldn't be discounted either.
Do the Giants want Barkley? Sure they do but at their price. Regardless we will have another back added to free us up to either move on in 2024 or even trade him (sign and trade) here in 2023..
We could really diversify this offense with a cheaper RB (ala KC) and adding a more true #1 WR (or at least a #1 to us).
In terms of a game of chicken, doesn’t Barkley have to sign the tag if he doesn’t get the contract? If so, then Schoen’s public interest in the Tulane RB could be the deadline. If we draft him (or another RB) with a premium pick, I could see any contract offer being taken off the table. Does that make sense?
Sure, he could play safety at a lower earnings ceiling unless he is Ed Reed.
when FA opened this week nobody knew exactly what was going to happen and there could have been teams willing to spend on some RBs. 1 of the other tag players like josh jacobs or pollard could have gotten a bigger extension than what the nyg were offering and given him some better leverage. or someone could trade for ekeler and do the same. any of those things could still happen in the few months before the tag extension deadline.
the giants offers are probably a little bit under what fmv would be relative to what someone like aaron jones got paid on his 4x48m, but close enough that they will eventually find a compromise because rbs just dont have a lot of leverage.
but barkley's leverage isn't zero, on 2 tags the next 2 years he'd get guaranteed 23m or so. unless he has a career ending injury this year that's some leverage for him and there's not much reason to sign unless he gets some upside beyond that.
Quote:
if another team signs Barkley, do the HAVE to give up two #1's or can a lesser deal be worked out?
I believe they'd have to negotiation before signing him. For example, lets say the bears like SB. They call the giants and agree to compensation and then talk to SB about his contract.
you are saying that the bears want SB,have negotiated a deal both like,the Giants say no to matching,then the bears say,weeeelll we don't want to give up 2 firsts,then the Bears and giants renegotiate the compensation?Then a sign and trade occurs....for less than 2 firsts.
I think this is correct,but has it actually happened yet in the NFL?
My guess is no
Quote:
In comment 16069284 Jolly Blue Giant said:
Quote:
if another team signs Barkley, do the HAVE to give up two #1's or can a lesser deal be worked out?
I believe they'd have to negotiation before signing him. For example, lets say the bears like SB. They call the giants and agree to compensation and then talk to SB about his contract.
you are saying that the bears want SB,have negotiated a deal both like,the Giants say no to matching,then the bears say,weeeelll we don't want to give up 2 firsts,then the Bears and giants renegotiate the compensation?Then a sign and trade occurs....for less than 2 firsts.
I think this is correct,but has it actually happened yet in the NFL?
My guess is no
No. I'm saying....
Lets say the bears want SB. They first call the Giants and build a framework for a trade should SB agree to a contract. Once that is done, they negotiate a contract with SB and then make the trade.
Quote:
if another team signs Barkley, do the HAVE to give up two #1's or can a lesser deal be worked out?
I believe they'd have to negotiation before signing him. For example, lets say the bears like SB. They call the giants and agree to compensation and then talk to SB about his contract.
i dont think this is right. on the non-exclusve tag i think players/agents can talk to anyone. how else would they negotiate an offer if a team was willing to pay the 2 firsts as compensation?
so functionally the player can act as a FA and have whatever conversations with whatever teams are interested - same as when a team gives the player and their agent permission to seek a trade. but just like that the team has ultimate control, even if an offer sheet comes in since they can match it if they want. within that control they can also accept less compensation trading the players rights while on the tag (and presumably the trading team would then negotiate an extension).
Not accepting the tag won’t work for Barkley, especially because the timing is such that the Giants can find his replacement late in free agency or in the draft. At that point, I think the best that Barkley can hope for is that the Giants rescind the tag so they can access the tag money off the cap. Otherwise he just sits it out.
They tell this to SB,then tell the Giants,this is our offer to SB....but we only want to give you 1 first rounder.
This scenario is possible...i do not think it has happened,but is doable
Ezekiel Elliott or
Leonard Fournette or
Kareem Hunt or
Devin Singletary
Not accepting the tag won’t work for Barkley, especially because the timing is such that the Giants can find his replacement late in free agency or in the draft. At that point, I think the best that Barkley can hope for is that the Giants rescind the tag so they can access the tag money off the cap. Otherwise he just sits it out.
i wouldnt call 10m guaranteed for next year no leverage. by actual cash this season there are only 4 players making 11m or more (cmc, kamara, jones, cook). cmc is at 12m, the other 3 are at 11m even.
if he felt there was risk in losing the tag he could sign it whenever he wants - so presumably he's not worried whether there's a market out there if it gets removed.
id also remind everyone that jones was about 5-10 minutes away from getting tagged at which point barkley would have hit the open market.
if the reported numbers above are right i dont think either side has misplayed anything in this one yet. the giants have made team friendly offers, barkley has explored his options without any public discord, eventually i think both sides agree to a compromise.
They tell this to SB,then tell the Giants,this is our offer to SB....but we only want to give you 1 first rounder.
This scenario is possible...i do not think it has happened, but is doable
Quote:
Bears and SB agree to terms now during this FA period...However,the Bears are not willing to give up 2 firsts.
They tell this to SB,then tell the Giants,this is our offer to SB....but we only want to give you 1 first rounder.
This scenario is possible...i do not think it has happened, but is doable
________________________ Not an official deal submitted to the league office so the Giants just sit back and wait for a better offer from the Bears. Barkley dangles in the breeze.
Unless....the Giants are happy taking that first for SB.
Quote:
In comment 16069336 AG5686 said:
Quote:
Bears and SB agree to terms now during this FA period...However,the Bears are not willing to give up 2 firsts.
They tell this to SB,then tell the Giants,this is our offer to SB....but we only want to give you 1 first rounder.
This scenario is possible...i do not think it has happened, but is doable
________________________ Not an official deal submitted to the league office so the Giants just sit back and wait for a better offer from the Bears. Barkley dangles in the breeze.
Unless....the Giants are happy taking that first for SB.
Much as I like Barkley, for the Bears #9 overall pick, I’d be willing to free up $10M in cap space.
IMHO I think the Giants should walk away an invest that money into the o line
Gettleman drafted him #2 overall and his contract was huge. Some years Barkley made more as a rookie than the franchise # for RBs.
He made $38 million total on his rookie contract, which is more than nearly every other RB's 2nd contract.
Sure he can ask for more, but the idea that he has been "screwed" is silly.
And let's be fair, he actually underperformed his contract in 3 of the past 5 years.
Quote:
In comment 16069348 Ivan15 said:
Quote:
In comment 16069336 AG5686 said:
Quote:
Bears and SB agree to terms now during this FA period...However,the Bears are not willing to give up 2 firsts.
They tell this to SB,then tell the Giants,this is our offer to SB....but we only want to give you 1 first rounder.
This scenario is possible...i do not think it has happened, but is doable
________________________ Not an official deal submitted to the league office so the Giants just sit back and wait for a better offer from the Bears. Barkley dangles in the breeze.
Unless....the Giants are happy taking that first for SB.
Much as I like Barkley, for the Bears #9 overall pick, I’d be willing to free up $10M in cap space.
100% agree
kind of hard to negotiate if you dont know if you are getting tagged or hitting the open market (which is every player's preference).
as far as tag negotiations go this one is in it's infancy. JPP and LW each got tagged twice and ultimately reached extensions. unless im forgetting someone those were the last 2 players tagged by nyg.
The way he affects the defense is very clear whether or not he gets the ball. $10 to $12m is okay money for a decent WR nowadays, and I think Barkley adds more value to an offense than a guy like Lazard who just got that kind of money. If he demands more than that he will not be on this team beyond this season. He has no leverage with the contracts RBs are getting. Either way, I'd be shocked if the Giants don't draft a RB to be his back-up/eventual replacement.
we kind of just saw what his $ buys in FA, slayton + campbell are going to cost more combined than barkley and combined they produced a lot less (with some obvious risks).
for a team lacking big play weapons it seems like a bad idea to trade it's biggest play weapon. if "4th year" is his big demand that's not unreasonable. aaron jones, cmc, henry, kamara, mixon all got a 4th year. cook got a 5th year. miles sanders just got a 4th year. if the rumored nyg offer is correct (3x36m) that's under market considering they just tagged him at an average of the top 5 salaries and that contract would be outside the top 5 at the rb position.
it all depends on the guarantee structure. most likely any deal whether it's 3 or 4 years is practically a 2 year deal.
would you rather keep flexibility on a 1 year tag with him unhappy and go through this all again next year?
or trade a 2nd guaranteed year (his age 27) in return for 1 or 2 extra option years on his age 28 + 29?
this wasnt a good FA year to add weapons (most years arent but this year was even worse than most other years). so far allen lazard is the highest paid player from this FA cycle which is crazy since he's never even had an 800 yard season.
Quote:
For the argument that he had 1100 yards last year ... a big part of that is because he got the majority of snaps and touches. Imo, we still would have got that production out of any other back that was back there. And he's gonna sit out? Lmfao. So, he doesn't accrue a year in the NFL and can get tagged again? Do we not remember what happened to Leveon Bell? That guy destroyed his career arguing over small details. Everyone wants to focus on last year. Imo, Barkley was very up and down and barely broke tackles. If he isn't making guys miss, he goes down too easily when they get a hand on him. And he wasn't making many miss last year. Look at his injury history. I'm not saying Barkley is a bad player. I just don't think he's worth the money he is seeking. It can be better spent elsewhere and this is coming from someone that wanted to draft him at 2 overall.
we kind of just saw what his $ buys in FA, slayton + campbell are going to cost more combined than barkley and combined they produced a lot less (with some obvious risks).
for a team lacking big play weapons it seems like a bad idea to trade it's biggest play weapon. if "4th year" is his big demand that's not unreasonable. aaron jones, cmc, henry, kamara, mixon all got a 4th year. cook got a 5th year. miles sanders just got a 4th year. if the rumored nyg offer is correct (3x36m) that's under market considering they just tagged him at an average of the top 5 salaries and that contract would be outside the top 5 at the rb position.
You are just looking at WR. WRs get paid a lot. What can Barkley's money get you on the OL, DL, CB, LB? You can draft a RB and have the guys on the roster get what Barkley got you last year.
No way would I take a third. I consider him a playmaker, not a RB. I would consider trading for a pick that could reasonably produce a playmaker in return. Top 15-20 at the latest.
You are just looking at WR. WRs get paid a lot. What can Barkley's money get you on the OL, DL, CB, LB? You can draft a RB and have the guys on the roster get what Barkley got you last year.
im looking at players who create big plays and score tds because that's what you need to replace when you lose barkley.
on the OL ben powers got 4 years 52m. seumalo is probably the 2nd best IOL out there so he's still available. nick gates is currently the highest paid C who changed teams.
the top 7 DL/edge got more than 11m per year. 10m could have gotten you sheldon rankins or samson ebukam.
as tempting as it is to think there are a bunch of Isiah Pacheco's out there a huge % of the good rbs are 1st or 2nd round picks. so if you move on from barkley to replace him you are probably spending a day 2 pick on a RB you otherwise don't have to, and spending 30-50% of what you would have paid him on a donta foreman/singletary type veteran.
id rather keep barkley (tag or not), spend the extra day 2 pick on another position, and use day 3 picks to try to find the next pacheco/mitchell/pollard before moving on from barkley.
please elaborate...can what I suggested be done...I think so
The other thing he could do is make a bet on himself, if he has a huge season that surpasses last year, he could be the outlier in free agency. That's a risky bet with a deep RB class in this draft as well as given his injury history...he knows that one freak play could foil that plan.
+1 SB has zero leverage, he'll come to his senses and sign before the draft rather that run the risk of us drafting a RB to replace him. I'd be ok with a trade for a high 2nd rd pick or swap our 2nd for a mid low 1st.
The Frank Clark situation is an illustration from an earlier year. The Seahawks and Clark were saying wonderful things about each other in public and a day later boom he is traded.
The Frank Clark situation is an illustration from an earlier year. The Seahawks and Clark were saying wonderful things about each other in public and a day later boom he is traded.
what were the terms of that deal?
Ezekiel Elliott or
Leonard Fournette or
Kareem Hunt or
Devin Singletary
They are not even close to Barkley and he should take three years if offered.
- he matches his 2018/2022 outcomes he gets tagged again
- he matches 2019/2021/2021 outcomes he gets an even lower prove it deal
If I'm advising Barkley, I'm looking to lock in 22M guaranteed, and not playing my career odds. Even if that contract doesn't look impressive on the top line.