Barkley decision

Barkley should be thankful that Schoen doesn’t pull the offer entirely. The market is what it is.

In comment 16069210 Sean said:

Quote:

Barkley should be thankful that Schoen doesn’t pull the offer entirely. The market is what it is.

So you know that the 12-12.5MM offer still stands?

on their best offer - reportedly $12.5 to $13. Last thing I saw was he wants 4 yrs(rumor). I doubt Schoen rescinds the offer. That would not sit well with the team.

It gets done when it gets done. Sitting on the tag is not hurting as it keeps the cap total $2.5 mill less than it would be if he signs. More time for the LW and AJ restructures.

Is a very talented player but I hope they don't sign him long term. It's crazy they offered whatever it was $12.5 or $13M and he still rejected it. It just shouldn't happen. The Draft is filled the young, healthy, and cheaper alternatives.

Loaded at RB...draft Barkley's replacement on Day 3 and let Saquon play out the season on the FT...second contracts to rbs is proven to be a bad idea

The 3rd and/or 4th years wouldn’t be guaranteed. It’s going to be a 2 year deal essentially. Hope they get that done

Especially with this year s draft that the team could have taken advantage of a rookie contract

I get Saquon is one of their guys, a cultural guy, but the Giants can’t make the mistake here that the Cowboys did with Elliot

I don’t expect Barkley to be a Giant after the next 2 seasons.

2 years , 12.5 million, would be fair

They can tag him next year for 12 million and that will probably happen. When your the best at your position the franchise tag hurts those. The only thing Barkley can do is not sign the tag.

He is uber talented and still clealrly operating at an eite level. He is a high character guy and loved in the locker room and organization. From the business side, he is also one of the greatest fan draws on the team and high merchandise sales.

The ideal here is probably a 3 year deal in the 12-13 million dollar range. He can either get that now or play on the tag. Giants are probably playing the waiting game. The leverage is on their side.

to play on the tag and hope the FA market is better next year.....he could bet on himself with a more juiced offense and hope it works out for him....I dont know what the FA market or draft class next year looks like, but maybe thats his plan.

If the RB market improves and he has a good enough year to ride it, the Giants can just tag him again. You could be right. Hard to say, since he hasn’t even signed the tender yet. I won’t be shocked if he sits out.

CornerStone246+17: You make a lot of assertions about Barkley’s popularity and personality. How do you know these things? As for merchandise sales, I think most fans who were likely to buy a 26 jersey already own one. If the Giants want to sell swag, they should trade Barkley and draft his replacement.

Your most important claim is that he is “uber-talented”. The performance on the field doesn’t back that up, and hasn’t for at least three years. He had a few very good games in 2022, one of which he nearly gave away by repeatedly running out of bounds on the Giants’ final drive. The wunderkind who broke all those tackles in 2018-2019 is long gone. Post-ACL Barkley is still very good, but “uber-talented” is the kind of “touched by the hand of God” nonsense Gettleman used to toss around. At least back in 2018, he was uber-talented.

Barkley has little leverage here.

An injury-prone RB playing on a 1-year tender is not ideal for him.

and if we hear nothing, then nothing is being discussed and there is no plan

In comment 16069242 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Barkley has little leverage here. An injury-prone RB playing on a 1-year tender is not ideal for him.

I agree. At this point the best thing for the Giants is for him to play on the tag. It only goes up 20% next season so it would still be less than what they offered from what we’ve heard. He has been paid top RB money since he came into the league so it’s not like he hasn’t been paid.

In comment 16069242 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Barkley has little leverage here. An injury-prone RB playing on a 1-year tender is not ideal for him.

Also the game has drastically changed. The days of the great Earl Campbell carrying the ball 35 times a game is in the past. Teams are not looking for a bellcow RB

Barkley would be crazy not y to o accept offer in a very soft market for RB’s.
BTW, this year’s RB class in the draft is very deep.
Let him play on the tag

If it were your money, how much would you be willing to bet Barkley has 2 healthy, high production seasons left in him?

In comment 16069242 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Barkley has little leverage here. An injury-prone RB playing on a 1-year tender is not ideal for him.

I don’t think he has any leverage.

Giants made SB an offer last year. SB declined and wanted McCaffrey money. Then this offseason the RB's are getting a fraction of what he thought he was worth. The Giants offer of about 12-13M AAV is probably still on the table and should be. If SB doesn't sign it, he's tagged. If he wants to Leveon Bell it, that's on him, we will draft a RB and have options.

We all know, there are 2 versions of Barkley.

One of them runs like the guy in the Titans game, and one of them runs like the guy in the Lions game.

In comment 16069266 mittenedman said:

Quote:

We all know, there are 2 versions of Barkley. One of them runs like the guy in the Titans game, and one of them runs like the guy in the Lions game.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

1. SB is only hurting himself not running like he did most of last year. So SB makes business decisions and becomes a FA next year. A team will say...oh, he just made business decisions, lets give him McCaffrey money? No, someone will probably offer him exactly what the Giants just offered him so he may as well just accept the offer thats on the table.

2. I don't see SB as that kind of guy. I think he's a winner personality and once he's on the field he will play like he's capable.

In comment 16069238 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

If the RB market improves and he has a good enough year to ride it, the Giants can just tag him again. You could be right. Hard to say, since he hasn’t even signed the tender yet. I won’t be shocked if he sits out. CornerStone246+17: You make a lot of assertions about Barkley’s popularity and personality. How do you know these things? As for merchandise sales, I think most fans who were likely to buy a 26 jersey already own one. If the Giants want to sell swag, they should trade Barkley and draft his replacement. using the tag again is a good option for the Giants, but you're making an assumption that there isn't another player they would want to use it on...Dex? Campbell? Your most important claim is that he is “uber-talented”. The performance on the field doesn’t back that up, and hasn’t for at least three years. He had a few very good games in 2022, one of which he nearly gave away by repeatedly running out of bounds on the Giants’ final drive. The wunderkind who broke all those tackles in 2018-2019 is long gone. Post-ACL Barkley is still very good, but “uber-talented” is the kind of “touched by the hand of God” nonsense Gettleman used to toss around. At least back in 2018, he was uber-talented.

& sign that multi year deal if it’s still on the table

Giants should tag him again next year if he stays healthy.

In comment 16069238 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

If the RB market improves and he has a good enough year to ride it, the Giants can just tag him again. You could be right. Hard to say, since he hasn’t even signed the tender yet. I won’t be shocked if he sits out

that's assuming they don't need to use the tag on another player such as Dex or Campbell.....

at a high high school and college level, I'd absolutely insist that they not play running back.

That he will tip-toe on the tag?

if another team signs Barkley, do the HAVE to give up two #1's or can a lesser deal be worked out?

That Barkley (as well as Love and both players agents) grossly misjudged the market.

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.

trees. We still have no firepower on offense outside of Barkley and Jones running, the Waller signing doesn't change that much. I would even offer that a lot of Jones running holes were created by the defense focusing so much on Barkley. How could we replace that now, any WR with those numbers would want a lot more. Then of course there are the locker room and leader positives.

People seem to think replacing Barkley is easy, its not

In comment 16069280 Hammer said:

Quote:

at a high high school and college level, I'd absolutely insist that they not play running back.

What if that’s the only position they excelled at?

I’m positive allocating resources to FAs and the draft is the priority at this time.

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.

I can't see Saquon being so pissed he holds out, but who knows? The market is what it is.

In comment 16069285 Y28 said:

Quote:

That Barkley (as well as Love and both players agents) grossly misjudged the market. 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.

has listed all the RB signings this week. Take a look especially at the AAV and guaranteed money. That's reality in today's market.

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 )

Many here ignore is his usage the second half of the year. The offense went from Barkley centric to a more diverse offense and centered around Jones. Was it the shoulder or was it a combination of things?

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).

Wondering if Barkley’s agent is waiting for or expecting Mara to get involved. If the negotiations are apart due to money, I could see that happening. If it’s about length of the contract, no chance. And, I don’t think the fan base would turn in favor of Barkley if he’s adamant about the 4th year.

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?

In comment 16069280 Hammer said:

Quote:

at a high high school and college level, I'd absolutely insist that they not play running back.

_________________________
Sure, he could play safety at a lower earnings ceiling unless he is Ed Reed.

first year cap hit will be less than franchise tag so will pick up additional cap space in year 1

he hasn't lost $1 yet. He's got $10m cash coming to him this year and $38m in career earnings.

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.

In comment 16069294 Kmed6000 said:

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

Let him play on the tag. Things have changed this offseason. The RB market is what it is. And our offense got better as well.

In comment 16069322 AG5686 said:

Quote:

In comment 16069294 Kmed6000 said: 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.

In comment 16069294 Kmed6000 said:

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.

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).

He can hope for is that his agent finds someone who will offer a contract in the same range as what the Giants offered (or say 10% less in a state with no sales tax) and is willing to give up two #1 picks. Then the Giants can choose to match at a lesser price than they originally offered or take the 2 draft picks or negotiate an even better deal with the other team (say one #1, two #2s, and the other team’s starting RB).

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.

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

Is the same that Lamar Jackson has now....to sit out this season-retire,then come back next season as a free agent.

give up high draft picks to get Barkley when they can just pick up the phone and sign:

Ezekiel Elliott or

Leonard Fournette or

Kareem Hunt or

Devin Singletary

Going to be like. I would call him a genius except that he did increase his offer over the offer he made at the break.

In comment 16069335 Ivan15 said:

Quote:

He can hope for is that his agent finds someone who will offer a contract in the same range as what the Giants offered (or say 10% less in a state with no sales tax) and is willing to give up two #1 picks. Then the Giants can choose to match at a lesser price than they originally offered or take the 2 draft picks or negotiate an even better deal with the other team (say one #1, two #2s, and the other team’s starting RB). 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.

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.

Along the lines of a 3rd rd pick if Barkley gets a deal for something like 14 m from another team. Giants know they wouldn’t match and let Barkley leave on his own terms while getting a little something back in a trade.

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.

In comment 16069375 AG5686 said:

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.

Bought him a happy meal but Saquon wanted a Big Mac and 🍟. Schoen said no Barkley got up and left.

IMHO I think the Giants should walk away an invest that money into the o line

...Since 2018, he's already made more money than any other RB in the NFL, except for Elliot and McCafree.

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.

He doesn’t have to (but he wouldn’t get paid)

In comment 16069393 Pepe LePugh said:

Quote:

In comment 16069375 AG5686 said: 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

Barkley will make this year or at any point in the future. I would pull the tag before he has a chance to sign it

would trade Barkley. He and the Giants clearly can't reach an agreement about a new contract and as a consequence he won't be here next year. But nobody is trading a first round pick for him, let alone the #9 pick. I would take a third and hope for a few other day three picks in 2024 and 2025. As others have said, the RB market is completely devalued. Any acquiring team is also unlikely to give Barkley the contract he wants, so trading for him would effectively be a one year rental. That further decreases his trade value.

they negotiated for 1 week in season during the bye and probably very little since because both sides were waiting on the outcome of the jones contract.

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.

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.

is that Barkley is a very productive player but needs the rest of the offense to elevate so he doesn't have to be as much of a workhorse. That shifted a bit later in the season as Jones got more comfortable with the system and Hodgins joined the team, also due to his obvious shoulder injury.

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.

Tag and trades are negotiated. The two firsts is a CBA rule. Many examples of this, incl Frank Clark’s acquisition by KC.

I WANT him to play on the tag. I don’t want to see any extension. His career as a high level player could end at any time. Giving a big 3-year contract to an RB with that injury history is frankly crazy.

In comment 16069468 robbieballs2003 said:

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.

In comment 16069473 cosmicj said:

Quote:

I WANT him to play on the tag. I don’t want to see any extension. His career as a high level player could end at any time. Giving a big 3-year contract to an RB with that injury history is frankly crazy.

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.

In comment 16069478 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

In comment 16069468 robbieballs2003 said: 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.

In comment 16069455 AcidTest said:

Quote:

would trade Barkley. He and the Giants clearly can't reach an agreement about a new contract and as a consequence he won't be here next year. But nobody is trading a first round pick for him, let alone the #9 pick. I would take a third and hope for a few other day three picks in 2024 and 2025. As others have said, the RB market is completely devalued. Any acquiring team is also unlikely to give Barkley the contract he wants, so trading for him would effectively be a one year rental. That further decreases his trade value.

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.

In comment 16069484 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

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.

In comment 16069472 cosmicj said:

Quote:

Tag and trades are negotiated. The two firsts is a CBA rule. Many examples of this, incl Frank Clark’s acquisition by KC.

please elaborate...can what I suggested be done...I think so

If RB salaries are trending down in this free agency period, Saquon would sign the Giants best offer this year, rather than take a chance at a further depressed market next year.

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.

Yes, that would be a typical negotiated tag and trade. But the Bears are giving away too much in the draft.

In comment 16069468 robbieballs2003 said:

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.

+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.

Tags are very unstable states of affair. 8 players were tagged in 2022 and more than half are now with other teams.

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.

In comment 16069521 cosmicj said:

Quote:

Tags are very unstable states of affair. 8 players were tagged in 2022 and more than half are now with other teams. 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?

How negotiations left off. They apparently upped their offer before FA but was that a standing offer? If it was, I don’t know if walking that number back is a dollar wise decision when dealing with an influential team leader, so you’re probably married to that offer if he wants to come down in light of these signings. As it stands now, even the contract the Giants reportedly offered at the bye is EXTREMELY generous. I’m hoping the outcome is the tag but there are other variables at play here.

In comment 16069342 Y28 said:

Quote:

give up high draft picks to get Barkley when they can just pick up the phone and sign: 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.

Barkley has no leverage. If he plays on the tag this year and:

- 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.

as fans. But there is no hurry at this point for either Schoen or Barkley. Who does Schoen want to sign who needs money and will produce more than Barkley? And what does it cost Barkley to wait and see if some team that failed to draft the RB they were hoping for opens their checkbook?