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 Is 12-12.5MM still an option or has it been retracted?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.
So you know that the 12-12.5MM offer still stands?
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.
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
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.
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.
An injury-prone RB playing on a 1-year tender is not ideal for him.
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.
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
BTW, this year’s RB class in the draft is very deep.
Let him play on the tag
An injury-prone RB playing on a 1-year tender is not ideal for him.
I don’t think he has any leverage.
One of them runs like the guy in the Titans game, and one of them runs like the guy in the Lions game.
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.
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.
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.
Giants should tag him again next year if he stays healthy.
that's assuming they don't need to use the tag on another player such as Dex or Campbell.....
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.
People seem to think replacing Barkley is easy, its not
What if that’s the only position they excelled at?
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