Good analysis of SB's contract status. Massive mistake by SB not to take the $13MM that was offered. He should take 3/$8MM per if they offer it. If they offer any more than that it is a gift. It would take a year at least as good as 2018, plus a change in NFL perception for him to reasonably see a $10MM plus offer again. Give how Schoen structures contracts and how much the team likes SB, I think they will offer something like 4/$45 with $15MM guaranteed and an out after two years with him making something like $20 over two. Boosts the numbers a bit to save face for Barkley and is not too much over FMV.
I am still amazed we ever offered him $13MM and more amazed that he did not take it. The status of the RB market was predictable in my opinion, and ended up where I thought it would be.
Barkley should do a deal - (
New Window )
This guy was billed as one of the greatest players ever heading into the league and it was probably a foregone conclusion in his mind that he’d get a mega contract.
He'll be lucky to see more than 10 million in any forward scenario.
Barkley has gotten hurt more years than he hasn't. To have the kind of year to justify a second (more expensive tag) he's going to have to run hard and there's a real possibility he gets hurt again. I don't think the Giants would pay $12M for an RB coming off of an injury, and while Barkley would get some sort of FA money, it's likely less than that (if he was hurt).
Long winded way of me saying, I'm not sure the second tag is such a sure thing. There's a possibility of performance drop off too (which can often be quite sudden for RBs). I do think it's very likely Giants would tag him again, but there is certain risk here and I'm Schoen I'd be patiently explaining to Barkley's agent that the $12M second tag is far from guaranteed.
Quote:
Tagged twice is $22m for Barkley. If the Giants didn’t offer more than that in guaranteed money there’s little incentive for Barkley to sign. So if you can tell me he declined around $25m guaranteed or more, I’ll change my stance on this.
Barkley has gotten hurt more years than he hasn't. To have the kind of year to justify a second (more expensive tag) he's going to have to run hard and there's a real possibility he gets hurt again. I don't think the Giants would pay $12M for an RB coming off of an injury, and while Barkley would get some sort of FA money, it's likely less than that (if he was hurt).
Long winded way of me saying, I'm not sure the second tag is such a sure thing. There's a possibility of performance drop off too (which can often be quite sudden for RBs). I do think it's very likely Giants would tag him again, but there is certain risk here and I'm Schoen I'd be patiently explaining to Barkley's agent that the $12M second tag is far from guaranteed.
You beat me too it.
He has time to sign and so there's no rush. But on the flip side money today is worth more than money even in 6 months. He's it not stupid. But getting. A lump sum of 15 million which you put to work in investments now is worth more than playing for 10 million this year week to week.
As of today he can wait. But he's not going to get what he turned down. That was a mistake. He's well within his rights to ask for 100 million. But he's not going to get what he thought obviously. Great kid. But he miscalculated IMO.
Now if he refuses to sign the offer sheet and holds out he will be compounding that mistake. His call. We will see
Saquon Barkley Not Looking to Reset Market | By 23, 2023 9:50 AM EST | si.com - ( New Window )
These are the same exact arguments in the Lamar Jackson threads. I was one of the few asking these same questions. And then it turns out he was correct and he made around $50m more than he was originally offered in guaranteed money (the only figure that matters).
I could be dead wrong on what Barkley declined but until I see the exact amount confirmed I’m sticking with “we don’t know” and so should everyone else.
And if the offense will not run through him (which based on the recent FA signings and the draft I think it won’t) then he is not worth more than $10 million per year.
Anything more than that is a bad use of cap space.
These are the same exact arguments in the Lamar Jackson threads. I was one of the few asking these same questions. And then it turns out he was correct and he made around $50m more than he was originally offered in guaranteed money (the only figure that matters).
I could be dead wrong on what Barkley declined but until I see the exact amount confirmed I’m sticking with “we don’t know” and so should everyone else.
There was a reported offer. Actually Two. Do o know w 10000% certainty what it was exactly? No Schoen said they made an offer which they withdrew. Barkley and his agents had to know the franchise tag was and that it was getting his placed upon him was a possibility.
Also comparing a QB and a RB is silly. It's just not analogous. Do you think the Ravens can operate w out Jackson with the same success as the Giants without Barkley? We also know the Giants may have just drafted Barkley's replacement.
I'll stand by my comment. Money today is worth than more tomorrow. There is zero chance Barkley wasnt offered a multi year deal w a signing bonus. Zero. He turned it down. Now he has nothing but the tag and the Giants have zero incentive to pay him a penny more.
If you think that was a smarter move then ok. We will just agree to disagree. Just because Jackson got a better deal does t mean Barkley will? I think he fucked up. And yes. That's an opinion. But you're saying you're right about Jackson when you have ZERO real proof what he was offered earlier lol. Can't have it both ways.
I’m not comparing a QB to a RB or conflating their values. I brought up Jackson as an example of a contract the masses were dead wrong on despite being so adamant that the player fucked up. So for this to actually be a comparison, I’d need to know the guaranteed money Barkley turned down. But since we don’t, calling him delusional, or that he made a mistake doesn’t compute.
The reported offer to Barkley was 3/39, so a 13m AAV. But if less than $22m was guaranteed it doesn’t make much sense to accept that and not test the market (if you factor in the 2 tag year value or his value as a UFA). If it was more than that maybe it was a mistake, time will tell. But looking back at guarantees as a percentage of RB contracts it doesn’t seem likely that more than 50% was guaranteed and likely why he declined.
Quote:
Tagged twice is $22m for Barkley. If the Giants didn’t offer more than that in guaranteed money there’s little incentive for Barkley to sign. So if you can tell me he declined around $25m guaranteed or more, I’ll change my stance on this.
Barkley has gotten hurt more years than he hasn't. To have the kind of year to justify a second (more expensive tag) he's going to have to run hard and there's a real possibility he gets hurt again. I don't think the Giants would pay $12M for an RB coming off of an injury, and while Barkley would get some sort of FA money, it's likely less than that (if he was hurt).
Long winded way of me saying, I'm not sure the second tag is such a sure thing. There's a possibility of performance drop off too (which can often be quite sudden for RBs). I do think it's very likely Giants would tag him again, but there is certain risk here and I'm Schoen I'd be patiently explaining to Barkley's agent that the $12M second tag is far from guaranteed.
Exactly.
Barkley has every incentive to get something longer term locked up. The Giants really don't, other than team culture & chemistry. Even a 3 year $35MM deal with $25MM guaranteed is a win for Barkley at this point -- but it's a risk to the Giants.
Neither side makes the market - they participate in it. Stock transactions represent 2 opposing viewpoints at a given moment in time -- one always gets it wrong. In Barkley's case both sides got it wrong and in the wrong directions.
Barkley has lots of risk but little if any leverage till this season plays out. The gap is bridgeable with non-guaranteed incentives; even then the Giants would need to value culture/chemistry over pure economics. Which I think they do.
I'm betting a deal gets done with a optical top line in the ballpark of their original offer but anything much over Tag x 2 based on production and playing time.
I highly doubt this gets done.
I highly doubt this gets done.
Facts. The only way this gets done is if Barkley relents and takes control. This agent works for him, not the other way around. I think he'll relent ultimately. The Giants have the hammer and are using it skillfully.
I do think he has lost a little burst too
He was so fast though, that a half step doesn’t matter.
I would love him on team two more yrs with an out and with a contract that gives us 3-4 more million in cap space.
Still wonder if they would consider a D Hopkins at wr if they had more cap space?
The players are smarter than you give them credit for. Except maybe for Barkley. He’s let his agent make a fool of him.
Quote:
why would Barkley accept $15m guaranteed when the Tag already gets him 2/3 of the way there? That isn’t being dug in or delusional, it’s basic economics and he’d be a fool to accept that.
what i don't think people are getting is that schoen likely won't tag him twice. One and done, then Gray or someone else.
This is correct. Why should the 2nd tag have anything to do with the amount in a contract? If the Giants need to tag him again, he will not be a Giant anymore - he will be let go after this season. The tag is not guaranteed to happen a 2nd year.
I thought the rumor was Barkley wanted 4 years.. They could say 4/$45 mill with $22 guaranteed. He gets his 4 years, the Giants stay around $11 mill AAV. And yes that is top of the payscale for RBs now.
Quote:
why would Barkley accept $15m guaranteed when the Tag already gets him 2/3 of the way there? That isn’t being dug in or delusional, it’s basic economics and he’d be a fool to accept that.
what i don't think people are getting is that schoen likely won't tag him twice. One and done, then Gray or someone else.
I think it’s highly probable we won’t tag him twice, but it’s definitely not 0%. I think the larger mistake is thinking there’s no more market for RBs just because the FAs this year stunk. The Lions just selected a non-Bellcow at 12 overall, and Robinson went 8 - I think we’ve seen the bottom of the RB market and there’s a ton of value to be had.
The other factor that gets glossed over is that Barkley was minutes away from being a UFA and getting a better deal than the Giants offer. It was a calculated risk that he took, one that can still turn out well for him if he plays on the tag and plays well.
In other words, lots left to this story, declaring it over and Barkley stupid makes little sense at this juncture.
If Gray works out, great, none of this matters. If he doesn’t and Barkley plays really well, it’s a factor again. And we clearly like Barkley, so simply moving on is more personal preference than what Schoen actually wants to happen (Atleast as of now from the info we have). And for the record I’m fine with either strategy.
Quote:
In comment 16113438 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Tagged twice is $22m for Barkley. If the Giants didn’t offer more than that in guaranteed money there’s little incentive for Barkley to sign. So if you can tell me he declined around $25m guaranteed or more, I’ll change my stance on this.
Barkley has gotten hurt more years than he hasn't. To have the kind of year to justify a second (more expensive tag) he's going to have to run hard and there's a real possibility he gets hurt again. I don't think the Giants would pay $12M for an RB coming off of an injury, and while Barkley would get some sort of FA money, it's likely less than that (if he was hurt).
Long winded way of me saying, I'm not sure the second tag is such a sure thing. There's a possibility of performance drop off too (which can often be quite sudden for RBs). I do think it's very likely Giants would tag him again, but there is certain risk here and I'm Schoen I'd be patiently explaining to Barkley's agent that the $12M second tag is far from guaranteed.
Exactly.
Barkley has every incentive to get something longer term locked up. The Giants really don't, other than team culture & chemistry. Even a 3 year $35MM deal with $25MM guaranteed is a win for Barkley at this point -- but it's a risk to the Giants.
Neither side makes the market - they participate in it. Stock transactions represent 2 opposing viewpoints at a given moment in time -- one always gets it wrong. In Barkley's case both sides got it wrong and in the wrong directions.
Barkley has lots of risk but little if any leverage till this season plays out. The gap is bridgeable with non-guaranteed incentives; even then the Giants would need to value culture/chemistry over pure economics. Which I think they do.
I'm betting a deal gets done with a optical top line in the ballpark of their original offer but anything much over Tag x 2 based on production and playing time.
The players are smarter than you give them credit for. Except maybe for Barkley. He’s let his agent make a fool of him.
DG did a poor job in helping him be a very successful featured player as his talent warranted.
He had a major injury which both made him lose some shiftiness and caused some hesitancy in his play.
For both his sake and the team’s, he is now just another weapon among other weapons and not the featured weapon.
He’s not worth McCaffrey money( neither is McCaffrey), and someone overpaid for Sanders who isn’t better than SB.
SB should sign the tag and bet on himself while his agent tries to get the money up.
Let's say the deal was $10MM signing bonus/$19MM guaranteed/salaries of $2MM,$12MM,$15MM. This might not be exact but it is close to the bottom end of what you almost always see. If he never plays again due to injury he gets $19MM. If he only play one year he gets $19MM. If he plays 2 years he gets $24MM. In all cases better than the FT twice, even if he gets it. And the team has accepted all the injury risk.
He can gamble that he gets better and/or the running back marketplace gets better. Both are dumb gambles. Unless Dave mananges to get another GM job.
Barkley had 1650 total yards with 10 TDs and no turnovers. Barkley certainly touches the ball more running it but the production is the same.
Let's say the deal was $10MM signing bonus/$19MM guaranteed/salaries of $2MM,$12MM,$15MM. This might not be exact but it is close to the bottom end of what you almost always see. If he never plays again due to injury he gets $19MM. If he only play one year he gets $19MM. If he plays 2 years he gets $24MM. In all cases better than the FT twice, even if he gets it. And the team has accepted all the injury risk.
He can gamble that he gets better and/or the running back marketplace gets better. Both are dumb gambles. Unless Dave mananges to get another GM job.
I don’t quite agree on those numbers but your point is valid. Problem is we don’t know the structure or the guarantees, which is my point. As I alluded to above, $25m guaranteed give/take is where I’d probably start from a “what makes sense for Barkley” perspective. Anything under that and it makes sense to forego it and attempt a better deal next year. Above that and I think he should take it.
So if your best case scenario structure nets $24m over 2 years that’s right on the cusp and pretty much in no man’s land for Barkley, can make an argument either way.
This all day.
Barkley was offered $13 million per year back before the Giants signed Jones. Once they had Jones in the fold (and now Lawrence) they are free to tag Barkley this year and next year (Andrew Thomas is the only other real candidate).
So the Giants have very little incentive in going above $22 million in guarantees and Barkley has next to zero incentive to take less. (And I can't imagine the Giants being interested in a contract that ties them to Barkley for more than say 3 years given his age/injury history.)
It's possible that they work something out of course, but I think that mostly happens if there is an intervening event - i.e. if Barkley has a monster year this season and stays healthy maybe the Giants bump him up a bit; or if he gets hurt again maybe they don't tag him next year but offer him a lower contract. But I'd be pretty surprised if he doesn't play on the tag this year - which sucks as Barkley seems like a good guy and I HATE rooting for management. As though the Mara/Tisch families need the money... sigh.
Barkley had 1650 total yards with 10 TDs and no turnovers. Barkley certainly touches the ball more running it but the production is the same.
Because the bottom line is, teams don't need a superstar RB on their roster to win the Super Bowl, and they really don't need to pay a superstar RB like he's a superstar. It's just how the relative value of the position has evolved.
Barkley can choose to bet on himself and play out this season on the tag. The risk there is that, if he underperforms and/or gets injured, he'll only depress his market value further for next spring. Then he won't see a 2nd tag or the money he thinks he's currently worth.
I actually think Barkley will eventually see the light and agree to a multi-year deal at Schoen's price. But he has over two months to go before he has to make a decision, so from his perspective, there's little reason to rush the process. Maybe something will happen to shift the economics in his favor. I doubt it, but waiting doesn't have a unique downside for him.
Funny you say this. The same thought just entered my head when reading the WR thread. I flashed way back to Emmett Smith hold out.
Only if you think the team's championship window is currently open. I don't think it is. Plus, each week that Barkley holds out depresses his marketplace value even further.
Quote:
and the Giants are 0-3 does the power shift?
Only if you think the team's championship window is currently open. I don't think it is. Plus, each week that Barkley holds out depresses his marketplace value even further.
It also depresses his wallet
There is a poster who I've seen say we will not sniff the playoffs without SB. Really? You must have a very low opinion of Daniel Jones then. And Andrew Thomas. And Dexter Lawrence. Xavier McKinney et al.
Let's focus on paying our cornerstones (2 of which we have paid) and not a running back, the most fungible psoition in sports.
There is a poster who I've seen say we will not sniff the playoffs without SB. Really? You must have a very low opinion of Daniel Jones then. And Andrew Thomas. And Dexter Lawrence. Xavier McKinney et al.
Let's focus on paying our cornerstones (2 of which we have paid) and not a running back, the most fungible psoition in sports.
Have you actually read the comment. I have the most posts on this thread and none of them are about whether or not the giants should do anything. I even said I’m good with whatever decision Schoen makes because I believe he knows what he’s doing. This conversation has been about what Barkley would get in a new contract.
As to your final point, sure RB is the lost fungible position but I also don’t think it means you just throw anything at it and it’ll work. When Barkley was hurt or ineffective, so was the offense, not sure if you realized that or not in 2022 but it’s clear as day. Jones and Barkley work really well together and it’s foolish to think we can replicate that with anyone - we certainly couldn’t last year.
Some of you really have no idea how this shit works.
Just because Miles Sanders was the best FA RB doesn't mean BArkley should sign an insanely low paying long term contract.
IT doesn't work the way some of you think it works.
Guys like Barkley are not fungible. Thanks for thinking.
Peyton Manning hits UFA as a 28 year old Qb. At the same time, Kerry Collins hits FA as a 32 year old halfway decent QB. KErry then signs for 10 million per.
WOW! We can sign Peyton for the same deal! After all, Kerry only got 10...Peyton is SOL...
Stop already.
I’d love to know the actual figures both sides are sticking to. I bet it’s not as far apart as the media is leading us all to believe and it’ll sort itself out at the 11th hour.
The Giants have the leverage. And if Saquon holds out...F it. Roll with Breida, Brightwell, & Gray. If our OL goes up a level, they can do the job. As effective as Saquon? Probably not, as none-I can't speak for Gray because he's a rookie & didn't watch him a ton in college-are as talented as #26, but I don't think we'll have to rely on our run game with better receiving options.
Your “fuck it” strategy is one I’m fine with if Schoen truly thinks Barkley isn’t being reasonable, but I’m willing to admit the big production risk that comes along with it. 2 JAGs and a rookie doesn’t scream success to me but hey, I can be wrong.
Backlight, I don’t see a RB contract in 2023 getting in the way of a rebuild. The two certainly earned a ton of good faith and if we missed the playoffs I don’t think anything would happen to them, but they 100% don’t want to miss the playoffs and that’s something I think too many ignore in these conversations.
That’s partly a function of defenses keying on him because Jones had no other weapons. One benefit of having him play on the tag is finding out whether he can do more with Waller, Campbell, and Hyatt stretching the defense.
Somebody said Tyreek Hill had 1700 yards and gets $30MM, but SB has 1650 yards and gets $10MM. Why? Tyreek touched the ball 126 times. SB 352. So it took SB 2.5 times as many touches to get less production? Why does this need to be explained. WR and RB are very different spots in today's NFL.
Is Miles Sanders a fair comparison? Let's see. Much less injury. Much more tread on the tires. Better lifetime numbers than SB for YPC and YPR. And if you only compare years they have both played (taking out 2018) a lot better! No doubt Sanders had a huge advantage in terms of a competent offense. But if you asked me who would I rather have over the next three years at the same contract, it is a push, and I lean Sanders over injury concerns. Not only do I think this is not controversial. I think it should be obvious. The only way that SB stands out in comparison is pre draft hype and his rookie season five years ago.
That’s partly a function of defenses keying on him because Jones had no other weapons. One benefit of having him play on the tag is finding out whether he can do more with Waller, Campbell, and Hyatt stretching the defense.
down the stretch they used him in the passing game much more effectively and my guess is that things opened up more once they werent playing as much crap at wr. in the first 10 games he only went over 5 targets twice (week 1 ten and the gb game). down the stretch he went over that in 4 of the last 9 games, including both minnesota games and the washington win.
despite too many drops (6) i think he wasnt ineffective as much as underused (even though his 76 targets still led team). i dont know why they didnt run variations of that crossing route vs the packers all year with him.
As for the pass catching it simply wasn’t our game plan. His targets were way down from his Shurmur and Judge seasons - seems to me like the focus was keeping the run game a strength which was the wise move given our pass blocking issues and crappy receiving corps. With the additions to the passing game and some better pats blocking, we might see more passes to Barkley.
I think Barkley is very underrated on here by some. I think its impressive the stats he got last season even being the only threat. The players know this too