One of the suggested landing places in this article is the Giants. It says you can rescind the franchise tag on Barkley and get Cook at a cheaper price. I do not think that is happening, but thought I would post this to see how others felt.
Where will Dalvin Cook land - (
New Window )
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
It doesn’t take much imagination to understand how Barkley could feel under appreciated.
We also have heard speculation that Schoen is very irritated with Barkley s agent.
Barkley s decision to refuse the Giants offer over the bye, and the Jones ‘ deal, made where they are today almost inevitable.
It s not a great situation as Saquon can still be a big part of the team s success, but it makes sense for the Giants not to move much, if at all, off the price of the franchise tag
Quote:
its "stupid" or not. It's about whether the relationship between Barkely representation and the Giants has been fractured. Schoen seems pretty irritated about it and has definitely shown a "move on" mentality if things aren't done on the needed time schedule.
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
So........can't they do that and then sign Cook? You'd get a 1st/2nd rounder for Barkley, then sign Cook for less money. I'd rather keep Barkley, too, but I'm open to discussing different scenarios.
Quote:
In comment 16130901 mittenedman said:
Quote:
its "stupid" or not. It's about whether the relationship between Barkely representation and the Giants has been fractured. Schoen seems pretty irritated about it and has definitely shown a "move on" mentality if things aren't done on the needed time schedule.
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
So........can't they do that and then sign Cook? You'd get a 1st/2nd rounder for Barkley, then sign Cook for less money. I'd rather keep Barkley, too, but I'm open to discussing different scenarios.
Yes, the could but it isn't happening at this point. There are multiple sides here. Why would Cook want to come here? He's from Miami. He's posting pictures of himself on the field in Miami. Miami has a huge need at RB. They have a great offensive mind. They have no state income tax. Then we get to the other side. The Giants like Barkley for who he is. He's a leader. He's a great locker room guy. He is a multifaceted back. They want the person, not just the position. This is just pure speculation based on nothing but someone saying it could happen.
I think you might be right. But considering what the Niners gave up for McCafferty, a 2,3, and 4 at age 26, what do you believe the Giants could garner in a trade for Saquon?
Quote:
its "stupid" or not. It's about whether the relationship between Barkely representation and the Giants has been fractured. Schoen seems pretty irritated about it and has definitely shown a "move on" mentality if things aren't done on the needed time schedule.
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
You can't trade him if he is not under contract.
Quote:
its "stupid" or not. It's about whether the relationship between Barkely representation and the Giants has been fractured. Schoen seems pretty irritated about it and has definitely shown a "move on" mentality if things aren't done on the needed time schedule.
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
You can't trade him without a deal in place and nobody is going to do that knowing the Giants and Barkley are at an impasse. We have no leverage here trading wise . Barkley's demands might be more than we want to pay and the cap savings would be huge. Not saying do it but too many here put fandom in front of smart business. Barkley should have taken his deal last fall- now he isn't getting more for sure and the Giants probably should have traded him at the deadline for max value. But, we are here and either he gets a Giants friendly deal or plays on the cap or he gets released. There are zero other options .
Sure it is, it makes no sense for the cap, business, or putting the best team together.
It would've happened already? OK robbie, I see you've decided everything in your head already and that's that. Maybe you should just not participate on the thread.
Juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze to net ~5m to replace him with Dalvin, who is an inferior player at this point with much bigger injury concerns than Barkley.
Some of the drama around this negotiation is so stupid. We've been heading towards the conclusion of him signing his tag right before the July deadline since we signed Jones.
Happy Cook, plus 3rd round pick, plus more ?? cap space might be better than 1 pissed off Barkley.
The key is what would it take to sign Cook and have him be "happy"?
Also, what kind of person is Cook? Is he and healthy? Has he lost a step?
I would rather have Barkley as a known quantity.
Quote:
In comment 16130901 mittenedman said:
Quote:
its "stupid" or not. It's about whether the relationship between Barkely representation and the Giants has been fractured. Schoen seems pretty irritated about it and has definitely shown a "move on" mentality if things aren't done on the needed time schedule.
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
You can't trade him without a deal in place and nobody is going to do that knowing the Giants and Barkley are at an impasse. We have no leverage here trading wise . Barkley's demands might be more than we want to pay and the cap savings would be huge. Not saying do it but too many here put fandom in front of smart business. Barkley should have taken his deal last fall- now he isn't getting more for sure and the Giants probably should have traded him at the deadline for max value. But, we are here and either he gets a Giants friendly deal or plays on the cap or he gets released. There are zero other options .
Exactly, the Giants made two offers to Barclay, both of which were significantly higher than any other running back. Got this off season and he said no to both. How is he going to agree to a trade when the other team would have to beat those offers? And if they wouldn't have to be those offers, why wouldn't you just resign Barkley who I still think is a better player than dalvin Cook?
SB is an asset to the Giants. He has value on the field and in the trade market(a bit less than CMC was traded for). You don't just rid yourself of assets, its poor management. Now, if someone were to want SB and we traded him, then I can see Cook as a possibility, depending on his contract demands.
Juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze to net ~5m to replace him with Dalvin, who is an inferior player at this point with much bigger injury concerns than Barkley.
Some of the drama around this negotiation is so stupid. We've been heading towards the conclusion of him signing his tag right before the July deadline since we signed Jones.
I learned a long time ago back in the 1980s when holdouts were quite common that fans lose any sense of rationality during holdouts.
And it happened over and over again.
Quote:
of a hardworking and respected veteran in June, when the market has completely dried for him, would go over swimmingly for the locker room.
Juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze to net ~5m to replace him with Dalvin, who is an inferior player at this point with much bigger injury concerns than Barkley.
Some of the drama around this negotiation is so stupid. We've been heading towards the conclusion of him signing his tag right before the July deadline since we signed Jones.
I learned a long time ago back in the 1980s when holdouts were quite common that fans lose any sense of rationality during holdouts.
And it happened over and over again.
I think there's a lack of rationality on a lot of subjects.
Quote:
If that was going to happen, it would have happened already. I doubt anybody would give up a 2nd. Read the market. Teams aren't paying these guys so why would they give up premium picks too?
I think you might be right. But considering what the Niners gave up for McCafferty, a 2,3, and 4 at age 26, what do you believe the Giants could garner in a trade for Saquon?
In my opinion nothing close to that. First CMC is just better. And their health issues are roughly the same. More importantly, SF got CM for 2 years at $5.5 per year. Then one more year at $11.8MM (he will be cut or take a pay cut). I would trade something for SB if I had him locked in at a below market contract. Not so much if I have to figure out his contract and he wants $15MMish. His trade value is about the same as DeAndre Hopkins. Or Dalvin Cook.
so many moving parts involved,but my gut tells me there is too much bad blood now and he is not going to be a long term solution here in NY.
Dalvin Cook is as good a solution as possible,iff Schoen can make it happen.
Otherwise,he should/will let things play out....
I personally have lost all of my loyalty towards Saquon.
He can stay or go,I am neutral on the subject....
Quote:
If that was going to happen, it would have happened already. I doubt anybody would give up a 2nd. Read the market. Teams aren't paying these guys so why would they give up premium picks too?
I think you might be right. But considering what the Niners gave up for McCafferty, a 2,3, and 4 at age 26, what do you believe the Giants could garner in a trade for Saquon?
No one is making deal anywhere close to the CMC deal. I would guess a third for Barkley
Quote:
In comment 16130907 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
If that was going to happen, it would have happened already. I doubt anybody would give up a 2nd. Read the market. Teams aren't paying these guys so why would they give up premium picks too?
I think you might be right. But considering what the Niners gave up for McCafferty, a 2,3, and 4 at age 26, what do you believe the Giants could garner in a trade for Saquon?
In my opinion nothing close to that. First CMC is just better. And their health issues are roughly the same. More importantly, SF got CM for 2 years at $5.5 per year. Then one more year at $11.8MM (he will be cut or take a pay cut). I would trade something for SB if I had him locked in at a below market contract. Not so much if I have to figure out his contract and he wants $15MMish. His trade value is about the same as DeAndre Hopkins. Or Dalvin Cook.
Their health issues are not really the same. McCaffrey missed a large portion of 2 seasons before he was traded. He played 3 games and 7 games in the 2 seasons before he was traded. I think CMC is better, but I don't think it's by much and I agree about the contract situations. The Panthers ate some of that money(Signing bonus) which made it easier and less risky for the 9ers to stomach it.
At best, I think the Giants can get a 3 and 5 or something like that.
Great management move.
His teammates understand it's a business and Im sure are aware with whats happening with backs around the league as far as contracts. They also have seen the contracts they have handed out to DJ and Dex. I doubt its a morale thing. In fact, they might look at Barkley a little bit differently because he is turning up his nose at 10 mill for the year when no other back got that this offseason.
They offered him 13 million per year. While we don't know the guarantees, those that hypothesize that maybe the Giants offered him 3/36 with 8 gtd are stretching. There is no way they would make that offer if they were serious about keeping Barkley who has 3 1k rushing seasons in 5 years (1 cut short to injury). More than likely they made a fair offer with at least half gtd and incentives that could make him top hos value and he was convinced he could get more.
Im sure the lockerroom is just fine with whats going on.
Great management move.
Exactly, it makes zero sense unless Cook is willing to take 4/5 million per and 10 gtd.
Quote:
its "stupid" or not. It's about whether the relationship between Barkely representation and the Giants has been fractured. Schoen seems pretty irritated about it and has definitely shown a "move on" mentality if things aren't done on the needed time schedule.
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
I think it's slow news season so might as well make something up.
Quote:
In comment 16130901 mittenedman said:
Quote:
its "stupid" or not. It's about whether the relationship between Barkely representation and the Giants has been fractured. Schoen seems pretty irritated about it and has definitely shown a "move on" mentality if things aren't done on the needed time schedule.
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
So........can't they do that and then sign Cook? You'd get a 1st/2nd rounder for Barkley, then sign Cook for less money. I'd rather keep Barkley, too, but I'm open to discussing different scenarios.
You’re not getting a 1st rounder for SB. If Schoen could have, he would have.
I don’t think the Giants sign Cook, but it’s not the craziest idea. I think SB rejecting the latest Giants offer (which was reportedly well above market value), then at some point, you have to move on.
Cook is a hell of a player, and is more dependable than SB. He’s not the game breaker SB is, but he gets the tough, “hidden” yards that SB often does not (although he was far better this past season at that). You also can’t overlook how SB tailed off late. To be fair, he suffered from the same roster shortcomings DJ did, but it has to be considered.
@Jason_OTC
Dalvin Cook completed two years of a five year, $63m contract. One day teams will just stop the extensions at the position.
This is a spot on observation. There's just too much evidence 5-6 years is the shelf life of a back.
Quote:
In comment 16130901 mittenedman said:
Quote:
its "stupid" or not. It's about whether the relationship between Barkely representation and the Giants has been fractured. Schoen seems pretty irritated about it and has definitely shown a "move on" mentality if things aren't done on the needed time schedule.
Then you trade him. You don't just release him for nothing.
You can't trade him if he is not under contract.
I know how the tag works. You tell Barkleg to seek out another deal with another team. They fine an amount that they are happy with and then the teams work on compensation. Do people not understand this? I am pretty sure the Giants tagged Barkley with the non-exclusive FT meaning he can already ne talking to other teams if he wants.
The point is simple, we aren't dropping the tag on Barkley for nothing.
Quote:
last year -- with a player with major injury concerns -- just because you don't like the way that negotiations are going; in a negotiation where the Giants really hold all the cards, and have an asset that they like and appreciate.
Great management move.
Exactly, it makes zero sense unless Cook is willing to take 4/5 million per and 10 gtd.
We will see, but I think that is about what Cook will get. Maybe a little better, but not much.
Quote:
For team morale? Barkley is respected and loved by his teammates.
His teammates understand it's a business and Im sure are aware with whats happening with backs around the league as far as contracts. They also have seen the contracts they have handed out to DJ and Dex. I doubt its a morale thing. In fact, they might look at Barkley a little bit differently because he is turning up his nose at 10 mill for the year when no other back got that this offseason.
They offered him 13 million per year. While we don't know the guarantees, those that hypothesize that maybe the Giants offered him 3/36 with 8 gtd are stretching. There is no way they would make that offer if they were serious about keeping Barkley who has 3 1k rushing seasons in 5 years (1 cut short to injury). More than likely they made a fair offer with at least half gtd and incentives that could make him top hos value and he was convinced he could get more.
Im sure the lockerroom is just fine with whats going on.
So his teammates are looking down on him because Barkley is using the only leverage he has to get a long term contract????? Lol the shit I read on BBI.
We don’t know what the Giants offered Barkley in terms of guarantees. On the tag he’s due 10 mill this year and 12 mill next year. That’s 22 million guaranteed. If the Giants offered less than 22 mill guaranteed he has no incentive to sign here. He’ll just play on his 10 mill this year, and take the 12 next year or go to free agency.