The narrative lately in the media is that the Giants gave DJ a large contract, so they must stick with him. To many of us that seems intuitively like poor decision making. Just in case anyone associated with the Giants is checking up on this “Chat room” to see what us “Twitter GMs” are discussing I would like to provide a direct rebuttal to this flawed logic. See below the definition below of sunk cost fallacy and commitment bias.
The sunk cost fallacy occurs because we are not purely rational decision-makers, and we are often influenced by our emotions. When we have previously invested in a choice, we will likely feel guilty or regretful if we do not follow through. The sunk cost fallacy is associated with commitment bias, where we continue to support our past decisions despite new evidence suggesting that it isn’t the best course of action.
We fail to consider that whatever time, effort, or money we have already expended will not be recovered. We end up making decisions based on past costs instead of present and future costs and benefits, which are the only ones that rationally make a difference.
Commitment bias, also known as the escalation of commitment, describes our tendency to remain committed to our past behaviors, particularly those exhibited publicly, even if they do not have desirable outcomes.
With DJ's contract he will most likely be here next year, but the contract itself should not be factor in deciding to stick with DJ long term.
Sunk Cost Fallacy - (
New Window )
I see very little downside here!
The Giants signed what they believed (with good reason) and hoped (with good basis) would be their 5+ year QB. Long-term answer or not he was their 2023 QB, and realistically 24 also because - while possible -- a'24 QB question was unlikely; an edge condition with a serious regression and/or serious injury. By some logic they overpaid by 5-10%; if so that's expected because any QB you want is more valuable to the existing team, and QB salaries continue to rise disproportionally.
The edge condition happened. Jones future is now uncertain, and with it the Giants QB situation.
It sucks. No fallacies or conspiracies. Just shitty breaks and what -- depending on your POV -- was prudent if not shrewd decision making by Schoen or some disaster. I'm not sure what the disaster camp would have realistically done differently even with the benefit of outsider hindsight.
When you look at what Jones will be paid PLUS what they would pay a rookie QB if they draft one, they will still be fine from a cap perspective.
If they were 100% sure about Jones, they would have a different contract in place with him right now.
Don't overthink this
When you look at what Jones will be paid PLUS what they would pay a rookie QB if they draft one, they will still be fine from a cap perspective.
If they were 100% sure about Jones, they would have a different contract in place with him right now.
Don't overthink this
Agreed.
And let's face it, the Giants won't be great next year anyway playing a rookie QB. So what if they have $22 million less to spend?
I think it's better to have Jones fully off their books in 2025.
(This assumes he passes a physical before 2024 season.)
I see very little downside here!
With so little success as an NFL QB and comments coming from players around the league about how they attack DJ. Do we really need or want him to mentor a new QB?
We always hear how hard DJ works, prepares himself and is a model citizen. I don't doubt any of it but it isn't translating to good QB play so would just let DJ focus on his rehabbing and let a new QB come to him if he wants anything. Hopefully not.
And let's face it, the Giants won't be great next year anyway playing a rookie QB. So what if they have $22 million less to spend?
I think it's better to have Jones fully off their books in 2025.
(This assumes he passes a physical before 2024 season.)
Giants are not taking a $69M dead cap hit on Jones for 2024.
They weren't planning on taking Jones' $47M hit for 2024. They already restructured the contract before the first game was played on it and they were going to do it again.
And if Giants draft a QB high, I don't believe they will take the (approximate) $55M ($47M + $8M) cap hit at the QB position for 2024. Some of Jones' hit would be restructured to increase the dead cap hit in 2025 from the current projected $22M.
No crystal ball claimed but that's my take.
DJ based on his play in 2022 deserved to be paid among the top half of QBs in the NFL, and he was.
It doesn't guarantee he'd continue at that level, and he didn't. I'd suggest Daboll & Kafka don't look too good either considering the regression of Jones and the overall O, despite having more talent than they did last year. They did not build on what they did last year, they went backwards. I'm talking overall O.
I see very little downside here!
👍🏼 This, for sure
Not everything works out.
It would have been great if Jones took the next step and also stayed healthy. Neither happened.
Like Eli was in Jones’ rookie year, DJ will be here (in some capacity) next year.
Be it bridge starter to a high draftee, or as a mentor, either would be a positive for the organization.
For anyone familiar with how Jones got drafted (Getts only saw him live at the Senior Bowl!), Schoen’s research on ALL the top QB prospects is 1000x more in depth. Doesn’t guarantee success, but it greatly increases the chances he will get it right.
The argument about keeping Jones has to do with the cap hit the team takes if he is let go, not about how much money he will put in his bank account.
Quote:
He can mentor our new QB, he carries and prepares himself like a true pro, a model citizen that does not embarrass the franchise. If he plays well, then he provides us with a good trade option.
I see very little downside here!
With so little success as an NFL QB and comments coming from players around the league about how they attack DJ. Do we really need or want him to mentor a new QB?
We always hear how hard DJ works, prepares himself and is a model citizen. I don't doubt any of it but it isn't translating to good QB play so would just let DJ focus on his rehabbing and let a new QB come to him if he wants anything. Hopefully not.
Some great coaches were awful players. So in a mentor/coaching role I do believe DJ would do well.
You want to cover up the disgrace by calling it sound management, fine.
The OP is correct that there is potential here for sunk cost fallacy to direct decisions by ownership and the front office. If they decide to run it back with Jones because of money committed to him, you'll know the OP is right. Bad decisions stacked on top of each other.
Also, I'm not saying that Daboll and Schoen won't draft a QB or they should stick with Jones. I think Schoen and Daboll will get this decision right.
I'm pointing out the flaw in the argument that we can't draft a QB because we are committed to Jones because of his contract. To me that is flawed argument and reason for committing to Jones long term.
If my last name was Mara, I'd have a hard time swallowing the Jones contract, cutting my losses, and drafting a new QB. Also, if you think ownership has no say in the big QB contracts that get handed out or in drafting a QB in round 1 who will become the face of the franchise, I think that is a little naïve. I'm not bashing Mara as an owner either. Let Schoen and Dabs run the football operations as is now being claimed and was "always the case" (let's ask Ben McAdoo about that mid season firing...)
NFL teams give their vote in confidence to a quarterback in one simple currency: practically guaranteed dollars.
Keep in mind the only reason some dollars are practically guaranteed instead of fully, is because all fully guaranteed dollars must be held in escrow until paid to the player. This takes cash out of the owners hands prematurely.
On big time agreements, teams and agents work together to put conditions for 1) ample full guarantees 2) ample practical guarantees that will convey to full guarantees in the future.
The most simple example is salary two years from now conveying to a full guarantee. For instance, on Prescott's deal his 2023 salary became guaranteed after the 2021 season. The Cowboys would have to cut Prescott after one year and absorb a prohibitive dead cap hit for that 2023 guarantee not to convey. For all interns and purposes that money was fully guaranteed.
Put aside extensions on rookie deals (Burrow, Allen, Mahomes, Herbert) -- those are a different class of contracts with more complex give and takes.
The more analogous deals to look at are Prescott and Jackson. Two recent players who were UFAs.
Both Jackson and Prescott had major practical guarantees for year three that conveyed after year one. Said in another way, their team committed to three years.
Jones has no such guarantee. The Giants committed two years to him. That says something. It says the Giants left the door open to change their mind after two years.
In no way did they indicate he was their guy for five years.
DJ is on the Giants next year. They have to pay him, so even if he is your backup he is on the team.
Barring a comeback performance of epic proportions in 2024, DJ is not on the team in 2025. We then take a cap hit of $20MMish.
Anyone who does not understand this and works for the Giants should be fired, from the janitor to Joe Schoen, for rank stupidity.
Will the Giants contractual commitment to Jones for next year prevent them from Drafting the next potential franchise QB in the upcoming draft?
I hope not, but I'm not certain.
Will the Giants contractual commitment to Jones for next year prevent them from Drafting the next potential franchise QB in the upcoming draft?
I hope not, but I'm not certain.
You are 100% right. Even if the Jones contract offers an easier out than other elite or large contracts like Lamar or Dak. The question you pose is simply, will sunk cost affect the decision to draft a QB in 2024? It certainly might. We are hearing reports the Giants might be thinking this way already - though I don't put a lot of stock in these reports.
It's a real simple binary you pose. How good Jones' deal looks in reference to Dak's deal is completely immaterial and answers a different question.
Will the Giants contractual commitment to Jones for next year prevent them from Drafting the next potential franchise QB in the upcoming draft?
I hope not, but I'm not certain.
The Giants have ~28M in effective cap space for 2024. This is the number they project to have after signing their draft class (at their current slot), and filling out a roster.
Whether they draft a WR or QB on the first round, the cap hit is the same.
If they select a QB on round one in 2024, he will not be eligible for a contract extension until after the 2026 season.
In short, there is no scenario where Jones precludes the Giants from drafting and signing a franchise QB.
Quote:
The Giants will most likely have a high draft pick this year with a draft class that looks reasonably good for QBs.
Will the Giants contractual commitment to Jones for next year prevent them from Drafting the next potential franchise QB in the upcoming draft?
I hope not, but I'm not certain.
The Giants have ~28M in effective cap space for 2024. This is the number they project to have after signing their draft class (at their current slot), and filling out a roster.
Whether they draft a WR or QB on the first round, the cap hit is the same.
If they select a QB on round one in 2024, he will not be eligible for a contract extension until after the 2026 season.
In short, there is no scenario where Jones precludes the Giants from drafting and signing a franchise QB.
Your command of the numbers and implications of the Jones contract is beyond question. In general, your observations are interesting and erudite. But in this instance you seem to be missing the point of the OP and the meaning of sunk cost fallacy.
The sunk cost fallacy in the way the OP is applying it here is not about whether the Giants have the potential to move on, or if they could move on, even though the Jones contract is in place. Rather, it is about will the Giants use the high expense of the Jones contract as a justification to keep him in place as a starter and decide not to draft a QB. The OP asks will the Giants CHOOSE to keep Jones as starter BECAUSE he has a large contract.
I was replying to a comment that asked if Jones's contract next year would prevent them from taking an action.
I was replying to a comment that asked if Jones's contract next year would prevent them from taking an action.
Not in your initial reply, where you said there was so much wrong with the thread, and then proceded to detail how the Jones contract wasn't a commitment. That's not relevant to the OP.
I was addressing this comment with my first post on this thread.
I was addressing this comment with my first post on this thread.
Quote:
The Giants signed what they believed (with good reason) and hoped (with good basis) would be their 5+ year QB.
Ok.. whether or not the Giants and Mara thought they were getting a 5 yr starter or not, passing on a top QB in this draft because of resources poured into Jones, is an example of sunk cost fallacy.
Producer, you're seeing ghosts per normal, when the topic of Jones comes up.