OTC had projected a 242m cap, so this is +13m per team.
Judy Battista
@judybattista
·
Massive $30 million leap in the salary cap to $255.4 million per team is unprecedented jump; came as a result of the full repayment of money advanced to the teams and deferred by players during the pandemic, plus huge increase in media revenue, the league announced.
more likely it gives them less incentive. should give them plenty of room to target whichever 1-2 players from FA they want.
the top of the FA market is likely to be eye popping expensive though.
seems like a very good thing they got lawrence and thomas done ahead of this FA period.
It might allow them to give more to Barkley than originally planned. Me, personally, hope they move on.
I'd still restructure Andrew Thomas and Dexter Lawrence if need be, and perhaps Bobby Okereke, too.
🤞
Quote:
This is not a release valve to restructure Jones. Thanks in advance.
more likely it gives them less incentive. should give them plenty of room to target whichever 1-2 players from FA they want.
the top of the FA market is likely to be eye popping expensive though.
seems like a very good thing they got lawrence and thomas done ahead of this FA period.
Let's hope so, we've seen enough of doubling down on pivotal decisions here. I'm typically not gung ho on UFA spending until a roster is ready to fill key holes.
More likely gives other teams more also to ‘respect’ X.
so they have a ton of money available even with the jones deal, and waller at $14m, and before restructuring thomas/lawrence.
also notable 2025/2026 also have a ton of money available even with Jones non-guaranteed 3rd/4th years currently on the cap.
everyone got the same $13m.
$13m*32 teams = $416m more that will go to players.
but there arent more good players.
the good players are just going to get paid more (inflation).
and worse, id imagine we see more good players get tagged because the tag prices are reflective of prior contracts. so the market may be tighter with fewer good players, and more teams bidding lots of money (bidding wars).
honestly the extra money in the market is in some ways a negative for the giants at the higher end of things. a premium OL is probably going to be crazy expensive now even at guard. the top free agents are going to come with extreme sticker shock i think.
i think using tags on either of barkley/mckinney may end up more likely now. probably will make waller more tradeable carrying just a $10m salary.
for smart teams who are more prudent they will be able to sign more quality depth players if they wait out the market. unless the market ends up thinner than expected.
https://thecontractdispute.substack.com/p/how-the-25-salary-cap-impacts-24 - ( New Window )
Hell, maybe both can get a piece.
this is circular logic, however they spend it they are spending more money. even the few teams who are in the infamous "cap hell" werent going to be big spenders any way, but now they dont need to cut as many people to get under, which will make the market shallower.
there are already 8 teams with TWICE as much cap space as the giants.
17 teams have almost the same amount the giants have under the cap right now.
and that is all before the veteran bloodletting that usually takes place right before free agency with players like glowinski. there will be plenty of spenders with probably fewer good players on market bc of tags/fewer cuts.
Solid point about the tags maybe coming into play more.
Not so sure SB will be as willing this time to play on the FT but it's a TBD. Disappointed JS didn't have a better RB on the roster ready to step in and I wonder if that influences what he does.
His price went up, but the tag didn't.
And if he dies before retiring they'll hire the same type of commisioner.
No going back.
I think the RB situation is a pretty interesting example of the way that certain roster decisions have a cascading effect. To your point about having a better RB waiting in the wings already, I think Schoen and Daboll hoped to do exactly what you're suggesting when they drafted Gray last year. But the punt return shitshow (and keeping Shepard over Crowder) last year may have not only damaged Gray's self-confidence, but also Daboll's willingness to give him RB reps.
Fortunately, RB is a position that tends to have very little (if any) learning/development curve going from college to the NFL, so the bigger issue here (IMO) is the potential uncertainty at the position, but not necessarily a development lag, because a rookie RB should be able to be productive, given the right talent/skills (and of course, the blocking).
this is circular logic, however they spend it they are spending more money. even the few teams who are in the infamous "cap hell" werent going to be big spenders any way, but now they dont need to cut as many people to get under, which will make the market shallower.
there are already 8 teams with TWICE as much cap space as the giants.
17 teams have almost the same amount the giants have under the cap right now.
and that is all before the veteran bloodletting that usually takes place right before free agency with players like glowinski. there will be plenty of spenders with probably fewer good players on market bc of tags/fewer cuts.
Not really. Some teams will use that extra $13 million bump on extensions and not on guys whose contracts are up or in the free agent market.
Guys like Tua, Lawrence, Jefferson, Chase are going to be looking for more on their extensions than previously with the bump. That extra $13 million might not even make it to the free agent market for some teams.
Quote:
In comment 16406184 JonC said:
Quote:
This is not a release valve to restructure Jones. Thanks in advance.
more likely it gives them less incentive. should give them plenty of room to target whichever 1-2 players from FA they want.
the top of the FA market is likely to be eye popping expensive though.
seems like a very good thing they got lawrence and thomas done ahead of this FA period.
Let's hope so, we've seen enough of doubling down on pivotal decisions here. I'm typically not gung ho on UFA spending until a roster is ready to fill key holes.
agree completely
Quote:
this is circular logic, however they spend it they are spending more money. even the few teams who are in the infamous "cap hell" werent going to be big spenders any way, but now they dont need to cut as many people to get under, which will make the market shallower.
there are already 8 teams with TWICE as much cap space as the giants.
17 teams have almost the same amount the giants have under the cap right now.
and that is all before the veteran bloodletting that usually takes place right before free agency with players like glowinski. there will be plenty of spenders with probably fewer good players on market bc of tags/fewer cuts.
Not really. Some teams will use that extra $13 million bump on extensions and not on guys whose contracts are up or in the free agent market.
Guys like Tua, Lawrence, Jefferson, Chase are going to be looking for more on their extensions than previously with the bump. That extra $13 million might not even make it to the free agent market for some teams.
which genius agent is rushing to extend early right now, 3 weeks before a whole bunch of fresh inflated comps hit the marketplace with lesser players?
the only way there's not a feeding frenzy with this much leaguewide open cap space is if all the good free agents get tagged now and there's nothing good to spend on. though i guess if teams use transition tags, that could add to the feeding frenzy since the buying teams need to make the contract unattractive enough for the previous team not to match.
last year 6 players got tagged i think in total. in 2022 i think it was 8. id take the over on both this year and i think it could end up being double because i think half the league has enough room that it may be worth using 1 of the tags on whoever their best FA is.
Quote:
In comment 16406266 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
this is circular logic, however they spend it they are spending more money. even the few teams who are in the infamous "cap hell" werent going to be big spenders any way, but now they dont need to cut as many people to get under, which will make the market shallower.
there are already 8 teams with TWICE as much cap space as the giants.
17 teams have almost the same amount the giants have under the cap right now.
and that is all before the veteran bloodletting that usually takes place right before free agency with players like glowinski. there will be plenty of spenders with probably fewer good players on market bc of tags/fewer cuts.
Not really. Some teams will use that extra $13 million bump on extensions and not on guys whose contracts are up or in the free agent market.
Guys like Tua, Lawrence, Jefferson, Chase are going to be looking for more on their extensions than previously with the bump. That extra $13 million might not even make it to the free agent market for some teams.
which genius agent is rushing to extend early right now, 3 weeks before a whole bunch of fresh inflated comps hit the marketplace with lesser players?
the only way there's not a feeding frenzy with this much leaguewide open cap space is if all the good free agents get tagged now and there's nothing good to spend on. though i guess if teams use transition tags, that could add to the feeding frenzy since the buying teams need to make the contract unattractive enough for the previous team not to match.
last year 6 players got tagged i think in total. in 2022 i think it was 8. id take the over on both this year and i think it could end up being double because i think half the league has enough room that it may be worth using 1 of the tags on whoever their best FA is.
Who are the fresh inflated comps coming in for the elite QBs and WRs that AJR mentioned?
It's probably ok to just say, "you know what, that's a specific instance that I wasn't thinking of when I brushed off your post earlier."
The guys AJR mentioned were never hitting free agency, so they're not depleting the expected FA pool. But they will get larger contracts because of the cap increase, which is what I think AJR was pointing out.
which genius agent is rushing to extend early right now, 3 weeks before a whole bunch of fresh inflated comps hit the marketplace with lesser players?
the only way there's not a feeding frenzy with this much leaguewide open cap space is if all the good free agents get tagged now and there's nothing good to spend on. though i guess if teams use transition tags, that could add to the feeding frenzy since the buying teams need to make the contract unattractive enough for the previous team not to match.
last year 6 players got tagged i think in total. in 2022 i think it was 8. id take the over on both this year and i think it could end up being double because i think half the league has enough room that it may be worth using 1 of the tags on whoever their best FA is.
What? What FA wide receiver is going to set Jamar Chase’s market?
The agents that are smart enough to know that this jump was from money kept in reserves from COVID and probably isn’t happening again next year will get their extensions done sooner rather than later and get a piece of that extra money while it’s still available.
🤞
Just to let everyone know, Dallas has said they are not signing any free agent RBs.
They believe that they could draft a running back and go with the likes of Rico Dwodle and Malik Davis at the running back spot. Along with Deuce Vaughn and Hunter Lufkin. Tony Pollard will not be resigned.
The very last position Dallas will invest any free agent dollars is running back.
Tee Higgins, Michael Pittman, Marqise Brown, Calvin Ridley are scheduled to hit FA and if they get there they are likely going to be looking for deals (and specifically guaranteed $) that would place them in the top 3-5 on this list. any who get tagged will be negotiating with $22m guaranteed already in their pockets. Mike Evans is also due to hit FA and while he's older, he could easily pick up the biggest guarantee even on a shorter term deal. brad spielberger projects 23m*3 years with 52.5m guaranteed - which would tie him with tyreek hill for 2nd biggest guarantee behind AJB. and that projection was before today's news.
everyone knows whatever day jefferson signs his contract he goes to #1 on this list. that has been true since before this past season when they were allegedly close to a deal. the reason he hasnt signed that deal yet is because he likely isnt looking to just be the first player on this list but waiting to get the most he can. bigger than expected cap increases arent going to make any contracts smaller. aaron donald wasnt just the highest paid DT by a little bit. the best of the best make the argument that they are worth more than just their position comps and they will do it inflation adjusted. if age 30 mike evans gets his 52.5m gtd what do you think age 24 jj fairly deserves on what will be a longer deal? 75m? 90m? 100m? deshaun watson didnt need a comp to get 100% of his contract guaranteed just the demand.
The league continues t grow no matter what it does right or wrong.
In other words, all the teams cap space increased $13M so it doesn't give them any new advantage to sign FA's, right?
The league continues t grow no matter what it does right or wrong.
Bye.
In other words, all the teams cap space increased $13M so it doesn't give them any new advantage to sign FA's, right?
correct. it is great news for the players, for the teams it's going to be the same mixed bag spending $ always is. smart teams will do smart things, dumb teams will do dumb things.
Tee Higgins, Michael Pittman, Marqise Brown, Calvin Ridley are scheduled to hit FA and if they get there they are likely going to be looking for deals (and specifically guaranteed $) that would place them in the top 3-5 on this list. any who get tagged will be negotiating with $22m guaranteed already in their pockets. Mike Evans is also due to hit FA and while he's older, he could easily pick up the biggest guarantee even on a shorter term deal. brad spielberger projects 23m*3 years with 52.5m guaranteed - which would tie him with tyreek hill for 2nd biggest guarantee behind AJB. and that projection was before today's news.
everyone knows whatever day jefferson signs his contract he goes to #1 on this list. that has been true since before this past season when they were allegedly close to a deal. the reason he hasnt signed that deal yet is because he likely isnt looking to just be the first player on this list but waiting to get the most he can. bigger than expected cap increases arent going to make any contracts smaller. aaron donald wasnt just the highest paid DT by a little bit. the best of the best make the argument that they are worth more than just their position comps and they will do it inflation adjusted. if age 30 mike evans gets his 52.5m gtd what do you think age 24 jj fairly deserves on what will be a longer deal? 75m? 90m? 100m? deshaun watson didnt need a comp to get 100% of his contract guaranteed just the demand.
You and I could probably both shorten our posts, so I say this with all the self-awareness I can muster that I often do the same thing that you're doing here, talking yourself in circles rather than walking back a particular scenario that you glossed over.
It might have been easier to just acknowledge that Tua, Lawrence, Jefferson, Chase are good examples of players that will now absorb a large chunk of their team's share of the cap increase without having any impact to the actual FA market because they were never going to hit free agency anyway.
McKinney is just a jerk, which is a shame. As for Barkley, I think they should let him test free agency. And I'm guessing he will find it as disappointing as Elliott and Cook found it. He is good, but not great (not anymore) and nobody is shelling out money for a merely good RB with a questionable injury history. I see him coming back to the Giants on a 3-or 4-year face saving deal that looks more generous (and more longer term) than it actually is.
Chase and his team already have a number in mind, and that signing bonus number has likely gone up with the extra $13 million in cap space. Whether Chase signs first is irrelevant, because Cincinatti will need to keep some of that money in reserve for when Chase does sign his extension. They already have their number in reserve out of their cap space, or however they’ll create cap space.
Chase and his team already have a number in mind, and that signing bonus number has likely gone up with the extra $13 million in cap space. Whether Chase signs first is irrelevant, because Cincinatti will need to keep some of that money in reserve for when Chase does sign his extension. They already have their number in reserve out of their cap space, or however they’ll create cap space.
i think we have wires crossed, where did i say anything that contradicts that?
i agree functionally when players sign their extensions is all different and just personal preference. some take it all the way to the tag like obj did, some sign earlier bc they want security. i agree with you the elite players have their numbers and if the cap goes up those numbers go up. thats why i made the comment that i dont see any of them rushing to sign extensions on a day when the cap just shot up by more then expected. if anything it's more likely more of them do what jefferson did and just keep waiting knowing the number could just continue going higher in future years as whatever FA contracts like evans, kirk, etc push tag values higher.
Regardless that’s irrelevant. You said every team is getting the extra money in free agency and that’s simply not true.
The Bengals, Vikings and Dolphins aren’t going to be able to spend all $13 million of the extra money because they’ll have to keep more aside to get extensions done this offseason, if that’s part of their plan.
So not every team is getting the opportunity of spending an extra $13 million in free agency. Whether more or less players hit the market is irrelevant to that point. Some teams may use that extra $13 million resigning their own free agents, which means they can’t spend it in the actual free agent market.
In other words, all the teams cap space increased $13M so it doesn't give them any new advantage to sign FA's, right?
Regardless that’s irrelevant. You said every team is getting the extra money in free agency and that’s simply not true.
The Bengals, Vikings and Dolphins aren’t going to be able to spend all $13 million of the extra money because they’ll have to keep more aside to get extensions done this offseason, if that’s part of their plan.
So not every team is getting the opportunity of spending an extra $13 million in free agency. Whether more or less players hit the market is irrelevant to that point. Some teams may use that extra $13 million resigning their own free agents, which means they can’t spend it in the actual free agent market.
im talking in circles because i think ive lost whatever your plot was?
you said $13m can get a good player in FA.
i said "every team is getting the same $13m".
you said not every team will spend it the same way, which is plainly true, but im confused by what you think that means?
as ive pointed out some teams will use that money by not cutting someone they may have had to otherwise, or tagging a player they may not have, or signing a free agent. some could use the money for extensions but i dont see any agents of players under contract rushing to extend now ahead of what could be a very pro-players FA cycle.
i see all roads lead to players getting more $ and a market moving upwards. the only teams i see this benefitting are teams that already control players rights at prior cost levels that they want to keep (and now have more flexibility to do so).
The transition tag is an intriguing option because it gives him all the freedom of free agency, but doesn't leave the Giants completely without leverage. The Giants could "demand" some form of compensation from the team that signs him in return for not matching the offer, likely no more than a 6th or 7th round pick. It sounds like a bluff, but I think it's happened before, I just can't remember the player's name. And there was a somewhat similar situation when the Patriots added a 7th round pick into the mix in a 2007 trade for a restricted free agent, Wes Welker, who had been tendered at the 2nd round value (in other words, they gave up 2nd and 7th round picks and signed Welker to the contract they could've signed him to as an RFA at the cost of only their 2nd round pick).
im talking in circles because i think ive lost whatever your plot was?
you said $13m can get a good player in FA.
i said "every team is getting the same $13m".
you said not every team will spend it the same way, which is plainly true, but im confused by what you think that means?
as ive pointed out some teams will use that money by not cutting someone they may have had to otherwise, or tagging a player they may not have, or signing a free agent. some could use the money for extensions but i dont see any agents of players under contract rushing to extend now ahead of what could be a very pro-players FA cycle.
i see all roads lead to players getting more $ and a market moving upwards. the only teams i see this benefitting are teams that already control players rights at prior cost levels that they want to keep (and now have more flexibility to do so).
The condescending nature of your posts gets really old, especially when it’s you who have lost the plot and missed the point. I feel like I’ve explained it pretty clearly.
“Not spending it the same way” means exactly what it says. $13 million can get a good player is referring to the FA market. Not every teams extra $13 million is going to see the free agent market when trying to sign players from other teams. Of course it helps teams keep guys from hitting free agency, but that’s not really relevant. There will be players on the free agent market, and having an extra $13 million is a benefit to the Giants since outside of McKinney they don’t have too many internal pieces they need to resign. Other teams do and may have extensions in the works.
Why is it rushing to extend if they’re going to extend within the next few months anyway? Whether they extend now or in May it’s irrelevant because teams will have to have the money in reserves to make that extension. That takes some of the extra money out of the free agent pool. It being a pro player FA cycle has nothing to do with the players I mentioned, it has zero effect. Those players are already going to be highly compensated and there is extra money sitting there NOW, not in 6 months or a year. The cap is going to up again next year, but likely not comparable to this year because this is due to extra covid reserves being dispersed. If Chase is going to get $150 million in guarantees in 6 months, what agent wouldn’t push for $170 million in guarantees now, when the money is available? That extra $13 million isn’t going to sit around forever. Agents know they can get it now and teams with these players will have to keep it in reserves until the deal is signed, keeping it out of the free agent pool.
Chase could essentially sign the same deal he would have gotten further down the road right now instead of 6 months to a year later because of this extra money. What smart agent wouldn’t want their player to get the upfront signing bonus a year earlier if the numbers are the same. Time value of money is a thing.
you think teams are just going to cave and go from 150m in guarantees now to 170m because "money is available" now but wont be in 6 months for elite players?
i assume you are just spitballing numbers there so dont take this as me nitpicking your post, ill just condescend a little to say your scenario doesnt sound like something that happens in the NFL where the guarantees are almost always more important than the allocation of cap space (which beyond guarantees is mostly window dressing). it sounds like you are treating this extra $13m like it's a one time use it or lose it mid level exception or a TPE in the nba being granted to some teams to put towards extending their own players.
i think it's just more total money to the players and more short term flexibility for teams maneuvering ahead of FA. it will probably throw some gas on whatever good players get to free agency but i dont think it accelerates any non-FA extensions unless some team with a ton of cap space cant spend enough of it on external free agents.
What did I say that could remotely be taken that way?
Quote:
This is not a release valve to restructure Jones. Thanks in advance.
more likely it gives them less incentive. should give them plenty of room to target whichever 1-2 players from FA they want.
the top of the FA market is likely to be eye popping expensive though.
seems like a very good thing they got lawrence and thomas done ahead of this FA period.
Would be nice to also have some quality depth signings so we're not playing guys signed off the street (or couch) when someone gets hurt.
Quote:
sounds like you are treating this extra $13m like it's a one time use it or lose it mid level exception or a TPE in the nba being granted to some teams to put towards extending their own players.
What did I say that could remotely be taken that way?
In comment 16406492 ajr2456 said:
respectfully whatever you know from the agent side werent you in the group last year saying jones wasnt getting anywhere close to the tag and barkley wasnt getting tagged etc? if im getting you confused with someone else accept my apology ahead of time, there were a lot of people i argued comps with for months last year.
im not commenting on whatever you know or dont know, the public information available to all us predicts contracts correctly most of the time. im also not sure why you keep bringing up chase unless there's something you know specifically?
chase is only about to become extension eligible for the first time and they dont have to do anything with his current deal because he's not in his 5yo yet so he's cheap for the last year ever so they could squeeze 1 more year of him and higgins (or at least take the time to try to get higgins sorted out with an extension or trade). unless cincy puts some crazy deal on the table he has no reason to extend before justin jefferson's deal gets signed.
jefferson is closer to FA and supposedly he's had deals on the table that would make him the highest paid WR ever for almost a year. his 5yo cap hit is 19m, so the team has incentive to adjust that. id imagine however close they were to a deal last year today's news made jefferson a little more confident pushing for whatever minnesota hasnt yet been willing to do. it would be odd for jamarr chase to leapfrog what would be a lesser extension instead of waiting for that deal to reset the market then taking the baton and try to top it. especially this early in the offseason.
And no, by the time the season ended I laughed at Ryan’s assertion that Jones was going to sign for a discount, that the best offer Jones would have gotten on the open market would have been $20-25 million, and that the Giants big against themselves.
I even had the contract down nearly exact.
In other words, all the teams cap space increased $13M so it doesn't give them any new advantage to sign FA's, right?
The contract needed to re-sign SB or X increases which (as others mentioned) makes the likelihood of tagging one of them greater.
And no, by the time the season ended I laughed at Ryan’s assertion that Jones was going to sign for a discount, that the best offer Jones would have gotten on the open market would have been $20-25 million, and that the Giants big against themselves.
I even had the contract down nearly exact.
this struck me as false so i looked it up and sorry but you are kind of full of it. this is from an asshat thread on 1/9/23 (end of reg season) when it was (falsely) being reported that the 2 sides were close in negotiations and we both put our guesses in it.
you were saying "somewhere around $25-30 a year on a 2 or 3 year deal" and in a follow up post said you were "saying (it) for weeks". same thread i said 5x40m with 100m gtd (his actual contract is 4x40m with 82m guaranteed at signing 105m total gtd for injury so i was off by 1 year).
you had a back and forth with speedywheels defending your position. and i of course condescendingly wrote many posts defending mine.
ajr2456 : mute : 1/10/2023 9:58 am : link
I think he’s off on the money.
It’s going to be somewhere around $25-30 a year on a 2 or 3 year deal.
speedywheels : mute : 1/10/2023 11:10 am : link
In comment 15986974 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
I think he’s off on the money.
It’s going to be somewhere around $25-30 a year on a 2 or 3 year deal.
There is very little change that Team Jones accepts that offer - another team will offer waaaaaay more than that.
He'll get a 4/135 or 5/160 type deal from someone (either NYG or another team).
ajr2456 : mute : 1/10/2023 11:26 am : link
In comment 15987114 speedywheels said:
Quote:
In comment 15986974 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
I think he’s off on the money.
It’s going to be somewhere around $25-30 a year on a 2 or 3 year deal.
There is very little change that Team Jones accepts that offer - another team will offer waaaaaay more than that.
He'll get a 4/135 or 5/160 type deal from someone (either NYG or another team).
There’s no 5 year deal out there from another team. And your numbers are $2-3 million more AAV than the top end of mine.
ajr2456 : mute : 1/10/2023 3:11 pm : link
In comment 15987349 speedywheels said:
Quote:
Of course there isn't a 5 year deal out there. There aren't ANY deals out there. YET. He's not a FA until March. Until then, the only contract any team can offer is NYG.
First off - the 4/135 deal I put out there is 5/10 million AAV MORE than what you are putting out there. Not sure where you are getting your math from.
Second - for the 5 year deal, that was a typo on my part, should have been 5/170, not 5/160
Team Jones knows what deals are out there from other teams. Sure it violates the rules but everyone does it and it’s how you negotiate. The Giants have an idea of what his market value is too, so you can’t just walk in demanding $45 million for 6 years and then get your bluff called.
And if the new asshat info is correct, it’s going to end up a 2-3 year deal live I’ve been saying for weeks, because that’s what his value is currently to other teams.
Eric on Li : mute : 1/9/2023 8:09 pm : link
this is 5 years 200m with 100m guaranteed. i think that is about where this will end up.
remember 2 tags = 2 years ~77m so that's where the negotiation starts. in this type of structure jones gets 100m guaranteed $ up front, in return for the team getting 3 extra years of control for 123m (41m per year, but remember they are non-guaranteed, so he only gets that $ if he earns it).
practically speaking this is a guaranteed 2 year deal with options after that. if you absolutely had to get out in year 3 it would be 10m savings vs. 34m dead cap. so as a 3 year deal, the contract is basically 3 years 100m. that's what jones guarantees by signing. and nyg get jones on a pretty safely structured deal that's a good bit cheaper than the kyler murray deal.
Eric on Li : mute : 1/9/2023 9:59 pm : link
In comment 15986518 BillT said:
Quote:
In comment 15986511 Jay on the Island said:
Quote:
Take a look a look at the current QB's who have a higher or similar AAV.
Aaron Rodgers $50 million AAV
Russell Wilson $49 million AAV
Kyler Murray $46.1 million AAV
Deshaun Watson $46 million AAV
Patrick Mahomes $45 million AAV
Josh Allen $43 million AAV
Derek Carr $40.4 million AAV
Dak Prescott $40 million AAV
Matthew Stafford $40 million AAV
Kirk Cousins $35 million AAV
Jared Goff $33.5 million AAV
Carson Wentz $32 million AAV
Got to think $35m is a minimum. Might get to $40.
40m is what i expect over the deal (5x200m).
i think 40m is the minimum for a qb in his situation to go 5 years (kyler got 46m even though he was farther from UFA when he did so) and 100m guaranteed the other.
structure from there is just the teams strategic preference but that's why i suggested the structure as above based on the info that the nyg want the last 2 years to be options.
"pay as you go" contracts with lower signing bonuses and more guaranteed salaries that hit at specific times have been relatively en vogue the last several years because they are easier to maneuver than big signing bonuses up front that amortize over the full life.
Talks with DJ and Giants on extension heating up? - ( New Window )
Quote:
all teams as much as it helped the Giants?
In other words, all the teams cap space increased $13M so it doesn't give them any new advantage to sign FA's, right?
This sounds right but their are some subtleties. Teams trying to sign top level FAs will see a much higher increase in salary demands than lower tier FAs. Having Dex and AT signed to big contracts prior to this is great for us.
The contract needed to re-sign SB or X increases which (as others mentioned) makes the likelihood of tagging one of them greater.
this is how i see it, especially the dex/at deals. those are going to look really good in a few weeks. depending on how baker/cousins do jones deal might not even look so bad since it will only have 1 gtd year left on it.
you were saying "somewhere around $25-30 a year on a 2 or 3 year deal" and in a follow up post said you were "saying (it) for weeks". same thread i said 5x40m with 100m gtd (his actual contract is 4x40m with 82m guaranteed at signing 105m total gtd for injury so i was off by 1 year).
I think you’re smart enough to read what was actually written. That was based on information that was out there, from teams that weren’t the Giants.
If you find the thread with my actual prediction from further along in the offseason, not the day after the season ended, you’ll find my prediction was 4 years, 38 million per.
Next time you want to say someone is full of shit, you may went to read the posts. A lot of things happened between the day after the season ended, and when Jones signed the contract in March - including changing agents.
Good attempt at a gotcha though.
honestly if thats what your intel was then it was pretty shit intel bc armed with only public data on OTC and overwhelming condescension it was clear as day to even a bunch of the non-daniel jones fans in that thread he was getting more than you suggested. from the bye week on it was obvious that his negotiation was going to start with the franchise tag as the floor unless he fell on his face post bye.
Could there be a reason it went on for two months and he changed agents?
Nothing really changes because everyone gets it. That means salaries jump accordingly...only thing it may help is keeping your player you contemplated tagging.
Nothing really changes because everyone gets it. That means salaries jump accordingly...only thing it may help is keeping your player you contemplated tagging.
Speaking of McDonalds and inflation (or CA demanded that fast food workers get minimum $25.00/hr?)
Steak(?hardley) and egg bagel (meal) and 1 sausage burrito - final bill $18.00. Wh-wh-wh-whattt? It was a short time ago that meal would have been close to $10.00. I won't be eating at McDonalds anytime soon. Their food is garbage but, for the right price ... $18.00 for that meal is not the right price. Wonder how much a Big Mac meal is now-a-days?
Could there be a reason it went on for two months and he changed agents?
the reason is all those supposed asshat tidbits ended up being pure fan fic like most asshattery ends up. a month before the switch and a month after that thread schoen commented publicly on the negotiations:
jones may have switched from CAA but id imagine you agree that's not an organization known to be completely incompetent advising their 9 figure clients? from the bye week on it was clear where his negotiation was heading. he was getting tagged at a minimum because the comps supported that (specifically wentz and tannheill, both at 30m) and anyone with a shred of sense knew the QB market was set to escalate to the 50m range with lamar, burrow, herbert, hurts on deck for extensions off the new recent comps of the murray/watson/rodgers/wilson extensions. whoever thought any 25 year old starting qb was extending in the 20-30m range approaching the open market was a moron. i doubt anyone at caa was that but you'd know better.
here's a thread from the bye week (11/3/22) where i posted comps for extension candidates after schoen said they'd have some extension discussions. 2 of the 3 were the players i comp'd ended up being the players they negotiated with during the bye week, exactly in the range of these comps as it turned out, and the 3rd was lawrence who they extended after a new comp came in during the free agency period with payne at almost the same contract payne got. i didnt comp jones in the OP but if you read the comments one of googs dupes took issue with my comment about him likely getting tagged so i explained it.
so yeah ill just roll with trusting the comps and common sense over asshat reporting that most of the time ends up bs. if you find that condescending so be it.
comps for potential extensions 11/3/22 - ( New Window )
even including qbs there are only about 30 players with 100m+ contracts, and most of them are guaranteed well below 100m.
so yes there will be the occasional pro bowl level players like andrew luck/chris borland who decide to hang it up early, but most of these guys need to play as long as they can to accumulate as much as they can bc it's by far the biggest earning window of their lives.
You’ve changed the argument four or five times, including bringing up Daniel Jones’ contract for some reason. The original point remains true, that extra $13 million for every team might not reach the free agent market for some teams.
If you pant a pat on the back for being the first to have a right prediction on the Jones contract, congrats I guess? But it’s not really relevant to the original point.
You’ve changed the argument four or five times, including bringing up Daniel Jones’ contract for some reason. The original point remains true, that extra $13 million for every team might not reach the free agent market for some teams.
If you pant a pat on the back for being the first to have a right prediction on the Jones contract, congrats I guess? But it’s not really relevant to the original point.
Eric Li nailed the prediction on the Jones contract alright.
Grade: A
That's all you need to know.
You’ve changed the argument four or five times, including bringing up Daniel Jones’ contract for some reason. The original point remains true, that extra $13 million for every team might not reach the free agent market for some teams.
If you pant a pat on the back for being the first to have a right prediction on the Jones contract, congrats I guess? But it’s not really relevant to the original point.
if you dont want to read the post then why bother responding to it?
the entire back and forth started because you cant grasp a simple concept that everyone gets the extra 13m and it will impact the FA market/all teams whether directly or indirectly. yesterday the bengals announced early they are tagging higgins, that is 1 less WR on the FA market (supply) but it will still indirectly impact FA prices (demand). it's possible they trade him and his new team gives him a deal that resets the market in terms of guaranteed $.
specific to the "comps discussion" i honestly dont understand what your argument is bc it seems like you are saying some comps dont matter which i dont agree with. all comps matter because the trajectory of the market matters. the cap went up 5% more than expected yesterday, a total increase of more than 13%, so the trajectory of the market is going to accelerate, with some positions accelerating more than others. the WR market could accelerate 15% while the RB market stays exactly the same. Nobody knows until we see those markets play out bc there are 32 teams who are going to take 32 different approaches that at the moment are behind lock/key.
if mike evans gets to FA and his next contract guarantee beats the spielberger projection by 10% it would be the biggest guarantee in NFL history at the WR position. you dont think justin jefferson's agents are closely watching whatever happens in march in determining how heavy they can keep their feet on the gas pedal? you dont think the vikings are watching what happens to determine how urgent they need to be willing to increase their offer that was already going to reset the market?
Quote:
And dissertations to avoid saying you were wrong that WRs or QBs on this free agent market are going to change the market for the elite players on extensions.
You’ve changed the argument four or five times, including bringing up Daniel Jones’ contract for some reason. The original point remains true, that extra $13 million for every team might not reach the free agent market for some teams.
If you pant a pat on the back for being the first to have a right prediction on the Jones contract, congrats I guess? But it’s not really relevant to the original point.
Eric Li nailed the prediction on the Jones contract alright.
Grade: A
That's all you need to know.
your capacity to not understand how the cap works is only exceeded by your capacity to stalk my threads with dupe handles. grade A addiction to stupidity.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
same to you and please pass that on to all the other dupe voices inside your head.
if you dont want to read the post then why bother responding to it?
Like you did with a Jones contract post from two months before a deal got done , that wasn’t a prediction, to say I was wrong about a prediction?
The incredible irony continues, because it’s you who couldn’t grasp a simple concept. My original comment was that $13 million can get you a pretty solid player and you said “not really” everyone gets the money. Which is true, but still not really accurate to the point. Every team is going to spend that extra $13 million differently, some may choose to not spend it at all and bank it to roll over. So the extra $13 million helps the Giants potentially get a player they may have not have been able to get previously. The only way it doesn’t is if you’re operating in a vacuum where everyone is spending the extra money and spending it on other teams players in the FA market. That’s not going to be the case, some will spend it in free agency, some will spend it on retaining their own guys, and some will use it on extensions. You can even leave out the player names, since the concept of examples seems to be tying you up, some teams will use the extra money to extend their above average players and not their top end players if they choose to. Nowhere was it ever said that the extra money isn’t going to keep players off the free agent market, of course it will. The comment was about players that actually do hit the free agent market.
specific to the "comps discussion" i honestly dont understand what your argument is bc it seems like you are saying some comps dont matter which i dont agree with. all comps matter because the trajectory of the market matters. the cap went up 5% more than expected yesterday, a total increase of more than 13%, so the trajectory of the market is going to accelerate, with some positions accelerating more than others. the WR market could accelerate 15% while the RB market stays exactly the same. Nobody knows until we see those markets play out bc there are 32 teams who are going to take 32 different approaches that at the moment are behind lock/key.
if mike evans gets to FA and his next contract guarantee beats the spielberger projection by 10% it would be the biggest guarantee in NFL history at the WR position. you dont think justin jefferson's agents are closely watching whatever happens in march in determining how heavy they can keep their feet on the gas pedal? you dont think the vikings are watching what happens to determine how urgent they need to be willing to increase their offer that was already going to reset the market? [/quote]
It’s actually a pretty simple concept that you’re still failing to grasp, or actually even being willing to try to understand because you think you’re right. The only comps that matter for Jamar Chase is what players of similar age and skill level get. Mike Evans contract doesn’t really have much of a bearing on what Chase or Jefferson’s agents ask for. Evans is projected to get around 4 years/$92-95 million. It’s not even in the same stratosphere as what Jefferson and Chase’s agents are looking for. They’re already looking for more than Hill and Adam’s. Mike Evans getting $105 million this offseason isn’t having them pause and say “wait a second, maybe we should be looking for 4 years, $170 million instead of 4 years, $150 million”. You have to look at the market comps in tiers, not as an entire market as a whole.
If a lesser wr who is 6 years older (evans) sets a new record for gtd money I don’t know how that isn’t just as eye popping for the wr market - including Jefferson on the cusp of his last year under contract. He is obviously worth a lot more than whatever Evan’s gets and every extra guaranteed $ Evan’s gets pushes that floor higher if it resets the highest guarantee. We don’t know what jj was asking for in September but if it were as simple as a small bump more than tyreek it would have been done then - and at that time he was an extra season farther from FA and before anyone knew the cap would rise by 13%. Minnesotas high offer to this point may have been less gtd than what Evan’s gets next month if spielbergers inflation adjusted projection is correct bc that amount is more than tyreek got.
Am I allowed to think your wrong or are you gonna cred drop again? You are free to think I’m wrong or condescending or whatever you’d like.
And it’s not “cred dropping”, it’s just an explanation of how the operations work. Before I got my NBPA certification I did a lot of freelance analytical work for some NFL agents helping to come up with the comp target numbers. If that comes off as bragging, whatever. But it’s not wrong.
And it’s not “cred dropping”, it’s just an explanation of how the operations work. Before I got my NBPA certification I did a lot of freelance analytical work for some NFL agents helping to come up with the comp target numbers. If that comes off as bragging, whatever. But it’s not wrong.
“Every deal” is a straw man obviously nobody is citing parris campbells forthcoming minimum contract in a jj negotiation.
In your expert opinion is it fair to say a deal that sets a new record for guaranteed money is relevant? Bc that is what Evan’s is projected to get if you inflation adjust for the cap increase. The projection as is without any acceleration from the higher cap was still top 3 - and if an ancient by nfl standards 30 year old is getting paid top of market that should push the top of the market for the prime aged elites.
Evans setting a record for guaranteed money isn’t relevant to Chase or Jefferson because the guaranteed money they already have in mind isn’t well past what Evans gets. Neither Chase or Jefferson’s agent is looking at Evans’ guarantees as a bullet point for their negotiation.
Evans setting a record for guaranteed money isn’t relevant to Chase or Jefferson because the guaranteed money they already have in mind isn’t well past what Evans gets. Neither Chase or Jefferson’s agent is looking at Evans’ guarantees as a bullet point for their negotiation.
Just confirm my too literal understanding, u believ even if a new record high gets set in wr market that’s not relevant? The highest amount ever given will not be mentioned by either side in a negotiation for the new highest amount ever even in the context of “if 30yo Mike evans got x a prime aged jj is worth y”?
If I’m understanding you correctly that u think a record high gtd at a position would have no bearing on the next deal at the same position I don’t think I need to pretend.
Also I find it very hard to be believe that Evan’s at 30 beats the practical guarantee percentage Kupp got.
If you’re talking “record setting” guaranteed money as total dollar amount, that’s not really how anyone comps contracts. The percentage of the practical guaranteed is way more important than looking at dollar amounts when looking at comps. Chase and Jefferson are going to be looking for the Kupp range and probably end up in the 80-85% range in practical guarantee, while looking at Hill and Adams dollars amounts for comp.
Evans getting a record setting dollar amount guaranteed isn’t affecting their thinking.
Take a break man.
kupp took a lower full guarantee ($35m) than kirk or diggs or hill who all signed in the same offseason. he said publicly he wanted to stay with the rams and wasnt looking to reset the market, and off a record setting season/SB win he put his money where his mouth is.
his practical guarantee on spotrac looks better than it is if you dont read the fine print. they could have cut him on 3/16/23 just 9 months after extending him if they wanted to and only owed him $35m. that is less than kenny golladay would have gotten if cut after his first season in ny. that was an unlikely scenario, though if mcvay/stafford/donald had actually retired who knows? he was injury guaranteed but do you really see an elite WR resetting the market settling for a deal like this? especially if on open market or already carrying a guaranteed 20m+ from a tag or 5yo?
Take a break man.
as many as i choose to? looks like you've been here 10 months, surely by now you've realized bad positions arent against the rules?
Quote:
How many bad positions do you want to take at once with everybody on this board?
Take a break man.
as many as i choose to? looks like you've been here 10 months, surely by now you've realized bad positions arent against the rules?
As a life-long supporter of the minority view, I like what that perspective provides the greater good.
Bad positions ultimately though are just bad positions. And that is where you seem to reside on several threads right now. Suit yourself and let's figure out if you can see it.
his practical guarantee on spotrac looks better than it is if you dont read the fine print. they could have cut him on 3/16/23 just 9 months after extending him if they wanted to and only owed him $35m. that is less than kenny golladay would have gotten if cut after his first season in ny. that was an unlikely scenario, though if mcvay/stafford/donald had actually retired who knows? he was injury guaranteed but do you really see an elite WR resetting the market settling for a deal like this? especially if on open market or already carrying a guaranteed 20m+ from a tag or 5yo?
Um if McVay and Stafford retired Cooper Kupp wasn’t getting cut, hence why his team accepted the deal with that structure and why he’ll get all of that practical guarantee.
Why would the structure have to be the same for the practical guarantee to be similar? Chase and Jefferson are going to get a higher percentage guaranteed at signing and shoot for a higher practical guaranteed number.
Mike Evans isn’t going to touch 70% in practical guarantees and I’m skeptical if Mike Evans gets 60% of his deal guaranteed at signing, which would need to happen to set the total dollar figure you keep referencing. And even if he does get 60%, it’s still not relevant.
Chase and Jefferson are already set their floor at $70-$80 million at signing, because they’re trying to reset the Hill and Adam’s contracts. Mike Evans getting $55-60 million at signing has zero bearing on what Chase and Jefferson because Mike Evans’ last contract isn’t in the tier of contracts they’re trying to reset. The Bengals and Vikings current extension offers are probably already higher than the projected Evans figure.
and yes jefferson has already had a deal on table bigger than tyreek's deal. russini reported that in sept. he hasnt signed that deal yet because presumably his agent isnt just looking to top hills deal but looking to beat it by a big enough margin minnesota hasnt said yes yet. the cap is now up 25% and almost $50m from when hill signed so thats now a more justifiable position than it was in sept. the more sticker shock we see next month i think the more queasy minnesota feels. the highest non-qb offensive player total guarantee is thomas at $67m but the 3 highest are the bosas (88m, 78m) and watt (80m). jefferson is a good enough player he could be holding out for the highest non-qb contract or guarantee. both WR tags now exceed the edge tags and i think that's a fairly recent development.
btw ceedee lamb may beat jefferson to topping tyreek's deal coming off the year he just had too. cowboys have parsons becoming extension eligible so they may feel some urgency to get lamb done quickly like they did with diggs. that's why the entire market is connected. if evans or higgins or pittman hits a new high water total guarantee that then becomes part of what lamb beats in his extension, then that becomes the deal jefferson looks to beat (which then becomes the deal chase looks to beat). its like the stock market so nobody knows exactly how things will play out sequentially with each team making their decisions independent of each other - only that earnings beat expectations by a big margin so prices are going up.
Quote:
In comment 16407152 nygiantfan said:
Quote:
How many bad positions do you want to take at once with everybody on this board?
Take a break man.
as many as i choose to? looks like you've been here 10 months, surely by now you've realized bad positions arent against the rules?
As a life-long supporter of the minority view, I like what that perspective provides the greater good.
Bad positions ultimately though are just bad positions. And that is where you seem to reside on several threads right now. Suit yourself and let's figure out if you can see it.
since you've seemed to make a habit of me while i dont remember having ever interacted with you before, and you seem to want to help the greater good, do u mind spelling out a few of those bad positions so i can see it?
and yes jefferson has already had a deal on table bigger than tyreek's deal. russini reported that in sept. he hasnt signed that deal yet because presumably his agent isnt just looking to top hills deal but looking to beat it by a big enough margin minnesota hasnt said yes yet. the cap is now up 25% and almost $50m from when hill signed so thats now a more justifiable position than it was in sept. the more sticker shock we see next month i think the more queasy minnesota feels. the highest non-qb offensive player total guarantee is thomas at $67m but the 3 highest are the bosas (88m, 78m) and watt (80m). jefferson is a good enough player he could be holding out for the highest non-qb contract or guarantee. both WR tags now exceed the edge tags and i think that's a fairly recent development.
btw ceedee lamb may beat jefferson to topping tyreek's deal coming off the year he just had too. cowboys have parsons becoming extension eligible so they may feel some urgency to get lamb done quickly like they did with diggs. that's why the entire market is connected. if evans or higgins or pittman hits a new high water total guarantee that then becomes part of what lamb beats in his extension, then that becomes the deal jefferson looks to beat (which then becomes the deal chase looks to beat). its like the stock market so nobody knows exactly how things will play out sequentially with each team making their decisions independent of each other - only that earnings beat expectations by a big margin so prices are going up.
Again, you keep arguing stuff that isn’t being said. Where did I say who would sign first?
. if evans or higgins or pittman hits a new high water total guarantee that then becomes part of what lamb beats in his extension, then that becomes the deal jefferson looks to beat (which then becomes the deal chase looks to beat). its like the stock market so nobody knows exactly how things will play out
The entire market isn’t interconnected (which by the way you’re contradicting yourself from earlier), because Evans, Higgins and Pittman aren’t in the same contract tiers as Chase, Jefferson and yes Lamb.
Who cares if one of those guys beats them to punch of breaking Hill’s guarantees? The thing that is interconnected is total dollars in the contract and guaranteed money, and both of those things are going to be higher by a large margin than they will be for Evans, Higgins and Pittman. 50% of $150 million is a lot bigger than 60% of $100 million, so Evans getting 60% guaranteed at signing is irrelevant to what the agents are thinking for the top guys.
You have some good posts but you too often get stuck in your opinion and try to write your way into being correct. I’ve explained it pretty thoroughly from a position of actual experience and not playing around in excel and PowerPoint, but you don’t even want to consider in the slightest things work differently than how you perceive them to, so I’m done with this.
I agree we’ve repeated ourselves infinite times by now but I think our fundamental difference is you trust what you know, which you are free to do, whereas I trust in the comps. Neither of us knows what will happen or when, especially non-ufas but whenever things actually happen the comps almost always hold up as instructive which is why i trust them. Any players ask right now and 6 months from now are going to change depending on whatever comps come in and how the market trends.
I'll probably wake up tomorrow and they will still be going back and forth.
Keep at it gentlemen.
march 13 - hargrave off a career year (despite age 31) 1 day later signs in SF just below what payne got. he is now DL3.
april 7 - jeffrey simmons (2019 draft) signs for 1m more per year than payne got, but a year earlier/farther from UFA. new DL 2.
may 4 - lawrence (2019 draft) signs for just below what simmons got, practically same deal as payne despite being the better player bc he gets his $ 1 year earlier.
july 13 - quinnen williams (2019 draft) signs 500k more per year than simmons with slightly more gtd, now new Dl2.
5 of the top 6 DL contracts signed in 1 spring and last season wasnt a particularly good DL offseason. Payne, Hargrave, and old friend Dalvin Tommlinson were the 3 best lined up for FA and Payne got tagged.
on top of all that chris jones holds out because he's got a resume that dwarfs most if not all of the DL on the list above, cant come to an agreement on an extension but chiefs pay him more via bonuses that count towards 2024 cap to get him to report. now eligible for a $32m franchise tag in 2024 which would be a higher aav than donald or a new contract that possibly tops donald.
in total 12 x 2019 draft picks get extended off their 5yo.
while only 3 x 2020 draft picks get extended ahead of playing on their 5yo burrow, herbert, thomas.
tee higgins (2020 rd 2 pick, no 5yo) is the first to get tagged this year but there will be more, pittman, burns, allen, wilkins, jaylon johnson, etc - any of them could agree to new contracts that starts the dominoes of a position market that unfolds the same way paynes did last year. or any of them could play on the tag.
so the question isn't "what FA WR is going to set jamarr chase's market?" my point from the start of this thread is that there is a lot of money about to be spent, $416m more than expected in total whether it's players about to be tagged, hit fa, or recent draftees on early extensions. and once big deals hit markets can unfold in unexpected ways like last year's DL group.
Quote:
In comment 16407179 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16407152 nygiantfan said:
Quote:
How many bad positions do you want to take at once with everybody on this board?
Take a break man.
as many as i choose to? looks like you've been here 10 months, surely by now you've realized bad positions arent against the rules?
As a life-long supporter of the minority view, I like what that perspective provides the greater good.
Bad positions ultimately though are just bad positions. And that is where you seem to reside on several threads right now. Suit yourself and let's figure out if you can see it.
since you've seemed to make a habit of me while i dont remember having ever interacted with you before, and you seem to want to help the greater good, do u mind spelling out a few of those bad positions so i can see it?
Every thread you posted on today is a good start.
Bad football takes with a condescending manner is not a good mix.
Every thread you posted on today is a good start.
Bad football takes with a condescending manner is not a good mix.
ive posted on 1 thread today - this one.
Quote:
Can get a pretty solid player in FA
everyone got the same $13m.
$13m*32 teams = $416m more that will go to players.
but there arent more good players.
the good players are just going to get paid more (inflation).
and worse, id imagine we see more good players get tagged because the tag prices are reflective of prior contracts. so the market may be tighter with fewer good players, and more teams bidding lots of money (bidding wars).
Thank you.
This point is lost on a lot of people every year there is an increase.
I wouldn't predict any routine outcome, especially any identifiable inflationary impact on different strata. But the one prediction I think is more important is what the big increase this year reflects in terms of future revenue related increases (not the covid factor), and how that boosts consumer confidence.
Hypothetically, if the Giants feel more confident future caps will rise, they may feel more comfortable using the tender on Barkley. And then attacking UFA with more confidence and future cap dollars.
In that scenario the Giants end up with an incremental good player (Barkley).
The most important thing to keep in mind is that roster and cap construction is not built year-to-year, but on a horizon. And both the numerator (fixed dollars committed), and the numerator (cap) over that horizon are the driving factors, not that one-year number.
Quote:
In comment 16406231 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
Can get a pretty solid player in FA
everyone got the same $13m.
$13m*32 teams = $416m more that will go to players.
but there arent more good players.
the good players are just going to get paid more (inflation).
and worse, id imagine we see more good players get tagged because the tag prices are reflective of prior contracts. so the market may be tighter with fewer good players, and more teams bidding lots of money (bidding wars).
Thank you.
This point is lost on a lot of people every year there is an increase.
very lost on some.
I wouldn't predict any routine outcome, especially any identifiable inflationary impact on different strata. But the one prediction I think is more important is what the big increase this year reflects in terms of future revenue related increases (not the covid factor), and how that boosts consumer confidence.
Hypothetically, if the Giants feel more confident future caps will rise, they may feel more comfortable using the tender on Barkley. And then attacking UFA with more confidence and future cap dollars.
In that scenario the Giants end up with an incremental good player (Barkley).
The most important thing to keep in mind is that roster and cap construction is not built year-to-year, but on a horizon. And both the numerator (fixed dollars committed), and the numerator (cap) over that horizon are the driving factors, not that one-year number.
a point i made earlier in the thread but got lost, i think we are going to see more tags than usual because all tag values are obviously based on previously done contracts, before this extra 5% of inflation hits the market. the last 2 seasons 8 and 6 players played on tags. id take the over this year.
an extra 5% of inflation may not sound big and you are right the extra stimulus will be applied all sorts of ways, but a lot of it is going to get spent because teams generally need to spend 90% of their cap. ahead of the trade deadline in october 2023 there were only 2 teams with more than 11m cap space open, which was about 5%.
so i think a lot of teams are going to come around to spending it on no risk 1 year deals for their best players at what are now the old market rates.
which may unfortunately thin out a FA market even more than usual.
example - NE has 70m to spend, if they want to keep onwenu it's 20m on a 1 year deal. he was projected to get 4x60m with 33m gtd. if there were 5% inflation on that deal, or more because he's an in-demand player, very easy to see him cost 2x the amount of guaranteed money as tagging him would be, and they could tag him and still try to extend him longer.
Love your posts.
Tua
derrick brown
jedrick wills (doubtful)
tristan wirfs
jerry jeudy (doubtful)
aj terrell
ceedee lamb (if i was betting on who goes first id bet on him)
justin jefferson
brandon aiyuk
id guess we see 5+ 100m+ extensions from that group. the wr tag is 25m next year and cowboys will have parsons on 5th YO on deck for an extension, so i think they have the most urgency to get something done with Lamb, who is also coming off a career year so he should be able to get a top of market deal. at least until jefferson sees it and then gets more.
1) Some teams will spend very aggressively on multi-year deals now to try and ride the inflationary curve they believe is coming
2) Some will be able to make fewer cap cuts now, which will thin down supply, and potentially increase demand
3) Some will enjoy the temporary cost/benefit disproportion in the tenders this year
I think the Giants will benefit from 1 and 3. The first because they have a very attractive position in the fixed spending obligations they have over the next three years.
1) Some teams will spend very aggressively on multi-year deals now to try and ride the inflationary curve they believe is coming
2) Some will be able to make fewer cap cuts now, which will thin down supply, and potentially increase demand
3) Some will enjoy the temporary cost/benefit disproportion in the tenders this year
I think the Giants will benefit from 1 and 3. The first because they have a very attractive position in the fixed spending obligations they have over the next three years.
Exactly; and with #1 the extra $13 million is helping the Giants get a player regardless if everyone else also gets the extra $13 million. Not sure how that is even in dispute.
Quote:
I'd loosely guess three themes emerge eventually, but I've tried and failed on enough 5/3/1 predictive models in my career, I know these are guesses, mostly covered above.
1) Some teams will spend very aggressively on multi-year deals now to try and ride the inflationary curve they believe is coming
2) Some will be able to make fewer cap cuts now, which will thin down supply, and potentially increase demand
3) Some will enjoy the temporary cost/benefit disproportion in the tenders this year
I think the Giants will benefit from 1 and 3. The first because they have a very attractive position in the fixed spending obligations they have over the next three years.
Exactly; and with #1 the extra $13 million is helping the Giants get a player regardless if everyone else also gets the extra $13 million. Not sure how that is even in dispute.
bc of #2/#3, both of which will do the bold.
go look at last years FA class and count how many of those multiyear signings you'd today consider good signings that you'd be excited to see the nyg make in 2 weeks.
now reduce that number of good players by 5-10% while increasing the cost of acquisition by 5-10%.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2023/all/all/ - ( New Window )
What we do know is across a 3-year horizon this 13M infusion doesn't change the Giants overall position of fixed spent dollars : cap ratio in a substantive way. They are in good shape regardless.
Said another, the Giants have plenty of dollars not tied up in guarantees/paid bonuses in 24-26. This gives them the free cap space and flexibility to shop for long term investments.
All GMs are also emotional creatures, and Schoen has described some emotional tendencies in terms of cap management in the past.
So my guess is the 13M makes him more comfortable tagging Barkley and then using his advantageous flexibility to shop in the UFA market.
What we do know is across a 3-year horizon this 13M infusion doesn't change the Giants overall position of fixed spent dollars : cap ratio in a substantive way. They are in good shape regardless.
Said another, the Giants have plenty of dollars not tied up in guarantees/paid bonuses in 24-26. This gives them the free cap space and flexibility to shop for long term investments.
All GMs are also emotional creatures, and Schoen has described some emotional tendencies in terms of cap management in the past.
So my guess is the 13M makes him more comfortable tagging Barkley and then using his advantageous flexibility to shop in the UFA market.
from page 1 - at least a few teams on this list are likely to be more aggressive than nyg for whatever good players make it to UFA and end up in your category #1.
realistically i am hoping the nyg can lan 1 "ben powers" from this years fa class. it will likely cost more than powers and it will be competitive. onwenu and hunt are the 2 who stand out. then id look to the 1 year market.
disagreeing that fa is negative value?
well here's 1 example - ben powers grade was bad last year in denver as the 12th highest paid fa and im hoping the giants can sign someone comparable for more $ than he got.
just eyeballing some other very bad looking deals 12 months later - bradberry, edmunds, jimmy g, carr, jawaan taylor.
good ones = bates, meyers. hargrave and mcglinchey were at least solid, but paid beyond their play.
There are three buckets of cap charges:
- free space
- fixed (guaranteed or paid bonus holds)
- committed but not guaranteed
When you look at the Giants from the view of free money + dollars than can shed, the Giants are likely higher on the list.
I can't agree or disagree without looking at the data. The anecdotes are interesting, but not conclusive.
To derive value, we'd also have to look at a few other factors, to be fair as well.
But the best way to look at is probably as simple as: what is the average cost of a player at that position who performs at that level?
There are three buckets of cap charges:
- free space
- fixed (guaranteed or paid bonus holds)
- committed but not guaranteed
When you look at the Giants from the view of free money + dollars than can shed, the Giants are likely higher on the list.
yes the nyg are cap healthy. i am not saying they arent. i've written 11k+ words on the nyg multi-year cap health.
the question is will other teams whether they are as cap healthy or not long term will push prices higher to where the few players on market exceed rational contracts?
example, last year elite guard chris lindstrom extended early 102m, mike mcglinchey got 5 years 87m as a FA RT.
what if a team offers Onwenu 95m because they view him as a starter at RT with the ability to kick into a top RG if necessary?
denver was not in good cap shape last year and they were not only the team that gave mcglinchey 87m but also gave powers his 51m. so there could be teams below the giants on that list who get aggressive out of desperation.
Being in good health also doesn't necessarily indicate a team will spend a lot. Some teams are cheap, and some teams are wreckless.
I don't know enough about other teams like I said to make a broad macro claim.
Quote:
disagreeing that fa is negative value?
I can't agree or disagree without looking at the data. The anecdotes are interesting, but not conclusive.
To derive value, we'd also have to look at a few other factors, to be fair as well.
But the best way to look at is probably as simple as: what is the average cost of a player at that position who performs at that level?
ok well put in whatever analysis you want but here's a simple/quick methodology - cross check the actual AAV of the FA signed and the OTC modeled value of that players performance.
as ive said for the last few weeks, finding bobby okerekes who exceed their FA contracts is very rare.
Does that include rookie and UDFA contracts that are fixed?
Does that include rookie and UDFA contracts that are fixed?
OTC’s player valuations are calculated using proprietary formulas to more accurately depict the value being provided by a player based on his on field performance relative to the current market for his position. The calculations utilize a number of statistic and performance evaluations that are provided by Pro Football Focus. Positional valuations use a number of factors including snap counts, PFF grades and statistics to determine the player’s primary valuation. Overall values add a special teams component to the valuation. For a more in depth analysis of player and team performance please visit PFF to lean about the content and services they offer. To learn more about the OTC valuations, please read our introductory article.
from the intro post by fitzgerald:
To develop our valuation metric we are primarily using four signals to re-assign salaries in the NFL that I think can best explain the players true on field worth. While the formulas that we use are proprietary they are based on player participation, Pro Football Focus grades, raw statistical performance, and proprietary statistics developed by PFF.
So why these main categories? I’ll explain my logic here.
While snap counts do not tell us much about a player’s performance they are telling us that the coaching staff must see something in that player to keep trotting him out there week after week. Even if the coach is simply forced by circumstance to play someone (such as the Jets most recent need to play a third string QB as a starter) there is value to just taking a snap. This is a prime reason why so many NFL incentives, in particular the rookie proven performance escalator, is tied to just playtime.
Statistical performances are big drivers of NFL salaries. While there are always exceptions to every rule, players who sack the quarterback more often than not get paid more than a rusher who hasn’t had much luck bringing a QB down. While we can argue over the efficiency of an Ezekiel Elliot the fact is he produces a ton of yards, first downs, touchdowns, etc…(well before this year at least he did) and clearly the NFL sees value in just production.
The second way we look at production is more through efficiency measures and trying to identify how much of that raw production is being produced by a player’s level of play versus just having an abundance of opportunities. Going back to Elliot you may be able to look at his yards per target in the receiving game, percentage of yards after contact, etc… and realize that when compared to league averages his efficiency is not that high. Mike Evans produced a ton more yards last year than would be expected of a player given his amount of times targeted in an offense while Jarvis Landry produced less. Using many PFF statistics give us the ability to better identify efficient production vs volume based production.
Finally the PFF grade gives an overview of how a player is performing on a play by play basis and gives more context to the quality of snaps being played and the quality of those stats, some of which may still be misleading due to other things that impact a play. I look at this as essentially having a seasoned scout telling me what level they really see a player at.
We take all of these numbers and use them to calculate how contracts should be attributed to players at each position based on how they are playing on a week by week basis as well as over the course of the entire season.
It is important to note that this is NOT a free agent valuation. A free agent valuation is something very different as the baseline for those salaries is the veteran marketplace rather than the entire NFL market. Those numbers would likely be much higher for many players. This valuation we have is a way of distributing salaries in an equitable manner so that rookies and veterans would be valued on the same scale within the current market at that position. This allows us to cap the market close to where salaries are currently slotted and is why a Patrick Mahomes isn’t valued at something like $40 million as we are working, more or less, within the constraints of the salary structure in 2019.
so to answer your question - yes all players are included and obviously rookie scale deals are always a better value - which is why there is rarely value in free agency where the market is going to drive demand beyond supply. free agency prices are almost always higher than on-field value with very rare exceptions (like okereke).
https://overthecap.com/introducing-the-otc-valuation-metric - ( New Window )
I think it’s better to think of contracts and cap hits as a percent of the cap so this shrinks the cap percentage of existing contracts.
I think it’s better to think of contracts and cap hits as a percent of the cap so this shrinks the cap percentage of existing contracts.
this is 100% good for the giants strategy of having tried to get players cost controlled last year. dex and thomas will very quickly be "value" deals.
if jones somehow got back to 2022 performance level sy's point about him maybe getting some trade value is legitimate. his last couple years could look like a pretty good value contract if he plays to a starting level.
The system is literally setup to depress the pay of younger players and inflate the pay older players. The ratio between pay and performance for players by timeline is very distorted.
Value is just a tricky measurement when the rules are different by traunch.
To avail value, if it were a system I was designing, I'd only compare veteran vs. veteran deals.
I think we all know the best bet is for a cost depressed player on a rookie deal.
The system is literally setup to depress the pay of younger players and inflate the pay older players. The ratio between pay and performance for players by timeline is very distorted.
Value is just a tricky measurement when the rules are different by traunch.
To avail value, if it were a system I was designing, I'd only compare veteran vs. veteran deals.
I think we all know the best bet is for a cost depressed player on a rookie deal.
the rules are the rules and cap space is treated equally.
again there is a reason free agency more often fails. the supply/demand equation is stacked against free agents succeeding.
that is why its easy to challenge people to find the FA deals they wish they had even with the benefit of hindsight. and why even with hindsight its hard to do and they rarely answer the question.
but free agency is literally the only place you can deploy cap space if you dont draft well enough to have players worth extending. and there are a lot of teams forced into the market, forced to overpay non-elite players.
i have no idea but as a pure guess id say at least 75% maybe more.
if 1 huge chunk of the league-wide cap space is on rookie deals that are under valued.
almost by definition the other huge chunk (veteran contracts) is proportionally over valued.
this is another page on otc i like, it shows how teams distribute their cap space. this is the new york giants, the majority of their roster is rookie scale contracts but they only add up to 24% of their cap spend - and that is 8th most:
if less than half of the giants roster is veteran players who add up to 75% of the cost, the value equation is backwards unless they are highly productive players like lawrence/thomas who got extended at a relative value vs external FAs who had to get overpaid.
free agency is a "dont hate the player, hate the game" situation. the free agent game is rigged against teams.
forget the big contracts, mark glowinski, darius slayton, and graham gano cost as much as the entire base of non-minimum rookie talent on the roster (which is basically 4 years worth of day 1/2 picks).
https://overthecap.com/texture - ( New Window )
That 75% guess, that includes all vested players who weren't extended before their rookie deal ended?
I'm careful not to posit a guess on the results without having the data so I'll frame it as how I would design a system to evaluate this problem. To be clear I don't have a strong sense of what the results would be.
The system is built to produce certain results -- we can call it all rigged, tilted, etc. But the design is loosely:
1) All teams must spend between a floor and ceiling over a period of time
2) All players have an earnings floor, but only one group of players (3 years or fewer vested - cohort A) has an earnings ceiling
3) Because of that earnings ceiling, the distribution of dollars spent is intended to disproportionately fall within the group *without* a ceiling (those with 3 or more vested - cohort B)
So now because of that structural difference, to avail the value of cohort B, I wouldn't include cohort A, in the data set. In retail terms, it's simply a different product type. We can pause, and make a macro assumption that cohort A is inherently more valuable. That's almost certainly true. And I think we would all agree the more players on a rookie contract that are making big contributions to your team, the better.
But the apples are so different than the oranges, you produce some weird results.
Patrick Mahomes AAV 45 | Value 36.6
Lamar Jackson AAV 52 | Value 39.4
Tyreek Hill AAV 30 | Value 19.1
I wouldn't be surprised if the power analysis showed virtually all cohort B contracts are bad value. I assume if you pull out cohort A, and only compare players in cohort B among themselves, the ratios get way closer.
I wouldn't call UFA a bad value, I would just say it likely needs to be evaluated under different terms.
That 75% guess, that includes all vested players who weren't extended before their rookie deal ended?
correct. talking about players signed on FA market.
i think the nyg lived experience in this CBA the last decade or so (3 different gms, 5 different hcs) is reflective of typical.
if you made a list of the 10 biggest inflation adjusted nyg signings it would probably be something like schwartz, snacks, vernon, jackrabbit, marshall, solder, golladay, bradberry, martinez, okereke.
of those 10 i would calculate only okereke and maybe 1-2 of the 2016 guys as returning = or surplus value.
I wouldn't call UFA a bad value, I would just say it likely needs to be evaluated under different terms.
it does, everything needs to be evaluated with context. mahomes had statistically one of his worst years, 10 tds fewer than his prior low in the previous 3 years, lowest yards since 2019, highest INT total, and even in that worse year his value was close to what his contract value is.
we went down this particular rabbit hole because you said you wanted to see pff grades vs. prior fa contracts. if you want to do it that way you can do it, but like i said just on PFF grades if you eyeball powers, mcglinchey, hargrave, jawaan taylor, tremaine edmunds from last year - they were all bad grades, some very bad.
jessie bates and bobby okereke were the 2 FA's in the top 15 or so who jump out to me as having had excellent seasons. i think the chances of hitting on a FA who delivers at or above expectations like that is 1 in 4 and the other 75% are going to be somewhere on the under water scale.
RE: UFA - about 530 players signed free agent contracts last year, I'd be surprised if 400 of them were poor value. Especially since only about 55 of them had 10M or more in total guarantees (and fewer if you consider likely to paid guarantees).
Now if you go to the far end of the guaranteed curve, and you look at the 55 players who signed deals with 10M+ in total guarantees, that's probably where you start seeing a bad ratio of value. That make senses because the higher the reward, the higher risk.
But I wonder how that bad value rate compares to first round rookies? Every first round rookie gets a deal with 10M+ in full guarantees, and I believe some 2nd rounders do as well.
If we contemplate a bust rate of 10M+ guaranteed UFA vs. rookies with 10M+ guaranteed, just from a frequency rate, I wonder how that compares.
The big difference obviously is there is no upper limit on the financial damage of an UFA bust, where this with a rookie.
Now if you go to the far end of the guaranteed curve, and you look at the 55 players who signed deals with 10M+ in total guarantees, that's probably where you start seeing a bad ratio of value. That make senses because the higher the reward, the higher risk.
the expensive part of the market is the only part of FA that is consequential from a cap standpoint. any deal with less than 3m gtd is a rounding error in the big picture which is probably 400/500 deals you mentioned.
7 non-qbs got 30m+ gtd last year in FA.
9 more got between 20m-30m.
that was 16 supposed multi-year "plus starters" in the whole of UFA. and that's probably too lofty of an expectation for some of them (allen lazard was 1 of the 16 lol).
only 13 teams participated in signings on that level, so the majority didnt even sign a player on the level of okereke no less 2 or 3.
im a little surprised that this is remotely surprising to any nyg fan who has lived through 2016 and listened to schoen's comments about the risks of fa since he got here.
To avoid the risk of putting words in your mouth, I asked if you were talking about the whole of free agency, and you confirmed. That's what I thought we were debating.
That 75% guess, that includes all vested players who weren't extended before their rookie deal ended?
correct. talking about players signed on FA market.
The middle and bottom tier of free agents are where the value is. I was surprised you thought 75% of all free agents were bad value.
If the line is something closer to non-quarterbacks with 20M+ in guarantees, that's a different set of parameters than what I was debating.
At the far edge, say the top 3% of all UFA signed in a year (the top 15 out 500) -- I wouldn't be surprised if the bust rate exceeded +50%. The cost numbers are so high, producing value gets very difficult, especially at the non-QB positions.
Consider the two above situations.
• Higgins will be tagged at $21.816 million. That means a second tag for him will come in at $26.179 million in 2025, pushing his two-year cost towards $48 million. So it’s unlikely he would sign a long-term deal at less than $25 million per. That number then becomes the floor for what you’ll pay Ja’Marr Chase, who’s now eligible for a second contract. The question after that becomes whether or not the team can allot, say, $110 million or so per year to a quarterback and two receivers. Maybe the Bengals can. But it wouldn’t be easy.
• Meanwhile, Burns’s tag will land at $24.007 million, if the Panthers choose to use it. That means tagging him again in 2025 will cost $28.808 million. To sign him long-term, the cost would be on the top end of the market for edge rushers—somewhere Carolina hasn’t been willing to go with him, even after turning down two first-rounders and a third-rounder from the Los Angeles Rams at the deadline in ’22. Maybe the ascension of Dan Morgan to GM, and the addition of Brandt Tilis as EVP of football ops, will change the Panthers’ viewpoint. Maybe not.
The above two, of course, play premium positions. They’re both just 25 years old. If their teams aren’t going to sign them long-term, this might be the time to move them. A trade could help the Panthers recoup some of the draft capital lost in last year’s trade for the No. 1 pick, or get back into this year’s first round. It could give the Bengals a chance to chart a sustainable future and find a new, more cost-effective complement to Chase in a receiver-rich draft.
So obviously this will change things for the NFL’s 32 franchises, as the new league year approaches.
“It’s an enormous difference from what we were all expecting,” says a chief negotiator from an NFC team.
Here’s where a couple people I talked to over the weekend see that difference coming through in the next few weeks.
• It’ll entitle any agent who was, perhaps, looking at different ideas for contract demands to shoot for the moon and draw harder lines, because these deals are always seen as pieces of the larger pie that is the cap. So the bigger the pie, the bigger, theoretically, the pieces.
• It’ll allow for teams facing difficult cap decisions to either kick the can down the road more effectively, or keep a player or two it may have cut on an existing deal.
• It’ll make older players perhaps a bit less willing to take pay cuts, since they’ll know that (a) their teams have more room to compromise, and (b) there’s more money out there to be spent.
TheMMQB Takeaways Ohio State supernova @MarvHarrisonJr isn't just skipping drills in Indy. He's not at a combine training facility at all, instead staying at OSU and building towards his rookie season. PLUS: Tags, a new cap, trades, MORE! - ( New Window )
One general observation, won't the tenders for 2024 go up from the estimates because of the 2024 multiplier?
One general observation, won't the tenders for 2024 go up from the estimates because of the 2024 multiplier?
yes but still based on prior signed contracts, and in most cases prior year salaries which are lagging the higher aav years of prior signed contracts, so still pretty far behind open market (especially if it's a position that's trending more valuable and driving a higher% of the inflation).
the differences in this years tag amounts vs expected arent likely big enough to change the short term decisions of tagging this year but the future projections are going to guide the extensions aavs and guarantees higher. the WR tag is projected to go up 4m next year. DE is going up 6m. conversely cb is projected to go up just 1m.
this is why the entire market is interconnected. last years DT franchise tag was 18.9m, this year it is 22.1m because of all the DL deals I mentioned from last year's FA period/'19 extensions a couple pages back.
the system = cba so its just what was collectively negotiated. i assume this method was popular with the 4/5's of non-LT OL and for the teams, since they dont plan to tag most non-LTs it helps them keep LT costs lower.
the LT's probably dont like it but i think they are probably the only ones.
One general observation, won't the tenders for 2024 go up from the estimates because of the 2024 multiplier?
just to add numbers to this:
i found an article from last week that had the WR tag expected to be 20.8m, so it ended up +1m. +5% just like the cap, but 1m extra for a player who would be one of the top players on the market and a prime target of the extra $416m leaguewide at a premium position is an easy call.
for tee higgens to extend i think breer is correct that the negotiation starts with an excess of 2 tags fully guaranteed ($47m) which would make him at least the 4th highest paid WR by gtd money in the NFL.
1. ajb 56m
2. tyreek 52m
3. diggs 48m
i very much doubt the bengals will be the ones to do that but if a team likes him enough to trade a first for him, that team likely will, probably in a deal very comparable to the one that sent AJB to Philly in 22 (where he got a 5x100m, with the 56m gtd).
pittman is probably in a similar position as higgins since he's similarly a very good WR but i think indy is more likely to keep him since he's their #1. ridley and hollywood brown are a level below those 2 but either of them will likely still beat christian kirk's deal on open market which could put either of them top 5 surpassing 42m gtd. and even that may look thrifty for whoever loses out on evans.