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.
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.