NFL - NEWS & NOTES

Plus, I'm not positive, but I also believe a second tag would include all money in the deal that he signed in the revised franchise tag..

So it would go from $13.1183M for the 2024 tag under the original tag number to $14.3M if the Giants make the playoffs...

 

I get your opinion, I understand the point of view from basing it on him being better off with the guaranteed money than with the long-term deal.

If that was his opinion, then there would have been no reason for him to threaten to hold out over less than $1,000,000.

He wanted a deal with years and upfront cash. He got the bag, didn't get the years and will be back in a year-to-year situation come next offseason.

You're viewing it as a win at this point and I see it as, at the most, a push, and that's being diplomatic about it. The Giants still got what they wanted and paid less than they originally offered while Barkley's protection is simply that if he suffers injury, he gets to keep this season's cash. There is nothing preventing the Giants from murdering his value through usage all season because they have no reason to look to protect him long term.

In the long run, this simply isn't a win for a player that wanted to have a locked in contract with New York for more than one season. He got less, and took less, than what was tabled.

He could have taken their offer for the 13 per, played out a season and went back into threatening to hold out or looking to immediately renegotiate.

Signing the tag for less than the high offer does nothing to increase his leverage in future negotiations or give the Giants any reason to negotiate in good faith next offseason. They can just throw out the tag, which will be basically equal to this season's high offer, wait for him to sign and continue to have all the leverage. If the original deal had $19.5 guaranteed, then he still would have been better off in a scenario where he is injured this season.

I understand your point of view, but I disagree.

 

I think we see eye to eye on this. My fundamental flaw was this:

I disagreed that it was "dumb" on Barkley's part to just sign the deal, rather than negotiate what he did. This is what kicked off the entire conversation and what I have been defending all along.

I don't agree it was dumb for him to do what he did, once the deadline had passed.

As far as comparing the contract offer to the current 1 year deal.. It is definitely a push as the Giants get their stud for another year and Barkley gets to add to his resume. Barring injury, he will get at least $13M in 2024, which will exceed the guaranteed money he would have received if he had signed the deal on the table. He is betting $8.5-9.5M that he doesn't get hurt. In the long run, barring injury he is going to win in the bank account. The Giants on the other hand, do not have to commit to more money for a RB... Now next year, yes Barkley is in the same position of trying to find a long term deal, but the Giants are also looking at losing one of the better weapons in the entire league, so it is still a push imho.

As for over useage, Barkey was used more in 2022 than any other year of his career, so even if they up the touches from 350+ to 400, that's only 3 touches a game... But that is also 3 more touches a game that can build his resume for a better deal either in NY or elsewhere.

 

And would be threatened with returning part of the signing bonus that would have been a part of the contract as well... This goes both ways.

It is a win in the sense that the player wanted reasonable multiple years, signing a contract with the only basis of it being multiple years is a loss in and of itself. The table isn't $39M dollars as this would elude to.. it is $19.5M. So, yes, there most likely would have been more money upfront in that contract, based on the signing bonus money, however, after two years, he will more than likely make more off of the two franchise tags, than what he would have received in guaranteed money in the first two years of the "long term" deal.

It ISN'T equal to the high end offer though... This line of thinking is based on him getting injured. That is the crux of the argument, do you risk injury or do you expect yourself to be injured? That's why this is a $8.5-9.5M bet... the only way Saquon loses is if he is injured so severely in 2023 that it costs him his season in 2024. If he is ready for training camp in 2024, then even an injury in 2023 doesn't effect him.

 

Lot of ‘likely’ and ‘if’ involved, which is why I said I understand your opinion.

I just disagree, based on what I posted previously.

 

It's based on historical fact in the structure of NFL contracts. Obviously the Giants could have changed the whole way of thinking in the structure, but that is where the likely comes in, because that is how the league structures contracts.

We are at an obvious impasse, neither of us are changing our opinions, which is fine in the end... It was still an interesting conversation during an offseason!

 

@IrishDawg42 , just to clarify my point (didn't have the time to type much when we were discussing this)...

This is the part that I understand your opinion on and won't argue it, but I can't find a reason to disagree with what @Underdog feels about it.

My opinion is based on the full timeline through the renegotiated deal, so everything up to and including that decision is a loss for Barkley, IMO.

He wanted more money, more years, more upfront cash and more in the way of guaranteed money.

By not agreeing to the tabled deal, he gets less years, less money, less in upfront cash and less in guaranteed money.

The argument cannot be made that he did better by signing this deal to protect himself in case of injury this season. He didn't, because an injury or severity of it (that's one of the 'ifs') is an unknown up to the point of career ending, in which case he has less guaranteed money in protection of potential injury. On this, he clearly lost.

The argument cannot be made that he won on contract length. He clearly lost.

The argument cannot be made that he won on upfront cash. He would have received more signing bonus money (one of the 'likelys') in the deal he refused so, again, he clearly lost.

The argument cannot be made that he will make more money off of this deal. On that note, he clearly lost.

This was a win for the Giants, all the way around.

 

He's a RB in 2023, everything IS a loss.

 

Too add to what, Tim had just posted... Barkley set himself up to do this all over again is 2024. He will be a year older with even have a years more wear and tear on his body, I doubt he see's any better offer from the Giants or any other team. IMO, Barkley caved and shot himself in the foot. For Barkley to even get the extra $909,000 the Giants have to qualify for the playoffs and he has to record 1,350 rushing yards, 11 total offensive touchdowns and 65 or more receptions... Im not betting he can even do that as he hasnt had that many TD's since his rookie year.

Reports are out coming out just today that Josh Jacobs was offered a similar deal at $12M/year, he declined it... the bottom line for both of these guys is they should have taken what they were offered or something close to it because thats the reality of the RB situation in this years NFL. Holding out, sitting out, I think, are all detriments to a healthy way of selling yourself to other teams.

 

I've read a lot on this talking point, but what would be the alternative if you were the GM of a franchise?

Do you spend big cash on a position that you can rotate talent in every 3 to 5 years with similar results, or do you use that money where the market is dictating you need to?

 

I'm not saying he did better to protect himself in case of injury. That's where the multiple statements about betting came in....

In this day and age, we rarely see career ending injuries. It is MUCH more likely that if he suffers an injury in 2023, that he will be ready for the season opener in 2024, than having a career ending injury. How many of those do we see a year? Can it happen? Yes, but he could also get hit by a bus, which is probably close to the same odds.

The only argument is that signing a minimal contract in and of itself is a loss... Why would he sign a contract for 3+ years with only $19.5M in guarantees? Just so he gets an extra $9.4 M in case his career ends on an injury in 2023?

The argument wasn't made that he won in upfront cash.. The argument was made that "in the case of getting a second franchise tag", which was brought up as a negative, he would get more upfront cash over the course of two years.

 

I think some of these teams would have worked a deal with additional incentives into the contracts that they were offering, but the trend to get guaranteed money is going to torpedo certain positional markets.

 

No, the bottom line is that two of the most proficient players in the entire league has finally taken a stand... I applaud them for it. No one can win this argument until we see what Barkley makes over the next 3 seasons... If he suffers a career ending injury, I will make a video of myself eating a crow and post for the world to see.

 

This doesn't change the idea that he got less guaranteed money, so he does not have as much protection in case of, or 'if'.

Yes, plus:

• He personally wanted those additional years
• It swings leverage
• We don't know the length of the deal, with some suggesting it was either two or 3 years
• That 'only $19.5mil' would represent almost two full years of guaranteed money under the current tag

I'm saying these arguments can't be made, because they can't, not because anyone did.

As for the second tag -

• He has no guarantee of receiving it from the Giants
• If he plays well, they likely offer him a deal similar to the one they just did
• They can transition tag him
• He could suffer an injury that makes any big money non-viable.

Signing this deal does not guarantee him any future money beyond this deal.

 

You're making this a personal disagreement.

No video needed if it happens, and that doesn't change the point either way.

Le'Veon Bell took a stand... I don't think many people viewed it the same.

Look, I get sympathizing with players about contract issues and comparing it to owner money, but it's still a business that has a marketplace within it.

So long as the rules have it so that wide receivers and quarterbacks are untouchable, they are going to be the central figures of the game and will get compensated in a manner that mirrors that.

There will be rushers that break into that money (dual threats always have a shot at big cash), but their position holds a diminished value in the current market.

 

Its cool. Im not really arguing... I just think there must be a better approach by RB's in contract situations and in my opinion Barkley and Jacobs are going about it wrong, but its just an opinion. Owners/GM's view the position and its worth differently these days.

 

I think they're in a no-win situation, unless a creative agent finds a way to get guaranteed money on the second year of a deal, based on the performance from the first year of the deal.

It would have to be some kind of wizard shit, but rethinking the approach to how running backs get paid (especially in the form of guarantees) should be on the forefront.

Trying to get owners and GMs to capitulate under the current standards is never going to happen.

 

I’ve softened my stance a bit given it appears upon further reading that Barkley’s base salary this year is apparently still guaranteed (that’s not what I had originally heard). A very tiny bit.

Because an elite player trading a year of unrestricted free agency for just the chance at (relative) chump change without gaining any meaningful new money for himself is still a massive L.

 

Not to the detriment of compensation..

If you could sign a 2 year contract worth $26M or a 4 year contract worth $26M, which would you sign?

 

He wanted 3 years at $16mil per. That's $48mil total.

He's getting $10.1 before the incentives (the tag rate).

He was offered $13mil per. That's $39mil total.

He could have split the difference from his current situation by taking their offer.

Your scenario doesn't apply because you would have to predict the future or rewrite the actual situation.