RB Saquon Barkley, PHI (3 Viewers)

[Wrigley]

Just read that the average pay for kickers is higher than running backs

That can't be.

 

[Anarchy99]

Just read that the average pay for kickers is higher than running backs

That can't be.

That's because teams have multiple backup RBs that are guys that could be special teamers, have been up and down from the practice squad, or otherwise may only be in the league for a couple seasons. Most teams have only one kicker and pay that guy a decent amount (relatively speaking to the 5th RB on a roster).

Apparently, the average RB makes $1.81M while the average PK makes $2.26M. If they changed the comparison to STARTING RB vs. PK, I suspect the numbers could be way different.

 

[menobrown]

Just going to put this out here that Barkley reportedly makes more money off the field then on it. This would be difficult to prove but very possible the combo of his salary and endorsements would put him as the top earning RB. And I'd endorsement money has potential to be a gift that can keep on giving a little even when the playing days are over.

IMO protecting his fairly pristine image is the most important thing he can do for his long term financial outlook. And to that I would say not giving 100%, feigning injury, not doing everything he can to be productive is the worst thing he could do. This is why I don't at all worry about any of these things for next season.

 

[kutta]

Just read that the average pay for kickers is higher than running backs

That can't be.

That's because teams have multiple backup RBs that are guys that could be special teamers, have been up and down from the practice squad, or otherwise may only be in the league for a couple seasons. Most teams have only one kicker and pay that guy a decent amount (relatively speaking to the 5th RB on a roster).

Apparently, the average RB makes $1.81M while the average PK makes $2.26M. If they changed the comparison to STARTING RB vs. PK, I suspect the numbers could be way different.

That's exactly right. Here's the average pay for each position (https://thefootballusa.com/average-nfl-salary):

Average salary range by position​

Position	Average Salary
Quarterback	$4,812,147
Running Back	$1,797,032
Wide receiver	$2,283,083
Tight end	$2,041,086
Kicker	$2,257,756
Guard	$2,499,695
Center	$2,394,058
Defensive tackle	$2,523,552
Linebacker	$2,403,038
Defensive end	$2,950,725
Cornerback	$1,991,316
Safety	$2,173,761
Punter	$1,502,870
Fullback	$1,724,440
Offensive line	$2,818,133
Tackle	$3,179,197
Left tackle	$8,910,599
Right tackle	$5,128,198
Defense	$2,552,388
Edge	$3,166,476
Defense line	$2,734,252

 

[Drake Hater]

Damn. I shoulda been a kicker.

 

[Anarchy99]

These numbers seem a little whacky. Unless teams have a bunch of backups and guys on practice squads, I don't see how the average salary for a QB is only $4.8M.

 

[zamboni]

Damn. I shoulda been a kicker.

I'd opt for the less stress of a punter at a 700K discount.

 

[travdogg]

These numbers see a little whacky. Unless teams have a bunch of backups and guys on practice squads, I don't see how the average salary for a QB is only $4.8M.

Yep, this is all players. So its mostly irrelevant. A list by starters would be more relevant.

 

[Drake Hater]

Damn. I shoulda been a kicker.

I'd opt for the less stress of a punter at a 700K discount.

Either way, I shoulda been kicking some balls way back when

 

[kutta]

These numbers seem a little whacky. Unless teams have a bunch of backups and guys on practice squads, I don't see how the average salary for a QB is only $4.8M.

Here's another source (https://en.as.com/nfl/what-is-the-average-nfl-player-salary-n-2/)

While top quarterbacks can make over $25 to $30 million per year, the average salary for all quarterbacks is $5,766,000, with a median income of $1,100,000.

 

[The Frankman]

ESPN First Take: Is Saquon Barkley more valuable to the Giants than Daniel Jones?

Spoiler

Yes

No. Take away Saquon and they have an OK/mid season. Take away Jones and who is the QB?

I think they are going to regress even if both play all 17 games this year though b/c DJ ain't it overall. He's just a lot better than.....Tyrod Taylor.

Literally Tyrod Taylor in his prime was a better QB than Daniel Jones. I trust Tyrod could be 80% of what they ask Daniel Jones to do now more than any of the RBs being 80% of Saquon Barkely. Hell, Colt McCoy arguably was better than Jones two years ago. The Giants went on their mini-winning streak with Jones out that year. You're not being remotely realistic in the confines of what the Giants run.

Essentially, the Giants are haggling with their best offensive weapon over 2 million dollars + guarantees while their arguably weakest weapon is making four times more what they want to pay Saquon. The same guy Saquon has to shield and protect. All the while playing a physically demanding position.

EDIT: I find it amazing I see the same responses regurgitated, it's like no one is accounting for the current state of the offense RIGHT NOW. If Saquon is gone the entire framework of the Giants O would have to be reworked to have Daniel Jones have to take more liberties in the passing game, and unfortunately Giants have years of data on how that went in the past.

 

[Terpman22]

ESPN First Take: Is Saquon Barkley more valuable to the Giants than Daniel Jones?

Spoiler

Yes

No. Take away Saquon and they have an OK/mid season. Take away Jones and who is the QB?

I think they are going to regress even if both play all 17 games this year though b/c DJ ain't it overall. He's just a lot better than.....Tyrod Taylor.

Literally Tyrod Taylor in his prime was a better QB than Daniel Jones. I trust Tyrod could be 80% of what they ask Daniel Jones to do now more than any of the RBs being 80% of Saquon Barkely. Hell, Colt McCoy arguably was better than Jones two years ago. The Giants went on their mini-winning streak with Jones out that year. You're not being remotely realistic in the confines of what the Giants run.

Essentially, the Giants are haggling with their best offensive weapon over 2 million dollars + guarantees while their arguably weakest weapon is making four times more what they want to pay Squon. The same guy Saquon has to shield and protect. All the while playing a physically demanding position.

I mean, sure I guess. They are both like, below average QBs. When was "Tyrod Taylor in his prime" I guess I have to ask. 2015-2017 Bills era I guess, where he had a career high of 20 TD passes. He's now going into his age 34 season with the same exact number of career starts as Jones going into his age 26 season. And he's well past his prime, so maybe I don't understand the point. And they drafted Daniel Jones + signed him to an extension. He's their guy, for better or worse. Trust I'm an Eagles fan, I'm not here to defend Daniel Jones and/or the Giants signing him to an extension, but arguing Tyrod >>Jones to me, is not something anyone wants to be a part of haha.


As far as Barkley is concerned, I just don't think they want to actually re-sign him. I think they know he is their best option obviously *this* year, but I kinda feel the plan is to just move on from him after this year and reload with a new RB while the big money goes to Jones' contract.

Either way, like I said, they aren't gonna have a great season regardless, so I guess we will see if/when Saquon reports.

 

[jtd13]

What does it cost the giants to tag him again next season? Iirc it's something like a 20% increase on the previous tag years tag if you're tagged twice in a row.

 

[The Frankman]

What does it cost the giants to tag him again next season? Iirc it's something like a 20% increase on the previous tag years tag if you're tagged twice in a row.

"A player can receive a franchise tag up to three times. Each time, however, the cost skyrockets. A player that receives a franchise tag for the second time sees their salary automatically increase by 20%. If the player receives the tag for a third time, their salary jumps by 44% from the previous year."

Of course this assumes Saquon reports and accepts the first tag, which he wasn't signed.

 

[jtd13]

What does it cost the giants to tag him again next season? Iirc it's something like a 20% increase on the previous tag years tag if you're tagged twice in a row.

"A player can receive a franchise tag up to three times. Each time, however, the cost skyrockets. A player that receives a franchise tag for the second time sees their salary automatically increase by 20%. If the player receives the tag for a third time, their salary jumps by 44% from the previous year."

Of course this assumes Saquon reports and accepts the first tag, which he wasn't signed.

Cool. So even after he shows up we get to do this all again next year for $12.2m

 

[Jayded]

I would be curious at what point these scenarios with big name RBs changes the structure of rookie deals per position.

It might feel unfair at first glance because maybe it is as big of a problem for other positions, but with the top guys at RB still not avoiding short careers, it seems like it’d make things more fair for them to enter free agency earlier than roles that can last longer so they have a chance at a big payday that today’s rules often prevents them from ever getting.

 

[menobrown]

I know we always read or hear that once the deadline passes on this franchise tags there is nothing left for the team and player to negotiate. It's either take it or leave it at that point. Read an interesting article today which points out that's not actually true and points out some key areas that Barkley(and Jacobs) can still gain a little something.

1. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

2. He can actually negotiate a higher pay for 2023. Apparently going past the franchise tag prohibits you from doing a long term contract but does not actually prohibit any adjustment to the current years pay. Now apparently it's never happened where a player increased his pay but two have agreed to less, to facilitate trades. I do not know how adding bonus pay works for this but sure seems like an ideal to make everyone happy.

 

[JoeKappBudGrant]

What does it cost the giants to tag him again next season? Iirc it's something like a 20% increase on the previous tag years tag if you're tagged twice in a row.

"A player can receive a franchise tag up to three times. Each time, however, the cost skyrockets. A player that receives a franchise tag for the second time sees their salary automatically increase by 20%. If the player receives the tag for a third time, their salary jumps by 44% from the previous year."

Of course this assumes Saquon reports and accepts the first tag, which he wasn't signed.

Kirk Cousins signed a third round contract as a rookie for 4 years 2.5 million. After the first 4 years, he accepted consecutive tags for 20 million and 24 million. He spun that into a 3 year 84 million deal with the Vikings. The third year of that deal was restructured to a 2 year 66 million contract. He has now signed a 1 year 35 million deal for 2023. I guess the lesson learned is don't let your kid grow up to be a running back.

 

[jtd13]

. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

Interesting info @menobrown. As some guy on the Internet who doesn't know a whole lot, this would be a big driver for me if I were Saquon/his agent. I tell them I will sign that tender as soon as they put in the clause that they won't tag me next year.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I know we always read or hear that once the deadline passes on this franchise tags there is nothing left for the team and player to negotiate. It's either take it or leave it at that point. Read an interesting article today which points out that's not actually true and points out some key areas that Barkley(and Jacobs) can still gain a little something.

1. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

2. He can actually negotiate a higher pay for 2023. Apparently going past the franchise tag prohibits you from doing a long term contract but does not actually prohibit any adjustment to the current years pay. Now apparently it's never happened where a player increased his pay but two have agreed to less, to facilitate trades. I do not know how adding bonus pay works for this but sure seems like an ideal to make everyone happy.

It doesn’t seem like he’d hold out into the regular season in order to get one of those concessions (second tag would actually be a plus here) - but it’s interesting information. Maybe the camp “holdout” gets him a few extra bucks though.

 

[travdogg]

ESPN First Take: Is Saquon Barkley more valuable to the Giants than Daniel Jones?

Spoiler

Yes

No. Take away Saquon and they have an OK/mid season. Take away Jones and who is the QB?

I think they are going to regress even if both play all 17 games this year though b/c DJ ain't it overall. He's just a lot better than.....Tyrod Taylor.

Literally Tyrod Taylor in his prime was a better QB than Daniel Jones. I trust Tyrod could be 80% of what they ask Daniel Jones to do now more than any of the RBs being 80% of Saquon Barkely. Hell, Colt McCoy arguably was better than Jones two years ago. The Giants went on their mini-winning streak with Jones out that year. You're not being remotely realistic in the confines of what the Giants run.

Essentially, the Giants are haggling with their best offensive weapon over 2 million dollars + guarantees while their arguably weakest weapon is making four times more what they want to pay Saquon. The same guy Saquon has to shield and protect. All the while playing a physically demanding position.

EDIT: I find it amazing I see the same responses regurgitated, it's like no one is accounting for the current state of the offense RIGHT NOW. If Saquon is gone the entire framework of the Giants O would have to be reworked to have Daniel Jones have to take more liberties in the passing game, and unfortunately Giants have years of data on how that went in the past.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree with most of this. I will agree that Jones is similar to prime Tyrod, which was 7 years ago. Tyrod isn't that guy now. I would very much disagree that Colt McCoy was as good as Jones, also of note, that Barkley wasn't playing in those games anyway.

The bolded I think is kind of irrelevant. That was with a completely different staff, and its very clear that Brian Daboll is a much better playcaller and play designer than Joe Judge/Jason Garrett and co. 2022 looks entirely different than every season since 2018, I think that has a lot more to do with Daboll than anyone else. I think you are underrating Jones a bit. He's not great, but he's solid, and he's basically never had pass catching talent around him. Darren Waller will be the best pass catcher he's ever had.

Alternatively. I might argue Barkley has been overrated his entire career. He's an extremely boom/bust player, who has gamebreaking ability, but also goes down on 1st contact constantly. Not saying he's a bad player at all, but I think arguments that he's a top-5 NFL RB are pretty wild to me. Frankly, I don't think he's the best RB in the NFC East (Pollard is) and its worth noting that the running game didn't really miss him much when he was out in 2020, compared to any non-2022 season.

 

[Cheen]

ESPN First Take: Is Saquon Barkley more valuable to the Giants than Daniel Jones?

Spoiler

Yes

No. Take away Saquon and they have an OK/mid season. Take away Jones and who is the QB?

I think they are going to regress even if both play all 17 games this year though b/c DJ ain't it overall. He's just a lot better than.....Tyrod Taylor.

Literally Tyrod Taylor in his prime was a better QB than Daniel Jones. I trust Tyrod could be 80% of what they ask Daniel Jones to do now more than any of the RBs being 80% of Saquon Barkely. Hell, Colt McCoy arguably was better than Jones two years ago. The Giants went on their mini-winning streak with Jones out that year. You're not being remotely realistic in the confines of what the Giants run.

Essentially, the Giants are haggling with their best offensive weapon over 2 million dollars + guarantees while their arguably weakest weapon is making four times more what they want to pay Saquon. The same guy Saquon has to shield and protect. All the while playing a physically demanding position.

EDIT: I find it amazing I see the same responses regurgitated, it's like no one is accounting for the current state of the offense RIGHT NOW. If Saquon is gone the entire framework of the Giants O would have to be reworked to have Daniel Jones have to take more liberties in the passing game, and unfortunately Giants have years of data on how that went in the past.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree with most of this. I will agree that Jones is similar to prime Tyrod, which was 7 years ago. Tyrod isn't that guy now. I would very much disagree that Colt McCoy was as good as Jones, also of note, that Barkley wasn't playing in those games anyway.

The bolded I think is kind of irrelevant. That was with a completely different staff, and its very clear that Brian Daboll is a much better playcaller and play designer than Joe Judge/Jason Garrett and co. 2022 looks entirely different than every season since 2018, I think that has a lot more to do with Daboll than anyone else. I think you are underrating Jones a bit. He's not great, but he's solid, and he's basically never had pass catching talent around him. Darren Waller will be the best pass catcher he's ever had.

Alternatively. I might argue Barkley has been overrated his entire career. He's an extremely boom/bust player, who has gamebreaking ability, but also goes down on 1st contact constantly. Not saying he's a bad player at all, but I think arguments that he's a top-5 NFL RB are pretty wild to me. Frankly, I don't think he's the best RB in the NFC East (Pollard is) and its worth noting that the running game didn't really miss him much when he was out in 2020, compared to any non-2022 season.

Pollard over Saquon is pretty wild. To this point they've been asked to perform in different roles. Saquon is a 3 down back, something Pollard hasn't been since high school. As Adam Harstad points out, the best measure of whether or not a RB can handle significant volume is if they've done it in the past. Pollard has been a fantasy darling for years now and I think this year the bubble bursts and will show he's better used sparingly alongside a bigger, more rugged back. Or people will fall back on blaming McCarthy.

The Giants' running game was better in 2020 after SB went down in the same way the Panthers' running game was better last year after CMC was traded to the 49ers. Defenses had complete focus on, by far, the best offensive weapon. That 2020 team was HC'd by Joe Judge and OC'd by Jason Garrett. I distinctly remember watching the first two games (Steelers and Bears), the defenses would have more players on the LOS than the OL could block, a player accounting for literally every gap + edge setters, and the Giants would still try to run. It was heinous.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think this year the bubble bursts and will show he's better used sparingly alongside a bigger, more rugged back.

Pollard is 210 pounds. He's not small.

 

[rzrback77]

Short sample size, but in the two games that Elliott missed a year ago.....

Pollard had 37 carries for 195 yards 5.3 ypc and 9 receptions for 122 yards and 3 total TDs

 

[steelcityman]

I got Hall, J Williams and Saquon in a dynasty league. This is going to be a miserable camp season for me. Bracing for none of them being usable week 1. Dalvin will sign with Buff, destroying James Cook's value, Herbet will get beat out by whoever, destroying his value, Allgeier is RB2 now and Zach Evans wont be anything. What looked good on paper a year ago has crumbled PDQ. Maybe trade Allegier to the Bijan team for Abandikanda. But then Carter will be the replacement for the first 1/4 of the season. I am doomed.

 

[Grahamburn]

I know we always read or hear that once the deadline passes on this franchise tags there is nothing left for the team and player to negotiate. It's either take it or leave it at that point. Read an interesting article today which points out that's not actually true and points out some key areas that Barkley(and Jacobs) can still gain a little something.

1. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

2. He can actually negotiate a higher pay for 2023. Apparently going past the franchise tag prohibits you from doing a long term contract but does not actually prohibit any adjustment to the current years pay. Now apparently it's never happened where a player increased his pay but two have agreed to less, to facilitate trades. I do not know how adding bonus pay works for this but sure seems like an ideal to make everyone happy.

Why would the Giants do either of those things?

 

[Grahamburn]

. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

Interesting info @menobrown. As some guy on the Internet who doesn't know a whole lot, this would be a big driver for me if I were Saquon/his agent. I tell them I will sign that tender as soon as they put in the clause that they won't tag me next year.

No reason for the Giants to do this.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

Interesting info @menobrown. As some guy on the Internet who doesn't know a whole lot, this would be a big driver for me if I were Saquon/his agent. I tell them I will sign that tender as soon as they put in the clause that they won't tag me next year.

In this RB market, Barkley should be happy if offered a second tag of $12MM.

 

[zamboni]

. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

Interesting info @menobrown. As some guy on the Internet who doesn't know a whole lot, this would be a big driver for me if I were Saquon/his agent. I tell them I will sign that tender as soon as they put in the clause that they won't tag me next year.

In this RB market, Barkley should be happy if offered a second tag of $12MM.

Agreed. It would have meant he had a good year and slated to earn another $12 million. If he hit the open market next year, at age 27 with another heavy workload under his belt, I don't think he'll be offered much more than a 2-year deal.

 

[jtd13]

. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

Interesting info @menobrown. As some guy on the Internet who doesn't know a whole lot, this would be a big driver for me if I were Saquon/his agent. I tell them I will sign that tender as soon as they put in the clause that they won't tag me next year.

In this RB market, Barkley should be happy if offered a second tag of $12MM.

Maybe he should. Do you think he WOULD be happy if he has a big workload and then gets tagged again based on how it's going this offseason?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

Interesting info @menobrown. As some guy on the Internet who doesn't know a whole lot, this would be a big driver for me if I were Saquon/his agent. I tell them I will sign that tender as soon as they put in the clause that they won't tag me next year.

In this RB market, Barkley should be happy if offered a second tag of $12MM.

Maybe he should. Do you think he WOULD be happy if he has a big workload and then gets tagged again based on how it's going this offseason?

I’m not sure he’d be “happy” but I think ultimately it would be the best thing to happen from a financial perspective. Take the $12MM next year and sign smaller deals after that.

 

[jtd13]

. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

Interesting info @menobrown. As some guy on the Internet who doesn't know a whole lot, this would be a big driver for me if I were Saquon/his agent. I tell them I will sign that tender as soon as they put in the clause that they won't tag me next year.

No reason for the Giants to do this.

Except to avoid Barkley missing games this year.

Again, not saying he should or shouldn't do it or they should care if he does it, but it's at least one possibility that he might motivated to not get tagged next year and would miss games this year to push for that.

 

[jtd13]

I also think Barkley is probably viewed closer to CMC than Cook in the league, and stands a lot better chance to get a long term deal next offseason than Cook does this year.

 

[Anarchy99]

I admit this isn't the best way to assess things and YFS would probably be better (but it's harder to sort that the results way). That being said, here is how NY has fared with Barkley:

100+ rushing yards: 9-7
50-99 rushing yards: 8-14-1
0-49 rushing yards: 2-19
DNP: 9-13

The Giants have shown they can be more competitive when Barkley runs the ball well. But the reverse of that is likely more true: they haven't been able to win when he doesn't run the ball well. I would have expected a worse record when he didn't suit up. I am not convinced that Barkley is the reason the Giants win games, but I would tend to agree that he gives them a better chance of winning if he is in the lineup. I didn't delve deeply into the situational aspects of each game, so it's entirely possible the Giants fell beyond and didn't run as much (and thus his rushing totals were lower).

 

[eighsse2]

I admit this isn't the best way to assess things and YFS would probably be better (but it's harder to sort that the results way). That being said, here is how NY has fared with Barkley:

100+ rushing yards: 9-7
50-99 rushing yards: 8-14-1
0-49 rushing yards: 2-19
DNP: 9-13

The Giants have shown they can be more competitive when Barkley runs the ball well. But the reverse of that is likely more true: they haven't been able to win when he doesn't run the ball well. I would have expected a worse record when he didn't suit up. I am not convinced that Barkley is the reason the Giants win games, but I would tend to agree that he gives them a better chance of winning if he is in the lineup. I didn't delve deeply into the situational aspects of each game, so it's entirely possible the Giants fell beyond and didn't run as much (and thus his rushing totals were lower).

Isn't it not a great idea here to use a mass stat like yards, versus a rate stat like ypc, due to the possibility of reverse correlation (have no clue what the actual term would be but that's what I'm calling it), where [being behind] -> [not running the ball] and [being ahead] -> [running the ball]?

Eta: granted you did already address that it's not the best way.

 

[Grahamburn]

. One is he can ask for a clause in his contract that the Giants can't franchise tag him next season.

Interesting info @menobrown. As some guy on the Internet who doesn't know a whole lot, this would be a big driver for me if I were Saquon/his agent. I tell them I will sign that tender as soon as they put in the clause that they won't tag me next year.

No reason for the Giants to do this.

Except to avoid Barkley missing games this year.

Again, not saying he should or shouldn't do it or they should care if he does it, but it's at least one possibility that he might motivated to not get tagged next year and would miss games this year to push for that.

Looks like you ended up being spot on. Surprised the Giants would do this.

 

[rockaction]

Looks like you ended up being spot on. Surprised the Giants would do this.

I don't think they did. Per ProFootballTalk

"After this season, the Giants can either franchise tag Barkley again, sign him to a long-term contract, or let him test free agency."

 

[loonzilla]

He just signed...

Giants signed Saquon Barkley to a one-year, $11 million contract.
NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reports Barkley, who had refused to play the 2023 season under the team’s franchise tag, gets a $2 million signing bonus. The size of the one-year deal gives Barkley, 26, a chance to earn more than he would have under the tag. Along with other top running backs whose teams had not worked out new deals ahead of training camp, Barkley expressed deep frustration and hinted he could hold out throughout the summer. His (rather humble) new deal means Barkley will play Week 1 and should be taken among the first 15 players off the fantasy draft board.

 

[rockaction]

He just signed...

Yeah, that's what Grahamburn and I are talking about. The conditions of the deal.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He just signed...

Yeah, that's what Grahamburn and I are talking about. The conditions of the deal.

They gave him a little more money - at this point he’d probably welcome the second tag which would pay him around $13MM for the season.

 

[Anarchy99]

He just signed...

Yeah, that's what Grahamburn and I are talking about. The conditions of the deal.

They gave him a little more money - at this point he’d probably welcome the second tag which would pay him around $13MM for the season.

I believe he agreed to a salary that is the same as the franchise tag amount but with $2M of it as a signing bonus instead. The other change is they added $900K in incentives.

 

[Grahamburn]

All the hand wringing from Barkley's side doesn't make much sense to me if they can just tag him again next year? All this for an extra $2M? The Giants will just wear him out and let him go next year into Zeke-land.

 

[zamboni]

Not like Barkley needs a gofundme page, but I’d be interested to know what the true deal was that he turned down. He really gambled and lost big time.

Good for fantasy owners though as he will be amped up for a big year to help his cause next year.

 

[jtd13]

I’d be interested to know what the true deal was that he turned down. He really gambled and lost big time.

Can you say the 2nd part without knowing the first part?

I'm a bit surprised that's all it took to end the holdout, but I guess it helps him next year with the tag being 120% of a potentially higher number. Plus the Giants and everyone else knew he had very little negotiating power.

 

[jtd13]

Looks like you ended up being spot on. Surprised the Giants would do this.

Thanks, but as rock noted I didn't get it quite right.

The Giants will just wear him out and let him go next year into Zeke-land

Do you think Barkley will age like Zeke? Imo Zeke turning into a slug was kinda visible years away. He seemed to party it up every offseason, and guys that watched cowboys tc would mention he came in a little pudgy each year. I had him in my main league and basically had a mental note to sell him once he hit 24. Which I did, but unfortunately it was Zeke+ for Saquon right before Saquon blew out his knee (to bring it back to Saquon).

 

[zed2283]

I don't understand how they can sign him after the deadline?

 

[jtd13]

I don't understand how they can sign him after the deadline?

They can't sign a long term deal after the deadline, but can negotiate a 1 year deal for things like more money/incentives, or adding a clause that he can't be tagged the following year.
@menobrown (I think) mentioned this a page or 2 up in the thread.

 

[Grahamburn]

Looks like you ended up being spot on. Surprised the Giants would do this.

Thanks, but as rock noted I didn't get it quite right.

The Giants will just wear him out and let him go next year into Zeke-land

Do you think Barkley will age like Zeke? Imo Zeke turning into a slug was kinda visible years away. He seemed to party it up every offseason, and guys that watched cowboys tc would mention he came in a little pudgy each year. I had him in my main league and basically had a mental note to sell him once he hit 24. Which I did, but unfortunately it was Zeke+ for Saquon right before Saquon blew out his knee (to bring it back to Saquon).

27 in February. After another full workload season I think he ends up in constant one year deal territory. Especially if he's eligible for another tag. Teams aren't paying for a RB's previous monster season(s) anymore.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He just signed...

Yeah, that's what Grahamburn and I are talking about. The conditions of the deal.

They gave him a little more money - at this point he’d probably welcome the second tag which would pay him around $13MM for the season.

I believe he agreed to a salary that is the same as the franchise tag amount but with $2M of it as a signing bonus instead. The other change is they added $900K in incentives.

and that would be MORE money.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

All this for an extra $2M?

You wouldn't be pleased with a $2MM a year raise?