What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RB Saquon Barkley, PHI (4 Viewers)

He signed the TAG but they converted some to s signing bonus (which will make him more money) and added $900k in reachable incentives - they are allowed to pay a player more than the TAG but can't neogtiate a long term contract after the deadline.
The signing bonus part doesn't get him any additional money, it just expedites when he will get the money. As soon as he signed the franchise tender, that guaranteed he would be paid $10.1M. That would have been paid out over 18 weeks of the regular season. Now he will get $2M of it now instead of later (ie, his weekly in season paychecks will be 80% of what they would have been). Until we see what the incentives are, hard to tell how easy they will be to attain. I am guessing they are performance based (ie, All Pro, 1500 rushing yards, 10 TD or something similar). If he gets hurt, I doubt he reaches them. Obviously $900K in incentives is better than not having $900K in incentives, but I would guess this one-year solution is still less than the multi-year offer the Giants offered him (if the reports are accurate). Certainly better than just accepting the boilerplate franchise tender, but only a little bit better.
 
To be clear…he did NOT get a $2M raise. He gets $2M of his franchise tag now instead of waiting until they play games.

That’s nothing.

And, he has to hit 1350 rushing yards, 11 TDs, AND make the playoffs, to earn another $900k.

That’s nothing and is a pretty big ask when you throw the playoff crap in.

What an absolute joke. It would actually piss me off more if I were him to receive these revised “incentives”.
 
To be clear…he did NOT get a $2M raise. He gets $2M of his franchise tag now instead of waiting until they play games.

That’s nothing.

And, he has to hit 1350 rushing yards, 11 TDs, AND make the playoffs, to earn another $900k.

That’s nothing and is a pretty big ask when you throw the playoff crap in.

What an absolute joke. It would actually piss me off more if I were him to receive these revised “incentives”.
The thing is we just don't know a few things. Maybe Saquon is not smart with his money and needs some right now. Maybe/probably the Giants are not wanting to sign him to a long term deal "ever" and ya know, this is the best he was gonna get no matter what. I don't think he is going to get "less" money now with this deal than he was going to get under the tag. It just seems very obvious to me the Giants are cutting ties with him after this season and moving on to whoever will be the next back to take snaps with Danny Dimes.
 
All this for an extra $2M?
You wouldn't be pleased with a $2MM a year raise?
Not sure if you're being obtuse? Of course I would. A 20% raise is nothing to sneeze at in any industry.

Are you under the impression though that the Giants and Barkley were only $2M apart on guaranteed money for an extension? I'm not. Especially if they can still tag him next year. I guess all in all he's getting $24M guaranteed from the Giants if they do.

If he's injured this season though... Then what?
 
To be clear…he did NOT get a $2M raise. He gets $2M of his franchise tag now instead of waiting until they play games.

That’s nothing.

And, he has to hit 1350 rushing yards, 11 TDs, AND make the playoffs, to earn another $900k.

That’s nothing and is a pretty big ask when you throw the playoff crap in.

What an absolute joke. It would actually piss me off more if I were him to receive these revised “incentives”.
The thing is we just don't know a few things. Maybe Saquon is not smart with his money and needs some right now. Maybe/probably the Giants are not wanting to sign him to a long term deal "ever" and ya know, this is the best he was gonna get no matter what. I don't think he is going to get "less" money now with this deal than he was going to get under the tag. It just seems very obvious to me the Giants are cutting ties with him after this season and moving on to whoever will be the next back to take snaps with Danny Dimes.

That can all be true and it would still make me a hostage. You want me to put the team on my back, again, and carry this garbage offense to the playoffs and if I do, I get a measles $900K while Danny potato head face rakes in $40M? I can’t write the next sentence because it’s too explicit for this forum.

Listen, I’ll take the money, but I am not going to be a happy camper in the slightest.

As for the $2M up front, Barkley has a ton of endorsements. It would be incredibly difficult for that to change his finances in any kind of meaningful way. But you’re right, we don’t know all the details of his situation.
 
I'd have taken the $23M guaranteed if I was Barkley. That contract would have got Barkely about $11.-11.5M a year so this at least gives him a chance to be whole or close to on his pay for 2023.

Seems like a solid compromise by both sides on the money but my only issue with Barkley is not getting the Giants to agree to remove the use of the tag next year. That's why I'd have just signed the tag to protect myself versus injury and performance since he can't really make much more, unless the Giants let him go to market.
 
That’s nothing.
It's certainly something - the time value of money is a real thing.

I’m well aware of the velocity of money. In the grand scheme of this situation, it’s chump change.
Most players don’t get any concessions after the TAG is offered - I’m not sure what was controversial about me saying he got “a little more money” (which is accurate) before signing the contract - but this board has gotten worse and worse with snark comments and people trying to prove they’re the smartest person in the room by arguing semantics or against things that weren’t actually said.
 
Maybe less snippy back and forth and more on what we expect Barkley to produce on the field this year. That discussion can be useful.

Where do you rank him overall and among RBs?
 
I'd have taken the $23M guaranteed if I was Barkley. That contract would have got Barkely about $11.-11.5M a year so this at least gives him a chance to be whole or close to on his pay for 2023.

Seems like a solid compromise by both sides on the money but my only issue with Barkley is not getting the Giants to agree to remove the use of the tag next year. That's why I'd have just signed the tag to protect myself versus injury and performance since he can't really make much more, unless the Giants let him go to market.

Agree that it’s surprising he didn’t get a no tag guarantee. Perhaps he wants it in case of injury? What I can’t wrap my head around is that he’s being paid low wages specifically because his position has been deemed to have little impact on wins, losses, and overall team success, but his incentives are tied to exactly that. If I’m Barkley’s agent, I’m pointing that out and saying that’s what your paying Dan Jones all that money for. Probably doesn’t matter at the end of the day, Giants have all the leverage, but it’s incredibly hypocritical to treat him that way and tie his incentives to a playoff berth, which is supposedly beyond the scope of impact for his position.
 
That’s nothing.
It's certainly something - the time value of money is a real thing.

I’m well aware of the velocity of money. In the grand scheme of this situation, it’s chump change.
Most players don’t get any concessions after the TAG is offered - I’m not sure what was controversial about me saying he got “a little more money” (which is accurate) before signing the contract - but this board has gotten worse and worse with snark comments and people trying to prove they’re the smartest person in the room by arguing semantics or against things that weren’t actually said.

The only people I’m snarky and upset with are the Giants front office. Apologies if you took it differently, it’s never my intent. I was simply clarifying the terms because it came off that some folks thought he got a raise, which is critical to the discussion. He didn’t “get a little more money”, he got some of the same money sooner and a chance at more money if everything breaks right. That’s an important distinction.

ETA- new report says they called a dozen teams trying to trade him after tagging him.
 
Perhaps he wants it in case of injury?
If he got seriously injured they'd probably not offer him the tag, which is why I'd have recommended he sign the contract he was offered last week. Only way I can see him beating what was offered was in the 2025 season and to me that's not worth the risk.

Now the RB market is so dried up that it might be a situation were getting that second franchise tag is more then he'd make on the open market, but then that goes back to he should have just taken the offer last week and gone ahead and guaranteed himself the approximately $23M he was offered.

his position has been deemed to have little impact on wins, losses, and overall team success
I'm not sure that's how teams see it. It's just a brutal position and second contracts to RB's have not for the part gone well which has led to changes to the RB market. I don't think teams value RB's any less, they just adjusted to the new market.
 
One of the incentives is for 65 receptions.

I can totally see Daboll and Danny Jones trying to help him hit that late in the season.
If he plays 17, I would say this is nearly a lock
He came under that last year in 16 games but even if you prorate it to 17 he would have been under by 4-5. Hard to think that's a lock.

His incentives are all under what he actually did last year so the they would not be deemed as "likely to be earned" and count against this years cap.
 
I'd have taken the $23M guaranteed if I was Barkley. That contract would have got Barkely about $11.-11.5M a year so this at least gives him a chance to be whole or close to on his pay for 2023.

Seems like a solid compromise by both sides on the money but my only issue with Barkley is not getting the Giants to agree to remove the use of the tag next year. That's why I'd have just signed the tag to protect myself versus injury and performance since he can't really make much more, unless the Giants let him go to market.

Agree that it’s surprising he didn’t get a no tag guarantee. Perhaps he wants it in case of injury? What I can’t wrap my head around is that he’s being paid low wages specifically because his position has been deemed to have little impact on wins, losses, and overall team success, but his incentives are tied to exactly that. If I’m Barkley’s agent, I’m pointing that out and saying that’s what your paying Dan Jones all that money for. Probably doesn’t matter at the end of the day, Giants have all the leverage, but it’s incredibly hypocritical to treat him that way and tie his incentives to a playoff berth, which is supposedly beyond the scope of impact for his position.

This goes back to the weight of de-valuing RB vs. de-valuing OLD RBs though. I don't think the Giants unwillingness to sign a long-term deal is because they don't think 26 year old Saquon can help them win games. It's because they are worried that a 28 year old Saquon may not be able to help them win games, and they don't want to be stuck paying a bunch of money for that guy.

They seem perfectly willing to pay him as much THIS year as guys like Travis Kelce, Aaron Donald, DK Metcalf, etc are going to make.
 
One of the incentives is for 65 receptions.

I can totally see Daboll and Danny Jones trying to help him hit that late in the season.
If he plays 17, I would say this is nearly a lock
My assumption is he'll hit it because the coach and QB will help make up the difference if need be at the end.

But he's actually only hit the mark once in his career, and that was his roookie season.
 
Maybe less snippy back and forth and more on what we expect Barkley to produce on the field this year. That discussion can be useful.

Where do you rank him overall and among RBs?

If he plays 17, he should have a huge season. The Giants offense should be much better. I expect a big jump from Evan Neal. It is ridiculous how thin the receiver position was last year. Waller should really help, but even some positive injury regression to the mean there will be an improvement.

320 for 1500 yards and 12 TDs
68 rec for 550 yards and 2TDs
 
I'd have taken the $23M guaranteed if I was Barkley. That contract would have got Barkely about $11.-11.5M a year so this at least gives him a chance to be whole or close to on his pay for 2023.

Seems like a solid compromise by both sides on the money but my only issue with Barkley is not getting the Giants to agree to remove the use of the tag next year. That's why I'd have just signed the tag to protect myself versus injury and performance since he can't really make much more, unless the Giants let him go to market.

Agree that it’s surprising he didn’t get a no tag guarantee. Perhaps he wants it in case of injury? What I can’t wrap my head around is that he’s being paid low wages specifically because his position has been deemed to have little impact on wins, losses, and overall team success, but his incentives are tied to exactly that. If I’m Barkley’s agent, I’m pointing that out and saying that’s what your paying Dan Jones all that money for. Probably doesn’t matter at the end of the day, Giants have all the leverage, but it’s incredibly hypocritical to treat him that way and tie his incentives to a playoff berth, which is supposedly beyond the scope of impact for his position.

This goes back to the weight of de-valuing RB vs. de-valuing OLD RBs though. I don't think the Giants unwillingness to sign a long-term deal is because they don't think 26 year old Saquon can help them win games. It's because they are worried that a 28 year old Saquon may not be able to help them win games, and they don't want to be stuck paying a bunch of money for that guy.

They seem perfectly willing to pay him as much THIS year as guys like Travis Kelce, Aaron Donald, DK Metcalf, etc are going to make.

I have to disagree here. Yes, Donald’s salary this year is only $13.5M, but that’s because he got massive guaranteed money upfront. I suppose it depends how you look at it but I consider that money (in proportion) as part of his salary this year. Which makes this not a close comparison at all.

If teams want to go year by year with RBs, sure I get that, but then Barkley should be making like $20M+ at least to bridge this comparison.
 
Maybe less snippy back and forth and more on what we expect Barkley to produce on the field this year. That discussion can be useful.

Where do you rank him overall and among RBs?

If he plays 17, he should have a huge season. The Giants offense should be much better. I expect a big jump from Evan Neal. It is ridiculous how thin the receiver position was last year. Waller should really help, but even some positive injury regression to the mean there will be an improvement.

320 for 1500 yards and 12 TDs
68 rec for 550 yards and 2TDs
Barkley has already had 2 seasons with 350+ touches. Of RBs that played in the past 10 years, only 3 of them have had three seasons with 350+ touches across their careers (Peterson, Elliott, and Forte). Getting to 350 touches in a season is really difficult.
 
Barkley has already had 2 seasons with 350+ touches. Of RBs that played in the past 10 years, only 3 of them have had three seasons with 350+ touches across their careers (Peterson, Elliott, and Forte). Getting to 350 touches in a season is really difficult.

Where do you rank him overall and among RBs?
 
One of the incentives is for 65 receptions.

I can totally see Daboll and Danny Jones trying to help him hit that late in the season.
If he plays 17, I would say this is nearly a lock
My assumption is he'll hit it because the coach and QB will help make up the difference if need be at the end.

But he's actually only hit the mark once in his career, and that was his roookie season.

They still have to make the playoffs though.
 
He didn’t “get a little more money”, he got some of the same money sooner and a chance at more
This is what I’m talking about when I say people will even argue semantics. Whatever, I’ll move on.
Whether or not he actually got an additional $2M isn’t “semantics.” That’s a 20% raise that some people think he got with this 1 year deal that he didn’t actually receive. Not sure why you’re offended that someone is trying to clarify that in this discussion.
 
Maybe Saquon, who is big into Bitcoin, knows BTC is about to pop off so getting that $2 mm up front could yield much more vs waiting for it in the fall.

At least that's what I'm telling myself as a BTC hodler.
 
Barkley has already had 2 seasons with 350+ touches. Of RBs that played in the past 10 years, only 3 of them have had three seasons with 350+ touches across their careers (Peterson, Elliott, and Forte). Getting to 350 touches in a season is really difficult.

Where do you rank him overall and among RBs?
Given that I don't participate in fantasy anymore, I don't have him ranked at all. If I had to guess, I would have him closer to 10 than 3rd (which is his current ADP). But that's baking in some missed time (which many other people don't account for in their rankings and projections).

How to incorporate or account for injuries is an entirely different discussion, but Saquon didn't come close to 350 touches in three other seasons. In those seasons, he ranked as RB 10, 121, and 34. I don't have a crystal ball that can predict which plays get hurt and when, but there is some % chance that Barkley doesn't play in every game and get a full workload. He could get hurt in Week 1 or Week 16 . . . or not at all. Best guess, I would throw a dart and say he plays in 13 or 14 games. If he played more than that, I'd consider that a bonus.
 
He didn’t “get a little more money”, he got some of the same money sooner and a chance at more
This is what I’m talking about when I say people will even argue semantics. Whatever, I’ll move on.
Whether or not he actually got an additional $2M isn’t “semantics.” That’s a 20% raise that some people think he got with this 1 year deal that he didn’t actually receive. Not sure why you’re offended that someone is trying to clarify that in this discussion.
I made a joke about $2MM to some one that said he “only” got a $2MM raise. I never said he got a $2MM raise and that’s not what our exchange was about.

I said he got “a little more money” consisting of a signing bonus where getting the money earlier is a plus and an extra $900k (which he has to earn). Da Franchise said that’s nothing - that’s a semantical argument.

Now you’ve joined in to throw your two cents in without actually reading the exchange properly - which is arguing against something not actually said and kind of proving my point.
 
He didn’t “get a little more money”, he got some of the same money sooner and a chance at more
This is what I’m talking about when I say people will even argue semantics. Whatever, I’ll move on.
Whether or not he actually got an additional $2M isn’t “semantics.” That’s a 20% raise that some people think he got with this 1 year deal that he didn’t actually receive. Not sure why you’re offended that someone is trying to clarify that in this discussion.
I made a joke about $2MM to some one that said he “only” got a $2MM raise. I never said he got a $2MM raise and that’s not what our exchange was about.

I said he got “a little more money” consisting of a signing bonus where getting the money earlier is a plus and an extra $900k (which he has to earn). Da Franchise said that’s nothing - that’s a semantical argument.

Now you’ve joined in to throw your two cents in without actually reading the exchange properly - which is arguing against something not actually said and kind of proving my point.
Fair enough. But the quote i specifically responded to was you stating that someone clarifying that he didn’t actually get a $2M raise as “arguing semantics.”

As for the time value of money argument, at a 7% market return Barkley makes an additional $40K getting that $2M upfront. That should be completely irrelevant to the conversation unless he has a deal lined up where he sends $2M in August with a Saudi inheritance of $40M guaranteed to him in September.
 
I'd have taken the $23M guaranteed if I was Barkley. That contract would have got Barkely about $11.-11.5M a year so this at least gives him a chance to be whole or close to on his pay for 2023.

Seems like a solid compromise by both sides on the money but my only issue with Barkley is not getting the Giants to agree to remove the use of the tag next year. That's why I'd have just signed the tag to protect myself versus injury and performance since he can't really make much more, unless the Giants let him go to market.
Not that it matters now, but I recall seeing a report that the guaranteed part of the offer was "only" 19.5 million.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/13/giants-19-5-million-guaranteed-offer-not-enough-for-saquon-barkley/

edit to add link to article
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top