Giants tell Barkley he is not going anywhere

[MightyGiants]

https://x.com/art_stapleton/status/1717218651177193640?s=20

[DaveBrown74]

I hope this doesn't mean they're signing him to a multi-year deal.

[Philosophers]

Barkley is a good player (maybe not a great player) and he wants to be here.  I think he realizes now he is not going to get a big contract.  Giants need to build around him including another good RB and be happy he wants to be here rather than be like other players wanting to leave.  He has heart and guts.

How many other Giants players can we say that about?

[MightyGiants]

I was less than happy to hear this.  I am not sure what Daboll and Schoen gain by making this commitment.

[DaveBrown74]

Barkley is a good player (maybe not a great player) and he wants to be here.  I think he realizes now he is not going to get a big contract.  Giants need to build around him including another good RB and be happy he wants to be here rather than be like other players wanting to leave.  He has heart and guts.

How many other Giants players can we say that about?

He wants to be here so badly but he refused to take what was clearly a very fair offer from Schoen for a multi-year contract?

To me economics matter. Signing Barkley just isn't economically sound IMO. He is aging, he plays a position that is very replaceable, his level of play seems to be declining and will only continue to from here, and he gets hurt constantly. Overlooking all these other things and giving out a big contract to a guy just because he says he wants to be here (when he refused to sign for a fair price last spring) just doesn't seem like a great way for the front office to operate to me.

The Giants are too emotional as a franchise. It's the only reason Shepard still has a roster spot. If that trait translated to winning it would be one thing, but it doesn't.

[PSUBeirut]

Hard to argue the Giants aren't a much better offense with Saquon on the field.  If they're truly committed to Daniel Jones it makes sense to keep Saquon with him (at the right price...of course as always).

Really glad to see they're showing some loyalty here publicly.  That has an impact in the locker room, when a team captain that works their ass off for the franchise receives that kind of support.

[DaveBrown74]

If they lose to the Jets this Sunday to fall to 2-6, I think they'd be crazy to not try to offload vets they have no long term plans for. What possible argument can be made for not doing that? Perhaps they think Barkley won't command more than what they'll probably get as a compensation pick, or maybe they want to have him as a tagged asset, but it's perplexing to me that they'd 100% close themselves out to trading him as a 2-6 team. The only explanation I can think of for having that attitude is if they fully intend to definitely sign him long term, which I think would be surprising.

[MightyGiants]

Here is the question that strikes at the heart of the Barkley issue:

Is Barkley that great of RB that he boosts the offense?   OR  As I mentioned in the priority to return thread, how much a player is missed is not directly dependent on their talent level but rather how much of a dropoff the replacement causes.    So, could it be that the Giants lack a proper backup RB?

[Jclayton92]

Giants made a huge mistake not trading him last year at the deadline so why not double down. He was arguably the best back in the league at the deadline last year and the Return would have been significant pre him hitting the wall he did towards the end of the year. Going into the 2022 season the word was the Giants got offers in the 3rd round for Barkley before he proved he was back which he did through the first part of the season.

[AZGiantFan]

I was less than happy to hear this.  I am not sure what Daboll and Schoen gain by making this commitment.

For me, the only defensible reason to not trade him is that we can't get as much for him as a compensatory pick for him.  I, along with @Jclayton92, were banging the drum hard for him to be traded at last year's trading deadline but now between his injuries , which were entirely predictable, and his lackluster performance when playing his trade value has dropped.  We might have gotten a second rounder last year but would be hard-pressed to even get a 4th rounder this time around, IMO.

[PSUBeirut]

If they lose to the Jets this Sunday to fall to 2-6, I think they'd be crazy to not try to offload vets they have no long term plans for. What possible argument can be made for not doing that? Perhaps they think Barkley won't command more than what they'll probably get as a compensation pick, or maybe they want to have him as a tagged asset, but it's perplexing to me that they'd 100% close themselves out to trading him as a 2-6 team. The only explanation I can think of for having that attitude is if they fully intend to definitely sign him long term, which I think would be surprising.

I must disagree and I'm surprised you would put it in these extreme terms- "they'd be crazy to not try to offload vets they have no long term plans for". 

You are talking about completely throwing in the towel as an organization with NINE GAMES left to play in the season.  Consider the actual effects of putting up essentially a fire sale at the midpoint of the season- the effect on the locker room?  The effect on the culture of the team?  The loyalty of the organization to Saquon, a team captain in particular?  It's easy to say things like "they'd be crazy to not try to offload vets" on a message board- but in reality, in the actual locker room of a winning culture that is supposedly trying to be built- it would be a disaster. 

So that would definitely be my argument against trying to "offload" vets, especially as it pertains to Saquon.  Which, it seems, jives with what Daboll and Schoen are thinking.

[Jclayton92]

It's not a short term thing ie the rest if this season as it is long term and if Barkley is a focal point for this team going forward. With him being expensive and injury prone I don't know how they can see him long term with the team.


Great teams don't pay running backs, they keep drafting inexpensive replacements.

[DaveBrown74]

I must disagree and I'm surprised you would put it in these extreme terms- "they'd be crazy to not try to offload vets they have no long term plans for". 

You are talking about completely throwing in the towel as an organization with NINE GAMES left to play in the season.  Consider the actual effects of putting up essentially a fire sale at the midpoint of the season- the effect on the locker room?  The effect on the culture of the team?  The loyalty of the organization to Saquon, a team captain in particular?  It's easy to say things like "they'd be crazy to not try to offload vets" on a message board- but in reality, in the actual locker room of a winning culture that is supposedly trying to be built- it would be a disaster. 

So that would definitely be my argument against trying to "offload" vets, especially as it pertains to Saquon.  Which, it seems, jives with what Daboll and Schoen are thinking.

How is moving a couple of vets you're not going to re-sign, after starting the year 2-6, "throwing in the towel on the entire organization"? I don't see how what I said is putting anything in "such extreme terms." Your point would make sense if I was suggesting getting rid of players they would otherwise want to keep. I'm talking about trying to salvage some value from pieces we will not be keeping. What is so "extreme" about that?

[PSUBeirut]

How is moving a couple of vets you're not going to re-sign, after starting the year 2-6, "throwing in the towel on the entire organization"? I don't see how what I said is putting anything in "such extreme terms." Your point would make sense if I was suggesting getting rid of players they would otherwise want to keep. I'm talking about trying to salvage some value from pieces we will not be keeping. What is so "extreme" about that?

Read my post I guess. There are nine games left in the season in your scenario. Offloading a team captain and other key vets (assume you mean guys like adoree and Leonard williams?) in the middle of the season would absolutely be seen inside the locker room as throwing in the towel. Do you not agree? 

At least with adoree you've got some young guys that could effectively replace him based on performance. But with Saquon?  I've seen zero evidence of his replacement on this roster yet.

[DaveBrown74]

Read my post I guess. There are nine games left in the season in your scenario. Offloading a team captain and other key vets (assume you mean guys like adoree and Leonard williams?) in the middle of the season would absolutely be seen inside the locker room as throwing in the towel. Do you not agree? 

I agree that it might be perceived that way, but if I'm a young player on this team who is looking at being with the team for a while, and I have aspirations of the team being very good or great in the future, it would not bother me at all if they took measures to augment the future ahead of the trade deadline. There are buyers and sellers every year ahead of trade deadlines in sports. I don't buy that it blows up the locker room in some long term, irreparable way if you're a seller in a bad year. On the contrary, if I'm a talented young player like Banks or Hyatt I want to know that my team has a macro vision of trying to strive for a high level in future years.

At least with adoree you've got some young guys that could effectively replace him based on performance. But with Saquon?  I've seen zero evidence of his replacement on this roster yet.

I was more referring to Leo, Adoree, and possibly McKinney (if they're not planning on re-signing him). It seems clear they're not moving Saquon, assuming these reports are accurate.