Big Blue Huddle

If hypothetically Saquon passes on $10 million or the first year of a $13-14 million deal, and actually sits out the current season, and given the time value of money, say at 5%, I do not see a net present value of any probable future contract that can recover the economic value of the loss of no earnings in 2023. If his agent can't figure this, his financial advisor can, and any running back in the leaque can see the advisability of the deal on the table.

Quote from: CVA14 on June 16, 2023, 07:27:39 AMIf hypothetically Saquon passes on $10 million or the first year of a $13-14 million deal, and actually sits out the current season, and given the time value of money, say at 5%, I do not see a net present value of any probable future contract that can recover the economic value of the loss of no earnings in 2023. If his agent can't figure this, his financial advisor can, and any running back in the leaque can see the advisability of the deal on the table.

I fully agree, especially considering the steep downward slope of the caliber of RBs post age 26 or so. Which is what Barkley is now. Although the cap will be higher next year, his relative value to other team will be less if he is (1) a year older and (2) an extra year removed from playing. There is basically no chance he'll be better off financially five years later if he sits out.

I guess the only rationale in doing it is that if he gets hurt on the tag at age 26, he's pretty screwed after 2023. That's the variable not present in your analysis: not wanting to risk getting hurt with only a $10mm guarantee. What I don't think he's getting though is that the market for RBs is not likely to be more robust next year than it is now. Especially for a 27 year old who sat out in 2023.

It is not like that is "free" money. He has to play for a team which he feels isn't showing him that he's the best player on the team.

Barkley would probably be back stronger and better than ever. Remember he hardly played his 2nd year and came back too early 3rd year. so he has only really played 2 years. Barkley is holding all the cards here. This team isn't magically going to become a high octane offense overnight via the passing game if they ever become that. 

Quote from: Fletch on June 16, 2023, 09:22:42 AMIt is not like that is "free" money. He has to play for a team which he feels isn't showing him that he's the best player on the team.

Barkley would probably be back stronger and better than ever. Remember he hardly played his 2nd year and came back too early 3rd year. so he has only really played 2 years. Barkley is holding all the cards here. This team isn't magically going to become a high octane offense overnight via the passing game if they ever become that. 

Is Barkley really "holding all the cards"?  You have quality RBs in Dalvin Cook and Kareem Hunt now looking for employment. I would say it's more of a buyers' market for RBs right now, myself.

Barkley's "card", if he has a strong one, is more the emotional and "face of the franchise" stuff than it is an economic one.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 16, 2023, 09:25:25 AMIs Barkley really "holding all the cards"?  You have quality RBs in Dalvin Cook and Kareem Hunt now looking for employment. I would say it's more of a buyers' market for RBs right now, myself.

Barkley's "card", if he has a strong one, is more the emotional and "face of the franchise" stuff than it is an economic one.

THose guys are not in the same weight division as Barkley ad yes the face of the franchise thing has something to do with it too.

Quote from: Fletch on June 16, 2023, 09:36:09 AMTHose guys are not in the same weight division as Barkley ad yes the face of the franchise thing has something to do with it too.

Hunt and Zeke aren't, but Cook isn't that far behind Barkley. He's a year older, but his production last year was not dissimilar. Same YPC, same total TDs, and similar total yards. I'll agree that Barkley is probably a bit better, but it's not some huge gap.

Dalvin Cook is not a top 10 running back. i would say Barkley is around no.4. Cook is slated to make 13 mil this year.

What makes you think he is not going to want that from the Giants?

THis could blow up in the Viking face too. Would not be the least bit surprised to see them as a.500 team wo Cook.

While not always the best indicator of what may happen, it's useful to look at the past.  I've never seen an RB sit out a year and recognize some kind of financial windfall the following year.  The only real example I can remember is Le'Veon Bell.  He did get his second contract but it was not a blockbuster.  He got cut after 2 years and was a shell of his former self.  History shows that the Steelers probably got that one right. 

There's really nothing for Barkley to gain by sitting out the year.  Teams are showing reluctance across the board so there's a high potential that he won't find whatever it is he thinks he's worth on the open market.  He'd lose a year of salary and let us not forget - the Giants could, in theory, franchise tag him again a second year in a row at a 20% increase. 

What Barkley should do is demand that the Giants do not franchise him 2 years in a row as a compromise to his playing this year, and then bet big on himself to go out and have a monster year and put himself in the best position to hit the market with high value.  Barkley can, and should, do whatever he thinks is best for him and his family.  But a smart man knows the better part of valor is discretion.

Quote from: Fletch on June 16, 2023, 09:54:59 AMDalvin Cook is not a top 10 running back. i would say Barkley is around no.4. Cook is slated to make 13 mil this year.

What makes you think he is not going to want that from the Giants?

THis could blow up in the Viking face too. Would not be the least bit surprised to see them a barley .500 team wo Cook.

I am in no way suggesting the Giants should pursue Cook. I have no interest in signing Cook. If they're going to sign Cook, they should obviously just sign Barkley.

All I am saying is that with Cook (and others) out there right now and actively seeking employment, that softens the overall RB market.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 16, 2023, 09:58:28 AMI am in no way suggesting the Giants should pursue Cook. I have no interest in signing Cook. If they're going to sign Cook, they should obviously just sign Barkley.

All I am saying is that with Cook (and others) out there right now and actively seeking employment, that softens the overall RB market.

I agree, but also want to point out that the situations around Cook and Hunt's former teams are much different.  Both had very proven RB1s in their same backfields as the guys they let go (you can add Zeke and the Cowboys to this list also).  Mattison, Chubb, and Pollard all showed on the field that they could take over as "the guy" (Chubb already is the guy...).  The Giants don't have that, which DOES give Saquon a significant leverage point that those other RBs simply didn't have. 

But again I'll say...all this is much ado about nothing.  We'll all forget it once preseason rolls around.

Quote from: PSUBeirut on June 16, 2023, 10:08:49 AMI agree, but also want to point out that the situations around Cook and Hunt's former teams are much different.  Both had very proven RB1s in their same backfields as the guys they let go (you can add Zeke and the Cowboys to this list also).  Mattison, Chubb, and Pollard all showed on the field that they could take over as "the guy" (Chubb already is the guy...).  The Giants don't have that, which DOES give Saquon a significant leverage point that those other RBs simply didn't have. 

But again I'll say...all this is much ado about nothing.  We'll all forget it once preseason rolls around.

Very fair point, and you're totally right. The Giants are not well positioned from a personnel point of view to handle the loss of Barkley. Their RB room is very thin without him. And I agree that that is not the case with the Browns, Cowboys, and Vikes.

Schoen does strike me as very disciplined though and not one to cave and do something he does not feel is in the team's best medium to longer term interests. In all reality, while losing Barkley would clearly hurt the offense substantially this year, this is definitely not a SB team in 2023 whether he plays or not, and I think it would be a mistake to cave and go above what they think is right just to try to be 9-8 this year instead of 8-9 or 7-10, if it's not the right move for the longer term. I suspect Schoen agrees with this general point of view.

I still think he gets signed, but I will be surprised if Schoen suddenly capitulates and pays up. I think it's a lot more likely that Barkley comes down.

I think Saquon's locker room presence matters to Daboll. I don't think Schoen really wants to pay even $1 for it. They are both correct relative to their roles. Schoen has to figure how far he is willing to compromise.

I think a deal gets done with the magic number being a $30m guarantee. The AAV gap and dead cap concerns can be managed with a combo of up front cash and varying incentives as we did with Jones. The guarantee is the key...and the risk.

Is he worth it? Personally I probably would not do it as his injury record scares me but I think Schoen will roll the dice as he knows the value from Buffalo of stacking winning seasons to attract/keep players. Our best chance to win this year and next probably includes Saquon.

Barkley is not going to sit the year out.  It's that simple. 

Quote from: uconnjack8 on June 16, 2023, 10:32:57 AMBarkley is not going to sit the year out.  It's that simple. 

Probably not, although it's been done before, and it was no less dumb a move then.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 16, 2023, 10:43:24 AMProbably not, although it's been done before, and it was no less dumb a move then.

How many times has it been done?

Leveon Bell lost money and I am sure Barkley is well aware of that. 

I put the odds that he sits out the entire season at less than 1%.