What kind of math is Saquon using

[GloryDays]

Levon Bell? He was the running back for Pittsburgh Steelers and set up an entire year and went to the New York Jets never was the same.

Yep,, that was him... dumbass Levion Bell ... Lost more than he gained while he played.

[Greenzone]

Saquon is losing by virtue of quickly losing fan support, a necessary part of potentially being overpaid.

But his signing a tag is not just worth the $10 million. It is also another New York market based $10 million in endorsements (which he might potentially grow with any growth in fan popularity and taking gold instead of bitcoin).

So, there is more like $20 million on the line for the upcoming season for a player that's been hurt too often and not shown superstar stats since about halfway into last season, if not the entire 2022 season.

Therefore, I gotta agree that the major issue is guaranteed dollars and that, barring the kind of ego that would cause one's own demise, Saquon will be grateful to squeeze the team for what he can and get back to his career. Think of what it would do to destroy the fanship he holds and the endorsement collapse that would go with it. There may even be clauses in ongoing sponsorship deals that lets the product cancel any deal if Saquon is not in the NFL that year.

This is one of the most glaring examples of where gaining the support / sympathy of the fans is hugely impactful.

Saquon is losing that battle.

[DaveBrown74]

In a world where everyone can now watch every game, where the average NFL fan is involved in fantasy and knows all the players around the league, and NY football teams in general have been garbage for the last decade, why do we think it still matters whether you're in NY or not for firms like Nike, Dunkn' Doughnuts, Toyota, etc to endorse you? I don't think it matters at all myself. Patrick Mahomes plays in Missouri and he's on TV every 5 minutes. If anything, what matters to these athletes now are cost of living and state income and property tax considerations. The whole idea that you need to physically be in NY or LA due to the "media market" is an antiquated concept that was true 25 years ago and before. Social media, streaming, globalization etc have changed all that.

[Painter]

Analyze what you want, all you want but the answer to the Barkley math question is the same as it would be whether he was tagged or not which is: How much money will you, the Schoen/Dabol Giants, guarantee to pay me for at least this year- $10.1 million being the tag minimum- or in total on a 2,3,4 multi-year deal?

In other words, how much money are the Giants willing to risk in keeping him for however long compared to how much does he believe they will deposit in his bank account before he plays another down? The upside of the deal will matter only as it affects those risk/reward calculations. That's simple business math not calculus.

Cheers!

[CVA14]

I'm going back 60 years or so when I was in business school when we had a class on strikes and decision-making under conflict. One of the controversial approaches to bargaining was known as Bulwarism. Specifically, begin by putting your best offer on the table and do not budge. GE tried this a few times against a major union (IBEW??) with marginal success. Seems this is what we see in the Giants-Barkley conflict.

Barkley is not a union and not going to shut down the Giants' business. I for one believe the Giants will play well this season but they will miss 26 in the line up. Barkley is at risk of blighting his career and lifetime earnings. And I think his value declines as this drags on.

I remember when OJ held out against the Bills. He played extremely well his first game back but after some sub-par games it took him about a month to become footbal fit.

[Painter]

Analyze what you want, all you want but the answer to the Barkley math question is the same as it would be whether he was tagged or not which is: How much money will you, the Schoen/Dabol Giants, guarantee to pay me for at least this year- $10.1 million being the tag minimum- or in total on a 2,3,4 multi-year deal?

In other words, how much money are the Giants willing to risk in keeping him for however long compared to how much does he believe they will deposit in his bank account before he plays another down? The upside of the deal will matter only as it affects those risk/reward calculations. That's simple business math not calculus.

Cheers!

I'm going back 60 years or so when I was in business school when we had a class on strikes and decision-making under conflict. One of the controversial approaches to bargaining was known as Bulwarism. Specifically, begin by putting your best offer on the table and do not budge. GE tried this a few times against a major union (IBEW??) with marginal success. Seems this is what we see in the Giants-Barkley conflict.

Barkley is not a union and not going to shut down the Giants' business. I for one believe the Giants will play well this season but they will miss 26 in the line up. Barkley is at risk of blighting his career and lifetime earnings. And I think his value declines as this drags on.

I remember when OJ held out against the Bills. He played extremely well his first game back but after some sub-par games it took him about a month to become footbal fit.

Interesting as that may be, and with all due respect, Frank that's just one more editorial which does not answer that one simple, original question which apparently is a task too far for some, or of no interest to others as evidenced by 6 pages of just about everything but.

Cheers!

[CVA14]

Painter...I think our six pages define the pschological notion of "pass-timing" while waiting for the season to start. Not much new to discover when a reporter can pronounce the 53 man roster with little controversy. Its like a western movie. Everyone knows the ending. We're all just waiting to see how it is done.

[Painter]

Well said, Frank. I guess that does much to explain the difference between our inability to focus and necessity to comment. I'd hate to think of it as consequence of aging. 

Cheers!

[jerseyguy]

I think Barkley's agent is in way over her head and is giving him bad advice, it kind of looks like she just wants a slice of a bigger pie....

[DaveBrown74]

I think Barkley's agent is in way over her head and is giving him bad advice, it kind of looks like she just wants a slice of a bigger pie....

In hindsight they may have made a mistake in not accepting the second offer, but there really is no difference between coming to an agreement today versus right before the July 17th deadline. He's not missing any team activities right now.

The other thing is we can't really pass full judgment on any party here without knowing all the facts. The guarantee that was offered (which I suspect is the biggest sticking point) was never disclosed to the public. So I don't see how we can say the agent has done a bad job or Barkley is being unreasonable without knowing that number. Otherwise it's a rush to judgment by frustrated fans who only know some of the facts but don't know pertinent details.

[uconnjack8]

In hindsight they may have made a mistake in not accepting the second offer, but there really is no difference between coming to an agreement today versus right before the July 17th deadline. He's not missing any team activities right now.

The other thing is we can't really pass full judgment on any party here without knowing all the facts. The guarantee that was offered (which I suspect is the biggest sticking point) was never disclosed to the public. So I don't see how we can say the agent has done a bad job or Barkley is being unreasonable without knowing that number. Otherwise it's a rush to judgment by frustrated fans who only know some of the facts but don't know pertinent details.

Exactly.  Everything and anything we have heard on this was rumors that didn't give details (as NFL contract rumors usually do not).

Until an agreement is reached or a key date passes really nothing has happened other than this 6 pages of discussion.