DJ has an injury guarantee in his contract for 2025. That fact may push the Giants to bench DJ in the second half if the season is out of hand (as other NFL teams dealing with such guarantees have done). Here is the explanation by Dan Duggan
Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
I'll try to answer this thoroughly and hopefully it eliminates the confusion. There are two guarantees in play, which I think is leading to most of the confusion.
• He has a $30M base salary in 2025. $23M of that salary was guaranteed for injury *only* when he signed. So if he has an injury that prevents him from passing a physical and they cut him, he's due that $23M. There's no deadline attached to that. Whenever they cut him, if he can't pass a physical, he's due the $23M.
• If he's on the roster on the fifth day of the 2025 league year (mid-March), $12M of that salary becomes *fully* guaranteed. So if they cut him for any reason after that date, he's due the $12M.
• So the two guarantees collide if he suffers a serious injury that will prevent him from passing a physical next March and they want to cut him. They could cut him and eat the full $23M or they could hold onto him, eat the $12M and then cut him when he's healthy to save the additional $11M.
They could try to get him to waive the injury guarantee, but I'm not sure why he would. You negotiate that into the contract to protect yourself from this very scenario.
https://x.com/DDuggan21/status/1785674778239525322
He squeezed the Giants for every dime in that salary negotiation. I'd be shocked if he took a team friendly approach and waived it.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on May 01, 2024, 10:26:54 AMHe squeezed the Giants for every dime in that salary negotiation. I'd be shocked if he took a team friendly approach and waived it.
Considering that NYG's failure to protect him contributed to his injury issues, would you blame him for not waiving this part of his contract?
I think the organization would be negligent if they see he is still seeing ghosts to allow him back out there to run into defensive linemen. Yes all of his sacks aren't on him but he didn't help the situation either.
I would be perfectly content with them wrapping him in bubble wrap and placing him at the end of the bench. Then telling him if he wants to play he's welcome to waive the injury clause, if not enjoy your 🍿.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on May 01, 2024, 10:46:49 AMI think the organization would be negligent if they see he is still seeing ghosts to allow him back out there to run into defensive linemen. Yes all of his sacks aren't on him but he didn't help the situation either.
I would be perfectly content with them wrapping him in bubble wrap and placing him at the end of the bench. Then telling him if he wants to play he's welcome to waive the injury clause, if not enjoy your 🍿.
If Jones still sees ghosts, he needs to be benched regardless of the contract. The team will simply have to accept that they broke DJ beyond repair and move on.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 01, 2024, 10:19:19 AMDJ has an injury guarantee in his contract for 2025. That fact may push the Giants to bench DJ in the second half if the season is out of hand (as other NFL teams dealing with such guarantees have done). Here is the explanation by Dan Duggan
It would certainly make sense that IF he hasn't elevated his play over the pre-2023 period (frankly I completely discount the 2023 season because the whole team was unprepared to compete in the early part of 2023) and the Giants are out of the running barring a miracle - 2-6 or even 3-5 - then it would make sense to bench him and conserve CAP resources for 2025.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 01, 2024, 10:40:53 AMConsidering that NYG's failure to protect him contributed to his injury issues, would you blame him for not waiving this part of his contract?
Re-read my post and please don't put words in my mouth. I never said he should. I simply said I'd be shocked if he did.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on May 01, 2024, 11:10:30 AMRe-read my post and please don't put words in my mouth. I never said he should. I simply said I'd be shocked if he did.
I didn't try to put words in your mouth; I was just asking you if you would blame him for not doing so. I am at a loss as to why you would think otherwise.
Hopefully DJ has a bounce back year and this injury thing is simply a moot point.
Quote from: sxdxca38 on May 01, 2024, 11:45:54 AMHopefully DJ has a bounce back year and this injury thing is simply a moot point.
IF DJ was being completely honest about his second neck injury just being a routine stinger (and implying it had nothing to do with his prior )neck injury
IF the Giants can properly protect DJ, there is a reasonable chance he can avoid another major injury
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 01, 2024, 11:48:02 AMIF DJ was being completely honest about his second neck injury just being a routine stinger (and implying it had nothing to do with his prior )neck injury
IF the Giants can properly protect DJ, there is a reasonable chance he can avoid another major injury
I think a bigger question is how much the ACL affects his running ability, since that's a big part of his game. A neck injury that only keeps him out 3 weeks doesn't seem that threatening, to me. But what do I know?
Quote from: AZGiantFan on May 01, 2024, 01:19:09 PMI think a bigger question is how much the ACL affects his running ability, since that's a big part of his game. A neck injury that only keeps him out 3 weeks doesn't seem that threatening, to me. But what do I know?
I think the ACL will hamper Jones, especially at the beginning of the season. The one thing I remain hopeful about is that Jones' running tends to be more of a straight-line runner than a quarterback who does a lot of juking.
Hopefully the ACL forces him to focus on delivering the ball downfield instead of thinking of running.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on May 01, 2024, 10:46:49 AMI think the organization would be negligent if they see he is still seeing ghosts to allow him back out there to run into defensive linemen. Yes all of his sacks aren't on him but he didn't help the situation either.
I would be perfectly content with them wrapping him in bubble wrap and placing him at the end of the bench. Then telling him if he wants to play he's welcome to waive the injury clause, if not enjoy your 🍿.
Playing is in his best interest. It's his opportunity to retain his position with the Giants or to audition for his next team by way of trade or cut. That's a good reason to waive or renegotiate that injury clause. That clause should have had a reduction built into it over the life of the contract. It should be reduced by 25% entering year two.
It's possible that if he pulls a Hammy, they may shut him down after that. It happens where an injury to the leg and coming back from rehab, another part of that leg suffers injury. The worst being an Achilles.
It would behoove all concerned to keep him in the pocket and have Eli teach him how to drop dead if he's about to get tackled.
@Jclayton92 and
@Ed Vette How would agents view Schoen if he tried to force a renegotiation of an injury guarantee? While I have seen players be asked to take pay cuts or be cut, I have not witnessed a team try to renegotiate a guarantee. There seems to be an unwritten rule (I am not fully versed; it might even be a written rule) that guarantees money in contracts.
Do you think that might hurt Schoen in future contract negotiations?
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 01, 2024, 02:01:57 PM@Jclayton92 and @Ed Vette
How would agents view Schoen if he tried to force a renegotiation of an injury guarantee? While I have seen players be asked to take pay cuts or be cut, I have not witnessed a team try to renegotiate a guarantee. There seems to be an unwritten rule (I am not fully versed; it might even be a written rule) that guarantees money in contracts.
Do you think that might hurt Schoen in future contract negotiations?
You view sitting him after an injury as forcing him to renegotiate his injury clause? That would be up to him and his Agent to bring that up.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 01, 2024, 02:01:57 PM@Jclayton92 and @Ed Vette
How would agents view Schoen if he tried to force a renegotiation of an injury guarantee? While I have seen players be asked to take pay cuts or be cut, I have not witnessed a team try to renegotiate a guarantee. There seems to be an unwritten rule (I am not fully versed; it might even be a written rule) that guarantees money in contracts.
Do you think that might hurt Schoen in future contract negotiations?
They did that with Wilson last year. Football is cut throat I think people are adult enough to realize that and accept it for what it is a shrewd buisness decision.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on May 01, 2024, 03:47:56 PMThey did that with Wilson last year. Football is cut throat I think people are adult enough to realize that and accept it for what it is a shrewd buisness decision.
Didn't they sit Wilson rather than try and get him to waive his injury guarantee?
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 01, 2024, 03:49:51 PMDidn't they sit Wilson rather than try and get him to waive his injury guarantee?
They tried to get him to waive it but he declined so they sat him.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on May 01, 2024, 05:09:34 PMThey tried to get him to waive it but he declined so they sat him.
"It's not personal, it's business."
Quote from: Ed Vette on May 01, 2024, 06:00:49 PM"It's not personal, it's business."
and
@Jclayton92 The NFL Players Association told the Denver Broncos in a November letter that their threat to bench quarterback Russell Wilson if he refused to alter an injury guarantee in his contract was illegal, violated the CBA and could result in legal action against the team, a league source confirmed to The Athletic.
https://theathletic.com/5171778/2023/12/31/broncos-russell-wilson-nflpa/
The letter, sent by a law firm on behalf of the NFLPA and first reported by the Washington Post, said that if the Broncos "follow through on the Club's threat, the Club will violate, among other things, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Mr. Wilson's Player Contract and New York law."
The letter added that Wilson and the NFLPA "reasonably anticipate arbitration and/or litigation against the Broncos."
The Broncos did not bench Wilson in the aftermath of the meeting about his contract. The 35-year-old veteran started the next seven games, the last of which was a 26-23 loss to the New England Patriots on Christmas Eve that put Denver's playoff hopes in peril.
On Wednesday, the team announced Stidham would start the final two games. Coach Sean Payton, who said Friday he was "not privy" to discussions about Wilson's contract between the quarterback and the team, said the decision was made solely for football reasons after a four-game stretch in which the Broncos went 1-3 and Wilson's play declined.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 01, 2024, 07:01:19 PMand @Jclayton92
The NFL Players Association told the Denver Broncos in a November letter that their threat to bench quarterback Russell Wilson if he refused to alter an injury guarantee in his contract was illegal, violated the CBA and could result in legal action against the team, a league source confirmed to The Athletic.
https://theathletic.com/5171778/2023/12/31/broncos-russell-wilson-nflpa/
The letter, sent by a law firm on behalf of the NFLPA and first reported by the Washington Post, said that if the Broncos "follow through on the Club's threat, the Club will violate, among other things, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Mr. Wilson's Player Contract and New York law."
The letter added that Wilson and the NFLPA "reasonably anticipate arbitration and/or litigation against the Broncos."
The Broncos did not bench Wilson in the aftermath of the meeting about his contract. The 35-year-old veteran started the next seven games, the last of which was a 26-23 loss to the New England Patriots on Christmas Eve that put Denver's playoff hopes in peril.
On Wednesday, the team announced Stidham would start the final two games. Coach Sean Payton, who said Friday he was "not privy" to discussions about Wilson's contract between the quarterback and the team, said the decision was made solely for football reasons after a four-game stretch in which the Broncos went 1-3 and Wilson's play declined.
His play declined years ago and when I said it, I got pushback here. It was a stupid transaction. Diva.