Lance Zierlein article from NFL.com:
QuoteProjected compensatory pick: One in Round 4.
Key free-agent losses: Xavier McKinney (Packers), Saquon Barkley (Eagles), A'Shawn Robinson (Panthers), Tyrod Taylor (Jets), Ben Bredeson (Buccaneers).
Key free-agent additions: Jon Runyan Jr., Devin Singletary, Drew Lock, Jermaine Eluemunor.
McKinney should qualify the Giants for a fourth-round pick, while the other four losses are canceled out by comparable free-agent signings.
https://www.nfl.com/news/2025-nfl-draft-compensatory-pick-projections-for-every-team (https://www.nfl.com/news/2025-nfl-draft-compensatory-pick-projections-for-every-team)
So McKinney and Saquon are only worth a single 4th round pick?....wow
Quote from: Trench on May 03, 2024, 11:35:41 PMSo McKinney and Saquon are only worth a single 4th round pick?....wow
You're forgetting the offsetting that occurs when the Giants signed players. Runyon effectively cancelled out Saquon with a similar AAV.
Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on May 04, 2024, 01:12:32 AMYou're forgetting the offsetting that occurs when the Giants signed players. Runyon effectively cancelled out Saquon with a similar AAV.
This! it's not just who a team loses but who the team signs. That's why the Giants would have been far better-served trading Saquan and McKinney last season at the deadline than letting them walk.
It really is ridiculous that we didn't trade Saquon. Given the contract he ultimately commanded, there is almost zero doubt we would have gotten substantially more than this in a trade. We had no chance of contending, and we had no intention of signing him. What a waste to have it pan out this way instead of getting at least a third in a trade. Not to mention we might have been picking higher than sixth if we did that.
Very foolish.
Just a note, that calculation is preliminary. If, for example, McKinney gets hurt in camp and doesn't play next season, there would be no comp pick awarded (pretty sure aboutbthat).
Quote from: uconnjack8 on May 04, 2024, 08:31:24 AMJust a note, that calculation is preliminary. If, for example, McKinney gets hurt in camp and doesn't play next season, there would be noncompliance pick awarded (pretty sure aboutbthat).
Very true, player performances are part of the comp formula
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 04, 2024, 07:10:57 AMThis! it's not just who a team loses but who the team signs. That's why the Giants would have been far better-served trading Saquan and McKinney last season at the deadline than letting them walk.
The assumption that there was a willing trade partner looking to trade draft assets for an oft-injured RB on an expiring contract is not a good one.
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 10:07:54 AMThe assumption that there was a willing trade partner looking to trade draft assets for an oft-injured RB on an expiring contract is not a good one.
Did you see what Barkley was paid?
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 04, 2024, 10:09:05 AMDid you see what Barkley was paid?
Yep. There was absolutely a market for Barkley. Not trading him during the season seemed odd. In hindsight it looks even worse.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 04, 2024, 10:09:05 AMDid you see what Barkley was paid?
I did. What does that have to do with a team's willingness to give up draft picks AND pay him?
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on May 04, 2024, 10:15:34 AMYep. There was absolutely a market for Barkley. Not trading him during the season seemed odd. In hindsight it looks even worse.
This is one of the biggest blind spots for arm chair GMs. There being a market for someone jn getting a contract and there being a market for someone willing to trade draft picks and pay a guy are 2 completely different things.
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 11:42:59 AMThis is one of the biggest blind spots for arm chair GMs.
Unlike you. A REAL general manager. You have special insights no doubt. Smh.
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 11:42:59 AMThis is one of the biggest blind spots for arm chair GMs. There being a market for someone jn getting a contract and there being a market for someone willing to trade draft picks and pay a guy are 2 completely different things.
Are you suggesting you are coming from the perspective of an actual or former NFL GM? ;)
A player like Barkley had value for a team in the playoff hunt looking to get an edge by boosting their running game down the home stretch
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on May 04, 2024, 11:45:08 AMUnlike you. A REAL general manager. You have special insights no doubt. Smh.
Give me a break. I'm not the one claiming that a mistake was made when there is 0 evidence to suggest there was a single team with any interest in trading a draft pick for him. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite.
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 11:59:33 AMGive me a break. I'm not the one claiming that a mistake was made when there is 0 evidence to suggest there was a single team with any interest in trading a draft pick for him. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite.
No you just made a definitive statement about the different markets as if you aren't every bit an armchair GM who isn't speculating as much as anyone else. You don't know what they could've gotten for Barkley at the time. As others have pointed out, it's fair to think a playoff team would've given up a pick for him. Yet you seem to think that's an unreasonable take?
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 11:59:33 AMGive me a break. I'm not the one claiming that a mistake was made when there is 0 evidence to suggest there was a single team with any interest in trading a draft pick for him. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite.
I have seen you criticize front office decisions numerous times and have strong views on what a front office should or should not do. As I see it, there is absolutely zero wrong with that - it's part of being a passionate fan - but it seems a bit pot/kettle to be putting down other fans with "armchair GM" labels when they do precisely the same thing.
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on May 04, 2024, 12:04:34 PMNo you just made a definitive statement about the different markets as if you aren't every bit an armchair GM who isn't speculating as much as anyone else. You don't know what they could've gotten for Barkley at the time. As others have pointed out, it's fair to think a playoff team would've given up a pick for him. Yet you seem to think that's an unreasonable take?
Maybe you should go back and read the posts. I clearly said the assumption of a market wasn't a good one. That is far from definitive. I did not say the assumption was wrong.
Whereas you were the one with the definitive claim that "there was a market". And then act as if I attacked you personally simply by pointing out my opinion on the assumptions made.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on May 04, 2024, 12:09:07 PMI have seen you criticize front office decisions numerous times and have strong views on what a front office should or should not do. As I see it, there is absolutely zero wrong with that - it's part of being a passionate fan - but it seems a bit pot/kettle to be putting down other fans with "armchair GM" labels when they do precisely the same thing.
When did I ever suggest that I'm not an armchair GM like everyone else? Further, there's a big difference in having an opinion on whether a guy should have been signed or not or who the right starter should be vs. making definitive statements that the Giants failed in not trading someone when there's no evidence to suggest that any team was willing to trade for him. 2 completely different things.
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 12:11:14 PMMaybe you should go back and read the posts. I clearly said the assumption of a market wasn't a good one. That is far from definitive. I did not say the assumption was wrong.
Whereas you were the one with the definitive claim that "there was a market". And then act as if I attacked you personally simply by pointing out my opinion on the assumptions made.
No that's another incorrect assumption on your part. I won't speak for anyone else. My position is if Schoen called every GM of every contending team (excluding those with a healthy and premier RB) and no one wanted to give up a mid-round pick for Barkley, then Schoen did his job. However, if Schoen didn't do that then he failed to do the due diligence needed to create a market. Normally when you make calls to 12-18 GMs, there are numerous leaks that you're shopping the player. Since I didn't see reporting that that was the case, I'm assuming Schoen didn't do the work needed to create a market for a talented player.
Quote from: Doc16LT56 on May 04, 2024, 12:20:28 PMNo that's another incorrect assumption on your part. I won't speak for anyone else. My position is if Schoen called every GM of every contending team (excluding those with a healthy and premier RB) and no one wanted to give up a mid-round pick for Barkley, then Schoen did his job. However, if Schoen didn't do that then he failed to do the due diligence needed to create a market. Normally when you make calls to 12-18 GMs, there are numerous leaks that you're shopping the player. Since I didn't see reporting that that was the case, I'm assuming Schoen didn't do the work needed to create a market for a talented player.
That's not what you said, though, and that's not what I opined on. Your statement was that "there absolutely was a market for Barkley."
And your last post is a good example of why my opinion is that perspective is off base. There are a whole lot of "ifs" and "normally" and "I'm assuming" for it to be the basis of a definitive statement that Schoen failed.
It was never intended to be a personal attack. Simply an opinion.
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 12:12:03 PMWhen did I ever suggest that I'm not an armchair GM like everyone else? Further, there's a big difference in having an opinion on whether a guy should have been signed or not or who the right starter should be vs. making definitive statements that the Giants failed in trading someone when there's no evidence to suggest that any team was willing to trade for him. 2 completely different things.
I think it was reasonable to believe that there was a trade market among contending teams for a big name 26 year old offensive player who a few months later became the 4th highest AAV RB in the league. Perhaps the market was not as robust as the Giants were hoping, but I think the more likely explanation is they simply didn't want to trade him or weren't overly motivated to (for multiple reasons).
Could I be wrong, and in fact there was absolutely no market for him at all? Yes, but I don't think the above was an unreasonable assumption to make at all.
A final point is that our beat reporters generally know or at minimum have an informed sense when these kinds of discussions are happening, especially after the fact. I have not seen any reports that the Giants in fact tried hard to trade Barkley but couldn't find anyone interested.
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 12:34:11 PMThat's not what you said, though, and that's not what I opined on. Your statement was that "there absolutely was a market for Barkley."
And your last post is a good example of why my opinion is that perspective is off base. There are a whole lot of "ifs" and "normally" and "I'm assuming" for it to be the basis of a definitive statement that Schoen failed.
It was never intended to be a personal attack. Simply an opinion.
In my opinion there absolutely was a market.
In your opinion...
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 11:41:00 AMI did. What does that have to do with a team's willingness to give up draft picks AND pay him?
The Giants got a 2nd round pick for Leonard Williams. Do you honestly believe they couldn't get a 3rd or 4th for Barkley?
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 04, 2024, 12:39:40 PMThe Giants got a 2nd round pick for Leonard Williams. Do you honestly believe they couldn't get a 3rd or 4th for Barkley?
Yes, I honestly believe there was no one willing to give up a 3rd or 4th for one of the least valued positions in football and for a guy who can't stay healthy and needed to be signed to a contract extension.
They didn't want to trade him at a depressed value (also the optics of throwing the towel in completely on the season would have been awful) - and hoped the RB market would still be deflated when it was time to negotiate again. They (and 99% of this board) were wrong about that. Seems pretty straightforward.
Mighty,
When they were 2-8, I thought the same thing-trade Saquon and X. You might have lost the locker room, but you have to think in what's best for the franchise.
So with their defections, they wind up with a 4th rounder in 2025? That was a poor decision, a try to salvage a season approach when it was already lost.
Quote from: spiderblue43 on May 04, 2024, 05:29:05 PMMighty,
When they were 2-8, I thought the same thing-trade Saquon and X. You might have lost the locker room, but you have to think in what's best for the franchise.
So with their defections, they wind up with a 4th rounder in 2025? That was a poor decision, a try to salvage a season approach when it was already lost.
Trade deadline was two weeks earlier. I think if they had dealt Saquon when they were 2-6, less than halfway through the season, the optics of them throwing in the towel would have been a nightmare.
Quote from: PSUBeirut on May 04, 2024, 05:43:56 PMTrade deadline was two weeks earlier. I think if they had dealt Saquon when they were 2-6, less than halfway through the season, the optics of them throwing in the towel would have been a nightmare.
Yes..I thought they should have traded them at the deadline.then they fell further.. Optics could hardly be worse until Tommy Cutlets emerged.
The season itself was a total nightmare. And so were all the optics involved, whether Barkley was there or not.
Foregoing opportunities to try to better the team's future for the purposes of clinging to a defunct season and keeping up appearances is a typical move by this franchise and one of the reasons it can't pull itself up off the mat.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on May 04, 2024, 05:58:24 PMThe season itself was a total nightmare. And so were all the optics involved, whether Barkley was there or not.
Foregoing opportunities to try to better the team's future for the purposes of clinging to a defunct season and keeping up appearances is a typical move by this franchise and one of the reasons it can't pull itself up off the mat.
This is my issue. You state it as fact that they received trade offers for him and turned them down, when there is zero evidence that it happened.
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 06:10:20 PMThis is my issue. You state it as fact that they received trade offers for him and turned them down, when there is zero evidence that it happened.
There is more than ZERO evidence.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/nfl/article-12691269/NFL-Trade-Deadline-Giants-star-Saquon-Barkley-draws-DeAndre-Hopkins-coy-possible-deal-Broncos-good-offer-wide-receiver-Jerry-Jeudy.html
https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2023/10/31/new-york-giants-receiving-trade-calls-about-saquon-barkley/
Quote from: uconnjack8 on May 04, 2024, 06:20:57 PMThere is more than ZERO evidence.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/nfl/article-12691269/NFL-Trade-Deadline-Giants-star-Saquon-Barkley-draws-DeAndre-Hopkins-coy-possible-deal-Broncos-good-offer-wide-receiver-Jerry-Jeudy.html
Again, "interest" and "offers" are 2 different things. To Mighty's and others' point earlier, had someone offered a 3rd rounder, you can bet those details would have leaked. But that never happened.
Like Doc said, GM's do their due diligence on a ton of guys all the time. That's their job. That would be construed as "interest".
But that's a far cry from saying unequivocally that the Giants failed in trading Saquon. Maybe someone did try to lowball them and offered a 5th. Would that have been a failure in not accepting that?
Quote from: Stringer Bell on May 04, 2024, 06:10:20 PMThis is my issue. You state it as fact that they received trade offers for him and turned them down, when there is zero evidence that it happened.
Another poster had made the case that the Giants should not have even tried to trade Saquon, whether the opportunity to existed or not. I was addressing that argument. I did not state anything as unequivocal fact. My post was a conditional statement based on what I maintain is a reasonable (albeit not 100% conclusive) assumption.