The Giants are expected to receive a 2025 4th round comp pick for McKinney

[Doc16LT56]

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.

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?

[DaveBrown74]

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.

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.

[Stringer Bell]

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?

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.

[Stringer Bell]

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.

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.

[Doc16LT56]

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.

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.

[Stringer Bell]

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.

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.

[DaveBrown74]

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 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.

[Doc16LT56]

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.

In my opinion there absolutely was a market.

In your opinion...

[MightyGiants]

I 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?

[Stringer Bell]

The 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.

[PSUBeirut]

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.

[spiderblue43]

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.

[PSUBeirut]

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.

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.

[spiderblue43]

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.

Yes..I thought they should have traded them at the deadline.then they fell further.. Optics could hardly be worse until Tommy Cutlets emerged.

[DaveBrown74]

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.