PDA

View Full Version : How do you see the nicks contract situation playing out?



tuck&rolle
07-08-2013, 07:09 PM
I'm not sure if the details of the Cruz contract have been released yet, so we don't know the yearly breakdown of the 43 mil over 5 years. However, the FO now has a better idea of how the payroll will be allocated over the next few years. This means that they can now get a better sense of what they can pay nicks.

The giants have some time to figure this out; nicks has one more year on his deal. A lot of the negotiation will revolve around nicks' ability to stay on the field this year. If nicks is healthy the whole season, he will demand a very large contract, probably in the ballpark of 10 MM/yr. The team will be reluctant to pay that much, because jpp will need a new contract the year after that.

The giants have three clear options:
1.) sign nicks to a long term deal next offseason. The specifics can vary greatly depending on what happens this year.
2.) let nicks walk. If he has a great year and is simply demanding too much, the giants may be forced to let him go.
3.) use this year's franchise tag on nicks. The giants would likely put a non-exclusive tag on him, giving the team an extra year of control, at the risk of another team coming in and grabbing him. If another team claims him, the giants would be eligible for compensatory picks.

How do you guys see this situation playing out? Sorry if there are any formatting errors, I'm on my phone.

Rudyy
07-08-2013, 07:13 PM
This is off topic, but how do you create separate paragraphs on your phone? I can't figure it out on my phone. I have an iPhone.

tuck&rolle
07-08-2013, 07:15 PM
This is off topic, but how do you create separate paragraphs on your phone? I can't figure it out on my phone. I have an iPhone.

I just hit the return button a few times

Rudyy
07-08-2013, 07:18 PM
I just hit the return button a few timesThanks.

Toadofsteel
07-08-2013, 07:20 PM
It's all going to depend on Nicks' production and health, as well as whatever else happens after this season. Likely after 2013 is over, Tuck and Webster will come off the books, freeing up a lot of money.

barran21
07-08-2013, 07:34 PM
It all depends on Nicks, does he want to remain a Giant? Giants projected team Salary for 2015 is $77m and the cap will increase but just going by today's cap limit for 2015 we will have $46mil in cap space, so if they can work out a deal that back loads his contract we will keep him and sign JPP...

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 07:44 PM
Nicks would be wise to wait un til the end of the 2013 season before seriously negotiating. He needs to address his durability issue with a full season and respectable numbers. On the other side of the coin, Reese has the option of applying the exclusive rights franchise tag to remove competition for Nicks' services from the equation if they decide to pursude a long term deal based on what else is happening, i.e., Randle's development.

tuck&rolle
07-08-2013, 07:54 PM
Nicks would be wise to wait un til the end of the 2013 season before seriously negotiating. He needs to address his durability issue with a full season and respectable numbers. On the other side of the coin, Reese has the option of applying the exclusive rights franchise tag to remove competition for Nicks' services from the equation if they decide to pursude a long term deal based on what else is happening, i.e., Randle's development.

Good point. Do you know the difference in terms of cost for the exclusive/non-exclusive franchise tag?

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 08:00 PM
Good point. Do you know the difference in terms of cost for the exclusive/non-exclusive franchise tag?

I'd have to look that up but the main issue is the exclusive rights tag eliminates other teams from pursuing the players while the non-exclusive tag allows true free agency.

EDIT:


"There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:

An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player
A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is less. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation."

tuck&rolle
07-08-2013, 08:10 PM
I'd have to look that up but the main issue is the exclusive rights tag eliminates other teams from pursuing the players while the non-exclusive tag allows true free agency.

EDIT:


"There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:

An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player
A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is less. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation."


Got it, thanks. Basically the team would save a little money by allowing other teams to talk to him. I wonder how common it is for a non-exclusive tagged player to sign with another team

BigBlueAllDay
07-08-2013, 08:13 PM
I'd have to look that up but the main issue is the exclusive rights tag eliminates other teams from pursuing the players while the non-exclusive tag allows true free agency.

EDIT:


"There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:

An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player
A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is less. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation."


RK, "whichever is less" in the non-exclusive section is wrong. Wikipedia hasn't corrected that. The actual collective bargaining agreement document (the primary source) states "120% of his prior year salary, whichever is greater" (Article 10 Section 2 Part (a) Subpart (i) Nonexclusive Franchise Tender- Part (B)). Just so i'm not pulling your leg. :)

Here's an opinion: In the era of rookie capped contracts, there may very well be no team willing (or dumb enough) to part with two first round picks for a single player and come up with a high paying offer sheet to trump the guaranteed franchise money at the same time.

These days, even with Cruz's RFA tender, we're just seeing these used as a tactic to provide more time to negotiate long-term deals, while also bascially eliminating the player's chance at free agency with other teams.

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 08:17 PM
Got it, thanks. Basically the team would save a little money by allowing other teams to talk to him. I wonder how common it is for a non-exclusive tagged player to sign with another team

The Giants don't like to use the franchise tag except as a plank over the creek to a long term deal. I don't follow other teams to have an opinion about the rest of the NFL. You do see tags employed but my sense if not all that often. Logically, if you are going to pay a player a lot of money under a tag, you might just as well hammer out a long term deal.

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 08:18 PM
RK, "whichever is less" in the non-exclusive section is wrong. Wikipedia hasn't corrected that. The actual collective bargaining agreement document (the primary source) states whichever is greater.

Here's an opinion: In the era of rookie capped contracts, there may very well be no team willing (or dumb enough) to part with two first round picks for a single player and come up with a high paying offer sheet to trump the guaranteed franchise money at the same time.

As we learned with the Cruz tender which only required one first round pick

tuck&rolle
07-08-2013, 08:27 PM
I don't think any team will part with 2 first round picks for nicks, which is why most teams use the non-exclusive tag. But the only reason the giants would use the tag would be as a bridge to a long term deal. No sense paying him top 5 money for one year and then losing him

bigblue58
07-08-2013, 08:29 PM
I'm not sure if the details of the Cruz contract have been released yet, so we don't know the yearly breakdown of the 43 mil over 5 years. However, the FO now has a better idea of how the payroll will be allocated over the next few years. This means that they can now get a better sense of what they can pay nicks.

The giants have some time to figure this out; nicks has one more year on his deal. A lot of the negotiation will revolve around nicks' ability to stay on the field this year. If nicks is healthy the whole season, he will demand a very large contract, probably in the ballpark of 10 MM/yr. The team will be reluctant to pay that much, because jpp will need a new contract the year after that.

The giants have three clear options:
1.) sign nicks to a long term deal next offseason. The specifics can vary greatly depending on what happens this year.
2.) let nicks walk. If he has a great year and is simply demanding too much, the giants may be forced to let him go.
3.) use this year's franchise tag on nicks. The giants would likely put a non-exclusive tag on him, giving the team an extra year of control, at the risk of another team coming in and grabbing him. If another team claims him, the giants would be eligible for compensatory picks.

How do you guys see this situation playing out? Sorry if there are any formatting errors, I'm on my phone.


It all depends on him staying healthy in 2013!
If he does, he'll get his payday....if he goes through 2013 hobbled again, it will be a moot point and Nicks will be an ex Giant in 2014!

bigblue58
07-08-2013, 08:33 PM
It all depends on him staying healthy in 2013!
If he does, he'll get his payday....if he goes through 2013 hobbled again, it will be a moot point and Nicks will be an ex Giant in 2014!
Once again......as with Cruz, the Giants FO holds all the marbles!!!

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 08:33 PM
RK, "whichever is less" in the non-exclusive section is wrong. Wikipedia hasn't corrected that. The actual collective bargaining agreement document (the primary source) states whichever is greater.

Here's an opinion: In the era of rookie capped contracts, there may very well be no team willing (or dumb enough) to part with two first round picks for a single player and come up with a high paying offer sheet to trump the guaranteed franchise money at the same time.

These days, even with Cruz's RFA tender, we're just seeing these used as a tactic to provide more time to negotiate long-term deals, while also bascially eliminating the player's chance at free agency with other teams.


Here's the CBA document as it pertains to franchise tags:

Nonexclusive Franchise Tender. The Nonexclusive Franchise Tender shall be a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the Franchise Player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year, which average shall be calculated by: (1) summing the amounts of the Franchise Tags for players at that position for the five preceding League Years; (2) dividing the resulting amount by the sum of the Salary Caps for the five preceding League Years (using the average of the amounts of the 2009 and 2011 Salary Caps as the Salary Cap amount for the 2010 League Year); and (3) multiplying the resulting percentage by the
Salary Cap for the upcoming League Year (e.g., when calculating the Tender for the 2012 League Year, dividing the aggregate sum of the Franchise Tags for players at that position for the 2007–2011 League Years by the aggregate sum of the Salary Caps for the 2007–2011 League Years and multiplying the result by the amount of the Salary Cap for the 2012 League Year) (the “Cap Percentage Average”) (See Appendix E for an illustrative example); or (B) 120% of his Prior Year Salary, whichever is greater; if the Club extends the Tender pursuant to this Subsection (a)(i), the player shall be permitted to negotiate a Player Contract with any Club as if he were a player subject to Section 5 below, except that Draft Choice Compensation of two first round draft selections shall be made with respect to such player in the event he signs with the New Club, and the Signing Period for such player shall be determined under Section 14 below. For purposes of this Subsection, the “Franchise Tag” is the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries (e.g., the Franchise Tag for the 2010 League Year equals the average of the five largest Salaries for the 2009 League Year for players at that position); or (ii) Exclusive Franchise Tender.

The Exclusive Franchise Tender shall be a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Salaries in Player Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period 45 that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2(e), for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which he participated in the most plays during the prior League Year, or (B) the amount of the Required Tender under Subsection (a)(i) above, whichever is greater."

jomo
07-08-2013, 08:36 PM
As we learned with the Cruz tender which only required one first round pickMaybe Nicks' agent is smart enough to listen to an offer now to put this thing to be and improve his client's gauranteed money from where it is now. It would have to come with a discount of course for doing it now but it could be a win win if structured properly. Or maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part.

BigBlueAllDay
07-08-2013, 08:38 PM
Here's the CBA document as it pertains to franchise tags:

Nonexclusive Franchise Tender. The Nonexclusive Franchise Tender shall be a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the Franchise Player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year, which average shall be calculated by: (1) summing the amounts of the Franchise Tags for players at that position for the five preceding League Years; (2) dividing the resulting amount by the sum of the Salary Caps for the five preceding League Years (using the average of the amounts of the 2009 and 2011 Salary Caps as the Salary Cap amount for the 2010 League Year); and (3) multiplying the resulting percentage by the
Salary Cap for the upcoming League Year (e.g., when calculating the Tender for the 2012 League Year, dividing the aggregate sum of the Franchise Tags for players at that position for the 2007–2011 League Years by the aggregate sum of the Salary Caps for the 2007–2011 League Years and multiplying the result by the amount of the Salary Cap for the 2012 League Year) (the “Cap Percentage Average”) (See Appendix E for an illustrative example); or (B) 120% of his Prior Year Salary, whichever is greater; if the Club extends the Tender pursuant to this Subsection (a)(i), the player shall be permitted to negotiate a Player Contract with any Club as if he were a player subject to Section 5 below, except that Draft Choice Compensation of two first round draft selections shall be made with respect to such player in the event he signs with the New Club, and the Signing Period for such player shall be determined under Section 14 below. For purposes of this Subsection, the “Franchise Tag” is the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries (e.g., the Franchise Tag for the 2010 League Year equals the average of the five largest Salaries for the 2009 League Year for players at that position); or (ii) Exclusive Franchise Tender.

The Exclusive Franchise Tender shall be a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Salaries in Player Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period 45 that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2(e), for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which he participated in the most plays during the prior League Year, or (B) the amount of the Required Tender under Subsection (a)(i) above, whichever is greater."

You're welcome. :) whichever is greater in both cases. The collective bargaining agreement is at least very readable for the average person in my opinion, just may be harder to follow in its entirety.

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 08:40 PM
Maybe Nicks' agent is smart enough to listen to an offer now to put this thing to be and improve his client's gauranteed money from where it is now. It would have to come with a discount of course for doing it now but it could be a win win if structured properly. Or maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part.

I think if Nicks has a healthy, block buster season and Reese doesn't use the franchise tag, Nicks is going to fly the coop. How he plays this season is gong to make or break the deal I think.

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 08:43 PM
You're welcome. :) whichever is greater in both cases. The collective bargaining agreement is at least very readable for the average person in my opinion, just may be harder to follow in its entirety.

It's a pain in the *** to copy and paste lol

speedman
07-08-2013, 08:44 PM
I think if Nicks has a healthy, block buster season and Reese doesn't use the franchise tag, Nicks is going to fly the coop. How he plays this season is gong to make or break the deal I think. They should try to sign him now for 10m a year.

BigBlueAllDay
07-08-2013, 08:48 PM
They should try to sign him now for 10m a year.

No cap space for that this year. Also why Cruz is still going to play under his tender money this year. In real life, he's very likely to get $15.6 mil up front in guaranteed money in the bank.

drewz
07-08-2013, 08:49 PM
I think it depends. Does Rueben Randle and Louis Murphy show that they are capable replacements for Hakeem Nicks? If not, we use the franchise tag next year. If they do step up, he's more than likely gone. But then again, who was the last capable first round draft pick we let walk?

jomo
07-08-2013, 08:50 PM
No cap space for that this year. Also why Cruz is still going to play under his tender money this year. In real life, he's very likely to get $15.6 mil up front in guaranteed money in the bank.They could slide him more money via bonus and backload the salary to make it work, then set the guarentee at a level they could live with. I still think it could be a win win....

BigBlueAllDay
07-08-2013, 08:52 PM
Remember, Reuben Randle will be playing under a rookie-capped contract until after the 2015 season no matter how good he gets.

speedman
07-08-2013, 08:53 PM
No cap space for that this year. Also why Cruz is still going to play under his tender money this year. In real life, he's very likely to get $15.6 mil up front in guaranteed money in the bank.The 10m a year extension would start next year just like Cruz.

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 08:56 PM
They should try to sign him now for 10m a year.

That's not necessarily to Nicks' advantage based on last year's performance/production. He needs to play all the games and put up pretty good numbers. Now if he does that in the first half of the season he can always approach the team to start negotiations. But he really does have to get the durability monkey off his back.

BigBlueAllDay
07-08-2013, 08:56 PM
The 10m a year extension would start next year just like Cruz.

They can negotiate an extension with Nicks for 2014 and forward as well. Yes.

speedman
07-08-2013, 08:58 PM
Remember, Reuben Randle will be playing under a rookie-capped contract until after the 2015 season no matter how good he gets.Not a knock on Randle, but I don't see him ever being on a level with Nicks.

speedman
07-08-2013, 09:01 PM
That's not necessarily to Nicks' advantage based on last year's performance/production. He needs to play all the games and put up pretty good numbers. Now if he does that in the first half of the season he can always approach the team to start negotiations. But he really does have to get the durability monkey off his back.I don't think he has a durability issue. If he has a year like 2011 he won't sign for 10m a year.

BigBlueAllDay
07-08-2013, 09:03 PM
They could slide him more money via bonus and backload the salary to make it work, then set the guarentee at a level they could live with. I still think it could be a win win....

Heavily backloaded after 2013 is the only way at this point pretty much. It would be nice to see Cruz's contract and the team's remaining cap space or whatever is left of it this year. Plus they haven't signed Pugh or Nassib yet. Then, the discussion on Nick's future with the Giants can really take off.

RoanokeFan
07-08-2013, 09:04 PM
I don't think he has a durability issue. If he has a year like 2011 he won't sign for 10m a year.

Which is why it's in HIS best interest to wait.

speedman
07-08-2013, 09:06 PM
Which is why it's in HIS best interest to wait.I agree it's in his best interest to wait, but in the FO best interest to lock him up now.

slipknottin
07-08-2013, 09:09 PM
Heavily backloaded after 2013 is the only way at this point pretty much. It would be nice to see Cruz's contract and the team's remaining cap space or whatever is left of it this year. Plus they haven't signed Pugh or Nassib yet. Then, the discussion on Nick's future with the Giants can really take off.

Dont need to backload it or anything fancy, just make it an extension that starts next season.

BigBlueAllDay
07-08-2013, 09:10 PM
Dont need to backload it or anything fancy, just make it an extension that starts next season.

That too. 2014 and forward. Absolutely Yes.