jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
Archive - Random NFL Stuff Thread...
- Thread starter jsmith6919
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,230
jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
ravidubey
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 20,214
Phuck.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 52,969
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,700
Modified wildcat under construction.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 52,969
I welcome it!
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,230
Manning doesn’t want to be highest-paid player, unless he does
Posted by Mike Florio on August 21, 2015, 11:39 AM EDT
It’s been a strange few days regarding the negotiations between the Giants and quarterback Eli Manning, starting with the talks suddenly going public and culminating in Eli disputing the notion that he’s looking to be the highest-paid player in the game.
Both sides were being a more than a little disingenuous, with the Giants apparently trying to paint Manning as greedy or delusional and with Manning ignoring the reality that his leverage makes it reasonable for him to be looking for a multi-year deal that exceeds the $22 million annual average received in 2013 by Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers.
Now that the dust is settling a little, Ralph Vacchiano of the New York Daily News explains that, while Manning and his agent have never used the words “highest-paid,” the amount Manning wants “might just make him the NFL’s highest-paid player anyway.”
That’s the point we’ve been making since the “highest-paid” report first emerged. With a franchise tag that would be $23.7 million for 2016 and 20 percent higher for 2017 (i.e., $28.44 million), Manning’s leverage necessarily puts him north of $22 million on his next contract.
The question is how much less would he take on a long-term deal, recognizing that it makes sense to leave some money behind so that the team can sign other quality players. Of course, that would be easy to do if the Giants had a large nucleus of quality players to sign, or if they were any higher than the bottom five of the league in cash spending over the last four years.
That’s the dilemma for Manning. If he takes less to help the Giants do more, there’s no guarantee they’ll do anything with that extra money.
Posted by Mike Florio on August 21, 2015, 11:39 AM EDT
It’s been a strange few days regarding the negotiations between the Giants and quarterback Eli Manning, starting with the talks suddenly going public and culminating in Eli disputing the notion that he’s looking to be the highest-paid player in the game.
Both sides were being a more than a little disingenuous, with the Giants apparently trying to paint Manning as greedy or delusional and with Manning ignoring the reality that his leverage makes it reasonable for him to be looking for a multi-year deal that exceeds the $22 million annual average received in 2013 by Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers.
Now that the dust is settling a little, Ralph Vacchiano of the New York Daily News explains that, while Manning and his agent have never used the words “highest-paid,” the amount Manning wants “might just make him the NFL’s highest-paid player anyway.”
That’s the point we’ve been making since the “highest-paid” report first emerged. With a franchise tag that would be $23.7 million for 2016 and 20 percent higher for 2017 (i.e., $28.44 million), Manning’s leverage necessarily puts him north of $22 million on his next contract.
The question is how much less would he take on a long-term deal, recognizing that it makes sense to leave some money behind so that the team can sign other quality players. Of course, that would be easy to do if the Giants had a large nucleus of quality players to sign, or if they were any higher than the bottom five of the league in cash spending over the last four years.
That’s the dilemma for Manning. If he takes less to help the Giants do more, there’s no guarantee they’ll do anything with that extra money.
jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 122,847
Wouldn't surprise me if they cut him and then look at bringing him back after the opener.
He's out two weeks, that means he does zero in practice or preseason. I can't see why they would want to guarantee his salary by carrying him in week 1.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,864
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,864
There was absolutely nothing wrong with that hit and the consternation over it is retarded.