Cruz won't be Giants' last tough cap call

[Nas]

http://espn.go.com/b...-tough-cap-call

 

The proverbial ink had yet to dry on Victor Cruz's New York Giants contract extension and people were already asking about Hakeem Nicks, who will need a new contract himself before the 2014 season begins and is likely going to cost more. This time next year, whichever way the Nicks situation has resolved itself, people are going to be asking about Jason Pierre-Paul, another young superstar who's going to need a long-term deal if the Giants want him to be part of their long-term foundation. And they're going to want to know what the Giants are doing about safety and cornerback -- two positions on which they've shown a desire to spend during the salary-cap era. Cruz wasn't the first sticky financial situation the Giants have encountered in recent years, and tons more loom on the horizon.

 

The issue that complicates all of these matters is the contract of quarterback Eli Manning, who is scheduled to cost the Giants $20.85 million against this year's cap, $20.4 million against next year's, and $19.75 million against the 2015 cap. The Giants are perfectly happy to commit such a large percentage of their cap to a quarterback who wins them a Super Bowl every four or five years, and justifiably so. Manning's deal is not out of line or regrettable. But it is an issue around which the Giants find themselves needing to work, and it is going to force some tough decisions in the next couple of years.

 

There's a real dichotomy developing between the teams that commit huge cap numbers to their established veteran quarterbacks (Giants, Broncos, Saints, Cowboys, Ravens, Packers ... Lions, I guess, now) and the newly minted contenders whose quarterback costs are low. Teams such as the 49ers, Seahawks and Redskins have some of the most talented quarterbacks in the league locked up for a small fraction of their cap costs. Colin Kaepernick is costing San Francisco $1.398 million against this year's cap and $1.63 million against next year's. Russell Wilson's cap cost to the Seahawks over the next three years is scheduled to average $817,302 per season. Robert Griffin III costs the Redskins about $4.8 million against this year's cap, about $5.76 million against next year's -- big numbers compared to Kaepernick and Wilson, but nothing compared to Manning and Drew Brees.

 

This is why the Seahawks can trade a first-round pick for Percy Harvin and sign him, why the 49ers can counter with an Anquan Boldin pickup, why the Redskins will be able to be active in free agency next year when their cap penalties are behind them. Having a franchise quarterback who costs less than 1 percent of the salary cap, as Wilson costs the Seahawks, is like finding free money when you're competing for players against a team whose quarterback costs 17 percent of the salary cap, as Manning costs the Giants. There's no quarterback in the league with a higher 2013 cap cost than Manning's. Tony Romo of the Dallas Cowboys is the only one who currently has a higher projected 2014 cap cost than Manning's. Romo, Brees and Peyton Manning are the only ones currently scheduled to cost more against the cap in 2015.

 

Such is the Giants' financial reality. Manning deserves his contract. They've built the team around him and he has rewarded them with remarkable durability, unassailable character and championship performance. But the fact of his contract means they have less money with which to build the rest of their roster, and that this annual cap crunch they face is going to remain an issue as long as Manning is their man.

 

There is relief to be had next year with the expiration of contracts such as Justin Tuck's and David Diehl's. But players such as Chris Snee, David Baas, Mathias Kiwanuka and Antrel Rolle carry massive 2014 cap numbers and probably all can't be kept. Each is a significant starter and would have to be replaced while Nicks and Pierre-Paul are lining up for their big paydays. The Giants have paid good money for defensive backs, believing the secondary to be a priority position. Can they continue to do that, or do they need to go cheap at cornerback and/or safety? How badly do they need Damontre Moore to develop as a pass-rusher so they can save money there in the coming years? Can they rebuild the offensive line on the cheap? They won't be able to answer all of those questions exactly the way they want to, and the decisions they make aren't going to come with much margin of error.

 

Again, they're not alone. Not even in their own division. The Cowboys deal with this same problem all the time, often as a result of decisions far worse than the one the Giants made to commit to Eli Manning. This isn't a criticism of the team, just a warning to its fans that things are going to continue to be tricky in the coming offseasons, and the Giants are going to have to rely more than ever on their ability to draft and develop players to fill gaps they can't afford to fill because of cap concerns.

 

Cruz should be flattered, honestly. He might not have ended up with the contract he wanted from the Giants, but the deal he got is significant. And because they know they can't pay everyone they want to pay, the Giants didn't offer it lightly. Cruz can take the Giants at their word when they say they value him and want him to be a part of their long-term plan. The deal they gave him proves it. They won't be able to make good on that promise to everyone.

[BleedinBlue]

The Giants are not afraid to tie up a lot of money on a handful of players. What is different now though, is that it's almost always in defensive players.

 

Unless Nicks is hankering to get out of New York...I suspect the team and him will work out a long term deal. I sure hope so because he's a very valuable piece of the Giant's future. A lot will be determined by how healthy he stays this coming season.

[Nas]

The Giants are not afraid to tie up a lot of money on a handful of players. What is different now though, is that it's almost always in defensive players.

 

Unless Nicks is hankering to get out of New York...I suspect the team and him will work out a long term deal. I sure hope so because he's a very valuable piece of the Giant's future. A lot will be determined by how healthy he stays this coming season.

 

What grabbed my attention is the teams with relatively very low QB salaries but that won't last long... KP, Wislon, and RG3 will command huge salaries once their current contracts are over.... Although I can swear Rodgers makes a lot more than Eli.

[BleedinBlue]

• Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay -- $22 million (Signed in 2013: 5 years, $110 million, reportedly $40 million guaranteed)
  
• Joe Flacco, Baltimore-- $20.1 million (Signed in 2013: 6 years, $120.6 million, $29 million fully guaranteed, 2013)
  
• Drew Brees, New Orleans -- $20 million: (Signed in 2012: 5 years, $100 million, $40 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Peyton Manning, Denver -- $19.2 million (Signed in 2012: 5 year, $96 million, $18 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Tony Romo, Dallas - $18 million (Signed in 2013: 6 year, $108 million, $40 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Eli Manning, New York Giants -- $16.25 million (Signed extension in 2009: 6 years, $97.5 million, tom $35 million guaranteed)
  
• Philip Rivers, San Diego -- $15.5 million (Signed extension in 2009: 6 years, $93 million, $38.5 million guaranteed)
  
• Matt Schaub, Houston - $15.4 million (Signed extension in 2012: 4 years, $62 million, $29.15 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Mark Sanchez, New York Jets -- $13.5 million (Signed extension in 2012: 3 years, $40.5 million, $20.5 fully guaranteed)
  
• Sam Bradford, St. Louis - $13 million (Signed in 2010: 6 years, $78 million, $50 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh - $12.75 million (Signed extension in 2008: 8 years, $102 million, $33.2 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Matthew Stafford, Detroit - $12.25 million (Signed in 2009: 6 years, $73.5 million, $41.75 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Tom Brady -- $11.4 million (Signed extension in 2013: 5 years, $57 million, $33 million full guaranteed)
  

[Sephiroth]

There's a real dichotomy developing between the teams that commit huge cap numbers to their established veteran quarterbacks (Giants, Broncos, Saints, Cowboys, Ravens, Packers ... Lions, I guess, now) and the newly minted contenders whose quarterback costs are low. Teams such as the 49ers, Seahawks and Redskins have some of the most talented quarterbacks in the league locked up for a small fraction of their cap costs. Colin Kaepernick is costing San Francisco $1.398 million against this year's cap and $1.63 million against next year's. Russell Wilson's cap cost to the Seahawks over the next three years is scheduled to average $817,302 per season. Robert Griffin III costs the Redskins about $4.8 million against this year's cap, about $5.76 million against next year's -- big numbers compared to Kaepernick and Wilson, but nothing compared to Manning and Drew Brees.

 

This guy is acting like someone would reasonably trade the short-term success of the Seahawks, Redskins, or 49ers for the long-term successes of the Saints, Giants, Ravens, or Packers. The former teams have had one or two good seasons where the latter teams have been competitive for five plus years.

 

Who's to say that Kaepernick doens't fizzle out with his ridiculous showboating, RGIII's career isn't over in two years due to injuries, and the league doesn't figure out that Russel Wilson is actually Doug Flutie? News flash... yes, you PAY for a QB that provides long-term success for your team.

[BleedinBlue]

• Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay -- $22 million (Signed in 2013: 5 years, $110 million, reportedly $40 million guaranteed)
  
• Joe Flacco, Baltimore-- $20.1 million (Signed in 2013: 6 years, $120.6 million, $29 million fully guaranteed, 2013)
  
• Drew Brees, New Orleans -- $20 million: (Signed in 2012: 5 years, $100 million, $40 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Peyton Manning, Denver -- $19.2 million (Signed in 2012: 5 year, $96 million, $18 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Tony Romo, Dallas - $18 million (Signed in 2013: 6 year, $108 million, $40 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Eli Manning, New York Giants -- $16.25 million (Signed extension in 2009: 6 years, $97.5 million, tom $35 million guaranteed)
  
• Philip Rivers, San Diego -- $15.5 million (Signed extension in 2009: 6 years, $93 million, $38.5 million guaranteed)
  
• Matt Schaub, Houston - $15.4 million (Signed extension in 2012: 4 years, $62 million, $29.15 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Mark Sanchez, New York Jets -- $13.5 million (Signed extension in 2012: 3 years, $40.5 million, $20.5 fully guaranteed)
  
• Sam Bradford, St. Louis - $13 million (Signed in 2010: 6 years, $78 million, $50 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh - $12.75 million (Signed extension in 2008: 8 years, $102 million, $33.2 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Matthew Stafford, Detroit - $12.25 million (Signed in 2009: 6 years, $73.5 million, $41.75 million fully guaranteed)
  
• Tom Brady -- $11.4 million (Signed extension in 2013: 5 years, $57 million, $33 million full guaranteed)
  

 

What sticks out to me like a sore thumb, is Tom Brady at the bottom of the list. I wonder how N.E. gets away with that. And Romo is way overpaid.

[Nas]

What sticks out to me like a sore thumb, is Tom Brady at the bottom of the list. I wonder how N.E. gets away with that. And Romo is way overpaid.

 

Could be that Brady values winning over making the most money... once a millionaire there are many ways to grow that wealth.... I'm surprised also.... Makes me wonder if Eli would take a pay cut in order to keep/attract better talent.

[Tempest]

Sports is very interesting with respect to winning and getting paid. Anyone around here willing to take a pay cut to help his company out and bring in some guys who will be paid less or more? New guy comes in and maybe makes things worse, there are no refunds. Take the pay cut and the guy they bring in takes your job.

 

Sure it is about team and about winning, but it is still a business. Guess when you have a couple million people watching everything you do, changes the perspective.

 

Could be that Brady values winning over making the most money... once a millionaire there are many ways to grow that wealth.... I'm surprised also.... Makes me wonder if Eli would take a pay cut in order to keep/attract better talent.

[gmenroc]

Sanchez is the worst one on that list.

[NightFire]

Sports is very interesting with respect to winning and getting paid. Anyone around here willing to take a pay cut to help his company out and bring in some guys who will be paid less or more? New guy comes in and maybe makes things worse, there are no refunds. Take the pay cut and the guy they bring in takes your job.

 

Sure it is about team and about winning, but it is still a business. Guess when you have a couple million people watching everything you do, changes the perspective.

 

I were making $10 million a year and my company could actually win awards for my salary help then I think I would. I respect Brady immensely for what he's done for the Patriots. When was the last time you have ever heard of him with contract issues? If Manning took a pay cut, not restructure, I think the Giants will be in another SB. As it is making another SB will be very tough.

[fishgutmartyr]

This might be an unintended consequence of the new bargaining agreement--with the limits in pay for draftees, a first round pick for QB that pans out turns into a gold mine for the lucky team.

 

Of course, after the first few years that team is going to wind up shell-shocked with the reality of that second contract; and if they're not careful, the whole team will fall to shit. Imagine Colin Kaepernick continues to play well. What is San Fran going to do with the FA's they're signing now when Colin's tab goes into the 20 mill+ range?

 

The one advantage we have is that we're accustomed to building teams with a high-priced QB. After all, even Eli's first contract wasn't particularly cheap for its time. But we still managed to build two Superbowl winners.

 

It's not the 90's anymore. Teams stay strong through solid, consistent drafts, just like the 70's and 80's. The difference is that you don't keep players through their careers--you draft solid expecting turnover and losing some of your better players.

 

---------

 

Anyone notice we've evolved into the Peyton Manning Colts?

[Nas]

This might be an unintended consequence of the new bargaining agreement--with the limits in pay for draftees, a first round pick for QB that pans out turns into a gold mine for the lucky team.

 

Of course, after the first few years that team is going to wind up shell-shocked with the reality of that second contract; and if they're not careful, the whole team will fall to shit. Imagine Colin Kaepernick continues to play well. What is San Fran going to do with the FA's they're signing now when Colin's tab goes into the 20 mill+ range?

 

The one advantage we have is that we're accustomed to building teams with a high-priced QB. After all, even Eli's first contract wasn't particularly cheap for its time. But we still managed to build two Superbowl winners.

 

It's not the 90's anymore. Teams stay strong through solid, consistent drafts, just like the 70's and 80's. The difference is that you don't keep players through their careers--you draft solid expecting turnover and losing some of your better players.

 

---------

 

Anyone notice we've evolved into the Peyton Manning Colts?

 

What do you mean?

[BlueInCanada]

What do you mean?

 

All offense with a last ranked defense.

 

Peyton played like that his entire career, with all the help on O and a horrible defense.

 

It's actually a pretty good comparison like Fish said, Eli and the offense is the team and the defense is trying to play catch up this year.

[Nas]

All offense with a last ranked defense.

 

Peyton played like that his entire career, with all the help on O and a horrible defense.

 

It's actually a pretty good comparison like Fish said, Eli and the offense is the team and the defense is trying to play catch up this year.

 

Yea but hopefully our D is better this year... and I don't see the FO focusing on the D next year since the big prize will be Nicks.

[fishgutmartyr]

All offense with a last ranked defense.

 

Peyton played like that his entire career, with all the help on O and a horrible defense.

 

It's actually a pretty good comparison like Fish said, Eli and the offense is the team and the defense is trying to play catch up this year.

 

You could also parallel Marvin Harrison/Reggie Wayne with Nicks/Cruz--although it probably would have been Burress/Smith if things went as planned. Harrison had the good sense to wait until retirement to start discharging weapons in public.

 

You could also link Edgerron James and Bradshaw. Although James never had someone like Jacobs, if I recall.

 

Anyway, the same recipe: Weak defense, strong offense. Offense emphasizes passing game with above average rushing.

[Storm]

I were making $10 million a year and my company could actually win awards for my salary help then I think I would. I respect Brady immensely for what he's done for the Patriots. When was the last time you have ever heard of him with contract issues? If Manning took a pay cut, not restructure, I think the Giants will be in another SB. As it is making another SB will be very tough.

 

I hate the man, but Tom Brady is the best quarterback I've ever personally been alive to see play. And I agree, utmost respect for him and what he did for the Patriots....I remember when that team was consistently the laughingstock of the NFL (late 80s-mid 90s)....

[Storm]

All offense with a last ranked defense.

 

Peyton played like that his entire career, with all the help on O and a horrible defense.

 

It's actually a pretty good comparison like Fish said, Eli and the offense is the team and the defense is trying to play catch up this year.

 

And just...well, DAMN....look at the receiving corps we have. Reminiscent of Wayne and Harrison in their prime, IMO....

 

EDIT: sorry Fish, I didn't see you had posted the same thing....I like the Edge and Bradshaw comparison, too. Shit, you even have JPP and before that Tuck who could be compared to the anchor on the Indy line---Dwight Freeney in his prime....

 

And I can't even think of a good Colts LB from that time! Like us!