The franchise tag deadline annually produces a run of headlines before the pivotal July date. This year’s lead tag story will be Saquon Barkley‘s status with the Giants. After expressing frustration with being tagged, Barkley has until July 17 to sign a long-term extension. No deal by that date tables any negotiations until 2024.
New York pulled its top proposal to Barkley after tagging him in March. That offer was said to be worth in the $13MM-per-year neighborhood. The Giants have not put that $13MM-AAV term back on the table, the New York Daily News’ Pat Leonard notes.
Regarding the two known offers the Giants have made — one north of $12MM on average from November and the $13MM-AAV proposal from earlier this year — Leonard adds these were not high on guarantees. Indicating he would not sign his franchise tender this week, Barkley voiced frustration about the leaks from the Giants’ side regarding the offers he rejected.
Barkley’s guarantee baseline may be in the $22MM range, ESPN’s Jordan Raanan notes, as it would match the cost of playing on the tag this year and being re-tagged in 2024 (video link). Only two veteran backs — Christian McCaffrey ($30.1MM) and Derrick Henry ($25.5MM) — are attached to deals including more than $18MM fully guaranteed. Barkley’s initial NFL contract — from his No. 2 draft slot — once stood atop the position for guaranteed cash ($31.2MM). While Barkley has made nearly $40MM thanks to that deal and his 2022 fifth-year option, he does not have too many more prime seasons to parlay into a multiyear guarantee.
The Giants are believed to be OK with Barkley playing on the tag, despite the $10.9MM cap hold. Barkley, 26, joined Josh Jacobs and Tony Pollard in being cuffed this year. That took the top three backs off the market, but a host of starter-level backs still hit free agency. The buyer’s market, as expected, produced a host of mid- and low-level contracts. Barkley argued this year’s running back market — which saw Miles Sanders‘ $6.4MM-per-year Panthers deal (11th in RB AAV) lead the way — is not a true reflection of the position’s value, since the franchise-tagged heavy hitters would have commanded more.
“I think the biggest thing is being patient, being open to listen and understanding what the market is,” Giants assistant GM Brandon Brown said, via NJ.com’s Bob Brookover. “The market surplus and scarcity dictates a lot on how you make decisions and also being able to agree to disagree at times and being able to get back to the table.”
Said surplus now includes Dalvin Cook, whom the Vikings finally cut last week. It remains highly unlikely the Giants would rescind Barkley’s tag to sign Cook, as that would go over poorly in the locker room given the former’s contributions to last year’s playoff-bound team. Barkley bounced back from three injury-plagued seasons to lead a Giants team low on reliable pass catchers to the postseason.
Giants hesitation regarding a top-flight guarantee is also understandable, with Barkley having suffered a high ankle sprain in 2019, an ACL tear in 2020 and another ankle injury in 2021. Barkley missed 21 games during that span. Barkley acknowledged his injury past when he said in January he was not asking to set the market at running back, but while this position’s value continues to dip across the NFL, the Giants are preparing to build around a quarterback (Daniel Jones) who submitted uneven rookie-contract work. Barkley remains a pivotal part of this plan.
As of late May, no deal was close. The team, however, came to terms with Jones minutes before the March franchise tag deadline, allowing for the Barkley tag. Negotiations with tagged players regularly run up to the July extension deadline.
“I think they’re open to talking,” Barkley said. “I’m open to talking. I think at the end of the day, if you really break it down and look at it as a whole, there is no rush. There is still time on the table to get to July 17. July 17 is not tomorrow. Maybe that is the naïve way to look at it. I could be completely wrong. But for me, that’s how I look at it. I trust in the Giants that we could get something done.”
Although Barkley has banked far more than Le’Veon Bell did when he sat out the 2018 season in protest of the tag, Fox Sports’ Ralph Vacchiano notes the Giants are not concerned he will follow the ex-Steeler’s lead by skipping a season. That would cost him the $10.9MM tag salary and his age-26 season. It is not expected the Giants will raise their offer from March, but it will be interesting to see how the guarantees look in Big Blue’s final proposal before next month’s deadline.
Thought the process was, go to college on athletic scholarship and get a degree in a employable field, get into the NFL and play for a few years because of ‘love of the game’ and make a few bucks – then stop playing and get a real job in the ‘field you spent your college days acquiring’.
Instead it’s become – go to college for free get to the NFL and play football because you can be overpaid and gather enough money so you can waste your college degree and never actually ‘get a real job’.
So why do colleges bother to offer degrees to football or basketball players if they’re only playing to get overly rich and never use the degree!
“So why do colleges bother to offer degrees to football or basketball players if they’re only playing to get overly rich and never use the degree!”
Because it is free labor for the colleges, who make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars off of TV deals, merchandise, game tickets, boosters, donors, etc without ever having to pay a single player a dime. I’m struggling to understand your comment because it seems to operate under the assumption that these colleges care about educating people. They don’t. They exist to make money on a much larger scale than any of the Saquon Barkleys of the world will ever make.
So the real miscreant is academia greed?
They suck money from ‘students’ and provide minimal ‘education’, they feed off money from government ‘grants’, they take money from corporations and foreign countries (China and India in particular) AND milk monies from athletics – is this where ex-wives get basic training?
Devil’s Advocate Mode:
Where would the Giants have been last season w/out Barkley?
Where will the Giants be this season w/out Barkley?
$30M Jones happened because of the QB market for the foreseeable future; I get that.
The “business side” argument rings hallow because it relies on the RB shelf life yet ignores the realities of the position.
The physicality of every play whether they’re running the ball or not.
The entire Offensive dependency on establishing the run game.
The increasing usage in the passing game.
The necessity for the position to protect the QB on passing plays.
… of course the shelf life isn’t as long as a QB or WR. The closest is TE; who don’t have close the number of touches as RB
So what I don’t get is why guaranteed money for RBs can be related to market; at best that’s as disingenuous as it gets.
There’s no serious debate about the position being pivotal, so keep the annual cap hit modest but, for example, guarantee 2-3 of a 5 year contract … Hell, if the CBA doesn’t forbid it, make the guarantee incentive-based.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ijs
“The market surplus and scarcity dictates a lot on how you make decisions”.
That’s a valid statement but if you already have a car in your garage that is working well, why bother looking at what is available on the used car market?
I’d be comfortable with a 3 year deal with something near the tag over 2 years (say $22M) in guaranteed money, giving the Giants an out after 2 years and even be able to get out after 2023 with a cap hit.
You would think Barkley’s #’s will go down just by the offense becoming evolved. They basically went with no TE and #3 and #4 WR’s last year. They’ve made some upgrades and the offense won’t require quite as much from Barkley to be successful.