|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 13, 2019 11:53:43 GMT
It's a pretty strange time to be Giants fan. The reaction of the Beckham trade seems to be very split. From my perspective the trade itself is not really the issue I'm having, but rather the entire approach the front office is taking of just purging the roster of any good players whatsoever. They're committing to being bad for a few years to clear their cap space. To what end? Who the hell knows at this point?
I've heard arguments that this is a good move because Yankees did the same thing a couple of years ago and they're in a better position now. I was trying to think of a scenario where this has clearly worked out in the NFL and no example came immediately to mind.
Is there a clear success story here that I am just not able to come up with, or has this not really been a winning formula in pro football?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 13, 2019 11:56:11 GMT
Relax, Eli can throw to me. I'll be 42 in a couple of months, but I'm a gamer.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Mar 13, 2019 12:02:31 GMT
Let's see what the guys on the NY Giants Reddit have to say about this...
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 13, 2019 12:17:45 GMT
Great, productive responses so far, but I'm wondering if there are great examples of a team tanking into a successful rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Mar 13, 2019 12:20:38 GMT
Great, productive responses so far, but I'm wondering if there are great examples of a team tanking into a successful rebuild. The Raiders tore it all down last season and just look at them now! They're going to Vegas and they have Antonio Brown! That could be you, too.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 13, 2019 12:27:13 GMT
They’re a bad team that was paying a ton of money to a malcontent that wasn’t helping them win. Time to rebuild the team from the inside out. For a team on the upswing, Odell is obviously a huge add, but for a basement dweller, he’s wasted. It’s like a last place team in baseball paying top dollar for a closer. Giants fans can be upset about this because he is a transcendent type of talent, but they also need to look at this without emotion.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 13, 2019 12:50:48 GMT
They’re a bad team that was paying a ton of money to a malcontent that wasn’t helping them win. Time to rebuild the team from the inside out. For a team on the upswing, Odell is obviously a huge add, but for a basement dweller, he’s wasted. It’s like a last place team in baseball paying top dollar for a closer. Giants fans can be upset about this because he is a transcendent type of talent, but they also need to look at this without emotion. Sure, but as I already said this is just the most recent move in a trend. If this had been just one move that would be one thing, but they've last Snacks Harrison for almost no compensation, Landon Collins for absolutely no compensation, and now Beckham for clearly unequal compensation. So 3 players in the handful of best at their position for essentially no return at all. Clearing cap space is all that it achieves. It means they are committed to losing for a few years. It means they are willing to make Barkley's life miserable and essentially wasting his career that they spent their best draft pick in over a decade on. I'm looking at is as objectively as I can, and I'm having a tough time seeing where any of this is smart. It might be smart if there's an example to point to in which this has worked before, which is what I'm asking for. I can't think of any time where losing on purpose and making sure you dont have more than one good player has translated into a successful rebuild. But maybe I'm wrong and somebody can come up with one that I could not.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 13, 2019 14:12:31 GMT
They’re a bad team that was paying a ton of money to a malcontent that wasn’t helping them win. Time to rebuild the team from the inside out. For a team on the upswing, Odell is obviously a huge add, but for a basement dweller, he’s wasted. It’s like a last place team in baseball paying top dollar for a closer. Giants fans can be upset about this because he is a transcendent type of talent, but they also need to look at this without emotion. Sure, but as I already said this is just the most recent move in a trend. If this had been just one move that would be one thing, but they've last Snacks Harrison for almost no compensation, Landon Collins for absolutely no compensation, and now Beckham for clearly unequal compensation. So 3 players in the handful of best at their position for essentially no return at all. Clearing cap space is all that it achieves. It means they are committed to losing for a few years. It means they are willing to make Barkley's life miserable and essentially wasting his career that they spent their best draft pick in over a decade on. I'm looking at is as objectively as I can, and I'm having a tough time seeing where any of this is smart. It might be smart if there's an example to point to in which this has worked before, which is what I'm asking for. I can't think of any time where losing on purpose and making sure you dont have more than one good player has translated into a successful rebuild. But maybe I'm wrong and somebody can come up with one that I could not. I don't follow the team as closely as you do, but apparently the team is openly saying that they dumped Beckham for his off-the-field antics, rather than trying to truly plan for the future. Criticizing Eli in interviews, revealing injuries on facebook rather than directly to the team, his moodiness, things like that. Tough to compare rebuilding in the NFL to rebuilding in baseball. The Yankees caught lightning in a bottle with Aaron Judge, a late first round draft pick who quickly became an afterthought after his so-so showing in AAA and his disastrous 2016 stint and the team nearly cut him in the spring of 2017. Of course, he miraculously goes on to become one of the game's elite power hitters seemingly overnight. In the NFL, you're really just a healthy team away from being competitive with a few key people in the most vital positions (QB, OL and d-line, namely). The Giants need bodies more than they need Beckham at this point in time. You can have the best skill position players of all time and if your QB does down or if your line gets ravaged, it's pretty much over. Even if you don't have the sexy names, if another team in your division gets banged up, you can make a move. So I guess the Giants are looking this in terms of acquiring bodies via draft picks. They'll have 2 first rounders this year, and I'd have to assume they'd draft a QB with one of them. You'll never get "equal" compensation for a player like Beckham, but if they were truly sick of his shit, then they believe they can at least use the draft to make themselves viable for next year. I guess? Hopefully they don't draft Ereck Flowers. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, and you're right about Barkley, but if you're coming off 2 shit seasons and you're staring down the barrel of another one, spending all that money on a malcontent who can't really help you win because you're deficient in other areas isn't a good recipe for success.
|
|
|
Post by No_Socks_Here on Mar 13, 2019 14:40:19 GMT
"It’s like a last place team in baseball paying top dollar for a closer...."
....or an All-Star 3rd baseman.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 13, 2019 14:46:26 GMT
"It’s like a last place team in baseball paying top dollar for a closer...." ....or an All-Star 3rd baseman. Not remotely the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 13, 2019 15:15:48 GMT
OK, here's one area where I think this is stupid on the part of the Giants. Usually when a new regime takes over, they like to start over from scratch - new coaches, new players, and sometimes it takes a bit of time to jettison everything from the previous staff. I don't follow the Giants, so I had actually assumed that Dave Gettleman had inherited Beckham's contract. That's not the case though; not only did Gettleman continuously state that he wouldn't trade Beckham, but he's the one who signed him to the contract.
So on the one hand, yeah they were paying too much for a piece that can't help them because they were too deficient in other areas. But given the return, the contract that Gettleman signed him to AND the public repetition of how he wouldn't be traded, this is a bit of a head scratcher.
I spoke too soon earlier when I first posted on this thread and was speaking in general terms when it comes to building a team. I stand by that position - you have to be good in the middle before you can dole out record contracts to the perimeter, but the more I read about this, the more odd the whole situation becomes. Does Gettleman even know what he's doing?
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 13, 2019 19:01:20 GMT
OK, here's one area where I think this is stupid on the part of the Giants. Usually when a new regime takes over, they like to start over from scratch - new coaches, new players, and sometimes it takes a bit of time to jettison everything from the previous staff. I don't follow the Giants, so I had actually assumed that Dave Gettleman had inherited Beckham's contract. That's not the case though; not only did Gettleman continuously state that he wouldn't trade Beckham, but he's the one who signed him to the contract. So on the one hand, yeah they were paying too much for a piece that can't help them because they were too deficient in other areas. But given the return, the contract that Gettleman signed him to AND the public repetition of how he wouldn't be traded, this is a bit of a head scratcher. I spoke too soon earlier when I first posted on this thread and was speaking in general terms when it comes to building a team. I stand by that position - you have to be good in the middle before you can dole out record contracts to the perimeter, but the more I read about this, the more odd the whole situation becomes. Does Gettleman even know what he's doing? Well, I appreciate you saving me the trouble of typing out a lot of the above myself. But also they're deficient in other areas, largely because Gettleman doesn't seem to be able to evaluate talent, but also becuase he's now traded away or declined to sign some of these players in the less flashy but crucial positions. His attempts to sure up the offensive line have been abysmal, and now they are starting over completely and apparently we are supposed to trust this guy to make all of these choices. They're going to start over in all facets of the team other than, presumably, the running back which is traditionally the least crucial position long term. Shedding proven players to just start from square one could, I suppose, pay off. It could also mean that they'll make the wrong choices and set the franchise back and be among the worst teams in the league for a decade. Despite how I might have made it seem, I really did want to know if the tank-and-rebuild model has ever actually worked in the NFL. So again, if anybody can think of an example...?
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Mar 13, 2019 19:04:37 GMT
OK, here's one area where I think this is stupid on the part of the Giants. Usually when a new regime takes over, they like to start over from scratch - new coaches, new players, and sometimes it takes a bit of time to jettison everything from the previous staff. I don't follow the Giants, so I had actually assumed that Dave Gettleman had inherited Beckham's contract. That's not the case though; not only did Gettleman continuously state that he wouldn't trade Beckham, but he's the one who signed him to the contract. So on the one hand, yeah they were paying too much for a piece that can't help them because they were too deficient in other areas. But given the return, the contract that Gettleman signed him to AND the public repetition of how he wouldn't be traded, this is a bit of a head scratcher. I spoke too soon earlier when I first posted on this thread and was speaking in general terms when it comes to building a team. I stand by that position - you have to be good in the middle before you can dole out record contracts to the perimeter, but the more I read about this, the more odd the whole situation becomes. Does Gettleman even know what he's doing? Well, I appreciate you saving me the trouble of typing out a lot of the above myself. But also they're deficient in other areas, largely because Gettleman doesn't seem to be able to evaluate talent, but also becuase he's now traded away or declined to sign some of these players in the less flashy but crucial positions. His attempts to sure up the offensive line have been abysmal, and now they are starting over completely and apparently we are supposed to trust this guy to make all of these choices. They're going to start over in all facets of the team other than, presumably, the running back which is traditionally the least crucial position long term. Shedding proven players to just start from square one could, I suppose, pay off. It could also mean that they'll make the wrong choices and set the franchise back and be among the worst teams in the league for a decade. Despite how I might have made it seem, I really did want to know if the tank-and-rebuild model has ever actually worked in the NFL. So again, if anybody can think of an example...? Probably wasn’t a true tank by your meaning but that last year Peyton was injured on the Colts, they just mailed it in that year and then drafted Luck. Closest I could think of regarding tanking.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 13, 2019 19:12:53 GMT
Great, productive responses so far, but I'm wondering if there are great examples of a team tanking into a successful rebuild. Football, not sure. Baseball, the Houston Astros.
The Giants would suck with OBJ. When you are in a position like the Giants, why not get rid of the few valuable pieces and get something of value. You know damn well OBJ will only handle one more season of double digit losses before he wants out. His value is as big as it will get. I think its a good move
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 13, 2019 19:40:41 GMT
Great, productive responses so far, but I'm wondering if there are great examples of a team tanking into a successful rebuild. Football, not sure. Baseball, the Houston Astros.
The Giants would suck with OBJ. When you are in a position like the Giants, why not get rid of the few valuable pieces and get something of value. You know damn well OBJ will only handle one more season of double digit losses before he wants out. His value is as big as it will get. I think its a good move
Whether getting rid of him or not is a good move, they fucked the whole thing up, signed him to a huge deal and then shuffled him off while still having it count against the cap and still paying a portion of his salary. It just proves the ineptitude of management and ownership of a team that always used to be thought of doing it the right way. But, all that aside. One player isn't the issue. It's just representative of what they're doing overall. They've lost just about every major playmaker they had on both sides of the ball. They are clearly committing to losing in the short term. The question is just whether or not this will actually work, and if it ever has for another team.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 13, 2019 19:45:53 GMT
Great, productive responses so far, but I'm wondering if there are great examples of a team tanking into a successful rebuild. Football, not sure. Baseball, the Houston Astros.
The Giants would suck with OBJ. When you are in a position like the Giants, why not get rid of the few valuable pieces and get something of value. You know damn well OBJ will only handle one more season of double digit losses before he wants out. His value is as big as it will get. I think its a good move
Yeah, there seem baseball and basketball examples aplenty. But in the NFL, even the Colts weren't really tanking. They just happened to be the worst team in the league without Peyton Manning. And even then, they haven't even been good since getting Luck. The mismanagement that was revealed by how bad the team was without their one great player should have showed us how badly they'd manage the subsequent Andre Luck era.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 13, 2019 20:39:21 GMT
Football, not sure. Baseball, the Houston Astros.
The Giants would suck with OBJ. When you are in a position like the Giants, why not get rid of the few valuable pieces and get something of value. You know damn well OBJ will only handle one more season of double digit losses before he wants out. His value is as big as it will get. I think its a good move
Yeah, there seem baseball and basketball examples aplenty. But in the NFL, even the Colts weren't really tanking. They just happened to be the worst team in the league without Peyton Manning. And even then, they haven't even been good since getting Luck. The mismanagement that was revealed by how bad the team was without their one great player should have showed us how badly they'd manage the subsequent Andre Luck era. That's true. The Colts didn't tank. They just weren't a good team. They were a bad team with 1 great player and when that 1 great player was out with an injury, we saw just how bad the team really was. They were similar to the Cavs. The Cavs were a bad team with 1 great player and when that 1 great player left, we see just how bad the Cavs are.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 13, 2019 20:44:32 GMT
Football, not sure. Baseball, the Houston Astros.
The Giants would suck with OBJ. When you are in a position like the Giants, why not get rid of the few valuable pieces and get something of value. You know damn well OBJ will only handle one more season of double digit losses before he wants out. His value is as big as it will get. I think its a good move
Yeah, there seem baseball and basketball examples aplenty. But in the NFL, even the Colts weren't really tanking. They just happened to be the worst team in the league without Peyton Manning. And even then, they haven't even been good since getting Luck. The mismanagement that was revealed by how bad the team was without their one great player should have showed us how badly they'd manage the subsequent Andre Luck era. The Bills did a little. They looked forward for two years to the 2018 Quarterback rich Draft to get one. They didn't like the offerings in the 17 draft and wanted one of the big ticket WR's, Mike Williams, John Ross or Corey Davis. When they went, they traded down with KC, looking to pick up extra pick and get their guy in '18. The Bills were supposed to stink in '17 but they squeaked a WC actually hurting their draft.
The problem, Kansas City used the pick on Pat Mahomes. Eek, but who knows how Mahomes would have done in Buffalo without anyone to throw to? The pick they got from Kc was used on Tre'Davious White, a good player.
And, as far as OBJ's contract, it definitely helped his trade value. The Giants got a decent haul for a 26 year old receiver. In his prime but he could be a cancer if Mayfield takes a step back and he playing for a 5-11 team in Cleveland and not New York.
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Mar 13, 2019 21:16:19 GMT
There's injecting youth into the team to build for the future and inevitably suffering a couple of poor seasons as a result and then there's tanking: deliberately losing games for draft picks or what have you. The second is always risky and usually unnecessary. You end up with half your players not giving a shit and the other half who do wanting out. Rebuilding's fine as long as you're trying to win every game. Players develop a lot better when they're trying hard every week and coming up short. Pushes them to train harder and get better. That's how you develop them, not by trying to lose and patting them on the back for having potential.
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Mar 13, 2019 23:44:11 GMT
I can’t think of a specific “big 4” side deliberately tanking, simply because of the lottery. Most teams that get high draft picks don’t tank, they just suck. The only genuine examples of a team tanking is in Australia. Both Melbourne and Carlton in the AFL deliberately tanked a season. In both cases it failed dismally. In fact, over a decade later, Carlton still suck.
|
|