What Saquon Barkley's new Giants deal means moving forward
Saquon Barkley signed a one-year contract worth up to $11 million and reported Tuesday for the start of Giants training camp, ending a tense negotiation that dominated the offseason headlines.
Here are the answers to questions frequently asked by fans:
Q: Why did Barkley agree to this now?
A: The idea of missing practices and creating a distraction for his teammates at the start of a season of big expectations was more than the team-first, football-above-business Barkley could stomach.
He became the first franchise-tagged player since Edgerrin James in 2005 to work out a deal by which he could actually out-earn the tag, so he can claim that as a small negotiation win.
Q: Is it strange that the contract incentives are tied to making the playoffs?
A: It seems like a contradiction to the popular argument against paying top dollar to running backs because their production doesn’t equate to wins.
Saquon Barkley agreed to a new deal with the Giants, adding more questions for fans and the front office alike. Bill Kostroun/New York Post
Barkley could eclipse 1,350 rushing yards, 11 total touchdowns and 65 receptions — the thresholds for bonuses worth $303,000 apiece — and not receive an extra dime above his $10.1 million base if the defense stinks. Or if Daniel Jones gets hurt. Or anything else that causes the Giants to miss the postseason.
Q: Did the Giants try to trade Barkley at his request?
A: No. Sources told The Post that Barkley did not request a trade and the Giants were never interested in trading him.
When negotiations stalled after he was tagged in March, Barkley’s representatives asked the Giants to shop him around the league to shape a fair market price. The Giants denied that request and also turned away at least two inquiries, including one from the Dolphins.
Q: If the Giants can just franchise tag him again a year from now, aren’t we headed for a repeat of this next offseason?
A: Probably, but that’s a headache for another day.
It was a big concession by Barkley to report to camp without the Giants meeting his request to forfeit their right to use a second tag in 2024. That was the biggest gain he could’ve achieved by holding out.
Instead, if he has another big season, the two sides can re-engage in multiyear contract negotiations in January, but the Giants will maintain the leverage of using a second franchise tag at $12.1 million with the same $909,000 in incentives carrying over.
Q: What does the new deal mean for the next group of Giants who are going to be up for contracts? Andrew Thomas and Xavier McKinney specifically.
A: Be wary of rejecting general manager Joe Schoen’s best initial offer because he means it when he threatens to pull it and restart negotiations from scratch. Ask Julian Love (now with the Seahawks) and Barkley.
Thomas is under team control through 2024, but probably has a leverage advantage similar to Jones and defensive tackle Dexter Lawrence as a dominant young left tackle. But McKinney could be in Barkley’s shoes next offseason as a possible tag candidate and a safety affected by position devaluing.
Q: Who won this? The Giants? Barkley? Both? Neither?
A: Schoen has the Giants’ best offensive playmaker under a reasonable contract — tied for the sixth-highest paid running back — without any long-term commitment if Barkley gets injured or underperforms.
And the Giants avoided the headache of Barkley’s absence by giving a matter of inches. CAA’s Ed Berry, Barkley’s added co-agent, salvaged the best out of a negotiation botched long before he joined the representation in June.
Q: Is Barkley happy about this? Or is he going to be here reluctantly?
A: That’s unclear. Best guess is that he compartmentalizes how he feels about his teammates (happy to be reunited) versus how he feels he was treated by the front office and ownership (disrespected).
Barkley certainly isn’t as content as he would’ve been if he and the Giants had closed a gap of less than $2 million last week and reached a three-year extension, but he could’ve made this uglier than he did if he were sulking.
Source: New York Post
