In Joe We Trust.

If you had any doubts about whether Joe Schoen was the right man to run the New York Giants, the last couple of days should've put them all to bed. In a span of 24 hours, Schoen not only got Saquon Barkley to sign his franchise tag but locked up his top offensive tackle Andrew Thomas for the next five years.

First Barkley: Schoen front loaded a $2 million signing bonus into the tag and included $909,000 in bonus incentives that 1. require the Giants to make the playoffs; and 2. require Barkley to rush for 1300 yards, catch 65 passes and score 11 touchdowns. It also doesn't preclude the Giants from slapping a franchise tag on Barkley next year.

It's a win / win for Schoen. Think about it. If the Giants make the playoffs and Barkley manages to hit all his benchmarks, it'll be the easiest $900k Schoen ever spent. However, should the Giants fail to make the postseason, or if Barkley fails to hit any or all of his benchmarks, Schoen at the very least avoided what could've been a protracted holdout and got arguably the third best running back in the NFL to play for a million dollars less than the last offer he had on the table before the deadline.

Shrewd doesn't begin to describe what happened here. For all the sympathy Barkley was engendering within the sports community over how "unfairly" he was being treated, the simple truth is that all the leverage was on the Giants side. Once Barkley rejected what would've been a three-year deal that included $22 to $23 million in guaranteed money, his only option was to sign the franchise tag. A holdout would've cost him even more money and quite possibly ended his career with Big Blue. In the end, he did the right thing and swallowed his pride. 

But Schoen wasn't remotely done. He signed Thomas to a five-year, $117.5 million deal that ensures one of the best left tackles in football remains a Giant for the foreseeable future. It's a huge contract to be sure - the second highest for that position in the league - but the way it's written, it only increases Thomas's cap hit by $1.47 million over last season.

Indeed, between locking up Daniel Jones, Dexter Lawrence, Barkley and Thomas and the additions of Darren Waller, Cole Beasley and James Robinson, Schoen is assembling a roster that will be deeper than the one that went 9-7-1 last year and made the playoffs for first time since 2016.

In only his second full season as Giants' GM, Schoen is establishing himself as one helluva negotiator. At the bye last season he offered CB Julian Love a two-year, $14 million contract extension. Like Barkley, Love rejected it and instead shopped around. In response, Schoen pulled the offer and Love eventually wound up signing with the Seattle Seahawks - for $12 million; $2 million less than what he could've gotten from the Giants.

The moral of the story is simple. When Joe Schoen puts a contract in front of you, sign it. Because that's the best offer you're going to get. The man means business.

Just ask Saquon Barkley.

"It Is What It Is."

"There ain't no good guy; there ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree." 

- Dave Mason

No doubt there will be a good deal of analysis and even some finger pointing over the next few weeks regarding what happened between the New York Giants and Saquon Barkley. What we know for certain is that GM Joe Schoen made the last of what was believed to be three contract offers to the all-pro running back, all of which were rejected. As a result, Big Blue will go into the 2023 season not knowing whether Barkley will sign his $10.1 million franchise tag or hold out. As of now, it's anybody's guess.

Already the Monday-morning quarterbacks - pardon the pun - are chirping away. How could the Giants allow this to happen? Why couldn't Schoen just give Barkley what he was asking for? After all, he gave $160 million to Daniel Jones. Certainly Barkley deserved no less consideration given what he has done for this organization.

Let's be clear: the Jones contract was entirely different. The Giants never had any intention of letting their quarterback walk. It was simply a matter of whether they were going to franchise tag him or sign him to a long-term extension. The former meant a $32.4 million cap hit on the books, while the latter, due to the way the contract was written, worked out to a $21.7 million cap hit. For a team still reeling from Dave Gettleman's gross incompetence, Schoen would've been a fool to tag Jones. 

This was a business decision, pure and simple. Schoen knew what he wanted to spend and, more importantly, what he could afford to give up. It's worth noting that even with Barkley on a franchise tag, the Giants only have $4.1 million in available cap space left. As valuable as Barkley is to this offense, Schoen had a fiduciary responsibility to an organization that, cap wise, has been a train wreck for years. How bad a train wreck? This season, they will be carrying $14.7 million in dead cap space, courtesy of Kenny Golladay's contract buyout.

If you're looking for someone to blame here, try Barkley's agent, Kim Miale. She badly overplayed her hand. Either she didn't know what the market for running backs was or she doubted Schoen's resolve. In either event, she cost her client a good deal of money. 

Agents have two basic responsibilities: One should be fairly obvious: get their clients as much money as possible; two, level with their clients in the event they are unsuccessful. Miale clearly failed on number two. Once it was obvious that Schoen wasn't going to blink, she should've told Barkley to sign the contract. She didn't. Or if she did, Barkley didn't listen to her. So instead of a three-year deal with $22 million in guaranteed money, he will now have to settle for $10.1 million on a one-year franchise tag and then hope for a better offer from the Giants next season. 

Fat chance that happening. If anything, it's entirely possible the Giants won't even tender him a franchise tag next summer. The fact that no other team approached Barkley with an offer better than what the Giants had on the table is a pretty good indication that, despite his bonafides, the demand for his services just wasn't there. Josh Jacobs, who had a much better season for the Raiders, also didn't get the deal he was looking for and, like Barkley, has so far refused to sign his franchise tag.

Like it or not, the NFL is a passing league. Running backs are not very high on the pecking order. With the franchise tag expected to go up to $12 million in '24, the Giants might very well elect to low ball Barkley, or perhaps walk away entirely. If that happens, it's on Miale. 

Look, is it fair that one of the most dynamic players in the league is getting treated this way? Of course not. As a fan, I feel bad for the guy. He deserved better than what he got. And I have no doubt that this will reverberate throughout the locker room. It could even cost the Giants a playoff appearance, especially if Barkley decides to sit out the season. 

But the bottom line is this: the NFL, like the NBA and the NHL, has a salary cap. And, yes, I know the league gives their GMs all kinds of room to get creative with respect to player contracts. But come the start of the season, teams still have to be cap compliant. Gettleman was one of the most creative GMs the Giants ever had and look where it got them. At some point you have to be willing to say "enough is enough."

I actually respect the decision Schoen made. It couldn't have been easy for him. But in the end, it was the only decision he could've make.

Mets Should Be Sellers at the Trade Deadline

In a way it was probably a good thing the Mets dropped their last two games before the All-Star Break. The six-game winning streak they had in which they swept the Arizona Diamondbacks, while clearly the best and most exciting baseball they had played in over a month, masked the underlying problems that have beset them all season long. Despite having the highest payroll in baseball, the Mets are a deeply flawed team that, in retrospect, were never really a playoff contender.

And that is why Steve Cohen needs to cut his losses at the trade deadline instead of throwing more good money after bad. Yes, it'll signal to the fanbase that for all intents and purposes the season is over. But let's be honest for a moment: the season was over after the Mets went 7-19 in June. Even with their mini-win streak in July, the Mets failed to gain any ground in the standings. Fans who are still hopeful don't put their tickets on StubHub for $11.

Let's face it: This isn't 1973, when the Amazins took advantage of a weak National League East to sneak into the playoffs. The Braves, Phillies and Marlins are all having excellent seasons and show no signs of easing up. And even if by some miracle all three manage to collapse, Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander and Kodai Senga are no Tom Seaver, Jerry Kooseman and Jon Matlack, though Senga certainly has the ability to be a star in this league. And while David Robertson has done a yeoman's job filling in for Edwin Diaz, he's no Tug McGraw either. 

To quote Bill Parcels, you are what your record says you are. And with a record of 42-48, the Mets are a 4th place team, seven games out of a wild card spot with four teams ahead of them. Only an incurable optimist would look at this situation and see a path forward to a postseason berth. 

No, the question isn't whether the Mets should be sellers at the deadline, but to what extent they should clean house. Obviously, Francisco Lindor and Pete Alonso aren't going anywhere. Neither are Brandon Nimmo, Senga, Francisco Alvarez, Brett Baty and Jeff McNeil. The rest, however, should be up for grabs.

But putting up a for sale sign is one thing; getting a buyer is quite another. Ultimately, everything will hinge on how much money Cohen is willing to eat on his higher priced players. At $43 million a piece, Scherzer and Verlander won't have many suitors. Anything less than 50 percent retention will likely be a non-starter, even for teams with deep pockets like the Dodgers and Yankees. 

As for the haul, as the saying goes, beggars can't afford to be choosy. Tommy Pham may fetch a decent return - perhaps a high end prospect - but players like Starling Marte, Mark Canha, Carlos Carrasco and, well, let's face it, most of the rest, will likely be salary dumps, pure and simple. That's what you get for thinking you can buy a World Series. Cohen may fancy himself a modern day George Steinbrenner, sans the impulsiveness and anger issues, but unfortunately for him, while the Boss had Gabe Paul and Gene Michael as GMs, Cohen has Billy Eppler. I've written ad nauseam about Eppler's deficiencies as an executive. Suffice to say, so long as he is in charge of the Mets front office, Cohen can spend a billion dollars and this franchise will still underachieve.

But that's another story for another time. For now, first things first. The Mets need to sell off what they can, and, as their fans have grown accustomed to hearing, come back and try again next season.

Rangers Fill Their Shopping Cart

Going into this offseason, Chris Drury had three things on his to-do list: 1. Hire a coaching staff; 2. Fill out a roster that as of June 30 had only 14 players signed for the 2023-24 season; and 3. Do it in a way that left him enough cap space to re-sign his two most valuable RFAs: Alexis Lafreniere and K'Andre Miller.

Mission accomplished on all three.

I've already written at length about the Laviolette signing so I won't bore you any further with it. That leaves us with items two and three.

Let's face it: with only $11.7 million to work with, Patrick Kane and Vladimir Tarasenko were never more than pipe dreams for the Twitterverse. There was no way Drury was going to be able to keep either player. The mathematics just wasn't there. And since Drury had made up his mind that he wasn't going to trade or buyout Barclay Goodrow, that meant that the players he was looking at were, shall we say, the bargain basement variety. 

But that doesn't mean he bought crap. Indeed, Drury deserves high marks for his cap creativity. Not one player came in over $825k. And every one filled a need that was sorely lacking. Blake Wheeler ($800k) gives new head coach Peter Laviolette a scoring right wing he can slot anywhere in the top nine; Nick Bonino ($800k) is a legit center that will anchor the fourth line and can also kill penalties; Tyler Pitlick ($787.5k), Riley Nash ($775k) and Alex Belzille ($775) are gritty wingers who will compete for a spot on the fourth line with Will Cuylle; Erik Gustafsson, who played for Laviolette in Washington last season, is a solid left-handed defenseman with some offensive upside, that will play on the third pairing with Braden Schneider; and Jonathan Quick ($825k) was a two-time Stanley Cup winning goaltender with the LA Kings and will now backup Igor Shesterkin.

After the ink dries, Drury will still have $6.9 million left in the kitty to re-sign Lafreniere and Miller, which barring an offer sheet on one or both, should be more than enough.

Were there better options out there? Of course there were, but none that fit within the budget. And in a league that for some godforsaken reason saw fit to raise the salary cap a measly $1 million, the budget Drury had work with was as tight as a drum. Consider this: the Rangers were one of the few teams in the NHL that wasn't forced to giveaway or buyout a single player under contract; nor did they overpay for the players they signed. Betsy Ross couldn't have threaded this needle any better than Drury.

That being said, there are some concerns. Wheeler will be 37 by the start of the season; Bonino is 35; and Quick is nowhere near the goalie he was when the Kings were winning their Cups. A pessimist would say that Drury is taking a big risk here. But it was a risk Drury had to take. Anybody who thinks they could've done better needs to step forward now or forever shut the fuck up. And that goes for a certain individual whose named after a rodent at Disney World.

Now for the sixty-four thousand dollar question. Is this a better team than the one that took the ice at the start of last season? Yes, it is. But as Rangers fans know all too well, it isn't how you start the season that counts; it's how you end it.

Or as a cook might say: the proof is in the pudding.