Brian Spurlock-USA TODAY Sports
Breaking Down the Pros, Cons, and Costs of the Giants Trade Rumors
Although there are still nine more games left on the NFL schedule, the Giants (2-5) season is, as of right now, not on the path they had hoped it would be.
Such is where things stand after the Giants having messed up a golden opportunity last week to make up some valuable ground in the NFC East.
While the hope was that the team would be competitive, it has reached a point now where it's apparently gone full rebuild mode in getting its young franchise quarterback and its young defensive players valuable game experience that they can build on for the future and, hopefully, better times ahead.
That brings us to the dilemma of Giants general manager Dave Gettleman, who is once again in a position where he'll need to be thinking about the franchise's future a lot sooner than he had hoped.
That brings us to next week's trade deadline on October 29. Already there have been some interesting rumors making their way across the airwaves regarding potential player trades.
Would the Giants, who last year were active in exchanging veteran players for draft picks, once again be sellers as the October 29 trade deadline approaches? And if so, would any of those trades involve players who are currently part of the team's core?
Let's run down the list of players whose names have been linked to trades and explore how practical such moves--and how cost-effective-- these moves might be.
LT Nate Solder
A popular argument in favor of trading away the veteran left tackle is all the money the team would save.
How much exactly? The Giants would be hit with $2.541 million of Solder's $5.5 million base salary as dead cap space (since that money was already paid out) plus because he would be a post-June 1 transaction, the Giants would have to eat $6.5 million of his signing bonus this year and the remaining $13 million in 2020, a hefty number that would eat into the team's projected $65,249,277 cap space.
The Giants need to ask themselves before they consider shipping Solder anywhere is, do they want to risk sabotaging Daniel Jones' development?
Despite his struggles, Solder is still the team's best option at left tackle, and it's not even close. And that's a big reason why ut would defy logic if the Giants were to agree to move Solder barring an absolute sweetheart of a deal.
ILB Alec Ogletree
Thee arrival of Deone Bucannon creates an interesting scenario for the Giants. Defensive coordinator James Bettcher hasn't revealed his intentions yet, but it would be hard to imagine that Bucannon, who already knows Bettcher's defense, won't be a three-down linebacker.
The problem for Ogletree is that's the role he currently holds, which means if the Giants decide to go with one less inside linebacker, Ogletree's snaps could be compromised.
If Ogletree isn't going to be that three-down linebacker any more, does it make sense to keep him around on his current contract?
Probably not.
If Bucannon plays well, figure the Giants will probably want to get him back next year to pair alongside rookie Ryan Connelly, who should be good to go after tearing his ACL earlier this year.
That means there would be no room for Ogletree and his contract.
When Ogletree was acquired from the Rams, they and not the Giants, had to eat his signing bonus. This means that so as long as the Giants don't restructure Ogletree's contract, they can terminate it and not worry about any dead money hitting their books.
If the Giants can find a trade partner for Ogletree, they could recoup $2.117 million on this year's cap, a figure that would nearly double the $2,159,446 of remaining cap space the NFLPA's public cap report shows the Giants as having.
However, teams might be reluctant to take on his contract, which next year is due to pay him a base salary of $10 million.
With the Giants having invested so much in terms of financial resources, and with Connelly on IR, even though Ogletree is potentially facing a reduction in his snaps, the Giants are likely going to keep him for the rest of this year.
CB Janoris Jenkins
Jenkins continues to be the odds-on favorite to be moved in a trade, a move that if the Giants were to make after this weekend's game, would save them approximately $5.373 million on what's left of his base salary for this year, and which would result in a very reasonable $3.5 million in dead money hitting next year's cap.
The biggest pro in favor of moving Jenkins, assuming they find a trade partner (and beside the cost savings), is the opportunity to get their young cornerbacks some snaps.
Just as the Giants are trying to get Daniel Jones ready for the future on offense, it would behoove the Giants, assuming they have fully embraced that their season is now in full-scale rebuild mode thanks to their 2-5 record, to apply the same thinking on the defensive sided of the ball and get youngsters like Corey Ballentine (once he's cleared from the concussion protocol), Sam Beal (assuming he's activated off IR) some defensive snaps.
Removing Jenkins from the roster would clear a path for that to happen.
Here is the downside. Jenkins has taken all those youngsters under his wing, and if he's removed from the room, those young players lose a very valuable voice and mentor who, unlike their position coaches, has been under fire on an NFL playing field recently.
Also factoring into any decision, Gettleman might make regarding Jenkins is the aforementioned health statuses of Ballentine and Beal.
In the case of Beal, who hasn't practiced much since being selected in the third round of last year's supplemental draft, would the Giants be willing to go with the growing pains he is certain to experience if they were to start breaking him in now?
And what about Ballentine? Where would he factor into the equation, assuming he clears the protocol?
The answers to these questions can't be any scarier now that it would appear the Giants don't have a chance at the postseason, so if an offer--any offer--comes in for Jenkins before the trade deadline, it would be hard to fathom Gettleman turning it down given the potential cap savings and the doors it opens to allowing these young cornerbacks to get some much-needed experience.
TE Evan Engram
Engram could be the wild card to watch as we inch closer to the trade deadline.
Why Engram, who right now is the Giants leading receiver in both receptions and receiving yardage and who is still on his rookie deal?
There are a couple of questions the Giants need to ask themselves here. First, do they feel that Engram, who last week had two drops and who now has met his entire 2018 drop total (3) will develop into the kind of reliable and steady (or is that sturdy as in no more missing games due to injury) player they hope for?
If the answer is yes, then the decision to pick up Engram's option year after this season is a no-brainer.
The other side of the coin goes back to Daniel Jones' development. Right now, it would behoove the Giants to put as many key pieces around Jones as possible. Engram, despite his injury issues and dropped passes, appears to be part of that group.
With that said, if Gettleman receives a two-pick deal for Engram--say, for a third- and a fifth-rounder--then that might be an offer that's too good to pass up.
WR Golden Tate
Tate's name has been tossed around out there as a possible trade chip, but that's unlikely to happen for one primary reason: Sterling Shepard's health.
Shepard has still not been cleared from his second stint in the league protocol. Assuming he does get cleared to return, it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that if he suffers a third concussion, that would be a season-ending event.
Tate, as critics have pointed out, is a slot receiver like Shepard. If Shepard were healthy, the thought of moving Tate might make more sense, especially since his recent four-game suspension reportedly voided any guarantees he had in his contract.
But so long as that cloud hangs over Shepard's head, it doesn't make sense for the Giants to send Tate, whose base salary jumps up to $7,975,000 next year, packing just yet.
