Jack MacMullen asks: I keep up with Giants news on a daily basis, and I was surprised to see the postings about Dexter Lawrence’s contract grievances. Was never previously aware of the situation. Looking to re-work a contract, or an extension, is a lot different than a trade demand.
Do you have any insights on how the negotiations may be progressing?
Ed says: Jack, you can see how the negotiations are going as well as I can. Lawrence taking the trade request step tells you they are not going well, maybe that they aren’t going anywhere at all.
John Brazel asks: When I received the notification on my phone that he was not reporting and asked for a trade I actually got upset. He still has two years left on his deal and isn’t coming off a great year. While he’s been great individually at times he hasn’t elevated the defense like some of the other premier DT’s in the league have. We have been terrible against the run the last several seasons as well. If he played in ‘25 like he did in ‘24 I would have a completely different opinion. Trading him now would not only free up cap space, but we could get more draft capital. This would be the time to do it in my opinion. Your thoughts?
Ed says: John, you want to talk about Lawrence not elevating the defense? Here are a couple of charts from Sharp Football that would say he does plenty to elevate a defense:
Lawrence is a nose tackle. A unicorn as a nose tackle, but still a nose tackle.
I have said this multiple times in multiple different places. The Giants face the same decision with Lawrence that they faced in 2023 with Leonard Williams. Do you give a big money, long-term extension to a player approaching 30 who “might” be showing signs of decline? Or, do you trade him — even if you do so a year early — and get what you can before his value begins to tumble?
There would not really be a cap benfit to trading Lawrence now. The Giants would have more dead money ($13.9 million) that they would aave ($13.1 million).
I’m sure Lawrence is looking at his deal, seeing that there is no guaranteed salary left on it, and thinking this is the time to get something done.
Andrew Martin asks: The Dexter Lawrence situation feels eerily similar to the Saquon Barkley situation — sit on a great player who’s extremely important to your team and is also underpaid until a huge rift occurs. It seems like Schoen should’ve learned from Barkley that this was a contract situation he should’ve gotten on top of before things boiled over like this. Lawrence is a top 2 or 3 defensive tackle in the league and a critical part of this team. This is a guy you pay, especially when the depth behind him is poor. Do you think they work out this contract situation and if not, is it a sign that Schoen is the wrong guy to run the team moving forward?
Ed says: Andrew, the Giants did not “sit” on Dexter Lawrence. Joe Schoen got out in front on the contracts of Lawrence and Andrew Thomas a couple of years ago by giving both lucrative extensions. The Thomas one was really under market value, but it gave Thomas long-term security he wanted. The Lawrence one put him among the top three or four highest-paid defensive tackles at the time.
A couple of years later, Lawrence’s contract doesn’t look as good to the player. That’s how things go in the NFL. The cap keeps skyrocketing, so contracts keep going. Lawrence’s deal is now 11th among defensive tackles, and there are a handful of guys making more money than he does who are not as good as Lawrence is.
I am also not sure things have “boiled over.” Lawrence does have a contract for the next two years. We aren’t talking about a franchise tag, or Lawrence hitting the open market if a deal isn’t reached in the next few weeks.
As Harbaugh said, it’s business. It’s how things are done in the league. Lawrence had the trade request card to play, and he has played it. It’s all part of the dance when you are talking about players this good, and sums of money this large.
I think the Giants eventually sign Lawrence to an extension. I think they know they need to. Harbaugh’s been through this before, and he seemed a lot less bent out of shape about it than the fan base does.
Bob Donnelly asks: Dexter Lawrence doesn’t have the strongest bargaining position when you consider:
- His age
- Off year last season
- The team’s current year’s cap room
- The upcoming draft class appears to be very light in top end talent
- He has two years remaining on his current contract
- The Giants would have the option to tag him for the ‘28 season by the end of which he will be 32.
Clearly the team could play hardball if they wanted to.
Do you think Dexter and his agent should have waited until next year to press for a new contract (and prove last year’s drop off was a function of the elbow and arrival of his first child) or is the lack of any remaining guaranteed money too big a problem for him to wait?
Ed says: Bob, I think there are a few reasons why Lawrence would make this trade request now.
As I said above, he is better than a lot of guys making more money than he is. He also has no guaranteed money remaining.
He could be thinking that the time is now to push for a deal rather than wait a year and take a chance on having another down, injury-plagued year that would wreck his value. He didn’t have a great 2025, but even the Giants have pointed to lingering impact from his 2024 elbow injury as part of the reason.
The other reason could simply be that he’s tired of the constant changes in New York. He’s been there seven years. They were rebuilding when he got there, and they have really never stopped. They are at a point where they are starting over again. Maybe he has just had enough of that and would like to go to a team like the Buffalo Bills or the Los Angeles Rams that are in a “win-now” phase while he is still at or near the top of his game.
The only reason he doesn’t have a strong bargaining position is that he has two years left on his contract, and the Giants can just shrug and say “hey, you signed the deal. If you want to play, there’s the field.”
Wayne Mirsky asks: I just don’t understand how anyone could support Dexter Lawrence now. Or understand his position. He signed a $90 million dollar contract , which at the time probably made him one of the highest paid DL. Now he sees that there are other DL who are making more and he is “ unhappy ”. How ungrateful can someone be?
Ed says: Wayne, I don’t think Lawrence is ungrateful at all. As John Harbaugh said on Tuesday, this is “a business proposition” and “these things happen every year pretty much on every team.”
I won’t begrudge anyone for trying to make as much as they can when they can, especially in a career as short as football can be. I’m old-school, but I got over the whole “he already has a contract” thing a long time ago.
Lawrence has zero guaranteed money remaining on his deal. The Giants could cut him tomorrow, and while they would take a $13.9 million cap hit, they would not owe him another dime. All of his bonus money has been paid.
The guy is trying to get an extension while he is still at, or near, his All-Pro form. I can’t be mad at the guy.
Michael Bria asks: Do you think it’s a reasonable trade to give the number 5 pick to the Chiefs for both their firstround picks and a third? What’s your opinion of this trade and it’s likelihood?
Ed says: Michael, I don’t think it is likely at all. I think you “might” be able to get Kansas City to do that deal for 9 and 29, but asking for the third-rounder is too much. Here is how the trade charts see that deal, with a reminder that the trade down team should be receiving a higher overall value since it theoretically gave up the better player:
Tom Borys asks: Thanks for all the great Giants coverage. If we draft Jeremiyah Love, what pathways do you see for the team to get value out of Tyrone Tracy? Will he see the field? Does he have value on the trade market? Other?
Ed says: Tom, the reality is that if the Giants draft Love, he and Cam Skattebo will get the overwhelming majority of the work — provided they are both healthy.
Tracy is a good player, that is just the reality of the situation. The Giants could use him to return kickoffs. Maybe he finds a few snaps per game on offense. He is probably going to get the short end of the stick, unfortunately.
Does he have trade value? I doubt that he would have a lot as an RB3, although I have not asked around. My guess would be something like a sixth-round pick that might become a fifth-round pick based on playing time/production.
Warren Schuman asks: I’m not a huge fan of drafting Julian Love, less because of positional value and more because I think the giants have a very strong tandem in Tracy and Skattebo (assuming healthy). But if love truly has Christian McCaffrey skills both as a lethal running and receiving threat…I won’t complain. So here’s my question if they do draft Love:
1. Would they look to trade Tracy or Skattebo?
2. If so who would you keep as the ideal complement/back up to Love?
3. What trade value does either have in a draft day trade?
Ed says: Warren, this piggybacks off the last question. I don’t think they would look to trade either guy. I think Skattebo would be the primary backup.The “ideal” one? They are both good players. I don’t think either player has fantastic trade value. Tracy I have already talked about. Skattebo would have to prove himself after that nasty injury. Besides, trading Skattebo would crush Jaxson Dart. The Giants can’t do that.
Steve Alessandrini asks: It seems many people assume the Giants will have similar team building success, particularly in the draft, because of the success the Ravens had when Harbaugh was there. I hope that’s true, but that seems to discount the contributions of Ozzie Newsome and Eric DeCosta – particularly if they had more power than Schoen has now with the Giants. How involved was Harbaugh in decision making with the Ravens? Was it as significant as his role now with the Giants that you feel it’s safe to draw a comparison?
Ed says: Steve, Ozzie Newsome ran the draft and had final say in Baltimore until he retired. Harbaugh had a bigger voice with DeCosta because he was well-established by then and had earned it, but DeCosta still had final say.
You can’t compare anything because Harbaugh has never been the guy with the final call. He says he and GM Joe Schoen will endeavor to “agree to agree,” but if they can’t Harbaugh is going to get what he wants.
Bill Parcells was a great coach, but George Young was better at buying the groceries.
Bill Belichick was a fantastic coach. It was his inability as a GM/personnel guy that eventually led to his downfall in New England.
Harbaugh has earned the right to make those decisions. We will just have to see how that works out.
Francis Castros asks: What can we expect to learn about Coach Harbaugh’s “New York Football Giants” from this year’s Off Season Workouts?
Also will you be attending?
Ed says: Francis, I don’t know how much we will learn. We won’t learn anything until Phase 3, when the on-field portion (OTAs) begin. Media has access to rookie minicamp, three of the 10 OTAs, and the mandatory minicamp. I will be there when I can, and it will be interesting to see if there are differences in how the Giants work vs. other coaches.
Giants4Life asks: During the owners meeting, Roger Goodell said Steven Tisch and his siblings, Jonathan and Laurie, are “no longer owners,” since the league has approved their requested transfer of their remaining Giants stakes to their children’s trusts.
1) How/why is still Executive Vice President/Chairman of the Board (per the Giants website)?
2) Since Steven was not in attendance, who represented the Tisch family (i.e., 45% of team ownership) at the owners meeting? Was it Jonathan, Laurie, and/or one of their children?
Ed says: A person does not have to be an owner to be on the board of directors or hold a major title within the front office. This is the way the Giants and Tisch have chosen to proceed.
There were no members of the Tisch family at the owner’s meetings, per my knowledge. The organization was represented by John Mara. I believe he was accompanied by his brother, Chris.
Eric Chavis asks: Can you think of another time where a team had 3 defensive guys projected to be top 10 or near top 10 picks, and if so, how did they do in the NFL? I wonder if them playing with better players made them look better rather than sticking out amongst a more balanced defense?
Ed says: Eric, it is certainly unique. I can find other instances of a trio of first-round picks, but not top 10. At least not in my research of recent drafts.
I don’t think the guys they played with made them stick out. If anything, playing with that many good players might spread the production and make them less noticeable. Scouts are looking at so many things other than raw production numbers that I don’t think it ends up mattering much.
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to [email protected] and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.
