News Archives

Hakeem Nicks Vague, Noncommittal About His Desire to Remain with New York Giants Long-Term

June 19th, 2013 at 10:30 AM
By Dan Benton

New York Giants wide receiver Hakeem Nicks was in no mood to talk about the past while appearing on Mike & Mike this morning, but what about the future? After missing organized team activities (OTAs) and the initial team physical, speculation has arisen that the former UNC wideout may be posturing for a large, long-term deal. And despite his insistence that negotiations are left for his agent to handle and that he's fully focused on football, Nicks was a bit noncommittal about his willingness to give up money to remain with Big Blue.

"Well, you know, my main focus is just getting into this season right now and being healthy and contribute to the team the best way possible," Nicks said during his brief interview on Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio. "I love the Giants organization and I’m very happy to be a Giant."

A very typical PR-friendly answer that is often given by members of the Giants, but an obvious skirt-around from the question: "Do you want to stay a Giant long-term and would you sacrifice dollars to stay?"

Something? Nothing? It's hard to tell with the often quiet and laid back Nicks, but after skipping OTAs, his silence is beginning to speak volumes.

Given the Giants' current cap issues and ongoing negotiations with Victor Cruz, one has to look back on some of Nicks' previous comments on playing for the Carolina Panthers and his ties to North Carolina. What seemed minimal and irrelevant at the time are now beginning to come into play as his rookie contract is set to expire following the 2013 season.

"You never know what the future holds," Nicks said of playing for the Panthers in April of 2012.

If the Giants do not lock Nicks up long-term prior to the start of free agency next year, there is a very legitimate chance this will be his final season in blue.

Photo credit: Football Schedule via photopin cc

Also…

Tags: Carolina, Carolina Panthers, Football, Hakeem Nicks, New York, New York Giants, NFL

No related posts.

22 Responses to “Hakeem Nicks Vague, Noncommittal About His Desire to Remain with New York Giants Long-Term”

  1.  Krow says:

    I’m convinced that he’s gone … 2013 is his farewell tour.

    •  James Stoll says:

      Maybe both he and Cruz.
      That would be a kick in the teeth

      •  GOAT56 says:

        Franchise tag means at worse even without a long term deal with either player we can and will keep at least one of them.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      Franchise tag. He has no choice if he’s tagged. Given the choice he might be gone. But with the franchise tag and knowing the Giants would probably use it him signing a long term deal is more likely.

  2.  GOAT56 says:

    Repost:

    F55 – Ok I can agree with everything you said except in my view that doesn’t make Mundy better than Hill nor Taylor. I think Hill and Taylor are not only locks but will get playing time. Mundy could be better than Sash. But I look as both as 5th safeties because of what I think about Hill and Cooper. So as a 5th safety while Mundy might be the best player I think a young guy like Tweedy has a good shot because of special teams. I also think how we think about TT could factor is us only keeping 4 true safeties. I think Sash is a long shot to make the team like a Tratou.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      Well, I’m guessing that Mundy starts out as the third guy but hope that Hill progresses enough to take over that role quickly. I think Hill is an outright stud and will be one of the league’s top safeties before long. I think they’ll bring Taylor along slowly both because he’s a rookie and because Richmond isn’t exactly a training ground for the NFL.

      Hill is the guy I am sure will be really good. All I know about Cooper Taylor is reputation. I hope he lives up to it.

  3.  norm says:

    “Nicks was a bit noncommittal about his willingness to give up money to remain with Big Blue.”

    Kudos to Hakeem.

    I have never really understood why a player would offer much in the way of the so-called “hometown discount.”

    This is their business; their livelihood. To think they hold the same kind of irrational emotional attachments to the team that we fans do is just a childish fantasy. We fans may not like it and prefer to cling to the illusion that the players we root for love the “laundry” just as much as we do… but that’s just not how things work in the real world. After all, how many of us love our employers so much that we would turn down an offer of higher compensation from a competitor in order to stay put? I’m guessing the number is not much greater than zero.

    For the sake of the Giants and us fans, I hope Hakeem and Vic both remain with the club. For the sake of both of their futures, I hope they continue to play hardball with Reese and try and squeeze every penny they can out of either the Maras or one of the other 31 billionaires that sign paychecks around the NFL.

    •  Krow says:

      Given that success in the NFL often depends on the team situation and that nebulous concept of ‘chemistry’ I think that a case can be made that the risk is less if you stay where you’ve already proven yourself.

      This is misleadingly called ‘hometown discount’, but is in reality a risk mitigation strategy. As such it does make business sense … to a degree of course.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      Some people really wouldn’t leave for let’s say 5-10% more. They like the conform of their job and don’t like the upheaval. Me personally, I’m gone in a NY minute.

      However, even if Nicks was willing to take a hometown discount why would he say it? It devalues his worth.

  4.  wrdag says:

    Fan55: As a long term Ranger fan I agree with your call that the team over the last 30 years has been a bit of a struggle. Thank god for Mark Messier or we would still be hearing chants of 1940. Not sure which was worse the rise of the Islanders or the Devils.
    But, consider this little known fact about the NHL and especially any talk of the vaunted Montreal Canadien dynasty years. I think as far as the mid 1960′s the draft of NHL players was done by territory not an open draft. Shocking that the Leafs and Canadiens won all those early Cups since they had exclusive rights to kids playing hockey in Canada versus the Rangers picking up the scraps in the US.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      Yeah, that’s true, but even as a Rangers fan it was pretty exciting to go to the Garden and see the Richard brothers, Beliveau, and all the rest of those damned Canadiens show us how the game was supposed to be played. And all we had to throw against them was Andy Bathgate and Gump Worsley. Talk about an unfair contest.

  5.  GOAT56 says:

    Repost:

    fanfor55years says:
    June 19, 2013 at 10:00 AM
    TuckThis mentioned that many pick their allegiance by how well teams are doing when they’re young. I cannot agree. I think 90%+ of men root for the team that their fathers did when they were kids.

    I root for the Yankees because I grew up three blocks from the Stadium and my father was a huge Yankees fan. And because I got to see Joe DiMaggio play in his final year in the game.

    I root for the Giants because they, too, played at Yankee Stadium, because my father was a big fan, and because they were the ONLY local team when I became aware of the NFL. I grew up with the great teams of the 1950?s and eventually got to know a few of the stars of those teams.

    I root for the Knicks because they were the only NBA team, because my grandfather knew Red Holzman pretty well, and because I was taken every Christmas Eve to see the double headers at the Armory that matched some combination of the Knicks against the Celtics and the Syracuse Nationals against the Minneapolis Lakers and loved Sweetwater Clifton, Willie Naulls, Carl Braun, Kenny Sears and company.

    I root for the Rangers because they were the city’s team even though they were not really competitive with the Canadians, the Maple Leafs, and even the Red Wings and Black Hawks most years.

    The Yankees and Giants were winners when I started rooting for them. The Knicks and Rangers were most certainly not. Success had nothing to do with it. I’ll bet it was that way for almost all of us.

    Reply
    GOAT56 says:
    June 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM
    I grew up about 10 blocks away form the Stadium, maybe 8 from the new location.

    I think older generations are different. Tuckthis is referring to the newer generation. With ESPN and so many teams being on cable now the younger generations are exposed to so many more teams and aren’t just limited to hometown team or a national team like the Lakers or now Heat. Plus with free agency there just isn’t the connection that re-enforcing the long time rooting for a team like it used to. Plus with the microwave mentality folks have no patience in rooting for a loser.

    Funny when I started watching sport in the mid 80s the Mets were the popular team, being a Yankee fan as a youth wasn’t popular. The Knicks best players were Bill Cartwright and Ernie Grunfield. The Giants were winning but were considered a very boring brand of football.

    Reply

  6.  fanfor55years says:

    As for Hakeem, this is an instance where Reese is crazy to do his usual “let’s wait and see” and take his time getting to a contract. Sign the guy during this season to a new 5-year deal at $10-11MM per annum (push as much of it back into 2013 as signing bonus as possible to increase cap space in 2014) with at least half guaranteed and let’s get on with competing for championships. This is a guy we should not lose, and we’d be better off avoiding the franchise tag on him if possible.

    I’ll keep saying it. The critical members of the team are Eli, Hakeem, Beatty and almost certainly JPP (if he’s healthy and motivated). They, essentially, have Eli and Beatty secured. Now it’s time to work on the other two.

    •  Krow says:

      That’s their only shot. Their only bit of leverage. Clock is ticking.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      The franchise tag is like a tender you can still agree on a long term deal. The franchise tag in Nicks’ case only would allow us much longer to negotiate a long term deal. The franchise tag is not the best solution but it this case it’s a player that’s worth the money so if we have to use we just do.

  7.  fanfor55years says:

    When Terrell Thomas went down with his first ACL tear as a member of the Giants he was looking like our best cornerback (and that was when Corey Webster was at his peak). While I fondly hope that Webster’s disastrous 2012 season was a fluke and he will come back strong, an even better outcome would be that TT’s knee is sound and he is again at least equal to the better of Webster and Ross.

    Could that happen? I don’t know, but if it does then we have five pretty good corners on the depth chart and the possibility of using Thomas as a swing player who can move back to safety in certain sets. It would be a big “win” for the team and might take our corners from “acceptable” to something close to “good”. I don’t think we’ll be better than that until we draft more young talent there to play along with Prince and Hosley (the latter of whom I expect to be a very pleasant surprise once he knows what he’s seeing on the field….his athleticism is scary).

    •  GOAT56 says:

      I refuse to think of getting TT at what he was because I think it’s fools gold. It needs to be a pleasant surprise if it occurs. But with our current group of CBs we almost need it to happen. That would complete change how I view our CBs. Though I still think Webster was always better as a coverage guy, Thomas was a very good player CB any way you cut it returning to form would be a gift from the football gods.

  8.  CT GIANT says:

    Personally don’t think Cruz & Nicks contracts are in the same category, from where the giants sit in one JR, and ownership. He’s a bonafide #1 pick who has been here since 2009, has felt and contributed to a super-bowl and the overall winning of this team with Eli, prior to Cruz, and I expect he gets a top WR contract offer if he’s healthy and has a good year.
    Sometimes things can work out as simple as that, this is one case which I suspect is one.
    CT GIANT

  9.  Krow says:

    Goat … I agree to the franchise tag process as you describe it. Yes, that’s how it works. But if you’re not making progress towards a long term deal then you’re just locking in a disgrunteled player for a year. And that year will be a long, angry, bitter one. This is why the Giants are very reluctant to use it.

    If both sides are not reasonably close on an mutually acceptable deal then I can’t see Reese pulling the trigger.

  10.  Aaron21 says:

    Nicks doesn’t deserve a big contract. I love the giants but i think we’re better off without him. What makes him think he deserves a big contract? He’s not played a full season since he’s been here. Give Cruz the money and let’s get Randle in the game and see what he can do.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: