News Archives

A Full Breakdown and Details on the Contract of New York Giants WR Victor Cruz

July 11th, 2013 at 9:00 AM
By Douglas Rush

On Monday, the New York Giants and star wide receiver Victor Cruz ended their four-month stalemate of contract negotiating and battles when he signed what essentially amounts to a six-year, $45.879 million deal to remain a member of the team for a long time.

We already knew that $15.625 million of the deal is fully guaranteed to Cruz, while he also gets a $9.5 million signing bonus, which goes along with the one-year, $2.879 million tender he signed last month when he was a restricted free agent.

Aaron Wilson from broke down the explicit details of Cruz's brand new deal, which is as follows:

In 2013, since he is now under the long-term deal, his cap number goes down from $2.879 million down to $2.55 million, giving the Giants a little more cap space, especially since they still have to sign draft picks Justin Pugh and Ryan Nassib.

In 2014, his cap number is $7.424 million, $3.995 of which is guaranteed, plus he gets a $1.5 million roster bonus and a $25,000 workout bonus.

In 2015, his cap number is $8.125 and his salary is $6.15 million, which is not guaranteed and he'll also have a $75,000 workout bonus.

In 2016, Cruz's cap number is $9.9 million and his salary is $7.9 million, which again is not guaranteed. plus he will get a $100,000 workout bonus.

In 2017, his cap number is $9.4 million and his salary is $7.4 million, which like the last two seasons is non-guaranteed and his base salary is $100,000.

In 2018, which is the final year of his contract with the Giants, Cruz's cap number is $8.4 million with a base salary of $8.4 million and a $100,000 workout bonus.

Giants General Manager Jerry Reese had to maneuver around to make this deal happen, but from the sounds of things, it turned out to be a very team-friendly deal, especially in the middle years of the deal with Cruz not fully getting guaranteed money unless he's actually on the team.

Photo credit: Football Schedule via Foter CC BY-NC-SA


Tags: Football, Jerry Reese, Justin Pugh, New York, New York Giants, NFL, Ryan Nassib, Victor Cruz

19 Responses to “A Full Breakdown and Details on the Contract of New York Giants WR Victor Cruz”

  1.  GOAT56 says:

    Assuming that Hynoski at worse is PUP’d and will be 100% after that I rather have him than Leach. I don’t think at this juncture Leach is better but even if he is he isn’t any long term solution. Hynoski is a long term answer for the position and he’s ascending whereas Leach is descending. At 31 with a position like FB, Leach’s best days are behind him. I much rather go with Pascoe or a lessor guy that could be cut when Hynoski returns.

  2.  F0XLIN says:

    I also don;t see the need for Leach, after the initial surgery the doctors said Hyno returning week 1 is possible. Clearly that would be on the early side but lets say week 4 is on the later.

    There is no point in paying Leach who is clearly looking for top dollar, for a team who employs the FB position 50% of the time. They can use Bear in the interm, scale back the FB usage, run 2 TE sets until Hyno is ready to resume.

    With the possibility of carrying 3 QB’s there is no way we carry 2 FB’s in addition. There are so many tight battles as is, if the decision comes down to waiting a few weeks for Hyno, and keeping Tracy/Ojomo/Patterson or insert any other promising player of your choice, I chose the later

    •  Krow says:

      Perhaps Leach is just using us as his negotiation b1tch … … … again.

      •  fanfor55years says:

        My guess is Reese is set on a $1.5-2MM offer and just waiting to see if Leach really has such wonderful options. No way we’re signing him at $3MM per annum for two years. The guy is still good, but unless there’s more to Hynoski’s injury than we know that wouldn’t make a shred of sense.

  3.  fanfor55years says:

    Uh, just another dent in “The Patriot’s Way” (which is a myth anyway). Dennard gets caught on a DUI and arrested, but that isn’t the thing that proves what hypocrites these guys really are. It’s that he had previously been on probation for getting in a bar fight and punching a uniformed cop in the face.

    So while everyone heaps kudos on them for exchanging the Hernandez uniforms (a smart move that prevents them from facing a media storm when kids walk into Gillette with his uniform on), I think it’s clear that their concerns about “character” and “The Patriots’ Way” are far less than advertised. I understand that no NFL team is squeaky clean, but those guys in New England seem particularly hypocritical and slimy to me. And this series of incidents and the way Kraft has molded the responses makes me nearly certain that they cheated their way to at least two of their three rings.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      I think it’s more the media than the Patriots on this front. The Pat’s for a while have been taking chances on character. The thinking is the locker room and building are so strong that they can change people and/or handle bad apples. The Pats are winning so that’s why in passes but they remind me of what the old winning version of the Raiders use to do it taking in questionable characters.

      •  fanfor55years says:

        Kraft is the guy always spouting about The Patriot’s Way. The media didn’t make that up. Whatever we think about Belichick, at least he hasn’t been acting holier-than-thou while accumulating thugs on the roster.

        Give me John Mara over Robert Kraft every day of the week.

  4.  GOAT56 says:

    I look at Cruz’s deal as a 3 year deal with a chance to part ways starting in 2016. I’m not saying we will but with the signing bonus being only 9.5 mil in 2016 parting ways with Cruz would be a 5 mil savings. Right now that doesn’t seem worth it but if performance drops or injury strikes it gives JR an out. Funny that’s sportsline ( article I read about a month ago saying that 3 years, 23 mil would be a good compromise was not far off because that’s what the first 3 years of the contract basically total.

  5. Anthony Raiaaxr29 says:

    Anyone around here selling Giants/Broncos tickets or know anyone? Looking for 4.

  6.  GOAT56 says:


    Nosh.0 says:
    July 10, 2013 at 8:01 PM
    I was saying this during the Cruz debate and I’ll say it again now, Joseph is not getting paid by us. Unless his level of play goes up a notch this season, he’s simply not the type of difference maker that JR will pay. And there is absolutely no reason why Linvall should not go after every last dime when he hits FA. He will be overpaid by another club come March 2014.


    •  GOAT56 says:

      You are correct if you go by history. But I think we are in a different position going into 2014 unless Austin emerges. Only Hankins, Austin, Kuhn and Jenkins are under contract next year. Kuhn is not someone you go into the year as a starter with even if he improves. Jenkins will be 33 next year so I not even sure he’s around. With Austin some even question if he makes the roster and I think we all have questions if he can play. So if you don’t re-sign Hankins you still have to replace Joseph with someone. And this stop gap vet DT signings is not a long term solution. I think Hankins will start in 2014 but I doubt a rookie starts and our holdovers have serious questions. I’m not saying we break the bank for Joseph because I doubt JR does that. But I do think a 4 year 20 mil type deal is something he could get even if he doesn’t make a real jump.

      •  fanfor55years says:

        Joseph would have to play a LOT better than he did last season to justify a $20MM contract.

        Jenkins is probably going to be back. Hankins is going to start in 2014 (if not sooner). Kuhn is cheap depth. If Austin “shows” in 2014 there is then no reason to chase Linval because Hankins, Jenkins and Kuhn do what he does, and in some cases may do it better.

        I’m with Nosh on this disagreement. Either Joseph steps up a notch this season or he’s probably gone unless he’ll take backup pay.

  7.  jfunk says:

    I still have not seen an explanation for how Cruz’s cap number went down.

    If he still gets his $2.9MM salary plus a $9.5MM signing bonus, where is the cap savings? Something does not compute.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      I think with a tender if you agree on a long term deal you can basically replace the tender that was already in place. So they just agree on a deal that made the first year a low cap number much like Beatty.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      I think, because this was a contract extension, they might be able to base this year’s salary on the roughly $900,000+ he was scheduled to get rather than the tender amount (in essence, it’s as if he rejected the tender and just continued to play under his old deal). Then they apply the signing bonus to the six years which comes to around $1.6MM per annum. That gets them to around $2.55MM this year.

      That’s the only logical explanation.

  8.  F0XLIN says:

    The 5 yr contract extension he agreed to starts next year. This year he agreed to play off the tender already agreed to, and the 5 year extension is on top of that, bonus to be paid next year

    •  jfunk says:

      Nay on both of these suggestions.

      First, you can only spread bonus over five years, regardless of length of contract.

      Also, if you look at the breakdown above, you’ll see there is no bonus pro-ration being added to year six, it’s just an 8.4MM base salary.

      The only explanation I can come up with is he simply is only getting a $650K salary this year (1.9MM bonus hit + 650K = 2.55MM) and sites are erroneously reporting that he is still earning his full $2.9MM salary.

      Either that or there are some other provisions that allow him to collect that 2.9MM without all of it counting against the cap as 55 suggested, although 1/5 of the bonus must still hit the cap this year.

      •  F0XLIN says:

        It was specifically said his signing bonus does not begin to be paid until next year, it is not a suggestion, I will find the article

  9.  GIANTT says:

    I still think that signing Leach (if the Giants do ) might be more a change in philosophy than just finding a fill in for Henry .
    Lets start out and say Hynoski was OK and in there , then the offense would go either way run /pass with Henry blocking and a slight threat to either get a chance at running or catching a pass . But if its Leach in there then how much more of a guaranty that its going to be a run rather a pass ? I think its going to be much higher and even though Leach may be a a top blocker , the defenses are going to see him in there and shade towards run . I think that Henry , while being a little overoptimistic about starting the season , will probably be ready to play at some point this season . Id rather see Pascoe play fullback temporarily , because if he is in the game he still comes out as a double threat to be full back and block or catch a pass . Why would the Giants pay extra and waste a spot on a one trick pony ? The only reason would be if Henry is out for the season and the Giants would rather use Leach as the we are running and try and stop us attitude .That might indicate that the Giants want to go back to a bread and butter running game first and run play action off of that .

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: