clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

POLL: Victor Cruz overpaid? debates

Now that the Giants have signed Victor Cruz let's debate whether or not they paid him too much money.


Monday Victor Cruz and the New York Giants came to an agreement and Cruz signed a six-year contract worth about $46 million, ending a long offseason of negotiations. Different writers and analysts at wasted zero time starting the debate on whether or not the Giants overpaid their stud receiver.

Four faces had a positive outlook on the signing. The only negative was from Jason Smith, who said that other teams, "always set the market for a star player. Even as a restricted free agent, Cruz didn't generate much interest. Teams likely were worried about his size and health over the long haul, along with a bit of regression in 2012. Cruz dropped a fair number of passes, and he's always struck me as someone who really doesn't like to get hit."

I don't deny, nor do any of us, that Cruz had his fair share of dropped passes in 2012, but I disagree with the idea that Cruz seems to not want to get hit. If that's the case then why play the slot?

Former Giants center and now NFL Network analyst Shaun O'Hara said that the situation is beneficial to both sides. O'Hara said Cruz is a player that doesn't let offseason shenanigans distract him from focusing on football and the Giants keep a wide receiver that fits perfectly with Eli Manning and the offense for the next six years. writers like Adam Schein and Gregg Rosenthal agreed that the Cruz contract is not only beneficial from him and the team, but it will open the door for Hakeem Nicks to sign next offseason. Making sure that both receivers are locked up by next offseason is crucial.

So, now I leave the debate to you. Was Victor Cruz overpaid by the Giants, or is it a fair contract that benefits him and the team?