Should The New York Giants Consider Trading Alec Ogletree?

The 2019 NFL trade deadline is right around the corner. Multiple big-name players have already been moved ahead of the October 29th trade deadline. The New York Giants have not been involved in any trades yet. But last year the Giants made two key trades in October (trading away Damon “Snacks” Harrison and Eli Apple). New York could get involved with trades again this year.

The Giants have a few players that are potential trade candidates this year. They may look to move on from aging veterans with large contracts in order to clear future cap space, acquire more draft capital, and continue their roster rebuild.

One player that fans are interested to see get traded is linebacker Alec Ogletree. He is a prime trade candidate due to his large salary, older age, and underwhelming performance. Here are some reasons why the Giants might look to trade Alec Ogletree, and why they might not:

Arguments For Trading Alec Ogletree

The New York Giants’ defense is one of the worst in the league through the first seven weeks of the 2019 season. The Giants have allowed 187 points in seven games. They are also allowing an everage of 388.4 yards per game, ranked fifth-worse in the league.

The defense is awful and it is not going to improve this season. The Giants might as well start removing the overpaid veterans on the defense and start rebuilding this defense through the draft. Alec Ogletree give the Giants this opportunity. Trading Alec Ogletree gets his huge contract off the books next season while also adding a mid-to-late-round draft pick to Dave Gettleman’s disposal in 2020.

Trading away Alec Ogletree would free up $8,250,000 in cap space in 2020 while taking on a dead cap penalty of only $3,500,000. In 2021, the Giants would only have a dead cap penalty of $1,750,000 from Ogletree’s contract. This is something New York needs to consider because of how high Ogletree’s cap hit is and how severely he is underperforming in relation to his contract.

Alec Ogletree is often seen missing tackles or blowing assignments in pass coverage. For someone who gets paid as much as Ogletree does, he makes far too many mistakes and does not have a big enough impact on the game to justify that salary. The play below is a clear demonstration of Alec Ogletree’s inefficiency in pass coverage:

The Giants’ most recent roster addition also makes moving on from Alec Ogletree a bit easier. New York just signed Deon Buccanon, reuniting the former Arizona Cardinal with Giants’ defensive coordinator James Bettcher. Bucannon will seamlessly fit right into the Giants’ defense and could end up being a better player for the Giants than Ogletree, and for a fraction of the price.

Arguments Against Trading Alec Ogletree

The Giants are a team with a lot of holes on their roster, inside linebacker being one of them. The position group is poor with Alec Ogletree on the roster, yet he is the best healthy player they have at that position. If the Giants trade Ogletree, their linebacker corps goes from bad to worse.

The Giants’ starting linebacker corps without Alec Ogletree would be a combination of David Mayo and Tae Davis, with Deon Bucannone still filling in that moneybacker position. This leaves the Giants really thin at linebacker, and their defense has struggled enough already, allowing 187 points through the first seven games.

Not only is Alec Ogletree a starter at a key position, but he is also a team captain. Ogletree provides valuable veteran leadership for the Giants’ defense that cannot be easily replicated if he were to be traded. This could be why the Giants choose to move on from Alec Ogletree in the offseason instead.

Trading Alec away midseason does not make the team better. If the Giants do decide it’s almost time to move on from Ogletree, they can cut him in the offseason to free up $8,250,000 in cap space while taking on a dead cap penalty of only $3,500,000. This gives the Giants time to find Alec’s replacement in the offseason and extra cap space to spend on free agents.

Mentioned in this article:

More about: