Posted October 04, 2013

Giants, Panthers reportedly close to completing Jon Beason trade

Carolina Panthers, New York Giants, NFC East
Bob Leverone

Beason has experience playing multiple linebacker positions, bringing versatility to a depleted Giants defense. (Bob Leverone/AP)

The New York Giants could complete a trade for Carolina linebacker Jon Beason as early as Friday morning, if the oft-injured Beason passes a physical. That’s the latest report from FOX Sports’ Jay Glazer, who along with USA Today’s Mike Garafolo tweeted that the Panthers would receive a late-round pick in exchange for Beason.

The 0-4 Giants could use some help at the linebacker position, but it’s hard to say for sure that Beason will provide it. A Pro Bowler from 2008-10, Beason has played just seven games since then and has struggled to get back this season from microfracture knee surgery.

He was so ineffective, in fact, that he was replaced in the Panthers’ starting lineup by Chase Blackburn — whom the Giants opted not to re-sign this past offseason.

Beason restructured his contract this offseason with the Panthers, reducing it to a base salary of $1 million plus an addition $1.75 million available in per-game bonuses. The remainder of his original six-year, $51-plus million contract voids after this season — the Panthers would take an $8 million hit in dead money for 2014 by trading Beason, per OvertheCap.com.

The Giants do not have much wiggle room under this season’s salary cap, so the addition of Beason would push them very near the limit. They’re currently a little more than $1.3 million below the cap number.

Spencer Paysinger has started all four games at linebacker for the Giants this season, with Mark Herzlich, Keith Rivers and Jacquian Williams also popping into the lineup. Paysinger’s presence would leave an OLB spot and the MLB spot available for Beason, should the Giants deem him an upgrade either place.

For the Panthers, this move would fall under the same category as Jacksonville’s trade of Eugene Monroe to the Ravens — clearly, Beason does not have much of a place in the team’s future plans, as evidenced by Blackburn’s ascension above him on the depth chart. So getting even a Day 3 draft pick would be preferable to simply letting him walk or cutting him in the coming weeks.

The trade is a little more curious on the Giants’ part. It could pay off, if Beason can return anywhere near the form he had several seasons ago, but it’s not necessarily a transaction you’d expect from a winless squad.

The Steelers pulled off a similar deal earlier this week, nabbing OT Levi Brown from the Cardinals. There, as here, the move appeared to indicate an unwillingness to throw in the towel on 2013. (The Giants currently sit two games back in the NFC East; the Steelers are now 2.5 out of first after Cleveland’s Thursday night win.)

Had this trade occurred three or four years back, it would have been an absolute blockbuster. Now, it’s a case of a team trying to turn another team’s trash into treasure.

9 comments
MikeSchultz
MikeSchultz

BEASON is yet another Great Player from LB U, RB U, WR U, SECONDARY U & TE U. GO CANES!

MikeSchultz
MikeSchultz

I wish yet another Great LB from MIAMI would come back but Micro-Fracture Surgery is Never a guaranteed Road. AN TRASH BEFORE HIS INJURIES HE WAS AT ALL-PRO CALIBER on a NOTHING TEAM.

SupermanWinning
SupermanWinning

Did you just call Jon Beason Trash?? You get over 500 career tackles and then talk.

rick259g
rick259g

As a Giants fan, this is a wasted transaction...the G-Men have to understand they can't continually try and pick up these former No 1 draft pick LBs and try to convert them back into superstars. The front office has to build their LB's through the draft, not through cast offs. Reese has lost his focus, and the Giants are paying with old or broken down "talent" on defense...

LomaxHunter
LomaxHunter

Gentlemen, the phrase "one man's trash is another man's treasure" predates the internet.  It is pretty "ignorant" to not recognize the paraphrasing of a classical English one-liner.  Take a deep breath before you fly off the handle and question another's "class" for obviously having a deeper understanding of the Engligh language than yours.

Chad19
Chad19

You are an ignorant fool.....calling Beason trash.


Continue on...show the world how much you don't know.

Phillip8
Phillip8

I know you just didn't refer to Beason as trash. Classy move.

Phillip8
Phillip8

@LomaxHunter What is ignorant is to use this term in reference to a person. I have lived more than a few years, and I have never ever heard someone use this term in reference to a person.  That's what's wrong with many writers today, they don't really think before they speak. I am a writer, as well as a thinker, and I assure you that my understanding of the English language is better than most. I have a degree from the Grady School of Journalism. Anyway, all I am saying is that Mr. Burke should have thought about his choice of words. He could have made his point without the not-so-clever ending.

LomaxHunter
LomaxHunter

@Phillip8 @LomaxHunterPhillip8, I agree that, on the surface, it can come off as harsh, but if you truly understood the phrase, you would understand that he does not think Beason is trash - or treasure for that matter.  Beason is viewed as valuable by the Giants, he not valuable to the Panthers.  This particular witticism fits given that situation.  Similarly, there are the phrases:

One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

One man's meat is another man's poison.

One man's safety is another man's destruction.

One man's weal is another man's bane.

One man's wealth is another man's plunder.

Personally, I don't find any of them offensive, but I guess that's a matter of personal taste.

My final point, would it have been "better journalism" to state "Beason is waste of money and a roster spot for the Panthers?"  That's direct language that is accurate and, in my opinion, a heck of a lot meaner than using an 18th century witticism.

Good discussion!  Have a good one!