Contract negotiations between Jason Pierre-Paul and the New York Giants offer a vivid reminder of the risks that come with deliberately stonewalling a counterpart in negotiations. A standout defensive end for the Giants since 2010, Pierre-Paul entered contract renegotiations after a couple of somewhat underwhelming seasons by his own lofty standards.
The team’s initial offer—a franchise tag designation—did not sit well with him, and he pushed hard for a better deal. The Giants responded with a multiyear contract reportedly worth $60 million. Yet Pierre-Paul continued to hold out. Then, following a serious off-field injury that resulted in the loss of his right index finger, the Giants withdrew the multiyear offer—leaving only the original deal on the table.
Sometimes in negotiation, a bird in the hand really is worth two in the bush.
Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills
Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Holding Out for More—And Getting It
From a negotiation standpoint, Pierre-Paul’s early strategy looked entirely rational. Bargaining for a contract renewal, he did what many negotiators in his position would do: he held out for better terms—and initially, it worked.
Rather than accepting the franchise tag—a one-year deal paying either 120% of his prior salary or the average of the top five players at his position (whichever is higher)—Pierre-Paul pushed back. The Giants responded with a far more attractive multiyear, $60 million offer.
At that point, the story looked like a classic negotiation success. By refusing the first offer, Pierre-Paul extracted meaningful concessions from his counterpart.
When Leverage Shifts Suddenly
But the multiyear deal still fell short of what Pierre-Paul and his negotiating team had hoped for. Despite recent seasons that had disappointed team management, they held out for an even better contract.
Then came the turning point.
While waiting for further concessions, Pierre-Paul was injured in an accident in Florida that cost him his right index finger. The Giants’ medical team quickly traveled to evaluate the injury. Pierre-Paul, however, stalled. Because he was not under contract, he had no formal obligation to disclose details about his condition. He did not report to training camp, nor did he communicate with coaches or team officials about how the injury might affect his performance.
From a strictly tactical perspective, this silence may have seemed defensible. From a relational and risk-management standpoint, it proved costly.
The Cost of Stonewalling
After completing their evaluation, the Giants pulled the multiyear, $60 million offer and put the franchise tag back on the table. The leverage Pierre-Paul once held had evaporated—replaced by uncertainty about his health, availability, and long-term value to the team.
What began as a successful holdout strategy ultimately backfired. The same tactic that produced gains early on ended up leaving Pierre-Paul with fewer options than before.
A Negotiation Takeaway
Pierre-Paul’s experience underscores a fundamental negotiation lesson: leverage is rarely static. External events—especially those involving risk, timing, or uncertainty—can quickly change the balance of power.
Holding out can be an effective strategy. But it also increases exposure to downside risk. When circumstances change, counterparts may reassess not only the deal on the table, but whether a deal still makes sense at all.
In negotiation, patience can pay. But so can knowing when to accept a strong offer—before conditions shift.
Claim your FREE copy: Negotiation Skills
Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
No Responses to “Stonewalling in Negotiations: Risks and Pitfalls”