Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
FF Ninja

Was the Garoppolo trade a good or bad trade for the 49ers?

Was the Garappolo trade a good or bad trade for the 49ers?  

234 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

On November 3, 2017 at 0:36 PM, Dr. Octopus said:

 

People also forget that Cassell did lead the Chiefs to a playoff appearance and made a Pro Bowl as a Chief. He eventually fell apart but wasn't a total bust - heck he's still bouncing around in the league.

I think people took things the wrong way, I didn't mean it as a slam to compare the two.  Cassel is still playing and has over 100 TDs in his career.

JG could easily carve out a Steve DeBerg type career if everything falls right.  But he's nothing special and doesn't deserve special money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

6 years for $78M?  When Stafford just got $25 per year?  Sure.

JG is no where near Stafford on......really any level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Statorama said:

JG is no where near Stafford on......really any level

I think the point is JG is going to (potentially) get more than $13m/per if Stafford signed for $25/m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2017 at 4:02 PM, Scooby1974 said:

I think the point is JG is going to (potentially) get more than $13m/per if Stafford signed for $25/m.

Exactly.  The Broncos gave Brock 4 years, 18 per year.  Pretty sure JG will warrant north of $20.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2017 at 10:05 AM, voiceofunreason said:

Oh and I guarantee the hoodie doesn’t think he’s good or he’d have tried to keep him to replace Brady.

How do you know he didn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2017 at 10:05 AM, voiceofunreason said:

Oh and I guarantee the hoodie doesn’t think he’s good or he’d have tried to keep him to replace Brady.

The Pats tried to extend JG for 6 months. They tried to get him on high end back up money. JG wants starter money and to actually play. There was no deal to be made. All they could do was franchise him, and they weren’t going to shell out $40 million next year on QB’s. And they wanted to save the franchise tag tomise on Butler if they have to  

Rumor has it BB would rather have had 10 years of Jimmy than 2-3 years of TB and Kraft said no. 

Bottom line, I would not conclude that BB didn’t want JG or they would have kept him. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Rumor has it BB would rather have had 10 years of Jimmy than 2-3 years of TB and Kraft said no. 

Of all the speculation about the circumstances surrounding his trade from NE... this one seems the most plausible to me. The pats are always ahead of the curve when it comes to personnel decisions, which makes this one happening at the eleventh hour seem strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2017 at 7:59 PM, ghostguy123 said:

Michael Jordan didnt even make his high school team.

1

1 of 4 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

Exactly.  The Broncos gave Brock 4 years, 18 per year.  Pretty sure JG will warrant north of $20.

Yes, which was clearly a mistake. What does that have to do with Stafford?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, humpback said:

 

Yes, which was clearly a mistake. What does that have to do with Stafford?

Statorama suggested 6 years, 78mm as appropriate compensation for Garappolo, which equates to 13mm per year.  In a market where Stafford gets 25 a year and Brock gets 18 a year, 13 a year as a target offer to sign Garappolo is probably not realistic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

Statorama suggested 6 years, 78mm as appropriate compensation for Garappolo, which equates to 13mm per year.  In a market where Stafford gets 25 a year and Brock gets 18 a year, 13 a year as a target offer to sign Garappolo is probably not realistic.

Actually, he said he would have made the trade if a deal like that was in place. He may feel he's worth more money, but not more money plus the draft pick. 

In any event, Stafford's deal, which is the largest per-year contract in NFL history, isn't going to be a benchmark for JG's next deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Sarcasm detector on the fritz?

Maybe. I love that story. I'll smack the side of the detector, that'll fix it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

Statorama suggested 6 years, 78mm as appropriate compensation for Garappolo, which equates to 13mm per year.  In a market where Stafford gets 25 a year and Brock gets 18 a year, 13 a year as a target offer to sign Garappolo is probably not realistic.

 

You're probably right, but I'd try to structure it like Mike Glennon's. Basically average $15M but provide an out after one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -OZ- said:

You're probably right, but I'd try to structure it like Mike Glennon's. Basically average $15M but provide an out after one year.

I would imagine any deal will have to include a significant amount MORE guaranteed money than whatever the franchise tag will cost, so a deal like that is pretty much not possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

I would imagine any deal will have to include a significant amount MORE guaranteed money than whatever the franchise tag will cost, so a deal like that is pretty much not possible. 

 

Yep.  I’m thinking a realistic number is going to be somewhere around $18M per year unless they front load the contract with a very lucrative signing bonus. Then they may be able to get him on board in the $16M range.

 

There are going to be other players bidding this number up if SF lets Garappolo get to FA.  The time to strike will be this offseason with the threat of a FT on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2017/11/05/report-49ers-asked-patriots-about-trading-for-tom-brady/

Jimmy Garoppolo wasn’t the only Patriots quarterback the 49ers were interested in acquiring in the offseason.

According to Jay Glazer of FOX Sports, first-year general manager John Lynch inquired with New England coach Bill Belichick about trading for Tom Brady after initial trade discussions surrounding Garoppolo were rebuked.

The Patriots trading Brady sounds insane, particularly after his miraculous performance in Super Bowl XLI when he led a comeback from down 28-3 to beat the Falcons.

But Belichick has always been in line with Bill Walsh’s famous philosophy that it’s better to get rid of a player a year too early than too late. And Brady, 40, isn’t likely to play for much longer.

However, he’s playing as well as ever in 2017 and the Patriots couldn’t afford to keep both Brady and Garoppolo on the roster next year, so they traded the backup to a NFC team on the other side of the country. Brady has said he has multiple seasons left in the tank.

If Brady hadn’t won the Super Bowl in February, the Patriots might have been inclined to move Brady to the Bay Area to play for his home team and give Garoppolo a chance at being the centerpiece of the succession plan in New England.

Instead, the 49ers wound up with Garoppolo, who turned 26 this week, as their potential quarterback of the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, humpback said:

Actually, he said he would have made the trade if a deal like that was in place. He may feel he's worth more money, but not more money plus the draft pick. 

In any event, Stafford's deal, which is the largest per-year contract in NFL history, isn't going to be a benchmark for JG's next deal.

:facepalm:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

:facepalm:

Yep, I agree it was silly for you to bring up Stafford's contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

I would imagine any deal will have to include a significant amount MORE guaranteed money than whatever the franchise tag will cost, so a deal like that is pretty much not possible. 

Exactly...why would he sign that...it is a fact of life that QBs get overpaid in the NFL...there are a 1,000 examples...if he gets to the open-market San Fran will regret it...

Edited by Boston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JG is not going to want to be franchised.  However, he isnt stupid.  He isnt going to sign a 5 year deal with anything close to similar guaranteed dollars as the franchise tag.

Say the tag is 20 million.  I cant see the guarantees being less than 35-40.  He isnt going to sign a deal they can "get out of after a year or two". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought it was a smart move.

audition him the last 3-4 weeks to see if he looks like the real deal.

good pickup, IMO. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be settled now.  Can't see any situation where he isn't a 49er next year. 

And now that there's about 10+ teams that will be looking to upgrade their QB's this offseason.  Most of which who would be going after him or at least bringing him in to take a look.  SF's chances of having him as their QB next year are now almost 100% because of this trade, and would have been MUCH lower without this trade.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think even those that were the biggest proponents for "bad" had to have come over to the other side now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

I think even those that were the biggest proponents for "bad" had to have come over to the other side now.

@FF Ninja ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2017 at 11:18 AM, Deamon said:

Do we have to get into this again? I don't have much free time so I'll just say my bit and leave it at that if that's ok. I've been out of the country for a few weeks... I just researched Jimmy Garappolo news for 5 minutes to reply, so I am definitely missing some things, but it looks like one of the scenarios I predicted played out:

Jimmy has played himself into a position where the 49ers now have to break the bank to keep him or drop $23.5M to franchise him for one year. Had they left him rotting on the bench in New England they (1) certainly could've signed him cheaper (would there be competition? Yes, but would an unknown get a larger contract than he'll be getting now? Undoubtedly not.),  (2) would have a 2nd round pick, and (3) would be drafting from a higher spot. But hey, maybe this extra time in the system will be more valuable than that. Sure seems like he learned things pretty quickly so I'm guessing the extra time won't make a tangible difference. From what I read before, Shanahan really wanted him, so all they really bought with this large loss in draft capital (and cap space) was peace of mind that signing him will (probably) be the right move.

So in summary:

  • 49ers trade early 2nd round pick
  • 49ers win 4 meaningless games (maybe 5)
  • 49ers lower draft position from top 2 to maybe outside top 10
  • Jimmy G gains additional contract negotiation leverage; SF will now have to pay out the nose to keep him
  • ownership gains peace of mind he's their QB
  • Jimmy gains extra time with playbook that he seemingly didn't need

If they can't reach a long term contract due to this trade (and time for him to showcase his skills) and he signs elsewhere in 2019 (or 2020 if they franchise him twice), this trade will have hosed them (unless by some miracle they win a championship next year - if so, who cares about 2019?). If they can reach a long term deal with him - like they were going to in the offseason anyway - then all they did was flounder draft capital and pay a lot more for his contract for some peace of mind. So while I think signs are certainly pointing to SF bringing JG over for 2018 as a good move (something we wouldn't have known with any level of confidence until next year without the trade), I still think this trade was very poor strategy. I know you kept saying "there's going to be competition to sign him" but you can't pretend that SF wouldn't have won that bidding war with their cap space and you have to admit the result of that bidding war would've been a much cheaper contract that what he's going to demand now. I mean, thinking about it from a slightly different angle: we all know he's going to get paid more now than he was going to before he got showcased, and if SF can afford this contract, they could've afforded the lesser contract they would've paid him. And if they have to franchise him, that $23.5M for one year is probably only about $10M shy of what they would've had to guarantee him for a 4 year contract. I don't even want to think about the guaranteed money he's going to get now.

So yes, I agree he looks like a good fit. I never said he would bust or even took a stance of any kind on his fit or talent - I'm no scout or high level talent evaluator. I said this trade was a bad move strategically and I still think so.:shrug:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Do we have to get into this again? I don't have much free time so I'll just say my bit and leave it at that if that's ok. I've been out of the country for a few weeks... I just researched Jimmy Garappolo news for 5 minutes to reply, so I am definitely missing some things, but it looks like one of the scenarios I predicted played out:

Jimmy has played himself into a position where the 49ers now have to break the bank to keep him or drop $23.5M to franchise him for one year. Had they left him rotting on the bench in New England they (1) certainly could've signed him cheaper (would there be competition? Yes, but would an unknown get a larger contract than he'll be getting now? Undoubtedly not.),  (2) would have a 2nd round pick, and (3) would be drafting from a higher spot. But hey, maybe this extra time in the system will be more valuable than that. Sure seems like he learned things pretty quickly so I'm guessing the extra time won't make a tangible difference. From what I read before, Shanahan really wanted him, so all they really bought with this large loss in draft capital (and cap space) was peace of mind that signing him will (probably) be the right move.

So in summary:

  • 49ers trade early 2nd round pick
  • 49ers win 4 meaningless games (maybe 5)
  • 49ers lower draft position from top 2 to maybe outside top 10
  • Jimmy G gains additional contract negotiation leverage; SF will now have to pay out the nose to keep him
  • ownership gains peace of mind he's their QB
  • Jimmy gains extra time with playbook that he seemingly didn't need

If they can't reach a long term contract due to this trade (and time for him to showcase his skills) and he signs elsewhere in 2019 (or 2020 if they franchise him twice), this trade will have hosed them (unless by some miracle they win a championship next year - if so, who cares about 2019?). If they can reach a long term deal with him - like they were going to in the offseason anyway - then all they did was flounder draft capital and pay a lot more for his contract for some peace of mind. So while I think signs are certainly pointing to SF bringing JG over for 2018 as a good move (something we wouldn't have known with any level of confidence until next year without the trade), I still think this trade was very poor strategy. I know you kept saying "there's going to be competition to sign him" but you can't pretend that SF wouldn't have won that bidding war with their cap space and you have to admit the result of that bidding war would've been a much cheaper contract that what he's going to demand now. I mean, thinking about it from a slightly different angle: we all know he's going to get paid more now than he was going to before he got showcased, and if SF can afford this contract, they could've afforded the lesser contract they would've paid him. And if they have to franchise him, that $23.5M for one year is probably only about $10M shy of what they would've had to guarantee him for a 4 year contract. I don't even want to think about the guaranteed money he's going to get now.

So yes, I agree he looks like a good fit. I never said he would bust or even took a stance of any kind on his fit or talent - I'm no scout or high level talent evaluator. I said this trade was a bad move strategically and I still think so.:shrug:

Kind of like reaching for a guy you want in fantasy or dynasty- if he’s your guy then you go get your guy. Your premise makes sense, but I don’t think he will cost astronomically more to sign, and who cares if you pay him an extra 2mil a year, if the team is winning you’ll make it back. If he becomes the franchise qb they seem to think he can be then it’s a small price to pay, if you’re wrong it sets you back several years. If he would have come in and petermanned it up then they know they need to look elsewhere. He would have cost a lot without much tape to go off of, now they can be more comfortable with signing him long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Kind of like reaching for a guy you want in fantasy or dynasty- if he’s your guy then you go get your guy. Your premise makes sense, but I don’t think he will cost astronomically more to sign, and who cares if you pay him an extra 2mil a year, if the team is winning you’ll make it back. If he becomes the franchise qb they seem to think he can be then it’s a small price to pay, if you’re wrong it sets you back several years. If he would have come in and petermanned it up then they know they need to look elsewhere. He would have cost a lot without much tape to go off of, now they can be more comfortable with signing him long term.

Maybe you're right, but I think he could've been signed to a Brock-like contract (at the time, everyone knew Brock was an overpay - I think people would consider a Brock contract for JG to be fair). If they sign him for only ~$8M more than that, or even $15M more than that, then sure, not a ton of harm done in that regard. If they have to pay him $23.5M for one year and then sign him to a mega deal a year later, then yes, a ton of harm done.

But don't gloss over possibly moving from 1st or 2nd overall down to possibly outside the top 10 AND losing the 2.01 or 2.02 pick. Think about the bounty people pay to move up ~8-12 spots to 1.01 or 1.02. That's a huge loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Kind of like reaching for a guy you want in fantasy or dynasty- if he’s your guy then you go get your guy. Your premise makes sense, but I don’t think he will cost astronomically more to sign, and who cares if you pay him an extra 2mil a year, if the team is winning you’ll make it back. If he becomes the franchise qb they seem to think he can be then it’s a small price to pay, if you’re wrong it sets you back several years. If he would have come in and petermanned it up then they know they need to look elsewhere. He would have cost a lot without much tape to go off of, now they can be more comfortable with signing him long term.

Agreed - in addition, local sports radio was saying the day they got him that they’d essentially locked in at least a 24 million dollar franchise tag, which is why they were proponents of starting him to see what they had.

So essentially Garapolo’s big payday was virtually guaranteed. He didn’t play his way into a piston to cash in - he was traded into a position where if he performed well he’d (at least) be franchdied.

which is like $24M 

and he performed really well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Maybe you're right, but I think he could've been signed to a Brock-like contract (at the time, everyone knew Brock was an overpay - I think people would consider a Brock contract for JG to be fair). If they sign him for only ~$8M more than that, or even $15M more than that, then sure, not a ton of harm done in that regard. If they have to pay him $23.5M for one year and then sign him to a mega deal a year later, then yes, a ton of harm done.

But don't gloss over possibly moving from 1st or 2nd overall down to possibly outside the top 10 AND losing the 2.01 or 2.02 pick. Think about the bounty people pay to move up ~8-12 spots to 1.01 or 1.02. That's a huge loss.

There aren’t enough words for how strongly I disagree with all of this. 

The second they traded him to the Niners he was gonna get $24M

and all he’s done since is shown he’s worth it. 

So they dealt a 2.07-2.10 pick for a franchise QB that they have to pay on par with other franchise QBs.

what harm was done? What loss? I’m not getting it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

There aren’t enough words for how strongly I disagree with all of this. 

The second they traded him to the Niners he was gonna get $24M

and all he’s done since is shown he’s worth it. 

So they dealt a 2.07-2.10 pick for a franchise QB that they have to pay on par with other franchise QBs.

what harm was done? What loss? I’m not getting it. 

I don't get it either.  You typically have to invest draft capital and salary for a franchise QB.  These teams are not paupers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hoffman0001 said:

How is anyone answering no to this question? Have you even watched this team before and after he got the starting job? It's not even close. 

He's an unrestricted FA. They could have signed him without trading for him for LESS than they are going to have to pay now that he's looked legit. They were going to sign him anyway. They just paid a high 2nd, dropped down 8-12 spots in the draft, and increased his contract price to win some meaningless games. Not a smart trade.

2 minutes ago, DropKick said:

I don't get it either.  You typically have to invest draft capital and salary for a franchise QB.  These teams are not paupers.

Typically yes. But the 49ers didn't have to. They strangely chose to anyway, though.

1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I’m not getting it. 

No, you're not. Read my post before that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FF Ninja said:

Do we have to get into this again? I don't have much free time so I'll just say my bit and leave it at that if that's ok. I've been out of the country for a few weeks... I just researched Jimmy Garappolo news for 5 minutes to reply, so I am definitely missing some things, but it looks like one of the scenarios I predicted played out:

Jimmy has played himself into a position where the 49ers now have to break the bank to keep him or drop $23.5M to franchise him for one year. Had they left him rotting on the bench in New England they (1) certainly could've signed him cheaper (would there be competition? Yes, but would an unknown get a larger contract than he'll be getting now? Undoubtedly not.),  (2) would have a 2nd round pick, and (3) would be drafting from a higher spot. But hey, maybe this extra time in the system will be more valuable than that. Sure seems like he learned things pretty quickly so I'm guessing the extra time won't make a tangible difference. From what I read before, Shanahan really wanted him, so all they really bought with this large loss in draft capital (and cap space) was peace of mind that signing him will (probably) be the right move.

So in summary:

  • 49ers trade early 2nd round pick
  • 49ers win 4 meaningless games (maybe 5)
  • 49ers lower draft position from top 2 to maybe outside top 10
  • Jimmy G gains additional contract negotiation leverage; SF will now have to pay out the nose to keep him
  • ownership gains peace of mind he's their QB
  • Jimmy gains extra time with playbook that he seemingly didn't need

If they can't reach a long term contract due to this trade (and time for him to showcase his skills) and he signs elsewhere in 2019 (or 2020 if they franchise him twice), this trade will have hosed them (unless by some miracle they win a championship next year - if so, who cares about 2019?). If they can reach a long term deal with him - like they were going to in the offseason anyway - then all they did was flounder draft capital and pay a lot more for his contract for some peace of mind. So while I think signs are certainly pointing to SF bringing JG over for 2018 as a good move (something we wouldn't have known with any level of confidence until next year without the trade), I still think this trade was very poor strategy. I know you kept saying "there's going to be competition to sign him" but you can't pretend that SF wouldn't have won that bidding war with their cap space and you have to admit the result of that bidding war would've been a much cheaper contract that what he's going to demand now. I mean, thinking about it from a slightly different angle: we all know he's going to get paid more now than he was going to before he got showcased, and if SF can afford this contract, they could've afforded the lesser contract they would've paid him. And if they have to franchise him, that $23.5M for one year is probably only about $10M shy of what they would've had to guarantee him for a 4 year contract. I don't even want to think about the guaranteed money he's going to get now.

So yes, I agree he looks like a good fit. I never said he would bust or even took a stance of any kind on his fit or talent - I'm no scout or high level talent evaluator. I said this trade was a bad move strategically and I still think so.:shrug:

So much dumb in this post it’s laughable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

He's an unrestricted FA. They could have signed him without trading for him for LESS than they are going to have to pay now that he's looked legit. They were going to sign him anyway. They just paid a high 2nd, dropped down 8-12 spots in the draft, and increased his contract price to win some meaningless games. Not a smart trade.

Typically yes. But the 49ers didn't have to. They strangely chose to anyway, though.

No, you're not. Read my post before that one.

Should just leave this topic alone lol. You don’t seem very bright. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

He's an unrestricted FA. They could have signed him without trading for him for LESS than they are going to have to pay now that he's looked legit. They were going to sign him anyway. They just paid a high 2nd, dropped down 8-12 spots in the draft, and increased his contract price to win some meaningless games. Not a smart trade.

Typically yes. But the 49ers didn't have to. They strangely chose to anyway, though.

No, you're not. Read my post before that one.

Was it to win meaningless games or the opportunity to evaluate JG and give him time and experience in their system? 

Not sure what the season ticket situation is there but there has to be increased optimism going into 2018.

Didn't the 49ers fleece the Bears at last years draft?  Are they really worried about a draft pick or two compared to a franchise QB?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how he was going to sign with them anyway.  That's a really dumb statement.  Does someone know him personally?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, the loss of draft capital by actually winning games (how horrible) will be offset somewhat by being able to attract some free agents who wouldn't have considered SF without the optimism that this winning streak and having a real NFL QB has created.

Someone like Sammy Watkins (just an example) probably wouldn't have considered SF before, but might take a look now if SF was interested. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

No, you're not. Read my post before that one.

I read that one too - still not getting it. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FF Ninja said:

Maybe you're right, but I think he could've been signed to a Brock-like contract (at the time, everyone knew Brock was an overpay - I think people would consider a Brock contract for JG to be fair). If they sign him for only ~$8M more than that, or even $15M more than that, then sure, not a ton of harm done in that regard. If they have to pay him $23.5M for one year and then sign him to a mega deal a year later, then yes, a ton of harm done.

But don't gloss over possibly moving from 1st or 2nd overall down to possibly outside the top 10 AND losing the 2.01 or 2.02 pick. Think about the bounty people pay to move up ~8-12 spots to 1.01 or 1.02. That's a huge loss.

This is Sashi Brown-type thinking.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, efactor said:

Hopefully, the loss of draft capital by actually winning games (how horrible) will be offset somewhat by being able to attract some free agents who wouldn't have considered SF without the optimism that this winning streak and having a real NFL QB has created.

Someone like Sammy Watkins (just an example) probably wouldn't have considered SF before, but might take a look now if SF was interested. 

Any WR who wants to earn a bigger paycheck should want to come to SF now. 

SF’s defense is probably another year away assuming they invest heavier in OL help.

They need to replace Staley, DB is a need, but they’ll still be a bit soft & WRs should love that coming to SF. 

Excited to see who they go after in FA. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

He's an unrestricted FA. They could have signed him without trading for him for LESS than they are going to have to pay now that he's looked legit. They were going to sign him anyway. They just paid a high 2nd, dropped down 8-12 spots in the draft, and increased his contract price to win some meaningless games. Not a smart trade.

Typically yes. But the 49ers didn't have to. They strangely chose to anyway, though.

No, you're not. Read my post before that one.

The extra money they MAY need to pay him and dropping down 6-10 spots in the draft is more than offset by knowing the team has a franchise QB locked up. 

You are making a ton of assumptions:

We don’t know that Jimmy will get paid all that much more than he would have made on the open market. The Niners have leverage with the franchise tag and they don’t have to compete with 5-6 teams.

We don’t know that the 49ers would have even been the team that he would have signed with.

There is also a trade off between loss of draft capital and now having the option to take the BPA instead of a QB.

 

 

Edited by Dr. Octopus
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Do we have to get into this again? I don't have much free time so I'll just say my bit and leave it at that if that's ok. I've been out of the country for a few weeks... I just researched Jimmy Garappolo news for 5 minutes to reply, so I am definitely missing some things, but it looks like one of the scenarios I predicted played out:

Jimmy has played himself into a position where the 49ers now have to break the bank to keep him or drop $23.5M to franchise him for one year. Had they left him rotting on the bench in New England they (1) certainly could've signed him cheaper (would there be competition? Yes, but would an unknown get a larger contract than he'll be getting now? Undoubtedly not.),  (2) would have a 2nd round pick, and (3) would be drafting from a higher spot. But hey, maybe this extra time in the system will be more valuable than that. Sure seems like he learned things pretty quickly so I'm guessing the extra time won't make a tangible difference. From what I read before, Shanahan really wanted him, so all they really bought with this large loss in draft capital (and cap space) was peace of mind that signing him will (probably) be the right move.

So in summary:

  • 49ers trade early 2nd round pick
  • 49ers win 4 meaningless games (maybe 5)
  • 49ers lower draft position from top 2 to maybe outside top 10
  • Jimmy G gains additional contract negotiation leverage; SF will now have to pay out the nose to keep him
  • ownership gains peace of mind he's their QB
  • Jimmy gains extra time with playbook that he seemingly didn't need

If they can't reach a long term contract due to this trade (and time for him to showcase his skills) and he signs elsewhere in 2019 (or 2020 if they franchise him twice), this trade will have hosed them (unless by some miracle they win a championship next year - if so, who cares about 2019?). If they can reach a long term deal with him - like they were going to in the offseason anyway - then all they did was flounder draft capital and pay a lot more for his contract for some peace of mind. So while I think signs are certainly pointing to SF bringing JG over for 2018 as a good move (something we wouldn't have known with any level of confidence until next year without the trade), I still think this trade was very poor strategy. I know you kept saying "there's going to be competition to sign him" but you can't pretend that SF wouldn't have won that bidding war with their cap space and you have to admit the result of that bidding war would've been a much cheaper contract that what he's going to demand now. I mean, thinking about it from a slightly different angle: we all know he's going to get paid more now than he was going to before he got showcased, and if SF can afford this contract, they could've afforded the lesser contract they would've paid him. And if they have to franchise him, that $23.5M for one year is probably only about $10M shy of what they would've had to guarantee him for a 4 year contract. I don't even want to think about the guaranteed money he's going to get now.

So yes, I agree he looks like a good fit. I never said he would bust or even took a stance of any kind on his fit or talent - I'm no scout or high level talent evaluator. I said this trade was a bad move strategically and I still think so.:shrug:

:lmao: you don't even believe this, I think jet lag might have gotten the best of you. 

I could go through your reaching and point out the flaw to each part, but in an effort to save time I will just play the trump card. 

The 49er's just got their franchise qb for a 2nd round pick. They didn't have to bid against potentially, 10ish other teams and it cost them a 2nd round pick and roughly 5 to 8 million a year in salary, but I am sure you are right they would rather have a 2nd round pick and a chance at signing him. :wall:

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, efactor said:

Hopefully, the loss of draft capital by actually winning games (how horrible) will be offset somewhat by being able to attract some free agents who wouldn't have considered SF without the optimism that this winning streak and having a real NFL QB has created.

Someone like Sammy Watkins (just an example) probably wouldn't have considered SF before, but might take a look now if SF was interested. 

The 49ers made a great trade.   They didn't how good JG was going to be but they made a move and it looks like a great decision so far.   Dropping back in the draft is a small price to pay for finding your starting QB.   That is a big problem that many teams will struggle with this offseason.   SF can fill other holes.   

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

The 49ers made a great trade.   They didn't how good JG was going to be but they made a move and it looks like a great decision so far.   Dropping back in the draft is a small price to pay for finding your starting QB.   That is a big problem that many teams will struggle with this offseason.   SF can fill other holes.   

Exactly.

Ask the Browns how their QB search is working out. :doh: 

I’m pretty confident that the Niners had a good idea of what they were getting in Garapolo when they made that trade.  There’s guys on the Niners who’ve been around JimmyG. 

For the first time in forever I’m excited about the draft & next season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

So in summary:

  • 49ers trade early 2nd round pick
  • 49ers win 4 meaningless games (maybe 5)
  • 49ers lower draft position from top 2 to maybe outside top 10
  • Jimmy G gains additional contract negotiation leverage; SF will now have to pay out the nose to keep him
  • ownership gains peace of mind he's their QB
  • Jimmy gains extra time with playbook that he seemingly didn't need

 

None of that means diddly in comparison to the confidence that they have solved the position.  Every single team in the league would give this up for the free preview and to make sure the position is solved.  And if they don't sign him at all they'll get a 3rd compensatory pick back.  Miniscule investment.

There is zero assurance they "would have won him anyway".  Every team in the league can find room to sign a QB they believe is the guy.  NEP probably would have FT him and then traded him or gotten Brady to take another sweetheart restructure - and they already have plenty of cap space to do it even if Brady says no.

Edited by Hankmoody
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how hard it is to admit when you’re wrong.

I don’t think this trial run or these wins are completely meaningless. Winning is a habit. There are a good ten teams that wish they’d made the 49ers bad trade.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy G. is making young back up  qbs valuable again. Especially after the last 5ish years of crap with Flynn, Osweiler, Glennon etc. Except for Hundley, that guy still sucks. 

Edited by msudaisy26
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

He's an unrestricted FA. They could have signed him without trading for him for LESS than they are going to have to pay now that he's looked legit. They were going to sign him anyway. They just paid a high 2nd, dropped down 8-12 spots in the draft, and increased his contract price to win some meaningless games. Not a smart trade.

Typically yes. But the 49ers didn't have to. They strangely chose to anyway, though.

No, you're not. Read my post before that one.

THis is a silly argument. What they lost in draft capital WAS ABSOLUTELY worth KNOWING they got their franchise QB. Even if they had managed to sign him in the off-season (which is a TERRIBLE assumption), they likely would have hedged a little with a pick or two.

Might go down as a the trade of the decade.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.