QB Jimmy Garoppolo, LAR (1 Viewer)

[efactor]

Plus, it’s not like they didn’t have a really good idea what they were getting when they gave up a 2nd for him. Guy was a 2nd rounder who had the advantage of 3 plus years watching Brady play. When he got his chance to play, he stepped right in and performed at a high level. 

Even if they could have signed him after the season, getting him in to learn the system and the excitement he has created for the team and fan base was well worth it. Much more likely to attract desirable free agents now which will make up for the lost 2nd rounder.  

 

[chinawildman]

Are you implying someone would've paid more than this if there was a blind bidding war for a backup with almost no experience??

I'm implying that Garoppolo probably wouldn't be a 49er.

The niners front office is very shrewd when it comes to free agents and money. Marathe is a moneyball guy. He needs evidence, numbers, data to make a deal. There are enough teams on the open market that are desperate enough for a QB to throw money blindly at Garoppolo. Your choice of words --> "backup with almost no experience" is so irrelevant. Look at how much rookie QBs got paid before the rookie salary cap. Look at the kind of money Cousins will probably get... whichever team signed Garoppolo blindly in this scenario probably still would've had to drop at least $125M to sign him because QBs are paid on potential... not performance. Look at the top 5 QBs by salary, are any of them "elite"?

It's ironic that you call other people "armchair GMs" when your expectation that Lynch and Shanahan should've just tied their future to Garp sight unseen is perhaps the most ridiculously fantastical of them all. Throughout all your obstinate banter, the one clear message that you either don't value or don't understand the business side of risk mitigation.

 

[FF Ninja]

You're still missing the point, and in doing so, also made my point. Would JAX draft Gabbert so high after they had a few months of watching him up close and personal? Of course not. The Niners were willing to sacrifice draft capital in order to make a better determination on Jimmy G. Just because you dismissed that as not mattering (for some reason) doesn't mean that those with actual skin in the game should. 

On 10/30/17, the Niners traded a 2nd round pick for Jimmy G. They did that with the hopeful goal in mind of not needing to go 100% into college QB scouting mode, avoiding the need to decide between guys, weigh pros/cons of potential trade scenarios, avoiding all the due diligence on other FA QBs, hosting and selling themselves to FA QBs, going through extensive contract negotiations and being played by agents against other teams, to hopefully end up with the guy they wanted most.

You have a strange definition of "inefficient".

You can't say "of course not". In fact, I'd say you're obviously wrong there. They had a whole year to watch Gabbert in 2011 and they handed him the job again in 2012. Apparently 16 games wasn't enough, but you're telling me 5 games was sufficient to make JG the richest contract in the NFL. I'm not saying the 5 games didn't matter. It had value. I'm just saying the price paid was more than a savvy GM would've paid. We can't act like a 5 game sample somehow made that contract safe.

As for "inefficient" I thought I made my point clear. If the GM does his job, they could've landed the same QB at a lower contract value and had a lot more draft capital. Giving all those things up to make your job easier is an inefficient use of resources.

 

[FF Ninja]

I'm implying that Garoppolo probably wouldn't be a 49er.

The niners front office is very shrewd when it comes to free agents and money. Marathe is a moneyball guy. He needs evidence, numbers, data to make a deal. There are enough teams on the open market that are desperate enough for a QB to throw money blindly at Garoppolo. Your choice of words --> "backup with almost no experience" is so irrelevant. Look at how much rookie QBs got paid before the rookie salary cap. Look at the kind of money Cousins will probably get... whichever team signed Garoppolo blindly in this scenario probably still would've had to drop at least $125M to sign him because QBs are paid on potential... not performance. Look at the top 5 QBs by salary, are any of them "elite"?

It's ironic that you call other people "armchair GMs" when your expectation that Lynch and Shanahan should've just tied their future to Garp sight unseen is perhaps the most ridiculously fantastical of them all. Throughout all your obstinate banter, the one clear message that you either don't value or don't understand the business side of risk mitigation.

As I keep saying, I'm also an armchair GM. Now that we've established that, no, "backup with no experience" is not irrelevant. GMs and agents use previous deals in negotiations. The mold is rarely broken. In some sense Brock broke that mold, but that was due to some factors that are not present this year (several bidders and only Brock and Fitzpatrick were available). As in every year, there are teams looking for a QB. But this year there are a lot of QBs available (via free agency and trade) and a lot of enticing rookies. Nobody was going to need to break the bank this year. The 49ers did it anyway and paid a lot of draft capital to do it.

I don't know how you could say he "probably" wouldn't be a 49er. They and Cleveland were the front runners and who wouldn't pick SF over CLE? I think the odds were strongly in SF's favor of landing him as a FA. And like I mentioned earlier, the contract would've been manageable, thus invalidating your point that Lynch and Shanahan would be tied to him. The could easily invest in a backup QB or a rookie to groom, because as we just saw with Foles, having a capable backup can be critical. 

 

[chinawildman]

I don't know how you could say he "probably" wouldn't be a 49er. They and Cleveland were the front runners and who wouldn't pick SF over CLE? I think the odds were strongly in SF's favor of landing him as a FA. And like I mentioned earlier, the contract would've been manageable, thus invalidating your point that Lynch and Shanahan would be tied to him.

Can you quantify "manageable"? C'mon give us a number instead of constantly ####ting on this move with your tired abstractions.

In addition to the browns and 49ers, the bills, jets, broncos, cards, redskins are also in the hunt for a QB this offseason. Garp would've been the 2nd most coveted QB on the market, with Cousins usurping the "highest salary in the league" title... do you really think he and his agent would simply acquiesce to some low-ball "manageable" contract?

 

[FF Ninja]

Can you quantify "manageable"? C'mon give us a number instead of constantly ####ting on this move with your tired abstractions.

In addition to the browns and 49ers, the bills, jets, broncos, cards, redskins are also in the hunt for a QB this offseason. Garp would've been the 2nd most coveted QB on the market, with Cousins usurping the "highest salary in the league" title... do you really think he and his agent would simply acquiesce to some low-ball "manageable" contract?

Somewhere between Brock and Gannon, with an escalation for annual cap increase.

Lots of those teams have limited cap space and minimal appeal. JG and his agent wouldn't have a choice. Contracts for QBs with little to no experience are pretty well defined. There is no scenario where his FA contract would've been anything close to the contract he got. Too many other QB options available for teams to go nuts on a guy that's played 1.5 games for the Pats.

 

[Wingnut]

The nickname Garp has to go. That is all.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Why does it matter if SF made a mistake when they traded for Garropolo at this point? Most people realized it was a good move at the time. Most people should realize it turned out to be a great move.

Why does everyone need to keep rehashing the same old tired arguments that have spanned two separate threads here? There is one poster who is particularly vocal about the terrible mistake the 49ers made. Let him have it. Who cares? 

It's not like there's any chance of having a do-over anyway. The 49ers traded a second of Garropolo - it's done. Now the concern should be what to expect going forward. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Why does it matter if SF made a mistake when they traded for Garropolo at this point? Most people realized it was a good move at the time. Most people should realize it turned out to be a great move.

Why does everyone need to keep rehashing the same old tired arguments that have spanned two separate threads here? There is one poster who is particularly vocal about the terrible mistake the 49ers made. Let him have it. Who cares? 

It's not like there's any chance of having a do-over anyway. The 49ers traded a second of Garropolo - it's done. Now the concern should be what to expect going forward. 

I was genuinely curious if anyone wanted to take a stab at what his contract would've been without the trade. I mean, this contract sounds pretty crazy. It was one of the pitfalls I outlined when I said the trade was dumb.

We can give up and start discussing his fantasy prospects, which I think are pretty good if they can find him a WR (not a big Garcon fan). 

 

[Ben & Jerry's]

Without the trade to SF, his FA contract would likely have been less, perhaps much less but so would the Niners confidence level in Jimmy.

His play over that 5-0 stretch, along with age and character, puts him in the upper echelon of QB value.

Without seeing him operate in their system, there is a good chance they may have looked elsewhere for a QB.

Instead they identified a guy who they believed was a special player and could be taken off the market and tested in-house for a 2nd round pick.

Its courage and conviction like that I want from my GM. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I was genuinely curious if anyone wanted to take a stab at what his contract would've been without the trade. I mean, this contract sounds pretty crazy. It was one of the pitfalls I outlined when I said the trade was dumb.

We can give up and start discussing his fantasy prospects, which I think are pretty good if they can find him a WR (not a big Garcon fan). 

Well every time you bring up what a dumb move it was, some one that didn't see this argument the 100+ times it was already made after the trade and many time since feels the need to tell you why it was a good move and you feel the need to rehash the same spiel (maybe you just cut and paste now) all over again. And so it keeps going around and around in circles. At this point with all the cap space the Niners have, even the fact that you feel the contract is crazy doesn't matter. They still have more than enough cap space and if he plays well its worth it. If he doesn't, it's not. There's a pretty decent chance in a month he won't be the highest paid QB anymore and by season's end there will probably be 2-3 more QBs ahead of him.

 We get it - you think the Niners made a terrible mistake.  

 

[FF Ninja]

Like I said, I'm interested in discussing his fantasy prospects. He's an intriguing guy. So far he hasn't gone off the board in WSL1 and 11 QBs have been drafted. Matt Ryan, who has been an average fantasy QB most of his career, had a hell of a year with Shanahan. I think JG easily has top 10 upside if they give him a WR or two. Wouldn't be shocked if he finishes outside the top 18, either, so his ADP will be interesting to watch. I'd like to land him as an upside QB2 with a cheaper safe guy like Rivers. 

ETA: I don't think the 49ers made a terrible mistake. I think a rookie GM made a rookie GM move. Good GMs don't do that, but it's not a "terrible" mistake.

 

[massraider]

With all these teams that needed QBs, his contract was gonna be massive.

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/962030158742982656

Contract details.

 

[massraider]

He's getting all the money up front, and they can cut him after two years, quite easily.   

 

[RUSF18]

I was genuinely curious if anyone wanted to take a stab at what his contract would've been without the trade. I mean, this contract sounds pretty crazy. It was one of the pitfalls I outlined when I said the trade was dumb.

We can give up and start discussing his fantasy prospects, which I think are pretty good if they can find him a WR (not a big Garcon fan). 

I'm not sure why the contract sounds crazy. QB contracts are all about timing, and everyone knows that. You can choose to compare it to an old Aaron Rodgers contract (bad value in comparison) or you can compare it to the basically identical deal Matt Stafford signed a few months ago. From that perspective, five games or not, I'll take Garappolo. 

And without the trade and any of these teams seeing him in more game action, I think he still easily pushes $100MM+ over 5 years. 26 year old potential franchise QBs only hit the market when they are stuck behind the greatest to ever play the position who also happens to be ageless, aka never. That's why teams like the Lions will pay $135MM to go no further than the ceiling a guy like Stafford can provide. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Because that's a lot of guaranteed money after a mere 5 game tryout. And no way in hell would he get $100MM with only 1.5 games of experience. Was not going to happen. Especially this year when there are so many options. Also, I think you're undervaluing Stafford who is much more proven and less than 4 years older than JG. Anyway, I'm ready to move on to fantasy discussion.

 

[RUSF18]

Because that's a lot of guaranteed money after a mere 5 game tryout. And no way in hell would he get $100MM with only 1.5 games of experience. Was not going to happen. Especially this year when there are so many options. Also, I think you're undervaluing Stafford who is much more proven and less than 4 years older than JG. Anyway, I'm ready to move on to fantasy discussion.

If an alternative universe existed where the Patriots didn't have to worry about the cap, damn near everyone is in agreement that they would have been happy to franchise Garappolo and give him $23MM. So that's your starting point for a contract. I think there's no way in hell he doesn't get close to that on an AAV when you expand the pool to every QB needy team and open it up to bidding. 

But you asked, I answered. Tell me your guess on what his deal would be if I'm so far off, and give out a couple of these other "so many options" contracts for context.   

 

[FreeBaGeL]

experienced GMs don't do s*** like this.

In a league where coaches and executives are generally way overly conservative and unwilling to think outside the box even when it would help their chance of success, is this necessarily a bad thing.

We could just as easily be saying there's a reason experienced coaches don't run trick plays on 4th and goal from the 1 in the Super Bowl.  Or there's a reason experienced coaches don't go for it on their own side of the field in a close game in the Super Bowl.

The 9ers took a huge risk on Jimmy, but realistically once they committed to a QB they were going to be screwed for 3 years if he was a bust whether they were paying him $130 million or only $70mil.  All that mattered was getting a QB that hits, and I have to think having him in house for half a year before deciding on that helps with that enormously.

 

[Anarchy99]

If an alternative universe existed where the Patriots didn't have to worry about the cap, damn near everyone is in agreement that they would have been happy to franchise Garappolo and give him $23MM. So that's your starting point for a contract. I think there's no way in hell he doesn't get close to that on an AAV when you expand the pool to every QB needy team and open it up to bidding. 

But you asked, I answered. Tell me your guess on what his deal would be if I'm so far off, and give out a couple of these other "so many options" contracts for context.   

Just because the Patriots would have had no choice to franchise JG does not mean the going rate would start at $23 million a year. IMO, JG would likely have fallen in the range of Glennon ($15 million a year) to Osweiler ($18 million a year) if he hadn't played more than a game and a half with NE.

 

[Faust]

Jimmy Garoppolo vs. Kirk Cousins: Which quarterback is more valuable?

 

[Faust]

Jimmy Garoppolo is due $42.6 million in the first year of his five-year, $137.5 million contract.

The 49ers have nearly $80 million in available cap space, so it makes sense for them to front-load Garoppolo's contract. Garoppolo will then earn $18.6 million in 2019 before taking home another $25.2 million in 2020. It's a huge financial commitment for a player who's made just seven career starts, but if Garoppolo plays the way he did last season, he'll be worth the money.

Source: Adam Schefter on Twitter 

Feb 9 - 1:49 PM

 

[Faust]

Joe Staley: 49ers in good hands with Jimmy Garoppolo

 

[Wingnut]

Id rather they sign Jimmy to this contract than to draft a guy who could be a bust...I mean, we already know Jimmy can run an NFL offense, read defenses, etc...draft picks are much more risky. And say they would have drafted a guy, gave him a rookie contract, and then he turns out to be the real deal...by that time, imagine what QB salaries will be...this seems to me to be a much safer route than the draft/groom process. Jimmy has already been groomed. 

Anyone remember a late 1st round QB that sat behind Favre for a few years, got  his shot, impressed, and got a huge contract after only 7 NFL starts (IIRC)? I think that worked out pretty well for Green Bay. Now, Im not saying Jimmy is or will be as good as Rodgers, but the similarities are there...they both have football smarts/intangibles, both learned by being the understudies for HOFers, and both impressed in their auditions. I dont think its a stretch to say Jimmy G could be a Rodgers type player, especially if you watched him play in December. 

I couldnt be happier that SF got Jimmy locked up so quickly. Let the parade of free agents wanting to play for SF begin.

 

[Faust]

With Garoppolo's contract done, 49ers well-positioned to build around him

 

[chinawildman]

Somewhere between Brock and Gannon, with an escalation for annual cap increase.

Lots of those teams have limited cap space and minimal appeal. JG and his agent wouldn't have a choice. Contracts for QBs with little to no experience are pretty well defined. There is no scenario where his FA contract would've been anything close to the contract he got. Too many other QB options available for teams to go nuts on a guy that's played 1.5 games for the Pats.

Really? Is that why top drafted rookie QBs commanded huge salaries and guaranteed money prior to the rookie salary cap?

Let's see... Alex Smith a 33 yr old with a limited ceiling just got paid an avg of 23.5M/yr. You also forget that this "unexperienced backup" that only played "1.5" games was getting whispers of being worth at least a first round pick during the offseason... there obviously were factors tangential to his value that you purposefully ignore to bolster your middling argument.

At the end of the day, the only way your opinion of this "rookie GM move" will be validated is if Garp turns into a flop. If he makes SF competitive over the next 5 yrs, nobody outside of you is going to care whether it was a "rookie move" or not.

 

[chinawildman]

The nickname Garp has to go. That is all.

what needs to go is the trend of nicknames that sound like rappers... 

 

[DocHolliday]

At the end of the day, the niners got what looks to be a good QB.    Anyone think the Browns, Broncos, Bills, Jets, or Cards would not love to have JG signed at the exact same contract right now?   

Sure, the niners could have tried to get their QB in the draft.  One of the QBs will end up being good but I certainly cannot determine which one it will be.   Darnold?   Mayfield?   Someone else?   

 

[Faust]

Niners GM: Jimmy Garoppolo 'earned' our faith in him

 

[Bossman]

(Rotoworld) Jimmy Garoppolo is due $42.6 million in the first year of his five-year, $137.5 million contract.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Anyone remember a late 1st round QB that sat behind Favre for a few years, got  his shot, impressed, and got a huge contract after only 7 NFL starts (IIRC)? I think that worked out pretty well for Green Bay.

Aaron Rodgers’ first contract extension:

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- The Green Bay Packers signed first-year starting quarterback Aaron Rodgers to a contract extension through the 2014 season on Friday.

The deal will pay Rodgers more than $11 million a year and will include $20 million in guarantees, a source told ESPN.com's John Clayton.

The team announced the deal after practice Friday afternoon, when Rodgers signed the paperwork.

"It means a lot," Rodgers said. "I'm very excited knowing that my future is going to be here in Green Bay."

 

[FF Ninja]

If an alternative universe existed where the Patriots didn't have to worry about the cap, damn near everyone is in agreement that they would have been happy to franchise Garappolo and give him $23MM. So that's your starting point for a contract. I think there's no way in hell he doesn't get close to that on an AAV when you expand the pool to every QB needy team and open it up to bidding. 

But you asked, I answered. Tell me your guess on what his deal would be if I'm so far off, and give out a couple of these other "so many options" contracts for context.   

No, that's not the starting point.

And you're entitled to your opinion, but looking at how contracts have been doled out - a relatively good predictor - says that with only 1.5 games played, he would not have gotten that. So again, I think he deal if they hadn't traded for him would've been somewhere between the contracts given to Gannon and Osweiler. Remember, Osweiler's contract was inflated due to supply (only 2 mediocre free agents, one of them Fitzpatrick) and demand (several teams bidding). 

When I said so many options, I was referring to QB options. Several free agents, lots of exciting rookies, and some QBs available for trade. The point being that supply and demand is not out of whack like it was when Osweiller got his contract.

But again, I'm just answering your questions at this point. Willing to drop the topic.

In a league where coaches and executives are generally way overly conservative and unwilling to think outside the box even when it would help their chance of success, is this necessarily a bad thing.

We could just as easily be saying there's a reason experienced coaches don't run trick plays on 4th and goal from the 1 in the Super Bowl.  Or there's a reason experienced coaches don't go for it on their own side of the field in a close game in the Super Bowl.

The 9ers took a huge risk on Jimmy, but realistically once they committed to a QB they were going to be screwed for 3 years if he was a bust whether they were paying him $130 million or only $70mil.  All that mattered was getting a QB that hits, and I have to think having him in house for half a year before deciding on that helps with that enormously.

I totally agree about coaches being overly conservative and ignoring good strategy like going for it on 4th down, but coaches and GMs are apples and oranges. You see a lot more GMs taking risks than coaches.

Really? Is that why top drafted rookie QBs commanded huge salaries and guaranteed money prior to the rookie salary cap?

Let's see... Alex Smith a 33 yr old with a limited ceiling just got paid an avg of 23.5M/yr. You also forget that this "unexperienced backup" that only played "1.5" games was getting whispers of being worth at least a first round pick during the offseason... there obviously were factors tangential to his value that you purposefully ignore to bolster your middling argument.

At the end of the day, the only way your opinion of this "rookie GM move" will be validated is if Garp turns into a flop. If he makes SF competitive over the next 5 yrs, nobody outside of you is going to care whether it was a "rookie move" or not.

Top drafted everybody made bank before the rookie salary cap. Not just QBs.

Smith came off a career year. Look at his stats this year and tell me that's a low ceiling. I'm not saying I like his odds of repeating, but we all know at least one of 32 teams is going to pay someone coming off a career year like that. As for whispers... you really submitting that into evidence for your case?

And wow, that last part... so you evaluate risk solely by outcome? If that's how your mind works, I'm not sure I can explain this to you, but hopefully you see the problem with that in this example: By that logic, if I took my life savings, went to Vegas and bet it on red, you'd say it was a smart move if I hit and a dumb move if I missed. But the reality is that it was either a smart move or a dumb move regardless of outcome. 

In this case, my stance has always been they were really inefficient. By increasing risk a little bit, they could have decreased costs a lot. Dr. O thought I was saying it was a terrible move. What I've been saying all along was that it was an obvious rookie move. Not terrible, but certainly not the way a good, experienced GM would've handled things. But I will give Lynch credit for making the smart (but also obvious) move of front loading the contract.

Anyway, I'm ready to move on to 2018 fantasy implications.

 

[Buckna]

My guess would be heavily front-loaded considering the 49ers rollover cap-space. If they are protecting themselves and still modeling it after Carr's contract then possibly something like a relatively small signing bonus, fully guaranteed salaries in 2018 & 2019 plus roster bonuses and likely the base salary becomes guaranteed for injury only if he's on the roster upon the start of the new league year in 2020 or something. Then again, given JG's bargaining position, SF may not have put in too many outs for fear he wouldn't agree to sign.

Not far off it turns out. Massive roster bonus in year 1 (almost $29M ), small signing bonus of $7M, partial salary guarantee ($7.5m) in 2019, salaries guaranteed for injury only after that. 49ers have an out every year after 2018 if JG turns into a pumpkin. If he flames out in year 1 (seems pretty unlikely given the high level of play in his limited starts) they'd only be out $51M  and an early 2nd round pick. Ideally he stays healthy and plays well and then it won't matter how much they gave him. Worst case scenario is up and down play and/or injuries the first few years so its hard to know what you have similar to Houston when they traded for Matt Schaub.

For comparison, the failed Brock experiment cost Houston $21M and an early 2nd round pick.

 

[chinawildman]

And wow, that last part... so you evaluate risk solely by outcome?

By increasing risk a little bit, they could have decreased costs a lot.

LOL "a little bit"... rigggghhht. Let's just agree to disagree.

But seriously man you need to straighten out your reading comprehension when you post, where are you getting "evaluate risk by outcome"? I get you wanna get all the attention with some unpopular opinion post and thus have to contend w/ a bunch of replies at once... but at least take the time to address your respondents' actual opinions instead of your inaccurate paraphrasing. Most people are responding to your posts not because you have an interesting argument, but because you have this tendency to mince words and create imaginary straw man statements that nobody actually said.

 

[FF Ninja]

LOL "a little bit"... rigggghhht. Let's just agree to disagree.

But seriously man you need to straighten out your reading comprehension when you post, where are you getting "evaluate risk by outcome"? I get you wanna get all the attention with some unpopular opinion post and thus have to contend w/ a bunch of replies at once... but at least take the time to address your respondents' actual opinions instead of your inaccurate paraphrasing. Most people are responding to your posts not because you have an interesting argument, but because you have this tendency to mince words and create imaginary straw man statements that nobody actually said.

You said my opinion would only be validated if JG is a bust. Not mincing words at all, nor creating a straw man. Maybe you are the one who needs the reading comprehension help. 

I said, when the trade happened, that I had no scouting opinion on JG. My opinion was solely on the strategy used to acquire him. So my opinion was never tied to if JG busts or excels. It was all about the efficiency of a GM acquiring talent.

In a separate thread, I laid out a few scenarios on why it was a stupid move. Two of them were that JG could either struggle due to not having enough time in the system and the 49ers would still not know what they have in him (but would now be without a high 2nd round pick) or that he could excel and now they'd be without that 2nd round pick, their 1st would be worth a lot less (bc if he excels, they win games), AND they'd have to pay him out the nose (instead of just signing him to an "unproven commodity" contract). Because the 2nd one came true, I couldn't resist quipping about the delta between his current contract, the largest in the NFL, and what it would've been without the audition time. That was a mistake because it ended up triggering all this discussion again. I honestly did not want to get into it again.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

In this case, my stance has always been they were really inefficient. By increasing risk a little bit, they could have decreased costs a lot. Dr. O thought I was saying it was a terrible move. What I've been saying all along was that it was an obvious rookie move. Not terrible, but certainly not the way a good, experienced GM would've handled things. But I will give Lynch credit for making the smart (but also obvious) move of front loading the contract.

I don't think it's as simple as that.  In addition to reducing risk by getting to have him in their system for half a year, this accomplished two things.

1) Gave them an opportunity to move on if JG was bad.  That is, if they brought him in and he stunk they could have written off the 2nd round pick, let him walk, and drafted a QB with their top 10 pick in a relatively loaded QB draft class.  Had they waited to sign JG as a free agent this offseason without seeing him first and then found out he was bad they'd be held up at least another year but more than likely 2-3 years before they could make a serious run at another QB.

2) It basically guaranteed they could keep JG if he was good.  If the argument is that JG would have signed for only 70 million without the 49ers 5 game audition, then the problem there is there are a boatload of teams that need a QB and have 70 million to spend, many of them much more attractive than what a JG-less 49ers team looked like.

 

[FF Ninja]

I don't think it's as simple as that.  In addition to reducing risk by getting to have him in their system for half a year, this accomplished two things.

1) Gave them an opportunity to move on if JG was bad.  That is, if they brought him in and he stunk they could have written off the 2nd round pick, let him walk, and drafted a QB with their top 10 pick in a relatively loaded QB draft class.  Had they waited to sign JG as a free agent this offseason without seeing him first and then found out he was bad they'd be held up at least another year but more than likely 2-3 years before they could make a serious run at another QB.

2) It basically guaranteed they could keep JG if he was good.  If the argument is that JG would have signed for only 70 million without the 49ers 5 game audition, then the problem there is there are a boatload of teams that need a QB and have 70 million to spend, many of them much more attractive than what a JG-less 49ers team looked like.

1) I honestly don't want to clog up this thread, but this (your point #1) was a big part of why I didn't like the trade: if they brought him in and he stunk, how could they blame him? There was a lot of talk that this system takes a long time to master, so could they really say he stinks if he doesn't have a keen grasp on the system with just a few weeks of learning the playbook and practicing? That was one of the biggest problems with the trade. The evaluation period was very risky. I mean, of course if he comes in and plays well then you feel good about the evaluation (but then you've got to pay the man a ton and your 1st rounder just lost value), but if he doesn't play well, I don't think you can definitively say that it's due to a lack of talent. Lack of system experience and chemistry could easily be the problem. IMO, they got lucky af that this didn't happen* because they'd have been left with a VERY tough decision to make. Would they have still hitched their wagon to him or would they have used that top 5 pick on a QB? Or sign him to a "you got 5 games and didn't do great" contract and also draft a QB? Or franchise him and draft a QB?

Even the people who liked the trade instantly didn't expect production due to the supposed complexity of the system.

2) I agree that it guaranteed they could keep him and that was probably one of the reasons they made the trade, but I don't agree at all with (1) the statement that there are a boatload of teams with $70M to spend or (2) they were "much more attractive" than the 49ers. If you look at over the cap, the top 5 teams with money to spend are the Browns, 49ers, Colts, Jets, and Bucs. The Colts and Bucs are set at QB, so you're trying to tell me the Browns and Jets were more appealing than SF? To me, it's at worst a tie and it's the GM's job sell the team and organization to free agents they are looking to sign. 

*To be fair, while it looks lucky now, I guess it could be very unlucky if the 5 game sample was a mirage. But I think the odds are against that.

 

[chinawildman]

You said my opinion would only be validated if JG is a bust. Not mincing words at all, nor creating a straw man. Maybe you are the one who needs the reading comprehension help. 

I said, when the trade happened, that I had no scouting opinion on JG. My opinion was solely on the strategy used to acquire him. So my opinion was never tied to if JG busts or excels. It was all about the efficiency of a GM acquiring talent.

In a separate thread, I laid out a few scenarios on why it was a stupid move. Two of them were that JG could either struggle due to not having enough time in the system and the 49ers would still not know what they have in him (but would now be without a high 2nd round pick) or that he could excel and now they'd be without that 2nd round pick, their 1st would be worth a lot less (bc if he excels, they win games), AND they'd have to pay him out the nose (instead of just signing him to an "unproven commodity" contract). Because the 2nd one came true, I couldn't resist quipping about the delta between his current contract, the largest in the NFL, and what it would've been without the audition time. That was a mistake because it ended up triggering all this discussion again. I honestly did not want to get into it again.

Again... you wrote " so you evaluate risk solely by outcome?"

Since when is the evaluation of a front office move based SOLELY on the quantity of risk? Your attempt at paraphrasing was inaccurate, at least admit to that. 

Yes you think the move was dumb... everybody gets it. It's because you think there little risk by letting JG hit the open market. WE ALL GET IT. Unfortunately for you there are very few people on this forum that think a guy who had first round pick trade value could be signed easily for some Osweiler level contract in a bidding war on the open market. JG would've been one of the hottest FAs of the offseason, can you at least agree with that?

This is a valuation based not only talent, but of market. I understand your logic... it doesn't really bear repeating, I simply disagree on the risk valuations. Let's just leave it at that if you really don't wanna get into it again.

 

[FF Ninja]

I can't help you.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

1) I honestly don't want to clog up this thread, but this (your point #1) was a big part of why I didn't like the trade: if they brought him in and he stunk, how could they blame him? There was a lot of talk that this system takes a long time to master, so could they really say he stinks if he doesn't have a keen grasp on the system with just a few weeks of learning the playbook and practicing? That was one of the biggest problems with the trade. The evaluation period was very risky. I mean, of course if he comes in and plays well then you feel good about the evaluation (but then you've got to pay the man a ton and your 1st rounder just lost value), but if he doesn't play well, I don't think you can definitively say that it's due to a lack of talent. Lack of system experience and chemistry could easily be the problem. IMO, they got lucky af that this didn't happen* because they'd have been left with a VERY tough decision to make. Would they have still hitched their wagon to him or would they have used that top 5 pick on a QB? Or sign him to a "you got 5 games and didn't do great" contract and also draft a QB? Or franchise him and draft a QB?

Even the people who liked the trade instantly didn't expect production due to the supposed complexity of the system.

A lot of times you can differentiate between a guy learning a system and a guy just not being that good.  It didn't take Houston long to figure out that Brock Osweiler was not what they thought they were getting when they offered him his contract.

And for all the talk of complexity about Shanahan's system it seems like it's complexity in mastering the system, not necessarily just picking it up to a reasonable point.  Good QBs generally have had a down year in their first year in his system, but it's not like they were terrible.  It's not like Schaub and Ryan looked like Brandon Weeden out there when they tried to run his system the first time.  Ryan's TD/INT ratio was down but everything else remained pretty steady.

The real tricky part would have been if Garoppolo had come in and looked somewhere in the middle.  Not great, but not terrible.  But in that case I don't think they would have had to give him any larger a contract than what he would have gotten as a FA.

So after trading for him, there were basically three scenarios.

1) He's a total bomb, and is obviously not very good, in which case they let him walk.

2) He's middle of the road.  Not great, but not particularly bad.  In which case they probably sign him for around the same amount he would have gotten as a FA.

3) He plays great, in which case they have to give him a bigger deal than on the open market but feel good about locking down a young QB that looks really really good.

2) I agree that it guaranteed they could keep him and that was probably one of the reasons they made the trade, but I don't agree at all with (1) the statement that there are a boatload of teams with $70M to spend or (2) they were "much more attractive" than the 49ers. If you look at over the cap, the top 5 teams with money to spend are the Browns, 49ers, Colts, Jets, and Bucs. The Colts and Bucs are set at QB, so you're trying to tell me the Browns and Jets were more appealing than SF? To me, it's at worst a tie and it's the GM's job sell the team and organization to free agents they are looking to sign. 

That's the thing about that $70m number we were talking about, it doesn't restrict the market to only the top 5 teams.  It leaves a tons of teams in play.  Minnesota has a lot of cap space and can easily afford a $70m QB and is a much more attractive spot than the pre-JG 49ers.  Lots of talk also that the Broncos will be in play for a FA QB after moving some money around, and it sounds like they are in the running for Cousins who will cost more than $70m so they could easily have made it work for $70m on JG if they liked him.

Also remember, we're talking about the 49ers before they went 5-0 with JG here.  If they finish out the season without JG we're likely looking at a team that won three games over the last two years, are they really any more attractive than the Browns or Jets at that point?

 

[FF Ninja]

A lot of times you can differentiate between a guy learning a system and a guy just not being that good.  It didn't take Houston long to figure out that Brock Osweiler was not what they thought they were getting when they offered him his contract.

And for all the talk of complexity about Shanahan's system it seems like it's complexity in mastering the system, not necessarily just picking it up to a reasonable point.  Good QBs generally have had a down year in their first year in his system, but it's not like they were terrible.  It's not like Schaub and Ryan looked like Brandon Weeden out there when they tried to run his system the first time.  Ryan's TD/INT ratio was down but everything else remained pretty steady.

The real tricky part would have been if Garoppolo had come in and looked somewhere in the middle.  Not great, but not terrible.  But in that case I don't think they would have had to give him any larger a contract than what he would have gotten as a FA.

So after trading for him, there were basically three scenarios.

1) He's a total bomb, and is obviously not very good, in which case they let him walk.

2) He's middle of the road.  Not great, but not particularly bad.  In which case they probably sign him for around the same amount he would have gotten as a FA.

3) He plays great, in which case they have to give him a bigger deal than on the open market but feel good about locking down a young QB that looks really really good.

I think you are really overlooking the importance of OTAs, training camp, and preseason and overestimating how useful practice can be when you're in the middle of a season trying to game plan for the next week. I mean, they were 0-8 so I guess they could just give up on game planning and treat it like preseason, but still, we're not talking about anything close to Brock going through all of that and then playing almost a full season for the Texans. And they still had to give some reps to the starter, right? I outlined it more in the other thread, but I'd have been hesitant to judge JG negatively if he flopped in SF in those 5 games. Beyond having zero chemistry and only 3 weeks of practice, this was a lost season. At least some of the players lose that fire when their team goes 0-8. So playing with teammates that have no hope is yet another obstacle he was facing. It makes his performance all the more impressive, but also would've made their decision even harder if he didn't perform well. So going by your 1, 2, 3:

1) I don't think anyone could've definitively said he's a bomb even if things went poorly. 2) He's a FA. He could refuse to sign that deal and you'd have to franchise him. 3) He just got the biggest contract in the NFL with a ton of guaranteed money based on 5 games. I think he'll be ok, but this will look monumentally bad in hindsight if he flops.

Well it was kind of two separate things.  There are boatloads of teams to spend, some much more attractive.  Minnesota has plenty of cap space and can easily afford a $70m QB and is a much more attractive spot than the pre-JG 49ers.  Lots of talk also that the Broncos will be in play for a FA QB after moving some money around, and it sounds like they are in the running for Cousins who will cost more than $70m so they could easily have made it work for $70m on JG if they liked him.

That's the thing about that $70m number we were talking about, it doesn't restrict the market to only the top 5 teams.  It leaves a tons of teams in play.

Also remember, we're talking about the 49ers before they went 5-0 with JG here.  If they finish out the season without JG we're likely looking at a team that won three games over the last two years, are they really any less attractive than the Browns or Jets at that point?

I'd argue teams in win now mode are not going for a guy with 1.5 games on his resume, so the Broncos and Vikings were never going to sign him. I know it looks good on paper to mention them, but those teams are looking for something safer than an unknown and don't have the cap space to miss. This really was going to come down to the Jets, 49ers, and Browns. I'm not saying the 49ers were definitely more appealing than those two, but they sure as hell weren't less appealing. That's why I am saying it's the GM's job to talk free agents into coming over. A good GM does that. A rookie GM trades a 2nd rounder so he doesn't have to do that.

---------------------------

All that being said, with sunk costs being what they are, SF could be very exciting this year for fantasy if a few things fall in place. I have seen Saquon mocked to SF and they've still got the cap space to lure someone like AR15 if JAX doesn't franchise him (why would they if they aren't going to throw the ball?). I'm still a little wary of Watkins after learning he believes the earth is flat, but Shanahan might be able to work with him. They could always kick the tires on Wallace or Pryor, too. Maybe bring in Eifert on a 1 year deal (not completely sold on Kittle, but he's good enough to be Eifert injury insurance). Not sure how their offensive line stacks up, though. They were middle of the pack through week 5. 

 

[Anarchy99]

IMO, what SFO probably should have done was trade for JG, see how he looked grasping the offense and how he looked in practice, and then sign him to an extension before he played in actual games. I would guess they may have been able to get him for 5 years and around $75-$80 million. At that point, he would have only had a game and a half of experience, would have had very little in terms of career earnings, and might have been tempted to take a deal where he immediately got 8-10 times what he made in 4 years. IMO, the way they did it, they may have cost themselves an extra $60 million. Given that they had so much cap space (and it's not my money), it may only be a case of money that they may have struggled to spend so maybe not that big a deal. I still think they paid too much for a relatively unproven commodity. He may turn out to be worth it, but why pay more than you have to?

Not specifically comparing him to these guys, but Foles looked great for awhile and then struggled for awhile (before the end of this year). RGIII had a great rookie season and pretty much is already out of the league. Prescott led the Cowboys as a rookie and the team took a step back this year (certainly not all his fault). The point being, we can probably come up with multiple examples of players that looked really good and things didn't turn out quite the same. Ultimately, the Niners will be graded on how well Jimmy G plays over the next few years, so either JG plays at a Pro Bowl or All Pro level or he doesn't. How will people feel if Garoppolo turns into Ryan Tannehill?

 

[Hankmoody]

Oh yay more of this.

 

[RUSF18]

IMO, what SFO probably should have done was trade for JG, see how he looked grasping the offense and how he looked in practice, and then sign him to an extension before he played in actual games. I would guess they may have been able to get him for 5 years and around $75-$80 million. At that point, he would have only had a game and a half of experience, would have had very little in terms of career earnings, and might have been tempted to take a deal where he immediately got 8-10 times what he made in 4 years. IMO, the way they did it, they may have cost themselves an extra $60 million. Given that they had so much cap space (and it's not my money), it may only be a case of money that they may have struggled to spend so maybe not that big a deal. I still think they paid too much for a relatively unproven commodity. He may turn out to be worth it, but why pay more than you have to?

Not specifically comparing him to these guys, but Foles looked great for awhile and then struggled for awhile (before the end of this year). RGIII had a great rookie season and pretty much is already out of the league. Prescott led the Cowboys as a rookie and the team took a step back this year (certainly not all his fault). The point being, we can probably come up with multiple examples of players that looked really good and things didn't turn out quite the same. Ultimately, the Niners will be graded on how well Jimmy G plays over the next few years, so either JG plays at a Pro Bowl or All Pro level or he doesn't. How will people feel if Garoppolo turns into Ryan Tannehill?

Easy for you to say but maybe he didn't want to sign a below market deal, knowing what he could potentially garner on the open market? Or would only sign a below market deal if it came with an opt out after 2 years? How much of your proposed $80 million would be guaranteed? Even if it's $40MM or so over the first couple of years, maybe he decides instead to not sign a deal and allow himself to be franchised, take his guaranteed $23MM for the year and prove his worth. The Niners then would be forced into contract negotiations off that number, or they could trade him, try to recoup that 2nd round pick, and put that decision in someone else's hands. Meanwhile Garappolo either works towards free agency or a second franchise tag worth nearly $30MM and he makes more guaranteed over those two seasons than in your proposed deal. 

Most players have a pretty high opinion of themselves and how much they are worth. You usually don't see guys take such significant discounts on a potential contract especially when they haven't even had a chance to fail. 

As for the bolded, such a strange comment. Kirk Cousins is about to get more money than Garappolo and didn't make the Pro Bowl. Is Matt Stafford going to be held up to the same standard now that he's drawing a similar contract? Cam Newton's deal bad for Carolina because he didn't make it either?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Oh yay more of this.

Yep, it's all the same crap over and over that started here: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/762223-was-the-garoppolo-trade-a-good-or-bad-trade-for-the-49ers/#comment-20565574

It's time to let it go - or if we still haven't quite decided on whether Lynch made a "rookie mistake", we can bring the discussion back there and move forward here.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

(Rotoworld) Jimmy Garoppolo is due $42.6 million in the first year of his five-year, $137.5 million contract.

Front loaded - Niners are 105M under the cap, so it makes sense to front-load the contract so that down the road they have much more cap-friendly numbers. 

It's also insurance for JimmyG, since there's an out clause for the Niners that on April 1st 2019 they can cut him with zero further financial implication. Chances are good that's not going to happen, but the sticker shock over $42.6M is pretty easily explained by the amount of cap room the Niners have right now. They were expected to front-load it. Not shocking. 

/shock emoji

 

[Arodin]

Oh yay more of this.

Yep, it's all the same crap over and over that started here: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/762223-was-the-garoppolo-trade-a-good-or-bad-trade-for-the-49ers/#comment-20565574

It's time to let it go - or if we still haven't quite decided on whether Lynch made a "rookie mistake", we can bring the discussion back there and move forward here.

Someone changed the title when this thread has anything more than people arguing the same tired ground for the 53rd time please...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Front loaded - Niners are 105M under the cap, so it makes sense to front-load the contract so that down the road they have much more cap-friendly numbers. 

It's also insurance for JimmyG, since there's an out clause for the Niners that on April 1st 2019 they can cut him with zero further financial implication. Chances are good that's not going to happen, but the sticker shock over $42.6M is pretty easily explained by the amount of cap room the Niners have right now. They were expected to front-load it. Not shocking. 

/shock emoji

Yea they still have the 3rd most cap space this year even after Jimmy's 42 million. Crazy. 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Someone changed the title when this thread has anything more than people arguing the same tired ground for the 53rd time please...

Cool, so now instead of a Jimmy Garoppolo thread where people are taking about stuff related to Jimmy Garoppolo we have a Jimmy Garoppolo thread where people are complaining that the Jimmy Garoppolo stuff in the Jimmy Garoppolo thread isn't the jimmy Garoppolo stuff they want to talk about, while at the same time offering nothing else regarding Jimmy Garoppolo to talk about. 

So congrats on that, I guess. 

 

[Anarchy99]

Easy for you to say but maybe he didn't want to sign a below market deal, knowing what he could potentially garner on the open market? Or would only sign a below market deal if it came with an opt out after 2 years? How much of your proposed $80 million would be guaranteed? Even if it's $40MM or so over the first couple of years, maybe he decides instead to not sign a deal and allow himself to be franchised, take his guaranteed $23MM for the year and prove his worth. The Niners then would be forced into contract negotiations off that number, or they could trade him, try to recoup that 2nd round pick, and put that decision in someone else's hands. Meanwhile Garappolo either works towards free agency or a second franchise tag worth nearly $30MM and he makes more guaranteed over those two seasons than in your proposed deal. 

Most players have a pretty high opinion of themselves and how much they are worth. You usually don't see guys take such significant discounts on a potential contract especially when they haven't even had a chance to fail. 

As for the bolded, such a strange comment. Kirk Cousins is about to get more money than Garappolo and didn't make the Pro Bowl. Is Matt Stafford going to be held up to the same standard now that he's drawing a similar contract? Cam Newton's deal bad for Carolina because he didn't make it either?

How is a 5 year, $80 million deal "below market" for a player that made two career starts and didn't make it to halftime in one of them? This applies to any other position as well. Not sure any player with that little experience falls in line with being paid middle of the market, let alone top of the market. Garoppolo earned $3.5 million in 4 seasons. You think he would have said no to 5 years for $80 million with $35 million guaranteed? That's 10 times what he made in 4 seasons. Maybe he would have played hard ball and ended up at $18 million a year by wanting Osweiler money. That would be $90 million total. Sure, he could have said no dice and maybe played this year under the franchise tag, but if he didn't do well or got hurt, he might never see an $80-90 million offer every again.

JG up until he started his first game for SFO was very similar to Matt Flynn. Flynn sat behind Aaron Rodgers for 4 years. He also had two career starts. One was 251-3-1 against the Patriots. The other was 480-6-1 against Detroit. That's 731 yards and 9 TD in two starts.

Flynn then signed with SEA for 3 years, $26 million. The high end of the QB market then was already $20 million per year. Flynn got $8.7 million. Was there much difference between JG and Flynn at that point? Not really.

Again, not my money. Congrats to JG for getting a treasure trove of money. I hope he does well. I hope SFO gets their money's worth, because if they do they should have a decent team moving forward.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

IMO, what SFO probably should have done was trade for JG, see how he looked grasping the offense and how he looked in practice, and then sign him to an extension before he played in actual games. I would guess they may have been able to get him for 5 years and around $75-$80 million. At that point, he would have only had a game and a half of experience, would have had very little in terms of career earnings, and might have been tempted to take a deal where he immediately got 8-10 times what he made in 4 years. IMO, the way they did it, they may have cost themselves an extra $60 million. Given that they had so much cap space (and it's not my money), it may only be a case of money that they may have struggled to spend so maybe not that big a deal. I still think they paid too much for a relatively unproven commodity. He may turn out to be worth it, but why pay more than you have to?

Not specifically comparing him to these guys, but Foles looked great for awhile and then struggled for awhile (before the end of this year). RGIII had a great rookie season and pretty much is already out of the league. Prescott led the Cowboys as a rookie and the team took a step back this year (certainly not all his fault). The point being, we can probably come up with multiple examples of players that looked really good and things didn't turn out quite the same. Ultimately, the Niners will be graded on how well Jimmy G plays over the next few years, so either JG plays at a Pro Bowl or All Pro level or he doesn't. How will people feel if Garoppolo turns into Ryan Tannehill?

I think that's being a bit generous using hindsight as a barometer.

For one I don't think the Niners would have committed to that much money for a still unknown commodity, and as others have pointed out, I don't see JimmyG signing a contract knowing how hot he would be on the open market. 

The only difference between what Garapolo got, and what he would have gotten had he waited to become a free agent is that he likely would have waited to sign after ARod, Matt Ryan, Foles, Keenum signed. They would have set the bar instead of JimmyG. 

But since he wasn't a UFA, the only other event that could have possibly happened is that the Niners franchise tag him for 24-25 million for 1 year, and use next season as a trial balloon to see if they want to sign him to a long-term contract. There's risk there as well though in that it could potentially create disharmony with Garapolo by forcing him into a 1-year deal (see: Cousins, Kirk), and it seems like the team preferred knowing their QB is locked in to a 5 year deal (as they did).

I don't see any way the Niners could have saved a significant amount of money on this deal. They were always either going to lock him up long term or franchise tag him. Beathard's injury forced the issue, as it forced the Niners to play JimmyG and begin the eval earlier than later. 

That all said, no one seems to be mentioning the benefit the Niners got from that. By evaluating him this year they gained the confidence to get the long-term contract done & will be building their team around him. They can now compete immediately in 2018 season. Had they waited, franchised him, and used 2018 to evaluate him, they may well have wasted a season. Not saying they wouldn't have competed in 2018 with Jimmy playing under the franchise tag, but IMO they're far better off having him locked up headed into FA and the draft with the confidence that they got their guy. 

One man's opinion.