There are 85 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

what logic is it to trade up

Originally posted by krizay:
well, 1 name i never see mentioned in a trade up scenario is xavier rhodes.

What would be the plan (D scheme) then? It seems we prefer our CBs to play off coverage more than not. Rhodes (by most accounts) seems to be far more skilled as a press corner. So, maybe most think he doesn't fit well?
I just don't see A player in the top 15 that warrants a trade up...one that is significantly better than what you'd get at the end of the round. So I see us staying pat or trading back (QB-hungry team) and stock-piling picks in the 2-4 range and having a field day. We need at least 8 new players...1 or 2 starters THIS year, 4-5 to push current starters and a 1-2 developmental players. With that said, after we stand pat or trade back, we'll package and move up from the later rounds or trade out to acquire additional picks for next year. This moving up stuff is all a smoke screen...probably started with our FO. They are shrewd like that and work the media very well.
[ Edited by NCommand on Apr 24, 2013 at 9:29 AM ]
We should move up if its Star or Sheldon.
Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:
$800k+ cap room to sign 13 rookies? yeah, do the math

/thread
Plenty of creative ways to create more cap room. That's not even an issue.
[ Edited by SFrush on Apr 24, 2013 at 9:41 AM ]
To me the logic is that we have a deep team with limited roster spots. We don't have room for 13 players. So you trade some of the picks to move up. Not saying I'm for or against it and I'm no genius, but it seems pretty obvious to me.
Originally posted by TTown9ers:
To me the logic is that we have a deep team with limited roster spots. We don't have room for 13 players. So you trade some of the picks to move up. Not saying I'm for or against it and I'm no genius, but it seems pretty obvious to me.

If the value isn't there, maybe trading back into 2014 makes more sense?
  • Amir
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 25,062
what logic is it to trade down?


riddle me that
Originally posted by English:
If the value isn't there, maybe trading back into 2014 makes more sense?

Absolutely. I think the bottom line is we can't pick 13 players because we just don't have the roster spots. I'd be surprised if we didn't end up both trading up and trading into 2014.
If a player that Baalke likes starts to slip, he has shown that he will trade up to get a player he likes. This year, he has the ammo to do it. There's no reason to think he won't. At the same time, he's also shown that he will reach for a player (Aldon, AJ Jenkins). In other words, he will do it all and there is no hard stance in his approach to the draft. This is what a good GM should do. Once draft day comes, things change from pick to pick, a good GM adjusts his strategy accordingly on the day of.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,537
Originally posted by OldJoe:
Trading up only occurs if you have a draft crush. And is not unlike gushing over a car within view of your car salesman. He just hooked a fat one.

Trading up only occurs if you have a draft crush. Are you serious?

Where exactly did you dig this up?
Originally posted by thl408:
If a player that Baalke likes starts to slip, he has shown that he will trade up to get a player he likes. This year, he has the ammo to do it. There's no reason to think he won't. At the same time, he's also shown that he will reach for a player (Aldon, AJ Jenkins). In other words, he will do it all and there is no hard stance in his approach to the draft. This is what a good GM should do. Once draft day comes, things change from pick to pick, a good GM adjusts his strategy accordingly on the day of.

I agree. While most people see Baalke trading all the way up to say 15 I feel he is more likely to use the chips he has to make SMALL leaps up if they have a player they want. For example, SF might want to trade up just a few slots to jump ahead of New England and Atlanta to grab a corner they might like (Desmond Trufant?). Failing that, I expect them to trade for future picks because they don't need a huge pool of rookies and from what I've read this class is weak (relative to others). Baalke may wish to keep his large number of picks for next year in hopes of grabbing a better talent down the road.
[ Edited by bzborow1 on Apr 24, 2013 at 10:36 AM ]
I can see us stockpiling picks for next year
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,537
Trading up, trading down, and trading out all make sense.

I would not be upset if we did any or all of these.
Originally posted by buck:
Trading up, trading down, and trading out all make sense.

I would not be upset if we did any or all of these.

Sorry man but I call BS! Look guy's the Baalke will reach or trade up any time he pleases.. It sets the right tone for the guy they're drafting, that says, "out of all the other teams who could have picked you, who has it better than us?!... Well John does right now " lol no but seriously that's how he works folks mark it down.
[ Edited by bdub2588 on Apr 24, 2013 at 10:58 AM ]
Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
No offense intended to you, but the bolded is probably why folks like you and I don't get paid to truly scout prospects... ya know? Fans always love a TON of prospects, but organizations tend to be far more critical and picky with the individuals they want. So, just because the ESPNs and CBS rankings may have (for instance) a few DE/DB prospects closely rated? You can bet that our F/O has only one or two highly coveted DEs/DBs in this round or that.


This.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home