There are 109 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Niners willing to trade Aubrayo Franklin for a 1st round pick

Guys,

No, I'm not saying the draft guarantees anything, but would I be willing to entertain trade on a player who blew up in a contract year? Yes.

WildBill

Bill Walsh didn't build through "free agency" - he built through the draft. The only "free agency" around when Walsh was coach was "Plan B" and that wasn't anything like the FA of today Wild Bill. No, there are no guarantees.


Oakland-Niner

No it's not similar to saying that at all. Willis has been a consistent performer since the day he was drafted. Apples and Oranges. This is the reason why he's franchised. If the team thought he was that awesome, they have the cap room to aggressively go after him with a long term deal - like they decided to do (in error) with Soapoaga.


Kidash

I understand what you're saying about grooming another player, but if you have a chance to grab a blue-chip DT - chance, sure why not take if someone offers you a #1. Again, everyone is assuming Franklin has been the rock of the defense, this super DT for years. He's had one good season and everyone has declared him un-tradable.

------

Guys, please don't get so emotional about this. I certainly am not. I'm just saying if a team came along to offer a #1 for Franklin - depending where that #1 was, I'd consider it. Sure there are no guarantees in the draft, but there are also no guarantees that players will maintain high performance either.

Franklin has had One. Good. Year. I mean seriously he's not even anywhere near the "All-Pro" discussion whereas Willis' play forces that conversation every year and will do so again next season. Does Franklin need to? No. Again not an absolute argument but before we anoint him the new top DT in league, I guess my standard is more than one year - particularly his contract year. Do I absolutely know he's plateaued. Of course not. However, it is a proven fact that players tend to become less effective (outside QB and some WR) once they hit 30. I'm not arguing an absolute argument here. I'm just not. I'm just saying like any good poker player, you have to consider it.

If Detroit or any team in the top 10 says "we want Franklin, here's our first" you would be crazy not to at least listen and consider.

That's all I'm sayin.

So there must be some consensus in the organization about Franklin's value or this would not be a conditional franchise tag. If Singletary absolutely felt Franklin was the heart of his defense you really think the 49ers would just allow an opening? The message is clear - at least from the team's standpoint - "We think you're awesome, but not untradeable".

[ Edited by NinerGM on Feb 25, 2010 at 09:13:45 ]
Originally posted by amir_tn80:
I don't see anybody giving up a number 1 for a NT that had 1 good season and is on the wrong side of 30.

Pretty sure 29 is the preferred side of 30.
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by amir_tn80:
I don't see anybody giving up a number 1 for a NT that had 1 good season and is on the wrong side of 30.

Pretty sure 29 is the preferred side of 30.

no no no...

29 rounded off is near 40 , bruh.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Kidash

I understand what you're saying about grooming another player, but if you have a chance to grab a blue-chip DT - chance, sure why not take if someone offers you a #1. Again, everyone is assuming Franklin has been the rock of the defense, this super DT for years. He's had one good season and everyone has declared him un-tradable.

No one is saying he's un-tradable, were saying it's a bad move AT THIS POINT. And as for your ONE GOOD YEAR stance, I showed his stats that implied he got better the longer he was with us. His play improved in all the years he was with us! Given, last year was the last year of his initial contract with so he probably did "try harder" but seriously, almost everyone in his shoes would have tried and done the same.

The problem that I see here is we actually have a good, decent line with our defensive front. Why ruin it for a "potential?" You stated that if we have a chance for a blue-chip DT that we should take a gamble but why take a gamble in the first place when there is no need? Let's just say someone does offer a 1st for him (which I doubt because you said it yourself that this is a rich draft as far as DT's are concerned), who's going to play the NT for the time being? Soap???? As much as I like the guy, he is better reserved as a backup coming in to let the main guy have a breather. The new "1st Round" pick???? Time have proven in the past that only a select few can make an immediate impact from the get go, and even then, how do we know whoever we picked will pan out or be that “select few?”

Too much of a gamble when there is no need. It took us years to find a serviceble NT and now that we have him, the next move is to trade him???? I'm all for planning for the future but this is one of those cases where it doesn't make sense, even for a 1st rounder...

Now if it was for 2 1st rounder, I would really think twice about it....

- 98
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Guys,

No, I'm not saying the draft guarantees anything, but would I be willing to entertain trade on a player who blew up in a contract year? Yes.

WildBill

Bill Walsh didn't build through "free agency" - he built through the draft. The only "free agency" around when Walsh was coach was "Plan B" and that wasn't anything like the FA of today Wild Bill. No, there are no guarantees.


Oakland-Niner

No it's not similar to saying that at all. Willis has been a consistent performer since the day he was drafted. Apples and Oranges. This is the reason why he's franchised. If the team thought he was that awesome, they have the cap room to aggressively go after him with a long term deal - like they decided to do (in error) with Soapoaga.


Kidash

I understand what you're saying about grooming another player, but if you have a chance to grab a blue-chip DT - chance, sure why not take if someone offers you a #1. Again, everyone is assuming Franklin has been the rock of the defense, this super DT for years. He's had one good season and everyone has declared him un-tradable.

------

Guys, please don't get so emotional about this. I certainly am not. I'm just saying if a team came along to offer a #1 for Franklin - depending where that #1 was, I'd consider it. Sure there are no guarantees in the draft, but there are also no guarantees that players will maintain high performance either.

Franklin has had One. Good. Year. I mean seriously he's not even anywhere near the "All-Pro" discussion whereas Willis' play forces that conversation every year and will do so again next season. Does Franklin need to? No. Again not an absolute argument but before we anoint him the new top DT in league, I guess my standard is more than one year - particularly his contract year. Do I absolutely know he's plateaued. Of course not. However, it is a proven fact that players tend to become less effective (outside QB and some WR) once they hit 30. I'm not arguing an absolute argument here. I'm just not. I'm just saying like any good poker player, you have to consider it.

If Detroit or any team in the top 10 says "we want Franklin, here's our first" you would be crazy not to at least listen and consider.

That's all I'm sayin.

So there must be some consensus in the organization about Franklin's value or this would not be a conditional franchise tag. If Singletary absolutely felt Franklin was the heart of his defense you really think the 49ers would just allow an opening? The message is clear - at least from the team's standpoint - "We think you're awesome, but not untradeable".

Imo if a team offered a top 10 pick, you would be crazy to even consider it for Franklin, I would jump right on that deal.
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Guys,

No, I'm not saying the draft guarantees anything, but would I be willing to entertain trade on a player who blew up in a contract year? Yes.

WildBill

Bill Walsh didn't build through "free agency" - he built through the draft. The only "free agency" around when Walsh was coach was "Plan B" and that wasn't anything like the FA of today Wild Bill. No, there are no guarantees.


Oakland-Niner

No it's not similar to saying that at all. Willis has been a consistent performer since the day he was drafted. Apples and Oranges. This is the reason why he's franchised. If the team thought he was that awesome, they have the cap room to aggressively go after him with a long term deal - like they decided to do (in error) with Soapoaga.


Kidash

I understand what you're saying about grooming another player, but if you have a chance to grab a blue-chip DT - chance, sure why not take if someone offers you a #1. Again, everyone is assuming Franklin has been the rock of the defense, this super DT for years. He's had one good season and everyone has declared him un-tradable.

------

Guys, please don't get so emotional about this. I certainly am not. I'm just saying if a team came along to offer a #1 for Franklin - depending where that #1 was, I'd consider it. Sure there are no guarantees in the draft, but there are also no guarantees that players will maintain high performance either.

Franklin has had One. Good. Year. I mean seriously he's not even anywhere near the "All-Pro" discussion whereas Willis' play forces that conversation every year and will do so again next season. Does Franklin need to? No. Again not an absolute argument but before we anoint him the new top DT in league, I guess my standard is more than one year - particularly his contract year. Do I absolutely know he's plateaued. Of course not. However, it is a proven fact that players tend to become less effective (outside QB and some WR) once they hit 30. I'm not arguing an absolute argument here. I'm just not. I'm just saying like any good poker player, you have to consider it.

If Detroit or any team in the top 10 says "we want Franklin, here's our first" you would be crazy not to at least listen and consider.

That's all I'm sayin.

So there must be some consensus in the organization about Franklin's value or this would not be a conditional franchise tag. If Singletary absolutely felt Franklin was the heart of his defense you really think the 49ers would just allow an opening? The message is clear - at least from the team's standpoint - "We think you're awesome, but not untradeable".

Imo if a team offered a top 10 pick, you would be crazy to even consider it for Franklin, I would jump right on that deal.

Thats just about the only way I consider it.
Originally posted by TheRatMan13:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Guys,

No, I'm not saying the draft guarantees anything, but would I be willing to entertain trade on a player who blew up in a contract year? Yes.

WildBill

Bill Walsh didn't build through "free agency" - he built through the draft. The only "free agency" around when Walsh was coach was "Plan B" and that wasn't anything like the FA of today Wild Bill. No, there are no guarantees.


Oakland-Niner

No it's not similar to saying that at all. Willis has been a consistent performer since the day he was drafted. Apples and Oranges. This is the reason why he's franchised. If the team thought he was that awesome, they have the cap room to aggressively go after him with a long term deal - like they decided to do (in error) with Soapoaga.


Kidash

I understand what you're saying about grooming another player, but if you have a chance to grab a blue-chip DT - chance, sure why not take if someone offers you a #1. Again, everyone is assuming Franklin has been the rock of the defense, this super DT for years. He's had one good season and everyone has declared him un-tradable.

------

Guys, please don't get so emotional about this. I certainly am not. I'm just saying if a team came along to offer a #1 for Franklin - depending where that #1 was, I'd consider it. Sure there are no guarantees in the draft, but there are also no guarantees that players will maintain high performance either.

Franklin has had One. Good. Year. I mean seriously he's not even anywhere near the "All-Pro" discussion whereas Willis' play forces that conversation every year and will do so again next season. Does Franklin need to? No. Again not an absolute argument but before we anoint him the new top DT in league, I guess my standard is more than one year - particularly his contract year. Do I absolutely know he's plateaued. Of course not. However, it is a proven fact that players tend to become less effective (outside QB and some WR) once they hit 30. I'm not arguing an absolute argument here. I'm just not. I'm just saying like any good poker player, you have to consider it.

If Detroit or any team in the top 10 says "we want Franklin, here's our first" you would be crazy not to at least listen and consider.

That's all I'm sayin.

So there must be some consensus in the organization about Franklin's value or this would not be a conditional franchise tag. If Singletary absolutely felt Franklin was the heart of his defense you really think the 49ers would just allow an opening? The message is clear - at least from the team's standpoint - "We think you're awesome, but not untradeable".

Imo if a team offered a top 10 pick, you would be crazy to even consider it for Franklin, I would jump right on that deal.

Thats just about the only way I consider it.

You underestimate the maotivation of a contract year then. Franklin did indeed play well, but it was ONE in 7 years, ok if you want to be technical 1 & 1/3 years.
Originally posted by kidash:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Kidash

I understand what you're saying about grooming another player, but if you have a chance to grab a blue-chip DT - chance, sure why not take if someone offers you a #1. Again, everyone is assuming Franklin has been the rock of the defense, this super DT for years. He's had one good season and everyone has declared him un-tradable.

No one is saying he's un-tradable, were saying it's a bad move AT THIS POINT. And as for your ONE GOOD YEAR stance, I showed his stats that implied he got better the longer he was with us. His play improved in all the years he was with us! Given, last year was the last year of his initial contract with so he probably did "try harder" but seriously, almost everyone in his shoes would have tried and done the same.

The problem that I see here is we actually have a good, decent line with our defensive front. Why ruin it for a "potential?" You stated that if we have a chance for a blue-chip DT that we should take a gamble but why take a gamble in the first place when there is no need? Let's just say someone does offer a 1st for him (which I doubt because you said it yourself that this is a rich draft as far as DT's are concerned), who's going to play the NT for the time being? Soap???? As much as I like the guy, he is better reserved as a backup coming in to let the main guy have a breather. The new "1st Round" pick???? Time have proven in the past that only a select few can make an immediate impact from the get go, and even then, how do we know whoever we picked will pan out or be that “select few?”

Too much of a gamble when there is no need. It took us years to find a serviceble NT and now that we have him, the next move is to trade him???? I'm all for planning for the future but this is one of those cases where it doesn't make sense, even for a 1st rounder...

Now if it was for 2 1st rounder, I would really think twice about it....

- 98

This is where I disagree politely of course - I don't think we have a "good" front. I think we have a decent front. I think Smith and Willis' play is that good (over-compensating for Soap and Franklin - at times). Yes, Franklin is stout but again, I don't see the double-team demands on him. The Packers did just fine with BJ Raj as a rookie I think. Does Raj have a brighter future than Franklin? I think so - not saying others believe that.

I'm not so sure that the loss of Franklin is a guaranteed "ruin" of the defense as you state it to be. It's been demonstrated by other teams that a rookie can come in and play well at NT in the NFL if talented enough. Again, it's not a situation where I'm asking us to insert a player who's play will significantly be a drop off, just a calculated risk - sure it's going to drop to say maybe the Franklin of 2007 or 2008.

It's the same logic everyone has about replacing a certain QB via the draft who shall remain unnamed because this will not become another one of THOSE threads!


GM

[ Edited by NinerGM on Feb 25, 2010 at 10:21:17 ]
how this thread got 10 pages long off some MM propaganda is amazing
I really like MMs recent response on the topic:

Quote:
Q: Can you give your odds of Franklin being traded for one 1st round pick in March? @sfckoskiA:
I don't think the odds are very good. Franklin is a seventh-year pro who has put together one very good season. I'm not sure there is a team willing to pay him a huge amount AND give up a first-round pick for his services. (But, hey, I've been wrong in the past.)
Untouchables:
Willis
Davis
Crabtree
Justin Smith

Any one else is replaceable, and if we can get better by trading them....

Don't let the door hit you were the good lord split you!
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by kidash:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Kidash

I understand what you're saying about grooming another player, but if you have a chance to grab a blue-chip DT - chance, sure why not take if someone offers you a #1. Again, everyone is assuming Franklin has been the rock of the defense, this super DT for years. He's had one good season and everyone has declared him un-tradable.

No one is saying he's un-tradable, were saying it's a bad move AT THIS POINT. And as for your ONE GOOD YEAR stance, I showed his stats that implied he got better the longer he was with us. His play improved in all the years he was with us! Given, last year was the last year of his initial contract with so he probably did "try harder" but seriously, almost everyone in his shoes would have tried and done the same.

The problem that I see here is we actually have a good, decent line with our defensive front. Why ruin it for a "potential?" You stated that if we have a chance for a blue-chip DT that we should take a gamble but why take a gamble in the first place when there is no need? Let's just say someone does offer a 1st for him (which I doubt because you said it yourself that this is a rich draft as far as DT's are concerned), who's going to play the NT for the time being? Soap???? As much as I like the guy, he is better reserved as a backup coming in to let the main guy have a breather. The new "1st Round" pick???? Time have proven in the past that only a select few can make an immediate impact from the get go, and even then, how do we know whoever we picked will pan out or be that “select few?”

Too much of a gamble when there is no need. It took us years to find a serviceble NT and now that we have him, the next move is to trade him???? I'm all for planning for the future but this is one of those cases where it doesn't make sense, even for a 1st rounder...

Now if it was for 2 1st rounder, I would really think twice about it....

- 98

This is where I disagree politely of course - I don't think we have a "good" front. I think we have a decent front. I think Smith and Willis' play is that good (over-compensating for Soap and Franklin - at times). Yes, Franklin is stout but again, I don't see the double-team demands on him. The Packers did just fine with BJ Raj as a rookie I think. Does Raj have a brighter future than Franklin? I think so - not saying others believe that.

I'm not so sure that the loss of Franklin is a guaranteed "ruin" of the defense as you state it to be. It's been demonstrated by other teams that a rookie can come in and play well at NT in the NFL if talented enough. Again, it's not a situation where I'm asking us to insert a player who's play will significantly be a drop off, just a calculated risk - sure it's going to drop to say maybe the Franklin of 2007 or 2008.

It's the same logic everyone has about replacing a certain QB via the draft who shall remain unnamed because this will not become another one of THOSE threads!


GM

Fair enough...

- 98
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Guys,



Oakland-Niner

No it's not similar to saying that at all. Willis has been a consistent performer since the day he was drafted. Apples and Oranges. This is the reason why he's franchised. If the team thought he was that awesome, they have the cap room to aggressively go after him with a long term deal - like they decided to do (in error) with Soapoaga.


".

I think you misunderstood my argument because I used a poor example. At the core of what I was trying to say is he's a very good player (if not elite) in a position that is very hard to fill. Just because he isn't the best (i.e. Hayneworth, Hampton, Wilfork) doesn't mean we shouldn't try hard to sign him.
However, I think your position is that he's really not that good and probably a one year contract wonder. That is however, where we would disagree.
I think if your going to take your angle the only logical way to approach it is to franchise Franklin and use a first round pick to groom his replacement in 2012. Anything else is an extreme and unnecessary risk at a time when the Niners are on the cusp of turning the corner as a franchise (again..)
Originally posted by foreign49er:
Originally posted by Overkill:
Originally posted by teeohh:
Well it only makes sense to trade him if they think we have someone that can step in and do good. So who is the backup NT, Balmer or Ricky Jean Francois?

Or if we want to target a guy like Dan Williams in the draft...

Or move Sopoaga back to DT...


Sopoaga is still suck and worst cuz to playing a bi tch lazy!
Originally posted by BuZzB28:
Originally posted by foreign49er:
Originally posted by Overkill:
Originally posted by teeohh:
Well it only makes sense to trade him if they think we have someone that can step in and do good. So who is the backup NT, Balmer or Ricky Jean Francois?

Or if we want to target a guy like Dan Williams in the draft...

Or move Sopoaga back to DT...


Sopoaga is still suck and worst cuz to playing a bi tch lazy!

Say what???????????