There are 153 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Would you trade....

Originally posted by Imfasterthanur:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by stunder49:
why do we trade LMJ everyday on Niner talk?

LOL, this.

hahaha

LMJ should be a perfect weapon against Seattle. The seachickens have a stong dline and secondary. Get the ball to LMJ in space like Sproles and force them to react to hom. That should open things up for everyone else.
Originally posted by bzborow1:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
I want Nicks here. I think he's a tremendous receiver with size, deep ability and the ability to score. I think he's a great future to build around (if the price is right... BIG IF). But where would he fit this year once Mario and Crabs come back? Is Mario now the #4? Do we have 3 receivers on the field without any speed? Crabs being the fastest receiver would be problematic.

Forget about it, not going to happen, if the 49ers did trade for him, it'd be for a rental period, they're already going to be scrambling to re-sign Crabtree, there's absolutely no cap space available for Nicks if you want them to resign Kaepernick, Aldon, Iupati, Culliver..etc.

Agreed. To add another point to your argument, it's not like you trade for Nicks, insert him and watch the 100 yard games pile up. This is football, it's complicated and new players need to be brought up to speed with the new offense they are joining. The important factor for the 49ers here would be timing, as Nicks optimistically would require a couple of weeks to acclimate himself to the new offense. By then, you have Manningham back with Crabtree in the queue.

Also, given Nicks is sure to be gone at seasons end, why focus your energies on someone who's out the door in 4 months anyways? Gordon from the Browns would make more sense for the 49ers than Nicks as at least he is locked up longer term....in either case, you'd also have to be willing to drop Boldin at season's to make salaries work for the following season.

I think the best play here is to roll with what you have (4-2) and worry about that stuff next season, where you'll likely have Boldin/Crabtree outside and Patton in the slot. The o-line is vital to the success of this team as well, and I'm betting they'll want to consider a C early in the 2014 draft followed by another DB.

WR is a need only because of injuries so lets not panic here. It is highly unlikely they target an early receiver in next years draft. They will likely use a mid-round pick on a guy with a particular skill they need (ie. Return guy) and hope he develops.

I'm not sure you're saying anything terribly different than what I said regarding this year. By the time Nicks is ready, we'll have some WRs back. However, there are some things I disagree with in your post:

1) Boldin is very very unlikely to come back. He signed a 1 year deal
2) Why rent a player? Because we're shooting for a SB, and if we can add a quality player at a position of need, even for 3 games, it's worth it.
3) There's no guarantee Nicks will be gone at the end of the year. Why leave? Big arm QB, winning team, great location, and playmakers all around
4) You can't have Crabtree and Boldin outside and Patton inside. You'll have the slowest group of WRs on the planet. That's actually my problem with building around Crabs and Nicks. You need SOME speed, somewhere
5) Not sure what our cap situation is for next year. Probably no Rogers, no JSmith, are we really re-signing Culliver? Is that such a huge must? Aldon's value plummeted, and lets see how Crabs plays before committing tons of cash to him. Also, how much is Kaep really worth after this year? Still a lot, but highest QB? Unlikely....
We need to draft receivers next year. The only ones u see contract will be Crabtree, Patton and Baldwin. We need to use either our first rounder and 1 of our 2 second round picks on outside playmakers.
  • sfout
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 6,306
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
I'm not sure you're saying anything terribly different than what I said regarding this year. By the time Nicks is ready, we'll have some WRs back. However, there are some things I disagree with in your post:

1) Boldin is very very unlikely to come back. He signed a 1 year deal
2) Why rent a player? Because we're shooting for a SB, and if we can add a quality player at a position of need, even for 3 games, it's worth it.
3) There's no guarantee Nicks will be gone at the end of the year. Why leave? Big arm QB, winning team, great location, and playmakers all around
4) You can't have Crabtree and Boldin outside and Patton inside. You'll have the slowest group of WRs on the planet. That's actually my problem with building around Crabs and Nicks. You need SOME speed, somewhere
5) Not sure what our cap situation is for next year. Probably no Rogers, no JSmith, are we really re-signing Culliver? Is that such a huge must? Aldon's value plummeted, and lets see how Crabs plays before committing tons of cash to him. Also, how much is Kaep really worth after this year? Still a lot, but highest QB? Unlikely....

1. Unlikely? He is relatively low cost, he wants to win, he'd be our #2 or #3 WR until he leaves
2. Baalke values draft picks over all that is holy and unless he knows Nicks will get us an SB (Which he wont) or that he'll get a 3rd or 4th round comp pick he won't make the trade.
3. "no guarantee" of him leaving? He is already being talked about as earning Mike Wallace money. We didn't trade for Mike Wallace, a deep threat that we so desperately needed so why would we trade for a guy who is some mashup of Crabs and Boldin?. We won't pay an FA $10 mil a year that will have been on our roster for all of 3 months when we need to reward players that have earned it here over a longer period of time. Again Baalke's philosophy goes agains this trade completely, his wait and see attitude would have to know 100% what Nicks will give him and he won't know.
4. We do need speed but the problem is none of the players with low cost expiring deals or maybe 2 years left are faster than 4.5 speed. We'll all have to wait until the draft to
5. Circle back to point 3 -- Baalke will take the $10m per year of an expected market for Nicks and divvy it up between every player you just mentioned. We won't re-sign Nicks for that cost. If Baalke had the pension for paying outsiders that much money he would've signed Mike Wallace when he became an FA 4 months after the whole world knew we had discussed a trade for him.

We'll all feel different about a trade much like you agree and disagree with the poster that you quoted. I wrote a whole schpeel about the Gordon and Nicks rumors and ended with a simple point. If Baalke was going to put all of his eggs in one basket with a trade it would've happened weeks ago and even then trading the farm for any player that hasn't proven themselves in our system goes completely against his attitude.
Trade a late 2nd round pick to JAX for Justin Blackmon.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,445
I do not think that we trade for a wide receiver before the deadline.

I anticipate Baalke waiting for the return of Manningham and, if we are lucky, Crabtree.

My sense is that the 2014 draft will be deep at wide receiver.
I am hoping that we draft three wide receivers in the upcoming draft.
One in the first two rounds, one in the third or fourth, and one late in the draft.
Originally posted by K1ngCoopa24:
Should've kept Austin Collie on the 53. He's now catching passes in NE, and seemed to be healthy. We let him go for scrubs like Marlon Moore and Kyle Williams.

He's caught 2 passes. I guess that qualifies for the plural.

Before the Webzone trades for any and every receiver in the NFL, how much of a salary can our cap accommodate this year? Let's get that first and then trade away.

As far as "renting" a player for 11+(3,4) playoff games (I'm an optimist), again people get hung up on "rounders". "Oh my god, we traded a third rounder!" What overall pick? That's the only thing that counts. Let's not forget that we're aiming to pick at the bottom of each round. We're supposed to be gunning for the whole thing, ain't we? So if we trade a "third rounder" for a "rental", before the webzone gets an aneurism let it remember that (1) It will be a LOW third rounder and; (2) if the "rental" leaves at the end of the season we will possibly draft just a few picks below our original third rounder through a compensatory (assuming it's a big name who signs for big bucks on FA).

The same holds for the team we're supposed to trade with. I see silliness here like "Give a third rounder to the Giants for Nicks". Why would they do that (assuming they're not high)? They don't need the cap room this year, the guy will certainly get a big FA deal in the offseason and they will get that third rounder through a compensatory pick. So, why not sit tight and see out the year? Now, if Jacksonville comes and offers a 3rd, OK, that's almost certainly going to be 30-odd picks higher than the compensatory one. But the 9ers? I doubt that any of the bad teams that are supposed to be trading players in their last year for picks will do that for the 9ers measly 3rd rounder.

The only name I see bandied here that would make sense for us is Gordon: he's they type of a receiver that would fit well with our needs, he has a couple more years in his contract to run, and I'm almost positive he would fit in our cap (but I'm not AB83 so I don't know that ). The problem is that I doubt that (1) the Browns are stupid enough to trade him for our low second rounder, and I don't think we should give up our first for him; (2) After the Aldon debacle, the team are highly unlikely to want another troubled soul in their midst.
Originally posted by paulk205:
Originally posted by K1ngCoopa24:
Should've kept Austin Collie on the 53. He's now catching passes in NE, and seemed to be healthy. We let him go for scrubs like Marlon Moore and Kyle Williams.

He's caught 2 passes. I guess that qualifies for the plural.

Before the Webzone trades for any and every receiver in the NFL, how much of a salary can our cap accommodate this year? Let's get that first and then trade away.

As far as "renting" a player for 11+(3,4) playoff games (I'm an optimist), again people get hung up on "rounders". "Oh my god, we traded a third rounder!" What overall pick? That's the only thing that counts. Let's not forget that we're aiming to pick at the bottom of each round. We're supposed to be gunning for the whole thing, ain't we? So if we trade a "third rounder" for a "rental", before the webzone gets an aneurism let it remember that (1) It will be a LOW third rounder and; (2) if the "rental" leaves at the end of the season we will possibly draft just a few picks below our original third rounder through a compensatory (assuming it's a big name who signs for big bucks on FA).

The same holds for the team we're supposed to trade with. I see silliness here like "Give a third rounder to the Giants for Nicks". Why would they do that (assuming they're not high)? They don't need the cap room this year, the guy will certainly get a big FA deal in the offseason and they will get that third rounder through a compensatory pick. So, why not sit tight and see out the year? Now, if Jacksonville comes and offers a 3rd, OK, that's almost certainly going to be 30-odd picks higher than the compensatory one. But the 9ers? I doubt that any of the bad teams that are supposed to be trading players in their last year for picks will do that for the 9ers measly 3rd rounder.

The only name I see bandied here that would make sense for us is Gordon: he's they type of a receiver that would fit well with our needs, he has a couple more years in his contract to run, and I'm almost positive he would fit in our cap (but I'm not AB83 so I don't know that ). The problem is that I doubt that (1) the Browns are stupid enough to trade him for our low second rounder, and I don't think we should give up our first for him; (2) After the Aldon debacle, the team are highly unlikely to want another troubled soul in their midst.

You have an argument there. But I think the niners will be handcuffed if they don't go after Nicks or Gordon. I know both teams probably are saying they won't trade but I bet at the right price they will. The issue is the trading deadline is almost here and will probably pass before Manningham even plays in a game. Even farther out when Crabs returns. Manningham was quoted in saying he's going to "ease" is way back into play form, but that could take weeks, months, who knows. Then you have Crabs who's suppose to come back in a pivotal game (Saints) which might not happen either. Every game counts especially since we're chasing Seattle for the West and even though we have a great run-game, we can't rely on it winning us every single game. There will be some games when our D just can't do it. Sooner or later, maybe even against the Titans, opposing defenses will find a way to limit Gore, Boldin, and Davis (Seattle and the Colts). We just can't rely on "hope" that Manny and Crabs will be back to form in time.
OK, so let's talk price. What are you willing to give up?

For Gordon? The Browns will not accept our own 2nd rounder since it will be low. The KC one is probably going to be in the 20s too. Our second + another?

For Nicks? It has to be higher than our 3rd, since the Giants will get a compensatory a few picks below it. Do you give up our low second? How about our third + another?

And all that plus it has to fit in our cap.
Originally posted by paulk205:
OK, so let's talk price. What are you willing to give up?

For Gordon? The Browns will not accept our own 2nd rounder since it will be low. The KC one is probably going to be in the 20s too. Our second + another?

For Nicks? It has to be higher than our 3rd, since the Giants will get a compensatory a few picks below it. Do you give up our low second? How about our third + another?

And all that plus it has to fit in our cap.
the only one worth trading for is gordon. nicks for a 2nd sucks because hes an fa at the end of the year and he'll leave for the money the niners wont give him. i doubt gordon is still up for trade tho, dude is too good and hes young, theyd have to be out of their minds to trade him away
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40broiledsports&src=typd

[quote]@BroiledSports 4h
Jay Glazer: #Browns Josh Gordon is "definitely available" via trade @NFL[/quote]

What's holding up this deal Baalke?
One more week and we can forget about trades.
Originally posted by 49ersMVP:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40broiledsports&src=typd

[quote]@BroiledSports 4h
Jay Glazer: #Browns Josh Gordon is "definitely available" via trade @NFL[/quote]

What's holding up this deal Baalke?

man i dont know, makes a lot of sense, we got 2 guys coming off injuries, if you gonna bank on them you better hope the gamble pays off, otherwise i hope you like boldin getting double teamed all year.
id much rather have gorden then kyle or marlon make the deal!!!