There are 72 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What Is Baalke's Preoccupation With 7th Round Draft Choices?

We seem to trade a lot of productive or high potential players for future 7th round draft choices. I don't understand it. In a stacked roster like ours, why do you want to collect a bunch of 7th round choices who don't have much chance of making the team next year, and give away players who are already playing above their draft round? Cam Johnson is the latest example. He was injured last year, and didn't show much, but he is obviously developing, and shows a lot of promise at this point. Even Vic Fangio said he is light years ahead of where he was last year. In my opinion, you can never have enough pass rushers, and I think he will be a good one. They thought enough of him to keep him on their original 53, but now you are banking on finding another player next year in the 7th who will be better than Cam Johnson. I think there is a low probability of that happening. The only reason Cam was a 7th in the first place was that teams worried about his sickle cell anemia issue. Otherwise, he would have been drafted much higher. He has proven that endurance is not a problem for him, so his value should have gone up. And he's only going to count as minimum salary on the cap. Not like Harylson, who was being paid more. In my opinion, if a guy is playing above his draft round, you don't trade him for a lower choice. But I've noticed this is a trend with our team. In this case. we dumped Johnson for Chris Harper, who at this point, is more unproven than Johnson, and some of the other receivers that we cut.
Originally posted by 49erfanatic:
We seem to trade a lot of productive or high potential players for future 7th round draft choices. I don't understand it. In a stacked roster like ours, why do you want to collect a bunch of 7th round choices who don't have much chance of making the team next year, and give away players who are already playing above their draft round? Cam Johnson is the latest example. He was injured last year, and didn't show much, but he is obviously developing, and shows a lot of promise at this point. Even Vic Fangio said he is light years ahead of where he was last year. In my opinion, you can never have enough pass rushers, and I think he will be a good one. They thought enough of him to keep him on their original 53, but now you are banking on finding another player next year in the 7th who will be better than Cam Johnson. I think there is a low probability of that happening. The only reason Cam was a 7th in the first place was that teams worried about his sickle cell anemia issue. Otherwise, he would have been drafted much higher. He has proven that endurance is not a problem for him, so his value should have gone up. And he's only going to count as minimum salary on the cap. Not like Harylson, who was being paid more. In my opinion, if a guy is playing above his draft round, you don't trade him for a lower choice. But I've noticed this is a trend with our team. In this case. we dumped Johnson for Chris Harper, who at this point, is more unproven than Johnson, and some of the other receivers that we cut.

They were going to be cut and he'd rather get a 7th than nothing.

You'r overvaluing our trash. Stop it.
No. He wasn't cut. He was named to our original 53 man roster this year.
we moved around a little bit this year. Those late round picks help do that. You can never have enough draft picks
since you are a poster and not a real life GM I wouldn't expect you to understand.... but it's pretty simple and obvious, it's to trade up and have an opportunity to get high picks (who obviously would be better players) like say




1 (30) - A.J. Jenkins, WR, Illinois
2 (61) -LaMichael James, RB, Oregon
4 (117) - Joe Looney, OG, Wake Forest
5 (165) - Darius Fleming, OLB, Notre Dame
6 (180) - Trent Robinson, FS, Michigan State
We are using the picks in 2014 for draft day positioning and or to pick up a developmental prospect like BJ Daniels
Originally posted by 49erfanatic:
No. He wasn't cut. He was named to our original 53 man roster this year.

Wow man. Re-read what I typed.

Baalke and Harbaugh weren't going to keep six outside linebackers on the roster, despite Harbaugh's assertion.

Haralson and Johnson lost out. Had they not been traded, they'd be waived (and in Haralson's case, cut).
  • cciowa
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 24,836
try to remember we got good players for low draft picks like boldwin, even ginn , i am sure there are others. two 3rds for alex? when we make a trade alot of people crow about the good deal we just made and how we ripped off the other team. i am not saying we got ripped off, i am just saying it goes both ways
Originally posted by cciowa:
try to remember we got good players for low draft picks like boldwin, even ginn , i am sure there are others. two 3rds for alex? when we make a trade alot of people crow about the good deal we just made and how we ripped off the other team. i am not saying we got ripped off, i am just saying it goes both ways

We got two second round picks for Alex.
Originally posted by redrathman:
Originally posted by cciowa:
try to remember we got good players for low draft picks like boldwin, even ginn , i am sure there are others. two 3rds for alex? when we make a trade alot of people crow about the good deal we just made and how we ripped off the other team. i am not saying we got ripped off, i am just saying it goes both ways

We got two second round picks for Alex.

if KC wins 8 games, its a 3rd if they dont
Originally posted by redrathman:
Originally posted by 49erfanatic:
We seem to trade a lot of productive or high potential players for future 7th round draft choices. I don't understand it. In a stacked roster like ours, why do you want to collect a bunch of 7th round choices who don't have much chance of making the team next year, and give away players who are already playing above their draft round? Cam Johnson is the latest example. He was injured last year, and didn't show much, but he is obviously developing, and shows a lot of promise at this point. Even Vic Fangio said he is light years ahead of where he was last year. In my opinion, you can never have enough pass rushers, and I think he will be a good one. They thought enough of him to keep him on their original 53, but now you are banking on finding another player next year in the 7th who will be better than Cam Johnson. I think there is a low probability of that happening. The only reason Cam was a 7th in the first place was that teams worried about his sickle cell anemia issue. Otherwise, he would have been drafted much higher. He has proven that endurance is not a problem for him, so his value should have gone up. And he's only going to count as minimum salary on the cap. Not like Harylson, who was being paid more. In my opinion, if a guy is playing above his draft round, you don't trade him for a lower choice. But I've noticed this is a trend with our team. In this case. we dumped Johnson for Chris Harper, who at this point, is more unproven than Johnson, and some of the other receivers that we cut.

They were going to be cut and he'd rather get a 7th than nothing.

You'r overvaluing our trash. Stop it.

Does any one know how many picks the Niners have as of right now for next years draft? And i agree with the Niners on the move as good as Cam Johnson was looking he would be pretty far on the depth chart and hardly ever see the field so rather than just have him on the roster and getting little production from him. They traded him ya 7th round picks are useless but that's not the Niners intention they want to stack up as many picks as they can to move up in the draft for players. For all we know the Cam Johnson pick will move us up in the 1st round from the bottom of the round to the middle of it and get us a impact player in 2014 would the Cam Johnson trade be worth it then?
[ Edited by Raul98 on Sep 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM ]
I'm sure Baalke would like to have a higher pick in the trade. But he couldn't find a GM stupid enough to give up more for Cam.
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
We are using the picks in 2014 for draft day positioning and or to pick up a developmental prospect like BJ Daniels

That makes sense but taking BJ for example. Why spend the time developing him to dump him for another 7th for instance? If we get better value I'm all for it, if its a lateral move
Originally posted by jreff22:
That makes sense but taking BJ for example. Why spend the time developing him to dump him for another 7th for instance? If we get better value I'm all for it, if its a lateral move

Because the coaching staff believes he is trash.
Stacking picks to move up for clowney?