There are 70 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Trades

What kind of value could we get for Iupati and Crabtree right now, if we were to look to trade them now, instead of potentially losing them for nothing after the season. What kind of cap hit if any would we take if we traded them? Anyone know the exact answers, and would it be worth moving these guys to get draft picks?
  • Nuns
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 791
Anything less than a 3rd is inane. If they play out their existing contracts and go to free agency, they are both likely to get huge deals. This will result in 3rd round comp picks unless we make a huge splash in free agency (which we never do). The best deal for us is to extend these two for reasonable contracts (i.e. Staley, Willis and VD) or let them play out their existing contracts and get the comp pics.
  • cciowa
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 24,558
they will not and should not get traded. we will give them a fair offer and if they do not want it they leave. Standard operating procedure for us. we will not trade them as they still have tremendous value to us so we use that from them, give them a offer and see what they do.
I don't see any way either one gets traded, but nonetheless:

Any discussion for Crabtree starts with 1st round compensation. I'd consider taking a 2nd AND a 2nd/3rd conditional the following year.

Iupati is difficult because it's tough to gauge the trade value of a guard. Not many have been traded, especially good ones. It wouldn't make sense to accept anything less than a 2nd, because we would likely get a 3rd rd compensatory pick by letting him walk as a FA.
[ Edited by SofaKing on Mar 31, 2014 at 8:34 PM ]
To answer your question BEFORE I offer an opinion.

A 1st for Crabtree or a 2nd and additional picks or a 2nd and another quality player on their team. [IMO, won't ever happen]

A 2-3rd for Iupati. The guy is a beast but I just don't see anyone offing a 1st for a G or a G who has been injured.

I don't see either of them being traded at all. Not how Trent has done things in the past. And I don't think it would be a good idea at all.

We're too close to winning it all and both when healthy are top tier players who can't be replaced by rookies.
Would you trade Crabs if the 49ers signed DeSean Jackson? Maybe thats what the niners are contemplating now with the news reports that the niners are still in the mix for the right price. There would be pluses and minuses to this.
The whole reason I kind of posted this question, was to see if moving one or both, would free up the money to potentially sign D. Jackson to a 1 year deal. I know Jackson might be willing to take a 1 year deal, to potentially get his long term high dollar deal later. My hope was that if we could get value for Crabtree, and sign Jackson, that it would kind of be a win-win. We didn't really lose any huge players this off season, so our comp pick if we get one, won't be that good. I think adding a draft pick or two for Crabtree, and signing Jackson would be good for us, because Jackson is better than Crabtree, and we could get value now for Crabtree in a trade, and we could get value from Jackson after the season, when he most likely would leave. I know this is all highly unlikely, but Jackson would give us that X factor, even if it's only for a season.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 9,722
Originally posted by Bobdawg78:
I know Jackson might be willing to take a 1 year deal, to potentially get his long term high dollar deal later.


What is it exactly that you know? When did you talk to Jackson?
Originally posted by Nuns:
Anything less than a 3rd is inane. If they play out their existing contracts and go to free agency, they are both likely to get huge deals. This will result in 3rd round comp picks unless we make a huge splash in free agency (which we never do). The best deal for us is to extend these two for reasonable contracts (i.e. Staley, Willis and VD) or let them play out their existing contracts and get the comp pics.


It would be crazy for us to trade them, because we would lose our comp picks, and it would be crazy for any other team to trade for them, because they have expiring contracts. Why would a team give up a high pick just to have a player for a year before they have to pay that player market value? Pure insanity both ways.
I was just asking to see what the possibilities might be. I wouldn't call it PURE INSANITY BrianGO, what if a team is a Pro Bowl LG away from being serious contenders, or are serious contenders with a weak LG? Is it PURE INSANITY to trade for that player, and then to lock him up to a new deal? Or same thing on Crabtree, just because you trade for them, doesn't mean you don't resign them. I mean we were crazy to trade for Boldin, because he was an expiring contract right? Oh wait, he resigned?

Just out of curiosity, you say it would be crazy for us to trade them, because we'd lose our comp picks. Do you think we'd be trading them for a bagel or some cream cheese? Wouldn't we get picks for them, that would probably be higher than the comp pick WE MIGHT get for them? Not to be rude, but a PURE INSANITY comment by you is used WAY too lightly.

Now I know it is highly unlikely either or both get moved, I was just originally asking to see what might be there if anything in a possible trade, and what kind of savings we might be able to get, to potentially use to lure a D. Jackson here.
Originally posted by Bobdawg78:
I was just asking to see what the possibilities might be. I wouldn't call it PURE INSANITY BrianGO, what if a team is a Pro Bowl LG away from being serious contenders, or are serious contenders with a weak LG? Is it PURE INSANITY to trade for that player, and then to lock him up to a new deal? Or same thing on Crabtree, just because you trade for them, doesn't mean you don't resign them. I mean we were crazy to trade for Boldin, because he was an expiring contract right? Oh wait, he resigned?

Just out of curiosity, you say it would be crazy for us to trade them, because we'd lose our comp picks. Do you think we'd be trading them for a bagel or some cream cheese? Wouldn't we get picks for them, that would probably be higher than the comp pick WE MIGHT get for them? Not to be rude, but a PURE INSANITY comment by you is used WAY too lightly.

Now I know it is highly unlikely either or both get moved, I was just originally asking to see what might be there if anything in a possible trade, and what kind of savings we might be able to get, to potentially use to lure a D. Jackson here.


I don't want to sound harsh, but I am trying to make the point that trading players in the salary cap era is rarely feasible. I don't even like the very idea of it, that is why I speak out against it so strongly.
The question in the modern NFL is, "What price do I have to pay for how many years of productivity?" It is a salary cap question. If you don't approach everything as a salary cap question, then you will sink your franchise.

The Boncos are perhaps the most ideal possible example of a team who would want to "go all-in" and hurt their future for the short term. They have a Hall-of-Fame quarterback with only a few years left. They can make the case to mortgage their future for the present. They can make the CASE. However, I still strongly disagree with this approach, even for them.
I believe that if you look at everything as a salary cap game, then you will ultimately win more Super Bowls over the long term. The Ravens are a good example, they have won 2 Super Bowls in the last 14 years by taking this approach. The Steelers are another example, they don't usually make stupid trades, and they build through the draft. They have also won multiple Super Bowls in the last decade.

Then there are the Redskins, Browns, Raiders, Falcons, Eagles, etc, who always get the shiny new toys in free agency. They make trades and wheel and deal and sacrifice multiple picks to move up in the draft.
Each pick you give up, is at least a 4 year cheap labor contract that you are throwing away. So even if you land a Pro-Bowl player, that player will not only cost more as a high pick, but he will cost a lot when his contract is up.
Impact players are everywhere in the draft. You can hit a home run, and you can also fill out your depth, and if they're not good, you can cut them, and if they leave for free agency, you can get a comp pick. It is the best of all worlds. There is no downside to having multiple draft picks.

Trading for a player with an expiring contract is crazy to me, because you have to pay them in a year, and you are losing a valuable draft pick. You make a good point with Anquan Boldin, which was an absolute robbery for us.

The Anquan Boldin steal was the most incredible thing that could possibly happen in a trade. The trade was an absolute steal. We get an extremely good player for a 6th round pick. Even if it was only for one year, it was still a good deal. To think that we were able to resign him to play for 6 mil per after the season he had, is almost unthinkable.
Boldin is the most special case in the NFL. Nobody wants to pay him big money, because he is slow, yet everybody wishes he was on their team when the game is on and live bullets are flying. If the Ravens could have extended him for 6 mil per, don't you think they would have? It seems insane that they did not. Maybe they did not foresee the salary cap jumping up? Maybe they had young receivers on the team they liked? Maybe they thought he would hit a wall and get old?
I can't figure it out either way, and I am amazed that we will have a top ten receiver playing for 6 mil for the next two years. It was a huge loss for the Ravens and a gigantic gain for us. This is one of the rare times, when trading a pick for a player on an expiring contract works out. A 6th round pick for Boldin at 6 mil per for three years? Wow. I'll take that.

However, a first or second day pick for Crabs or Iupati? Just so they can ask for 10 mil per? That would be crazy. Unless you can work out a deal BEFORE the trade (which is against the rules of course), there is no way doing a trade like that makes any sense.
They MIGHT be worth trading a third day pick, but guess what? That is the COMPENSATION we will get for them anyways when they leave and sign their big contract, AND we will miss out on the player's low price services for a year. It doesn't make sense to me for either side.
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,033
Originally posted by BrianGO:
I don't want to sound harsh, but I am trying to make the point that trading players in the salary cap era is rarely feasible. I don't even like the very idea of it, that is why I speak out against it so strongly.
The question in the modern NFL is, "What price do I have to pay for how many years of productivity?" It is a salary cap question. If you don't approach everything as a salary cap question, then you will sink your franchise.

The Boncos are perhaps the most ideal possible example of a team who would want to "go all-in" and hurt their future for the short term. They have a Hall-of-Fame quarterback with only a few years left. They can make the case to mortgage their future for the present. They can make the CASE. However, I still strongly disagree with this approach, even for them.
I believe that if you look at everything as a salary cap game, then you will ultimately win more Super Bowls over the long term. The Ravens are a good example, they have won 2 Super Bowls in the last 14 years by taking this approach. The Steelers are another example, they don't usually make stupid trades, and they build through the draft. They have also won multiple Super Bowls in the last decade.

Then there are the Redskins, Browns, Raiders, Falcons, Eagles, etc, who always get the shiny new toys in free agency. They make trades and wheel and deal and sacrifice multiple picks to move up in the draft.
Each pick you give up, is at least a 4 year cheap labor contract that you are throwing away. So even if you land a Pro-Bowl player, that player will not only cost more as a high pick, but he will cost a lot when his contract is up.
Impact players are everywhere in the draft. You can hit a home run, and you can also fill out your depth, and if they're not good, you can cut them, and if they leave for free agency, you can get a comp pick. It is the best of all worlds. There is no downside to having multiple draft picks.

Trading for a player with an expiring contract is crazy to me, because you have to pay them in a year, and you are losing a valuable draft pick. You make a good point with Anquan Boldin, which was an absolute robbery for us.

The Anquan Boldin steal was the most incredible thing that could possibly happen in a trade. The trade was an absolute steal. We get an extremely good player for a 6th round pick. Even if it was only for one year, it was still a good deal. To think that we were able to resign him to play for 6 mil per after the season he had, is almost unthinkable.
Boldin is the most special case in the NFL. Nobody wants to pay him big money, because he is slow, yet everybody wishes he was on their team when the game is on and live bullets are flying. If the Ravens could have extended him for 6 mil per, don't you think they would have? It seems insane that they did not. Maybe they did not foresee the salary cap jumping up? Maybe they had young receivers on the team they liked? Maybe they thought he would hit a wall and get old?
I can't figure it out either way, and I am amazed that we will have a top ten receiver playing for 6 mil for the next two years. It was a huge loss for the Ravens and a gigantic gain for us. This is one of the rare times, when trading a pick for a player on an expiring contract works out. A 6th round pick for Boldin at 6 mil per for three years? Wow. I'll take that.

However, a first or second day pick for Crabs or Iupati? Just so they can ask for 10 mil per? That would be crazy. Unless you can work out a deal BEFORE the trade (which is against the rules of course), there is no way doing a trade like that makes any sense.
They MIGHT be worth trading a third day pick, but guess what? That is the COMPENSATION we will get for them anyways when they leave and sign their big contract, AND we will miss out on the player's low price services for a year. It doesn't make sense to me for either side.

I agree, and I'll just add that most Super Bowl winners are winners because of strong drafts, usually more than one. Case in point the Steelers drafting a hall of fame defense, the 49ers drafting in '86 a team that almost makes it three in a row, and Dallas with their blockbuster Hershel Walker trade that netted them the Great Wall of dallas and Emmet Smith and their other stars. I haven't really seen teams win it with just free agents and an average draft. '94 was one of the 49ers better drafts, and Seadderall had a great draft with Tate, Baldwin and Russell Wilson on top of their free agents acquired last year. The Patriots had some great drafts early in the century with Brady, Willy Mginis, ty law etc...

Aside from the draft, free agency is the other mechanism designed to spread talent evenly across the NFL. It's not designed to make one team have an edge over another team. In fact it's designed to destroy teams that have too much talent. So acquiring talent mainly through free agency to put a team *over the hump* so to speak is like swimming upstream in Niagara Falls, you are going to give up more than you get. What you do with free agency is to fill the holes in your team that is below NFL standards. Use Free Agency to bring a depleted secondary up to average. Use Free agency to bring a below average WR corps to average - (Example: Moss, Anquan, Manningham, Braylon Edwards etc...) To do the opposite, make an average squad outstanding will generally break your cap. Socialism at it's best.
It's hard to get anything worthwhile for a player with 1 year left on their contract. In order to get any value the team you trade them to will want to sign an extension as part of the deal. You would have to pay both Iupati or Crabtree huge money in order to get them to forgo free agency which would make an extension difficult. Anything is possible but most teams don't want to give up 1st and 2nd round picks unless a player is in their long term plans.

Hopefully we can extend 1 or both of them but we will see.
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
It's hard to get anything worthwhile for a player with 1 year left on their contract. In order to get any value the team you trade them to will want to sign an extension as part of the deal. You would have to pay both Iupati or Crabtree huge money in order to get them to forgo free agency which would make an extension difficult. Anything is possible but most teams don't want to give up 1st and 2nd round picks unless a player is in their long term plans.

Hopefully we can extend 1 or both of them but we will see.

This pretty much sums it up. We will be better off making our Super Bowl run with both of these guys on the roster and getting certain 3rd round compensatory picks in 2016 if either of them leave.
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
It's hard to get anything worthwhile for a player with 1 year left on their contract. In order to get any value the team you trade them to will want to sign an extension as part of the deal. You would have to pay both Iupati or Crabtree huge money in order to get them to forgo free agency which would make an extension difficult. Anything is possible but most teams don't want to give up 1st and 2nd round picks unless a player is in their long term plans.

Hopefully we can extend 1 or both of them but we will see.

This pretty much sums it up. We will be better off making our Super Bowl run with both of these guys on the roster and getting certain 3rd round compensatory picks in 2016 if either of them leave.

I wouldn't be adverse to trading Crabtree for a 1st Rd pick or Iupati for a 2nd Rd pick and drafting replacements for them this year early but I doubt that will happen so lets just pray we can resign them and win a couple of superbowls.