49ers leading canidate for Gaither

He is a proven guy and would make a heck of a RT but he would cost a lot of money let alone the 17th pick. Hmmm, I don't know

hmmmm...well, if the best-case scenario is that we draft a starting tackle at 13, then it wouldn't be bad at all to get a proven one.

Originally posted by PatrickJira411:
He is a proven guy and would make a heck of a RT but he would cost a lot of money let alone the 17th pick. Hmmm, I don't know

ok he's a better LT than Staley, he's also Younger. He's only 24, that about the same age as a rookie exept he has like 23 starts. This is a no brainer, we were going to take a tackle with one of those picks anyway but now we get the best one.

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Doubt the Ravens trade him. Especially after finally getting Flaco a weapon in Bolden. Ozzie Newsome won't take a step back by trading away a stud LT.

But it really isn't considered trading if we sign him to an offer, we just would have to give them compensation. Sure they can match the offer but I think he has the right to accept or refuse either one.

No! If they match the offer. He is theirs. He does not get to choose which team he wants to play for between the two. We pretty much would have to offer him a contract they won't match.

No, we can add a poison pill to the contract. Like if Gaither plays 8 games or more in Balt. the total contract is guaranteed. That's what the vikings did to get Hutch and what the Seahawks did to get Burlesson.

Ok but what part of my post are you saying no to?

This to me makes so much sense. We were going to use a first round pick on a OL anyways. Rather then draft a player who you don't know how he'll pan out and pay a lot of money too, you have a chance to get a player at the same position who is proven to be a very good LT and all you have to do is pay more for him. Move Staley to the right side and keep him on the left. It should be a done deal. This is a chance to shore up the worst part of the team and the one part keeping the team from taking the next step. To have bookend tackles for the next 6 plus years is a dream most teams don't get and we have a chance to do it.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Doubt the Ravens trade him. Especially after finally getting Flaco a weapon in Bolden. Ozzie Newsome won't take a step back by trading away a stud LT.

But it really isn't considered trading if we sign him to an offer, we just would have to give them compensation. Sure they can match the offer but I think he has the right to accept or refuse either one.

No! If they match the offer. He is theirs. He does not get to choose which team he wants to play for between the two. We pretty much would have to offer him a contract they won't match.

Your right, I just looked up the Andy Lee situation when Pitt tried to sign him, and we matched their offer.

But IMO, I think if it is true, it won't go through, McCloughan is too conservative when it comes to big trades or restricted free agents.

I would trade #13 for him. He is 6'9 340 and only 23 years old.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Doubt the Ravens trade him. Especially after finally getting Flaco a weapon in Bolden. Ozzie Newsome won't take a step back by trading away a stud LT.

But it really isn't considered trading if we sign him to an offer, we just would have to give them compensation. Sure they can match the offer but I think he has the right to accept or refuse either one.

No! If they match the offer. He is theirs. He does not get to choose which team he wants to play for between the two. We pretty much would have to offer him a contract they won't match.

Your right, I just looked up the Andy Lee situation when Pitt tried to sign him, and we matched their offer.

But IMO, I think if it is true, it won't go through, McCloughan is too conservative when it comes to big trades or restricted free agents.

I don't see it going down either. I wouldn't mind if it did. But Scotty just ain't got it IMO. If it doesn't fall in to his lap. It's not going to happen.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Doubt the Ravens trade him. Especially after finally getting Flaco a weapon in Bolden. Ozzie Newsome won't take a step back by trading away a stud LT.

But it really isn't considered trading if we sign him to an offer, we just would have to give them compensation. Sure they can match the offer but I think he has the right to accept or refuse either one.

No! If they match the offer. He is theirs. He does not get to choose which team he wants to play for between the two. We pretty much would have to offer him a contract they won't match.

No, we can add a poison pill to the contract. Like if Gaither plays 8 games or more in Balt. the total contract is guaranteed. That's what the vikings did to get Hutch and what the Seahawks did to get Burlesson.

Ok but what part of my post are you saying no to?

Sorry your about them matching the offer. I was meaning that you make the poison pill so bad that they can't match.

what makes me suspicious is that Balt didn't tender him with a 1st and a third

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Doubt the Ravens trade him. Especially after finally getting Flaco a weapon in Bolden. Ozzie Newsome won't take a step back by trading away a stud LT.

But it really isn't considered trading if we sign him to an offer, we just would have to give them compensation. Sure they can match the offer but I think he has the right to accept or refuse either one.

No! If they match the offer. He is theirs. He does not get to choose which team he wants to play for between the two. We pretty much would have to offer him a contract they won't match.

No, we can add a poison pill to the contract. Like if Gaither plays 8 games or more in Balt. the total contract is guaranteed. That's what the vikings did to get Hutch and what the Seahawks did to get Burlesson.

Ok but what part of my post are you saying no to?

Sorry your about them matching the offer. I was meaning that you make the poison pill so bad that they can't match.

i may be wrong, but didn't they change the rules so you can't do "poison pill" things anymore?

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Doubt the Ravens trade him. Especially after finally getting Flaco a weapon in Bolden. Ozzie Newsome won't take a step back by trading away a stud LT.

But it really isn't considered trading if we sign him to an offer, we just would have to give them compensation. Sure they can match the offer but I think he has the right to accept or refuse either one.

No! If they match the offer. He is theirs. He does not get to choose which team he wants to play for between the two. We pretty much would have to offer him a contract they won't match.

No, we can add a poison pill to the contract. Like if Gaither plays 8 games or more in Balt. the total contract is guaranteed. That's what the vikings did to get Hutch and what the Seahawks did to get Burlesson.

Ok but what part of my post are you saying no to?

Sorry your about them matching the offer. I was meaning that you make the poison pill so bad that they can't match.

krizay pretty much said that. But thanks.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Doubt the Ravens trade him. Especially after finally getting Flaco a weapon in Bolden. Ozzie Newsome won't take a step back by trading away a stud LT.

But it really isn't considered trading if we sign him to an offer, we just would have to give them compensation. Sure they can match the offer but I think he has the right to accept or refuse either one.

No! If they match the offer. He is theirs. He does not get to choose which team he wants to play for between the two. We pretty much would have to offer him a contract they won't match.

No, we can add a poison pill to the contract. Like if Gaither plays 8 games or more in Balt. the total contract is guaranteed. That's what the vikings did to get Hutch and what the Seahawks did to get Burlesson.

Ok but what part of my post are you saying no to?

Sorry your about them matching the offer. I was meaning that you make the poison pill so bad that they can't match.

i may be wrong, but didn't they change the rules so you can't do "poison pill" things anymore?

Nope. Here is a piece from SI.com talking about why teams are not using it this year. It is still something they can use and if they wanted to change it, it would have to be included in the next barganing agreement.

Quote:
For example, if Bill Parcells wants to reunite with former Cowboys undrafted free agent Miles Austin, Miami could craft an offer sheet that says Austin's contract would need to be the highest on the team and 100 percent guaranteed if he plays more than four games in the state of Texas. Surely Jerry Jones would have to let Austin go since he wouldn't want to pay him more than Tony Romo or DeMarcus Ware, let alone guaranteeing the entire contract.

Poison pills are a completely legal and acceptable way to acquire tendered players in the NFL. An arbitrator ruled so in a grievance the Seahawks filed in 2006 after the Minnesota Vikings snuck a fast one past Seattle to secure All-Pro left guard Steve Hutchinson. The Seahawks quickly returned the favor by inserting their own poison pill to steal Nate Burleson from the Vikings. Yet amazingly, even though two players of that caliber were acquired in such a manner, there has not been another poison pill acquisition.

The only logical explanation for the lack of poison pill use in one of the most competitive and cutthroat industries in the U.S. is that some type of gentlemen's agreement is in place. With the job turnover for coaches and executives and the ever-present insecurity that entails, how can it possibly be that not one of these 32 teams has had a desire to do what it takes to sign any of these tagged or tendered players?

One ex-GM I spoke with said he never heard anything about not using a poison pill from his owner. He theorized that most people's reluctancy to tender offer sheets to restricted free agents has more to do with not wanting to give up draft choices.

To be clear, I don't blame the ownership if it does have a gentlemen's agreement in place. I don't think poison pill contracts are good for the league as a whole. The problem, of course, is that there is another name for a gentlemen's agreement: Collusion.

Executives in the league office get very uncomfortable when they hear that term, and rightfully so. If the league were found guilty of such a claim, their anti-trust exemption could be in jeopardy.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/03/03/tender/#ixzz0hQRmwLTM
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Doubt the Ravens trade him. Especially after finally getting Flaco a weapon in Bolden. Ozzie Newsome won't take a step back by trading away a stud LT.

But it really isn't considered trading if we sign him to an offer, we just would have to give them compensation. Sure they can match the offer but I think he has the right to accept or refuse either one.

No! If they match the offer. He is theirs. He does not get to choose which team he wants to play for between the two. We pretty much would have to offer him a contract they won't match.

No, we can add a poison pill to the contract. Like if Gaither plays 8 games or more in Balt. the total contract is guaranteed. That's what the vikings did to get Hutch and what the Seahawks did to get Burlesson.

Ok but what part of my post are you saying no to?

Sorry your about them matching the offer. I was meaning that you make the poison pill so bad that they can't match.

i may be wrong, but didn't they change the rules so you can't do "poison pill" things anymore?

No they didn't. I actually just read an article about maybe a gentlemen agreement in place.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/03/03/tender/index.html