Rep the Red & Gold: Shop 49ers Gear →

There are 607 users in the forums

What would you give up to New England for the rights to Jimmy Garropolo??

Browse 49ers books and videos

What would you give up to New England for the rights to Jimmy Garropolo??

Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Giving up the Niners 2nd pick this year would already be giving them a return on their original investment .

Why would they want what the originally gave up for him? That's not a return out your investment IMO. They developed him a got really nothing in return? Bradford was worth a 1st an 4th this yr.

If another team offers a better deal then so be it. Baalke is very attached to his picks so if he were to try and trade for Jimmy I'm betting it would be multiple late round picks and a conditional pick the following year. But I'm sure a team like the Jets or Cards would throw a lot more than the niners since those teams probably won't be in the running for a top pick at season end.

They'd laugh in our face is we offered a bunch of late rd picks lol.

That's Baalke though. He's pulled in good players by offering very little like Boldin. I don't expect us to trade for Jimmy unless the price is cheap and other teams will be bidding for him and we will be quickly folding.

Then there's zero chance we get him.
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
So you don't thing there is a difference between 62 and 31? If that's the case then trade value charts are way off.
as I've stated before if he's the real deal and the HC believes that then you get it done.

Dude Sam Bradford just cost at least a 1st and a 4th (could be higher) he's older and injury prone with not a ton of great film.

Your high if you think a 2nd rd pick is gonna get it done...I don't care if it's the 36th pick they aren't gonna take that IMO. I do not want to spend a top 10 pick on a qb with three starts to his name running a totoally different offense AND have to pay him...you keep forgetting that we have to sign him if we trade for him as well.

I couldn't care less about what Bradford got. Totally different situation.
lol that's your opinion if you don't think an early 2nd rounder gets it done, and maybe it doesn't. You also feel #62=#33, so your evaluation might be off
I never advocated for a top 10 pick so that is moot as I would never give that up.
I don't keep forgetting anything about his contract status...in fact I never even mentioned it .
[ Edited by Hoovtrain on Oct 13, 2016 at 3:01 PM ]
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Giving up the Niners 2nd pick this year would already be giving them a return on their original investment .

Why would they want what the originally gave up for him? That's not a return out your investment IMO. They developed him a got really nothing in return? Bradford was worth a 1st an 4th this yr.

They got an extremely cheap backup QB for 3 years who started some games for them and a higher second round pick that they get to keep for 4 more years. That's a very good return on your investment. Draft picks are very valuable over the life of their contract because they're paid below market value. Getting an even higher drat pick 3 years in is a great deal.

The Niners' 2nd round pick this year is probably too much to give up if we're picking in the top 5 in the draft. Two 2nd round picks or an early first round pick would be insane.

I wouldn't even make the trade 9moon suggested. One third round pick and that's it. Would much rather have a rookie QB locked into a long term cheap deal than a guy on a cheap deal for one year coming into a new system who is about to get paid in free agency. At best, we get value for one year and then pay him market value (or more, since we're not a great franchise to play for right now). At worst, we give up our pick(s), get Garoppolo for a year, and he leaves.
  • Tman
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 13,798
Do not want

Draft the best qb available
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
I couldn't care less about what Bradford got. Totally different situation.
lol that's your opinion if you don't think an early 2nd rounder gets it done, and maybe it doesn't. You also feel #62=#33, so your evaluation might be off
I never advocated for a top 10 pick so that is moot as I would never give that up.
I don't keep forgetting anything about his contract status...in fact I never even mentioned it .

You might not care what Sam got but that's what teams look at when trading players for picks (at least finding a common place to start)

You have to factor in the contract as well. Your committing to a guy big time buy giving picks and paying him.
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
They got an extremely cheap backup QB for 3 years who started some games for them and a higher second round pick that they get to keep for 4 more years. That's a very good return on your investment. Draft picks are very valuable over the life of their contract because they're paid below market value. Getting an even higher drat pick 3 years in is a great deal.

The Niners' 2nd round pick this year is probably too much to give up if we're picking in the top 5 in the draft. Two 2nd round picks or an early first round pick would be insane.

I wouldn't even make the trade 9moon suggested. One third round pick and that's it. Would much rather have a rookie QB locked into a long term cheap deal than a guy on a cheap deal for one year coming into a new system who is about to get paid in free agency. At best, we get value for one year and then pay him market value (or more, since we're not a great franchise to play for right now). At worst, we give up our pick(s), get Garoppolo for a year, and he leaves.

If all they want is a 3rd you do that yesterday ...there is no way they would take that just based off what other qbs have gone for like smith and Bradford.
[ Edited by NYniner85 on Oct 13, 2016 at 3:19 PM ]
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
I couldn't care less about what Bradford got. Totally different situation.
lol that's your opinion if you don't think an early 2nd rounder gets it done, and maybe it doesn't. You also feel #62=#33, so your evaluation might be off
I never advocated for a top 10 pick so that is moot as I would never give that up.
I don't keep forgetting anything about his contract status...in fact I never even mentioned it .

You might not care what Sam got but that's what teams look at when trading players for picks (at least finding a common place to start)

You have to factor in the contract as well. Your committing to a guy big time buy giving picks and paying him.

No, not really. Different situation and different compensation. The Bradford deal is not the standard valuation for QB trades imo. I think if you are looking at a similar valuation , what SF got for Smith is probably more accurate .
I understand you have to factor in the contact but if they are going to go give up draft pick(s) to get him i'm sure they have an idea of what they need to/are willing to do to get a contact done.
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
They got an extremely cheap backup QB for 3 years who started some games for them and a higher second round pick that they get to keep for 4 more years. That's a very good return on your investment. Draft picks are very valuable over the life of their contract because they're paid below market value. Getting an even higher drat pick 3 years in is a great deal.

The Niners' 2nd round pick this year is probably too much to give up if we're picking in the top 5 in the draft. Two 2nd round picks or an early first round pick would be insane.

I wouldn't even make the trade 9moon suggested. One third round pick and that's it. Would much rather have a rookie QB locked into a long term cheap deal than a guy on a cheap deal for one year coming into a new system who is about to get paid in free agency. At best, we get value for one year and then pay him market value (or more, since we're not a great franchise to play for right now). At worst, we give up our pick(s), get Garoppolo for a year, and he leaves.

If all they want is a 3rd you do that yesterday ...there is no way they would take that just based off what other qbs have gone for like smith and Bradford.

Both Sam Bradford and Alex Smith were far more proven than Garoppolo. Smith also had a better contract situation (2 years left at $7.5 million per year and the 2nd year wasn't guaranteed at all). Smith was coming off a full season in 2012 where he posted a passer rating of 90.7 and 9 starts in 2013 with a passer rating of 104.1.

Garoppolo only costs $1 million next year, but there's a risk he leaves after one year. You could also choose to scrap the last year of his contract and re-sign him now like the Chiefs did 1 year into Alex Smith's deal, but then you're paying him market value right away which could be $15 million a year or more. That's a lot for a guy with 2 career starts who got hurt right away.

Bradford has more arm talent than almost any QB in the league. He's very accurate and has a strong arm, but he was in a horrible situation with the Rams. Despite having very little talent around him on offense, he started putting up good numbers with the team in 2012-2013. He then went to the Eagles and over the 2nd half of 2015, he was one of the best QB's in the league. That wasn't a particularly talented Eagles team either - their offensive line wasn't good enough to establish the run with DeMarco Murray and they had lost their top 2 WR's in consecutive years in Desean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin. This has been posted before, but if you interpolate Bradford's stats from November on last year to a full season (his final 7 games), it looks like this:
68.2% completion, 4478 passing yards, 7.6 YPA, 23 TD's, 9 Int's

No one is going to break the bank trading for Garoppolo. If the Patriots even entertain trade offers, teams are going to be skeptical of how good Garoppolo is because Brady is 39. A lot of QB's have had success in that offense including Brissett, but most of them haven't translated. He doesn't have close to the resume of either Alex Smith or Sam Bradford and I don't think he's close to as talented as Sam Bradford. Getting hurt in his 2nd start doesn't help his cause either.
[ Edited by eastcoast49ersfan on Oct 13, 2016 at 3:48 PM ]
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
No, not really. Different situation and different compensation. The Bradford deal is not the standard valuation for QB trades imo. I think if you are looking at a similar valuation , what SF got for Smith is probably more accurate .
I understand you have to factor in the contact but if they are going to go give up draft pick(s) to get him i'm sure they have an idea of what they need to/are willing to do to get a contact done.

So you think he's worth two high 2nds? Plus a sizable contract...Brock got 4yr $72 million that's what he'd be looking for as a starting point.

So if he busts we're out two high 2nds and a butt load of money.

Too risky for me based on 3 games and running a much different offense (that he got to sit behind for a couple yrs).

I don't think you can throw away the Bradford trade at all and we wouldn't be the only team looking to get him which drives the price up.
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
No, not really. Different situation and different compensation. The Bradford deal is not the standard valuation for QB trades imo. I think if you are looking at a similar valuation , what SF got for Smith is probably more accurate .
I understand you have to factor in the contact but if they are going to go give up draft pick(s) to get him i'm sure they have an idea of what they need to/are willing to do to get a contact done.

So you think he's worth two high 2nds? Plus a sizable contract...Brock got 4yr $72 million that's what he'd be looking for as a starting point.

So if he busts we're out two high 2nds and a butt load of money.

Too risky for me based on 3 games and running a much different offense (that he got to sit behind for a couple yrs).

I don't think you can throw away the Bradford trade at all and we wouldn't be the only team looking to get him which drives the price up.

I'd start with a 2nd and then throw in a 3rd next year if they balk. It may be risky but so is the draft....which I might add really isn't/hasn't paid any dividends when it comes to QBs. It's all a risk no matter how you slice it, I guess it boils down to which risk you'd rather take
[ Edited by Hoovtrain on Oct 13, 2016 at 3:58 PM ]
Originally posted by Tman:
Do not want

Draft the best qb available

Me either his body won't last in the NFL injury prone
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
Both Sam Bradford and Alex Smith were far more proven than Garoppolo. Smith also had a better contract situation (2 years left at $7.5 million per year and the 2nd year wasn't guaranteed at all). Smith was coming off a full season in 2012 where he posted a passer rating of 90.7 and 9 starts in 2013 with a passer rating of 104.1.

Garoppolo only costs $1 million next year, but there's a risk he leaves after one year. You could also choose to scrap the last year of his contract and re-sign him now like the Chiefs did 1 year into Alex Smith's deal, but then you're paying him market value right away which could be $15 million a year or more. That's a lot for a guy with 2 career starts who got hurt right away.

Bradford has more arm talent than almost any QB in the league. He's very accurate and has a strong arm, but he was in a horrible situation with the Rams. Despite having very little talent around him on offense, he started putting up good numbers with the team in 2012-2013. He then went to the Eagles and over the 2nd half of 2015, he was one of the best QB's in the league. That wasn't a particularly talented Eagles team either - their offensive line wasn't good enough to establish the run with DeMarco Murray and they had lost their top 2 WR's in consecutive years in Desean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin. This has been posted before, but if you interpolate Bradford's stats from November on last year to a full season (his final 7 games), it looks like this:
68.2% completion, 4478 passing yards, 7.6 YPA, 23 TD's, 9 Int's

No one is going to break the bank trading for Garoppolo. If the Patriots even entertain trade offers, teams are going to be skeptical of how good Garoppolo is because Brady is 39. A lot of QB's have had success in that offense including Brissett, but most of them haven't translated. He doesn't have close to the resume of either Alex Smith or Sam Bradford and I don't think he's close to as talented as Sam Bradford. Getting hurt in his 2nd start doesn't help his cause either.
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
Both Sam Bradford and Alex Smith were far more proven than Garoppolo. Smith also had a better contract situation (2 years left at $7.5 million per year and the 2nd year wasn't guaranteed at all). Smith was coming off a full season in 2012 where he posted a passer rating of 90.7 and 9 starts in 2013 with a passer rating of 104.1.

Garoppolo only costs $1 million next year, but there's a risk he leaves after one year. You could also choose to scrap the last year of his contract and re-sign him now like the Chiefs did 1 year into Alex Smith's deal, but then you're paying him market value right away which could be $15 million a year or more. That's a lot for a guy with 2 career starts who got hurt right away.

Bradford has more arm talent than almost any QB in the league. He's very accurate and has a strong arm, but he was in a horrible situation with the Rams. Despite having very little talent around him on offense, he started putting up good numbers with the team in 2012-2013. He then went to the Eagles and over the 2nd half of 2015, he was one of the best QB's in the league. That wasn't a particularly talented Eagles team either - their offensive line wasn't good enough to establish the run with DeMarco Murray and they had lost their top 2 WR's in consecutive years in Desean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin. This has been posted before, but if you interpolate Bradford's stats from November on last year to a full season (his final 7 games), it looks like this:
68.2% completion, 4478 passing yards, 7.6 YPA, 23 TD's, 9 Int's

No one is going to break the bank trading for Garoppolo. If the Patriots even entertain trade offers, teams are going to be skeptical of how good Garoppolo is because Brady is 39. A lot of QB's have had success in that offense including Brissett, but most of them haven't translated. He doesn't have close to the resume of either Alex Smith or Sam Bradford and I don't think he's close to as talented as Sam Bradford. Getting hurt in his 2nd start doesn't help his cause either.

No way in hell Jimmy G leaves the pats for a 3rd no way...Alex and Bradford have tape most of it bad yet commanded high picks. Just because you feel his not as talented as Alex and Bradford doesn't mean teams who have nothing at qb don't.

If your trading for him your going to extending him as soon as it happens IMO.

There will be a market for him this off season and supply and demand will determine his value and I'll will bet money (if the pats let him go) it will be more than then a 3rd round pick.
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
I'd start with a 2nd and then throw in a 3rd next year if they balk. It may be risky but so is the draft....which I might add really isn't/hasn't paid any dividends when it comes to QBs. It's all a risk no matter how you slice it, I guess it boils down to which risk you'd rather take

I'll take a cheap rookie qb for 5 yrs to develop over spending top end picks plus paying him money...then take that money spend it on vet talent to put around him along with drafting players with those picks.
Does not fit Kelly's system. I don't understand the infatuation with him. He played well, 2 games, in New England's system not Kelly's.
Originally posted by 49er_Rider:
Me either his body won't last in the NFL injury prone

Injury prone? Because his shoulder didn't hold up to a DLman falling on him? How is Alex Smith doing in retirement?
Open Menu Search Share 49ersWebzone