Haralson....

Originally posted by btthepunk:
That's a good point but trading Haralson doesn't free up that much but I guess another million could make a difference.

valrod wasn't being serious or at least I hope not.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Very sh!tty thing to happen after you have taken a pay cut to stay with the team but Parys at his current salary should be very attractive to another team. If this is true then I expect a significant yield in return for him. Football is a business and Baalke has proven that he is all about that

maybe not... if he can be a starter elsewhere, then that's what he's going to want to do, right?!

True but I believe he took the cut to remain a 49er. If we cut him earlier I am sure someone might have been inclined to pay him a little more than that. Now he has to relocate to play for another city on a home town discount

Originally posted by GEEK:
Unless Parys Haralson is requesting a trade for a starting position, you don't treat veterans that have accepted pay cuts, survived through the dark years, and always gave 100% on the field like that. It ruins team morale, ability to retain football players, and attract new talent in free agency.

Now if we are really trying to shed cap space to sign Iupati or someone else to an extension, then I can understand this move more. But we should not penny pinch our team's depth because it could backfire at any minute during the season.

At the end of the day this is a business. I've never heard of a player being guaranteed a roster spot just because they took a paycut. If the front office feels confident in the depth they have and they might be able to trade a player who 100% will not be on the roster next season, then why not? That's why we have such a strong roster; because Baalke and Marathe don't put emotions before doing what's right for the team and exploring every potential opportunity to get better. Notice how the 49ers are discussed as possible landing spots for more free agents/traded players than any other team? It's because Baalke has his hands everywhere, and if the right opportunity comes around they strike.

Originally posted by Disp:

Originally posted by GEEK:

Unless Parys Haralson is requesting a trade for a starting position, you don't treat veterans that have accepted pay cuts, survived through the dark years, and always gave 100% on the field like that. It ruins team morale, ability to retain football players, and attract new talent in free agency.

Now if we are really trying to shed cap space to sign Iupati or someone else to an extension, then I can understand this move more. But we should not penny pinch our team's depth because it could backfire at any minute during the season.

At the end of the day this is a business. I've never heard of a player being guaranteed a roster spot just because they took a paycut. If the front office feels confident in the depth they have and they might be able to trade a player who 100% will not be on the roster next season, then why not? That's why we have such a strong roster; because Baalke and Marathe don't put emotions before doing what's right for the team and exploring every potential opportunity to get better. Notice how the 49ers are discussed as possible landing spots for more free agents/traded players than any other team? It's because Baalke has his hands everywhere, and if the right opportunity comes around they strike.

True. Leave no stone unturned

Originally posted by Hopper:

Originally posted by btthepunk:
That's a good point but trading Haralson doesn't free up that much but I guess another million could make a difference.

valrod wasn't being serious or at least I hope not.

I was being serious

Originally posted by ninerjok:
They gotta save as much extra where they can to help ease the s**tload they'll have to pay Kap (not to mention Iupati, Aldon, Crabtree?).

Yeah but Haralson's contract expires at the end of the season,its not like they need that money NOW.

This can't be right. Parys has played pretty well -- he can feel Lemonier behind him and has picked it up a notch. reliable blitzing + run stop against KC/Denver.

We can count on Parys for 200+ snaps, Lemonier 200+ snaps = healthy Aldon and Brooks in the playoffs.

Skuta is not a real sub because he still has issues tackling. He reads plays great ... then lets the ball carrier slip through his arms. Frustrating.

Parys brings them down. He has been very motivated. I was hoping for a great 4-5 man rotation on the outside this year Lemonier,Smith,Brooks,Haralson + Skuta/Johnson/Moody?

I bet we get a second round pick for him

Lemonier is already better.

Skuta is arguably just as good and much more versatile.

Stay with me on this children...

1+1=2

Again...

1+1=2

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by ninerjok:
They gotta save as much extra where they can to help ease the s**tload they'll have to pay Kap (not to mention Iupati, Aldon, Crabtree?).

Yeah but Haralson's contract expires at the end of the season,its not like they need that money NOW.

They can roll over unused cap money from this year to next. Get rid of Haralson, get the money back now, use it to extend a guy like Iupati now or roll it over to next year when we can sign Kaep, Aldon and or Crabtree.

Originally posted by 49erWay:
Lemonier is already better.

Skuta is arguably just as good and much more versatile.

Stay with me on this children...

1+1=2

Again...

1+1=2

Lemonier is not better. he has more physical skill to work with. Skuta can't tackle runners. I see Haralson as contributor based on the last three games I have seen. More than Skuta.

If we do nothing, we get 1-yr of quality back-up OLB at a reasonable contract, and probably a 4th round compensation pick when he signs as a starter for another team. So we better get at least a mid 3rd rounder, preferably higher.

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by Disp:

Originally posted by GEEK:

Unless Parys Haralson is requesting a trade for a starting position, you don't treat veterans that have accepted pay cuts, survived through the dark years, and always gave 100% on the field like that. It ruins team morale, ability to retain football players, and attract new talent in free agency.

Now if we are really trying to shed cap space to sign Iupati or someone else to an extension, then I can understand this move more. But we should not penny pinch our team's depth because it could backfire at any minute during the season.

At the end of the day this is a business. I've never heard of a player being guaranteed a roster spot just because they took a paycut. If the front office feels confident in the depth they have and they might be able to trade a player who 100% will not be on the roster next season, then why not? That's why we have such a strong roster; because Baalke and Marathe don't put emotions before doing what's right for the team and exploring every potential opportunity to get better. Notice how the 49ers are discussed as possible landing spots for more free agents/traded players than any other team? It's because Baalke has his hands everywhere, and if the right opportunity comes around they strike.

True. Leave no stone unturned

Which player has outperformed the other in pre-season though at the OLB position: Skuta or Haralson? Haralson or Johnson?

I don't see why they wouldn't keep 9 LBs on the roster.

OLB: Smith/Lemonier/Skuta
ILB: Willis/Wilhoite
ILB: Bowman/Moody
OLB: Brooks/Haralson

I rather do that than carry Tukuafu. 6 DL, 9 LB, 10 DBs is 25 defensive players. 25 for offensive players, and 3 for special teams.

Originally posted by theduke85:
Doesn't make sense to me. They're not going to get a mid-round pick for him, they're going to get a late-round one...

As opposed to NOTHING. People aren't getting this. They won't keep 5 OLBs. Who gets cut? Lemonier? Skuta? Haralson? Skuta would be the logical choice....if he wasn't brauight in specifically for Special Teams and has played well as an OLB in the preseason.

Originally posted by socalniner:
I bet we get a second round pick for him

No way....but I hope you're right. LOL.