The Raheem "The joy of a dream" Mostert thread!

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Just convert some to GTD right now. Give him a $1M bump. No biggie.

Guaranteed money in 2020
Raheem Mostert: $0
JaMycal Hasty: $75,000

— Grant Cohn (@grantcohn) July 15, 2020

That would have been more possible if his agent didn't go public. Now it complicates things. It's not just as easy to move money over. Niners have to worry about a precedent. That's very real. In fact, it's likely the biggest issue. Way too many players need to get paid in the next 1-2 years for them to publicly cave on contract adjustments — when the player has zero leverage.

His agent really screwed him here. Not only did he mess up this contract (Mostert not protected), but then he tried to save face by going public.

He could have demanded a deal that allowed his client to opt out with certain rushing incentives. But he didn't. He didn't have leverage then, and he gave up the rights to leverage now.

9ers are 18th in cap space right now. If his agent is being honest and Paraag never returned a call, going public might be his only play.

The 'precedent' point doesn't apply here because it wasn't a WR doing WR things after having a big year. It was a ST gunner becoming the integral part of an offense that leaned heavily on the run game to get to the Superbowl. In short, it's from ST to RB1, something Coleman couldn't do, nor Breida, nor Wilson.

His agent really eff'd up on the no GTD part though.

He simply wants to be compensated evenly to a player who underperformed him (Coleman). The FO should have cut Coleman and given that to Mostert (still can) and added some GTD $ to his contract to do him right after not only performing at a high level on a position and role change, but at a historic level that those ahead of him couldn't even do.

The FO showed "good faith" for Trent Williams and they should have initiated this one as well.

Originally posted by NCommand:

The 'precedent' point doesn't apply here because it wasn't a WR doing WR things after having a big year. It was a ST gunner becoming the integral part of an offense that leaned heavily on the run game to get to the Superbowl. In short, it's from ST to RB1, something Coleman couldn't do, nor Breida, nor Wilson.

This has been one of my main points from the jump. Mostert is playing an entirely different position than when he signed the contract. He wouldnt be setting any precedent for anything other than this exact random circumstance that almost never happens.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by NCommand:

The 'precedent' point doesn't apply here because it wasn't a WR doing WR things after having a big year. It was a ST gunner becoming the integral part of an offense that leaned heavily on the run game to get to the Superbowl. In short, it's from ST to RB1, something Coleman couldn't do, nor Breida, nor Wilson.

This has been one of my main points from the jump. Mostert is playing an entirely different position than when he signed the contract. He wouldnt be setting any precedent for anything other than this exact random circumstance that almost never happens.

Both of you are right, but the precedent part comes in when his agent went public. The pay me or trade me part is the problem. If they pay him, perception will be that the player and agent has control because they caved to their demands. No team wants that perception and the precedent will have been set at a bad time when we have so many guys coming up for new contracts

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by NCommand:

The 'precedent' point doesn't apply here because it wasn't a WR doing WR things after having a big year. It was a ST gunner becoming the integral part of an offense that leaned heavily on the run game to get to the Superbowl. In short, it's from ST to RB1, something Coleman couldn't do, nor Breida, nor Wilson.

This has been one of my main points from the jump. Mostert is playing an entirely different position than when he signed the contract. He wouldnt be setting any precedent for anything other than this exact random circumstance that almost never happens.

Both of you are right, but the precedent part comes in when his agent went public. The pay me or trade me part is the problem. If they pay him, perception will be that the player and agent has control because they caved to their demands. No team wants that perception and the precedent will have been set at a bad time when we have so many guys coming up for new contracts

I think it's 100% safe to say the only way forward is with him firing his agent.

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by NCommand:

The 'precedent' point doesn't apply here because it wasn't a WR doing WR things after having a big year. It was a ST gunner becoming the integral part of an offense that leaned heavily on the run game to get to the Superbowl. In short, it's from ST to RB1, something Coleman couldn't do, nor Breida, nor Wilson.

This has been one of my main points from the jump. Mostert is playing an entirely different position than when he signed the contract. He wouldnt be setting any precedent for anything other than this exact random circumstance that almost never happens.

Both of you are right, but the precedent part comes in when his agent went public. The pay me or trade me part is the problem. If they pay him, perception will be that the player and agent has control because they caved to their demands. No team wants that perception and the precedent will have been set at a bad time when we have so many guys coming up for new contracts

That's a fair take too but that's on the FO then just as much. They could have returned the call and said, "Once we get back to normal football operations, let's sit down and take a look at it. No promises."

In fact, not resigning Buckner, giving Trent Williams GTD $ without taking a snap for us and not responding to Mostert who just wants an equal contract to Coleman (incredibly fair), one could argue sends a far more dangerous precedent than an agent going public after months of trying to reach out to the FO.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

I think it's 100% safe to say the only way forward is with him firing his agent.

I entertained that as well.

He needs to listen to exactly what Steve Young is saying. He related the story of Ricky Watters leaving the team for Philly and not near the success. It was bad for both the Niners and eagles more or less. It's kind of ironic Mostert reminds me a lot of how Ricky played RB. Also ironic that Kyle's dad was the OC back then.

Originally posted by ninerjok:

He needs to listen to exactly what Steve Young is saying. He related the story of Ricky Watters leaving the team for Philly and not near the success. It was bad for both the Niners and eagles more or less. It's kind of ironic Mostert reminds me a lot of how Ricky played RB. Also ironic that Kyle's dad was the OC back then.

Yeah and the list of free agent running backs next year are huge too. In short, the grass, literally, may not be greener on the other side of the fence.

Originally posted by NCommand:

9ers are 18th in cap space right now. If his agent is being honest and Paraag never returned a call, going public might be his only play.

The 'precedent' point doesn't apply here because it wasn't a WR doing WR things after having a big year. It was a ST gunner becoming the integral part of an offense that leaned heavily on the run game to get to the Superbowl. In short, it's from ST to RB1, something Coleman couldn't do, nor Breida, nor Wilson.

His agent really eff'd up on the no GTD part though.

He simply wants to be compensated evenly to a player who underperformed him (Coleman). The FO should have cut Coleman and given that to Mostert (still can) and added some GTD $ to his contract to do him right after not only performing at a high level on a position and role change, but at a historic level that those ahead of him couldn't even do.

The FO showed "good faith" for Trent Williams and they should have initiated this one as well.

That's fine. But he's not on a year to year option contract. They literally gave away their ability to upgrade his contract a year ago.

Why would Mostert sign his current deal if it didn't protect him in situations like this? That's on his agent. This wasn't a material issue a year ago, and now it's the Niners job to clean up the agent's mess?

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Both of you are right, but the precedent part comes in when his agent went public. The pay me or trade me part is the problem. If they pay him, perception will be that the player and agent has control because they caved to their demands. No team wants that perception and the precedent will have been set at a bad time when we have so many guys coming up for new contracts

Yup.

Agent F'ed up yet again by going public. It DEMOTIVATES the Niners to do a deal. They had a stronger position when it was private.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

I think it's 100% safe to say the only way forward is with him firing his agent.

I don't see the Niners motivation to work with that guy. They already have Mostert locked up.

He undersold his client and is going back to the well to make things right by Mostert. I'm not seeing why the Niners would do business with this guy. Can't trust him.

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
I think it's 100% safe to say the only way forward is with him firing his agent.

I don't see the Niners motivation to work with that guy. They already have Mostert locked up.

He undersold his client and is going back to the well to make things right by Mostert. I'm not seeing why the Niners would do business with this guy. Can't trust him.

Just out of curiosity, do you at least understand the other side of the argument? That Mostert's agent negotiated a contract that was in line with the position/role he had on this team...and now that position/role is substantially more important and should be paid as such?

I only ask because to me, the "he already negotiated a contract just last year" argument doesnt hold water for the reason I just listed above. He negotiated a contract based on the role he was supposed to have.

Originally posted by okdkid:

That's fine. But he's not on a year to year option contract. They literally gave away their ability to upgrade his contract a year ago.

Why would Mostert sign his current deal if it didn't protect him in situations like this? That's on his agent. This wasn't a material issue a year ago, and now it's the Niners job to clean up the agent's mess?

I certainly agree with that regarding the GTD aspect.

Originally posted by ninerjok:

He needs to listen to exactly what Steve Young is saying. He related the story of Ricky Watters leaving the team for Philly and not near the success. It was bad for both the Niners and eagles more or less. It's kind of ironic Mostert reminds me a lot of how Ricky played RB. Also ironic that Kyle's dad was the OC back then.

Yep, Mostert needs Kyle, more than Kyle needs Mostert. If Mostert is smart, he'll play this season out and take it From there.

Technically Mostert has $600K GTD in his base salary as of April 1.

He has no leverage, no one will trade a high pick when most if not all teams have their featured back(s).

He does have incentives, worth up to $1M each year based on yards and play time, and can get a $1M escalator in 2021 based on rushing and play time. What they can do is just put the $1M onto his 2020 base salary, and guarantee the entire base salary, then if he balls out, tell him we'll work out a new deal in 2021.