Why hasn't McCloughan made more trades?

Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:

Originally posted by wysiwyg:
NFL player trades are rare, unlike the NBA. You trade 2 #1s for a Javon Walker, and well, you know

Draft day trades tend to be according to the "value chart"

I wonder when the "value chart" will be replaced with something more realistic.

Like what exactly?

Free agency seems to have gutted the player for player trade. plus scotty is on record as building through the draft.

Originally posted by ishkabibel:
Free agency seems to have gutted the player for player trade. plus scotty is on record as building through the draft.

This is what I think too.

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Maybe because he wasn't interested in making trades just for the sake of making trades to appease the silly, whiny fanbase.

So thats why trades are made and not to make the team better? Thanks!

Well you're b***hing about why he didn't make trades when you don't have the least motherf**king idea who was available and how much we would have had to give up to get them. Speculation is f**king stupid.

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:

Originally posted by wysiwyg:
NFL player trades are rare, unlike the NBA. You trade 2 #1s for a Javon Walker, and well, you know

Draft day trades tend to be according to the "value chart"

I wonder when the "value chart" will be replaced with something more realistic.

Like what exactly?

Doesn't have to be this exact chart but there are a few newer charts that make it easier to trade up without giving up an entire draft. Link

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Maybe because he wasn't interested in making trades just for the sake of making trades to appease the silly, whiny fanbase.

So thats why trades are made and not to make the team better? Thanks!

Well you're b***hing about why he didn't make trades when you don't have the least motherf**king idea who was available and how much we would have had to give up to get them. Speculation is f**king stupid.

WTF are you talking about. I'm not b***hing, just making an observation and asking the board a question. Maybe you should chill out and quit being such an a*****e.

[ Edited by Ronnie49Lott on Jan 10, 2010 at 20:42:02 ]

Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:

Originally posted by GEEK:

Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
When I look down the transactions lists of all the NFL teams our team is one of the few that is missing from the trade column. There has been over 30 trades in the league since March 2008. Aside from the Carolina deal, which was proposed to him by Panthers GM Marty Hurney, after the Darrel Jackson trade, nothing else since 2007. I think by not using every means to improve our team has hurt more than helped. What do you think?

For whom exactly are you referring to?

If it's about defense, we've added big player free agents and established continuity that elevated our D to top 15 status.

If it's about offense, well...besides the Randy Moss trade, there hasn't really been a lot of high profile trade action since.

I'm not talking about high profile players only and no one in particular, just anyone that could help period. It seems like a long time without making a deal for a backup OT or KR for example. I'm not here to argue, just talk about football.

lol

I am not arguing with you bro. I am just curious about your interest in the topic, and the reasoning behind it.

We did try to trade Mark Roman remember? Nobody wanted him.

I just don't see us making more trades because we aren't rebuilding a franchise from the ground up. If you look at some recent trades (Rams sent Witherspoon to the Eagles, Rams sent Leonard to the Bengals, Seahawks sent Peterson to the Lions), they were of teams that are starting to rebuild. Lions and Rams.

That could change with Boldin and Marshall, but I don't think we are going to get any activity from a small or large level.

Both firsts for Tom Brady! Hey, bellichick did say anyone was tradeable!

This ain't baseball son.

Originally posted by SJniner7:
Both firsts for Tom Brady! Hey, bellichick did say anyone was tradeable!

Wouldn't it be awesome?? Sure it is a pipe dream but Brady for Carolinas first and we keep the other for a bomb OT and then grab more O-lineman later in the draft and possibly in FA.

Think about it, all the team really needs is an awesome QB and some lineman. Sure you could keep Alex and build a better line but I'd still rather have Brady or any other pro bowl caliber QB behind center. The niners already have a good defense.

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Maybe because he wasn't interested in making trades just for the sake of making trades to appease the silly, whiny fanbase.

Look at the Redskins. They pick up all the sexy players and they still suck.

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
Maybe because he wasn't interested in making trades just for the sake of making trades to appease the silly, whiny fanbase.

PIA 9er sounds like the 'whiny' person here. It's a legit question. After all, how are we supposed to win the superbowl if we don't do something to out-perform the other 31 teams? Teams don't win the superbowl by luck. Trades are one of the few ways to out-perform the other teams. Walsh was able to build a great team in large extent through great trades. In 1986 he had the best draft of all-time by utilizing several trade-downs because he knew where the real value was that year (rd3 & 4). Walsh won the first superbowl becuase of a trade for Fred Dean. We won our last two superbowls in large part because of the Steve Young trade. Walsh got the best WR ever in trade! Also by making good trades you build a good team, and makes FA's to want to come here, & FA's will take less $.

I believe McC doesn't make many trades because:
1. He doesn't really understand what he needs to win, so he really doesn't go after anything. Instead he usually just sits there and takes BPA. A good GM like Walsh would say 'we need that great WR' etc and trade up for Rice, etc.
2. McC is afraid the screw up. He's always defending himself (always rosy glasses). McC's mentor (Ron Wolf) made tons of trades at GB, but McC is afraid, because if the trade goes wrong, people say "McC really screwed that one up". If you just sit there they don't blame you as much, so it's less risky as a GM.
3. McC doesn't understand value, so he's afraid to trade down. Great GM's like Walsh and Wolf traded down more than they trade up. McC rarely trades down.

I love McC as head scout, he's just not very good as the final word on trades and FA (ie. not as GM)



Obviously, no trade is better than a bad trade (ask the warriors). But McC doesn't really know how to finagle good trades.

Enough said. DO NOT TRADE.

Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
When I look down the transactions lists of all the NFL teams our team is one of the few that is missing from the trade column. There has been over 30 trades in the league since March 2008. Aside from the Carolina deal, which was proposed to him by Panthers GM Marty Hurney, after the Darrel Jackson trade, nothing else since 2007. I think by not using every means to improve our team has hurt more than helped. What do you think?

It takes at least two parties to make a tade.

I do not know what efforts have been made, or not made, to make a trade.

It is wrong to assume that since no trades were completed, that no attempts were made.

Nor can we assume that the lack of trades reflects badly on the 49ers.

Your speculation might have merit, but until we are privy to the team`s negociations, the word might is a formidable.

I cant name more than 5 trades in the last 10 years of the NFL