Contracts getting dumped

Not sure if this is correct, but with no CBA, are the niners obligated to pay Clements, I think not, plus I believe there is a certain day that you need to cut the player and I don't think they are there yet.

Standing pat and until their is a CBA is smart when you don't know what the rules will be.

Originally posted by WildBill:
Not sure if this is correct, but with no CBA, are the niners obligated to pay Clements, I think not, plus I believe there is a certain day that you need to cut the player and I don't think they are there yet.

Standing pat and until their is a CBA is smart when you don't know what the rules will be.

Exactly. Each player is a different situation. Some guys are often injured or career under achievers. Niners don't really have any players to dump. they don't want to dump Nate they want him to take a pay cut.

Originally posted by wolfpack52:
Is it a good thing or bad thing the niners arent dumping contracts like most of the league? With no CBA and no real way to know if it will affect teams should they dump lets say Clements contract? Is it a good sign they arent in a panic?

Not sure what you mean by dumping contracts.

Some teams are cutting players, but since the CBA is still in effect, those teams are not escaping any contractual obligations that they have.

I have no idea how the expiration of CBA affects the existing contracts.

Wait till this CBA stuff is over with, who knows what the new rules will be regarding FA and cutting players

It does concern me that the 49ers aren't signing any of their free agents. I understand that you let some walk and test the market, but normally there are some that you want to resign before they get to free agency. By not doing that, they are risking losing the player. Maybe this is coming from the owner? Why pay a signing bonus to a player that may not play this year due to a lockout?

Originally posted by fryet:
It does concern me that the 49ers aren't signing any of their free agents. I understand that you let some walk and test the market, but normally there are some that you want to resign before they get to free agency. By not doing that, they are risking losing the player. Maybe this is coming from the owner? Why pay a signing bonus to a player that may not play this year due to a lockout?

Your guess is right why pay if there is a lockout, yes, the last strike year everything was prorated. Plus you don't know if there will be a cap and how high if there is one. The second portion they see what others think and either match or give a slightly better, if the player wants to play closer to him more money won't help unless you pay him a ridiculously over inflacted contract. Plus why go after a guy that doesn't want to be here and only in it for the money-probably tank wants he becomes a fat cat. The only one the niners may need to be watchful of is AF.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by fryet:
It does concern me that the 49ers aren't signing any of their free agents. I understand that you let some walk and test the market, but normally there are some that you want to resign before they get to free agency. By not doing that, they are risking losing the player. Maybe this is coming from the owner? Why pay a signing bonus to a player that may not play this year due to a lockout?

It's not just that the 49ers can't sign free-agents, other teams can't sign or talk to "free agents" either because no one really knows what defines free-agency (4 years, 5 years, 6 years). Some of our "free-agents" may not be after this CBA is determined.

This is confusing, if you can't sign free-agents why can the Pats sign Stroud who was cut by the Bills last week?

Originally posted by MntIdaGold:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by fryet:
It does concern me that the 49ers aren't signing any of their free agents. I understand that you let some walk and test the market, but normally there are some that you want to resign before they get to free agency. By not doing that, they are risking losing the player. Maybe this is coming from the owner? Why pay a signing bonus to a player that may not play this year due to a lockout?

It's not just that the 49ers can't sign free-agents, other teams can't sign or talk to "free agents" either because no one really knows what defines free-agency (4 years, 5 years, 6 years). Some of our "free-agents" may not be after this CBA is determined.

This is confusing, if you can't sign free-agents why can the Pats sign Stroud who was cut by the Bills last week?

cus he was cut before the end of the league year, its different than any players who have expiring contracts, they arent free agents until march 3 or whatever

Originally posted by crabman82:

Originally posted by MntIdaGold:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by fryet:
It does concern me that the 49ers aren't signing any of their free agents. I understand that you let some walk and test the market, but normally there are some that you want to resign before they get to free agency. By not doing that, they are risking losing the player. Maybe this is coming from the owner? Why pay a signing bonus to a player that may not play this year due to a lockout?

It's not just that the 49ers can't sign free-agents, other teams can't sign or talk to "free agents" either because no one really knows what defines free-agency (4 years, 5 years, 6 years). Some of our "free-agents" may not be after this CBA is determined.

This is confusing, if you can't sign free-agents why can the Pats sign Stroud who was cut by the Bills last week?

cus he was cut before the end of the league year, its different than any players who have expiring contracts, they arent free agents until march 3 or whatever

Thanks for the clarification

if we want to save money we better get to getting.

Cut Haralson, Clements, Snyder, etc.....

They save all money cause it goes onto 2010's payroll, since no CBA for next yr.

So, makes sense to cut some players with high salaries. That havent produced.

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
if we want to save money we better get to getting.

Cut Haralson, Clements, Snyder, etc.....

They save all money cause it goes onto 2010's payroll, since no CBA for next yr.

So, makes sense to cut some players with high salaries. That havent produced.

No one knows if this will go against next years cap because there is no CBA but if many teams are doing this then I cant see the owners setting themselves up so it doesnt count against them for at least next year. I say the niners dump them 3 and take that chance.

Originally posted by wolfpack52:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
if we want to save money we better get to getting.

Cut Haralson, Clements, Snyder, etc.....

They save all money cause it goes onto 2010's payroll, since no CBA for next yr.

So, makes sense to cut some players with high salaries. That havent produced.

No one knows if this will go against next years cap because there is no CBA but if many teams are doing this then I cant see the owners setting themselves up so it doesnt count against them for at least next year. I say the niners dump them 3 and take that chance.

it was mentioned on ESPN.com that it goes on 2010's payroll and not next yr.

Clements is our best cb! He's not going anywhere.

Originally posted by SybErkRimInAL:
Clements is our best cb! He's not going anywhere.

Alex could be considered our best QB, would you like to keep him around?