gore frustrated *Edit - Signed Extension on 8/30 - 3 years: May no longer be frustrated.*

Originally posted by valrod33:
Frank Gore previous contract was 4 years 28 million with 6.5 million signing bonus This contract is 3 years 21 million

i posted this somewhere in this thread, but if you add up his two contracts (not sure what his rookie contract was), we basically will have paid Gore, for his career:

8 years, 49 million, with 26 guaranteed.

couple of things: 1) 49 2) maybe the third contract was high, but overall, that number, for the player Gore is, and compared to what other RB's have gotten over the years, is pretty reasonable, IMO. If we had signed him to that exact deal after 2006 I think we would have all been stoked.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by kray28:

Big surprise. Another stupid deal in a season full of stupid deals. Baalke is trash. But as we know, the Yorkies didn't want to pony up for a real GM.

What are you talking about?

He is saying it was a dumb move to sign Gore and Baalke is not fit to be GM and the Yorks dont want to pay a real GM.

No I got that bit. But what is it about this deal that supports that argument?

Bad move to extend an injury prone aging running back. We could have drafted a rookie who probably could have been the same or even better. This team is in full rebuilding mode and paying a guy like Frank only prolongs the process.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by kray28:

Big surprise. Another stupid deal in a season full of stupid deals. Baalke is trash. But as we know, the Yorkies didn't want to pony up for a real GM.

What are you talking about?

He is saying it was a dumb move to sign Gore and Baalke is not fit to be GM and the Yorks dont want to pay a real GM.

No I got that bit. But what is it about this deal that supports that argument?

Bad move to extend an injury prone aging running back. We could have drafted a rookie who probably could have been the same or even better. This team is in full rebuilding mode and paying a guy like Frank only prolongs the process.

1) full rebuilding mode implies stripping the roster down for draft picks and starting over. If the team was looking to trade Patrick Willis, we'd be in full rebuilding mode.
2) It is silly to say that the owners are too cheap to pay a "real GM" so they hired a guy with a penchant for handing out big, stupid contracts. If their entire goal was saving money, they would have hired Baalke with the understanding to never hand out big contracts. If the problem with the Gore contract is that it pays him too much money, I think the entire "owners are cheap" argument doesn't work.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by kray28:

Big surprise. Another stupid deal in a season full of stupid deals. Baalke is trash. But as we know, the Yorkies didn't want to pony up for a real GM.

What are you talking about?

He is saying it was a dumb move to sign Gore and Baalke is not fit to be GM and the Yorks dont want to pay a real GM.

No I got that bit. But what is it about this deal that supports that argument?

Bad move to extend an injury prone aging running back. We could have drafted a rookie who probably could have been the same or even better. This team is in full rebuilding mode and paying a guy like Frank only prolongs the process.

1) full rebuilding mode implies stripping the roster down for draft picks and starting over. If the team was looking to trade Patrick Willis, we'd be in full rebuilding mode.
2) It is silly to say that the owners are too cheap to pay a "real GM" so they hired a guy with a penchant for handing out big, stupid contracts. If their entire goal was saving money, they would have hired Baalke with the understanding to never hand out big contracts. If the problem with the Gore contract is that it pays him too much money, I think the entire "owners are cheap" argument doesn't work.

Im not saying the owner are cheap but I do think they are afraid to bring someone from the outside who would probably cause a major shake up.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by kray28:

Big surprise. Another stupid deal in a season full of stupid deals. Baalke is trash. But as we know, the Yorkies didn't want to pony up for a real GM.

What are you talking about?

He is saying it was a dumb move to sign Gore and Baalke is not fit to be GM and the Yorks dont want to pay a real GM.

No I got that bit. But what is it about this deal that supports that argument?

Bad move to extend an injury prone aging running back. We could have drafted a rookie who probably could have been the same or even better. This team is in full rebuilding mode and paying a guy like Frank only prolongs the process.

It's an argument. But even in full rebuild you need some leadership, some veteran presence. This is not a huge deal and it won't drag us into Salary Cap Hell, but it is good enough to send a message to the youngsters that this club is back into looking after it's players.

Gore is good for two, maybe three years. With a real receiving threat for once from Edwards, this could be an interesting O. Won't develop on day one but during the season.

See nothing about this contract to b1tch about. If Gore sat on his butt this season or forced a trade, presumably people would be whinging about how Baalke and the front office failed. They sign Gore to a reasonable contract and guess what?

You guessed.

Originally posted by susweel:
Im not saying the owner are cheap but I do think they are afraid to bring someone from the outside who would probably cause a major shake up.

there have definitely been problems in FO structure since the Nolan/McCloughan signing, that is for sure. I'm not sure if Jed is afraid of bringing in an outside guy, or doesn't know what to do, or if Baalke really is the man. Early returns on Baalke are definitely mixed, but there seems to be an understanding between he and Harbaugh, and there seems to be clear structure now. I hope it works out.

Originally posted by susweel:
Bad move to extend an injury prone aging running back. We could have drafted a rookie who probably could have been the same or even better. This team is in full rebuilding mode and paying a guy like Frank only prolongs the process.

1) Good move to hold onto your best offensive player for reasonable money.

2) The draft is a crap shoot. Remind me again who the best running back from the 2005 draft was.

3) Not in full rebuild mode. I only see two new starters on offense. Even if we were rebuilding, keeping Gore is a good idea... you need guys like him on the team to show the youngsters how to work like a pro.

Originally posted by susweel:
Im not saying the owner are cheap but I do think they are afraid to bring someone from the outside who would probably cause a major shake up.

Your reasoning is one of several possible scenarios. It's possible. I don't agree. I believe that it's ignorance, as opposed to, fear. With a little bit of: Inability to attract a top caliber guy and convince him to come on board. BTW you have been overly critical: Who would you have suggested that they bring in?

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by billbird2111:
The guy was a 1,000 yard plus rusher for us.

He never rushed for 1000 yards in a season, he had 1700 yards for his career, lulz

1277 combined rushing and receiving yards in 1979 with 9 TD's.

Lulz that

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by valrod33:
He never rushed for 1000 yards in a season, he had 1700 yards for his career, lulz

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by billbird2111:
The guy was a 1,000 yard plus rusher for us.

He never rushed for 1000 yards in a season, he had 1700 yards for his career, lulz

1277 combined rushing and receiving yards in 1979 with 9 TD's.

Lulz that

A "1000 yard rusher" is someone who compiled 1000 Rushing Yards.

Yards from Scrimmage are not Rushing Yards, as they combine rushing yards with receiving yards.

So if a players 1000 yards were not solely rushing yards, they were not a "1000 yard rusher."

so: lulz.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by valrod33:

He never rushed for 1000 yards in a season, he had 1700 yards for his career, lulz

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by billbird2111:

The guy was a 1,000 yard plus rusher for us.

He never rushed for 1000 yards in a season, he had 1700 yards for his career, lulz

1277 combined rushing and receiving yards in 1979 with 9 TD's.

Lulz that

A "1000 yard rusher" is someone who compiled 1000 Rushing Yards.



Yards from Scrimmage are not Rushing Yards, as they combine rushing yards with receiving yards.



So if a players 1000 yards were not solely rushing yards, they were not a "1000 yard rusher."



so: lulz.

"Lulz" at all of this.

What is everyone fighting about this time?

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by valrod33:
He never rushed for 1000 yards in a season, he had 1700 yards for his career, lulz

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by billbird2111:
The guy was a 1,000 yard plus rusher for us.

He never rushed for 1000 yards in a season, he had 1700 yards for his career, lulz

1277 combined rushing and receiving yards in 1979 with 9 TD's.

Lulz that

A "1000 yard rusher" is someone who compiled 1000 Rushing Yards.

Yards from Scrimmage are not Rushing Yards, as they combine rushing yards with receiving yards.

So if a players 1000 yards were not solely rushing yards, they were not a "1000 yard rusher."

so: lulz.

that, lulz

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
"Lulz" at all of this.

What is everyone fighting about this time?

i'm fighting for the sake of fighting.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
"Lulz" at all of this.

What is everyone fighting about this time?

i'm fighting for the sake of fighting.

No, Im fighting for the sake of fighting

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
"Lulz" at all of this.

What is everyone fighting about this time?

i'm fighting for the sake of fighting.

No, Im fighting for the sake of fighting

yeah, but right now, this season, i am a better fighter for the sake of fighting. You were better, like, ten years ago, but you are a fighter for the sake of fighting in serious decline, which is why it was a mistake to give you a five year extension to fight for the sake of fighting. You will not fight for the sake of fighting until the end of that extension because for the sake of fighting I will fight you to the end of it.