Kaepernick's Trade Value

Kap's trade value is whatever the Bronco's are willing to give. That is it. The Bronco's know the 49ers don't want him and he will get cut before April 1st. He is willing to sign a restructured contract with only the Bronco's. The 49ers should take whatever the Bronco's are offering.

No way Trent spends money on a guy that doesn't want to be here. If Trent had a sack between his legs he would keep Kap and pay the money on April 1st to force the Bronco's into giving up more. I just can't see Trent doing that though.

Ultimately Kap gets traded to Denver before April 1st for a 2017 draft choice.

Originally posted by JR80Forever:
Kap's trade value is whatever the Bronco's are willing to give. That is it. The Bronco's know the 49ers don't want him and he will get cut before April 1st. He is willing to sign a restructured contract with only the Bronco's. The 49ers should take whatever the Bronco's are offering.

No way Trent spends money on a guy that doesn't want to be here. If Trent had a sack between his legs he would keep Kap and pay the money on April 1st to force the Bronco's into giving up more. I just can't see Trent doing that though.

Ultimately Kap gets traded to Denver before April 1st for a 2017 draft choice.

I am sorry, did you actually say he will be cut before April 1st? Please explain that...We cant cut him without paying his salary because he is injured. Do you seriously think we will just eat that? Why wouldn't we just take the Browns pick and pickup the rest of his salary, and get a decent pick for hm? Why do you think the 49ers will just throw away his salary when they could easily get something in return?

But then after you say we will cut him, you say we should trade him to the Bronco's...why??? The Browns are offering more than the Broncos...

does this mean we will accept Denver's 2017 4th rounder?

I read somewhere that they don't even have a pick in the 4th round this year..

.. maybe that wont even be a bad idea, accept their 4th rounder in 2017, but if Kaep takes them to the AFCCG this year, that 4th rounder becomes a 3rd..

all would be happy!!

Originally posted by mojave45:
Well said as well, but I disagree. Giving Kaepernick up is in no way in our best interest. The draft this year is not stacked with blue chip QB's who are expected to walk in and start on a team. Next year doesn't look a lot better, but that can change of course. Jets, Browns, Broncos, don't have starters set yet. Jets and Broncos have no realistic prospects of grabbing one of the best QB's that will be available. So I don't think Baalke is misjudging the market at all.

Keeping Kaepernick can't hurt the 49ers. Letting him go without proper compensation possibly could, so why would we do that? There seems to be a philosophy that we need to rush, just to get a deal done. I don't agree with that. If we sit patiently and let it sink in that we aren't going to budge, those teams have to deal with the reality of Sanchez, RG3, and Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick isn't budging so far on his salary demands, and that is smart of him. No one is looking seriously at RG3 so far. No reason for us to blink and give any of those teams a possible out. They are in the position of need in this situation, not us. We aren't a play off team next year in my estimation, no matter who is under center. Denver wants to stay at that high level, we are rebuilding, giving up something without receiving proper value hurts us, and helps them.

And really, it doesn't matter what Kaepernick thinks here. He has zero leverage with the team. We can trade him for what we want, or keep him. He is under contract. We have boat loads of money so that doesn't affect us. If he holds out, we save money and have lost nothing, but a 3rd round pick. He would have to be an idiot to do that, but it is an option of course. If he comes in and loses the job to Gabbert, he would still be a serviceable back up. If he is angry about that, so what? How many QB's have lost their jobs over the years? Didn't he take someones? Doesn't almost every QB, eventually have this happen? That is the NFL. And when those QB's got a chance to play and prove their worth again? Do you think they went out and dogged it, or gave it their best to help their careers? No his best shot is to come in and try to win the job, and if he doesn't for some reason, shut up, practice hard, and wait for his opportunity, which given the record on Kelly's starting QB's , should come pretty quick. Especially with the o-line as it stands today.

No, no reason to rush, no reason at all to get less than we are asking.

This is a muddy situation and I see pros and cons to each possibility. I'll list the con to keeping him since you think it can't hurt the 49ers. If the 49ers keep him past 2016, three things can happen that I can see: he wins the starting spot, he becomes a backup to Gabbert/rookie, or he gets RG3'ed. Of those possibilities, two of them have his value possibly increasing: he wins the starting spot, and he gets RG3'ed with the trade market placing higher value on him after he has sat all of 2016. I doubt that him being a backup all season to Gabbert/rookie will result in his value increasing in 2017. After all, losing to Gabbert/rookie in an open competition can't look good.

I'm very content with Baalke playing hardball and getting into a standoff with DEN/CLE/NYJ. I think we all can agree that the cap hit to keeping Kap is a non-issue. The only way it hurts the 49ers is by getting into this standoff, and none of DEN/CLE/NYJ flinch. Then Kap's trade value could decrease. We may believe that those teams, especially DEN/NYJ, are desperate enough to eventually sweeten their offer, but that's not a guarantee.

I'm only concerned with the 49ers getting max value. Whether that's value as him being a starter for the 49ers, or value in being a trade asset, it doesn't matter to me. I say all this while acknowledging that I don't know the truth of the situation with regards to what teams have offered, and what Trent is asking for.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by mojave45:
Well said as well, but I disagree. Giving Kaepernick up is in no way in our best interest. The draft this year is not stacked with blue chip QB's who are expected to walk in and start on a team. Next year doesn't look a lot better, but that can change of course. Jets, Browns, Broncos, don't have starters set yet. Jets and Broncos have no realistic prospects of grabbing one of the best QB's that will be available. So I don't think Baalke is misjudging the market at all.

Keeping Kaepernick can't hurt the 49ers. Letting him go without proper compensation possibly could, so why would we do that? There seems to be a philosophy that we need to rush, just to get a deal done. I don't agree with that. If we sit patiently and let it sink in that we aren't going to budge, those teams have to deal with the reality of Sanchez, RG3, and Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick isn't budging so far on his salary demands, and that is smart of him. No one is looking seriously at RG3 so far. No reason for us to blink and give any of those teams a possible out. They are in the position of need in this situation, not us. We aren't a play off team next year in my estimation, no matter who is under center. Denver wants to stay at that high level, we are rebuilding, giving up something without receiving proper value hurts us, and helps them.

And really, it doesn't matter what Kaepernick thinks here. He has zero leverage with the team. We can trade him for what we want, or keep him. He is under contract. We have boat loads of money so that doesn't affect us. If he holds out, we save money and have lost nothing, but a 3rd round pick. He would have to be an idiot to do that, but it is an option of course. If he comes in and loses the job to Gabbert, he would still be a serviceable back up. If he is angry about that, so what? How many QB's have lost their jobs over the years? Didn't he take someones? Doesn't almost every QB, eventually have this happen? That is the NFL. And when those QB's got a chance to play and prove their worth again? Do you think they went out and dogged it, or gave it their best to help their careers? No his best shot is to come in and try to win the job, and if he doesn't for some reason, shut up, practice hard, and wait for his opportunity, which given the record on Kelly's starting QB's , should come pretty quick. Especially with the o-line as it stands today.

No, no reason to rush, no reason at all to get less than we are asking.

This is a muddy situation and I see pros and cons to each possibility. I'll list the con to keeping him since you think it can't hurt the 49ers. If the 49ers keep him past 2016, three things can happen that I can see: he wins the starting spot, he becomes a backup to Gabbert/rookie, or he gets RG3'ed. Of those possibilities, two of them have his value possibly increasing: he wins the starting spot, and he gets RG3'ed with the trade market placing higher value on him after he has sat all of 2016. I doubt that him being a backup all season to Gabbert/rookie will result in his value increasing in 2017. After all, losing to Gabbert/rookie in an open competition can't look good.

I'm very content with Baalke playing hardball and getting into a standoff with DEN/CLE/NYJ. I think we all can agree that the cap hit to keeping Kap is a non-issue. The only way it hurts the 49ers is by getting into this standoff, and none of DEN/CLE/NYJ flinch. Then Kap's trade value could decrease. We may believe that those teams, especially DEN/NYJ, are desperate enough to eventually sweeten their offer, but that's not a guarantee.

I'm only concerned with the 49ers getting max value. Whether that's value as him being a starter for the 49ers, or value in being a trade asset, it doesn't matter to me. I say all this while acknowledging that I don't know the truth of the situation with regards to what teams have offered, and what Trent is asking for.

Good points, and I agree, the worse thing that could happen is he loses trade value in 2017. But that would mean he has less value to us at that point too, so out of all of the possibilities, that is the only real downside to us keeping him. But if we aren't sure he loses a competition, because of the muddy waters as you say, and we think he might possibly win it, and we know we aren't getting what we want now....I still think that balances the scales towards keeping him if no one else ups their offers. And if DEN/CLE/NYJ want to go with who they have, let them. I just don't see any rush here on our part.

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by mojave45:
Well said as well, but I disagree. Giving Kaepernick up is in no way in our best interest. The draft this year is not stacked with blue chip QB's who are expected to walk in and start on a team. Next year doesn't look a lot better, but that can change of course. Jets, Browns, Broncos, don't have starters set yet. Jets and Broncos have no realistic prospects of grabbing one of the best QB's that will be available. So I don't think Baalke is misjudging the market at all.

Keeping Kaepernick can't hurt the 49ers. Letting him go without proper compensation possibly could, so why would we do that? There seems to be a philosophy that we need to rush, just to get a deal done. I don't agree with that. If we sit patiently and let it sink in that we aren't going to budge, those teams have to deal with the reality of Sanchez, RG3, and Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick isn't budging so far on his salary demands, and that is smart of him. No one is looking seriously at RG3 so far. No reason for us to blink and give any of those teams a possible out. They are in the position of need in this situation, not us. We aren't a play off team next year in my estimation, no matter who is under center. Denver wants to stay at that high level, we are rebuilding, giving up something without receiving proper value hurts us, and helps them.

And really, it doesn't matter what Kaepernick thinks here. He has zero leverage with the team. We can trade him for what we want, or keep him. He is under contract. We have boat loads of money so that doesn't affect us. If he holds out, we save money and have lost nothing, but a 3rd round pick. He would have to be an idiot to do that, but it is an option of course. If he comes in and loses the job to Gabbert, he would still be a serviceable back up. If he is angry about that, so what? How many QB's have lost their jobs over the years? Didn't he take someones? Doesn't almost every QB, eventually have this happen? That is the NFL. And when those QB's got a chance to play and prove their worth again? Do you think they went out and dogged it, or gave it their best to help their careers? No his best shot is to come in and try to win the job, and if he doesn't for some reason, shut up, practice hard, and wait for his opportunity, which given the record on Kelly's starting QB's , should come pretty quick. Especially with the o-line as it stands today.

No, no reason to rush, no reason at all to get less than we are asking.

This is a muddy situation and I see pros and cons to each possibility. I'll list the con to keeping him since you think it can't hurt the 49ers. If the 49ers keep him past 2016, three things can happen that I can see: he wins the starting spot, he becomes a backup to Gabbert/rookie, or he gets RG3'ed. Of those possibilities, two of them have his value possibly increasing: he wins the starting spot, and he gets RG3'ed with the trade market placing higher value on him after he has sat all of 2016. I doubt that him being a backup all season to Gabbert/rookie will result in his value increasing in 2017. After all, losing to Gabbert/rookie in an open competition can't look good.

I'm very content with Baalke playing hardball and getting into a standoff with DEN/CLE/NYJ. I think we all can agree that the cap hit to keeping Kap is a non-issue. The only way it hurts the 49ers is by getting into this standoff, and none of DEN/CLE/NYJ flinch. Then Kap's trade value could decrease. We may believe that those teams, especially DEN/NYJ, are desperate enough to eventually sweeten their offer, but that's not a guarantee.

I'm only concerned with the 49ers getting max value. Whether that's value as him being a starter for the 49ers, or value in being a trade asset, it doesn't matter to me. I say all this while acknowledging that I don't know the truth of the situation with regards to what teams have offered, and what Trent is asking for.

Good points, and I agree, the worse thing that could happen is he loses trade value in 2017. But that would mean he has less value to us at that point too, so out of all of the possibilities, that is the only real downside to us keeping him. But if we aren't sure he loses a competition, because of the muddy waters as you say, and we think he might possibly win it, and we know we aren't getting what we want now....I still think that balances the scales towards keeping him if no one else ups their offers. And if DEN/CLE/NYJ want to go with who they have, let them. I just don't see any rush here on our part.

If the 'penalty' for being patient is the difference between a 4th rounder or a 3rd, it's probably worth the risk imo. Who knows what Trent has asked for and what teams have offered. I don't know what the correct move is, I just want max value and I see that there are risks to each scenario - some having more risk than others. I think the absolute worse scenario is keeping him, he becomes a backup, plays, doesn't look good, and gets hurt. That would be the perfect 7torm.

Originally posted by mojave45:
I am sorry, did you actually say he will be cut before April 1st? Please explain that...We cant cut him without paying his salary because he is injured. Do you seriously think we will just eat that? Why wouldn't we just take the Browns pick and pickup the rest of his salary, and get a decent pick for hm? Why do you think the 49ers will just throw away his salary when they could easily get something in return?

But then after you say we will cut him, you say we should trade him to the Bronco's...why??? The Browns are offering more than the Broncos...

Trent can cut him before April 1st, so they can avoid paying him the guaranteed salary. I don't know how that works if he gets cut while injured. This remains an option for Trent, I'd assume he wants something in return though.

We can't trade him to the Browns if the Browns don't want him at his current contract. Doesn't matter what the Browns offer, if Kap is unwilling to redo his deal.

The Bronco's are the only team Kap would currently redo his contract for. The problem with Denver is the compensation.

The Bronco's figure the 49ers will take the offer before April 1st, to avoid being on the hook for the guaranteed money in his contract. Denver may be correct with that theory, but we won't know until April 1st approaches.

Trent could always keep him on the team after April 1st and eat the salary, this tactic would force the Bronco's to up the offer. Follow me?

Originally posted by Sims19849ers:
I believe Carson Palmer did. Then decided to retire until Oakland ended up trading for him

It would be great that Kap pulled off something like that

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Well said as well, but I disagree. Giving Kaepernick up is in no way in our best interest. The draft this year is not stacked with blue chip QB's who are expected to walk in and start on a team. Next year doesn't look a lot better, but that can change of course. Jets, Browns, Broncos, don't have starters set yet. Jets and Broncos have no realistic prospects of grabbing one of the best QB's that will be available. So I don't think Baalke is misjudging the market at all.

Keeping Kaepernick can't hurt the 49ers. Letting him go without proper compensation possibly could, so why would we do that? There seems to be a philosophy that we need to rush, just to get a deal done. I don't agree with that. If we sit patiently and let it sink in that we aren't going to budge, those teams have to deal with the reality of Sanchez, RG3, and Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick isn't budging so far on his salary demands, and that is smart of him. No one is looking seriously at RG3 so far. No reason for us to blink and give any of those teams a possible out. They are in the position of need in this situation, not us. We aren't a play off team next year in my estimation, no matter who is under center. Denver wants to stay at that high level, we are rebuilding, giving up something without receiving proper value hurts us, and helps them.

And really, it doesn't matter what Kaepernick thinks here. He has zero leverage with the team. We can trade him for what we want, or keep him. He is under contract. We have boat loads of money so that doesn't affect us. If he holds out, we save money and have lost nothing, but a 3rd round pick. He would have to be an idiot to do that, but it is an option of course. If he comes in and loses the job to Gabbert, he would still be a serviceable back up. If he is angry about that, so what? How many QB's have lost their jobs over the years? Didn't he take someones? Doesn't almost every QB, eventually have this happen? That is the NFL. And when those QB's got a chance to play and prove their worth again? Do you think they went out and dogged it, or gave it their best to help their careers? No his best shot is to come in and try to win the job, and if he doesn't for some reason, shut up, practice hard, and wait for his opportunity, which given the record on Kelly's starting QB's , should come pretty quick. Especially with the o-line as it stands today.

No, no reason to rush, no reason at all to get less than we are asking.

This is a muddy situation and I see pros and cons to each possibility. I'll list the con to keeping him since you think it can't hurt the 49ers. If the 49ers keep him past 2016, three things can happen that I can see: he wins the starting spot, he becomes a backup to Gabbert/rookie, or he gets RG3'ed. Of those possibilities, two of them have his value possibly increasing: he wins the starting spot, and he gets RG3'ed with the trade market placing higher value on him after he has sat all of 2016. I doubt that him being a backup all season to Gabbert/rookie will result in his value increasing in 2017. After all, losing to Gabbert/rookie in an open competition can't look good.

I'm very content with Baalke playing hardball and getting into a standoff with DEN/CLE/NYJ. I think we all can agree that the cap hit to keeping Kap is a non-issue. The only way it hurts the 49ers is by getting into this standoff, and none of DEN/CLE/NYJ flinch. Then Kap's trade value could decrease. We may believe that those teams, especially DEN/NYJ, are desperate enough to eventually sweeten their offer, but that's not a guarantee.

I'm only concerned with the 49ers getting max value. Whether that's value as him being a starter for the 49ers, or value in being a trade asset, it doesn't matter to me. I say all this while acknowledging that I don't know the truth of the situation with regards to what teams have offered, and what Trent is asking for.

Good points, and I agree, the worse thing that could happen is he loses trade value in 2017. But that would mean he has less value to us at that point too, so out of all of the possibilities, that is the only real downside to us keeping him. But if we aren't sure he loses a competition, because of the muddy waters as you say, and we think he might possibly win it, and we know we aren't getting what we want now....I still think that balances the scales towards keeping him if no one else ups their offers. And if DEN/CLE/NYJ want to go with who they have, let them. I just don't see any rush here on our part.

If the 'penalty' for being patient is the difference between a 4th rounder or a 3rd, it's probably worth the risk imo. Who knows what Trent has asked for and what teams have offered. I don't know what the correct move is, I just want max value and I see that there are risks to each scenario - some having more risk than others. I think the absolute worse scenario is keeping him, he becomes a backup, plays, doesn't look good, and gets hurt. That would be the perfect 7torm.

Agreed. So then it becomes,out of all the scenarios, which do you think has more probability, and that is a subjective scale for each of us... I lean towards keeping him if we don't get what we want. I am all for shipping him out if we get a good deal though. I am neither a rabid believer in him, nor a 100% sure he can't get better. And my loyalty is never,ever, to a player over what is best for the team. The part that bugs me, is the guys who want to pay his salary and then cut him...and let him go wherever he wants for free.

Originally posted by mojave45:
Agreed. So then it becomes,out of all the scenarios, which do you think has more probability, and that is a subjective scale for each of us... I lean towards keeping him if we don't get what we want. I am all for shipping him out if we get a good deal though. I am neither a rabid believer in him, nor a 100% sure he can't get better. And my loyalty is never,ever, to a player over what is best for the team. The part that bugs me, is the guys who want to pay his salary and then cut him...and let him go wherever he wants for free.

I listed some cons to keeping him so it's only fair I list the pros. If he salvages his playing career as a 49ers, that's best for all parties. But if he's kept and doesn't play in 2016, there's a possibility the market in 2017 sets his value higher. Suppose DEN rolls with Sanchez in 2016 (lol), they are going to fail offensively and might be willing to up their offer. By then, perhaps BUF enters the market for a QB. Who knows. I'm on the fence. Just want the best for the 49ers.

Originally posted by 9moon:
does this mean we will accept Denver's 2017 4th rounder?

I read somewhere that they don't even have a pick in the 4th round this year..

.. maybe that wont even be a bad idea, accept their 4th rounder in 2017, but if Kaep takes them to the AFCCG this year, that 4th rounder becomes a 3rd..

all would be happy!!

Where are you getting this from??

They said, Denver's 3rd is like a 4th round pick.

Originally posted by JR80Forever:

Originally posted by mojave45:
I am sorry, did you actually say he will be cut before April 1st? Please explain that...We cant cut him without paying his salary because he is injured. Do you seriously think we will just eat that? Why wouldn't we just take the Browns pick and pickup the rest of his salary, and get a decent pick for hm? Why do you think the 49ers will just throw away his salary when they could easily get something in return?

But then after you say we will cut him, you say we should trade him to the Bronco's...why??? The Browns are offering more than the Broncos...

Trent can cut him before April 1st, so they can avoid paying him the guaranteed salary. I don't know how that works if he gets cut while injured. This remains an option for Trent, I'd assume he wants something in return though.

We can't trade him to the Browns if the Browns don't want him at his current contract. Doesn't matter what the Browns offer, if Kap is unwilling to redo his deal.

The Bronco's are the only team Kap would currently redo his contract for. The problem with Denver is the compensation.

The Bronco's figure the 49ers will take the offer before April 1st, to avoid being on the hook for the guaranteed money in his contract. Denver may be correct with that theory, but we won't know until April 1st approaches.

Trent could always keep him on the team after April 1st and eat the salary, this tactic would force the Bronco's to up the offer. Follow me?

The short answer is the team is not allowed to cut him while injured, without reaching an injury settlement with him. Absent that, no cut is allowed while injured. By all accounts he will still be injured on April 1, so there is no option to cut him before then, which is when his 2016 salary becomes guaranteed.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Agreed. So then it becomes,out of all the scenarios, which do you think has more probability, and that is a subjective scale for each of us... I lean towards keeping him if we don't get what we want. I am all for shipping him out if we get a good deal though. I am neither a rabid believer in him, nor a 100% sure he can't get better. And my loyalty is never,ever, to a player over what is best for the team. The part that bugs me, is the guys who want to pay his salary and then cut him...and let him go wherever he wants for free.

I listed some cons to keeping him so it's only fair I list the pros. If he salvages his playing career as a 49ers, that's best for all parties. But if he's kept and doesn't play in 2016, there's a possibility the market in 2017 sets his value higher. Suppose DEN rolls with Sanchez in 2016 (lol), they are going to fail offensively and might be willing to up their offer. By then, perhaps BUF enters the market for a QB. Who knows. I'm on the fence. Just want the best for the 49ers.

Anything less than what they got for Alex is crazy in my opinion. I would insist on that, or somebody's #1 ... or tell them all to take a flying leap. He is under contract for the 9ers, and as thl408 says above teams may get more desperate in season. And I know I am in the minority, but I think he can still be a great QB in this league. Chip is just the guy to unlock his potential IMO.

Originally posted by Bluesbro:
Anything less than what they got for Alex is crazy in my opinion. I would insist on that, or somebody's #1 ... or tell them all to take a flying leap. He is under contract for the 9ers, and as thl408 says above teams may get more desperate in season. And I know I am in the minority, but I think he can still be a great QB in this league. Chip is just the guy to unlock his potential IMO.

I didn't say in season. Not many big trades happen then. I'd say after the 2016 season is when the market can reset itself, and Kap's value can either increase or decrease.