According to former NFL agent Joel Corry, the 49ers are projected to have up to

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by elguapo:
It's funny people were saying overspending in free agency is not the answer but ask the Giants defense if that is the case. Their defense was horrible last year and they got Jenkins, a great nose tackle and also Vernon from Miami and that has transformed their whole defense and a huge reason why they are so good right now. So overspending is a good thing sometimes if it is worth it. Those players would've helped the Niners so damn much.

most times overspending doesn't help a team and puts them further behind due to being strapped to those huge contracts...NY is kinda the exception IMO. One of the big things is they have a FQB and have drafted a couple good young players...we are hurting in both departments.

I hope we spend some coin, but don't bust a nut on just this off season.

Players I'd like to target:

Pierre Garcon-WR
J.C. Tretter-C
Kevin Zeitler_OG
Nick Fairley_NT
Bennie Logan-NT
Brandon Williams-NT
A.J. Bouye-CB
Dre Kirkpatrick-CB
Nick Perry-OLB
Zac Brown-ILB

Obliviously I'm down for the big names like Alshon Jeffery, Trumaine Johnson, Dontari Poe, Jamie Collins, Chandler Jones, Melvin Ingram...just not sure we will be able to get them.

Agree

It is a crap shoot - better than the draft BUT still a crap shoot.

Example on the crap side id Osweiller. He has NOT produced.

We all remember Trent Richardson.

Then there are the guys like Fred Dean, Hacksaw Reynolds, Kevin Gogan, and others who came here and were excellent!

We desperately need a GM who can find these types of guys.

AND create an environment to be attractive to them.

I suggest FREE hookers.

Fred Dean was actually acquired by trade for a 2nd round pick and a Charger option to switch 1st round positions in 1982 (lol to that second). He was holding out into the season with the famous comment that his brother-in-law-the-truck-driver made more money than him. Steve Sabol of NFL Films called it the trade of the century.

The Chargers made it into the AFCCG -70 degree Cincinnati Bengals game without him. Imagine Dan Fouts and Air Coryell WITH him.

Originally posted by McClusky:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by McClusky:
It really doesn't matter if we bust a nut in the offseason because of the sheer volume of cap space and lack of talent we have coming up through the pipeline.

For instance let's imagine we busted a nut last year like the Giants did and signed Jenkins, Vernon, and Harrison to the exact same contracts the Giants did.

Do you know how much cap space the 49ers would enter 2017 with after they cut Kaepernick, Brooks, and Bethea? $49 million. Come 2018 only 26℅ of the original guaranteed money is scheduled to be left on those contracts, and all can be cut for fairly substantial cap savings.

There is literally no competitive incentive for the 49ers not to bust a nut in CA assuming they have the opportunity to do so. The accounting situation looks even more favorable this year than last too. Any notion that busting a nut is going to hinder the team in any way is a false flag. The numbers just dont support that story.

I'm not saying don't spend money but let's be proactive and smart about it...there's gonna been a free agency every yr with good talent available. Don't give AJ $13 million a yr just because we need a WR. Like I said NY had some pieces in place before the FAs they brought in, which also is appealing to free agents.

Some of the names I put up there aren't the top players available but would be nice upgrades...we show improvement and we might be more appealing to top FA guys in the future, right now the only way we get big names is by grossly overspending for them.

I think 'being smart about it' is going for the best FA's available at the top market prices. I argued this last season, but everything as it relates to the 49ers needs to be thought of in the form of opportunity costs and comparative advantages. Right now the 49ers have next to no talent, and the guys they might see as their pipeline talent like Buckner, Robinson, and Garnett are so far away from FA (3-4 years) that virtually no contracts they sign are going to have substantial guaranteed money that can influence the future decisions of those guys. Hence the opportunity cost of going big in FA are lower for the 49ers than any team in the NFL.

Sure a 3 year $24 million contract for a guy like Garcon looks a lot more palatable on paper than lets say a 5 year $65 million contract for Jeffrey. However, you have to consider the comparative advantages the 49ers have over other squads. Garcon might fit in great for a team like Minnesota that Garcon represents an upgrade at receiver that gives them more flexibility to resign guys like Barr, Floyd, and Rhodes. Probably at that price the 900 yard contribution Garcon gives them will look more favorable on a per $ than lets say the 1050 yard contribution Jefferey would give us here at about 60% of the price.

However, the 49ers don't incur the same kind of opportunity cost the Vikings do, and the additional cost incurred hits their cap space which is far and away their most abundant asset from which the 49ers don't have good substitute options for. The additional marginal benefit the 49ers get from Jeffrey (able to match up with more #1 corners, dictate more coverage, be open on a larger variety of routes, and be a quality top option in an offense over-weights the cap savings the 49ers would get for a Garcon vs. Jeffery, even if the production doesn't justify the $ difference in a vacuum. Plus the simple gameplanning advantages for a coach, and the advantages for a young QB to have a #1 receiver that is available in almost all games is huge.

I believe the way the 49ers approached FA last season is economically irrational, and to chase value over talent given where they are right now and the resources available is a fools errand. It's akin to a country like Vietnam turning down factory jobs, because they've looked at the data and have seen that tech based economies have a higher standard of living so they're going to hold out for those jobs. They want to be like the Steelers and the Packers without having any of the elements in place that make the way the Steelers and Packers run their organization operationally efficient.

People want to be that team that has great contracts and abundant talent, but it's not a case of just flipping a switch to get there. The team needs to use the cap space it has, to net the best possible talent.

BTW I really like Zeitler too, but I don't think he's going to be cheap. Probably looking at a Brandon Brooks type contract for him.

Great dialogue. After the top 6 or 7 insane contracts, I too had a nice target list of players I wanted to add in FA last year and all were reasonably priced (esp. for us). While our names were tied to many, the only one we closed on was Beadles, sadly (quality sign but not an impact player). There was no excuse last year and there certainly isn't this year either. But it's still going to be a MONSTER challenge to attract them UNLESS there are major shake-ups and the 'image' of the franchise appears to improve; credibility back. Whoever we shake the FO with, it's going to have to be a high profile name(s). Then at HC. From there, we may have to back the Brinks truck up but we absolutely need to get impact players this year.

Originally posted by NCommand:


Anyone have any updates how many of these FA's did this year commensurate their contracts?

Osemele and Berry standout at the top of this list. Expensive but worth it.

Miller is Miller. Norman has set a tone in Washington but his cost was crazy.

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:
Agree

It is a crap shoot - better than the draft BUT still a crap shoot.

Example on the crap side id Osweiller. He has NOT produced.

We all remember Trent Richardson.

Then there are the guys like Fred Dean, Hacksaw Reynolds, Kevin Gogan, and others who came here and were excellent!

We desperately need a GM who can find these types of guys.

AND create an environment to be attractive to them.

I suggest FREE hookers.

LMAO. Spoken like a true Vegas man!

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by NCommand:


Anyone have any updates how many of these FA's did this year commensurate their contracts?

Osemele and Berry standout at the top of this list. Expensive but worth it.

Miller is Miller. Norman has set a tone in Washington but his cost was crazy.

Yeah, I'm trying to remember who my Madden-targets were. Mine were based mostly on age (youth) + second-third level contracts after those top 7 insane ones.

Osemele was the only top 7 player I wanted. Then it was Sean Smith & Danny Trevathan. I wanted Damon Harrison badly (as much as I wanted Osemele). Then Bruce Irvin, McClain, Wisniewski, Thurmond (slot CB), Galette, etc.

Obviously Norman and wanted a trade for Wilkerson (again, not too realistic). It was quite a list but most were young and very reasonably priced and at our key positions that we still need today save for QB/WR.

Originally posted by McClusky:

I think 'being smart about it' is going for the best FA's available at the top market prices. I argued this last season, but everything as it relates to the 49ers needs to be thought of in the form of opportunity costs and comparative advantages. Right now the 49ers have next to no talent, and the guys they might see as their pipeline talent like Buckner, Robinson, and Garnett are so far away from FA (3-4 years) that virtually no contracts they sign are going to have substantial guaranteed money that can influence the future decisions of those guys. Hence the opportunity cost of going big in FA are lower for the 49ers than any team in the NFL.

Sure a 3 year $24 million contract for a guy like Garcon looks a lot more palatable on paper than lets say a 5 year $65 million contract for Jeffrey. However, you have to consider the comparative advantages the 49ers have over other squads. Garcon might fit in great for a team like Minnesota that Garcon represents an upgrade at receiver that gives them more flexibility to resign guys like Barr, Floyd, and Rhodes. Probably at that price the 900 yard contribution Garcon gives them will look more favorable on a per $ than lets say the 1050 yard contribution Jefferey would give us here at about 60% of the price.

However, the 49ers don't incur the same kind of opportunity cost the Vikings do, and the additional cost incurred hits their cap space which is far and away their most abundant asset from which the 49ers don't have good substitute options for. The additional marginal benefit the 49ers get from Jeffrey (able to match up with more #1 corners, dictate more coverage, be open on a larger variety of routes, and be a quality top option in an offense over-weights the cap savings the 49ers would get for a Garcon vs. Jeffery, even if the production doesn't justify the $ difference in a vacuum. Plus the simple gameplanning advantages for a coach, and the advantages for a young QB to have a #1 receiver that is available in almost all games is huge.

I believe the way the 49ers approached FA last season is economically irrational, and to chase value over talent given where they are right now and the resources available is a fools errand. It's akin to a country like Vietnam turning down factory jobs, because they've looked at the data and have seen that tech based economies have a higher standard of living so they're going to hold out for those jobs. They want to be like the Steelers and the Packers without having any of the elements in place that make the way the Steelers and Packers run their organization operationally efficient.

People want to be that team that has great contracts and abundant talent, but it's not a case of just flipping a switch to get there. The team needs to use the cap space it has, to net the best possible talent.

BTW I really like Zeitler too, but I don't think he's going to be cheap. Probably looking at a Brandon Brooks type contract for him.

So we should just shell out top contracts to top FAs?

With that mindset we should have given Haynesworth $100 million, Byron Maxwell $63 million, Jairus Byrd $54 million, Osweiler $72 million etc?? They were all top FA at some point.

I'll im saying is be smart...Is AJ worth $13 million a yr when realistically he won't play a full season. Do you pay that kind of money when they don't even have a QB on the 2017 roster yet? Would I rather get garçon AND someone like Brandon Williams vs just AJ? I would.

We have a ton of money and that can be used throughout the next 4 yrs (need to spend 89% of cap in the next 4 yrs I believe). There's gonna be good FA coming out every yr, don't bust a nut on the initial FA when we have cash.

I want to make the team better, but those top end guys are gonna want much more to come to this crap pile vs another place...get some solid players get involved with the big FAs, but make sure if you can't land AJ for a stupid amount of money then make sure you can bring in a quality guy like garçon.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:

Originally posted by Heroism:
Kelechi Osemele was probably the best free agent signing of the off-season. The guy sets the tone and is an absolute bully in the trenches. Every game he's pile driving some grown man straight into the ground. Guy is just a total savage and worth every penny.

You hit the nail on the head!

He was my #1 target at G for us. I believe we went after him too...got T $ though, right?

But you didnt want to "overpay" for any free agents, you thought they should take a discount for playing with niners.

If it is front loaded, then you are getting a bargain due to salary inflation.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Great dialogue. After the top 6 or 7 insane contracts, I too had a nice target list of players I wanted to add in FA last year and all were reasonably priced (esp. for us). While our names were tied to many, the only one we closed on was Beadles, sadly (quality sign but not an impact player). There was no excuse last year and there certainly isn't this year either. But it's still going to be a MONSTER challenge to attract them UNLESS there are major shake-ups and the 'image' of the franchise appears to improve; credibility back. Whoever we shake the FO with, it's going to have to be a high profile name(s). Then at HC. From there, we may have to back the Brinks truck up but we absolutely need to get impact players this year.

Yeah I got no problem trying to bring in the big contract guys but people got to realize it's a two way street, they have to want to come here and right now we have to overspend like crazy to make it happen (unless like you said it's gonna be some crazy shakeup at the top).

I'd rather spend the same amount of money that AJ would cost on someone like garçon AND a NT like Brandon Williams. Garçon is a great route runner, isn't hurt like AJ all the time, and is a tough s**t (he's got some Q in him) and we all know what Williams brings in the run D.

HOw much of this 87 can be used to sign FAs and how much is for the draft picks??

Originally posted by 9moon:
HOw much of this 87 can be used to sign FAs and how much is for the draft picks??

Does it matter? We will find a way to f**k it up.

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:

Agree

It is a crap shoot - better than the draft BUT still a crap shoot.

Example on the crap side id Osweiller. He has NOT produced.

We all remember Trent Richardson.

Then there are the guys like Fred Dean, Hacksaw Reynolds, Kevin Gogan, and others who came here and were excellent!

We desperately need a GM who can find these types of guys.

AND create an environment to be attractive to them.

I suggest FREE hookers.

Lol

Originally posted by 9moon:

HOw much of this 87 can be used to sign FAs and how much is for the draft picks??

I mean the can spend the whole thing (we all know that's not gonna happen)...draft picks isn't much a couple million a lot of our extra picks are later rd picks that don't cost much at all.

That's a AB question though.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by McClusky:
I think 'being smart about it' is going for the best FA's available at the top market prices. I argued this last season, but everything as it relates to the 49ers needs to be thought of in the form of opportunity costs and comparative advantages. Right now the 49ers have next to no talent, and the guys they might see as their pipeline talent like Buckner, Robinson, and Garnett are so far away from FA (3-4 years) that virtually no contracts they sign are going to have substantial guaranteed money that can influence the future decisions of those guys. Hence the opportunity cost of going big in FA are lower for the 49ers than any team in the NFL.

Sure a 3 year $24 million contract for a guy like Garcon looks a lot more palatable on paper than lets say a 5 year $65 million contract for Jeffrey. However, you have to consider the comparative advantages the 49ers have over other squads. Garcon might fit in great for a team like Minnesota that Garcon represents an upgrade at receiver that gives them more flexibility to resign guys like Barr, Floyd, and Rhodes. Probably at that price the 900 yard contribution Garcon gives them will look more favorable on a per $ than lets say the 1050 yard contribution Jefferey would give us here at about 60% of the price.

However, the 49ers don't incur the same kind of opportunity cost the Vikings do, and the additional cost incurred hits their cap space which is far and away their most abundant asset from which the 49ers don't have good substitute options for. The additional marginal benefit the 49ers get from Jeffrey (able to match up with more #1 corners, dictate more coverage, be open on a larger variety of routes, and be a quality top option in an offense over-weights the cap savings the 49ers would get for a Garcon vs. Jeffery, even if the production doesn't justify the $ difference in a vacuum. Plus the simple gameplanning advantages for a coach, and the advantages for a young QB to have a #1 receiver that is available in almost all games is huge.

I believe the way the 49ers approached FA last season is economically irrational, and to chase value over talent given where they are right now and the resources available is a fools errand. It's akin to a country like Vietnam turning down factory jobs, because they've looked at the data and have seen that tech based economies have a higher standard of living so they're going to hold out for those jobs. They want to be like the Steelers and the Packers without having any of the elements in place that make the way the Steelers and Packers run their organization operationally efficient.

People want to be that team that has great contracts and abundant talent, but it's not a case of just flipping a switch to get there. The team needs to use the cap space it has, to net the best possible talent.

BTW I really like Zeitler too, but I don't think he's going to be cheap. Probably looking at a Brandon Brooks type contract for him.

So we should just shell out top contracts to top FAs?

With that mindset we should have given Haynesworth $100 million, Byron Maxwell $63 million, Jairus Byrd $54 million, Osweiler $72 million etc?? They were all top FA at some point.

I'll im saying is be smart...Is AJ worth $13 million a yr when realistically he won't play a full season. Do you pay that kind of money when they don't even have a QB on the 2017 roster yet? Would I rather get garçon AND someone like Brandon Williams vs just AJ? I would.

We have a ton of money and that can be used throughout the next 4 yrs (need to spend 89% of cap in the next 4 yrs I believe). There's gonna be good FA coming out every yr, don't bust a nut on the initial FA when we have cash.

I want to make the team better, but those top end guys are gonna want much more to come to this crap pile vs another place...get some solid players get involved with the big FAs, but make sure if you can't land AJ for a stupid amount of money then make sure you can bring in a quality guy like garçon.

The argument the poster was making is that the opportunity cost of signing an Alshon Jeffrey is relatively small for San Francisco. They have cap room and core players (Buckner, Garnett, Robinson, etc.) who's extension won't come up for another 3 years so the team can absorb the contract. Further, he's saying there's a potential upside in it because a true #1 WR is going to make life easier on coaches, the future QB and Carlos Hyde's running room. It's a good argument, actually.

Also, consider that the 49ers must spend at least ~89% of the salary cap on players and are currently well below that mark, meaning they are obliged to spend soon.

For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by McClusky:
I think 'being smart about it' is going for the best FA's available at the top market prices. I argued this last season, but everything as it relates to the 49ers needs to be thought of in the form of opportunity costs and comparative advantages. Right now the 49ers have next to no talent, and the guys they might see as their pipeline talent like Buckner, Robinson, and Garnett are so far away from FA (3-4 years) that virtually no contracts they sign are going to have substantial guaranteed money that can influence the future decisions of those guys. Hence the opportunity cost of going big in FA are lower for the 49ers than any team in the NFL.

Sure a 3 year $24 million contract for a guy like Garcon looks a lot more palatable on paper than lets say a 5 year $65 million contract for Jeffrey. However, you have to consider the comparative advantages the 49ers have over other squads. Garcon might fit in great for a team like Minnesota that Garcon represents an upgrade at receiver that gives them more flexibility to resign guys like Barr, Floyd, and Rhodes. Probably at that price the 900 yard contribution Garcon gives them will look more favorable on a per $ than lets say the 1050 yard contribution Jefferey would give us here at about 60% of the price.

However, the 49ers don't incur the same kind of opportunity cost the Vikings do, and the additional cost incurred hits their cap space which is far and away their most abundant asset from which the 49ers don't have good substitute options for. The additional marginal benefit the 49ers get from Jeffrey (able to match up with more #1 corners, dictate more coverage, be open on a larger variety of routes, and be a quality top option in an offense over-weights the cap savings the 49ers would get for a Garcon vs. Jeffery, even if the production doesn't justify the $ difference in a vacuum. Plus the simple gameplanning advantages for a coach, and the advantages for a young QB to have a #1 receiver that is available in almost all games is huge.

I believe the way the 49ers approached FA last season is economically irrational, and to chase value over talent given where they are right now and the resources available is a fools errand. It's akin to a country like Vietnam turning down factory jobs, because they've looked at the data and have seen that tech based economies have a higher standard of living so they're going to hold out for those jobs. They want to be like the Steelers and the Packers without having any of the elements in place that make the way the Steelers and Packers run their organization operationally efficient.

People want to be that team that has great contracts and abundant talent, but it's not a case of just flipping a switch to get there. The team needs to use the cap space it has, to net the best possible talent.

BTW I really like Zeitler too, but I don't think he's going to be cheap. Probably looking at a Brandon Brooks type contract for him.

So we should just shell out top contracts to top FAs?

With that mindset we should have given Haynesworth $100 million, Byron Maxwell $63 million, Jairus Byrd $54 million, Osweiler $72 million etc?? They were all top FA at some point.

I'll im saying is be smart...Is AJ worth $13 million a yr when realistically he won't play a full season. Do you pay that kind of money when they don't even have a QB on the 2017 roster yet? Would I rather get garçon AND someone like Brandon Williams vs just AJ? I would.

We have a ton of money and that can be used throughout the next 4 yrs (need to spend 89% of cap in the next 4 yrs I believe). There's gonna be good FA coming out every yr, don't bust a nut on the initial FA when we have cash.

I want to make the team better, but those top end guys are gonna want much more to come to this crap pile vs another place...get some solid players get involved with the big FAs, but make sure if you can't land AJ for a stupid amount of money then make sure you can bring in a quality guy like garçon.

The argument the poster was making is that the opportunity cost of signing an Alshon Jeffrey is relatively small for San Francisco. They have cap room and core players (Buckner, Garnett, Robinson, etc.) who's extension won't come up for another 3 years so the team can absorb the contract. Further, he's saying there's a potential upside in it because a true #1 WR is going to make life easier on coaches, the future QB and Carlos Hyde's running room. It's a good argument, actually.

Also, consider that the 49ers must spend at least ~89% of the salary cap on players and are currently well below that mark, meaning they are obliged to spend soon.

I believe it's 89% of the sum of the caps for 2017-2020 (enforced in 2020) so the Niners don't have to spend anything for awhile yet. They could wait until 2020, front load a few contracts and bingo they're good.