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

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

When did the dour years begin? The team didn't meet that threshold in '15 or in '16.
To make it easy, let's say the cap is $100, does that mean the 49ers have to spend $356 over that 4 year period and does this period just keep rolling year to year?

They met the 89 % rule for the last cycle...the new one starts and goes from 2017-2020

I'm not sure how it works to be honest lol here's a article

https://www.google.com/amp/www.ninersnation.com/platform/amp/2016/12/5/13847408/49ers-nfl-minimum-cash-spending-rule-2016?client=safari

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

When did the dour years begin? The team didn't meet that threshold in '15 or in '16.
To make it easy, let's say the cap is $100, does that mean the 49ers have to spend $356 over that 4 year period and does this period just keep rolling year to year?

They met the 89 % rule for the last cycle...the new one starts and goes from 2017-2020

I'm not sure how it works to be honest lol here's a article

https://www.google.com/amp/www.ninersnation.com/platform/amp/2016/12/5/13847408/49ers-nfl-minimum-cash-spending-rule-2016?client=safari

Thanks for that.
I would bet the farm it works in a way that allows owners to spend less, keep more and use creative accounting to make it look like they spend 89% of the cap each year. The NFL league office exists to get the most for the owners while giving as little to the players as possible.
It should roll in a way so that every team is required to be in compliance at all times for the previous four years.

Originally posted by lamontb:

So you don't think Heyward is going to be looking for big money being that he's ranked so highly? I understand and agree to what you are saying to a degree. But these guys are all young and hungry for the next contract at some point in their careers. Every bigger name doesn't bust. And they don't just magically stop working hard. We just focus on the one's that do. It's really a mixed bag, and hopefully we find a GM that's fluid and can maneuver through all these different scenario's. Can't be stuck in the mud one way or the other in my opinion. Gotta look at it player by player

Doesn't matter with Hayward he's signed for 3 yrs and the Chargers can extend him whenever...I love going after a guy like that who didn't get some fat check and and is still be hungry ready to get that big deal

I know not all top end FA bust...I'm not saying don't go after big FAs but just be smart about it....that's all.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Who was coming in this past off season??? Please enlighten me who was gonna come play for chip Kelly? No one that's who.

All I'm saying is you can wish your way into getting the top FAs, but the reality is at this pt we would have to overspend like crazy to land any of the top guys...like grossly overspend.

Your not a realist if you think we can land any of the top guys at market value.

That's why I don't see why we can look at the 2nd tier guys that would still be a upgrade...maybe we will perform better THEN when can the go after a top guy when it's more appealing here at a fair market price.

You can Dan Snyder your way into cap hell and still not building a contender

Eh, revisit virtually any discussion we had in the offseason and I'll let you be the judge of who is the realist between the 2 of us. I can be accused of a lot of things, but not being real about the 49ers is not the right criticism for me. Remember I was the one telling everyone last offseason just how bad the talent level was, when everyone else was talking about our untapped potential.


My opinion on this is purely based on an economic argument. Market value is relative to the entire market. The 49ers currently have the most cap room and the fewest substitutes therefore they should set the market. It's basic understanding of how markets work.

Originally posted by McClusky:

Eh, revisit virtually any discussion we had in the offseason and I'll let you be the judge of who is the realist between the 2 of us. I can be accused of a lot of things, but not being real about the 49ers is not the right criticism for me. Remember I was the one telling everyone last offseason just how bad the talent level was, when everyone else was talking about our untapped potential.

My opinion on this is purely based on an economic argument.

I didn't see the issue with evaluating talent with a new coach...we are one of the youngest teams in the league, now we know where the holes lying and can opproach FA and the draft into a reasonable fashion.

I just disagree that giving out above market value contracts (much much higher) isn't the right way at this point...we will see

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by McClusky:
Eh, revisit virtually any discussion we had in the offseason and I'll let you be the judge of who is the realist between the 2 of us. I can be accused of a lot of things, but not being real about the 49ers is not the right criticism for me. Remember I was the one telling everyone last offseason just how bad the talent level was, when everyone else was talking about our untapped potential.

My opinion on this is purely based on an economic argument.

I didn't see the issue with evaluating talent with a new coach...we are one of the youngest teams in the league, now we know where the holes lying and can opproach FA and the draft into a reasonable fashion.

I just disagree that giving out above market value contracts (much much higher) isn't the right way at this point...we will see

Above market value usually is only the first year of the contract, then it seems about right the 2nd year and after that either you didn't pick the right guy or they were successful and want to renegotiate.

Originally posted by ChaunceyGardner:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by McClusky:

Eh, revisit virtually any discussion we had in the offseason and I'll let you be the judge of who is the realist between the 2 of us. I can be accused of a lot of things, but not being real about the 49ers is not the right criticism for me. Remember I was the one telling everyone last offseason just how bad the talent level was, when everyone else was talking about our untapped potential.

My opinion on this is purely based on an economic argument.

I didn't see the issue with evaluating talent with a new coach...we are one of the youngest teams in the league, now we know where the holes lying and can opproach FA and the draft into a reasonable fashion.

I just disagree that giving out above market value contracts (much much higher) isn't the right way at this point...we will see

Above market value usually is only the first year of the contract, then it seems about right the 2nd year and after that either you didn't pick the right guy or they were successful and want to renegotiate.

Agree
Last year a lot of 49er fans were under the impression that all of the good FAs were "overpriced" because the market had shifted. The market for FAs will always go up, it will rise more sharply in some years than others but it never goes down.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
When did the dour years begin? The team didn't meet that threshold in '15 or in '16.
To make it easy, let's say the cap is $100, does that mean the 49ers have to spend $356 over that 4 year period and does this period just keep rolling year to year?

They met the 89 % rule for the last cycle...the new one starts and goes from 2017-2020

I'm not sure how it works to be honest lol here's a article

https://www.google.com/amp/www.ninersnation.com/platform/amp/2016/12/5/13847408/49ers-nfl-minimum-cash-spending-rule-2016?client=safari

Thanks for that.
I would bet the farm it works in a way that allows owners to spend less, keep more and use creative accounting to make it look like they spend 89% of the cap each year. The NFL league office exists to get the most for the owners while giving as little to the players as possible.
It should roll in a way so that every team is required to be in compliance at all times for the previous four years.

If the team didn't meet the minimum the '15-'16 then all the money was spent '13-'14. 9ers made it into NFCC in '13 and the stadium opened in '14 while the team went 8-8 with large number of injured players. The player purge happened before '15 season started. One way to look at this is front office pulled the investments in a winning team that help them build a stadium and is now back to maximize profit over winning model prior to '11. This is my guess of course.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by McClusky:

Eh, revisit virtually any discussion we had in the offseason and I'll let you be the judge of who is the realist between the 2 of us. I can be accused of a lot of things, but not being real about the 49ers is not the right criticism for me. Remember I was the one telling everyone last offseason just how bad the talent level was, when everyone else was talking about our untapped potential.

My opinion on this is purely based on an economic argument.

I didn't see the issue with evaluating talent with a new coach...we are one of the youngest teams in the league, now we know where the holes lying and can opproach FA and the draft into a reasonable fashion.

I just disagree that giving out above market value contracts (much much higher) isn't the right way at this point...we will see

I don't believe anybody has suggested that the 49ers should be throwing out above market conteacts. Instead, a people are saying the should be looking to add some of the top free agents available at their market price.

How do you define market value?

Yorks are projected to pocket the whole thing......

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Agree
Last year a lot of 49er fans were under the impression that all of the good FAs were "overpriced" because the market had shifted. The market for FAs will always go up, it will rise more sharply in some years than others but it never goes down.

No agree price will go up with inflation, bad contacts will still be bad contracts...I got no problem if they can land some higher priced guys, but I do think there are some 2nd tier guys that are pretty good that people kinda pass over for the big names. Just be smart about it that's all

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Yorks are projected to pocket the whole thing......

See I don't understand people's thinking on this...let's say they just have $100 million (which I doubt) laying around and instead of spending it they are keeping it and building interest( which is what some people think is happening), that's $11 million that gets what split between how many people?

You think $3.6 million each is worth empty seats and being called a failure to a billionaire? I don't...they just need a football mind at the top. Baalke was a frugal f**k.

Originally posted by father49er:

If the team didn't meet the minimum the '15-'16 then all the money was spent '13-'14. 9ers made it into NFCC in '13 and the stadium opened in '14 while the team went 8-8 with large number of injured players. The player purge happened before '15 season started. One way to look at this is front office pulled the investments in a winning team that help them build a stadium and is now back to maximize profit over winning model prior to '11. This is my guess of course.

Could be right...I mean regardless they will have to spend that money in the next cycle or give it over to the NFLPA

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by father49er:

If the team didn't meet the minimum the '15-'16 then all the money was spent '13-'14. 9ers made it into NFCC in '13 and the stadium opened in '14 while the team went 8-8 with large number of injured players. The player purge happened before '15 season started. One way to look at this is front office pulled the investments in a winning team that help them build a stadium and is now back to maximize profit over winning model prior to '11. This is my guess of course.

Could be right...I mean regardless they will have to spend that money in the next cycle or give it over to the NFLPA

The money gets divided among players on 49ers roster if not spent.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Yorks are projected to pocket the whole thing......

See I don't understand people's thinking on this...let's say they just have $100 million (which I doubt) laying around and instead of spending it they are keeping it and building interest( which is what some people think is happening), that's $11 million that gets what split between how many people?

You think $3.6 million each is worth empty seats and being called a failure to a billionaire? I don't...they just need a football mind at the top. Baalke was a frugal f**k.

$11 million is almost half of the Packers profits in 2014