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

i'd rather make a serious push for brandin cooks and Jimmy G blowing an entire year's worth of picks vs. paying 100m in FA

Originally posted by mtl_49er:
i'd rather make a serious push for brandin cooks and Jimmy G blowing an entire year's worth of picks vs. paying 100m in FA

Yeah this is dumb. You're actually utilizing a scarce/valuable resource instead of using what the 49ers have an abundance/low value resource of, while incurring the opportunity cost of losing out on potential selections. Go back and re-evaluate everything about what you just said.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Nice thanks for that!

It's kinda crazy that the correlation of spending a ton of money doesn't always equal wins. The Eagles spent more money than any team and have what to show for it?

The Patriots are at the bottom of the list yet are the crown jewel of the NFL (Raiders are looking good and the Panthers just went to the SB)

I think there's got to be money spent but it's got to be done correctly...Baalke's low ball concept and finding cheap FA obviously didn't work, but blowing money all over the place like Philly doesn't seem to work either.

Building through the draft is the best way to create a viable franchise for the long-term and sprinkling in some stop tier guys a long the way.

I think the whole concept that Jed and co. would rather pocket a few million vs making a winning franchise is silly, Billionaires don't want to be failures their wired differently.

This is a quintessential example of how correlation does not imply causation. There are far better explanatory variables as to why these teams lose than their FA spending. Mainly the factors that led them to have that cap space (poor drafting, trading picks for players, coaching carousel) are what caused them to have bad internal substitutes in the first place..

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

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

Ah what?

"Green Bay is publicly owned, so their numbers got published. In 2014, they had $375 million in revenue and expenses of approximately $220 million, leaving $155 millionor so in profit. Given the team's estimated value is $1.9 billion, according to a recent article in Forbes, that's not a bad ROI."

since when is $11 million almost half of $155 million?

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/7/10/5888835/packers-2014-financial-report-summary-revenue-expenses-increase

I'll take forbes word...does that include the shared tv rights by all 32 teams along with all the rental space for venues? Sounds like they took some of that cash in 2014 ($55 million worth) to renovate the stadium.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/green-bay-packers/

at glance:

Owner: shareholder-owned
Championships: 13
Year Purchased: 1919
Revenue2: $391 M
Operating Income3: $101 M
Debt/Value4: 5%
Player Expenses5: $177 M
Gate Receipts6: $65 M
Wins-to-player cost ratio7: 141
Revenue per Fan8: $553
Metro Area Population: 0.3 M

OPI (101) + PE (177)=$278 Revenue (391)- expenses (278)= +$113 million

No way their total profit was $29 million

all add they are the 13th most valuable franchise SF is 4th

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#tab:overall

http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-report-net-income-of-292-million-on-record-revenue-b99540850z1-317608791.html

2015 numbers. Article also contains 2014 net Income

Originally posted by McClusky:
Again, people say this, but I don't think conceptually they have a grasp on purely how much money the 49ers have, and how quickly the options for that money dries up. The 49ers virtually cannot butcher their long term cap options this offseason. I illustrated a few pages ago how the 49ers could have added Jenkins, Vernon, and Snacks last season, and by making a couple of cuts like we think they will, would still have been sitting on $50 million in cap room this season. The picture looks even rosier now with the rollover. I would be shocked for the 49ers to spend a cap busting amount of money this year a) because they actually need to get people who are willing to come here, but b) because they only have so much capacity to sign FA's in the early days of FA whilst competing with 31 other teams.

They can't say hold up Poe we'll see you in a week we have to talk to Jeffrey, Hightower, Jones, Collins, Williams, and Berry first, in the interim don't talk with anybody else.

I'm not sitting here making an argument for Jeffrey in particular, my argument is more broad than that. My argument is that it is a rational course of action for the 49ers to come out of this FA period being atop the FA spending list. Who that consists of is up for debate. It can be Poe for all I care, but come into the picture with the understanding that you're not going to get Poe for a great cap-to-production value and that is ok.

When we start to talk about FA, people jump on board with cliche arguments and non-sequitors. Yes the best teams build through the drafts, yes FA usually represents a bad $ to production value, but you have to understand the nature of a substitute. The 49ers spending FA $'s does not hurt their capacity to sign internal quality players of better production to value contracts because of their lack of existence on the roster, nor does it prevent them from using the draft to improve the team. It's simply the best option they have available to them at the current moment given how much they suck.

With regards to the #1 receiver argument in a sense you are right, and I do have concerns not even so much about Jeffrey's injures, but moreso for me it's his recent suspension. I do think conceptually though if you're going to try and add a franchise QB in the next couple of seasons it does make sense to make a concerted effort add better receivers than Kerley and Patton to give the guy a fair shake. Sure we can add a #1 through the draft potentially, but you have to remember that represents a greater opportunity cost than through FA because of the other needs on the team.

Correct we are using AJ as a example...I have no problem with them going after guys like Vernon, Snacks, and Jenkins last yr. My issue is it would cost SF much more than it costed NY for them to come if they even would.

We also have to look at it as more than just money, players are gonna go where they want to go sure cash is king, but if it means their career suffers and they don't reach those escalators because the team blows that's a fact as well.

A lot of factors besides backup up the truck for these guys...do they still perform at the top once they get all that money? Does the scheme fit? Does being on a rebuilding team help or hurt bringing in FAs? etc.

I got no problem spending cash just be smart on who we are giving it to...that's my main issue.

Gonna be a interesting off season for sure

lets sign adam archuleta to a max contract

oh and get peyton hillis on the phone

lets turn this franchise around

Originally posted by blizzuntz:
http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-report-net-income-of-292-million-on-record-revenue-b99540850z1-317608791.html

2015 numbers. Article also contains 2014 net Income

However, those decreases were due mainly to depreciation on the $312 million the corporation has poured into improvements at Lambeau Field.

I'd love to see some proof on what happens with the "unspent cap" people assume it goes back in Jed's pocket, people assume that he even has $100 million laying around in a saving account etc.

Show me some proof that he pockets that cash.

I think people have to look at the GM not Jed when it comes to spending money on players...dude was/is a tight wad and has stated it. He's a Parcells guy and that's not gonna change.

I hope we get a fresh guy at the top. There's got to be a balance...we aren't the Pats who can by without spending money.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-report-net-income-of-292-million-on-record-revenue-b99540850z1-317608791.html

2015 numbers. Article also contains 2014 net Income

However, those decreases were due mainly to depreciation on the $312 million the corporation has poured into improvements at Lambeau Field.

I'd love to see some proof on what happens with the "unspent cap" people assume it goes back in Jed's pocket, people assume that he even has $100 million laying around in a saving account etc.

Show me some proof that he pockets that cash.

I think people have to look at the GM not Jed when it comes to spending money on players...dude was/is a tight wad and has stated it. He's a Parcells guy and that's not gonna change.

I hope we get a fresh guy at the top. There's got to be a balance...we aren't the Pats who can by without spending money.

What do you mean proof it goes in Jed's pockets?

It never left his pockets. So therefore that is where the money is.

And when I say Jed, I mean him and the York family.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Correct we are using AJ as a example...I have no problem with them going after guys like Vernon, Snacks, and Jenkins last yr. My issue is it would cost SF much more than it costed NY for them to come if they even would.

We also have to look at it as more than just money, players are gonna go where they want to go sure cash is king, but if it means their career suffers and they don't reach those escalators because the team blows that's a fact as well.

A lot of factors besides backup up the truck for these guys...do they still perform at the top once they get all that money? Does the scheme fit? Does being on a rebuilding team help or hurt bringing in FAs? etc.

I got no problem spending cash just be smart on who we are giving it to...that's my main issue.

Gonna be a interesting off season for sure

That is kind of the point I'm making. The 49ers need to recognize where they sit in the market. It's overspend, or not add any FA's at all. They have an incredibly unappealing situation right now. As we've seen this year not adding players does not work. I think it compounds a lot of the struggles on the team. You have to think about it in terms of what their options are, do they chase value, not improve, and somehow enter in next year's market sitting on even more cap space? Does that make their capacity to sign good contracts look any more favorable?

Nobody likes the fact that the team is going to have to go to the FA buffet. However, the team needs to hold their nose and do it. I'm not arguing that these players are going to buy them a championship, but rather this is really the only rational approach they can take right now. It's not like the 49ers are going to get a value on Garcon either. I doubt a 31 year old receiver is jumping for joy over the possibility of running out the clock on his career on a team with no championship prospects, or a QB of note either. Have to overpay for him too, and face the probability that he's never going to be as good here as he is today.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erphan:
Whether or not you think the owners of the 9ers team increase their profits by not paying up to 100% of the cap amount to players (I believe the owners most likely do get an increase in profits by not paying up to the cap ceiling), there is no doubt that between 2013 and 2016 (the last 4 year cap cycle) the owners could have spent many, many millions of dollars more than they did for player salaries. But they didn't. I don't see a good reason not to have if the goal was to field the best team management could put together.

Here is a breakdown of what teams spent in the 2013 and 2016 salary cap cycle:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-nflpa-salary-cap-chart-shows-patriots-are-money-smart-eagles-arent/

[snip]

Nice thanks for that!

It's kinda crazy that the correlation of spending a ton of money doesn't always equal wins. The Eagles spent more money than any team and have what to show for it?

The Patriots are at the bottom of the list yet are the crown jewel of the NFL (Raiders are looking good and the Panthers just went to the SB)

I think there's got to be money spent but it's got to be done correctly...Baalke's low ball concept and finding cheap FA obviously didn't work, but blowing money all over the place like Philly doesn't seem to work either.

Building through the draft is the best way to create a viable franchise for the long-term and sprinkling in some stop tier guys a long the way.

I think the whole concept that Jed and co. would rather pocket a few million vs making a winning franchise is silly, Billionaires don't want to be failures their wired differently.

Why not spend the money on trying to get better players? If they are so rich that $10 million dollars per year more in profits are insignificant then why not spend the money on player salaries instead? (But remember that the "billionaire" part is their total asset value, not how much profit they make per year, so comparing the two is an apples and oranges type of thing.)

It may be that spending up to the total cap max over the four year cycle doesn't necessarily correlate into improving the team, but I don't see where spending more would hurt the chances of improving. If they didn't have confidence in Baalke's ability to use up to the max cap in the four year cycle to improve the team then they should have fired him. If we assume, as you seem to, that the Yorks don't care about whether or not the team pays players up to the total cap allowed over four years, then I just don't see the harm in the team spending as much money on players as they are allowed to spend.

Originally posted by McClusky:

That is kind of the point I'm making. The 49ers need to recognize where they sit in the market. It's overspend, or not add any FA's at all. They have an incredibly unappealing situation right now. As we've seen this year not adding players does not work. I think it compounds a lot of the struggles on the team. You have to think about it in terms of what their options are, do they chase value, not improve, and somehow enter in next year's market sitting on even more cap space? Does that make their capacity to sign good contracts look any more favorable?

Nobody likes the fact that the team is going to have to go to the FA buffet. However, the team needs to hold their nose and do it. I'm not arguing that these players are going to buy them a championship, but rather this is really the only rational approach they can take right now. It's not like the 49ers are going to get a value on Garcon either. I doubt a 31 year old receiver is jumping for joy over the possibility of running out the clock on his career on a team with no championship prospects, or a QB of note either. Have to overpay for him too, and face the probability that he's never going to be as good here as he is today.

Correct at what point is the juice worth the squeeze? Do you pay someone like AJ $15 million a yr? I don't think so...I think it's gonna depend on who's the GM is, say we get mike shanahan as the GM maybe we are able to get garçon and someone like baker at a decent price, if we get wolf as GM maybe we can land some of the Packers FAs at a fair market value or a little more...we know baalke isn't and can't do s**t in that regard.

A lot of pieces need to fall in place to get any of these top guys to roll on over to the Bay Area. We can stick our nose into it, but that doesn't mean anything...2018 might be a more realistic time to spend money, especially if we get a qb and new staff.

We will see

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Why not spend the money on trying to get better players? If they are so rich that $10 million dollars per year more in profits are insignificant then why not spend the money on player salaries instead? (But remember that the "billionaire" part is their total asset value, not how much profit they make per year, so comparing the two is an apples and oranges type of thing.)

It may be that spending up to the total cap max over the four year cycle doesn't necessarily correlate into improving the team, but I don't see where spending more would hurt the chances of improving. If they didn't have confidence in Baalke's ability to use up to the max cap in the four year cycle to improve the team then they should have fired him. If we assume, as you seem to, that the Yorks don't care about whether or not the team pays players up to the total cap allowed over four years, then I just don't see the harm in the team spending as much money on players as they are allowed to spend.

Thats a good question to ask the GM not the owners cause Jed doesn't run the personnel. I think Paraag needs to get his stinky ass out of there as well lol.

Baalke has stated jed gives him everything he needs it's just baalke and Paraag being right wads.

I also do think spending money just to spend money is the best way to get a great team and the past has proven that.

Hopefully they make some moves whomever the GM is.

Who cares how much money we will have, you don't build a team through Free Agency

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Correct at what point is the juice worth the squeeze? Do you pay someone like AJ $15 million a yr? I don't think so...I think it's gonna depend on who's the GM is, say we get mike shanahan as the GM maybe we are able to get garçon and someone like baker at a decent price, if we get wolf as GM maybe we can land some of the Packers FAs at a fair market value or a little more...we know baalke isn't and can't do s**t in that regard.

A lot of pieces need to fall in place to get any of these top guys to roll on over to the Bay Area. We can stick our nose into it, but that doesn't mean anything...2018 might be a more realistic time to spend money, especially if we get a qb and new staff.

We will see

That's basically what the Raiders did...found their FQB, added a few impact players from top 10 picks, found several quality starters, saved their money and went ape-s**t in FA this year AND picked the right free agents to supplement. They're a playoff contender now but still, they are probably a couple more impact players away from being a true Superbowl contender. They also reorg'd their FO and found a quality coaching staff.

Amari Cooper (#4 overall)
Khalil Mack (#5) + Derek Carr (#36)

Alshon Jeffrey
Dontari Poe
Zack Brown