Team Friendly Contracts. Bad?

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Why is this even a question?

Glad you asked.

Whether it's media click bait or a real reason for our run since the last post season we were in points to Paraags genius or a huge mistake?
I personally think it's very clever but there are always plenty of fans complaining about who we didn't get on contract and in a rebuild you want the best platform for growth possible.

This is going to be the team that players know they can get a front loaded contract so they can rehab their injuries and then leave.

Originally posted by WildBill:

No it is never bad for the team. They can cut bait if they wish. Lowers the dead money, when they do. For the players, not if the guarantee money is there. If agents don't want to come to us it is because of the California taxes if they reside there.

Ah yes the taxes. Does that effect the Niners the same way as the Chargers, Rams and Raiders?

Should the cap space be reflective of the states tax level? Who has these tax rate?

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Most of these contracts the 49ers give out start with huge money up front. Most players do not have a problem with that.

Yea posters around here seem to be confused in that concept.

Some were calling Jerricks contract team friendly , saying we could cut him easily now. Well if we did then we invested 18 mil in him to never play a down. Nothing about that is team friendly lmao. It's a s**t contract that was the result of a bidding war.

If we don't use salary cap. It rolls over to the next year. All that guaranteed money to jerrick would've been nice.

Also paraags contract are nothing out of the ordinary. Nobody gets fully guaranteed contracts in the nfl. They almost always have 1-3 out of 5 years guaranteed.

To give him credit. I do love all the front loading we do, and getting the guaranteed money out the way as soon as possible, especially if we have space at the moment.

Originally posted by KeepRabbitsOut:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Why is this even a question?

Glad you asked.

Whether it's media click bait or a real reason for our run since the last post season we were in points to Paraags genius or a huge mistake?
I personally think it's very clever but there are always plenty of fans complaining about who we didn't get on contract and in a rebuild you want the best platform for growth possible.

I guess you may have a point with Earl Thomas not signing. But I still think it had more to do with the amount of guaranteed money versus us front loading our contracts.

As other people have mentioned, front loading contracts can be a positive thing for some players.

Why I made that comment is because making team friendly contracts is only beneficial to the team. I don't think we are scaring players away because they like betting on themselves. And at the end of the day our contracts have not been cheap. We have actually overpaid for players compared to other teams.

Team friendly contracts are by definition are good for the team. If your point is that they may scare away top tier free agents I don't agree with that. I think for guys who have no issues(how many of those guys make free agency?) we'd do a normal deal. What we won't do is give guys with questions fully guaranteed deals. That's smart even if it prevents us from getting someone like Earl Thomas.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by KeepRabbitsOut:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Why is this even a question?

Glad you asked.

Whether it's media click bait or a real reason for our run since the last post season we were in points to Paraags genius or a huge mistake?
I personally think it's very clever but there are always plenty of fans complaining about who we didn't get on contract and in a rebuild you want the best platform for growth possible.

I guess you may have a point with Earl Thomas not signing. But I still think it had more to do with the amount of guaranteed money versus us front loading our contracts.

As other people have mentioned, front loading contracts can be a positive thing for some players.

Why I made that comment is because making team friendly contracts is only beneficial to the team. I don't think we are scaring players away because they like betting on themselves. And at the end of the day our contracts have not been cheap. We have actually overpaid for players compared to other teams.

Yes. I guess what I am trying to figure out is whether the term "team-friendly" is only team friendly with respect to the individuals impact on the team or the bigger picture of what the team attracts with this kind of contract preference?

Originally posted by genus49:

Team friendly contracts are by definition are good for the team. If your point is that they may scare away top tier free agents I don't agree with that. I think for guys who have no issues(how many of those guys make free agency?) we'd do a normal deal. What we won't do is give guys with questions fully guaranteed deals. That's smart even if it prevents us from getting someone like Earl Thomas.

Have to agree with you on top tier players. Maybe Thomas, AB, OBJ etc. we're not worried an stayed away for other reasons and all had either culture or injury issues so are really not top tier now anyway. But it is a stretch for me to say that JL and KS did not want these guys.
Just hope we are not micromanaging our selves away from a great pick-up.

That's probably why no good free agents sign with niners.

Originally posted by KeepRabbitsOut:

Many believe Paraag is the master at doing team friendly contracts.

Some big names may have come close to signing on with the Niners.

How much influence has this had on the rebuilding of this team?

Do agents warn their clients about coming to the bay?

Are the best prospects for us in FA rehabbing stars or under the radar desperados?

Jason_OTC talked about this very thing before this off season and noted that agents know these tendencies and advise their clients. It could deter higher end FA's for sure.

Originally posted by susweel:

That's probably why no good free agents sign with niners.

Deeerrrrrrp

[u]

Originally posted by WildBill:

No it is never bad for the team. They can cut bait if they wish. Lowers the dead money, when they do. For the players, not if the guarantee money is there. If agents don't want to come to us it is because of the California taxes if they reside there.

This! IMO, California taxes play a bigger role than "team friendly" contracts.

Originally posted by susweel:
That's probably why no good free agents sign with niners.

Really no good free agents?

Richard Sherman
Elvis Dumervil
Alfred Morris
Logan Paulsen
Weston Richburgh
Pierre Garcon
Jason Verrett
Jerrick McKinnon
Kyle Juszczyk
Earl Mitchell
Tevin Coleman
Kwon Alexander
Jordan Matthews
Brian Hoyer
Robbie Gould
Marquise Goodwin

Again stop trolling or you're out.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by susweel:
That's probably why no good free agents sign with niners.

Really good no free agents?

Richard Sherman
Elvis Dumervil
Alfred Morris
Logan Paulsen
Weston Richburgh
Pierre Garcon
Jason Verrett
Jerrick McKinnon
Kyle Juszczyk
Earl Mitchell
Tevin Coleman
Kwon Alexander
Jordan Matthews
Brian Hoyer
Robbie Gould
Marquise Goodwin

Again stop trolling or you're out.

He just caught one ^

Originally posted by GhostOfBaalke:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by susweel:
That's probably why no good free agents sign with niners.

Really good no free agents?

Richard Sherman
Elvis Dumervil
Alfred Morris
Logan Paulsen
Weston Richburgh
Pierre Garcon
Jason Verrett
Jerrick McKinnon
Kyle Juszczyk
Earl Mitchell
Tevin Coleman
Kwon Alexander
Jordan Matthews
Brian Hoyer
Robbie Gould
Marquise Goodwin

Again stop trolling or you're out.

He just caught one ^

Seriously, no he didn't, it's complicated. If you need a explanation PM me.