Funny how the homers are.
There are 239 users in the forums
Team Friendly Contracts. Bad?
Team Friendly Contracts. Bad?
Mar 17, 2019 at 2:54 PM
- NCommand
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 123,331
Mar 17, 2019 at 3:08 PM
- LottDMontanaO
- Veteran
- Posts: 5,980
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by GhostOfBaalke:
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.
I agree. It gives the team future flexibility and also prevents the team from overloading too much cap into the free agent side of the equation. You can only do so much front loading until you run out of cap space.
I like his front loading because even stars like Dee Ford, there is no guarantee that his past 2018 performance will result in 2019 actual production. It's a gamble and a guess, and that's why I like the fact that you can cut a McKinnon or a Ford after one year without too much of a cap issue, if they fail to live up to expectations.
Agreed, +3.
Mar 17, 2019 at 3:57 PM
- KeepRabbitsOut
- Veteran
- Posts: 6,085
Originally posted by NYniner85:Only the WZ would try to spin a good thing into a bad one lol 🥴
Players get front loaded cash (which they want) then if they ball they get paid top end money, if not they're out and can hit FA again.
I'm glad our FO doesn't fork over tons of money long-term for most players based on what they've done on other teams. You want top money LT then earn it on OUR team.
Whoah there. No one is spinning anything here. Maybe the media does.
It's a fair question when the Niners have only won 18 of the last 67 games I think. Nothing is to be assumed. Nothing off the table. Some great insight and opinion is all that is asked for. Thank you for voicing yours I agree.
Mar 17, 2019 at 4:06 PM
- KeepRabbitsOut
- Veteran
- Posts: 6,085
Originally posted by NCommand:Funny how the homers are.
Please forgive my ignorance but is a homer the same as a bandwagonner?
Mar 17, 2019 at 4:07 PM
- KeepRabbitsOut
- Veteran
- Posts: 6,085
Originally posted by lamontb:It's league wide not just the niners
So enough don't do it for it to be a thing? And Paraag is an also ran? Just asking.
Mar 17, 2019 at 6:13 PM
- NCommand
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 123,331
Originally posted by KeepRabbitsOut:Originally posted by NCommand:Funny how the homers are.
Please forgive my ignorance but is a homer the same as a bandwagonner?
I was joking but we have 0 bandwagoners. Bandwagoners are fans that ONLY jump on and ACT like fans of the current team that's winning.
Homers are like genus (and I love the dude). A real fan who defends every move and non-move ever made by the front office. Basically, a team mom. A child can do no wrong under the eyes of a mom. You know what I mean!
[ Edited by NCommand on Mar 17, 2019 at 6:15 PM ]
Mar 17, 2019 at 7:53 PM
- KeepRabbitsOut
- Veteran
- Posts: 6,085
Originally posted by NCommand:Thanks man. I live in a bubble. And since we have not won in a while the bandwagon must be busted!
I was joking but we have 0 bandwagoners. Bandwagoners are fans that ONLY jump on and ACT like fans of the current team that's winning.
Homers are like genus (and I love the dude). A real fan who defends every move and non-move ever made by the front office. Basically, a team mom. A child can do no wrong under the eyes of a mom. You know what I mean!
Mar 17, 2019 at 8:09 PM
- MK_Ultra
- Veteran
- Posts: 458
Is good, bad?
Mar 17, 2019 at 8:24 PM
- KeepRabbitsOut
- Veteran
- Posts: 6,085
Originally posted by MK_Ultra:
Is good, bad?
Yes but only to the ones that matter.
Mar 17, 2019 at 9:46 PM
- Waterbear
- Veteran
- Posts: 18,082
Originally posted by MK_Ultra:Is good, bad?
Bad is bad, good is good.
Mar 18, 2019 at 9:09 AM
- dj43
- Moderator
- Posts: 35,655
Originally posted by NinerGM:
But let's concede that the 49ers did investigate OBJ and if the pick request wasn't the #2 overall, we would have pulled the trigger AND paid him handsomely for his services. This notion that players only get contracts here by "proving it" is not completely accurate. Our entire roster of FA compensation is projected. Sure the maximum contract value is incentive-driven, but all players at all levels of production have a floor - based on their production previously. You overpay for FA, full stop. Whether you do so with GTD $ or with a longer-termed financial commitment, you're still gonna (over) pay. I love JG, but he has yet to really earn anywhere close to what we've paid at the time he signed his contract (2017 market). Smith, Garcon, McKinnon, etc. Yes, injuries happen but none of these players have yet fulfilled their projected impact and still got big $ at what the market set for their previous production. In most cases, there's a reason why. You want proven, reliable, blue-chip, pro-bowl FAs, you're going to have to pay for that.
That is the point that is too often over-looked - no matter which way you look at it, if you sign a player in FA, you will pay more than anyone else was willing to pay. By its very definition that is over market value.
However, it is possible to get higher value if you disregard a previous injury and build in the option to cut the player after a year if the injury proves to reduce his ability. Hence, guys like Alexander can work due to the way the contract is structured. If it were not possible to write those kinds of contracts, the player would have a much more difficult time getting onto a team and back on the field. Consequently, these "team friendly" deals are not mutually exclusive when it comes to value for the player.
Mar 18, 2019 at 9:22 AM
- Ensatsu
- Veteran
- Posts: 9,359
Well it is good for our cap, but it seems like our modus operandi is to go after guys coming off injuries and hope we score big on cheap deals.
I don't really care what their strategy is. But at the end of the day, if it doesn't produce wins, then they should look to adopt a different strategy. Being cheap might not be the answer.
I don't really care what their strategy is. But at the end of the day, if it doesn't produce wins, then they should look to adopt a different strategy. Being cheap might not be the answer.
Mar 20, 2019 at 7:59 AM
- pasodoc9er
- Veteran
- Posts: 21,009
Judging the conversation between GM and DJ, we have a thotful, erudite, truthful discussion of our M.O for building a team, both thru FA and Draft. The facts have been obvious for some time now, but no one has laid them out as well as GM, nor has anyone discussed their warts and moles as well as Dj. It seems "we" collectively, have conveniently brushed aside the fact that getting the high caliber talent we just landed ....we also paid a price for....and it wasn't in $$$. It was in risk.
Had all our FAs been in A-1 perfect shape physically, they would have cost us significantly more money...IOW, they would have cost us substantially more than we paid for them. But had we limited our FAs to that...A-1 physical shape(ie no ACLs, ligaments, hammies, or whatever)...we would have afforded ourselves fewer FAs, because each and every one would ahve been way more expensive. They would have been in great shape from a medical standpoint, but we wouldn't have gotten all the talent we did. Maybe half ...possibly less than that in number of FAs.
It is a sobering thot.
And then there is the JG story...we got him in perfect health, and he was not cheap...and look what happened.
Had all our FAs been in A-1 perfect shape physically, they would have cost us significantly more money...IOW, they would have cost us substantially more than we paid for them. But had we limited our FAs to that...A-1 physical shape(ie no ACLs, ligaments, hammies, or whatever)...we would have afforded ourselves fewer FAs, because each and every one would ahve been way more expensive. They would have been in great shape from a medical standpoint, but we wouldn't have gotten all the talent we did. Maybe half ...possibly less than that in number of FAs.
It is a sobering thot.
And then there is the JG story...we got him in perfect health, and he was not cheap...and look what happened.
[ Edited by pasodoc9er on Mar 20, 2019 at 8:02 AM ]
Mar 20, 2019 at 8:25 AM
- NCommand
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 123,331
Originally posted by Ensatsu:Well it is good for our cap, but it seems like our modus operandi is to go after guys coming off injuries and hope we score big on cheap deals.
I don't really care what their strategy is. But at the end of the day, if it doesn't produce wins, then they should look to adopt a different strategy. Being cheap might not be the answer.
This. 100%. If the moneyball strategy works, score. If not, you take a big year 1 cap hit for little or no production on the field (Garcon, M.Smith, J.Cooper, J.Attaocho) BUT you can get out after that year with the built in ripcords.
I prefer this strategy when we're a contender and bottom 10 in cap space vs. during a rebuild but whatev's.
Mar 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM
- susweel
- Hall of Nepal
- Posts: 120,276
Matt barrows was on KNBR almost laughing at the niners for the team friendly contracts basically saying almost everyone they signed has an asterisk for either injury concern or small sample size of playing time. He was saying a team that has had so many injuries might wonna stay away from injury prone players.