I don't like 1 year signings

The latest has been Sam Darnold, however I have noticed a 49er trend of lots of 1 year contracts on players, especially on the DL. A 1 year contract is entirely to the benefit of the player. They get 1 year on a great 49er team to pad their resume, and then move on to a big payday somewhere else. If it was a 2 year contract, the 49ers could play the player for 1 year, and then trade them for a pick in the second year. I wouldn't even care if there was a large pay increase in the second year of the contract (so long as it isn't guaranteed). If the player plays well in the first year, then the 49ers can still trade them. If they play poorly, the 49ers can just cut them.

My only exception to this would be for players already on the team. They have already given the 49ers multiple years, and the 49ers passed on trading them before their contract ran out. If the player is coming off injury, for example, giving a 1 year contract is fair.

I have a theory that marriage should be a 1 year or however many years contract, and you have to resign/remarry your partner or else, they become a free agent. 4 year contract would be ideal

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I have a theory that marriage should be a 1 year or however many years contract, and you have to resign/remarry your partner or else, they become a free agent. 4 year contract would be ideal

We can have the kids and dogs are free agents. Trade the dog for one kid

Hope you arent a San Francisco Giants fan then.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I have a theory that marriage should be a 1 year or however many years contract, and you have to resign/remarry your partner or else, they become a free agent. 4 year contract would be ideal

It's for cap flexibility. Give the multiyear deals to core players.

Originally posted by thl408:
It's for cap flexibility. Give the multiyear deals to core players.

guys with low value, like Darnold, don't want to lock into to a multi year at a low value

however, in NFL when contracts are not fully gtd.. a lot of things can be a 1 year contract from a club perspective, just ask all these dudes getting cut as cap casualties and now they gotta list their house and move all their crap, dust off the ol resume

Originally posted by thl408:
It's for cap flexibility. Give the multiyear deals to core players.

Yep, for most of those guys, they are interchangeable pieces with some other guy on another team.

Originally posted by thl408:
It's for cap flexibility. Give the multiyear deals to core players.

This. We're not doing 1-year signings for core players, but guys who are really just filling a hole or being a depth piece.
The problem with doing longer-term deals, even if they're a lower tier player, you have to sweeten that deal with guaranteed signing bonuses. You only do that for players that will be cornerstones of the team, on and off the field---the Fred Warners, the Trent Williams, the George Kittles, etc. etc.

All the complaints about losing these rotational pieces are silly. Especially for d-line. We brought in unheralded guys for peanuts, they shined in rotational roles under Kocurek and alongside Bosa & AA, and are now getting overinflated contracts with other teams. Yeah, we will certainly miss these guys, but especially for DL, I'm confident we'll replace them easily.

Originally posted by Wubbie:
This. We're not doing 1-year signings for core players, but guys who are really just filling a hole or being a depth piece.
The problem with doing longer-term deals, even if they're a lower tier player, you have to sweeten that deal with guaranteed signing bonuses. You only do that for players that will be cornerstones of the team, on and off the field---the Fred Warners, the Trent Williams, the George Kittles, etc. etc.

All the complaints about losing these rotational pieces are silly. Especially for d-line. We brought in unheralded guys for peanuts, they shined in rotational roles under Kocurek and alongside Bosa & AA, and are now getting overinflated contracts with other teams. Yeah, we will certainly miss these guys, but especially for DL, I'm confident we'll replace them easily.

totally agree.

Originally posted by fryet:
The latest has been Sam Darnold, however I have noticed a 49er trend of lots of 1 year contracts on players, especially on the DL. A 1 year contract is entirely to the benefit of the player. They get 1 year on a great 49er team to pad their resume, and then move on to a big payday somewhere else. If it was a 2 year contract, the 49ers could play the player for 1 year, and then trade them for a pick in the second year. I wouldn't even care if there was a large pay increase in the second year of the contract (so long as it isn't guaranteed). If the player plays well in the first year, then the 49ers can still trade them. If they play poorly, the 49ers can just cut them.

My only exception to this would be for players already on the team. They have already given the 49ers multiple years, and the 49ers passed on trading them before their contract ran out. If the player is coming off injury, for example, giving a 1 year contract is fair.

AGREE.. it's really useless (IMO) to sign players that are " capable " for only one year.. like you stated, ONLY the player benefits..

We should sign dlinemen to two years. Niners have a knack for making them good. That way, if they're good in the first year, we can trade them instead of losing them on one year deal.

These players should be buying Kocurek gold watches every year. He is literally making them millions.

Originally posted by Alfienator:

We should sign dlinemen to two years. Niners have a knack for making them good. That way, if they're good in the first year, we can trade them instead of losing them on one year deal.

If we lose them in free agency, we get a draft pick potentially anyways though. Without having do any work looking for a trading partner and keeping the cap benefit of the one year deal.