Logic Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 minutes ago, Nihilarian said: Lastly, I can imagine Samuel and MVS out wide, Shakir in the slot, Kincaid at tight end, and Coleman coming off the bench at X and big slot? I mean yeah, that's likely what it will end up being. The difference is that MVS's career high in receiving yards in a single season is 690. Aiyuk, meanwhile, has posted back-to-back 1000 yard seasons and is coming off a 1342 yard campaign. Based on their career best single season receiving output, Aiyuk would seem to be twice the receiver that MVS is.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 16 Posted July 16 I’m 100% in on Ayiuk (even at $30M). I believe that the Bills WR room is in the bottom 3. That would be tough to argue against. The room has decent depth but a GLARING hole at the top. If the Bills make that trade, the WR room is an upgrade from last year. Do it 1 1 2
Mr. WEO Posted July 16 Posted July 16 54 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: The point of going public with a trade request is obviously to escalate the situation. It gets it into the public sphere again and could spur some trade talks prior to the start of training camps. It’s worth noting that SF’s GM, Lynch, has performed absolutely abysmally in similar situations. I expect that Aiyuk ends up playing in SF this year and then walks for a comp pick or gets tagged and traded for little next off-season. There are not many viable trade partners anyway. SF would need to get a quality WR to help them compete this year plus draft capital back. Not much out there right now. Cleveland would be the best option I can think of. Amari Cooper, who is currently holding out, plus a day 2 pick (or similar package of picks) makes sense. And Cleveland would pay him. But it’s unlikely. it's hard to escalate a situation that has played out in public for weeks and the 49ers aren't coming to the table. this can't move the needle--trade request/demand provides zero leverage. obviously they have already considered a trade--it's one of only 3 options they have. likewise, every potentially interested team already understood it was one of the 49ers options. it's likely his demands are massive and they don't see the need to shell out this year. a team trading for him would have to resign him for this massive amount as well as give up picks for a guy with one year left on his contract. the 49ers probably replied to this request with "yeah, ok"
Big Blitz Posted July 16 Posted July 16 There is ZERO percent chance they are trading him to a 2024 SB contender. If they trade him it will be to the AFC and a team like Pittsburgh or New England.
BarleyNY Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: it's hard to escalate a situation that has played out in public for weeks and the 49ers aren't coming to the table. this can't move the needle--trade request/demand provides zero leverage. obviously they have already considered a trade--it's one of only 3 options they have. likewise, every potentially interested team already understood it was one of the 49ers options. it's likely his demands are massive and they don't see the need to shell out this year. a team trading for him would have to resign him for this massive amount as well as give up picks for a guy with one year left on his contract. the 49ers probably replied to this request with "yeah, ok" It’s possible that it moves the needle. It is a distraction during SF’s championship window. That’s not nothing. It ultimately may not help Aiyuk’s cause, but you’ve laid out why it can’t hurt either. So why not try? No downside, possible upside, good timing. Yes, picks (and/or players) plus a contract. That is common practice in situations like this. SF is in a bind with contracts they’ve given out and have on the horizon - including Purdy. Adding a market deal for Aiyuk to the mix may not be feasible for them. They’d have some real work to do to fit it. Your preferred path of making him play this season likely would result in him walking in FA next off-season and yielding them a comp pick in 2026. Whoop. Not exactly a great return for one of the best WRs in the game. Also, if his demands are so outlandish (I doubt they are), then why not call his bluff? If other teams won’t pay his asking price either, then he’d have to come off of it. Right? Edited July 16 by BarleyNY
Doc Brown Posted July 16 Posted July 16 If you want to maximize Josh Allen's window this is the trade you make. Give up a 1st and a 2nd. Give him the bag. I don't care. Aiyuk, Coleman, and Kincaid locked up for at least the next four years as your WR1, WR2, and TE1 is just smart business. 6 4 1
Mr. WEO Posted July 16 Posted July 16 14 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: It’s possible that it moves the needle. It is a distraction during SF’s championship window. That’s not nothing. It ultimately may not help Aiyuk’s cause, but you’ve laid out why it can’t hurt either. So why not try? No downside, possible upside, good timing. Yes, picks (and/or players) plus a contract. That is common practice in situations like this. SF is in a bind with contracts they’ve given out and have on the horizon - including Purdy. Adding a market deal for Aiyuk to the mix may not be feasible for them. They’d have some real work to do to fit it. Your preferred path of making him play this season likely would result in him walking in FA next off-season and yielding them a comp pick in 2026. Whoop. Not exactly a great return for one of the best WRs in the game. Also, if his demands are so outlandish (I doubt they are), then why not call his bluff? If other teams won’t pay his asking price either, then he’d have to come off of it. Right? These disputes never hurt the team. Fans get pissed at the player. The 49ers already are very confident in whatever their current position is, considering all known options—-so much so they won’t even come to the table at this point. Theres no upside. They hold multiple cards. He holds one—a very expensive one for him to play
JP51 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 hours ago, Shaw66 said: I agree. I caused a stir talking about wideouts a month ago, but I haven't changed my mind. I think the level of the talent in the WR room and their collective contracts (and the fact that the Bills didn't willing to pay either Diggs or Davis) probably tells us something about Beane's philosophy on this subject. Still, we can be sure that Beane and McDermott have had one or more serious conversations about (1) the kind of impact Aiyuk would have on the Bills offense and (2) how much the Bills would be willing to give up to get him. agreed. Doesnt seem to fit the plan of righting the cap ship this year... I will say this, we get to the trade deadline are in contention and he is still on the 49ers... hmmmmm? 1
billieve420 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) We have no idea if the 49ers are even interested in moving him. May take an injury for some team to cough up something worthwhile. However, I would not make any moves till middle of training camp and allow for team to evaluate what they have while determining if that is good enough to get through the season. Edited July 16 by billieve420
BufBills83 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: If you want to maximize Josh Allen's window this is the trade you make. Give up a 1st and a 2nd. Give him the bag. I don't care. Aiyuk, Coleman, and Kincaid locked up for at least the next four years as your WR1, WR2, and TE1 is just smart business. A first and a second? No way. I would be ok with a 2nd but that's the max compensation I would give. 1
Herc11 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: what's the point of requesting a trade? it's the team's prerogative--and it's likely they have already considered it. their price isn't out there so they are holding pat for now. they got him for another year Typically if the team is willing to trade, when a player asks the team grants the player permission to seek a trade themselves. This keeps other teams from violating the tampering rules.
BuffaloBillsGospel2014 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 hours ago, Logic said: I expect the Steelers or Commanders to be the destination if he gets traded. I will echo @HappyDays and say that adding a guy like Aiyuk would transform the entire offense and have a ripple effect, the likes of which its tough to overstate the potential ramifications. Unfortunately, I don't think Beane is particularly keen on handing out a $30 million receiver contract right after he just got out of the Diggs contract, and I also think he's happy with the current WR room. I don’t understand the logic behind not paying a #1 WR. The past 7 SB winners not named Philly (who is not the norm) has had a legit #1 option to throw to whether it be a TE or WR. Banking on a 2nd year TE and Rookie WR to turn you into a SB contender is just bad management imo. 1 1
Logic Posted July 16 Posted July 16 3 minutes ago, BuffaloBillsGospel2014 said: I don’t understand the logic behind not paying a #1 WR. The past 7 SB winners not named Philly (who is not the norm) has had a legit #1 option to throw to whether it be a TE or WR. Banking on a 2nd year TE and Rookie WR to turn you into a SB contender is just bad management imo. Preaching to the choir. 1 1
BarleyNY Posted July 16 Posted July 16 20 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: These disputes never hurt the team. Fans get pissed at the player. The 49ers already are very confident in whatever their current position is, considering all known options—-so much so they won’t even come to the table at this point. Theres no upside. They hold multiple cards. He holds one—a very expensive one for him to play That’s not remotely correct. Disputes between players and their teams often hurt the team. Though it wasn’t contract related, you don’t have to look any further than the dispute between Diggs and the Bills to see a team hurt. Unless you don’t think the $31M dead cap we got hit with this year is an issue. Lynch and the 49ers have screwed up similar situations multiple times over the last few seasons so I wouldn’t put too much stock in what they’re doing. As I explained, SF doesn’t really have a lot of good options. Be specific about what great option they have if you disagree. As for Aiyuk, he’s got generational wealth on the line. I do not blame him one bit for doing everything he can to get that before putting it at risk this season. 1
Warriorspikes51 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 At this point, part of me is good with the WR room we have. & after Diggs, I'm not a fan of this public drama. However, if he gets traded here and gets $$$....maybe you get 2-3 years out of him at an elite level without the nonsense. I'd be willing to do it. A fair offer IMO is 2025 1st + 4th. Extension 28 mil per range with a lot of it guaranteed 1
Augie Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Nailing a stud WR (or two) in the draft is sounding better all the time. 1
Htt2821 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 As a fellow Sun Devil, I am biased and would love to root for Aiyuk on the Bills as he and Josh would be amazing together.
iccrewman112 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 31 minutes ago, BuffaloBillsGospel2014 said: I don’t understand the logic behind not paying a #1 WR. The past 7 SB winners not named Philly (who is not the norm) has had a legit #1 option to throw to whether it be a TE or WR. Banking on a 2nd year TE and Rookie WR to turn you into a SB contender is just bad management imo. i firmly belief the passing offense runs through Kincaid. 150 targets this year
DapperCam Posted July 16 Posted July 16 I don’t think we have the cap to do this right? If we did make a move like this, I would hope it would be more of a long term move. This isn’t the year to go all in.
iccrewman112 Posted July 16 Posted July 16 5 minutes ago, Htt2821 said: As a fellow Sun Devil, I am biased and would love to root for Aiyuk on the Bills as he and Josh would be amazing together. from my understanding Aiyuk has big YAC. No receiver has really had good YAC with Josh. Maybe Josh or maybe the routes and system. But I’m not sure Aiyuk is the best fit for this offense. 2
Recommended Posts