Buffalo_Stampede Posted July 17 Posted July 17 (edited) 49ers will sign Aiyuk. If they were going to trade him they would’ve traded him before the draft. They won’t have a high cap QB for a couple years depending how they structure Purdy. They’re trying to win a Super Bowl at all costs. Edited July 17 by Buffalo_Stampede 1
BADOLBILZ Posted July 17 Posted July 17 6 hours ago, Richard Noggin said: The main question that is still unanswered for me, at least, is: IS Aiyuk that "star weapon (who) creates space for everyone else"? I don't necessarily trust his ability to fully translate and thrive in a different system, away from Shanny (and that STACKED offensive depth chart). Definitely don't trust it enough to justify the two-pronged price he'll cost (both trade and cap). That's my main objection. So really I'm not satisfied that Aiyuk is a sure enough bet on the field to justify his trade value and long term salary cap impact. Pretty much everyone else DOES think Aiyuk's expensive juice is worth the squeeze (sorry)? Aiyuk is even more dominant than Diggs was when they acquired him..........but he wouldn't be my preference because he's a lot like Diggs in that he's built more for the regular season. My contention since we saw the Chiefs rough up the Bills WR's in the 2020 AFCCG is that their WR corps was built without consideration for the playoffs. I think the Bills have eventually/gradually identified that and have changed the type of targets they have been looking for. To me, the better fit for Buffalo would be DK Metcalf. I'm sure statistical models wouldn't project him to be as good as Aiyuk in the regular season over the next few years..........Aiyuk is clearly the more efficient player. But when the refs put the flags away DK has the physicality to excel and he's proven that in the playoffs. I also think his future contract cost could be substantially less than that of Aiyuk........maybe $5M to $8M aav less. He has less contract leverage and his stats say he is more of a high-end "WR1B" compared to Aiyuk in the regular season. His trade value is probably lower because of the regular season projections. 5
Mr. WEO Posted July 17 Posted July 17 11 hours ago, Low Positive said: Diggs chose Houston at the Pro Bowl. For most athletes in the US, the NBA has provided a model for a player-run league. Now, in the NFL both Diggs and Rodgers have not only forced a trade but also chosen their destination. I expect this to become the norm moving forward. Diggs "forced a trade"?? lol---they were so keen to get rid of him at that point that they ate 31 million! come on, you're not serious--show me where Diggs demanded a trade. The Packers absolutely toyed with Rodgers over that whole offseason trade saga. Then they The NFL will never be anything like the NFL. Get back to us when a very top NFL player (that was Rodgers a couple years ago maybe). That trade, for the Jets, has been a total zero.--and a boon to the Packers. Recall the Packers toyed with Rodgers and his trade that whole off-season. And this is for a guy at the very end of his career. 10 hours ago, BarleyNY said: You still haven’t answered the main question: what’s SF’s play? Making him play out this season and getting a comp pick? Sure, they can do that, but that’s a poor outcome for the team unless they win the SB this season. I was gaming out what would be best for BOTH sides. You’re biased in favor of the team and that seems to be keeping you from seeing the larger picture. Making a deal would be in both of their best interests. But if they can’t come to an agreement, then getting some value in trade would be in SF’s best interest. And Aiyuk would still get his big contract. I don't know what their play is, ultimately. It doesn't matter to this conversation: the point of which is that they have all their options open to them. He can play or not get paid. That is the opposite of leverage. The larger picture is the team feels they have no need to come to the table--understanding the player's extremely limited option list. Everyone understands a deal "would be in both their interests". That's why it's called a deal, in fact. Everyone understands that if they don't come to an agreement, the player is traded, forced to honor his contract (he may hold out) or franchised. Requesting or even "demanding a trade" changes none of this. The 49ers (any team, really) would have expected this and already considered it. 4 hours ago, Chicken Boo said: I don't know about that. This is their last hurrah with this current Super Bowl ready roster. It's risky, if that's their plan. Aiyuk is under contract. Samuel has 2 more years left on his.
MR8 Posted July 17 Posted July 17 JMO but I think the situation with Diggs will have the Bills be gun-shy on this kind of massive move. Sure Diggs worked out perfectly initially... They wanted a proven weapon for a young QB getting his feet under him, and Diggs was that. But when we re-signed Diggs to the massive deal we went counter what KC did... They traded away Hill in the same year betting on their QB to raise the level of play around him. We Dumped tons of money into Diggs. Fast forward to now and we're dealing with massive dead cap from Diggs basically forcing his way out in what became an ugly divorce. Hills is making gobs of money in Miami but already wants a new deal... But they haven't even won the division. Meanwhile KC stands as SB Champs. You need good WRs for sure, and like many here I am concerned about ours. But giving up a boat load of draft capital plus $30M per year to a WR just seems like a bad investment. Unless a dude is 100% ALL IN on your team, you just can't sink that kind of money into them. If they're unhappy 1-2 years from now, you've completed boned yourself capwise for at least a year. Players are predominantly mercenaries, they don't give a flying F about teams, fans, dynasty building, salary cap, etc... if we move a bunch of assets for Ayuik, sure hell be loyal once he gets paid... Until he's not. Then it's a problem again for us, and he'll already be eating massive amounts of our cap space. It's fun to think about what this offense could be with him, but honestly it's a bad move business wise, and yes that does matter. The bigger concern for me is them not double or even triple dipping at WR in the draft to try and rebuild the room organically like the Bengals have done year over year. They put a lot of eggs in one basket with Coleman and I'll never understand not even taking a late flier when we had a gazillion late picks. But no, we shouldn't mortgage our future cap situation and draft assets which are cost controlled players of the future just for a run and Ayuik. 4
BarleyNY Posted July 17 Posted July 17 38 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: I don't know what their play is, ultimately. It doesn't matter to this conversation: the point of which is that they have all their options open to them. He can play or not get paid. That is the opposite of leverage. The larger picture is the team feels they have no need to come to the table--understanding the player's extremely limited option list. Everyone understands a deal "would be in both their interests". That's why it's called a deal, in fact. Everyone understands that if they don't come to an agreement, the player is traded, forced to honor his contract (he may hold out) or franchised. Requesting or even "demanding a trade" changes none of this. The 49ers (any team, really) would have expected this and already considered it. Aiyuk is under contract. Samuel has 2 more years left on his. SF’s play absolutely matters. In fact, it’s been the point of my conversation. Your point seems to be that since Aiyuk is under contract for this season then SF holds all the cards and nothing else matters. It is easy for me to see why 2025 and beyond matters. My take on that has been that, while it is obvious that SF can force Aiyuk to play under his 5th year option, that is SF’s worst long term option. They’d be better off either coming to an agreement or trading him for a player that can help them beyond this season plus draft capital. Since they probably can’t afford an Aiyuk extension, then a trade would be their best choice.
oldmanfan Posted July 17 Posted July 17 54 minutes ago, MR8 said: JMO but I think the situation with Diggs will have the Bills be gun-shy on this kind of massive move. Sure Diggs worked out perfectly initially... They wanted a proven weapon for a young QB getting his feet under him, and Diggs was that. But when we re-signed Diggs to the massive deal we went counter what KC did... They traded away Hill in the same year betting on their QB to raise the level of play around him. We Dumped tons of money into Diggs. Fast forward to now and we're dealing with massive dead cap from Diggs basically forcing his way out in what became an ugly divorce. Hills is making gobs of money in Miami but already wants a new deal... But they haven't even won the division. Meanwhile KC stands as SB Champs. You need good WRs for sure, and like many here I am concerned about ours. But giving up a boat load of draft capital plus $30M per year to a WR just seems like a bad investment. Unless a dude is 100% ALL IN on your team, you just can't sink that kind of money into them. If they're unhappy 1-2 years from now, you've completed boned yourself capwise for at least a year. Players are predominantly mercenaries, they don't give a flying F about teams, fans, dynasty building, salary cap, etc... if we move a bunch of assets for Ayuik, sure hell be loyal once he gets paid... Until he's not. Then it's a problem again for us, and he'll already be eating massive amounts of our cap space. It's fun to think about what this offense could be with him, but honestly it's a bad move business wise, and yes that does matter. The bigger concern for me is them not double or even triple dipping at WR in the draft to try and rebuild the room organically like the Bengals have done year over year. They put a lot of eggs in one basket with Coleman and I'll never understand not even taking a late flier when we had a gazillion late picks. But no, we shouldn't mortgage our future cap situation and draft assets which are cost controlled players of the future just for a run and Ayuik. The fliers were guys like Claypool and Hamler and MVS.
Mr. WEO Posted July 17 Posted July 17 47 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: SF’s play absolutely matters. In fact, it’s been the point of my conversation. Your point seems to be that since Aiyuk is under contract for this season then SF holds all the cards and nothing else matters. It is easy for me to see why 2025 and beyond matters. My take on that has been that, while it is obvious that SF can force Aiyuk to play under his 5th year option, that is SF’s worst long term option. They’d be better off either coming to an agreement or trading him for a player that can help them beyond this season plus draft capital. Since they probably can’t afford an Aiyuk extension, then a trade would be their best choice. no one is disagreeing with the obvious. all i have said is him demanding a trade changes nothing--it's an empty act. they already assumed he would say this and clearly have considered a trade as a routine option in this situation. that's what is being discussed.
Iraq Vet Posted July 17 Posted July 17 McBEAN, DON'T DO IT!!!.... Save our draft picks and cap space for 2025. We need to let this play out... This is not a SB year... It will be a a fun year though. But next year, lay it on the line! We need to know if the defense is ok with all of the loses and replacements. We need to know about these WR's. What if some of this works? Then you can be really focus in 2025 in filling the holes using cap space and trading. 1
Sammy Watkins' Rib Posted July 17 Posted July 17 3 hours ago, Buffalo03 said: Who were his QBs again? I already acknowledged that, In the very next sentence so I don’t quite understand why you are bringing that up. I’d rather not make excuses for a player at his age. If he were 27 or 28 then I could probably look past that.
BarleyNY Posted July 17 Posted July 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: no one is disagreeing with the obvious. all i have said is him demanding a trade changes nothing--it's an empty act. they already assumed he would say this and clearly have considered a trade as a routine option in this situation. that's what is being discussed. lol. then why did you stray so far from that singular point? especially when the level of disagreement was so small on that point? the rest of us are discussing the whole situation. Edited July 17 by BarleyNY
eball Posted July 17 Posted July 17 2 hours ago, Iraq Vet said: McBEAN, DON'T DO IT!!!.... Save our draft picks and cap space for 2025. We need to let this play out... This is not a SB year... It will be a a fun year though. But next year, lay it on the line! We need to know if the defense is ok with all of the loses and replacements. We need to know about these WR's. What if some of this works? Then you can be really focus in 2025 in filling the holes using cap space and trading. Part of me wants to agree with you, but I think Beane and McDermott know that it would be criminal to “waste” even a single season of Josh Allen in his prime. They are trying to win the whole damn thing this year as well. 2
Herc11 Posted July 17 Posted July 17 18 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: the 49ers would be the ones already fielding offers. A player can’t arrange a trade. No, but they can seek trade partners with their teams permission.
Mr. WEO Posted July 17 Posted July 17 2 hours ago, BarleyNY said: lol. then why did you stray so far from that singular point? especially when the level of disagreement was so small on that point? the rest of us are discussing the whole situation. i never strayed from it--- i've repeated it several times, in fact. you keep reiterating all of the options the 49ers have. no one disputes them. 34 minutes ago, Herc11 said: No, but they can seek trade partners with their teams permission. nah...teams trade players. players don't trade teams. as such, I'm sure the 49ers already have discussed this with possible trade partners in order to weight the value they get in return and weigh it against paying him or franchising him. the player wouldn't be part of those discussions. he may prefer to to go to this other team or that, but it's not up to him. 1 1
Fleezoid Posted July 17 Posted July 17 On 7/16/2024 at 1:43 PM, Bills!Win! said: Must be tough being on the consistently best nfc team Exactly! This just proves, when a player says "My only goal is to win a Suber Bowl", it's likely BS! Their only goal is to get paid as much, or more than the guy that just got a new contract.
Herc11 Posted July 17 Posted July 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: nah...teams trade players. players don't trade teams. as such, I'm sure the 49ers already have discussed this with possible trade partners in order to weight the value they get in return and weigh it against paying him or franchising him. the player wouldn't be part of those discussions. he may prefer to to go to this other team or that, but it's not up to him. Not sure why you keep arguing this. Here's some examples. A simple Google search would of stopped you from looking like you don't know what you're talking about. https://www.nfl.com/news/colts-grant-rb-jonathan-taylor-permission-to-seek-trade https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bears-jaylon-johnson-requests-trade-team-grants-cornerback-permission-to-search-for-new-home-per-report/amp/ https://www.espn.com.sg/nfl/story/_/id/39505069/source-eagles-grant-haason-reddick-permission-seek-trade https://www.nfl.com/news/cole-beasley-bills-grant-wr-permission-to-seek-trade Edited July 17 by Herc11
MikePJ76 Posted July 17 Posted July 17 On 7/16/2024 at 1:00 PM, H2o said: We're not handing out the draft capital to acquire, nor are we going to pay Aiyuk $30M a year. It won't happen. Rightfully so. He is absolutely not worth the draft capital and salary he would cost. 1
MikePJ76 Posted July 17 Posted July 17 22 hours ago, Doc Brown said: He'll go for at least a 1st and you're biding against pry 5 to 10 other teams. I just think about it as a 1st and Diggs for Aiyuk. I've been a huge fan of his since college and think he'd be a bonafide top five #1 WR with Allen. Think he's at least on par with 2020 Diggs on what he'll give you the next five years. No way he brings back a first. If Brian Burnes at a more important position in the prime of his career can't return a first you would have to be mental to offer a 1st for a guy demanding to be traded. Anyone who gives up a 1st for this guy is crazy.
Alphadawg7 Posted July 17 Posted July 17 1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said: I wouldnt be upset with this. Keep Adams off the Jets Wow, this is kind of funny because my wife is a die hard Niners fan, and we were watching episodes 2 and 3 of "Receiver" on Netflix last night where 2nd episode is all on Davante and JJ. She is fed up with Aiyuk drama and the first thing she said was I wish we would just trade Aiyuk to the Raiders so we they can give us Davante because he is so good. As an avid football fan, she also knows "rumors" more often than not are nothing, so she won't get too excited about this. But she is at least gonna love that someone somewhere is at least mentioning it as a possibility lol 1
Recommended Posts