There are 382 users in the forums

What will Jimmy's trade value be in the offseason?

Shop Find 49ers gear online

What will Jimmy's trade value be in the offseason?

Originally posted by NotAFinga42:
And I truly believe that's what Jimmy will be wherever he goes, which is why I have a hard time seeing anyone giving up a 2nd. High price for a stopgap.

When you consider the dropoff in performance, its not that hefty of a price to get some actual NFL level quarterbacking for a few seasons. Garoppolo is about as far above the Mason Rudolph/crap QB tier as he is below the Mahomes/Rodgers tier. Just look at the difference in the 49ers records with Garoppolo starting and guys like Mullens/Beathard. Having an experienced veteran that you can plug in as a starter and expect him to play reasonably well while you wait for your QBOTF isn't the worst thing.
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Just your friendly reminder that:

-Sam Darnold was 23 years old when the trade was completed. He was believed to still have promise/upside.

-NFL franchises are arrogant. It doesnt matter that Darnold sucked for the Jets. NFL teams believe they are smarter/better coached than other teams.

You tell people to come back to reality, but you ignore the reality of this Darnold situation.

That team also picked up his 5th yr option which around $19M. Teams NEED a QB, it's the one position were you can't afford to toss out trash for a full season. We all said what we had to say about Jimmy, facts are he is better than Darnold. He's better than what a lot of teams have going on right now and will absolutely have value. It's no different then KC giving SF 2 second rd picks for Smith IMO they are very similar prospects.
Originally posted by Waterbear:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by NotAFinga42:
Still no idea why people keep adding Pittsburgh as a potential spot. Tomlin has said he wants his next QB to be mobile. Don't really have any like that in the draft, so unless they are able to get Wilson I see them just getting a stopgap this year until they can draft their future mobile quarterback.

Any team trading for Garoppolo is likely to see him as a short-term stop-gap until they can develop a younger passer. Pittsburgh has a playoff ready roster right now. Do you think they are going to look to waste that with Mason Rudolph?

I've seen people argue that Jimmy's contract won't matter to teams because they would eventually extend him. But other people assume he will be a stop gap.

Doesn't that contradict itself? You can't extend that contract too much for someone who you might not want to keep for more than one season.

Bump. Curious to see what people think.

Would a team extend Jimmy a couple more year while knowing he won't be their starter in year 2 or 3?
Originally posted by Waterbear:
Bump. Curious to see what people think.

Would a team extend Jimmy a couple more year while knowing he won't be their starter in year 2 or 3?

I don't see any reason why not. A frontloaded 3 or 4 year contract wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, especially if a team isn't dazzled by any of the QB's that might be available to them.
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Just your friendly reminder that:

-Sam Darnold was 23 years old when the trade was completed. He was believed to still have promise/upside.

-NFL franchises are arrogant. It doesnt matter that Darnold sucked for the Jets. NFL teams believe they are smarter/better coached than other teams.

You tell people to come back to reality, but you ignore the reality of this Darnold situation.

That team also picked up his 5th yr option which around $19M. Teams NEED a QB, it's the one position were you can't afford to toss out trash for a full season. We all said what we had to say about Jimmy, facts are he is better than Darnold. He's better than what a lot of teams have going on right now and will absolutely have value. It's no different then KC giving SF 2 second rd picks for Smith IMO they are very similar prospects.

I have never said Jimmy wasnt better than Darnold. He is. He has accomplished more and has played at a higher level than Darnold has. I was merely stating reasons why some teams (Carolina) might have found Darnold to be an attractive option.
I think we get a conditional first if he meets certain criteria and the demand is high enough. Stafford had some injury issues too, albeit he's considered more talented.

If we can squeeze at least two picks out of someone (and not some stupid swap of picks), or a pick and a player who will make the team, I'll be happy.
[ Edited by OnTheClock on Feb 1, 2022 at 12:29 PM ]
Originally posted by Waterbear:
Bump. Curious to see what people think.

Would a team extend Jimmy a couple more year while knowing he won't be their starter in year 2 or 3?

Why would a team "know" that we won't be the starter year 2 or 3? We have had him 5 years and started him all 5. No team is giving up draft assets is they "know" he won't start year 2.
  • dj43
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 36,609
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
I think we get a conditional first if he meets certain criteria and the demand is high enough. Stafford had some injury issues too, albeit he's considered more talented.

If we can squeeze at least two picks out of someone (and not some stupid swap of picks), or a pick and a player who will make the team, I'll be happy.

More likely a 2nd this season and a conditional 2nd or 3rd next year that would move up based on certain criteria. A 2nd this year from one of the lower teams would be a great value. It would not be much lower than our own first this year, if we still had one.
I won't be surprised if it's a 2nd or conditional 1st. He is a starting QB with playoff experience under his belt. That is hard to come by in the NFL.

Realistically? Probably a 3rd. Which I will gladly take.
  • Deebo
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 1,516
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
I think we get a conditional first if he meets certain criteria and the demand is high enough. Stafford had some injury issues too, albeit he's considered more talented.

If we can squeeze at least two picks out of someone (and not some stupid swap of picks), or a pick and a player who will make the team, I'll be happy.

a 2nd plus anything would be like Christmas
Originally posted by Deebo:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
I think we get a conditional first if he meets certain criteria and the demand is high enough. Stafford had some injury issues too, albeit he's considered more talented.

If we can squeeze at least two picks out of someone (and not some stupid swap of picks), or a pick and a player who will make the team, I'll be happy.

a 2nd plus anything would be like Christmas
Originally posted by gold49digger:
I won't be surprised if it's a 2nd or conditional 1st. He is a starting QB with playoff experience under his belt. That is hard to come by in the NFL.

Realistically? Probably a 3rd. Which I will gladly take.

I think a 2nd is given, its what else that comes with it that is up in the air. If they get a 2nd and a conditional future pick like a 3rd or 4th, I'd be pretty psyched.
Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Originally posted by Waterbear:
Bump. Curious to see what people think.

Would a team extend Jimmy a couple more year while knowing he won't be their starter in year 2 or 3?

Why would a team "know" that we won't be the starter year 2 or 3? We have had him 5 years and started him all 5. No team is giving up draft assets is they "know" he won't start year 2.

Phoenix said "Any team trading for Garoppolo is likely to see him as a short-term stop-gap until they can develop a younger passer."

That's why I asked the question about extending his contract. It seemed like those two statements simultaneously contradict each other.

Why wouldn't a team sign a FA over Jimmy G if they're looking for a stop gap since they wouldn't have to trade picks and their plan would be to move on in year 2 or 3 anyway?

Im not arguing no one will want Jimmy g for multiple years like how you're framing it.
Originally posted by Waterbear:
Phoenix said "Any team trading for Garoppolo is likely to see him as a short-term stop-gap until they can develop a younger passer."

That's why I asked the question about extending his contract. It seemed like those two statements simultaneously contradict each other.

Why wouldn't a team sign a FA over Jimmy G if they're looking for a stop gap since they wouldn't have to trade picks and their plan would be to move on in year 2 or 3 anyway?

Im not arguing no one will want Jimmy g for multiple years like how you're framing it.

Because they may not be drafting a QB this year or next year. Eventually they are going to find a young passer that they like but until that happens, a team can do far worse than Garoppolo. The worst thing you can do is draft a QB, any QB, just because you need one. If you have a steady veteran in there who has shown that he can win some big games, there's less pressure to reach for a QB in the draft.
  • dj43
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 36,609
Lynch is going to slow play a trade to build the market. He's saying, "all cards are on the table," plus Jed's comment that he is willing to pay both of them again, will tell other teams this is not a fire sale. So, while it seems unrealistic they would do that, it leaves doubt in other teams' minds thereby moving them to offer more if they want JG now.
Theme: Auto • LightDark
Search Share 49ersWebzone