Source: No progress made in negotiations with Goldson

[deep9er]

I wonder, if Goldson does indeed go PB again, does this pump his value/demand higher?

cerainly his value, no doubt.

will it make his demands go higher? good question, the easy answer would be yes, but depends on what he's asking now? if he's already asking to be paid like the top NFL Safety, then maybe not?

 

[MHSL82]

yes, the other contracts aren't being factored in cause its between that player and that team. its what the 49ers offered Goldson in a long term deal, and the tag amount.

earlier, just saying i side with the 49ers, why? because no other team stepped up and gave Goldson a long term deal. so Goldson isn't worth as much as he wanted....despite making the Pro Bowl. Baalke and staff had a reasonable offer on the table, likely higher than other teams?

so now, the tag amount is more than what they offered (broken down to average per year), GOING INTO this season he's "overpaid".

This might be a stupid question, but were other teams allowed to offer him long term deals? He was non-exclusive, so that's a 49ers-can-match situation, not the Niners franchised him so he's off the table situation, right? Is there anyone else out there that was franchised but then had their offer upped elsewhere? I always said one of the reasons Alex didn't get an offer from other teams was that he wasn't the best QB, but it was also because they knew he was coming here if Manning wasn't. Did other teams not offer Goldson because we franchised him? (We'd have let him go probably because we wouldn't want to be pushed to strap our cap by a team offering a lot just to get us to match like Portland did in the NBA to Utah with Paul Millsap.)

 

[deep9er]

This might be a stupid question, but were other teams allowed to offer him long term deals? He was non-exclusive, so that's a 49ers-can-match situation, not the Niners franchised him so he's off the table situation, right? Is there anyone else out there that was franchised but then had their offer upped elsewhere? I always said one of the reasons Alex didn't get an offer from other teams was that he wasn't the best QB, but it was also because they knew he was coming here if Manning wasn't. Did other teams not offer Goldson because we franchised him? (We'd have let him go probably because we wouldn't want to be pushed to strap our cap by a team offering a lot just to get us to match like Portland did in the NBA to Utah with Paul Millsap.)

ahhh, i stand corrected for mixing two seasons. PRIOR season he sought a long term deal but didn't get it. this season he was franchise tagged and couldn't receive offers.

a big difference was the prior season, he didn't make the Pro Bowl.

 

[Bemular]

wha.........so which tale are you telling?

he didn't get the long term contract he was seeking, so he's not a "complete player" according to 32 NFL teams. but for THIS season he's getting the tag amount, which is reserved for higher end Safeties. so for this season - going into the season - he's overpaid.

if you feel he's a legit PB Safety now (contrary to 32 NFL teams), and should be paid like one................no problem here.

I'm telling both of them separately - as they should be told. On the other hand you are clearly confusing or at least wrongly integrating one with the other. So, let me try and explain this a little more clearly.

Last year Goldson tested the FA market and was offered a contract with New England, the details of which are unknown - but an offer from New England is nothing to sneeze at. He was also offered a 5yr/$25m contract from us, another pretty damn good team.

So to say "he didn't get a long-term contract" is mis-leading at best and at worst absolute horseshit. Just because a player declines a long-term contract doesn't mean he didn't get a long-term offer - does that make sense?

Now, moving on to this year, this year he was tagged which, for all intents and purposes, pre-empts any serious negotiations he might have been able to solicit with other teams. Do you understand this, because this is where you seem to be confused?

Additionally, Goldson was one of the best performing FS's in the league last year - and rightfully earned Pro-Bowl honors for his efforts - so, yeah, last time I checked that makes him a legitimate Pro Bowl FS –at this time!

Finally, to say he is overpaid @ $6.2m after what Branch & Griffin were just paid is laughable. If we are to assume any football player is receiving fair market value for their services then DG is worth MORE than 6.2 at this time, not less.

Now perhaps you believe it would be an excellent strategy for Goldson's agent to negotiate a long-term contract based on what he did in 2010, but I'm pretty sure a strategy of such brilliance would get you punched in the mouth and fired all within 3 seconds.

And finally, speaking of NFL agents, it is interesting to note that Goldson's agent is Ben Dogra whom also happens to be Michael Griffin's agent - the guy who just signed a 5yr/$36m/$15g contract with the Titans. So, that should give us a sense of what type of contract he was seeking for Dashon

 

[imac_21]

ahhh, i stand corrected for mixing two seasons. PRIOR season he sought a long term deal but didn't get it. this season he was franchise tagged and couldn't receive offers.

a big difference was the prior season, he didn't make the Pro Bowl.

He could still receive offers. He just didn't because if he signed an offer sheet with a team, the Niners, in all likelihood, would have let him walk and taken the two first round picks as compensation.

How many franchise players in history have received long term offers from teams other than their own? You can probably count them on your hands, possibly only using one hand. I'm not talking about players who were traded while tagged, but players who signed offer sheets and joined a new team for the two first round pick compensation, or had the deal matched by their original team.

I can think of three off the top of my head: Sean Gilbert, Joey Galloway and Keyshawn Johnson. None of those were in the last 10 years.

 

[Bemular]

This might be a stupid question, but were other teams allowed to offer him long term deals? He was non-exclusive, so that's a 49ers-can-match situation, not the Niners franchised him so he's off the table situation, right? Is there anyone else out there that was franchised but then had their offer upped elsewhere? I always said one of the reasons Alex didn't get an offer from other teams was that he wasn't the best QB, but it was also because they knew he was coming here if Manning wasn't. Did other teams not offer Goldson because we franchised him? (We'd have let him go probably because we wouldn't want to be pushed to strap our cap by a team offering a lot just to get us to match like Portland did in the NBA to Utah with Paul Millsap.)

Any team was allowed to make Goldson an offer however they would have forfeited two first-round draft picks for doing so, because we would not have matched.

As for Alex, there was no market for Smith as a starter. There are 31 Alex Smith's in the NFL. And those teams that have their Alex Smith sitting behind their starter are happy and not looking for another Alex Smith.

And the teams that happen to have their Alex Smith as their starter - those teams are looking to upgrade. Thus, there was no market for our Alex Smith.

 

[deep9er]

I'm telling both of them separately - as they should be told. On the other hand you are clearly confusing or at least wrongly integrating one with the other. So, let me try and explain this a little more clearly.

Last year Goldson tested the FA market and was offered a contract with New England, the details of which are unknown - but an offer from New England is nothing to sneeze at. He was also offered a 5yr/$25m contract from us, another pretty damn good team.

So to say "he didn't get a long-term contract" is mis-leading at best and at worst absolute horseshit. Just because a player declines a long-term contract doesn't mean he didn't get a long-term offer - does that make sense?

Now, moving on to this year, this year he was tagged which, for all intents and purposes, pre-empts any serious negotiations he might have been able to solicit with other teams. Do you understand this, because this is where you seem to be confused?

Additionally, Goldson was one of the best performing FS's in the league last year - and rightfully earned Pro-Bowl honors for his efforts - so, yeah, last time I checked that makes him a legitimate Pro Bowl FS –at this time!

Finally, to say he is overpaid @ $6.2m after what Branch & Griffin were just paid is laughable. If we are to assume any football player is receiving fair market value for their services then DG is worth MORE than 6.2 at this time, not less.

Now perhaps you believe it would be an excellent strategy for Goldson's agent to negotiate a long-term contract based on what he did in 2010, but I'm pretty sure a strategy of such brilliance would get you punched in the mouth and fired all within 3 seconds.

And finally, speaking of NFL agents, it is interesting to note that Goldson's agent is Ben Dogra whom also happens to be Michael Griffin's agent - the guy who just signed a 5yr/$36m/$15g contract with the Titans. So, that should give us a sense of what type of contract he was seeking for Dashon

i stood corrected as noted just earlier, but i still feel he's overpaid. i posted earlier if you think he's worth more, no problem here.

if the 49ers felt he was already worth $6.2M a season, wouldn't they give him that amound now, in a long term contract?

 

[NinerSickness]

There are 31 Alex Smith's in the NFL.

Oh. I thought there were 2. I must've been mistaken.

 

[Bemular]

i stood corrected as noted just earlier, but i still feel he's overpaid. i posted earlier if you think he's worth more, no problem here.

if the 49ers felt he was already worth $6.2M a season, wouldn't they give him that amound now, in a long term contract?

Yeah, I didn't see your post until after I had already posted - no worries.

As to your question about the $6.2 - I'm positive Baalke would have loved to sign Goldson to a 5yr/$31m contract - but I'm sure Dogra said "no thanks".

 

[Jikkle]

Oh. I thought there were 2. I must've been mistaken.

Which have caused a few double takes on my part when checking a site like Rotoworld and wondering when did Alex Smith sign with the Browns.

 

[Bemular]

Oh. I thought there were 2. I must've been mistaken.

LOL! I stand corrected - there are 32 Alex Smith's besides our own!

 

[MHSL82]

Any team was allowed to make Goldson an offer however they would have forfeited two first-round draft picks for doing so, because we would not have matched.

As for Alex, there was no market for Smith as a starter. There are 31 Alex Smith's in the NFL. And those teams that have their Alex Smith sitting behind their starter are happy and not looking for another Alex Smith.

And the teams that happen to have their Alex Smith as their starter - those teams are looking to upgrade. Thus, there was no market for our Alex Smith.

Yeah, there was no market for our Alex Smith to be a starter, but there are places where Alex is better than the backup and he presumably could have started for Miami, but even Miami didn't want to pay him 8 M/year without assurances he'd win the competition. If Flynn had caved in for Miami, I could have seen Alex sign with Seattle for about what Flynn got. I still think that his perceived capabilities is why he wasn't offered, but the fact they knew he wanted to be here did not help.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Well, the good thing about 2013 is that Jairus Byrd is set to be a free agent too, and with him being 2 years younger with a ProBowl and AllPro under his belt, he might draw more attention in the Free Agent safety market next year... unless of course Goldson ends up playing so well that people start calling him the best FS in the NFC.

Re: Byrd, keep in mind that Weddle and several other pretty good FSs were FAs this year. They don't always - or even often - hit the free market if they're good and young.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

yes, the other contracts aren't being factored in cause its between that player and that team. its what the 49ers offered Goldson in a long term deal, and the tag amount.

earlier, just saying i side with the 49ers, why? because no other team stepped up and gave Goldson a long term deal. so Goldson isn't worth as much as he wanted....despite making the Pro Bowl. Baalke and staff had a reasonable offer on the table, likely higher than other teams?

so now, the tag amount is more than what they offered (broken down to average per year), GOING INTO this season he's "overpaid".

Just to clarify - and apologies if this was already addressed, I'm trying to catch up with the thread - teams couldn't have made offers this year, only last year. Or at least weren't likely to given what they'd have to give up. And Goldson was better this year than he's been, granted I'm not sure if he was as much better as his INT numbers would indicate. It's likely he would have drawn some interest on the free market this year, but it's hard to say how much given that he drew very little interest last year.

 

[Bemular]

Yeah, there was no market for our Alex Smith to be a starter, but there are places where Alex is better than the backup and he presumably could have started for Miami, but even Miami didn't want to pay him 8 M/year without assurances he'd win the competition. If Flynn had caved in for Miami, I could have seen Alex sign with Seattle for about what Flynn got. I still think that his perceived capabilities is why he wasn't offered, but the fact they knew he wanted to be here did not help.

Better than some back-ups? Absolutely! My post was more tongue-in-cheek than serious. But yeah, over the course of his last 22/23 games, Alex has put up excellent if not remarkable passing #'s. And IF, (big if) if he can continue that trend through the 16 games of 2012, then he will have given the critics enough reason for opinions to begin changing, and, IMO, many will change.

 

[Bemular]

Just to clarify - and apologies if this was already addressed, I'm trying to catch up with the thread - teams couldn't have made offers this year, only last year. Or at least weren't likely to given what they'd have to give up. And Goldson was better this year than he's been, granted I'm not sure if he was as much better as his INT numbers would indicate. It's likely he would have drawn some interest on the free market this year, but it's hard to say how much given that he drew very little interest last year.

Just to clarify the particular comment in bold, that statement is incorrect, teams could have made offers - and it is even possible some did.

 

[imac_21]

i stood corrected as noted just earlier, but i still feel he's overpaid. i posted earlier if you think he's worth more, no problem here.

if the 49ers felt he was already worth $6.2M a season, wouldn't they give him that amound now, in a long term contract?

How do you feel Goldson compares to Michael Griffin or Tyvon Branch? They both signed for a shade over 7M per year.

You may feel that Goldson isn't worth 6.2M per year, but the market suggests otherwise. If you want to have a top calibre FS, you need to be willing to pay 7M+ to make it happen.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Just to clarify the particular comment in bold, that statement is incorrect, teams could have made offers - and it is even possible some did.

That's why you've got to read the next sentence. You're right, it was technically incorrect, but I clarified my meaning immediately afterward.

 

[Bemular]

That's why you've got to read the next sentence. You're right, it was technically incorrect, but I clarified my meaning immediately afterward.

That's why you need to better understand what I posted. I did read your following sentence - It did not clarify the first sentence it contradicted it, there is a difference. What I wrote clarified that it was wrong - which it was - let's just leave it there.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That's why you need to better understand what I posted. I did read your following sentence - It did not clarify the first sentence it contradicted it, there is a difference. What I wrote clarified that it was wrong - which it was - let's just leave it there.

I understand what you posted. It's just nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking.