Why Alex might be traded not cut

[NinerSickness]

I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier.

last year Alex signed what is essentially a 1 year contract for 4 million dollars. Now he's had by far the best season of his career. He's shown a hell of a lot more than Kevin Kolb did when he was traded.

Kevin Kolb signed for 6 years & 62 million dollars. (wow). Matt Flynn even signed for 3 years & 19.5 million after starting 1 like 1 game.

Alex is easily a better QB than Kolb. If he gets into URFA, he should get a contract at least as big as Kolb did. So let's say he'll sign for his jersey number per season (11). Kolb got more guarenteed money in his contract without even factoring his 2012 salary than the next 2 years of Alex' contract combined (21 million).

So teams who would like to give Alex a try have 2 options. (1) Sign him to a big FA QB sized contract and shell out probaly 25 million in guarentees (at least) or (2) Trade for him and essentially get him for a 1 year contract at 9.75 million with a team option for another year at 8.75 million. And zero of that would be guarenteed, so they could just cut him if it didn't work out. If I were a team who wanted him, I'd be much more comfortable with the 2nd option because it's a far lower financial risk. They get a year to try him out & see what he can do. The Cards didn't get that option with Kolb.

So that's why I think there's a chance the Niners could trade Alex rather than cut him. The question is how much could they get for him? A 3rd rounder? A 2nd???

 

[MHSL82]

I thought of this, but then thought that if I suggested that Smith would get a big contract like Kolb did (potential based), the thought would be rejected, maybe even by you. I think that he could get a contract between what he has and what Kolb got, not the same or bigger than Kolb. The reason is because the Kolb deal was predicated on potential, Smith's deal would be "you get what you see" (though what you've seen is better than Kolb turned out so far) - plus, the Kolb deal wasn't exactly done by the best people business or football wise. The bottom line is if the deal they would likely get is higher than his current contract, then depending on the draft pick, it would be best to trade, not go through FA - it doesn't need to be Kolb sized to give the incentive - unless the Kolb deal - minus Alex deal is worth less than the value for the draft pick.

 

[NinerSickness]

You may have a point about Kolb's potential. However, he was never an extremely talented QB. He probably has a stronger arm than Alex, but not by a huge margin.

 

[MHSL82]

You may have a point about Kolb's potential. However, he was never an extremely talented QB. He probably hass a stronger arm than Alex, but not by a huge margin.

Oh the hype was so great that I heard people saying that they should get him for a few draft picks (they also sent their CB) and THAT contract instead of a 5 million Alex Smith in a lockout season that Harbaugh was endorsing for the off-season short season. Saying we wanted Kaepernick as a rookie, if going on potential, would have been better. Hasselbeck, for a year, I could see. Etc. Mind you, this was when we thought the lockout year would be rebuilding and 8-8 or something (or worse).

But it seemed from day one that the money Kolb's agent was asking for and the draft picks were too much. It was good that he had more experience than Flynn, but still, I thought "come for the picks, play, and then extend." But that's not how football negotiations work. Apparently, trading a big player and 2 2nds wasn't enough to show the locker-room he was your guy, they had to also give him the big contract. Then, after that, didn't they do a QB competition after that? It seems like that would negate all the support you showed in the trade and deal, to say, "maybe Skelton's better?"

 

[NinerSickness]

Oh the hype was so great that I heard people saying that they should get him for a few draft picks (they also sent their CB) and THAT contract instead of a 5 million Alex Smith in a lockout season

People also vehemently supported McNabb, Troy Smith & Michael Vick as the answer. I'm sure I'm forgetting another. It was all proof that football fans have memories like goldfish and simply cannot be realistic (for the most part; some can).

 

[imac_21]

Sick, the Kolb comparison fails because Kolb is not performing anywhere close to what he was expected to do. Teams won't look at the Kolb deal and think Smith is worth something similar. That's like looking at Jamarcus Russell and deciding Tim Couch was a good first overall pick.

 

[NinerSickness]

Sick, the Kolb comparison fails because Kolb is not performing anywhere close to what he was expected to do. Teams won't look at the Kolb deal and think Smith is worth something similar. That's like looking at Jamarcus Russell and deciding Tim Couch was a good first overall pick.

True, but Kolb got the contract before he played like crap & before he was even a starter. When they signed Kolb, were they expecting he was going to play better than Alex did this season? That would've been pretty dang optimistic.

Although it was the Cardinals, so maybe you have to throw reason out the door.

 

[imac_21]

True, but Kolb got the contract before he played like crap & before he was even a starter. When they signed Kolb, were they expecting he was going to play better than Alex did this season? That would've been pretty dang optimistic.

Although it was the Cardinals, so maybe you have to throw reason out the door.

Yes they were. You don't trade for him if you don't think he can lead your team to wins.

 

[NinerSickness]

So basically Alex has a potential 1 year 9.75 million dollar contract & an option for next at 8.75 with zero guarenteed money; but it would cost a draft pick or player.

Does that scenario beat paying him what he'd get on the open market?

By the way, Ryan Fitzpatrick got about the same amount of money as Kolb did.

 

[imac_21]

So basically Alex has a potential 1 year 9.75 million dollar contract & an option for next at 8.75 with zero guarenteed money; but it would cost a draft pick or player.

Does that scenario beat paying him what he'd get on the open market?

By the way, Ryan Fitzpatrick got about the same amount of money as Kolb did.

Would either of those guys get the same contract today?

 

[mem49er]

Would either of those guys get the same contract today?

I think these guys (and Flynn) will be why Alex won't get a ton on the market.

 

[49er4life1979]

There will deinitely be a market out there for Alex's services...Buffalo, KC, Arizona, Jacksonville, maybe Philly.

 

[NinerSickness]

Would either of those guys get the same contract today?

I don't think they would. You can never rule out the Raiders doing something that dumb though.

 

[NinerSickness]

There will deinitely be a market out there for Alex's services...Buffalo, KC, Arizona, Jacksonville, maybe Philly.

I think KC is the most likely destination. Alex is a Reid kind of QB, and the Chiefs probably don't want to spend the 1st pick overall on a QB.

By the way, the Chiefs are probably the most talented team to get the 1st overall pick in a long time. They just had abomidable QB play and even worse coaching. If they took Jarvis Jones, that front 7 could be scary talented.

I expect the Chiefs to try to trade down because they don't need a LT (Joeckel) or a DT (Star), and I expect them to be the first 2 players off the board.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Would either of those guys get the same contract today?

Probably not. But Smith is markedly better than either of them today. I think there could be a market for Smith. His contract really is quite reasonable, even if he's not a game-breaker. And the guy is still quite young given his experience.

 

[NinerSickness]

Do you think getting a 3rd round pick is wishful thinking? Maybe a 4th if it's the Chiefs?

 

[MHSL82]

From Bingo's Post in the BS Thread for a Schefter Article:

The more interesting quarterback contract is the one belonging to San Francisco's Alex Smith, who will be the object of speculation from Kansas City to Philadelphia to Buffalo. And here's the CliffsNotes version of Smith's contract, for anyone wondering about it.

If Smith is still on the 49ers' roster April 1, his $7.5 million salary becomes fully guaranteed, per a review of the deal, no questions asked. Most around the league expect the 49ers to make their move with Smith well before then.

But there are other dates that have ramifications for Smith as well. If he is traded by the third day of the league year -- March 14 -- then the 49ers owe him nothing. If Smith is cut before the third day of the league year, the 49ers owe him a $1 million roster bonus. If Smith is cut after the third day of the league year, the 49ers owe him a $2 million roster bonus.

In a perfect world, San Francisco would find a trade partner and deal Smith before March 14. But it will not be easy to find a trade partner or work out a deal. Any team that wants Smith might be willing to wait for him to be cut, putting more pressure on the 49ers. The most logical outcome might be for San Francisco to eat the $1 million roster bonus and release Smith. And then the speculation really would begin.

But whichever way it goes, San Francisco has another big quarterback decision to make on top of the one it made to bench Smith for Kaepernick.

As much talk as Flacco's new contract will generate, the Super Bowl quarterback with the most intriguing contractual situation is Smith.

 

[MHSL82]

So it sounds like the order of preference is:

1. Trade before March 14th.
2. Trade after March 14th.
3. Cut him before March 14th.
4. Cut or trade after April 1st.

I thought they might drag along, saying that AS + CK salaries together is reasonable for the QB position and Alex is a great backup - so as to raise the trade value - but now, it's clear that action will be taken before March 14th preferably. The April 1st date is big, but it seems like March 14th is bigger, as far as waste. We waste 1-2 million if we don't act by then and get nothing but the trade or a cap hit. If we don't release or trade before April 1st, we still get his services as a backup.

 

[imac_21]

I don't think they would. You can never rule out the Raiders doing something that dumb though.

So if you don't think that those deals would happen again, why would hold them up as the standard for trading Smith?

Was Rashaun Woods a good pick because he had a better rookie year than AJ Jenkins?

 

[imac_21]

Probably not. But Smith is markedly better than either of them today. I think there could be a market for Smith. His contract really is quite reasonable, even if he's not a game-breaker. And the guy is still quite young given his experience.

If Smith is markedly better than Kolb, then isn't that more reason to question why the Kolb deal is a viable comparison for a Smith deal?