Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 19:37:56 GMT -7
The San Francisco 49ers and Atlanta Falcons have agreed to the following trade.
49ers receive-
Luke Kuechley 12.4M (2021)
Donte Jackson 1.2M (2021)
Shelby Harris 3.8M (2022)
Tashaun Gipson 6.0M (2022)
Gehrig Dieter 750k (2022)
2020 3rd round pick from the Texans
Falcons receive-
Travis Kelce 9.4M (2021)
Danny Trevathon 7.0M (2019)
Blake Martinez 681K (2019)
The Falcons accept with this post. We missed on the draft and FA to land that quality TE. We felt the offensive balance was needed to make a run in the next couple years. We also are getting 1 year of service of two outstanding LBs and will have opened cap to tag or resign them and fill some other traded away depth next off season. This deal was made with a 2019-2021 goal of competing in the division.
We did sell off a lot of very nice defensive pieces. Recognizing the 49ers were short on long term contracts, we felt we could utilize our extreme depth built both in the inaugural draft and FA to get some high end pieces to strengthen both our LB core and TE position, our weakest spot on team.
Thanks to the 49ers for continued work on this trade. I believe we came to an agreement that will help both teams achieve their goals down the road.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 19:59:40 GMT -7
The 49ers have agreed to the trade posted above. It was my feeling as gm for the 49ers that leveraging Travis Kelce in trade would benefit my team by allowing me to improve and stabilize my defensive players over the next few years. In this trade I also traded away 2 good LBs with 1year contracts, I did this because I would not be able to keep both of them thru FA next year because of the poor salaries and bigger concerns else where on my team. I believe this trade will allow the Flacons to continue their win now attitude and will align the 49ers to win over the next decade.
Thank you to the Falcons(Steve) for a smooth transaction
|
|
|
|
Post by Raiders GM (Sean) on Jun 20, 2019 21:15:23 GMT -7
Deny 0-1. I just don't see enough here to land Kelce straight up, let alone get two more proven starting 3-down backers in it as well. IMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 21:19:24 GMT -7
Approve 1-1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 1:57:12 GMT -7
Veto 1-2
Im with the Raiders. Is a lot of filler for Kelce. I understand the thought process on the contracts but players wise not close for a elite TE.
The 9ers said in their acceptance felt best thing for the franchise is to leverage Kelce to win over the next decade. I'm not seeing how the players being received help that besides being on contracts that odds are by the time a rebuild is done won't be on the roster.
So if anything Kelce can help the 9ers for the next decade with an extension or should be able to bring back younger and/or more high value picks if looking to build for the future.
Enough teams here are trying to win now that being able to move LB on 1yr deals for picks or younger players shouldn't be too difficult now that teams know they are available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 2:33:58 GMT -7
I believe we are forgetting Kuechley was a 1st round inaugural pick in our draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Blaine) on Jun 21, 2019 5:08:41 GMT -7
Veto 1-3
I have been thinking this over for awhile. I have to agree the value is not there for the 49ers. The best player they get is Kuechly but they also give up two very good LBs but they are on 1 year deals. I think the LB swap is fair then I look at the other pieces for Kelce and it’s not close. TE is a bit of a scarce position and if I’m not mistaken Kelce was the #1 TE last season. The niners ought to be able to at least get an offensive piece back in the deal. I’m sure the two teams can rework the deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 5:21:39 GMT -7
Approve 2-3
Whether or not you disagree with the value of the trade, I see no clear signs if collusion and no effort to undermine the integrity of the game. I see no reason to veto. Let these two trade in peace. Perhaps these two GMs value Kuechly differently than the rest if us. And for the record. He was pick 2.05 in the inaugural draft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 5:28:21 GMT -7
I can't disagree with the Bills. I do not see any signs of collusion or ill-will in the trade. Kelce and Kuechly straight up in a trade is fair value in my opinion based on production and the salary difference. The other pieces involved were a bit trickier, but in all, I didn't feel it was a bad enough deal to veto.
For what it is worth, I approve of it. 3-3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raiders GM (Sean) on Jun 21, 2019 5:53:24 GMT -7
Perhaps I have it wrong, but we have our own commish voting down on this trade.
Clearly it isn't just collusion or ill-will that constitutes a veto motion. I don't want to put words in our commish's mouth, but I didn't read in what he had above that he felt there was collusion or ill-will.....just that this deal doesn't really come close in VALUE.
Perhaps the definition seems to be translated wrong in various peoples minds.
Something the league may want to re-think when it comes to possible written language of "intent" to what a veto actually is, for the future.
In my opinion, deals like this drag a league down. I may take heat for saying that, but this isn't a good deal. IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dolphins GM (Frank) on Jun 21, 2019 5:53:27 GMT -7
If collusion is the only standard, then there is no need to vote on trades. Cheating in turn should be reported to the commissioner, where preparations should be made to terminate cheating GM's involved in the trades. If we're going to have double standards on how we process trades, then we have bigger issues to deal with in this league.
As for my part, Im still thinking on this trade
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 6:00:21 GMT -7
So, we are telling owners how to run their teams because "WE" don't like the trade. Is that the sense I am getting? If the trade is close in value taking everything into consideration (production, salary, contract lengths, etc.), there is nothing wrong with that particular trade. The only standard in voting down a trade is collusion or a ridiculously lop-sided trade deal that would upset the balance of the league or a team. This trade does neither.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dolphins GM (Frank) on Jun 21, 2019 6:08:10 GMT -7
So, we are telling owners how to run their teams because "WE" don't like the trade. Is that the sense I am getting? If the trade is close in value taking everything into consideration (production, salary, contract lengths, etc.), there is nothing wrong with that particular trade. The only standard in voting down a trade is collusion or a ridiculously lop-sided trade deal that would upset the balance of the league or a team. This trade does neither. Well then we have problems as a league, and I suggest we put the league on pause until we can determine what the proper roll of voting on a trade is, because the contradiction on standards is a major problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Blaine) on Jun 21, 2019 6:10:38 GMT -7
So let me speak for myself here,
Nobody said anything about collusion, that’s a nasty word to be throwing around. In these leagues trade values have to be taken into account when voting. It’s not just black and white, collusion or not. This is the purpose of voting. This trade for example Kuechly is the best player the 49ers are getting back. Falcons get a top 3 TE and a top 5 LB and probably a top 15ish LB in return. The other guys the Falcons give up are filler players, but just looking at the big names it’s off balance. Due to the 1 year contracts I think the 2 for 1 LB swap is fair then it’s the other pieces for Kelce and that’s not close. Voting on trades is tough, there are many different opinions that get thrown around. I believe just by looking at the top tier players involved in this trade it is clear it needs to be reworked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 6:56:18 GMT -7
I think Frank is right. Perhaps we do need to take a moment and have a philosophical conversation about the nature of trading and overturning trades in our league. My thoughts are that this league is meant to be as close to the actual NFL as possible. In the actual NFL, terrible trades occur all the time (Colts trading for Trent Richardson, Vikings trading for Herschel Walker). The NFL doesn't punish those teams for making what the popular media calls a bad trade. I think that unless a team shows a pattern of ruining their team or an intentional attempt to tank in a season, there isn't much of a reason to veto a trade outside of collusion. My opinion is that we should not dictate how other GMs value certain players (i.e. what if the 49ers view D Jackson as a massively underrated up and comer). If a trade is bad, then let that be a learning moment for the GM.
|
|
