Colts Acquire DT DeForest Buckner

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

I’m thinking scenarios. They were losing one of them. I wonder if they offered Armstead and we said no. So the 49ers thought we can keep Buckner, or we can keep Armstead and the 13 pick.

There are a few articles detailing the circumstances behind the trade, but from what I understand the 49ers had no intention of keeping Buckner after his 5th year option played out. This was not about Buckner's ability, but rather that the 49ers has simply resigned themselves to the fact that they could not pay Buckner's price. Here's some more info:

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2020/11/...e-complicated/

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking. That's smart team building. Getting that pick allowed them to essentially draft his replacement in Kinlaw (who the Colts probably would've taken at 13 had they retained the pick) and still keep most of their group together, including the most talented of the bunch in Bosa. The Colts ended up with a great deal out of this, but I don't think the 49ers "lost" this trade. They got what they needed out of it.

Originally Posted by Chaka

There are a few articles detailing the circumstances behind the trade, but from what I understand the 49ers had no intention of keeping Buckner after his 5th year option played out. This was not about Buckner's ability, but rather that the 49ers has simply resigned themselves to the fact that they could not pay Buckner's price. Here's some more info:

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2020/11/...e-complicated/

Seems they looked into the trade for both and the market for Armstead was a 2nd rounder and Buckner was a 1st rounder. Also, they wanted to save 4 million a year which seemed to be the difference in contracts. Armstead is more versatile as well.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49...-arik-armstead

I would have paid the 4 million and taken a second-rounder. Armstead has never really impressed me. But that's my opinion. Glad they made the trade. although I think Kinlaw would have worked out for us as well, just taken longer till he matured.

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking. That's smart team building. Getting that pick allowed them to essentially draft his replacement in Kinlaw (who the Colts probably would've taken at 13 had they retained the pick) and still keep most of their group together, including the most talented of the bunch in Bosa. The Colts ended up with a great deal out of this, but I don't think the 49ers "lost" this trade. They got what they needed out of it.

I think that anytime you are trading proven vs unproven the risk is too high to take.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

I think that anytime you are trading proven vs unproven the risk is too high to take.

In a situation with unlimited cap space, absolutely. The cap forces teams to take calculated risks that they otherwise wouldn't have to take. For example, can Javon Kinlaw provide 70-80% of DeForest Buckner's production at 15-20% of the cap hit?

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

In a situation with unlimited cap space, absolutely. The cap forces teams to take calculated risks that they otherwise wouldn't have to take. For example, can Javon Kinlaw provide 70-80% of DeForest Buckner's production at 15-20% of the cap hit?

People matter though. There’s more to consider than just the production. Especially with a guy like Buckner, who is a cornerstone guy that they haven’t been able to replace.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

People matter though. There’s more to consider than just the production. Especially with a guy like Buckner, who is a cornerstone guy that they haven’t been able to replace.

If you don't have the cap room, you don't have the cap room. Buckner was going to get $20m+/year on his next deal, they are going to have to pay Bosa and Kittle in a couple years, and unlike the Colts, they're not swimming in cap room. They didn't have the space to retain him and get the rest of their key players locked up. You can make a case that it may have been smarter to let Armstead go, but basically the question becomes what's better between Armstead + Kinlaw or Buckner. They may end up being wrong, but there's logic to picking Armstead + Kinlaw.

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

If you don't have the cap room, you don't have the cap room. Buckner was going to get $20m+/year on his next deal, they are going to have to pay Bosa and Kittle in a couple years, and unlike the Colts, they're not swimming in cap room. They didn't have the space to retain him and get the rest of their key players locked up. You can make a case that it may have been smarter to let Armstead go, but basically the question becomes what's better between Armstead + Kinlaw or Buckner. They may end up being wrong, but there's logic to picking Armstead + Kinlaw.

They’re paying Armstead 17 million per year. If you compare the playing careers of Armstead and Buckner, there’s a very good argument that Buckner is a better value at 21 million. Especially when you consider Armsteads injury history.

If they had wanted to make it work, they could have. It wasn’t that they absolutely just couldn’t afford Buckner.

Besides, they had no way of knowing if Kinlaw was even gonna be there at 13.

They got a little to smart for their own good and they’re paying for it now.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

They’re paying Armstead 17 million per year. If you compare the playing careers of Armstead and Buckner, there’s a very good argument that Buckner is a better value at 21 million. Especially when you consider Armsteads injury history.

If they had wanted to make it work, they could have. It wasn’t that they absolutely just couldn’t afford Buckner.

Besides, they had no way of knowing if Kinlaw was even gonna be there at 13.

They got a little to smart for their own good and they’re paying for it now.

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

They’re paying Armstead 17 million per year. If you compare the playing careers of Armstead and Buckner, there’s a very good argument that Buckner is a better value at 21 million. Especially when you consider Armsteads injury history.

If they had wanted to make it work, they could have. It wasn’t that they absolutely just couldn’t afford Buckner.

Besides, they had no way of knowing if Kinlaw was even gonna be there at 13.

They got a little to smart for their own good and they’re paying for it now.

Here's the thing though - it really wasn't as straightforward at $17M vs. $21M. The devil is always in the details. Take a look as the structure of these guys' respective contracts:

Armstead:
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-fran...rmstead-16741/

Buckner:
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianap...buckner-18955/

Bucker's contract is frontloaded, a structure which benefits Buckner (he gets lots more money upfront) but would absolutely not have worked for the 49ers, who were already up against the cap and had the personnel in place to make another Super Bowl run.

Armstead's contract, by comparison, is backloaded - he only counts $6M against the cap in 2020 vs. $23.3M for Buckner. He also required a much smaller initial "real" guarantee ($26.65M vs. Buckner's $39.2M), and they've pushed of much of the cap consequences of his deal to later years.

Buckner's contract required a much greater upfront commitment from the Colts, and is fairly straightforward without much financial engineering for the benefit of the team. He gets all of his "real" guarantees in the first two years (2020-2021). After that it looks like he's on a simple year-to-year salary/roster bonus, and the team could theoretically move on from him with few consequences from 2022 and beyond. This gives the Colts a lot of flexibility to restructure if necessary for cap reasons at that time, as I expect we'll be dealing with cap issues in the not-too-distant-future.

So, bottom line, Armstead's deal is much cheaper in real dollars and, perhaps most importantly for the 49ers, gives them $17M in cap relief in 2020 relative to Buckner's deal - much more than the $4M difference referenced in most media reports. He is also cheaper in 2021 cap-wise ($12.5M vs. Buckner's $17M). However, Buckner's deal - while more expensive - is a lot easier to get out of after 2021, and gives the Colts more flexibility in later years. The 49ers deal with Armstead is a good example of buying something on a credit card, as the deal will impact the 49ers cap after 2021 no matter what, even if he isn't on the team anymore. Buckner's won't.

(Side note - this is also an example of how not burning through available cap space can provide you with the ability to pull off a deal that perhaps very few other teams could have.)

[jasperhobbs]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

They’re paying Armstead 17 million per year. If you compare the playing careers of Armstead and Buckner, there’s a very good argument that Buckner is a better value at 21 million. Especially when you consider Armsteads injury history.

If they had wanted to make it work, they could have. It wasn’t that they absolutely just couldn’t afford Buckner.

Besides, they had no way of knowing if Kinlaw was even gonna be there at 13.

They got a little to smart for their own good and they’re paying for it now.

Kinlaw has some knee issues that scared some teams away from drafting him. So far he looks like a beast.

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Here's the thing though - it really wasn't as straightforward at $17M vs. $21M. The devil is always in the details. Take a look as the structure of these guys' respective contracts:

Armstead:
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-fran...rmstead-16741/

Buckner:
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianap...buckner-18955/

Bucker's contract is frontloaded, a structure which benefits Buckner (he gets lots more money upfront) but would absolutely not have worked for the 49ers, who were already up against the cap and had the personnel in place to make another Super Bowl run.

Armstead's contract, by comparison, is backloaded - he only counts $6M against the cap in 2020 vs. $23.3M for Buckner. He also required a much smaller initial "real" guarantee ($26.65M vs. Buckner's $39.2M), and they've pushed of much of the cap consequences of his deal to later years.

Buckner's contract required a much greater upfront commitment from the Colts, and is fairly straightforward without much financial engineering for the benefit of the team. He gets all of his "real" guarantees in the first two years (2020-2021). After that it looks like he's on a simple year-to-year salary/roster bonus, and the team could theoretically move on from him with few consequences from 2022 and beyond. This gives the Colts a lot of flexibility to restructure if necessary for cap reasons at that time, as I expect we'll be dealing with cap issues in the not-too-distant-future.

So, bottom line, Armstead's deal is much cheaper in real dollars and, perhaps most importantly for the 49ers, gives them $17M in cap relief in 2020 relative to Buckner's deal - much more than the $4M difference referenced in most media reports. He is also cheaper in 2021 cap-wise ($12.5M vs. Buckner's $17M). However, Buckner's deal - while more expensive - is a lot easier to get out of after 2021, and gives the Colts more flexibility in later years. The 49ers deal with Armstead is a good example of buying something on a credit card, as the deal will impact the 49ers cap after 2021 no matter what, even if he isn't on the team anymore. Buckner's won't.

(Side note - this is also an example of how not burning through available cap space can provide you with the ability to pull off a deal that perhaps very few other teams could have.)

Thanks for the breakdown. And you may well be correct.

But Buckner himself has made it very clear that he never wanted or expected to leave San Francisco. I don’t know for sure if there were any negotiations beyond Buckners original proposal, but my hunch is they could have worked out a similar deal with him if they wanted too.

I feel like like John Lynch has been regretting that deal since about week 2. I know most 9’er fans have.