Colts Acquire DT DeForest Buckner

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by jasperhobbs

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

This is true. Huge gamble to take a DL with a possible knee issue. I wonder what our defense would look like if we had Sweat and Kinlaw instead on it.

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

Originally Posted by jasperhobbs

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

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

This is true. Huge gamble to take a DL with a possible knee issue. I wonder what our defense would look like if we had Sweat and Kinlaw instead on it.

Few years later of hindsight....

Really glad Ballard traded the pick for Buckner and didn't draft Kinlaw.

Kinlaw only played in 4 games his second year in the NFL (knee issues) and only 6 games this past year (knee issues again).

For his 3 year career - he has tallied 1.5 sacks.

Rumors are the 49'ers are not going to exercise his fifth year option.


https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49...e-picked-49ers

After another injury-riddled campaign paired with mixed results on the field when healthy, Kinlaw's long-term future in San Francisco reportedly is in jeopardy.

The Athletic's Matt Barrows and David Lombardi wrote last week the 49ers are "unlikely" to pick up the fifth-year option on Kinlaw's rookie contract.

That would mean next season -- Kinlaw's fourth in the league since being selected No. 14 overall by the 49ers in the 2020 NFL Draft -- would be the last on his rookie contract. Kinlaw would be an unrestricted free agent next offseason.

NFL teams have until the May 1 deadline to decide whether or not to exercise fifth-year options on first-round picks from the 2020 draft class.

Kinlaw showed flashes of his first-round potential across 14 games as a rookie, but he missed all but four games in 2021 after undergoing season-ending knee surgery in October.

Those knee issues lingered into his third campaign. Kinlaw was sidelined for 11 contests from October to December this past season before making his return in Week 16 against the Washington Commanders. He logged nine tackles, one tackle for loss and no sacks or quarterback hits over the final three regular-season games and three playoff tilts.

The 49ers declining Kinlaw's fifth-year option wouldn't guarantee the defensive tackle won't be in the Bay Area past the 2023 NFL season. For example, the New York Giants declined quarterback Daniel Jones' fifth-year option last spring, only to watch him have a breakout year. Now, the Giants are expected to sign Jones to a long-term contract this offseason.

Kinlaw still has much to prove entering his fourth NFL season in 2023.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSunnyinIndy

Few years later of hindsight....

[/url]

… we should have used that pick to move up and get herbert.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

Originally Posted by rcubed

… we should have used that pick to move up and get herbert.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure - although easier said than done. It would mean trading with either Detroit or the New York Giants to move up to Pick 3 or 4 (Miami selected a QB at Pick 5).

A starting point for that type of trade would be to include the next two first round picks in addition to Pick 13. So 3 first round picks - and that still probably wouldn't get it done.

Detroit or New York could also turn around and shop the pick to the Chargers if they weren't enthused about moving all the way down to Pick 13.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSunnyinIndy

Sure - although easier said than done. It would mean trading with either Detroit or the New York Giants to move up to Pick 3 or 4 (Miami selected a QB at Pick 5).

A starting point for that type of trade would be to include the next two first round picks in addition to Pick 13. So 3 first round picks - and that still probably wouldn't get it done.

Detroit or New York could also turn around and shop the pick to the Chargers if they weren't enthused about moving all the way down to Pick 13.

Plus, there were a lot of "experts" who doubted Herbert would make it in the league before the draft.