49ers: No plans to release Jimmy G

FrodosFinger

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
358
Reaction score
200
There are teams that would sign Mayfield if he were a free agent (I'm hoping the rumors that the Seahawks are among those teams are false), but nobody wants to pay Mayfield $18.9 million fully guaranteed this year, much less give up draft capital and/or potentially useful players for the "privilege" of being able to pay Mayfield all that money. Further, teams know the Browns need to get rid of Mayfield, so they'd rather wait for him to be cut or let their competitors make the mistake of trading for him.
Garoppolo's contract is much less unappealing than Mayfield's, because if Garoppolo sucks, the acquiring team can cut him and save a proportional amount of the $25M or more (see below) he'd cost for the whole season.

Garoppolo has a $600,000 workout bonus, and the Gold Diggers seem likely to end up paying that, unless some team trades for him before OTAs. After that, it's $24.2M in salary and $800,000 in per-game roster bonuses, for an even $25M. That means that if a team trades for Garoppolo, he'll cost that team just over $1.47M per game, but if the acquiring team at any point decides he's not worth it, he can be cut and the team won't owe him another cent beyond whatever he's been paid to that point.
So there's a decent chance a trade for Garoppolo might happen, but I'd say a 2023 third-round pick is the ceiling, not the floor (here I'm responding to 94Smith's assertion that Garoppolo is worth "at least" a third-rounder), of what teams should be willing to offer.

The Gold Diggers would probably get a 2023 third-round comp pick (which, let's remember, comes at the end of the extended third round, later than all the 2023 third-round picks teams already have) if they were to hold on to Garoppolo through the whole season and pay him the full $25.6M they'd owe him under his current contract, and then he were to go on and sign a significant contract as a free agent. Since there are multiple ways for that to go wrong between now and 2023 free agency, and since the whole Garoppolo-nets-the-Diggers-a-third-round-comp-pick scenario would involve the Gold Diggers holding on for the whole 2022 season to a mediocre QB who costs over $25M and who doesn't appear to be in the team's post-2022 plans, a late 2023 third-rounder looks like the ceiling for what a sane GM would pay to get Garoppolo. Of course, NFL GMs do stupid things with surprising frequency, and that's why I qualified my statement with "sane."

Using the rule of thumb that a pick in a given round next year is roughly worth a pick in the next round after that this year, the ceiling in 2022 draft capital would be somewhere in the neighborhood of a 2022 fourth-round comp pick, especially because a team acquiring Garoppolo before this year's draft would owe him the $600,000 workout bonus, making him that much more expensive for the acquiring team.

If I were an NFL GM and I thought Garoppolo could help my team with its goals, I wouldn't offer more than a package equivalent to a 2023 third-round comp pick or a 2022 fourth-round comp pick (or maybe even an early 2022 fifth-round pick).
Well that’s why you’re not a GM because the 49ers would have to pay a large portion of his salary for any team to consider. His contract is what holds a trade up because he isn’t even worth the contract he signed. In terms of value there isn’t any. There’s negative value in fact
 

Lagartixa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
316
Reaction score
306
Location
Taboão da Serra, SP, Brazil
Well that’s why you’re not a GM because the 49ers would have to pay a large portion of his salary for any team to consider. His contract is what holds a trade up because he isn’t even worth the contract he signed. In terms of value there isn’t any. There’s negative value in fact
You write as if I said Garoppolo would be a good investment or that teams should be rushing to get him. The whole point I was making is that he's worth no more than a package equivalent to a 2023 third-round comp pick or a 2022 fourth-round comp pick. I was stating what I consider to be the ceiling for Garoppolo's trade value, in response to 94Smith's assertion that Garoppolo is worth "at least" a third-round pick.

The highest compliment I paid Garoppolo in my message is that his contract is less unappealing than Baker Mayfield's, and that could be used as an example to help somebody understand what the term "damning with faint praise" means.
 

FrodosFinger

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
358
Reaction score
200
You write as if I said Garoppolo would be a good investment or that teams should be rushing to get him. The whole point I was making is that he's worth no more than a package equivalent to a 2023 third-round comp pick or a 2022 fourth-round comp pick. I was stating what I consider to be the ceiling for Garoppolo's trade value, in response to 94Smith's assertion that Garoppolo is worth "at least" a third-round pick.

The highest compliment I paid Garoppolo in my message is that his contract is less unappealing than Baker Mayfield's, and that could be used as an example to help somebody understand what the term "damning with faint praise" means.
I’m not sure what Lynch was thinking after giving him an astronomical contract. I was thinking they were gonna cut him but they did the opposite and made him one of the highest paid players in the league lmao 🤣
 

94Smith

Active member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
576
Reaction score
30
What I don't get is trading all that draft capital for Lance. That would be like Seattle trading 3 firsts to the Lions for the number 2 pick and drafting Willis who is a project at best so far.
5 qbs last year had 1st round grades. Malik Willis has a projected late 1st round or early second round grade. Different prospects. Also I don’t think the brain trust was set on drafting Lance until after the trade and knew they would be happy with either Lance or Mac Jones when trade was made
 

TheLegendOfBoom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
104
Location
Westcoastin’
Jimmy G would be a solid QB for Seattle. The NFC Championship loss wasn’t his fault, IMO. If you’re looking for a solid QB, game manager (like Carroll wants) you can do worse than Jimmy G.

Jimmy G and a rebuilt Seattle defense, with a consistent run game, can sneak into playoffs, IMO.
 

FrodosFinger

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
358
Reaction score
200
Jimmy G would be a solid QB for Seattle. The NFC Championship loss wasn’t his fault, IMO. If you’re looking for a solid QB, game manager (like Carroll wants) you can do worse than Jimmy G.

Jimmy G and a rebuilt Seattle defense, with a consistent run game, can sneak into playoffs, IMO.
Yeah I agree. He works well in running systems designed to keep the ball out of the quarterback's hands as much as possible with little to no downfield game.
 

Lagartixa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
316
Reaction score
306
Location
Taboão da Serra, SP, Brazil
Jimmy G would be a solid QB for Seattle. The NFC Championship loss wasn’t his fault, IMO. If you’re looking for a solid QB, game manager (like Carroll wants) you can do worse than Jimmy G.

Jimmy G and a rebuilt Seattle defense, with a consistent run game, can sneak into playoffs, IMO.
Sure, you could absolutely do worse. Kaepernick wasn't that good a passer before he was blacklisted, and now he's been out of the game for five years, but people are still talking about him as a possible Seahawks QB, even though he'd pretty clearly be worse than Garoppolo. Baker Mayfield is an inferior QB who would cost $18.9M fully guaranteed this year no matter how much he sucks, so that makes him a worse option than Garoppolo too. The question is whether Garoppolo will be worth what he'll cost.

This year, unless the 49ers cut Garoppolo, he'll cost about $1.47M per game. And add in an extra $800,000 (one-time cost, not per-game) if the acquiring team gets him before his workout bonus is due. Add to that the fact that a team wanting to acquire Garoppolo without him being cut would have to give up some kind of asset (player or draft capital), and it starts to really look like he's not worth it. Is Garoppolo worth $800,000 plus a draft pick to acquire, and then $1.47M per game until the acquiring team gets tired of his turnovers? I don't have to hesitate long before giving a firm "no." I'm hoping Schneider feels the same way.

And if the 49ers do give up on trading Garoppolo and finally cut him, he might not be interested in a one-year deal. He might want multiple years. I really hope the Seahawks avoid that trap.

Garoppolo as a "game manager"? I thought one of the things a "game manager" had to do was not turn the ball over, but Garoppolo is a turnover machine. I can't see a convincing argument for giving up draft capital for the right to pay Garoppolo $800,000 before the season starts and then just over $1.47M per start. I don't think he'd be that much better than waiver-wire trash or Drew Lock or Geno Smith. Better? Maybe. But not that much better. And if the goal is to get a "game manager," Garoppolo seems uniquely unsuited for that role, given his propensity for committing turnovers and his relatively high price. If Garoppolo were in one of the first four years of a rookie contract, I'd probably see things differently. But he's not. He's a veteran who's proved he'll never be even a very good QB, and who is quite expensive for what he can actually do.
 
Last edited:

FrodosFinger

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
358
Reaction score
200
Sure, you could absolutely do worse. Kaepernick wasn't that good a passer before he was blacklisted, and now he's been out of the game for five years, but people are still talking about him as a possible Seahawks QB, even though he'd pretty clearly be worse than Garoppolo. Baker Mayfield is an inferior QB who would cost $18.9M fully guaranteed this year no matter how much he sucks, so that makes him a worse option than Garoppolo too. The question is whether Garoppolo will be worth what he'll cost.

This year, unless the 49ers cut Garoppolo, he'll cost about $1.47M per game. And add in an extra $800,000 (one-time cost, not per-game) if the acquiring team gets him before his workout bonus is due. Add to that the fact that a team wanting to acquire Garoppolo without him being cut would have to give up some kind of asset (player or draft capital), and it starts to really look like he's not worth it. Is Garoppolo worth $800,000 plus a draft pick to acquire, and then $1.47M per game until the acquiring team gets tired of his turnovers? I don't have to hesitate long before giving a firm "no." I'm hoping Schneider feels the same way.

And if the 49ers do give up on trading Garoppolo and finally cut him, he might not be interested in a one-year deal. He might want multiple years. I really hope the Seahawks avoid that trap.

Garoppolo as a "game manager"? I thought one of the things a "game manager" had to do was not turn the ball over, but Garoppolo is a turnover machine. I can't see a convincing argument for giving up draft capital for the right to pay Garoppolo $800,000 before the season starts and then just over $1.47M per start. I don't think he'd be that much better than waiver-wire trash or Drew Lock or Geno Smith. Better? Maybe. But not that much better. And if the goal is to get a "game manager," Garoppolo seems uniquely unsuited for that role, given his propensity for committing turnovers and his relatively high price. If Garoppolo were in one of the first four years of a rookie contract, I'd probably see things differently. But he's not. He's a veteran who's proved he'll never be even a very good QB, and who is quite expensive for what he can actually do.
Here's the deal with Jimmy G. If the 49ers end up cutting him they eat a large portion of that contract. They've already allocated Kittle and Trent Williams contracts to stay afloat and barely above the cap. I wouldn't mind bringing him in for a one year deal as a backup on a league minimum contract but seriously Jacob Eason is better tbh as a backup of Lock for a year. You gotta ask yourself "Is Jimmy G even better than Geno or Jacob Eason?'" The answer is noNo
 

Lagartixa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
316
Reaction score
306
Location
Taboão da Serra, SP, Brazil
Here's the deal with Jimmy G. If the 49ers end up cutting him they eat a large portion of that contract.

I think you've been misled about Garoppolo's contract. The 49ers are on the hook for the final parcel of his signing bonus ($7M paid in the first year, but with the cap impact spread out over the five years of the contract), and whoever has Garoppolo at the start of OTAs will be responsible for paying his $800,000 workout bonus, but Garoppolo has no other guaranteed money this year.
If the Gold Diggers were to cut him now, then Garoppolo's total cap hit for them would be the $1.4M of his signing bonus (a $7M bonus split into five equal parcels of $1.4M per year). If they still have him for OTAs, that'll cost them another $800,000 in cash and on the cap. After that, it's just over $1.47M per game, cash and cap, with the team holding the contract not owing him another cent (or having another cent counted against its salary cap) if he is cut before the season ends.

So there's no "large portion" of that contract to "eat." Just the final parcel of $1.4M of the signing bonus, and that's on their cap no matter what they do.


 

FrodosFinger

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
358
Reaction score
200
I think you've been misled about Garoppolo's contract. The 49ers are on the hook for the final parcel of his signing bonus ($7M paid in the first year, but with the cap impact spread out over the five years of the contract), and whoever has Garoppolo at the start of OTAs will be responsible for paying his $800,000 workout bonus, but Garoppolo has no other guaranteed money this year.
If the Gold Diggers were to cut him now, then Garoppolo's total cap hit for them would be the $1.4M of his signing bonus (a $7M bonus split into five equal parcels of $1.4M per year). If they still have him for OTAs, that'll cost them another $800,000 in cash and on the cap. After that, it's just over $1.47M per game, cash and cap, with the team holding the contract not owing him another cent (or having another cent counted against its salary cap) if he is cut before the season ends.

So there's no "large portion" of that contract to "eat." Just the final parcel of $1.4M of the signing bonus, and that's on their cap no matter what they do.


That’s crazy. They must have absolute zero confidence in Trey Lance if they plan on bringing Jimmy back as the starter. I know they tried trading him but had no offers
 

nanomoz

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
97
Location
UT
They wouldn’t get the third rounder until the 2024 draft, right? Comp picks happen in the draft in the year following the new contract.
 

Lagartixa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
316
Reaction score
306
Location
Taboão da Serra, SP, Brazil
They wouldn’t get the third rounder until the 2024 draft, right? Comp picks happen in the draft in the year following the new contract.

Jeeze, I think you're right! I was actually managing to overestimate Garoppolo's value when I was seeking to show that the ceiling for what Garoppolo should be worth to a team now is below what 94Smith was asserting was the floor. It turns out it's even lower than I was saying it is!
Garoppolo's ceiling would be the value of a 2024 third-round comp pick, and then if we use the not-perfect rule of going down a round for each year, that would be roughly a 2023 fourth-round comp pick or a 2022 fifth-round comp pick.

Good catch, nanomoz
 

94Smith

Active member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
576
Reaction score
30
That’s crazy. They must have absolute zero confidence in Trey Lance if they plan on bringing Jimmy back as the starter. I know they tried trading him but had no offers
You gotta ask yourself "Is Jimmy G even better than Geno or Jacob Eason?'" The answer is no
Frodo there is absolutely no stats that you can provide that would prove your statement other than a cost vs production. Geno Smith has lost and had worse production at every team he has played at. Eason has not played.

There were no offers for Jimmy because of his shoulder and contract. So wait for that to heal, get him throwing again and see if any offers pop up due to injuries. Nobody ever lost in this league because they had too many QBs that could actually win. We have been burned in other seasons not having a capable back up. When Steve Young sat behind Joe Montana did anyone say they had no confidence in Young? They brought Lance in and he will start, likely this year. And if they both go to training camp, it could be a QB battle that will push either player.
 
Top