Trade costs...
 

I am going to disregard the FA signings which are improbable.

a) What would it cost to trade for Manny Lawson now that Aldon Smith has been drafted to take his place?

b) What would it cost to trade for Corwin Barwin now that JJ Wattts was drafted and Mario Williams is being shifted to his position?

c) What would it cost to trade for Kamerion Wembly considering the Raiders got heim for a 3rd round draft pick?

d) What would it cost to trade for Mathias Kiawanuka?

Are there any surplus talent that the Patriots might ship to one of these clubs as part of any deal?

:confused::confused::confused:

Re: Trade costs...
 

Barwin and Wimbley are still starters. Too steep of a price. Lawson's not a complete OLB. I like Kiwi as a free agent, but he has no trade value with his back problems.

Re: Trade costs...
 

Beg to differ on Lawson.
Best FA OLB in coverage available and has pass rush ability and remarkable speed. Has the length BB desires and holds up on the run. He's only 27. Had 10.5 sacks his Sr. year at NC St.. Niners used him oddly. Needs a new home. Think of why Vrable got out of Pittsburgh. He was behind a few guys and when he got here the Steelers would have loved him back.
DW Toys

Re: Trade costs...
 

I'm still torn on Lawson. Sometimes I think he'd fit here well, and should be given a new coach and scheme--as DW Toys points out. Then other times, it seems as Sciz is spot on in his assessment too--although maybe Lawson's skills are not properly being utilized entirely, that is something to consider.

I'd be more than pleased if we took a shot at Lawson--what's to lose really?

I don't see Wimbley moving from OAK, as they seem pretty sold on keeping him (at least they say they are, as recent as a few months ago).

Kiwanauka would be great too, as DC Perry Fewell was very gung-ho on his versatility, and the possibility of moving him around to confuse the opposition and give the NYG multiple fronts and looks. He does offer versatility, and I'd be more than happy to give him a shot here, even with his injury.

Somehow, at the end of everything, I still think we'll be a lot closer to bringing in a less-known guy--someone like a Roth etc. One way or another, I think the position will be addressed for sure, I just think it'll be done in a BB kind of way.

Re: Trade costs...
 

None of us can really predict for certain what new coach, Harbaugh, is going to do with the SF defense for 2011. The Niners had been running a sort of 34/43 hybrid for awhile while Harbaugh had a 34 at Stanford (at least the past couple years?). Seems to me that he's inheriting a fairly talented front seven group that's experienced in that hybrid "system", so he might not be looking to make huge changes out of the gate, IMO, free agents aside. Indeed, aside from Aldon Smith, his 2011 draft seemed primarily about the offense and (to some extent) the secondary.

If we assume that Harbaugh IS (roughly) sticking with this "system", Aldon Smith seems a bit on the heavy side (263) for their typical OLBs (around 250) who also must frequently play a 4-3 role. However, he's roughly the same size as their starting RDE, Justin Smith, who turns 32 in September, so perhaps it's not entirely safe to assume that Smith is necessarily a replacement for Manny Lawson for 2011.

SIDEBAR: The Niners' front seven FAs include NT Franklin, "elder statesman" ILB Takeo Spikes, and sub-rusher Travis LaBoy in addition to Lawson. I'd guess that Harbaugh and the SF FO will make every effort to re-sign these guys.

In any case, Lawson is a four-year starter at LOLB (minus 2007 when he was injured) and his average stats for the past three seasons are no better than what Ninkovich posted in 2010 (his first full year in the position), so it's not even clear that Lawson would be a definite, significant upgrade to Ninkovich, even if he is available - and a definite, significant upgrade is what I would expect, given the price that Lawson seems likely to ask for, contract-wise.

Re: Trade costs...
 

I agree, Lawson might not be much of an upgrade over Ninkovich.

I can't help but wonder how different Lawson;s career might have been if we took him one pick in front of San Fran.

Re: Trade costs...
 

Can't disagree that he might have become a standout.

OTOH - We had Vrabel and Colvin (who was coming off an outstanding 2005 season). But then we had Dillon who was turning 33 and coming off an injury-plagued season. It's fun to think "what might have been" if we'd taken Lawson instead of Maroney and waited until Jones-Drew to take our RB, but that probably wasn't in the cards at the time.

Re: Trade costs...
 

OJ, Keep in mind Lawson is only 27. He has what BB desires..."sperience".
besides the length and tremendous speed.He is not a liability in coverage which is a worry BB has on these "conversions" from college DEs. The fans in SF view Lawson as a bust. In 09 he had 6.5 sacks, 3 forced fumbles and 68 tackles (not exactly flop stats). How many coaches and schemes have been installed in the last five years there?

They had him playing pass last year and he had 6 passes defended an INT and only 2.5 sacks and 59 tackles. Not bad numbers for what had become a rotation situation. 09 was obviously better. He is not LT but at the same time, could he be the sneaky type of Vrable pickup BB loves? I like Ninkovich but I see potential in Lawson. Nink has only really been a starter one year and Lawson has had 56 games under his belt. I look at him as the TBC alternative not Nink.

Lawson had one of the highest QB pressure ratings in the league for a LB. I think BB respects that as much.

BB kept on trying to explain there were other ways to add players after the Draft. Was he sending us that message? Roth is an option but no where near in coverage ability. If Lawson comes here and gets 6.5 sacks year one, that is pretty decent if he is that three down backer.
DW Toys

Re: Trade costs...
 

It all depends on the cost, both in salary & in draft picks. Is this Lawson's final year of his
rookie contract? If so, then I would be loathe to offer anything more than a conditional pick.
I believe that this is also Wimbley's final year of his rookie contract, so again I would offer nothing more
than a conditional, though I doubt that the Faiders would even consider moving him. Why would they?
Kiwanuka was tendered by the Jints, at what level IDK. He would prob. be the easiest to acquire,
but I still wouldn't offer more than the conditional.
And Connor Barwin's not going anywhere. Bill had his chance in '09, and he blew it, big time.

Re: Trade costs...
 

Lawson is a Free Agent but is one of those 5 years vets that was RFA tagged. If the new CBA reverts to 4 years he is free to sign with any team but is leaning towards San Fran from rumors.

Wimberly was franchised by Oakland and signed his $11.3M 1 year deal before the lockout so it is guaranteed. He's staying in Oakland and working on a long term deal.