Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.