Vance McDonald Traded to Steelers

[rudyZ]

Highlight of his 49ers career.

[y2lamanaki]

2 hours ago, big9erfan said:

It certainly makes it easier to look at that way. But we had no idea he'd be there. That trade was not for Taylor. It was for Bibbs.

...It was for Bibbs and a 5th. Two pieces of that trade. That 5th was used on Taylor. 

Nobody ever trading down knows who will be there when they move down. It doesn't mean they did not get that piece of the trade. When we traded down with the Bears, our front office assumed they were taking Solomon Thomas. Even moving down one spot, we did not know we would be taking Solomon Thomas. We assumed we would go with #3 on the board, Reuben Foster. That would have created a much different draft. It doesn't mean Solomon Thomas + a 3rd (now a 2nd) + a 4th we used to move up for Foster is not a part of that deal. It all is a part of it. If Trubisky, Thomas, and Foster somehow all bust, and the 2nd we use next year turns out to be a Hall of Famer...despite not knowing who could possibly be there...they will be considered a part of that trade. When we traded Alex Smith for 2 2nds, we didn't know that would turn into Tank Carradine, Corey Lemonier, Carlos Hyde, Chris Borland, and Stevie Johnson. But in the end...that is how one reviews that trade. Otherwise, it's a completely meaningless Alex Smith for 2 2nd round picks that nobody could ever possibly evaluate.

[Incarcerated_Scarface]

I'm happy, glad the contract is gone. He wasn't worth it and he's frustrating to watch. He doesn't have the "it" factor so we'll keep it movin till we find our guy.

[oldman9er]

Fine by me. I don't think I ever liked this dude. 

[big9erfan]

1 hour ago, y2lamanaki said:

...It was for Bibbs and a 5th. Two pieces of that trade. That 5th was used on Taylor. 

Nobody ever trading down knows who will be there when they move down. It doesn't mean they did not get that piece of the trade. When we traded down with the Bears, our front office assumed they were taking Solomon Thomas. Even moving down one spot, we did not know we would be taking Solomon Thomas. We assumed we would go with #3 on the board, Reuben Foster. That would have created a much different draft. It doesn't mean Solomon Thomas + a 3rd (now a 2nd) + a 4th we used to move up for Foster is not a part of that deal. It all is a part of it. If Trubisky, Thomas, and Foster somehow all bust, and the 2nd we use next year turns out to be a Hall of Famer...despite not knowing who could possibly be there...they will be considered a part of that trade. When we traded Alex Smith for 2 2nds, we didn't know that would turn into Tank Carradine, Corey Lemonier, Carlos Hyde, Chris Borland, and Stevie Johnson. But in the end...that is how one reviews that trade. Otherwise, it's a completely meaningless Alex Smith for 2 2nd round picks that nobody could ever possibly evaluate.

You're missing my point when I say that the trade was for Bibbs, not for Taylor.  My point is the motivation for the trade. We did not make the trade to get Taylor because there was no way to know he would still be there.  The FO was almost certainly not sitting around saying "We really want Taylor ... so let's trade a future 4th and hope we get can him in the 5th this year." It's unlikely Taylor's name in particular played any part in the conversation. There might well have been a number of guys they would be happy to take with a comp 5th if they were there.  Heck, for all we know maybe they wanted somebody even more than Taylor but that guy was already gone when that comp picked rolled around. The obvious reason - the motivation, for the swap of picks  was that they wanted to get Bibbs .  Most likely the conversation went something like "How much are we willing to give up to get Bibbs?" Turns out the answer was a future likely high 4th for a current year comp 5th.  In other words we traded something of value to get Bibbs.  And that's why I say the trade was for Bibbs, not for Taylor.  

Now I grant you it is possible that we were desperate for one more 5th this year, even not knowing who would be available. If that were the case I could easily see viewing the trade as being for an extra pick (not necessarily Taylor).  I just find it wholly unreasonable to think that a team in re-building mode would be so desperate for a current year bottom of the 5th pick that they would give up a future 4th, likely high, for that pick.  It seems infinitely more likely the objective of the trade was not an extra bottom of the 5th pick,. but Bibbs.

As aside, you and I will never agree on the swapping of picks.  If you and I get a Christmas present and I like your present more than mine I might try to swap presents with you.  If you know I want your thing more than mine you might ask me to pay you some kind of compensation for making the swap. To me that is clearly the price of the swap.  Yes, you do also end up with my present too, but that's what it means to swap presents, by definition that means you ended up with my present.  But the price for that swap was whatever else I gave you to convince you to make the swap.  To me that is as clear as can be; but not the way you see it.  We disagree on this, and probably always will.  So be it.

I'm going to continue to look at the swapping of picks in the NFL draft by looking at the price paid or received for the swap. The price we received for that "trade down" was Bibbs. To me evaluating the trade will continue to simply be a matter of whether Bibbs was worth something like 60 or 70 spots in the draft. I didn't think he was.  So I thought it was a bad trade. I will continue to not judge how good the trade was based on how well we, or the other team, used the picks that were swapped. I've said this before, but since I can't see how this isn't persuasive I will once again just ask you to consider how you would evaluate a trade of a high 4th for a low 5th if there were not an extra player involved.  Terrible trade! No question about it.  The "value" of a low 5th does not equal the "value" of a high 4th - and that doesn't change based on who those picks are eventually used on and how those guys' careers work out. In that sense how well Taylor works out is completely irrelevant. I mean great for us if he does, but it doesn't affect whether the trade was good or bad.

We've been over this more than once before so  I'l try to remember not to re-hash this point again in the future.

 

[y2lamanaki]

11 hours ago, big9erfan said:

You're missing my point when I say that the trade was for Bibbs, not for Taylor.  My point is the motivation for the trade.

Sure, that's fair. The motivation for the trade was Bibbs. But if all we wanted was Bibbs, we could have easily given up just that future 4th to get him. Clearly, there was enough concern about how well he would do that we insisted on getting a second piece back to hedge our bets. And with the cost of only the pick we used on Pita, we could have gotten back into the 4th if we so desired, and the team showed an enormous willingness to move up to select their players (see Reuben Foster, CJ Beathard, Joe Williams). So...in the end, I'll grant you Kapri Bibbs may have been the motivation for the trade, but he wasn't enough to trade for straight up (same as the team did not view Zuttah as enough to trade a 6th straight up), which means we traded for Bibbs and a 5th, and that 5th is Trent Taylor.  

[J-ALL-DAY]

I was probably the last guy on the McDonald bandwagon but he had to go. Still hope he becomes a solid contributor in Pittsburgh.