given that Oakland wants kaepernick, would you make this trade?

[/dev/null]

At least next years first

[Ennjay]

And exactly why would we trade with the Raiders? Ralph has done that twice in his life and gotten fleeced both times (Daryle Lamonica for Tom Flores and an injured Art Powell; a third-round choice for Billy Joe Hobert).

 

How soon they forget: Bo Roberson!

[BRH]

That's like saying the Bills shouldn't have taken Bruce Smith first overall because the last time they took a defensive end first overall, Walt Patulski, it didn't work out.

 

A history of trading with a team twice in the previous 50 years is totally irrelevant.

Then you don't know the history behind the history, which is that Ralph was so mad at Davis for giving him damaged goods in Powell (and, of course, mad that Lamonica ended up winning a bunch of division titles in Oakland) that he swore he would never trade with Davis again. Of course, he outlived his own memory, but you'd think that after being burned not once but twice that he'd remember why he made the original vow.

[Alphadawg7]

34th pick for the 48th, 79th, and Oakland's third rounder next year?

 

NO way...our 2nd round pick is equivalent to mid first right now with the talent still on the board. Way to valuable to get just that. There would have to be a first in it from next year too.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Then you don't know the history behind the history, which is that Ralph was so mad at Davis for giving him damaged goods in Powell (and, of course, mad that Lamonica ended up winning a bunch of division titles in Oakland) that he swore he would never trade with Davis again. Of course, he outlived his own memory, but you'd think that after being burned not once but twice that he'd remember why he made the original vow.

No I didn't know the history…thanks for filling me in.

 

I can certainly understand why Ralph wouldn't want to deal with Davis out of principle, but that would be the only reason that makes sense to me.

 

I wouldn't be paranoid of a business competitor getting the better of me…if anything, I'd want to get the better of them in another trade…given the proper opportunity, of course.

 

 

 

 

[Orton's Arm]

34th pick for the 48th, 79th, and Oakland's third rounder next year?

If possible, I'd try to arrange things so that Oakland gives us their third round pick this year and their first round pick next year, in exchange for our second round pick. Even if that third rounder turned into a fourth rounder instead, I feel like I have to have Oakland's first round pick in next year's draft!

[Ramius]

I only make the trade as per GG's parameters: Swap 2nds this year and they give us next year's first. Or, swap 2nds, and they give us their 2011 3rd, and 2012 2nd and 3rd.

[LabattBlue]

Its Crazy Davis and the Raiders. Asking price should start at a 1st rounder next year and a 3rd this year

Even he is not that crazy.

[billsfan89]

I would take that trade still picking in the mid second round and picking up a third rounder this and next year that's a good trade offer both picks this and next year

[billsfreak]

Then you don't know the history behind the history, which is that Ralph was so mad at Davis for giving him damaged goods in Powell (and, of course, mad that Lamonica ended up winning a bunch of division titles in Oakland) that he swore he would never trade with Davis again. Of course, he outlived his own memory, but you'd think that after being burned not once but twice that he'd remember why he made the original vow.

I might be wrong, but didn't they trade Bobby Chandler for Phil Villapiano? He should have had a little memory left back then.

[Pete]

I might be wrong, but didn't they trade Bobby Chandler for Phil Villapiano? He should have had a little memory left back then.

I believe you are correct. And Villipiano became part of the Bermuda Triangle, didn't he? Nelson and Smerlas?

[dave mcbride]

I believe you are correct. And Villipiano became part of the Bermuda Triangle, didn't he? Nelson and Smerlas?

Nope. Jim Haslett, Nelson, and Smerlas.

[Astrobot]

I'd take 48, 79, and a 2nd next year.

Simulated:

1-Dareus DT/DE

2 48 Buffalo Andy Dalton QB TCU

3 68 Buffalo Allen Bailey DE34 Miami (FL)

3 81 Buffalo Dontay Moch OLB34 Nevada

4 100 Buffalo Casey Matthews ILB Oregon

4 122 Buffalo DeMarcus Van Dyke CB Miami (FL)

5 133 Buffalo Derek Hall OT Stanford

6 169 Buffalo Shiloh Keo FS Idaho

7 206 Buffalo Cameron Graham TE Louisville

7 245 Buffalo Roy Helu RB Nebraska

[silvermike]

I'm glancing over the past few drafts for similar trades. None are right on point, of course, but here's the ballpark:

 

 

2010

30 --> 34 netted Minnesota a swap of 4ths (moving up 28 spots) and a 7th.

 

39 --> 42 was worth a 5th.

42 --> 44 was worth a 6th.

47 --> 58 was worth a 3rd.

51 --> 62 was worth a 3rd.

 

2009

37 was worth a 2010 1st.

40 --> 47 was worth a 4th and a 6th

51 --> 75 was worth a 4th.

 

So I think our trade down expectations would have to be a bit skimpier. The best option is swapping out for a 2012 first, I think, though Oakland didn't have a first this year and probably wouldn't want to trade out again. OTherwise, we could get a 3rd, and maybe a late round pick. Don't expect more, and thus, I think it's probably worth standing pat.

[dave mcbride]

Simulated:

1-Dareus DT/DE

2 48 Buffalo Andy Dalton QB TCU

3 68 Buffalo Allen Bailey DE34 Miami (FL)

3 81 Buffalo Dontay Moch OLB34 Nevada

4 100 Buffalo Casey Matthews ILB Oregon

4 122 Buffalo DeMarcus Van Dyke CB Miami (FL)

5 133 Buffalo Derek Hall OT Stanford

6 169 Buffalo Shiloh Keo FS Idaho

7 206 Buffalo Cameron Graham TE Louisville

7 245 Buffalo Roy Helu RB Nebraska

Now *this* is impressive, Astro! Thanks.

[H2o]

I only make the trade as per GG's parameters: Swap 2nds this year and they give us next year's first. Or, swap 2nds, and they give us their 2011 3rd, and 2012 2nd and 3rd.

I'd take this deal as well.

[dave mcbride]

I'm glancing over the past few drafts for similar trades. None are right on point, of course, but here's the ballpark:

 

 

2010

30 --> 34 netted Minnesota a swap of 4ths (moving up 28 spots) and a 7th.

 

39 --> 42 was worth a 5th.

42 --> 44 was worth a 6th.

47 --> 58 was worth a 3rd.

51 --> 62 was worth a 3rd.

 

2009

37 was worth a 2010 1st.

40 --> 47 was worth a 4th and a 6th

51 --> 75 was worth a 4th.

 

So I think our trade down expectations would have to be a bit skimpier. The best option is swapping out for a 2012 first, I think, though Oakland didn't have a first this year and probably wouldn't want to trade out again. OTherwise, we could get a 3rd, and maybe a late round pick. Don't expect more, and thus, I think it's probably worth standing pat.

I was thinking that if they really loved a QB, they'd be willing to pay a little more. Sorta like when the Bills paid a very hefty sum to move up 16 spots (or so) to draft ... gulp ... JP.

[Bangarang]

For once, I'd like to know the feeling of raping another team of their draft picks.

[Kelly the Dog]

I believe you are correct. And Villipiano became part of the Bermuda Triangle, didn't he? Nelson and Smerlas?

The story goes that Davis approached Villapiano and asked him what he thought of Bobby Chandler of the Bills. Villapiano said he's great, get him at any cost, or something to that effect. Then Davis traded Villapiano for Chandler. The Bills were loaded at WR then, and it was one of those good trades for both teams I think, although Chandler was a highly underrated player.

[San-O]

34th pick for the 48th, 79th, and Oakland's third rounder next year?

 

 

 

All day long.