Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 I find it fascinating how organizations (and fans) think. A few questions to clarify what I mean: 1. If you're the Vikings, would you trade Bridgewater for Sammy? I think we all agree that the answer is "of course not." 2. Some fans bemoan the trading up to draft Sammy rather than taking a QB with our initial pick, or even trading down to take a QB later. The same fans agree that Sammy had a very good rookie season (particularly given the fact that he didn't exactly have great QB play feeding him), and that his star is on the rise. Yet they never consider trading Sammy for what we need more: a QB, or the chance to draft a QB. This is what economists call the "endowment effect." You tend to overvalue what you have, and undervalue what you could get. http://en.wikipedia....ndowment_effect This is something some great sports GMs like Billy Beane do not run afoul of. Think you need a pitcher to finally make it to a World Series? Go get Lester and Samardzija! That doesn't work? Let Lester go, trade Samardzija, reload with some other players! If you want a QB now your best trade chip is Sammy and it's not even close. So at least consider it ... all you'd be doing is a classic Billy Beane transaction: you traded up to try to get it done in 2014, you came close, but didn't make it. Now you're stuck with no first round pick in 2015? Simply undo that by trading Sammy. No harm done. But it takes guts, which most GMs lack. um no. Who are we trading for Mariota, Winston? no thanks the number one? need a lot more than Sammy for that. Bring in some vet (Matt Schaub) and trade up if need be in 2016 for a QB.
The Frankish Reich Posted January 1, 2015 Author Posted January 1, 2015 The question is: "Is there anything out there in the draft that we need and can't get in the second round worth our proven #1 WR?" The answer is probably no. Even if we miracluously snagged a #1 overall pick for last years #4 pick, who would we draft? Mariota is basically EJ Manuel 2.0, and Winston would be booed by fans if he got into more trouble in Buffalo I don't recall EJ ever doing what Mariota just did. This thread is ridiculous. I'd rather get cutler or RG3 or Foles. Unless we can trade Sammy for Andrew Luck, I'm not gonna be happy with a trade involving Watkins. Now that's ridiculous. As I stated in the thread starter, no way Minnesota would trade Bridgewater (a still unproven 30th pick overall) for Sammy. If we had beaten Oakland and they were in the running for Mariota or Winston, they might have given us Carr for Sammy. Might have. And Carr didn't exactly impress. There's probably about 20 QBs out there that it would make sense to trade Sammy for, since otherwise we will be playing, at best, maybe the 35th best QB in the NFL next year. A good QB is worth far more than even an exceptional WR. Russell Wilson + Golden Tate > John Skelton + Larry Fitzgerald. That's the NFL. Here's my list of who I'd probably trade Sammy for and I'm guessing many posters here would likely cut my list in half: Arron Rodgers, Andrew Luck Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan Tony Romo, Matt Stafford, Big Ben,, maybe Wilson in Sea. I think you're kind of proving my point. You wouldn't trade Sammy straight up for Peyton Manning? For Brady? For Kaepernick? For Cam Newton? Maybe for Wilson (I'm sure Seattle would find that amusing).
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 No because in a year or two Manning and Brady will be retired or very very close. You want to trade Sammy for a pile or potential garbage. Foles, Winston, 3rd best QB in draft You say Minn wouldn't trade Sammy for Brdgewater who has IMO has a much better chance at flame out than Sammy does, so then why do you want to get rid of a proven star for likely someone who may be out of football in a few years or will drift from team to team as a backup. I think you're kind of proving my point. You wouldn't trade Sammy straight up for Peyton Manning? For Brady? For Kaepernick? For Cam Newton? Maybe for Wilson (I'm sure Seattle would find that amusing).
The Frankish Reich Posted January 1, 2015 Author Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) No because in a year or two Manning and Brady will be retired or very very close. You want to trade Sammy for a pile or potential garbage. Foles, Winston, 3rd best QB in draft You say Minn wouldn't trade Sammy for Brdgewater who has IMO has a much better chance at flame out than Sammy does, so then why do you want to get rid of a proven star for likely someone who may be out of football in a few years or will drift from team to team as a backup. Bridgewater does have a much better chance of flaming out than Sammy. So if you're satisfied with an Orton type at QB during the final year or two of a dominant defense, a shot at a 9-7 or even 10-6 record in one or both of those years, perhaps one or even two first round playoff losses, then you're absolutely right. Hang onto Sammy and whatever other key assets you think you might have and patch together the QB situation. You may just scale the heights of success like the Kansas City Chiefs just did. Might I remind you that KC: (1) beat us, again. (2) came much closer to making the playoffs than we did. (3) did so with zero WR TD catches. And actually made the playoffs last year, so we're not even at the mediocre level of success yet. Edited January 1, 2015 by The Frankish Reich
truth on hold Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 A. Sammy's not worth a first B. Post trade we'd need another receiver C. / close thread
NickelCity Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Sammy is going to have a fantastic career. Unless it's for a proven quarterback, I don't want to trade him.
The Frankish Reich Posted January 1, 2015 Author Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) A. Sammy's not worth a first B. Post trade we'd need another receiver C. / close thread Not worth even THE FIRST PICK? Really? Here's how you know that's not true: Tampa wouldn't give us the first pick for him! Remember, I started this thread by talking about the endowment effect, the tendency of people to overvalue what they already have and undervalue the alternative things they could have. Again, you guys are proving my point. Let me put it another way: Tampa's QB situation is lousy, but not as bad as ours. So presumably if you're right they would prefer Glennon + Sammy to, say, Mariota + their current crop of WRs. So let's make that deal ... Edited January 1, 2015 by The Frankish Reich
OldTimer1960 Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 I don't recall EJ ever doing what Mariota just did. Now that's ridiculous. As I stated in the thread starter, no way Minnesota would trade Bridgewater (a still unproven 30th pick overall) for Sammy. If we had beaten Oakland and they were in the running for Mariota or Winston, they might have given us Carr for Sammy. Might have. And Carr didn't exactly impress. There's probably about 20 QBs out there that it would make sense to trade Sammy for, since otherwise we will be playing, at best, maybe the 35th best QB in the NFL next year. A good QB is worth far more than even an exceptional WR. Russell Wilson + Golden Tate > John Skelton + Larry Fitzgerald. That's the NFL. I think you're kind of proving my point. You wouldn't trade Sammy straight up for Peyton Manning? For Brady? For Kaepernick? For Cam Newton? Maybe for Wilson (I'm sure Seattle would find that amusing). I am still missing something. If the goal is to be championship competitive, how does trading a young WR who could be great for the 15-20th best starting QB in the league help? This team is not championship caliber with Foles or Alex Smith or Andy Dalton, etc and no Watkins.
truth on hold Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Not worth even THE FIRST PICK? Really? Here's how you know that's not true: Tampa wouldn't give us the first pick for him! Remember, I started this thread by talking about the endowment effect, the tendency of people to overvalue what they already have and undervalue the alternative things they could have. Again, you guys are proving my point. Let me put it another way: Tampa's QB situation is lousy, but not as bad as ours. So presumably if you're right they would prefer Glennon + Sammy to, say, Mariota + their current crop of WRs. So let's make that deal ... No idea what you're trying to say. IMO Sammy would not garner a first round pick, let alone #1 overall.
The Frankish Reich Posted January 1, 2015 Author Posted January 1, 2015 No idea what you're trying to say. IMO Sammy would not garner a first round pick, let alone #1 overall. OK, I get it. And that's just as obviously wrong on the other side. Sammy is still very affordable, under team control for several years, and clearly would be worth at least a top half of the first round pick. Objectively I'd say he's worth what we used for him -- a 4th overall pick or so.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 No I want better QB play but your solution is to trade Sammy to get better at QB, then you suggest Foles Winston, and the 3rd best QB in the draft. I'd take EJ for 2015 over those options, can find someone better next year. Sammy has shown enough in the one season even with poor QB play to have a high degree of confidence that he will become a very good to elite player. You want in return a player who you have no idea if he'll ever be any good and based on past QB play has a low likelihood of success. Bridgewater does have a much better chance of flaming out than Sammy. So if you're satisfied with an Orton type at QB during the final year or two of a dominant defense, a shot at a 9-7 or even 10-6 record in one or both of those years, perhaps one or even two first round playoff losses, then you're absolutely right. Hang onto Sammy and whatever other key assets you think you might have and patch together the QB situation. You may just scale the heights of success like the Kansas City Chiefs just did. Might I remind you that KC: (1) beat us, again. (2) came much closer to making the playoffs than we did. (3) did so with zero WR TD catches. And actually made the playoffs last year, so we're not even at the mediocre level of success yet.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 This could work.... After whaley gets fired and becomes a gm elsewhere, he's sure to offer two first round picks for Sammy.. Then the two first round picks can be shopped for a qb. Can't lose.
ejsohio Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Two wrongs don't make a right. Whaley shouldn't of traded away our 1st pick for Watkins, and we should of drafted O. Beckham instead and kept our pick. But Watkins is a really good player and will get better. T. Bridgewater is not the answer and in my opinion neither is any other quarterback in he draft or via trade. Were going to have to find somebody in free agency and draft a quarterback in the middle rounds to develop like a Russell Wilson who we could of had but took TJ Graham instead.
The Frankish Reich Posted January 2, 2015 Author Posted January 2, 2015 Two wrongs don't make a right. Whaley shouldn't of traded away our 1st pick for Watkins, and we should of drafted O. Beckham instead and kept our pick. But Watkins is a really good player and will get better. T. Bridgewater is not the answer and in my opinion neither is any other quarterback in he draft or via trade. Were going to have to find somebody in free agency and draft a quarterback in the middle rounds to develop like a Russell Wilson who we could of had but took TJ Graham instead. Here's where I'm coming from: management has to choose. Without a franchise QB, the idea that you're building for sustained winning over a decade or so is nonsense. So you gotta choose. I see peak defensive talent right now, and some decent offensive talent. The defense won't last. There's young guys like Bradham and Alonso and Preston Brown, but the core is older players like Dareus, or players already heading into their decline phases like Kyle and Mario. (They played great this year; how many linemen moving well into their 30s maintain that level?) So if I'm Pegula, I'm saying the future is now. But there's another way of looking at it which is perfectly rational. We'll build a long term system. Develop good young players. Keep all the young talent we can, and hope to draft and develop the QB of the future. We probably won't win anything right away. A playoff appearance or two at best. But we'll keep focused on drafting/developing/keeping the best talent available. What bothers me is this: standing pat, dubbing players untouchable (we've all heard it: sign Dareus at any cost! re-sign Hughes! And now, the response I was expecting: don't touch Sammy whatever you do!), plugging in another stopgap or two, and hoping against hope that in the next couple years the Patriots finally decline, and Miami stalls, or the AFC gets weak enough that 10-6 or even 9-7 may get us a playoff appearance. I see no value in that.
jletha Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 OK, I get it. And that's just as obviously wrong on the other side. Sammy is still very affordable, under team control for several years, and clearly would be worth at least a top half of the first round pick. Objectively I'd say he's worth what we used for him -- a 4th overall pick or so. You're out of your mind if you think anyone would give up a 4th overall pick for him. You talk about teams "overvalueing what they have" and you're doing just that. You're over valuing Sammy Watkins. Look at how many good rookie WRs there were this year. Why would someone give up assets when they can get their own WR in the draft? We may get a second rounder for Sammy and that isn't worth it.
truth on hold Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 You're out of your mind if you think anyone would give up a 4th overall pick for him. You talk about teams "overvalueing what they have" and you're doing just that. You're over valuing Sammy Watkins. Look at how many good rookie WRs there were this year. Why would someone give up assets when they can get their own WR in the draft? We may get a second rounder for Sammy and that isn't worth it. That's my guess too, 2nd rounder. But even that could be problematic .... if we're offering him up for trade bait after a year what's the signaling effect? That we've concluded he's not that good? Or there's an injury concern? Remember last 1st rounder traded after his rookie season was Trent Richardson and that was a disaster for colts
jletha Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 That's my guess too, 2nd rounder. But even that could be problematic .... if we're offering him up for trade bait after a year what's the signaling effect? That we've concluded he's not that good? Or there's an injury concern? Remember last 1st rounder traded after his rookie season was Trent Richardson and that was a disaster for colts Yea trading him for a second would be a mistake. He's worth more to us than a second round pick because of what you said and also we would need to address WR again after the trade.
What a Tuel Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) You're out of your mind if you think anyone would give up a 4th overall pick for him. You talk about teams "overvalueing what they have" and you're doing just that. You're over valuing Sammy Watkins. Look at how many good rookie WRs there were this year. Why would someone give up assets when they can get their own WR in the draft? We may get a second rounder for Sammy and that isn't worth it. You are out of your mind. That crop of wide receivers only comes around once a decade or so. You are acting as if teams will just get theirs this year. Some teams didn't get theirs, so yes teams would absolutely trade a 1st round pick for Sammy Watkins. Would someone give a 1st for Odell Beckham? Jesus Christ. Now I see a 2nd rounder might even be questionable. Sheesh. You guys need to take some time off, and relax. Edit: I should mention that I am certainly not advocating trading Sammy Watkins, I think that idea is ludicrous. Edited January 2, 2015 by What a Tuel
truth on hold Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 You are out of your mind. That crop of wide receivers only comes around once a decade or so. You are acting as if teams will just get theirs this year. Some teams didn't get theirs, so yes teams would absolutely trade a 1st round pick for Sammy Watkins. Would someone give a 1st for Odell Beckham? Jesus Christ. Now I see a 2nd rounder might even be questionable. Sheesh. You guys need to take some time off, and relax. Of course beckham gets a first, but he's on a completely different level than Watkins. Only in the mind of bills homers are they somehow equals
jletha Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 You are out of your mind. That crop of wide receivers only comes around once a decade or so. You are acting as if teams will just get theirs this year. Some teams didn't get theirs, so yes teams would absolutely trade a 1st round pick for Sammy Watkins. Would someone give a 1st for Odell Beckham? Jesus Christ. Now I see a 2nd rounder might even be questionable. Sheesh. You guys need to take some time off, and relax. A team in the bottom of the first round would probably give up a first rounder for Beckham to maybe get over the edge in a push for a Super Bowl but not for Sammy. Beckham had a much better season in less games. WRs are just not valuable except for maybe 2-3 and Sammy didn't prove he's one of those guys this year. I doubt anyone would give a first rounder for him and definitely not a top first rounder
Recommended Posts