Rumor- Bills will entertain trade offers for Watkins?

[BringBackOrton]

 

Yes. It comes down to gross cost versus net cost. People who don't want to take into account net cost ignore the fact that the Bills still had a first rounder in 2014 (so 3 picks - 1 spent on Watkins in first round = 2 picks). People who don't take into account gross cost ignore the fact that Sammy cost (his original pick in 2014 + 2 picks in 2015 = 3 picks) but ignore the existence of an asset in and of itself.

 

3+ years later I am incredulous that we have never gotten beyond this.

I think about it like this. If the Browns had drafted Watkins at #4, then called the Bills right after and traded his rights for the exact same terms, would what we "traded" change? It shouldn't right? It shouldn't make a lick of difference, because the end result is the same. No pick #9, no pick #19 no 4th rounder and Sammy Watkins as a Bill.

Edited May 28, 2017 by jmc12290

[4merper4mer]

Wow... "dumb" and "stupid" in one post. You must be super smart to be able to call people both.

i know lots of really bright people that instead of forming solid arguments of their own just call the opposition names.

They're usually in grade 1-5, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen. I mean it's obvious you know best, so we should probably just concede.

Having a ridiculous opinion about something doesn't make you dumb overall. Don't get so offended.

[K-9]

How many picks did NE trade for Brandin Cooks?

 

It really is. The trade doesn't occur if we just trade pick #8 or the 2015 1st. We needed both. Two. 2.

Ah, time to move the goal posts.

 

But let's do the simple math:

 

Pick #9 (2014) + pick #19 (2015) = 2 first round picks - pick #4 (2014) = 1, count 'em ONE, first round pick.

 

So much easier when you break it down scientifically. Gotta love that new math.

[BringBackOrton]

Ah, time to move the goal posts.

 

But let's do the simple math:

 

Pick #9 (2014) + pick #19 (2015) = 2 first round picks - pick #4 (2014) = 1, count 'em ONE, first round pick.

 

So much easier when you break it down scientifically. Gotta love that new math.

Wow, so the Sammy and Cooks trades cost the same amount. What a deal.

 

If the Browns had drafted Watkins at #4, then called the Bills right after and traded his rights for the exact same terms, would what we "traded" change? It shouldn't right? It shouldn't make a lick of difference, because the end result is the same. No pick #9, no pick #19 no 4th rounder and Sammy Watkins as a Bill.

Edited May 28, 2017 by jmc12290

[What a Tuel]

I think K-9 is projecting when he claims me being intellectually dishonest.

 

No one says that NE didn't trade one first to the Saints for Cooks because he was drafted with a first round pick. If NE traded a single first for Cooks, the Bills could not have also traded a single first for Watkins.

 

It's that simple. Any other semantic argument under the guise of claiming "dishonesty," is clearly a projection of his own spin zone.

 

It isn't intellectually dishonest but it leaves it open to say we used 3 1st round picks on Sammy Watkins which simply isn't true. And believe me, since you say "traded away 2 1st round picks", people actually do say we used 3 1st rounders.

Edited May 28, 2017 by What a Tuel

[K-9]

Both sides are known to play games with this due to the verbiage having variation the can go either way and people liking to splice it up into nonsensical combinations

 

When saying we traded up -- we gave up next year's first to trade up is the obvious. That we are moving up implies there's another pick in that round that we are using a resource to improve

 

When discussing sammys cost it's fair to say 2 firsts

Absolutely in the sense that we invested two firsts into him.

 

But we didn't TRADE two firsts because we RECEIVED a first in return. And a higher value first to boot.

[BringBackOrton]

 

It isn't intellectually dishonest but it leaves it open to say we used 3 1st round picks on Sammy Watkins which simply isn't true. And believe me, since you say "traded away 2 1st round picks", people actually do say we used 3 1st rounders.

I get what you're saying. I think you understand what I'm saying. K-9 is arguing that Sammy and Cooks cost the same amount of draft picks. There's no getting to some people who need to tie themselves in mental knots to defend the Bills.

[K-9]

Wow, so the Sammy and Cooks trades cost the same amount. What a deal.

 

If the Browns had drafted Watkins at #4, then called the Bills right after and traded his rights for the exact same terms, would what we "traded" change? It shouldn't right? It shouldn't make a lick of difference, because the end result is the same. No pick #9, no pick #19 no 4th rounder and Sammy Watkins as a Bill.

AGAIN, you don't mention the pick we RECEIVED in RETURN for those two picks.

 

This has been an interesting exercise. But it's become laborious and boring to rehash ground long paved over.

[Guest NeckBeard]

I think about it like this. If the Browns had drafted Watkins at #4, then called the Bills right after and traded his rights for the exact same terms, would what we "traded" change? It shouldn't right? It shouldn't make a lick of difference, because the end result is the same. No pick #9, no pick #19 no 4th rounder and Sammy Watkins as a Bill.

 

Like I said: gross cost versus net cost is the issue here. Most people I know who don't like the Watkins pick rely on gross cost for justifying their opinions about what the Bills gave up. Most people I know who like the Watkins pick rely on net cost for justifying their opinions about what the Bills gave up.

 

The Bills did what they did at that time, and hopefully the Watkins thing works itself out sooner rather than later.

[K-9]

I get what you're saying. I think you understand what I'm saying. K-9 is arguing that Sammy and Cooks cost the same amount of draft picks. There's no getting to some people who need to tie themselves in mental knots to defend the Bills.

No, I'm not. I never once mentioned the Cooks trade. That is your hallucination and your hallucination alone. Again, intellectual dishonesty. I'm done with you now. Off you go.

[BringBackOrton]

AGAIN, you don't mention the pick we RECEIVED in RETURN for those two picks.

 

This has been an interesting exercise. But it's become laborious and boring to rehash ground long paved over.

It's laborious and boring because your argument is so bizarre. How many picks did the Browns get from the trade? 2 right? No one says the Browns traded pick #4 for ONE first round pick.

No, I'm not. I never once mentioned the Cooks trade. That is your hallucination and your hallucination alone. Again, intellectual dishonesty. I'm done with you now. Off you go.

I clearly applied your fever dream of an argument to analogous situation to demonstrate how absurd you were acting. Like I said, can't get through to some people.

[K-9]

It's laborious and boring because your argument is so bizarre. How many picks did the Browns get from the trade? 2 right? No one says the Browns traded pick #4 for ONE first round pick.

How many picks did the Bills get from the trade?

[BringBackOrton]

How many picks did the Bills get from the trade?

A non answer is the white flag.

 

How many picks did the Browns get from the trade? 2 right? No one says the Browns traded pick #4 for ONE first round pick.

 

Tell me the Browns traded pick #4 for one first round pick K-9. Please. Do it. Be that intellectually bankrupt.

Edited May 28, 2017 by jmc12290

[JaCrispy]

...I find it woefully disconcerting that you have in such a wholesale manner discounted the value of such gibberish, a true insult to the posting brethren.....

Well, I'm sure you'll find a way to get over it...especially when you realize I would have to be insulting myself as well, by default. So, for your own benefit, try not to think too hard about it, and enjoy your holiday weekend. I know I am...

Edited May 28, 2017 by JaCrispy

[BarleyNY]

Yes. It comes down to gross cost versus net cost. People who don't want to take into account net cost ignore the fact that the Bills still had a first rounder in 2014 (so 3 picks - 1 spent on Watkins in first round = 2 picks). People who don't take into account gross cost ignore the fact that Sammy cost (his original pick in 2014 + 2 picks in 2015 = 3 picks) but ignore the existence of an asset in and of itself.

 

3+ years later I am incredulous that we have never gotten beyond this.

Horrific argument. Two firsts and a fourth = Sammy Watkins. Is anything else material to the discussion?

[BringBackOrton]

How many picks did the Bills get from the trade?

How many picks did the Bills get from trading out of #10 this year? Have you been running around calling folks "intellectually dishonest" for saying we netted an extra first and pick #27?

[Bill_with_it]

Of course I know that, I guess you'd have to believe that Watkins will have an injury free year.

 

That plus of course he'll do his very best on a contract year.

 

People are very quick to say "dumb" and "stupid" around here. I was always taught that people that have to resort to those types of words just have trouble articulating themselves properly.

 

Maybe if you opened your mind to other people's points of view you might start seeing things in grey and not so black and white as your opinion seems to be.

 

in your opinion Watkins will perform well enough to deserve a brand new contract or be tagged.

 

In my opinion I've never seen anything to believe that's true. Even if he did, it would conveniently be done in a contract year.

 

If the Bills brass made a move like this I believe they've finally learned a thing or two from past mistakes.

 

Two differing opinions. Neither have to be "dumb" or "stupid".

 

Id love if Sammy became our Julio like he was supposed to be. Just have trouble believing it with many Buffalo Bills seasons under my belt.

 

I'm going off seasons past, you're going off of hope.

I think this post will get lost or conveniently overlooked by the hyper aggressive. Just like to add something:

Assets don't always gain value with time and some lose value. Just because three draft picks were spent to acquire the services of Watkins doesnt mean today at this point in time the young man is worth three draft picks, or the value his agent will be looking for.

[Guest NeckBeard]

Horrific argument. Two firsts and a fourth = Sammy Watkins. Is anything else material to the discussion?

 

I wasn't making an argument one way or the other. I way laying out what both sides say about cost, and nothing more.

[JerseyBills]

The second best prospect in the draft, probably.

Or we could keep Sammy, a top 10 WR when healthy, and get a top 5 prospect in the draft with our 2 # 1 picks

[4merper4mer]

How many picks did the Bills get from trading out of #10 this year? Have you been running around calling folks "intellectually dishonest" for saying we netted an extra first and pick #27?

Why does any of this crap even matter?

 

He is clearly one of the most talented players on the team....probably at the very top of the list. But everyone wants to pout and whine and cry and get rid of him because of it? It makes no sense and it is an irrational response.

 

How about we get all the Sammy haters a little trophy that says "I was right about that trade" and you can put it in your trophy case forever. In exchange for that we can keep Sammy instead of watching him make the hall of fame for the Raiders, Seahawks, Cardinals or Bucs and you can all keep quiet and just stare at your trophy case when you want to feel vindicated.