Rumor- Bills will entertain trade offers for Watkins?

[K-9]

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?

They netted two from the KC deal. #91 this year, and #1 next year.

 

We didn't net an extra first because we gave up our first. Who's been saying we got an EXTRA first?

[BringBackOrton]

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.

It matters because posters like yourself make stupid leaps that because I'm honest about what Sammy cost, you immediately paint me as a Sammy hater. I like Sammy the player on the Bills, I think he's super talented, and I respected the thought behind the trade at the time. And I don't want him traded.

 

So instead of you making an ass out of yourself, why don't you go stay in your lane in the UFO topics and be quiet?

Edited May 28, 2017 by jmc12290

[K-9]

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.

I believe I've answered you in full several different times now.

 

You may want to consider a white flag yourself, though. Because persisting in a losing cause is foolish.

[Bill_with_it]

He has been elite when on the field. The numbers on a per target basis have been on here 100 times. When he is thrown the ball he is right there with the best players in the league. He is capable of that which 95% of the receivers in the league aren't. You can't kick that to the curb. You have to hope that he gets healthy because elite talents don't grow on trees.

Kirby when you design the offense around that elite talent then that elite talent misses alot of the season, the whole offense takes a step back and loses abit of cohesion because the offense has to change because your elite talent that isnt on the field cant be replicated by anyone else on your offense. It makes no difference at all if sammy has 6 200 yd games if thats all he can participate in. Im all for keeping him if he shows he can play (not just go through the motions/be a decoy) through 16 games and be a significant contributor. If he cant its better to get something out of him than letting him escape buffalo without getting anything other than a 3d round comp pick.

 

If the teams medical staff has concerns then I share those as well.

If the teams management believes that Sammy is going to ask more than he is worthy of to keep him in buffalo if he shows hes healthy then its time to let go. Lets get smarter with the cap and not put ourselves back into the same trouble the recent regime put us into.

[BringBackOrton]

They netted two from the KC deal. #91 this year, and #1 next year.

 

We didn't net an extra first because we gave up our first. Who's been saying we got an EXTRA first?

No, they couldn't have netted two. Let's check your equation.

 

 

Ah, time to move the goal posts.

 

But let's do the simple math:

 

Pick #27(2017) + pick 1 (2018) = 2 first round picks - pick #10 (2016) = 1, count 'em ONE, first round pick.

 

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

 

So they got one first. Even though KC traded both #27 and and first in 2018, we only got one first?

I believe I've answered you in full several different times now.

 

You may want to consider a white flag yourself, though. Because persisting in a losing cause is foolish.

You actually answered the exact question you quoted with a question, instead of an answer. The banter is less cute and impressive when you're wrong.

Edited May 28, 2017 by jmc12290

[K-9]

Kirby when you design the offense around that elite talent then that elite talent misses alot of the season, the whole offense takes a step back and loses abit of cohesion because the offense has to change because your elite talent that isnt on the field cant be replicated by anyone else on your offense. It makes no difference at all if sammy has 6 200 yd games if thats all he can participate in. Im all for keeping him if he shows he can play (not just go through the motions/be a decoy) through 16 games and be a significant contributor. If he cant its better to get something out of him than letting him escape buffalo without getting anything other than a 3d round comp pick.

 

If the teams medical staff has concerns then I share those as well.

If the teams management believes that Sammy is going to ask more than he is worthy of to keep him in buffalo if he shows hes healthy then its time to let go. Lets get smarter with the cap and not put ourselves back into the same trouble the recent regime put us into.

This is a perfectly reasonable stance.

 

Availability is key.

 

But being unavailable isn't the same thing as a player that simply sucks or is a bust. Sammy is an elite receiver, period. The injury issue is a completely separate discussion and as long as people don't conflate the two issues, it's fair.

[Augie]

Why is this so hard?

[JaCrispy]

No, they couldn't have netted two. Let's check your equation.

 

 

 

So they got one first. Even though KC traded both #27 and and first in 2018, we only got one first?

You actually answered the exact question you quoted with a question, instead of an answer. The banter is less cute and impressive when you're wrong.

what if I told you that duality is an illusion...

[Guest NeckBeard]

Why is this so hard?

 

It isn't. This is probably 1 of 5 topics where people just can't let it go.

[K-9]

No, they couldn't have netted two. Let's check your equation.

 

 

 

So they got one first. Even though KC traded both #27 and and first in 2018, we only got one first?

You actually answered the exact question you quoted with a question, instead of an answer. The banter is less cute and impressive when you're wrong.

You really need to look at this from the KC point of view as in "how much did they give up to get Mahomes" in order to make a proper comparison to the Sammy trade.

 

We did NOT net an extra first in the KC deal because we GAVE them our own so the two firsts in 2017 cancel out. We picked up #91 this year and their #1 next year. A net of two.

 

As I said.

[BringBackOrton]

They netted two from the KC deal. #91 this year, and #1 next year.

 

We didn't net an extra first because we gave up our first. Who's been saying we got an EXTRA first?

 

Trade. w/ KC. We get their 1st Rd this year AND their 1st Rd next year along with their 3rd Rd pick this year!

 

 

We now have two first next year, 27th this year and additional 3rd

 

 

our 1st for their 1st and 3rd this year and their 1st next year.

 

 

We can use those two picks plus more if we want still

 

Our values relatively flat with the drop back and we created value in a potential qb year.

 

That's win win

 

 

Look at all the intellectually dishonest posters who clearly just hate Sammy!

 

[John from Riverside]

My head hurts......anyone got some motrin?

[BringBackOrton]

You really need to look at this from the KC point of view as in "how much did they give up to get Mahomes" in order to make a proper comparison to the Sammy trade.

 

We did NOT net an extra first in the KC deal because we GAVE them our own so the two firsts in 2017 cancel out. We picked up #91 this year and their #1 next year. A net of two.

 

As I said.

I was referring to the 2018 first as the "extra" first. Don't you consider the 2018 #1 "extra?"

 

My argument was that I view the Mahomes trade as the Bills trading back, getting #27 and the 2018 #1. I'd say we got two first in the trade. Yes, it was offset from losing #10, but that's a given IMO. And I'm just applying that logic to the Watkins trade.

Edited May 28, 2017 by jmc12290

[JaCrispy]

Why is this so hard?

I'm reminded of the process of trying to locate subatomic particles...and just when you think you have located one, it has already moved to a different location...I don't think there will ever be a correct answer for this problem because both sides are right and wrong at the same time.

[What a Tuel]

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

 

Its actually the perfect way to explain the different perceptions and why people argue about it. Yes, it is simply 2 firsts and a fourth = Sammy Watkins. Plain as day.

 

However phrase it a certain way and "the bills traded away 2 1st round picks to get a 1st round pick to use for Sammy Watkins" Sounds like a lot of picks specifically 3 1st rounders.

 

Or phrase it another way and "the bills swapped 1st round picks, and traded 1 1st round pick to draft Sammy Watkins" Sounds like a lot less, and maybe 1 1st rounder and then 1 to draft him.

 

Different people will apply their mindset of the trade to make it look good or bad and that doesn't sit right with the people looking at it from the other way.

I'm reminded of the process of trying to locate subatomic particles...and just when you think you have located one, it has already moved to a different location...I don't think there will ever be a correct answer for this problem because both sides are right and wrong at the same time.

 

Exactly!

[Bill_with_it]

Fans can be dumb and advocate stupid things like getting rid of Sammy because of a lot of ignorant and emotional responses but the fact that our FOis doing this is disturbing.

Whats disturbing and borderline ignorant is this post.

 

Here is why:

Do you know the medical condition of Watkins foot?

Do you know the medical outlook for Watkins foot?

Do you know the amount of money Watkins agent is likely starting to talk to the FO to retain Watkins service?

Do you know what is being offered for a trade for Watkins?

Do you know what Watkins stance is on staying with the team?

Do you know Watkins attitude towards doing what hes asked to do in this offense?

Those are just a few questions that you could possibly have zero insight about which might lead to a trade that you call ignorant without fully understanding the situation around Watkins to include all the relevant factor vice just saying Watkins is elite when that is arguable....

[BarleyNY]

Its actually the perfect way to explain the different perceptions and why people argue about it. Yes, it is simply 2 firsts and a fourth = Sammy Watkins. Plain as day.

 

However phrase it a certain way and "the bills traded away 2 1st round picks to get a 1st round pick to use for Sammy Watkins" Sounds like a lot of picks specifically 3 1st rounders.

 

Or phrase it another way and "the bills swapped 1st round picks, and traded 1 1st round pick to draft Sammy Watkins" Sounds like a lot less, and maybe 1 1st rounder and then 1 to draft him.

 

Different people will apply their mindset of the trade to make it look good or bad and that doesn't sit right with the people looking at it from the other way.

 

Exactly!

 

Except nothing else is pertinent to any discussion about Watkins (unless you want to get into specific pick values). The "other" ways of describing the transaction are just people trying to mislead. Either downplaying his cost (just traded away one first and one fourth to get him) or overblowing his cost (we used 3 firsts and a fourth). Both are intentionally deceptive and I discount the opinion of anyone employing such dishonesty.

[BringBackOrton]

Except nothing else is pertinent to any discussion about Watkins (unless you want to get into specific pick values). The "other" ways of describing the transaction are just people trying to mislead. Either downplaying his cost (just traded away one first and one fourth to get him) or overblowing his cost (we used 3 firsts and a fourth). Both are intentionally deceptive and I discount the opinion of anyone employing such dishonesty.

Incredibly, I've said 2 firsts this entire time and I'm getting the most pushback.

[What a Tuel]

Incredibly, I've said 2 firsts this entire time and I'm getting the most pushback.

 

I haven't seen the whole argument but as far as I saw so was K-9.

 

K-9, on 28 May 2017 - 4:07 PM, said:

Yes, we gave up two firsts and a fourth but that's not the same as saying we traded away two firsts. We used one. It may sound like semantics, but it isn't. We traded a first for a higher value first but people with agendas never seem to mention that.

[NoSaint]

Incredibly, I've said 2 firsts this entire time and I'm getting the most pushback.

At this point you've got to ask yourself why you care about winning this one so badly.