K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 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. Moving the goal posts again. Perhaps the biggest indication of intellectual dishonesty. No matter how you slice it, we netted two picks from KC. That was your question. Look at all the intellectually dishonest posters who clearly just hate Sammy! No, they aren't. It's perfectly reasonable to say that in addition to our own first round pick next year, we have KC's, too. In that sense it's an extra first round pick. Next year. But your question was how many picks did we net from the trade with KC. We netted two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 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. And yet I made no such argument and you jumped on my back. Nice play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 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. My ENTIRE point of even entering this tired subject was because the quote cited in the OP said the Bills TRADED two first round picks. That is simply not true because you have to consider that we RECEIVED a first round pick as well. Saying we "used" two first rounders is different that saying we "traded" two first rounders. And THAT's what the quote in the OP said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) At this point you've got to ask yourself why you care about winning this one so badly. yeah...it seems people have dug in and you're not going to change anyone's mind at this point. Edited May 28, 2017 by JaCrispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 My ENTIRE point of even entering this tired subject was because the quote cited in the OP said the Bills TRADED two first round picks. That is simply not true because you have to consider that we RECEIVED a first round pick as well. Saying we "used" two first rounders is different that saying we "traded" two first rounders. And THAT's what the quote in the OP said. Yeah that has been my point as well. At that point if we traded away 2 1st rounders and selected Sammy Watkins then we used 3 first picks on Sammy Watkins. But that isn't how that works. We don't say that we got 2 1st rounders from Kansas City for the Mahomes deal, so why would we say we traded away 2 1st rounders in the Watkins deal? It is semantics but it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 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. Well, I always keep my subatomic particles in a box under my bed. It's just easier when you know where to look. This argument makes about that much sense. We know what we got, and what we gave. I refuse to look any deeper than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Yeah that has been my point as well. At that point if we traded away 2 1st rounders and selected Sammy Watkins then we used 3 first picks on Sammy Watkins. But that isn't how that works. We don't say that we got 2 1st rounders from Kansas City for the Mahomes deal, so why would we say we traded away 2 1st rounders in the Watkins deal? It is semantics but it matters. And that's the simple point, really. I refuse to let semantics be used to advance narratives. If one has to advance a narrative, then I demand they be honest about it. That's all. And it's not much to ask. We should all hold media and other sources accountable in that regard. Especially in this day and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) And that's the simple point, really. I refuse to let semantics be used to advance narratives. If one has to advance a narrative, then I demand they be honest about it. That's all. And it's not much to ask. We should all hold media and other sources accountable in that regard. Especially in this day and age. Yes, I think this is right. 2014 and 2015 drafts are long gone. GM from those drafts is gone. Scouting has turned over. The org has changed, and who knows how it will pan out? I am not sure if we can hold media and people on a message board accountable, but I like the aim of what you have written. Edited May 28, 2017 by NeckBeard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Ignoring for a minute that this is a totally unfounded rumor dreamed up by two rugby bloggers, is it really so difficult to comprehend that they want to be sure Sammy is healthy before investing in a big long term deal? I suspect Sammy will be healthy this year, he'll show the talent expected of him when drafted, and during the season they will sign him to a big long term deal. If it turns out he cannot come back and has a chronic foot issue then he won't be getting another deal. If he had been extended for 13 million and turned out to have a chronic injury, what would the response have been around here? We actually know that , as judged by the grumbling over Clay's contract and that his knee is acting up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) You conveniently left out that we received pick #4. No matter how you slice it, we didn't "trade" two #1 picks as the article claims. We didn't receive a 4th. We traded our 4th. We traded our 9th over all and our 4th round pick and our following years 1st round pick. In a nutshell we traded 3 picks for 1 pick and used that pick to draft Watkins. Its all semantics and people should stop arguing about it. The bottom line is the Bills spent 3 of their available picks to draft Watkins. Two of them being 1st rounders. Edit: never mind the first two sentences. I just realized you were talking about #4 over all and not the 4th round. Edited May 28, 2017 by Scott7975 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Well, I always keep my subatomic particles in a box under my bed. It's just easier when you know where to look. This argument makes about that much sense. We know what we got, and what we gave. I refuse to look any deeper than that. I know...just trying to break up a dead end debate with a different take that might be a little more light hearted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 We didn't receive a 4th. We traded our 4th. We traded our 9th over all and our 4th round pick and our following years 1st round pick. In a nutshell we traded 3 picks for 1 pick and used that pick to draft Watkins. Its all semantics and people should stop arguing about it. The bottom line is the Bills spent 3 of their available picks to draft Watkins. Two of them being 1st rounders. Yep. So it cost us two picks: the extra first and fourth. The year he was drafted we were using a first round pick, just that it became the fourth pick in round 1 vs. the 9th. Using a pick doesn't cost you that pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 How many games has he actually changed? Some of you are talking like Watkins is the the player that comes in clutch to win us games. Actually, he is the player to hurt his foot every year and almost come back. I am skeptical about any potential trade but Watkins is definitely trade material. There were a couple. Detroit is the one that comes to mind for sure. He made some clutch off target catches that got us the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 We didn't receive a 4th. We traded our 4th. We traded our 9th over all and our 4th round pick and our following years 1st round pick. In a nutshell we traded 3 picks for 1 pick and used that pick to draft Watkins. Its all semantics and people should stop arguing about it. The bottom line is the Bills spent 3 of their available picks to draft Watkins. Two of them being 1st rounders. I was referring to pick #4 overall in the draft; the pick some refuse to acknowledge in the transaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 I know...just trying to break up a dead end debate with a different take that might be a little more light hearted. Some believe draft picks are like having the God particle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Some believe draft picks are like having the God particle. Gotta luv the dog days of the offseason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 And yet I made no such argument and you jumped on my back. Nice play. I said that your net vs. gross cost post was awful because you are validating a dishonest argument. Sorry if that hurt your feelings, but it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 I said that your net vs. gross cost post was awful because you are validating a dishonest argument. Sorry if that hurt your feelings, but it's true. Bologna. I stated both sides of the argument, as I understand them. Plus the subject matter is covered in any economics 101 class. Grind your ax elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 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. Try it this way... Pick #9(2014) + pick #19(2015) + pick #115(2015) = pick #4(2014.) 3 picks, count 'em THREE, total picks to receive ONE pick Pick #4(2014) = Sammy Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 That's not how it works, but that's how you're framing the argument. It may lend credence to a negative framing of the whole story, but "trading two first round picks (and a fourth)" is just factual. That's all I have left to say at this junction. I wonder how many people on Kansas City's board are arguing that they traded 2 first round picks for Mahomes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts