Johnny Hammersticks Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 Ok...I see what is happening here... 4merper4mer...I respect your point of view...but it is starting to seem like u are grasping at straws here, just for the sake of arguing...when u are provided with an answer, u seem to try to pick apart every minute detail, so that it never seems to satisfy you...and that is fine- it is your prerogative...but I neither have the time, nor the energy to play this little cat and mouse game. Answers were given...u accept them or you don't...either way, just move on. Time out for this TBD public service announcement. Sir, you are being trolled You're both right. TYPICALLY, teams don't trade away top talent before their rookie contract expires. Sometimes, however, there can be good reasons to do so and get as much in return as possible before they walk for nothing. Also, I'm not a huge fan of using the franchise tag. Especially if the player does not want to play here. I'm not saying this is the case with SW, but if it is, buh bye Sammy.
JaCrispy Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 (edited) Smart team and smart trade are 2 different things and smart trade is all that matters. The Browns got a 1st round pick for Trent Richardson. The Bills got LeSean McCoy for Kiko. Why do other moves those teams make impact whether or not those were good decisions? It shouldn't. The team that makes the trade is totally irrelevant. The result of the trade is what is judged. Good teams make bad moves and bad teams make good moves. There are a bunch of cases that you can point to (those 2 in particular) where trading away the young guy was ABSOLUTELY the right decision. That isn't the case with Watkins because you will never get comparable value and have plenty of money to keep him. In a bunch of those cases the guy was traded because they couldn't retain him. I agree that it would seem the trade would dictate whether the team was a smart team for making the trade or not- and not the history of decisions the team has made. Time out for this TBD public service announcement. Sir, you are being trolled You're both right. TYPICALLY, teams don't trade away top talent before their rookie contract expires. Sometimes, however, there can be good reasons to do so and get as much in return as possible before they walk for nothing. Also, I'm not a huge fan of using the franchise tag. Especially if the player does not want to play here. I'm not saying this is the case with SW, but if it is, buh bye Sammy. I think my mistake might have been saying top players in their "rookie contract" in my post instead of just saying top players being traded in any contract... Edited May 29, 2017 by JaCrispy
4merper4mer Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 Ok...I see what is happening here... 4merper4mer...I respect your point of view...but it is starting to seem like u are grasping at straws here, just for the sake of arguing...when u are provided with an answer, u seem to try to pick apart every minute detail, so that it never seems to satisfy you...and that is fine- it is your prerogative...but I neither have the time, nor the energy to play this little cat and mouse game. Answers were given...u accept them or you don't...either way, just move on. You can't be serious Shirley. You said the Bills have been dumb with getting value from their expiring contracts and should follow the example of smart teams. And the best examples come from.......the Bills. And I am the one grasping at straws. We have talked about the Pats, so how about we start with the other "smart " teams. From a general perspective that usually seems to mean: Steelers Seahawks Packers Giants Cards Ravens Broncos Chiefs I tried my best to include the generally accepted "smart" teams and may have missed a couple. Go for it.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 ru·mor noun a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth. verb be circulated as an unverified account. ...if the Bills are taking a "wait and see" look by not exercising the 5th year option, what GM that values his job would pull off a trade versus the same "wait and see" or better yet, wait until FA?....
JaCrispy Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 You can't be serious Shirley. You said the Bills have been dumb with getting value from their expiring contracts and should follow the example of smart teams. And the best examples come from.......the Bills. And I am the one grasping at straws. We have talked about the Pats, so how about we start with the other "smart " teams. From a general perspective that usually seems to mean: Steelers Seahawks Packers Giants Cards Ravens Broncos Chiefs I tried my best to include the generally accepted "smart" teams and may have missed a couple. Go for it. I am serious...and don't call me Shirley... I say we just agree to disagree...no point in ruining a beautiful rainy afternoon...
4_kidd_4 Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 For a second rounder next year? Pull that trigger til the gun goes *click*. Bold move AND clearing out remnants of the past regime? Love it.
Kirby Jackson Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 For a second rounder next year? Pull that trigger til the gun goes *click*. Bold move AND clearing out remnants of the past regime? Love it. Ha ha, you aren't serious right?
HT02 Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 I don't get this, it really reeks of biting your nose to spite your face. To read that the new front office doesn't "believe" in him is puzzling. Most people will agree that the Whaley trade was a bad one in hind sight but he is a very talented receiver on a team not blessed with a great deal of talent at his position.
BringBackOrton Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 Smart team and smart trade are 2 different things and smart trade is all that matters. The Browns got a 1st round pick for Trent Richardson. The Bills got LeSean McCoy for Kiko. Why do other moves those teams make impact whether or not those were good decisions? It shouldn't. The team that makes the trade is totally irrelevant. The result of the trade is what is judged. Good teams make bad moves and bad teams make good moves. There are a bunch of cases that you can point to (those 2 in particular) where trading away the young guy was ABSOLUTELY the right decision. That isn't the case with Watkins because you will never get comparable value and have plenty of money to keep him. In a bunch of those cases the guy was traded because they couldn't retain him. Every case is different, too. In terms of scheme fit, player role, etc. NE trading Collins and to a lesser extent Jones worked because they signed or acquired cheap vets to fill their roles adequately. The Browns trading for Collins also worked, because they were a team that needs young stars to build around and certainly had the money to lock Collins up long term. Ditto for the Richardson trade. The Browns got what looked like a decent RB at #3 overall. Rather than build around him as the focal point, because he wasn't good enough to do so, they shipped him off to a team who was looking for a decent RB as their final piece. Richardson nose-dived, but at the time, it almost made sense for both teams. Making it as simple as "Good teams don't do X, bad teams do X" is foolhardy and simplistic.
4_kidd_4 Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 Ha ha, you aren't serious right? Sure am. It's about time the org grew some stones. Because the status quo has reaped exactly what for this franchise?
Kirby Jackson Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 Every case is different, too. In terms of scheme fit, player role, etc. NE trading Collins and to a lesser extent Jones worked because they signed or acquired cheap vets to fill their roles adequately. The Browns trading for Collins also worked, because they were a team that needs young stars to build around and certainly had the money to lock Collins up long term. Ditto for the Richardson trade. The Browns got what looked like a decent RB at #3 overall. Rather than build around him as the focal point, because he wasn't good enough to do so, they shipped him off to a team who was looking for a decent RB as their final piece. Richardson nose-dived, but at the time, it almost made sense for both teams. Making it as simple as "Good teams don't do X, bad teams do X" is foolhardy and simplistic. Well said Sure am. It's about time the org grew some stones. Because the status quo has reaped exactly what for this franchise? They should dump McCoy while they are at it because status quo doesn't work.
4_kidd_4 Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 They should dump McCoy while they are at it because status quo doesn't work. Aging, nagging hammy issues, maybe a year or two left of "prime". What can we get for him?
JaCrispy Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 (edited) For a second rounder next year? Pull that trigger til the gun goes *click*. Bold move AND clearing out remnants of the past regime? Love it. For a second rounder next year? Pull that trigger til the gun goes *click*. Bold move AND clearing out remnants of the past regime? Love it. Make it two 2nd rounders, where one is conditional and can become a 1st rounder and you have a deal. Edited May 29, 2017 by JaCrispy
Kirby Jackson Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 (edited) Aging, nagging hammy issues, maybe a year or two left of "prime". What can we get for him?Love the hot takes!! Can't trust any decision from guys that let Kelvin Sheppard get away for Jerry Hughes. EVERYTHING is bad Edited May 29, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
4_kidd_4 Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 Love the hot takes!! Hey, you asked. I want the FO to be bold and forward thinking. Not saying trade everyone, just saying they should always be listening and if the price is right you make the move to benefit the future.
dpberr Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 Perhaps they've been told by the team doctors that his foot will never be 100 percent and prone to reinjury. I suspect that thats the case personally. You'll fix it, heal it, promptly reinjure it.
Dr. Who Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 Perhaps they've been told by the team doctors that his foot will never be 100 percent and prone to reinjury. I suspect that thats the case personally. You'll fix it, heal it, promptly reinjure it. I am not a medical doctor, so I'd like to know why this would be the case when other athletes have had the same issue and it was rectified (usually requiring a second surgery.)
4merper4mer Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 For a second rounder next year? Pull that trigger til the gun goes *click*. Bold move AND clearing out remnants of the past regime? Love it. What should the Sabres get for Eichel?
HappyDays Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 What is this website? It doesn't cite a source or anything. Can't see it happening at this point. Sammy is here for at least the season and we'll see what happens after that.
BarleyNY Posted May 29, 2017 Posted May 29, 2017 For a second rounder next year? Pull that trigger til the gun goes *click*. Bold move AND clearing out remnants of the past regime? Love it. Ha ha, you aren't serious right? The reality of the situation is that Sammy's class is the 4th to have 5th year options for 1st rounders. Exactly zero players whose options weren't picked up (or weren't extended prior to needing to use the option) were with their team in their 5th season. Like it or not, agree with the team declining the option or not, this is Sammy's last season as a Bill. The new regime has made their decision. It doesn't matter if we're serious or not, the team is. It is what it is. Maximize his value to the team.
Recommended Posts