OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Hey Jeff, if the Bills were going to trade Sammy over the summer, what would you think if the compensation were two 2nd round picks- with one of them being conditional...so basically two 2nd rounders at face value, but potentially a 1st and a 2nd rounder? exactly 'Crispy: Help me out here. If the Bills decline the $13 mil 5th year option (principally an injury guarantee) and expose themselves to potentially using the $15-$16 mil tag in 2018 with a "wait and see" premise, why would a GM give up picks now versus taking the same "wait and see" attitude?.....give up those picks and he is a rental with UFA on the horizon.....If I were a GM, I'd wait and see how he performs health wise in 2017 and consider the UFA sweepstakes in 2018 versus surrendering picks now on his unknown health...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 (edited) 'Crispy: Help me out here. If the Bills decline the $13 mil 5th year option (principally an injury guarantee) and expose themselves to potentially using the $15-$16 mil tag in 2018 with a "wait and see" premise, why would a GM give up picks now versus taking the same "wait and see" attitude?.....give up those picks and he is a rental with UFA on the horizon.....If I were a GM, I'd wait and see how he performs health wise in 2017 and consider the UFA sweepstakes in 2018 versus surrendering picks now on his unknown health...... certainly a legit question...You might have GMs that are more reserved and would want to take a "wait and see approach"...maybe there are some GMs like Doug Whaley who throw caution to wind with injured players and would only need to bring him in for a workout to be satisfied...it is hard to know anything unless something goes down, i guess...heck, we don't even know if McD is seriously entertaining offers or not. But the debate I've been having with myself is (more for my own entertainment), if the Bills do decide to trade Sammy, what compensation would I feel most comfortable with, given Sammy's situation...but ultimately, I feel both arguments are valid...perhaps it is one of those things we won't know which side had the best argument until a few more years, where we see what becomes of Sammy's career, whether he is on the Bills or not...but right now, in the moment, i see that both sides have a case. Edited May 30, 2017 by JaCrispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I don't think anyone has ever accused me of drinking the Koolaid on this board and I can state that Sammy Watkins is a special talent who the Bills would be foolish to trade for a low 1st or 2nd round pick. 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) certainly a legit question...You might have GMs that are more reserved and would want to take a "wait and see approach"...maybe there are some GMs like Doug Whaley who throw caution to wind with injured players and would only need to bring him in for a workout to be satisfied...it is hard to know anything unless something goes down, i guess...heck, we don't even know if McD is seriously entertaining offers or not. I guess the debate I've been having with myself is, if the Bills do decide to trade Sammy, what compensation would I feel most comfortable with, given Sammy's situation (more for my own entertainment)...but I feel both arguments are valid...perhaps it is one of those things we won't know which side had the best argument until a few more years, where we see what becomes of Sammy's career...but right now, in the moment, i see that both sides have a case. ...me thinks a GM's trade offer would be FAR lower than perceived market value with the health factor in the air......here's a wildly speculative hypothetical.....not knowing his 2017 health prognostication and if it turns out to be excellent, potentially raising his 2018 UFA value, if a GM offered you a 4th that could turn into a conditional 3rd, would you take it?...OR....amend the offer as you see fit..... Edited May 31, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) ...me thinks a GM's trade offer would be FAR lower than perceived market value with the health factor in the air......here's a wildly speculative hypothetical.....not knowing his 2017 health prognostication and if it turns out to be excellent, potentially raising his 2018 UFA value, if a GM offered you a 4th that could turn into a conditional 3rd, would you take it?...OR....amend the offer as you see fit..... I think I would start talks at two 2nd rounders, with one being conditional (potential of becoming a 1st and 2nd rounder if Sammy exceeds 1000 yds)...anything less I say no. And I actually think that would be a fair deal for the other team too...if Sammy gets under 1000 yards, it's only two 2nd rounders...this is where i am at right now, but it could change. Edited May 31, 2017 by JaCrispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 'Crispy: Help me out here. If the Bills decline the $13 mil 5th year option (principally an injury guarantee) and expose themselves to potentially using the $15-$16 mil tag in 2018 with a "wait and see" premise, why would a GM give up picks now versus taking the same "wait and see" attitude?.....give up those picks and he is a rental with UFA on the horizon.....If I were a GM, I'd wait and see how he performs health wise in 2017 and consider the UFA sweepstakes in 2018 versus surrendering picks now on his unknown health...... That would certainly be the prudent approach for any GM around the league. Training camp can't get here fast enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffismagic Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Hey Jeff, if the Bills were going to trade Sammy over the summer, what would you think if the compensation were two 2nd round picks- with one of them being conditional...so basically two 2nd rounders at face value, but potentially a 1st and a 2nd rounder? exactly I think everything depends on context. If the Bills were truly doing a rebuild and the trade for Sammy resulted in a bottom 3 finish (top 3 pick!) and 2 2nds I could be persuaded. But my understanding is that Sean McD and Beane sold Pegulas on making the playoffs with Tyrod this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billzgobowlin Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 What two first round picks did we trade? Lemme guess, our 1st in '14 and our 1st in '15? You can't say that and NOT mention we got ANOTHER 1st round pick in return, from Cleveland; the #4 pick in the '14 draft. That represents a NET loss of ONE first round pick. Again, and for the final time, saying we TRADED two first round picks for Sammy is not the same as saying we invested two first round picks in drafting him. This argument was fun for a few minutes a few years ago. I'm officially done with it. Enjoy. Let me see if this makes sense... we traded our pick in '14 and '15 for the right to the #4 pick in #14 which is what we used to select Sammy Watkins. As all of this is true we traded two first round picks and in return we only got Sammy Watkins. While we technically didn't have a net loss of two draft picks Sammy was worth two first round picks as opposed to one. Might be semantics but he did cost us two first round picks as opposed to staying put and picking our normal pick and that player costing only one pick. You are correct that the net loss is one first round pick but two things are true we traded two first round picks and that is what Sammy cost the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Let me see if this makes sense... we traded our pick in '14 and '15 for the right to the #4 pick in #14 which is what we used to select Sammy Watkins. As all of this is true we traded two first round picks and in return we only got Sammy Watkins. While we technically didn't have a net loss of two draft picks Sammy was worth two first round picks as opposed to one. Might be semantics but he did cost us two first round picks as opposed to staying put and picking our normal pick and that player costing only one pick. You are correct that the net loss is one first round pick but two things are true we traded two first round picks and that is what Sammy cost the Bills. Nobody is denying that Sammy was worth a 1st round pick. We gave another on top of that. What the hell are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Oh my....I hated Trig and Calculus, but this it more "how many apples" type stuff. Was it worth it? That can be debated (as it has been ad nauseum). Who got what is not up for debate. Following our team gets hard this time of year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) Let me see if this makes sense... we traded our pick in '14 and '15 for the right to the #4 pick in #14 which is what we used to select Sammy Watkins. As all of this is true we traded two first round picks and in return we only got Sammy Watkins. While we technically didn't have a net loss of two draft picks Sammy was worth two first round picks as opposed to one. Might be semantics but he did cost us two first round picks as opposed to staying put and picking our normal pick and that player costing only one pick. You are correct that the net loss is one first round pick but two things are true we traded two first round picks and that is what Sammy cost the Bills. Its all about the language used. You switch back and forth which is part of the problem. We swapped first rounders (getting a MUCH better 1st round pick, mind you which was the point) and gave Cleveland a 2015 1st and 4th rounder. That is the best way to say it. To say we traded away 2 1st round picks to get a pick to use on Sammy Watkins sounds very much like we used 3 first round picks drafting Sammy, which isn't the case. "Swapped first rounders and gave up a 2015 1st and 4th" Can we end this discussion now? Edited May 31, 2017 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 "Swapped first rounders and gave up a 2015 1st and 4th" Can we end this discussion now? so we used 3 draft picks on Sammy .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I don't really buy this rumor, it is too much a sell low situation. Watkins is coming off his worst year and back to back season where he was banged up. It would be a waste to pawn him off when he might not even net a pick in the first three rounds. The Bills can control Sammy after this upcoming season with the franchise tag so it isn't a case of "Getting Value" from him on the last year of his deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 This hasn't been reported by anyone of importance. I think it's a situation like any other that the Bills will field calls about it. Doesn't mean they will take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I don't think anyone has ever accused me of drinking the Koolaid on this board and I can state that Sammy Watkins is a special talent who the Bills would be foolish to trade for a low 1st or 2nd round pick. I agree, and if Beane were to make that deal, it would sway me to your position that McDermott and company are in over their heads. I can't see it happening, though. It would, IMO, amount to giving up on 2017, which the new coach cannot afford to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNMBillsFan Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I agree, and if Beane were to make that deal, it would sway me to your position that McDermott and company are in over their heads. I can't see it happening, though. It would, IMO, amount to giving up on 2017, which the new coach cannot afford to do. I would have to disagree, that if they did trade Sammy, that they were giving up on the season. Sammy was not an impact player for them last year. The team went 5-3 without him and 2-6 with him. And in one of the wins he played in was against Cleveland, he had 1 catch for 10 yards in garbage time. Maybe they think they can find a player who can contribute to wins with the pick they would get in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) I would have to disagree, that if they did trade Sammy, that they were giving up on the season (and how healthy. Sammy was not an impact player for them last year. The team went 5-3 without him and 2-6 with him. And in one of the wins he played in was against Cleveland, he had 1 catch for 10 yards in garbage time. Maybe they think they can find a player who can contribute to wins with the pick they would get in return. You might want to look at who the Bills were playing in those games, and how healthy Sammy was in some of the games he did play. If you think a healthy Watkins would not help the Bills win games in 2017, then I just don't know what to say. And of course, any future draft pick(s) the Bills might acquire for Watkins would contribute zero this coming season. Edited May 31, 2017 by mannc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNMBillsFan Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) You might want to look at who they were playing in those games. If you think a healthy Watkins would not help the Bills win games in 2017, then I just don't know what to say. And of course, any future draft pick(s) the Bills might acquire for Watkins would contribute zero this coming season. The same could be said in the 2 games they won with him as a starter, Cleveland and Jacksonville, the two teams combined for 4 wins. The bottom line is that so far in his career, he has not been a game changer. People make it sound like they can't win without him, when to the contrary, last year they had a better record without him, than with him. Edited May 31, 2017 by OldNMBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 The same could be said in they 2 games they won with him as a starter, Cleveland and Jacksonville, the two teams combined for 4 wins. The bottom line is that so far in his career, he has not been a game changer. People make it sound like they cant win without him, when to the contrary, last year they had a better record without him than without him.Nothing personal, but I hate the term "game changer". I understand what you are saying, though. I think (1) it's unfair to pin a team's win or losses on a WR, or any one player for that matter, and (2) when he was healthy, Watkins was underutilized, although he still produced. I hope Dennison plans to change that in 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Duffy Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Lol, they aint trading Watkins. Not yet anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts