Thurman#1 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) Entertain offers? Sure, why wouldn't you? For every player. Whether you take the offers is another matter, but who knows what kind of offer you might get. 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? That's far from the best way to say it. You are really really stretching. We gave a way three things and recieved one in return. To say that of those three things, we "swapped" one but then "gave up" the other two says more about the fact that you desperately want to spin this than what happened. It would be like saying, "In return for that watermelon, I swapped a banana." "Oh, I thought you also gave up a prune and a peach." "Yeah, for the watermelon, I swapped a banana and then gave up a prune and a peach." Puh-leeze. It wasn't two transactions, it was one. Pick the word you want to use, swapped or gave up, whichever, but it was one transaction. Here's what we swapped for the 2014 #4 pick: the 2014 #9 pick, the 2015 #15 pick and the 2015 #115 pick. What did we give up? Same thing. When you're talking about a trade, swap and give up are synonyms. Oh, and there's no such thing as a net loss unless you can subtract. And you can't meaningfully subtract people unless you want to say, for example, "I traded away Flash Goodwin for Aaron Rodgers straight up. Wasn't all that great a trade, though, 'cause after all there was a net gain of zero." Or unless you want to say, "I made a brilliant trade, I traded away our first rounder, the #9 pick and got in return the #143, the #168 and the #174. Brilliant, right? A net gain of two." Net gain only means something when you're dealing with things of exactly equal value, like dollars or brand new Spalding 32 inch bats. When you have to use "net gain" to talk about people, you're desperately trying to spin something to make it look better or worse. "I used to have only one girlfriend, Scarlett Johannson, but now I've got three, Aileen Wuornos, Myra Hindley and Jane Toppan. SCORE, baby, I racked up a net gain of two!!!!!!" (Note: those are three famous female serial killers) Edited May 31, 2017 by Thurman#1
oldmanfan Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 We did not give up a first round pick in 2014. Giving something up means you don't get it back. We had a first round pick in 2014 and that was Sammy. It was just a different first round pick. We gave up the other first and fourth. It just comes down to what verb you want to pick.
Billzgobowlin Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 We did not give up a first round pick in 2014. Giving something up means you don't get it back. We had a first round pick in 2014 and that was Sammy. It was just a different first round pick. We gave up the other first and fourth. It just comes down to what verb you want to pick. Yes we did, it ended up in Cleveland along with the other pick that we used to draft Watkins. Literally two first rounders were traded for Watkins pick not sure how you can spin that. Even if you don't agree with that you can say a statement that Dareus cost us a first round pick and it would still be true. Watkins cost us two first rounders. Again Watkins did only cost an additional first round pick than we would have used to draft someone but he does have a value of two first rounders because that is what he cost and he was traded for to us for two first round picks. You can argue how that's not the case but you would be wrong
Thurman#1 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) There's a reason why players who go to Buffalo lose value in dynasty leagues. Getting drafted by Buffalo is a death sentence for an NFL wide receiver. Sammy Watkins would be a huge star if he was playing with a real QB and a modern NFL offense. If he were healthy. Which he mostly has not been. That really really is a part of it. We did not give up a first round pick in 2014. Giving something up means you don't get it back. We had a first round pick in 2014 and that was Sammy. It was just a different first round pick. We gave up the other first and fourth. It just comes down to what verb you want to pick. "Giving up something means you don't get it back." Oh, I get it. So we got the 2014 #9 pick back? Golly, I had no idea. It has nothing to do with what verb you pick. Swap. Give up. Relinquish. Forsake. Abandon. Yield. Forswear. Cut loose. Abandon. Cede. Vacate. Surrender (yes, look it up, one of the meanings is simply to relinquish), Hand over ... or Give up. We did all those things to three picks, the 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. Now, we did get something in return, the #4, which we used to acquire Sammy. So we got something back. Acquired it. Received it. Picked it up. I could go on, as there are as many synonyms for "got" as there are for "gave up." What's a fact is that there were three players who would have been Bills but aren't because we traded away the picks that could have been used to select them to Cleveland. Three players who would have been Bills but aren't. And two of them would have been #9 and #19 in their respective drafts. Who got what is not up for debate. Following our team gets hard this time of year. Every team, but I hear you. It's easier for Pats fans this year though everyone's bored silly. Edited May 31, 2017 by Thurman#1
oldmanfan Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Yes we did, it ended up in Cleveland along with the other pick that we used to draft Watkins. Literally two first rounders were traded for Watkins pick not sure how you can spin that. Even if you don't agree with that you can say a statement that Dareus cost us a first round pick and it would still be true. Watkins cost us two first rounders. Again Watkins did only cost an additional first round pick than we would have used to draft someone but he does have a value of two first rounders because that is what he cost and he was traded for to us for two first round picks. You can argue how that's not the case but you would be wrong We did not. Your use of language is wrong.
oldmanfan Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 If he were healthy. Which he mostly has not been. That really really is a part of it. "Giving up something means you don't get it back." Oh, I get it. So we got the 2014 #9 pick back? Golly, I had no idea. It has nothing to do with what verb you pick. Swap. Give up. Relinquish. Forsake. Abandon. Yield. Forswear. Cut loose. Abandon. Cede. Vacate. Surrender (yes, look it up, one of the meanings is simply to relinquish), Hand over ... or Give up. We did all those things to three picks, the 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. Now, we did get something in return, the #4, which we used to acquire Sammy. So we got something back. Acquired it. Received it. Picked it up. I could go on, as there are as many synonyms for "got" as there are for "gave up." What's a fact is that there were three players who would have been Bills but aren't because we traded away the picks that could have been used to select them to Cleveland. Three players who would have been Bills but aren't. And two of them would have been #9 and #19 in their respective drafts. Every team, but I hear you. It's easier for Pats fans this year though everyone's bored silly. Childish sarcasm only makes you look childish and highlights your issues with use of language. When I give something up, it is gone. I get nothing in return for it. When something costs me something, I have to pay a price to receive that item. Now let's take those in context with the Sammy deal. I would argue that draft picks are not a "cost". They are something given to teams by the NFL as part of their process to have teams gain players for their roster. So when we picked, say, Dareus in round 1 his year, it did not"cost" us a first round pick. We merely used the pick we had to get a player, just as the draft is designed to do. "Utilizing" draft picks is the most appropriate term I can think of to describe what is done with draft picks. And we certainly didn't "give up" a draft pick for Dareus. That would mean we gave the pick away without receiving a player for it. Now onto Sammy. We did not "give up" a first round pick in 2014. If we had, we would not have had a first round pick and thus would have not picked Sammy. The pick we had was a different pick, #4 instead of #9. What we "gave up", i.e. picks we did not use for players as the draft is designed for, were the 2015#1 and the #4. Thus, we "gave up" two picks, not three to get Sammy. We were using the first round pick to select a player in 2014, whether it was at the original #9 or as it turned out at #4. Ultimately we had three picks that, if he had not traded them, would have yielded three picks assuming we used each to select one player. From those three picks we got one player, Sammy. And 3-1 = 2 no matter how you slice it. It does come down to what verbs you want to use and how you use them. And it comes down to first grade math. The important thing now is how does Sammy do this year. My hope is his foot is completely healed, and that Dennison sees fit to get him more involved in the offense through quick slants, screens, etc. If both of these happen Sammy should have a huge year, and the Bills should reward that with a big long term deal. Now onto Sammy.
Bill from NYC Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Childish sarcasm only makes you look childish and highlights your issues with use of language. When I give something up, it is gone. I get nothing in return for it. When something costs me something, I have to pay a price to receive that item. Now let's take those in context with the Sammy deal. I would argue that draft picks are not a "cost". They are something given to teams by the NFL as part of their process to have teams gain players for their roster. So when we picked, say, Dareus in round 1 his year, it did not"cost" us a first round pick. We merely used the pick we had to get a player, just as the draft is designed to do. "Utilizing" draft picks is the most appropriate term I can think of to describe what is done with draft picks. And we certainly didn't "give up" a draft pick for Dareus. That would mean we gave the pick away without receiving a player for it. Now onto Sammy. We did not "give up" a first round pick in 2014. If we had, we would not have had a first round pick and thus would have not picked Sammy. The pick we had was a different pick, #4 instead of #9. What we "gave up", i.e. picks we did not use for players as the draft is designed for, were the 2015#1 and the #4. Thus, we "gave up" two picks, not three to get Sammy. We were using the first round pick to select a player in 2014, whether it was at the original #9 or as it turned out at #4. Ultimately we had three picks that, if he had not traded them, would have yielded three picks assuming we used each to select one player. From those three picks we got one player, Sammy. And 3-1 = 2 no matter how you slice it. It does come down to what verbs you want to use and how you use them. And it comes down to first grade math. The important thing now is how does Sammy do this year. My hope is his foot is completely healed, and that Dennison sees fit to get him more involved in the offense through quick slants, screens, etc. If both of these happen Sammy should have a huge year, and the Bills should reward that with a big long term deal. Now onto Sammy. I see what you are saying but this, imo, is what the other poster is getting at: >>>Three players who would have been Bills but aren't. And two of them would have been #9 and #19 in their respective drafts.<<< And imo he is correct in that terms of this particular draft, THIS is how I would decide if the trade was a good one or not. At the time of this draft my gut reaction was that this was a bad trade by an undisciplined GM. My stance softened when I saw that Sammy had more talent than I had thought but again, imo, my initial reaction was correct. Seriously how much did we give up for Sammy and how much did we gain for the #10 pick in 2017? I know that the #4 is worth a lot more than 10 but it looks like Whaley did get fleeced for Watkins. And for the 4th time in this post, the above is simply imo.
oldmanfan Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 I see what you are saying but this, imo, is what the other poster is getting at: >>>Three players who would have been Bills but aren't. And two of them would have been #9 and #19 in their respective drafts.<<< And imo he is correct in that terms of this particular draft, THIS is how I would decide if the trade was a good one or not. At the time of this draft my gut reaction was that this was a bad trade by an undisciplined GM. My stance softened when I saw that Sammy had more talent than I had thought but again, imo, my initial reaction was correct. Seriously how much did we give up for Sammy and how much did we gain for the #10 pick in 2017? I know that the #4 is worth a lot more than 10 but it looks like Whaley did get fleeced for Watkins. And for the 4th time in this post, the above is simply imo. I agree with your points. If we had not made the deal we would have had three players (assuming no other trades or swaps or however you want to refer to it), but instead we have one. So that's a net loss of two. As for whether it was a good deal or not, I think that will depend on Sammy's foot. At the time the deal was done Sammy was regarded as perhaps the top talent in the draft by some. An elite player. And I recall at the time reading an article about Whaley where his relationship[p with his mentor back when he was with the Steelers was discussed. Can't remember the mentor's name, but what he would tell Whaley is if you see a guy that you think is a truly elite guy, then go get him. And I think that is what Whaley did regarding Sammy. He saw him as an elite guy, and did what he needed to do to get him. Was it a good deal? In hindsight probably no. Primarily because of Sammy's injury, and also because other WRs that draft like Beckham have done well. But without knowing what we would have gotten the next year with the #1 given up to get Sammy, and without knowing who we would have drafted in 2014 at #9 it's hard to know with certainly. If they had taken the TE Ebron at #9 it would not have been a great move either. At this point it really is about Sammy coming back from his broken foot. If he does, I cannot help but think Dennison makes him and Shady the focal points of the offense (and if he doesn't we have the wrong OC). Sammy has a big, injury free year it would not surprise me to see the Bills sign him to a long term deal during the upcoming season.
YoloinOhio Posted May 31, 2017 Author Posted May 31, 2017 Fox Sports:11 recent NFL Draft picks on the verge of becoming busts http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-draft-players-busts-trending-becoming-picks-053017 Yikes. He is hopefully motivated for a big season in which he stays on the field.
oldmanfan Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Fox Sports:11 recent NFL Draft picks on the verge of becoming busts http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-draft-players-busts-trending-becoming-picks-053017 Yikes. He is hopefully motivated for a big season in which he stays on the field. Odd. The article says it's unfair to call a player a bust simply because of injury, but then lists Sammy anyway.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Odd. The article says it's unfair to call a player a bust simply because of injury, but then lists Sammy anyway. Saw this piece yesterday and the part that is simply not true is this "when he has been on the field, he’s struggled a bit – particularly this past season." He's been anything but a bust when he plays.
BringBackOrton Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 False equivalency. But hey....sell low makes perfect sense. Sunk cost fallacy
26CornerBlitz Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Sunk cost fallacy Doesn't have anything to do with what they paid for him in 2014. He's easily one of the two best and most productive players on offense. If the team is going to trade him, now would be the worst possible time. Did you even read it? Awful article. Horrendous.
HT02 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 He is a talented WR, but not great by any means. You MUST be consistent I.E. stay on the field and he can't. Trade him if we get a decent offer, and move forward in building this team At some point you have to start winning and stop building. I can't imagine getting equal value for Watkins in a trade.
K-9 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Odd. The article says it's unfair to call a player a bust simply because of injury, but then lists Sammy anyway. Consider the source. It's a specious argument at best. But why let that get in the way of sensational copy? I agree with your points. If we had not made the deal we would have had three players (assuming no other trades or swaps or however you want to refer to it), but instead we have one. So that's a net loss of two. ... How about we put a nice bow on it and declare that those three players we didn't get all would have been named All Pro and well on their way to HOF careers? It just sounds so much better that way.
YoloinOhio Posted May 31, 2017 Author Posted May 31, 2017 Odd. The article says it's unfair to call a player a bust simply because of injury, but then lists Sammy anyway.the author said it's unfair and that's why he has avoided the label thus far, but lists him because he's entering a prove it year.
oldmanfan Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 the author said it's unfair and that's why he has avoided the label thus far, but lists him because he's entering a prove it year. Makes little sense to me. Sure if he's healthy and doesn't produce. But it seems contradictory.
Elite Poster Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) For all the geniuses out there that want to trade him, guess who had no injury issues throughout his college career and then sprained his knee in the first week of NFL practices in his career? The guy we just traded up for to draft in the second. You cannot predict injuries. That's how this league works. 12 STARTING WRs missed more time or within 3 games of Sammy during the span of his career. That is nearly half the league. This is a position that gets injured, but only in Buffalo, do we over-blow it. OverBlowfalo Edited May 31, 2017 by Elite Poster
jeffismagic Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 For all the geniuses out there that want to trade him, guess who had no injury issues throughout his college career and then sprained his knee in the first week of NFL practices in his career? The guy we just traded up for to draft in the second. You cannot predict injuries. That's how this league works. 12 STARTING WRs missed more time or within 3 games of Sammy during the span of his career. That is nearly half the league. This is a position that gets injured, but only in Buffalo, do we over-blow it. OverBlowfalo Absolutely. You can't say a pick was bad because the player has injuries if they had no prior injury history. Sammy Watkins was a perfect prospect, albeit an expensive one.
Kirby Jackson Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Absolutely. You can't say a pick was bad because the player has injuries if they had no prior injury history. Sammy Watkins was a perfect prospect, albeit an expensive one. I think that you hit on what a lot of people were missing. They start talking about all of these other receivers from the draft that have played well. At the time of the draft only Evans was considered in his league and probably less than 1 out of 20 would have ranked Evans higher. Watkins was an ELITE prospect with a high ceiling and a high floor. He was clean on the medical end and had just a small off the field issue (think it was weed as a young player). He had just come off of a game where he ANNAHILATED an elite OSU secondary. Watkins was the highest graded player on many teams board in 2014 and higher than any prospect in 2013. He was, by many accounts, the best player to come out between the end of the 2012 draft and the start of the 2015 draft. He was considered the best receiver prospect since Julio and AJ Green and graded out similarly. Since coming into the league he has had some nagging injuries but that is bad luck. We didn't know that coming out. When he has been thrown the ball he has performed like the prospect that he was. The Bills need to get him healthy and to throw him the ball 10 times a game. if you do that he will unquestionably be a star.
Recommended Posts