DCOrange Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: Beane also specifically mentioned pick #7 last week. He said it may not do them any good to go to 7 because they could get “stuck there.” He may have just been negotiating in the media to posture for a better deal from Licht. If I remember right, the question he was answering specifically asked about #7 rather than Beane bringing it up himself 2 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad... I would imagine at least 12 and one of the 2nd founders. Probably only happens if Saquon/Nelson are off the board already too.
Boatdrinks Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad... 3 2nds was the price paid by NYJ to move just 3 spots.
BillsFan4 Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: Beane also specifically mentioned pick #7 last week. He said it may not do them any good to go to 7 because they could get “stuck there.” He may have just been negotiating in the media to posture for a better deal from Licht. He was specifically asked about trading up to pick #7 by whatever reporter asked the question (can't remember who it was).
What a Tuel Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 Just now, Boatdrinks said: 3 2nds was the price paid by NYJ to move just 3 spots. And we would be moving 5 spots. Also from 12 to 7. Not 6 to top 3. It shouldn't cost a ton.
dezertbill Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad... Ideal would be to trade a Hughes or Shaq to move up to 7 1
prissythecat Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 40 minutes ago, Blokestradamus said: Have you ever met a trustworthy Chad in your lifetime? Well, Dunkirk Don said that he correctly called a lot of big news items. 1
What a Tuel Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, DCOrange said: If I remember right, the question he was answering specifically asked about #7 rather than Beane bringing it up himself I would imagine at least 12 and one of the 2nd founders. Probably only happens if Saquon/Nelson are off the board already too. I was thinking about the same. Maybe a later rounder as well.
MAJBobby Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 45 minutes ago, PIZ said: Not sure if this guy is legit. So everything that has been discussed for past two months in one tweet. Ground Breaking Edited April 3, 2018 by MAJBobby
Chuck Wagon Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 16 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad... I would give them one of the picks in the 53 - 65 range and probably want pick 102 or 144 back. The Bucs are willing to move from 7 to 12 because they know they are going to get the same caliber player at 12 as 7 and they are a team that strictly drafts BPA. I wouldn't give any sort of premium for that pick. #7 / #144 for #12 / #56 is about dead equal on the value chart.
Blokestradamus Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, prissythecat said: Well, Dunkirk Don said that he correctly called a lot of big news items. I guess I can trust DD, what with all those #highlevelbusinessmeetings he's attending.
What a Tuel Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said: I would give them one of the picks in the 53 - 65 range and probably want pick 102 or 144 back. The Bucs are willing to move from 7 to 12 because they know they are going to get the same caliber player at 12 as 7 and they are a team that strictly drafts BPA. I wouldn't give any sort of premium for that pick. #7 / #144 for #12 / #56 is about dead equal on the value chart. Get 'er done, Beane. It would be so much easier to deal with the Giants with 7.
prissythecat Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 Just now, Blokestradamus said: I guess I can trust DD, what with all those #highlevelbusinessmeetings he's attending. Wasn't that SaviorPeterman attending high level business meetings ? ;-) Dunkirk Don was independently wealthy and had an investment group to buy up land near the next Bills stadium in Letchworth
Blokestradamus Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 1 minute ago, prissythecat said: Wasn't that SaviorPeterman attending high level business meetings ? ;-) Dunkirk Don was independently wealthy and had an investment group to buy up land near the next Bills stadium in Letchworth 3 I haven't a clue. You lot confuse me. I just latch on to certain things and piece it all together randomly
Big Blitz Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 10 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: And we would be moving 5 spots. Also from 12 to 7. Not 6 to top 3. It shouldn't cost a ton. But that was bc I'm sure Ballard was in a bidding war against us. His exact words were "we talked to a handful of teams but didn't want to move out of the top 10." The bidders for 7 won't be as many as for 3 and the ones that do don't have the ammo we do. We might be looking at something simple like the top 6 goes like this: 1. Browns--Allen 2. Giants--Darnold 3. Jets--Rosen 4. Browns--Saquan 5. Broncos--Nelson 6. Colts--Chubb 7. Bills trade Bucs the 12, and a second. Select Mayfield. I'll take that all day. That's why Beane has to be careful. This of course is based on how I feel about the QBs.
PIZ Posted April 3, 2018 Author Posted April 3, 2018 58 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Speculation based on what's already out there from various places. True, but not many people talking about the move from 12 to 7.
Chuck Wagon Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 11 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: But that was bc I'm sure Ballard was in a bidding war against us. His exact words were "we talked to a handful of teams but didn't want to move out of the top 10." The bidders for 7 won't be as many as for 3 and the ones that do don't have the ammo we do. We might be looking at something simple like the top 6 goes like this: 1. Browns--Allen 2. Giants--Darnold 3. Jets--Rosen 4. Browns--Saquan 5. Broncos--Nelson 6. Colts--Chubb 7. Bills trade Bucs the 12, and a second. Select Mayfield. I'll take that all day. That's why Beane has to be careful. This of course is based on how I feel about the QBs. I've always taken Ballard's comments to be much more "we weren't looking to trade out of the top 10 when a trade was there that would give us multiple day 2 picks while remaining in the top 6" and much less "we don't want to trade out of the top 10, period". 6 is a great spot, they can likely have one of Barkley or Chubb, or sell the last QB. Assuming there's a QB still on the board at 6 it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Colts trade again. Say you have a dollar. Two different people are willing to give you $1.25 for that dollar. But you know you can sell person A's $1.25 for an additional $1.25, leaving you $1.50. That's what happened with the Colts - Jets deal imo.
xRUSHx Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Yep. I said it on another thread. I believe the only QB the Giants want is Darnold, but that they also could be in on Barkley. If browns go Allen #1, Giants almost certainly will take Darnold #2. If browns go Darnold, Giants want Barkley, but might move for a big haul. Cleveland can't take both so IMO Giants will not be moving from 2 unless it's to Cleveland's 4 being worried that Denver could snag Barkley IMO. IMO Giants are staying put at 2. IMO they want Barkley more then Darnold. Edited April 3, 2018 by xRUSHx 1
SouthNYfan Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 24 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said: Why do I see a slow desperate climb up: 12 to 7, 7 to 5/4 and 5/4 to 2? Yeah. Then you have to add up everything you gave up to get each pick, for example. -#21 + cordy +5th (#158) was that #12 cost (we also got a 6th #187. Should keep that number it's MURDER ?) So if we trade to #7 by giving (just saying): #12 and #22 , at minimum that means we actually gave up #21, #22, #158 and cordy Glenn for the #7 pick. Again I'm not saying that is what it would cost to go to #7 I'm just saying that's how you have to look at it 21 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: 3 2nds was the price paid by NYJ to move just 3 spots. Just because one team overpaid doesn't mean we have to 19 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: And we would be moving 5 spots. Also from 12 to 7. Not 6 to top 3. It shouldn't cost a ton. Yeah I don't think it would cost a ton, but see my response above at the total cost. Just now, xRUSHx said: Cleveland can't take both so IMO Giants will not be moving from 2 unless it's to Cleveland's 4 being worried that Denver could snag Barkley IMO. IMO Giants are staying put at 2. Right I agree. But Cleveland could go Barkley #1 leaving Darnold #2 to NYG, then Jets have Mayfield/Allen/Rosen choice at #3, leaving browns with the remaining 2 to choose from 1
26CornerBlitz Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 1 minute ago, PIZ said: True, but not many people talking about the move from 12 to 7. @kdiggz posted a thread on that. 1
Chuck Wagon Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 38 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said: Why do I see a slow desperate climb up: 12 to 7, 7 to 5/4 and 5/4 to 2? I see both side of the coin. The thing I worry about, and I think it's what Beane worries about, is with a gradual climb you chip away at the value bit by bit. Say we can offer the Giants a 150% premium on the pick currently. But with the small climb we chip off 10% here and there, suddenly we can only offer the Giants 120%. Is it better to just offer the full 150% to get where you want to go, or risk chipping away bit by bit in hopes of a more attractive offer? Ultimately I don't buy the Giants - Darnold story. I think there's certainly a chance if Allen goes #1 then the ability to pick Darnold is worth more, but until they turn the card in with a player (and don't pull an Eli - Rivers) I'm convinced they are going to sit and wait to extract maximum value. 2
Recommended Posts