Trade Rumors? (only Rumors)

[gobills1212]

29 minutes ago, dlonce said:

Brooks said ”totally reshuffling the top 5” so that means the Jets also would be moving. Sounds like a complex deal if so.

we shall see. 

1,2,and 4 is essentially completely reshuffling imo

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, Dr. Who said:

Again, it's a negotiation.  You can ask whatever you want.  The other fella doesn't have to pay it.  If you ask for 175% premium, perhaps everyone tells you to go fish.  Then he misses out on a smaller premium that might have been achievable.

It’s like on Pawn Stars. Guys come in all of the time and say, “I saw these online for $325k.” They are always corrected, “that is what they are asking for it, not necessarily what they are selling for.” 

 

I suspect that the Browns stay at 1 and take Allen. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

You could be right. I think what's happening in this draft is there are like 5 non-QB blue chip players so pick 12 has less real value than that chart would make it seem. You don't have to just convince the Browns to move to a lower pick, you also have to convince them a player like Chubb or Barkley isn't worth it. If I was their GM i wouldn't consider trading down at all honestly. They already have plenty of picks to build the team with and plenty of cap space. They don't need more prospects, they need young blue chip players. But I don't know what Dorsey is thinking. The Jets paid a 151% premium to get to #3 so why wouldn't he think he can get a 175% premium for #1?

To the first point, I think several teams already don't think Barkley is worth a top pick. A few have Guice rated higher. There are also some teams that are looking at the pass rushers next year and wondering whether Chubb is worth the high pick. It all depends on their evaluations at the end of the day. For the QBs you've got Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, and Allen; then you have Brad Chubb, Quenton Nelson, Minkah Fitzpatrick, Derwin James, Denzel Ward, Tremaine Edmunds, Roquon Smith, Vita Vea, Connor Williwams, Mike McGlinchey. At least 2 of those guys would be there at 12. Or, having 4, 12, 22, 33, 35, 53, 64, 65, and an extra 2019 1st at their disposal, they could move up from 12 quite easily. Lots of flexibility. With the rumors about the Colts, the Browns could easily pick 4 & 6, or even 2 & 6 if they wanted and still come out ahead.

 

To the second point, there is clearly an amount required for any team moving back to deem the risk worth it. In this case I just don't see it. If the Browns want Allen they can get him at 1, or they can cash in with a team that has picks and isn't likely interested in him, still get the same player, and pick up an additional 1st in 2018 and 2019. One thing is certain, and that's that the Browns need help on the OL. If I'm the Browns FO I'd rather have Josh Allen, Connor Williams, and Harold Landry/Darrius Guice and an extra 2019 1st than Josh Allen and Bradley Chubb/Saquon Barkley.

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s like on Pawn Stars. Guys come in all of the time and say, “I saw these online for $325k.” They are always corrected, “that is what they are asking for it, not necessarily what they are selling for.” 

 

I suspect that the Browns stay at 1 and take Allen. 

I love it when the expert comes in and says the item is worth X and the seller then asks for twice X. 

[N.Y. Orangeman]

18 minutes ago, Manther said:

Disagree.  You are making a bold statement with a loud tone to prove a point that can’t be proven or quantified.

Actually, that is a pretty fair statement based on precedent

Edited April 17, 2018 by N.Y. Orangeman

[cle23]

12 minutes ago, Manther said:

Disagree.  You are making a bold statement with a loud tone to prove a point that can’t be proven or quantified.

Washington gave up 3 1sts and a 2nd to go from 6 to 2. Somehow Buffalo is going from 12 to 1 for nowhere near that?

[jkirchofer]

Normally, I would agree with using current draft capital to fill holes on the roster, but we need something different, the Bills front office needs to do the opposite of what it has done for the last almost two decades. The goal every year should be to win the Super Bowl. It is a win now league. They need to pay the price and take the shot to get their quarterback. We need to pull a George Costanza and do the opposite of what we have always done, that is how he got a job with the Yankees, and that is how we get our franchise guy.

[HappyDays]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

If you ask for 175% premium, perhaps everyone tells you to go fish.  Then he misses out on a smaller premium that might have been achievable.

 

But what if he doesn't care? Negotiations only work if both parties want something. Dorsey doesn't necessarily have to take an offer, no matter how crazy, if he wants 2 blue chip players above all else. Here's a crazy example to illustrate my point. Let's say a team somehow had 10 3rd round picks and offered them all to us for pick 12. According to the value chart we would get the much better end of that deal. But who here in their right mind would accept that? We don't need 10 3rd round caliber players. Likewise the Browns might decide they don't need 3 mid-1st round players. They could take the QB of their choice and a consensus top DE to put across from Garrett. They can buy mid-1st round caliber players in free agency next year with the crazy amount of cap space they'll have.

 

I think in the top 5 of the draft there is no value chart. My understanding of that 100 point value chart we're using now is that they took the average of all the trades made from 2011 on. But averages include extremes on both sides. The premiums in those trades have been wildly different from year to year. Which indicates to me there is no real value chart, just different GMs in different drafts making it up as they go.

[Dr. Who]

10 minutes ago, cle23 said:

Washington gave up 3 1sts and a 2nd to go from 6 to 2. Somehow Buffalo is going from 12 to 1 for nowhere near that?

I think folks roundly criticized Washington for paying that price.  Dan Snyder is not the model to follow.  If that is what Cleveland is expecting, they will likely end up taking Allen at 1.

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

But what if he doesn't care?

If he doesn't care, no deal gets done.  Simple as that.

[HappyDays]

21 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

If the Browns want Allen they can get him at 1, or they can cash in with a team that has picks and isn't likely interested in him, still get the same player, and pick up an additional 1st in 2018 and 2019.

 

If the rumored 3 way trade happens, then sure. But if the Giants don't agree to it then the Browns have to take their QB 1st overall. They can't bet on the Jets not taking him. The more I think about it the more I want us to go for Rosen at like 5 if he really does slip. 12 and 22 would probably get it done. #1 might just be impossible to get.

[BuffaloHokie13]

14 minutes ago, cle23 said:

Washington gave up 3 1sts and a 2nd to go from 6 to 2. Somehow Buffalo is going from 12 to 1 for nowhere near that?

The Rams paid 2 1sts (1 current, 1 future), 2 2nds (both current), and 2 3rds (1 current 1 future) to go from 15 to 1.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

 

 

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

If the rumored 3 way trade happens, then sure. But if the Giants don't agree to it then the Browns have to take their QB 1st overall. They can't bet on the Jets not taking him. The more I think about it the more I want us to go for Rosen at like 5 if he really does slip. 12 and 22 would probably get it done. #1 might just be impossible to get.

 

3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

The Rams paid 2 1sts (1 current, 1 future), 2 2nds (both current), and 2 3rds (1 current 1 future) to go from 15 to 1.

 

The difference between both of those trades are that Cleveland and NY are still going to get the players that they want. Cleveland gets Allen, NY gets Barkely/Chubb. We are basically giving them both free picks to get ahead of the Jets.

Edited April 17, 2018 by LikeIGiveADarn

[cle23]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

The Rams paid 2 1sts (1 current, 1 future), 2 2nds (both current), and 2 3rds (1 current 1 future) to go from 15 to 1.

If future 1sts are equivalent to 2nds, then the Rams paid more than Washington. The Rams were also trading with a team that already had a franchise QB.  Cleveland has needed a franchise QB for 25 years.

[Kirby Jackson]

12 minutes ago, cle23 said:

Washington gave up 3 1sts and a 2nd to go from 6 to 2. Somehow Buffalo is going from 12 to 1 for nowhere near that?

 

Just now, Dr. Who said:

I think folks roundly criticized Washington for paying that price.  Dan Snyder is not the model to follow.  If that is what Cleveland is expecting, they will likely end up taking Allen at 1.

Every situation is different, the Dolphins went from 12 to 3 for pick 42 in 2013.

 

It depends on the demand. There will be demand at the top of this draft but nothing like the move for RG3. There are, by most accounts, 4 QBs that will go in the top 10. Presumably teams have them graded pretty closely. Teams aren’t going to overpay when they can pay less for the next guy. The Bills, by all accounts, like Darnold, the Browns Allen. The Bills have to likely get in the top 2 to get Darnold. They can almost certainly get one of the other 3 at 6. How much more are they willing to pay for Darnold vs. Rosen? If Rosen will cost you 12 and 53 (maybe a little more to prevent Miami from getting up) what are you willing to pay for Darnold? IMO, they will be willing to do something like 12, 22, 53, 65, a 2019 2nd and a 2019 4th. I think that is the most that the Bills will pay. 2 firsts, 2nds, the first pick in the 3rd and one of their 2 4ths in 2019. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

If the rumored 3 way trade happens, then sure. But if the Giants don't agree to it then the Browns have to take their QB 1st overall. They can't bet on the Jets not taking him. The more I think about it the more I want us to go for Rosen at like 5 if he really does slip. 12 and 22 would probably get it done. #1 might just be impossible to get.

It's certainly far from guaranteed to happen, and it definitely requires a partner. A funny thing happens though, once they (Bills FO) decide what they're willing to part with they can just work their way down the draft order if the Browns say no. There's a 3 team option with the Broncos, potentially, where Broncos get 12, 22, and a future pick, Giants get 5 & an extra 2nd, and Bills go to 2. If the Giants don't want to budge you talk to Cleveland about 4 for a lesser haul.

 

I'm sure I come across as overbearing with some of the trade value stuff, but I've done an embarrassing amount of research and looked at it practically for the teams involved. I'm confident in the offer presented. I've also been confident in offers on houses and been told no, so you never know At the end of the day I just want people to be as educated as possible about the subject at hand!

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, cle23 said:

If future 1sts are equivalent to 2nds, then the Rams paid more than Washington. The Rams were also trading with a team that already had a franchise QB.  Cleveland has needed a franchise QB for 25 years.

Yes and they are either going to take Allen at 1, 2 or 4. Why wouldn’t they take the extra assets? He’s the same guy that they are getting no matter where they pick him.

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

It's certainly far from guaranteed to happen, and it definitely requires a partner. A funny thing happens though, once they (Bills FO) decide what they're willing to part with they can just work their way down the draft order if the Browns say no. There's a 3 team option with the Broncos, potentially, where Broncos get 12, 22, and a future pick, Giants get 5 & an extra 2nd, and Bills go to 2. If the Giants don't want to budge you talk to Cleveland about 4 for a lesser haul.

 

I'm sure I come across as overbearing with some of the trade value stuff, but I've done an embarrassing amount of research and looked at it practically for the teams involved. I'm confident in the offer presented. I've also been confident in offers on houses and been told no, so you never know At the end of the day I just want people to be as educated as possible about the subject at hand!

You are doing Yeoman’s work.  

[HappyDays]

8 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

The difference between both of those trades are that Cleveland and NY are still going to get the players that they want. Cleveland gets Allen, NY gets Barkely/Chubb. We are basically giving them both free picks to get ahead of the Jets.

 

Yeah it really hinges on the Giants. If they decide they don't want a QB the trade will happen.

[cle23]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yes and they are either going to take Allen at 1, 2 or 4. Why wouldn’t they take the extra assets? He’s the same guy that they are getting no matter where they pick him.

I don't think they are taking Allen 1st of all. I think they are taking Darnold.

 

2nd, you don't just take a lowball offer because it's "the best offer". New York reportedly doesn't want to drop down to 12. If they did, the trade would probably be done already. If this 3 way trade happens. Cleveland is giving up 1 or 4 and dropping to 12. You may get Allen at 2, or even 4, but you are giving up a chance for Barkley or Chubb. It isn't as simple as only adding picks.

[BillsGuru4]

In all honesty, the Browns would be fools to not go Darnold at 1, Barkley/Chubb at 4. But they are the Browns and I’ll keep my eyes glued to the screen

[nbbillsfan]

I want to trade up badly to get our guy. My only concern is giving up the 2019 1st, would love love it to be 2020. I have a bad feeling we could be picking top 10 next year (perhaps even top 5) and don't want to lose that pick. Do NFL trades ever have protection on picks, i.e. if its top 10 then the pick is deferred until 2020?