Myles Garrett requests a trade

[colin]

25 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

After seeing this, you really don’t think 2 late 2nd round picks and our late 1st round pick isn’t low for Garrett? The Bears gave up a lot more for Mack.  
 

You asked me to name a non-QB traded for more and here it is.

 

 

your comment doesn't match the tweet.

 

chicago gave away

2 firsts plus some extra picks, and got back some picks

 

the extra picks they gave

3rd

6th

 

the picks they got back

2nd worth more than a 3rd

conditional 5th worth less than a 5th, but more than a 6th (based on a comment i read about the conditions, but i don't have the total details)

 

so mack went for less than two first picks.

 

that deal was criticized upfront as being too expensive for the bears because they had to give mack a huge extension (they did get his 5th rookie year tho) and the view is that the cap value of the picks added to his contract exceeded realistic expectations of how much mack could produce.

 

based on the fact that teams now think 2 1sts is too much for a top pass rusher, mack was seen as a rising star and a player his team really needed, and chicago had a lot of sacks but not a lot of pressures (meaning they actually needed pass rush, ironically given their sack numbers), chicago gave less than 2 1sts (as shown above) and that mack was younger with one "cheap" year left, in addition to the fact that the bills are a much much better team than chicago was back then (so the bills picks are expected to be of much less value) I think the bills will off the bat be in a better value position than the chicago trade.

 

so, i think the bills get garrett for less than 2 firsts, less than what chicago paid at that (which was less than 2 firsts) and the bills firsts are worth less than the bears 1st picks, so it will be a much better value proposition.

 

added to all of this, mack was not in his 2nd contract yet, and had no issues with his team.  garrett has privately (badly kept secret) said he wants out, and now has said so publicly,  he also kinda hates the gm, and clevland is in a terrible cap/roster position and needs to rebuild -- they can't get much value out of garrett if the goal is a shot at a chip.  so draft picks are worth more to them than what picks were worth when the raiders traded mack.

 

 

all of this is to say that the bills give up less than what the bears did, and garretts value is higher to the bills (as they are closer to a chip and he represents the maximal spot for value).  rumors around crosby and parsons also increase the supply of tier 1 pass rushers available, both to teams (cowboys and raiders) with new coaches who will get some "free" years to not succeed as much now in order to build for the future.  garrett also will make it hard to trade him to a team with lesser prospects than the bills.

 

aside from phillly sliding in, i don't think the bills really have competition (bengals are cheap, kc has huge contracts coming up, maybe you could say greenbay might be in the hunt but i think the bills are much much closer to a chip).  so you have 2 potential places, 3 pass rushers who might be out there, and the view that the mack trade was too expensive.

 

i think the bills get garett for like a 1 and a 2, or there abouts, meaning prolly less.

 

[CSBill]

3 minutes ago, colin said:

 

your comment doesn't match the tweet.

 

chicago gave away

2 firsts plus some extra picks, and got back some picks

 

the extra picks they gave

3rd

6th

 

the picks they got back

2nd worth more than a 3rd

conditional 5th worth less than a 5th, but more than a 6th (based on a comment i read about the conditions, but i don't have the total details)

 

so mack went for less than two first picks.

 

that deal was criticized upfront as being too expensive for the bears because they had to give mack a huge extension (they did get his 5th rookie year tho) and the view is that the cap value of the picks added to his contract exceeded realistic expectations of how much mack could produce.

 

based on the fact that teams now think 2 1sts is too much for a top pass rusher, mack was seen as a rising star and a player his team really needed, and chicago had a lot of sacks but not a lot of pressures (meaning they actually needed pass rush, ironically given their sack numbers), chicago gave less than 2 1sts (as shown above) and that mack was younger with one "cheap" year left, in addition to the fact that the bills are a much much better team than chicago was back then (so the bills picks are expected to be of much less value) I think the bills will off the bat be in a better value position than the chicago trade.

 

so, i think the bills get garrett for less than 2 firsts, less than what chicago paid at that (which was less than 2 firsts) and the bills firsts are worth less than the bears 1st picks, so it will be a much better value proposition.

 

added to all of this, mack was not in his 2nd contract yet, and had no issues with his team.  garrett has privately (badly kept secret) said he wants out, and now has said so publicly,  he also kinda hates the gm, and clevland is in a terrible cap/roster position and needs to rebuild -- they can't get much value out of garrett if the goal is a shot at a chip.  so draft picks are worth more to them than what picks were worth when the raiders traded mack.

 

 

all of this is to say that the bills give up less than what the bears did, and garretts value is higher to the bills (as they are closer to a chip and he represents the maximal spot for value).  rumors around crosby and parsons also increase the supply of tier 1 pass rushers available, both to teams (cowboys and raiders) with new coaches who will get some "free" years to not succeed as much now in order to build for the future.  garrett also will make it hard to trade him to a team with lesser prospects than the bills.

 

aside from phillly sliding in, i don't think the bills really have competition (bengals are cheap, kc has huge contracts coming up, maybe you could say greenbay might be in the hunt but i think the bills are much much closer to a chip).  so you have 2 potential places, 3 pass rushers who might be out there, and the view that the mack trade was too expensive.

 

i think the bills get garett for like a 1 and a 2, or there abouts, meaning prolly less.

 

 

I'm in the "whatever it takes to get him here mode."

[colin]

19 minutes ago, CSBill said:

 

I'm in the "whatever it takes to get him here mode."

agree, but that's me having a bias as to where we have holes and what he can do for us.

 

i still think his trade cost won't be as huge as some think.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

This kind of reminds me of when we traded for Diggs. Strong WR class and we traded for a proven WR1.

 

Strong defensive line class, do we trade a bunch of picks for a proven pass rusher?

 

I’m all for it but there’s going to be great defensive line drafted around the picks we trade.

[GolfandBills]

8 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

This kind of reminds me of when we traded for Diggs. Strong WR class and we traded for a proven WR1.

 

Strong defensive line class, do we trade a bunch of picks for a proven pass rusher?

 

I’m all for it but there’s going to be great defensive line drafted around the picks we trade.

Your last comment… How do you know this?  

[Sweats]

I'm getting notices all over social media that the Bills are making a serious play for Garrett.

 

I don't know how i feel about this cause there's some solid D talent in this draft and how much are we willing to go "all in" on this guy when we will have options when our pick comes along in the draft?

 

Stay tuned.

[saundena]

To land top talent, we will have to trade up anyway, might as well go for Garrett 

Edited Tuesday at 01:13 PM by saundena

[Buffalo_Stampede]

52 minutes ago, GolfandBills said:

Your last comment… How do you know this?  

There will also be average ones and busts. 

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

12 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Khalil Mack was traded for 2 - 1st rounders.  Was Khalil Mack a significantly better prospect than Myles Garrett is now?

No. Do you think they’d do that deal again ? A team making a mistake isn’t an example to of what to do. The browns gave up a lot for Watson. So..let’s what? Factor that in for a QB trade?

Edited Tuesday at 02:28 PM by Brianmoorman4jesus

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, colin said:

 

your comment doesn't match the tweet.

 

chicago gave away

2 firsts plus some extra picks, and got back some picks

 

the extra picks they gave

3rd

6th

 

the picks they got back

2nd worth more than a 3rd

conditional 5th worth less than a 5th, but more than a 6th (based on a comment i read about the conditions, but i don't have the total details)

 

so mack went for less than two first picks.

 

that deal was criticized upfront as being too expensive for the bears because they had to give mack a huge extension (they did get his 5th rookie year tho) and the view is that the cap value of the picks added to his contract exceeded realistic expectations of how much mack could produce.

 

based on the fact that teams now think 2 1sts is too much for a top pass rusher, mack was seen as a rising star and a player his team really needed, and chicago had a lot of sacks but not a lot of pressures (meaning they actually needed pass rush, ironically given their sack numbers), chicago gave less than 2 1sts (as shown above) and that mack was younger with one "cheap" year left, in addition to the fact that the bills are a much much better team than chicago was back then (so the bills picks are expected to be of much less value) I think the bills will off the bat be in a better value position than the chicago trade.

 

so, i think the bills get garrett for less than 2 firsts, less than what chicago paid at that (which was less than 2 firsts) and the bills firsts are worth less than the bears 1st picks, so it will be a much better value proposition.

 

added to all of this, mack was not in his 2nd contract yet, and had no issues with his team.  garrett has privately (badly kept secret) said he wants out, and now has said so publicly,  he also kinda hates the gm, and clevland is in a terrible cap/roster position and needs to rebuild -- they can't get much value out of garrett if the goal is a shot at a chip.  so draft picks are worth more to them than what picks were worth when the raiders traded mack.

 

 

all of this is to say that the bills give up less than what the bears did, and garretts value is higher to the bills (as they are closer to a chip and he represents the maximal spot for value).  rumors around crosby and parsons also increase the supply of tier 1 pass rushers available, both to teams (cowboys and raiders) with new coaches who will get some "free" years to not succeed as much now in order to build for the future.  garrett also will make it hard to trade him to a team with lesser prospects than the bills.

 

aside from phillly sliding in, i don't think the bills really have competition (bengals are cheap, kc has huge contracts coming up, maybe you could say greenbay might be in the hunt but i think the bills are much much closer to a chip).  so you have 2 potential places, 3 pass rushers who might be out there, and the view that the mack trade was too expensive.

 

i think the bills get garett for like a 1 and a 2, or there abouts, meaning prolly less.

 

Fair enough but I still don’t think 2 - 2nd round picks and a 1st, which are all late, is enough to get Garrett.  Garrett will be All Pro level for at least the next 3-4 years.  He’s dominant in pass and run stopping.  He is better than Mack IMO at similar points of their careers.  Garrett has 7 straight double digit sack seasons 

[TheBeaneBandit]

1 hour ago, saundena said:

To land top talent, we will have to trade up anyway, might as well go for Garrett 

Yep. All these guys we like are going to go before 30. Grant, not gonna make it. All the top DEs, not gonna make it. Nolan, probably not gonna make it. 

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

No. Do you think they’d do that deal again ? A team making a mistake isn’t an example to of what to do. The browns gave up a lot for Watson. So..let’s what? Factor that in for a QB trade?

Watson is a completely different scenario.

 

Myles Garrett is an all time legend now.  
He has 7 straight double digit sacks and 4 straight - 14 sack seasons which has never been done.  He is on a different level than Mack and that means his price tag is higher.
 

https://sports.yahoo.com/myles-garrett-becomes-only-player-in-nfl-history-with-14-plus-sacks-in-4-consecutive-seasons-002328902.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGREk1q6ev-qwT-deCzIe0zzhebcHM2LruZIGJOIPp0WA3JBREDp80wIp6O4TufeF_uV2OcTt8d4VyfWCW9nnKyMgC5_1X6qiFvgUSyQLqxOup6p3x88HySj-1_UU0pQdn2aGNfM1XHh-QfGyCEAJXuD1eTM2PXqyZPYkNpwUjQC

[colin]

3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Fair enough but I still don’t think 2 - 2nd round picks and a 1st, which are all late, is enough to get Garrett.  Garrett will be All Pro level for at least the next 3-4 years.  He’s dominant in pass and run stopping.  He is better than Mack IMO at similar points of their careers.  Garrett has 7 straight double digit sack seasons 

 

he's older and already on a second contract, he wants out, and the mack trade was a market resetting trade which is viewed as a mistake on the part of the bears.

 

those three factors mean he should be available for less draft capital.

 

i agree garrett is better than mack, and better now than mack was at the equivalent point of his career, I doubt you'd get much argument there.  what has to be looked at though, is mack WHEN HE WAS TRADED and garrent either at that point (year 4) or now.  at the point he was traded, mack was thought of by many as the best d lineman in the nfl, or close to, and on an unstoppable upward trajectory.  people figured mack would be an all pro for the duration of his second contract.  he was for some of it, but not all of it, injuries and being on an awful team certainly impacted that.

 

it's possible that the browns just won't trade him, or will effectively sink it by asking too much, its also possible garrett wants to go to philly and they pony up.  the point that i think the analysis shows is the actual market value for garrett given the current state of the world is that given he's gonna get a shocking extension, his situation, and who else is out there, is lower and perhaps meaningfully lower than what mack got traded for.

 

i could see as low as no firsts (unlikely) or 2nd/3rds this year and a first next year (more likely), or a 1st this year and middling picks over the next two years (most likely).

 

trading a 1 this year, and say a 2nd or 3rd next year for him would set the bills up very nicely.  two 2nds and lots of late picks to package up to get impact guys at CB, possibly S (would blow given we dropped a 2 on bishop), wr, DT, and even DE could reset the roster bigly.

[Royale with Cheese]

12 minutes ago, colin said:

 

he's older and already on a second contract, he wants out, and the mack trade was a market resetting trade which is viewed as a mistake on the part of the bears.

 

those three factors mean he should be available for less draft capital.

 

i agree garrett is better than mack, and better now than mack was at the equivalent point of his career, I doubt you'd get much argument there.  what has to be looked at though, is mack WHEN HE WAS TRADED and garrent either at that point (year 4) or now.  at the point he was traded, mack was thought of by many as the best d lineman in the nfl, or close to, and on an unstoppable upward trajectory.  people figured mack would be an all pro for the duration of his second contract.  he was for some of it, but not all of it, injuries and being on an awful team certainly impacted that.

 

it's possible that the browns just won't trade him, or will effectively sink it by asking too much, its also possible garrett wants to go to philly and they pony up.  the point that i think the analysis shows is the actual market value for garrett given the current state of the world is that given he's gonna get a shocking extension, his situation, and who else is out there, is lower and perhaps meaningfully lower than what mack got traded for.

 

i could see as low as no firsts (unlikely) or 2nd/3rds this year and a first next year (more likely), or a 1st this year and middling picks over the next two years (most likely).

 

trading a 1 this year, and say a 2nd or 3rd next year for him would set the bills up very nicely.  two 2nds and lots of late picks to package up to get impact guys at CB, possibly S (would blow given we dropped a 2 on bishop), wr, DT, and even DE could reset the roster bigly.

 

I think the biggest difference in our opinion is I think Garrett is a level above Mack at the time of the trade.  But I won't argue your point either.

[colin]

10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I think the biggest difference in our opinion is I think Garrett is a level above Mack at the time of the trade.  But I won't argue your point either.

 

oh, i totally think he's better, and i legit think he's gonna have a chance to challenge bruce's record.

 

garrett right now vs mack back then is trickier -- garrett is better but then you get into how excited about youth and potential GMs get

[Alphadawg7]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

This kind of reminds me of when we traded for Diggs. Strong WR class and we traded for a proven WR1.

 

Strong defensive line class, do we trade a bunch of picks for a proven pass rusher?

 

I’m all for it but there’s going to be great defensive line drafted around the picks we trade.

 

Thats a good comparison, and good food for thought, but our situation right now I think makes the trade for Garrett the better move.

 

For the record, normally I am about the draft instead of making big trades.  But with us being on the cusp like this, Josh smack in the middle of his prime, a move like this has never made more sense than it does right now.  Most damning stat for me is the fact in 3 of our 4 losses to the Chiefs in the playoffs, we gave up an average of 35 PPG to them and then they went on to lose the next week averaging just 17 PPG.  I mean that is less than half what they score on us.  

 

And we have no anchor on D, no game changing impact player, and never have.  While all the SB winners we watch win every year do.  So, while the draft is great this year for DL, I still prefer the sure thing personally because the need for it on this team is almost a desperation levels and there are never sure things when it comes to the draft. 

 

Also, we can use the draft to add some beef on the interior still as well and now we have 2 new pieces on a DL that needs the help.  

[JAMIEBUF12]

If the Bills could not pull off a trade for Myles Garrett.How do you feel about a plan b and try to trade for Micah Parsons from Dallas?

[Brand J]

5 minutes ago, JAMIEBUF12 said:

If the Bills could not pull off a trade for Myles Garrett.How do you feel about a plan b and try to trade for Micah Parsons from Dallas?

I’d welcome it, he’s much younger too. Probably would take more draft capital. The drawback is that our team would have to deal with a personality that wore on the Cowpokes locker room. He’s a phenomenal pass rusher though and that’s the one thing missing (aside from a big, run stopping tub of fat at DT).

[LabattBlue]

35 minutes ago, Brand J said:

I’d welcome it, he’s much younger too. Probably would take more draft capital. The drawback is that our team would have to deal with a personality that wore on the Cowpokes locker room. He’s a phenomenal pass rusher though and that’s the one thing missing (aside from a big, run stopping tub of fat at DT).

IMO…no way does Parsons cost more in terms of draft capital than Garrett.  

Edited Tuesday at 06:13 PM by LabattBlue

[MiracleAtRich1393]

5 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

This kind of reminds me of when we traded for Diggs. Strong WR class and we traded for a proven WR1.

 

Strong defensive line class, do we trade a bunch of picks for a proven pass rusher?

 

I’m all for it but there’s going to be great defensive line drafted around the picks we trade.

yes but what are the odds Beane & McD hit? And how long to get that guy ramped up? Rousseau is their only DLine hit and he wasn't a stud out of the gates (and he still isn't a commanding presence like we need)