tennesseeboy Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 a couple of things: i'm of a mind that the difference between a 4th and 5th rounder is pretty negligible; in the grand scheme of things, both end up being practically worthless more often than not. that said, i'd take a fourth over a fifth. secondly, you need to compare moulds to the two guys he most resembled on this springs WR job market: keyshawn johnson and TO. neither the cowboys nor the eagles received so much as a seventh for these guys. moreover, watch what happens with javon walker -- we'll see if the packers get much for a young guy who clearly has the talent to be a good starter in the league. 652968[/snapback] No matter how you cut it the difference between a fifth and fourth rounder is 32 players out of a limited pool (especially at rounds four and five.) Good negotiation skills should have easily resulted in a third rounder (64 players).
CircleTheWagons Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The Bills are at fault for their own bargaining position. They didn't have what negotiators call a BATNA, or Best Alternative to a Negotiating Agreement. They made it clear they were NOT seriously considering keeping him and the teams wanting him were looking for an in before he was released by the Bills. The Bills should have continued negotiations with the idea that unless they got a third round or better pick they would keep him for a year even at the old contract, and been vocal about that option. Hence we have a BATNA where we would walk away and keep an All Pro receiver for one more year. I believe we would have ended up with a third round or better. Instead we made it quite clear that if they waited EM would be released and there would be nothing to give up other than the cost of signing EM. We were lucky to get a fifth under the circumstances that the Bills themselves created. 652964[/snapback] Good point. I think the problem wasn't the Bills, but the fact that they needed Moulds to work with them in the process rather than against them. When Moulds said he wasn't willing to renegotiate here, or even play in Buffalo, it was the end of your BATNA. Our best alternative quickly became cutting him. If Moulds had been willing to renegotiate with the Bills and allowed the Bills to shop him quietly under his new contract we might have had an opportunity to get more. Heck, even if he allowed the Bills to match Houston's offer then we could have put some real pressure on the Texans.
nonprophet Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 610 Sports Radio out of Houston is reporting its a 5th round pick. This is so embarrassing. One of the best 3 WR's ever to play in Buffalo who still can play and all we get is a 5th rounder. What a joke. NO ONE IN THE 5TH ROUND IS GOING TO MAKE AN IMPACT ON THIS TEAM LIKE MOULDS WOULD. why can marv see that? oh yea, cuz hes 80. 652184[/snapback] All Houston really got for the pick is the right to negotiate a contract with Moulds outside of the bidding war which would have sprung up after the Bills cut him. Even if cutting Moulds wasn't a foregone conclusion, the consensus around the league is that it was so a 5th round pick is about the best compensation the Bills could have gotten for him. Something is always better than nothing.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I'm sure the Bills had a good feel for what they could get for Moulds prior to telling him to go out and look for someone wiiling to trade with. For all we know, the Bills' felt they could only get a 5th for him, so supposedly they were asking for a 4th, watch teams offer a 6th; figuring they could then settle for a 5th. When you look at the entire NFL, there a few big trades compared to other sports. Most either involve situations like Moulds where a player wants out for whatever reason, and you take what you can get as the other option is releasing him. The other situation is occasionaly you'll get a young player in the early cap friendly years of his contract that for whatever reason quickly wore out his welcome with a team. In that situation, you usually can get more as the player is still young, and has a cap friendly contract that you can live with. Two examples of that were Bledsoe and Price. In both cases teams were willing to give up more to be the exclusive bidder as they were getting into a good financial deal for a at least a couple of years. (actually with PP, we may have kept him anyway) Moulds isn't young and has a contract that had to be redone by team signing, so usually not going to give up much for player.
ndirish1978 Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 The guy was a great coach for us and has been GM for less than one summer, BACK OFF!!!!!
Bill from NYC Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 You're exactly right.....but TD still would have gotten a 3rd 652227[/snapback] Sure, and used it on an injured and/or fragile receiver.
JoeF Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 The guy was a great coach for us and has been GM for less than one summer, BACK OFF!!!!! 653610[/snapback] No way. What a loser attitude you have my Touchdown Jesus friend. Marv's been on the job for less than four months and he already has displayed enough to be fired. It won't happen though because our fossil, tightwad owner won't want to pay him a severance. There are plenty on this message board who obviously had Soprano like insider information as to all the details of the Moulds situation. They know everything about the transaction and the communication between and among player, agent and team, they know everything about the interest from the others teams..enough to cast judgement that this was just another bad decision by our incompetent fuggin ancient GM. A lot of them are the same group that know everything about the Losman situation. Man where's that whore that was in the town square. I want to continue to throw stones....
JAMIEBUF12 Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 marv just got here maybe you gotta go! and getting a 5th round draft pick for a guy we were gonna cut anyways isnt too shabby either
Ramius Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 Sure, and used it on an injured and/or fragile receiver. 653612[/snapback] Yup, because parrish was injured when we drafted him. Hate TD for making that selection all you want, thats fine, but no reason to hate roscoe for being drafted. And he wasnt injured when he was dafted, he got hurt in camp, but you seem unable to grasp that concept.
Recommended Posts