Tipster19 Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 The Bills have picks at #12 (1st rd), #43 (2nd rd), #74 and #92 (3rd rd). In addition to these picks we have an undetermined 3rd rd pick in the 2008 draft from Baltimore. Here is my proposal. Swap our 1st and 2nd rd picks and our 3rd rd pick (#92) that we got from Baltimore with San Diego, who have picks at #30 (1st rd) and #62 (2nd rd), to obtain Turner. Now we have picks at #30 (1st rd), #62 (2nd rd) and our original 3rd rd pick at #74. We then trade our 1st rd (#30) in this year's draft and our undetermined 3rd rder in the 2008 draft that we got from Baltimore for Briggs. Our net result would be that we obtained Turner, Briggs, a 2nd rd pick at #62 and our original 3rd rder at #74. Here's how I view the cost of this trading scenario. It costed us our 2007 1st rder, a move down in the 2nd rd from #43 to #62 and McGahee. Turner replaces McGahee, Briggs is the choice over Patrick Willis and a move down of 19 slots in the 2nd rd, I think I could live with that.
Rubes Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 My head is spinning. I don't understand it, but get 'er done, Marv!
BillsVet Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 No matter what, I still can't see us getting Briggs. He turned down a 6yr 33M contract before the 06 season began. Why then would Buffalo pay that in light of cash to the cap?
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 The Bills have picks at #12 (1st rd), #43 (2nd rd), #74 and #92 (3rd rd). In addition to these picks we have an undetermined 3rd rd pick in the 2008 draft from Baltimore. Here is my proposal. Swap our 1st and 2nd rd picks and our 3rd rd pick (#92) that we got from Baltimore with San Diego, who have picks at #30 (1st rd) and #62 (2nd rd), to obtain Turner. Now we have picks at #30 (1st rd), #62 (2nd rd) and our original 3rd rd pick at #74. We then trade our 1st rd (#30) in this year's draft and our undetermined 3rd rder in the 2008 draft that we got from Baltimore for Briggs. Our net result would be that we obtained Turner, Briggs, a 2nd rd pick at #62 and our original 3rd rder at #74. Here's how I view the cost of this trading scenario. It costed us our 2007 1st rder, a move down in the 2nd rd from #43 to #62 and McGahee. Turner replaces McGahee, Briggs is the choice over Patrick Willis and a move down of 19 slots in the 2nd rd, I think I could live with that. This is EXACTLY the draft scenario I was thinking of !!
Tipster19 Posted March 31, 2007 Author Posted March 31, 2007 I'm sure the cash to cap can be worked out, it's just a matter of jockeying the money around. I thought that as far as trade values go that I did a pretty fair job in retaining value for all parties involved. Do I get a gold star now or what??!! Just kidding. AJ Smith gets his 1st and 3rd rders and saves face and the Bears, even though Washington seems to be closing in on Briggs, won't have to deal with Snyder and his Rosenhaus ways. Turner gets to be a star on an up and coming team and Briggs gets out of Chicago and loves playing for his new GM. We can also package our 2nd and 3rd rders to move up for a CB if we so desire.
BillsVet Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 I'm sure the cash to cap can be worked out, it's just a matter of jockeying the money around. I thought that as far as trade values go that I did a pretty fair job in retaining value for all parties involved. Do I get a gold star now or what??!! Just kidding. AJ Smith gets his 1st and 3rd rders and saves face and the Bears, even though Washington seems to be closing in on Briggs, won't have to deal with Snyder and his Rosenhaus ways. Turner gets to be a star on an up and coming team and Briggs gets out of Chicago and loves playing for his new GM. We can also package our 2nd and 3rd rders to move up for a CB if we so desire. This might be construed as negative, but with the Spikes deal, Buffalo is at about 88M with the salary cap. I came to that figure from Clumps page showing us at 93M in cap before the Spikes trade. If we saved 5M in cap with the move, it places the Bills at 88M. If cash to the cap is employed and our draft picks come under the same criteria, we'll be at the NFL minimum (which I believe to be 93-95M) to start the season. (or 112M in cash to the cap-ese) I think Briggs will want a long term deal similar to Adalius Thomas got from NE. He knows the going rate and we're not going to spend that kind of cash. Face it, the Bills salary restrictions prevent us from making the move. I feel the same goes for Turner. We've got to sign our picks. And right now, we're at about 100M in cash to the cap dollars. Cash to the Cap There is simply no room to make a deal. We've purged LFB, NC, WM, Takeo, Holcomb, who else can we afford to dump at this point? We could always have Ralph run the ball, he does have fresh legs. But seriously, there's no room.
Tipster19 Posted March 31, 2007 Author Posted March 31, 2007 Hey, thanks BillsVet for pissing all over my parade. If Marv truly wanted these players and the cash to cap was restricting him then I believe he could always rescind what he stated. The cash to cap limit is not written in stone.
BillsVet Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Hey, thanks BillsVet for pissing all over my parade. If Marv truly wanted these players and the cash to cap was restricting him then I believe he could always rescind what he stated. The cash to cap limit is not written in stone. You're welcome dude. Besides, Marv did not implement cash to the cap. Ralph and most likely his CFO Jeffrey Littman developed the theory to rebel against the escalating salaries in the NFL. No way does Marv tell his employer that the financial system bestowed on him needs changing. He doesn't carry that much weight.
Dawgg Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Here's where your little fantasy goes out the window. The Redskins are offering the Bears the #6 overall pick for Briggs STRAIGHT UP. That is much more valuable than your pie in the sky proposal. But keep it up! The Bills have picks at #12 (1st rd), #43 (2nd rd), #74 and #92 (3rd rd). In addition to these picks we have an undetermined 3rd rd pick in the 2008 draft from Baltimore. Here is my proposal. Swap our 1st and 2nd rd picks and our 3rd rd pick (#92) that we got from Baltimore with San Diego, who have picks at #30 (1st rd) and #62 (2nd rd), to obtain Turner. Now we have picks at #30 (1st rd), #62 (2nd rd) and our original 3rd rd pick at #74. We then trade our 1st rd (#30) in this year's draft and our undetermined 3rd rder in the 2008 draft that we got from Baltimore for Briggs. Our net result would be that we obtained Turner, Briggs, a 2nd rd pick at #62 and our original 3rd rder at #74. Here's how I view the cost of this trading scenario. It costed us our 2007 1st rder, a move down in the 2nd rd from #43 to #62 and McGahee. Turner replaces McGahee, Briggs is the choice over Patrick Willis and a move down of 19 slots in the 2nd rd, I think I could live with that.
MDH Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Here's where your little fantasy goes out the window. The Redskins are offering the Bears the #6 overall pick for Briggs STRAIGHT UP. That is much more valuable than your pie in the sky proposal. But keep it up! My understanding was that the Skins were offering the 6th overall for Briggs AND the Bears 1st round pick (31st overall). Where did you read they were offering it straight up?
disco Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 My understanding was that the Skins were offering the 6th overall for Briggs AND the Bears 1st round pick (31st overall). Where did you read they were offering it straight up? yeah, I've been reading it was a swap of their #1's. I wouldn't be surpirsed if the redskins just flat out sent the pick though. I swear one of these years the redskins won't have a single draft pick on either day.
BoondckCL Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Listen ladies and gents, if Marv is willing to offer a first round pick, Turner would already be in Buffalo. Smith knows that he is not going to get the first and third round pick that he unrealistically set for acquiring Turner, and if Marv was going to offer the twelfth pick in the draft, he would have done so and smith would have accepted. It's not going to happen because Marv is not stupid and he is not going to surrender a first round pick for Turner. Sorry. I could see second round or maybe even third round compensation for Turner, in which case i might say pull the trigger. It all depends on who and what they are targeting for the second and third round, as well as the first and who is going to be there in each slot. As for Briggs, you don't want him. Rosendouche is his agent and we obviously want nothing to do with him. I wish you guys would stop discussing Briggs because he is not coming to Buffalo. He's not worth it in the first place and if he even closely resembled the talent that the Bears want to be compensated for, we still don't want him. One, because of the holes to fill, and two because of his attitude. Forget it. He's not coming.
Tortured Soul Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 You're welcome dude. Besides, Marv did not implement cash to the cap. Ralph and most likely his CFO Jeffrey Littman developed the theory to rebel against the escalating salaries in the NFL. No way does Marv tell his employer that the financial system bestowed on him needs changing. He doesn't carry that much weight. Cash to the cap was a response to inequitable revenue sharing, not escalating player salaries. Now that Ralph has found a revenue sharing arrangement he likes, who knows?
Tipster19 Posted April 1, 2007 Author Posted April 1, 2007 Touche Tortured Soul, there's nothing that I loathe more than that word can't. There's always a way to work it out if you really want to.
BillsVet Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 President Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Tipster, criticism is a part of this board. Deal with it.
BillsVet Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Cash to the cap was a response to inequitable revenue sharing, not escalating player salaries. Now that Ralph has found a revenue sharing arrangement he likes, who knows? It's not all revenue sharing. If it was, Buffalo wouldn't be shedding salary like Holcomb and Spikes. They've come out and said cash to the cap and aren't going to reverse course because all of a sudden there's a few million available in revenue sharing. It's not much when you look at it. It appears, according to the link, that 100M will be available for about what I think is half the league this year. That breaks down to about 6-7M per team for the first season. If Ralph thinks selling the naming rights isn't profitable enough, then revenue sharing fits in the same boat. It's a minor offering and not anything that will turn the tide of NFL spending for small market teams. Hence, JAC and CIN voting against it. Revenue Sharing
Tipster19 Posted April 1, 2007 Author Posted April 1, 2007 President Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Tipster, criticism is a part of this board. Deal with it. Aw c'mon, I'm not taking offense here, I'm just having some fun. Lighten up, you are the one getting all serious with the cash to cap stuff. The things that you're quoting is what you're reading. How much do you really know and understand about the contracts, financial structure and negoiating? Unless you're a lawyer that deals in these areas then I'm taking what you're saying more as opinion than fact. There's no harm in exploring the possibilities in the off season.
BillsVet Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Aw c'mon, I'm not taking offense here, I'm just having some fun. Lighten up, you are the one getting all serious with the cash to cap stuff. The things that you're quoting is what you're reading. How much do you really know and understand about the contracts, financial structure and negoiating? Unless you're a lawyer that deals in these areas then I'm taking what you're saying more as opinion than fact. There's no harm in exploring the possibilities in the off season. Well, it's hard to tell through words alone. It's as the kid say "all good." Of course what I'm saying is partially opinion. I don't have sources deep within OBD or anything. I just think we'd have done something if it were right.
Recommended Posts