"Worth" is a semantic argument

[CosmicBills]

I think it's kind of foolish using certain players from ages ago that were in similar situations. For most every Kenny Davis, there is a Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson or at least who made a solid starter. And the difference between Kenny Davis and Michael Turner is that Kenny Davis was given the chance to be the starter for 3-4 years in Green Bay before the Bills and couldn't beat out a litany of nobody's including a few total flops.

 

My argument about the fact of Turner would be taken in the middle of the first round in only in reference to people saying he's not worth trading a first round pick for. If Marv and Modrak and John Guy and Jauron and Fairchild think are considering taking Marshawn Lynch at #12 but instead are strongly considering and maybe pulling the trigger on trading or swapping a #1 for Michael Turner instead of choosing Lynch, Michael Turner is worth a #1 pick. It's inarguable. I'm not saying they are going to do it but it looks like they are. So they must believe, without question, that Michael Turner is a much better prospect than Marshawn Lynch, who is sure to go in the middle of the first round of the draft.

 

I agree with the second paragraph ... but the first:

 

I think Davis is an excellent comparison because he couldn't beat anyone out in GB. LT is going to be the best back in the history of the game when he hangs 'em up. I really believe that. Thurman was certainly one of the better backs to play the game as well. It's an interesting comparison to look at how two great backs make their backups look better than perhaps they really are.

 

Davis had his shot and failed -- but then was tremendous in Buffalo filling in for Thurman. He was great at his role. Now, Turner hasn't been given the option yet, but he has looked great filling his role in the wake of LT. Still, there is a great, big chance that he could fail as miserably as Davis did when he gets elevated to the number one spot. And that is my whole point (and yours) that we never know. It's a crapshoot like you said. Meaning, for me, I'd like to play it safe and mitigate the risks and set Turner's value based on the other backs that have been dealt this off season -- all of whom have proven records where Turner is still speculation.

[ieatcrayonz]

Now you've stooped to an all time low. I made this very same argument last week (though in a lot less words). Stealing my ideas is not the way to get ahead.

 

Stealer linky

I can honestly say I missed that. The main reason I didn't see it is because I ignore most of what you write.

 

Even so, I don't need to have seen it for it to be stolen. Well, infringed anyway. My apologies. Take an extra hour with the light saver. Press any button you'd like. Please just update me on what happens.

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree with the second paragraph ... but the first:

 

I think Davis is an excellent comparison because he couldn't beat anyone out in GB. LT is going to be the best back in the history of the game when he hangs 'em up. I really believe that. Thurman was certainly one of the better backs to play the game as well. It's an interesting comparison to look at how two great backs make their backups look better than perhaps they really are.

 

Davis had his shot and failed -- but then was tremendous in Buffalo filling in for Thurman. He was great at his role. Now, Turner hasn't been given the option yet, but he has looked great filling his role in the wake of LT. Still, there is a great, big chance that he could fail as miserably as Davis did when he gets elevated to the number one spot. And that is my whole point (and yours) that we never know. It's a crapshoot like you said. Meaning, for me, I'd like to play it safe and mitigate the risks and set Turner's value based on the other backs that have been dealt this off season -- all of whom have proven records where Turner is still speculation.

Priest Holmes had his shot and hit a grand slam. So did Tiki Barber. And others.

[CosmicBills]

Priest Holmes had his shot and hit a grand slam. So did Tiki Barber. And others.

 

True. But they didn't cost a first round pick I told you I was a bastard!

[Stiffler]

Dog, your posts are usually spot on. But your theme of worth/value is not as murky as you think.

 

1] Michael Turner is not worth a #1 pick because Thomas Jones was only worth a swap of #2's, Willis McGahee was only worth two #3's and a #7, no one would trade a #2 for Stephen Alexander, etc.

McGahee has higher value than TJones, thus the Bills got more for him in their trade. Turner has more value than McGahee, thus will get more in a trade. Is it a 1st-rounder? Doubtful. But equating Turner to TJones and WMcGahee is erroneous.

 

 

2]If Michael Turner was in this draft he would be picked in the middle of the first round, probably ahead of Lynch, so he is worth a first rounder. If you were to trade a #1 pick for him and he was worth more to your scouts and GM than the RB you were going to take with that 12th pick, he is worth a #1 pick.

Yes, I agree that Turner would be a mid-round 1st-round draft pick if he were a rookie about to receive a rookie contract. But he is going to be much more expensive than the comparable 1st-round pick, thus the comparable rookie 1st-rounder is more valuable (higher worth) than Turner.

 

 

3]Willis McGahee was traded for marginal draft picks but was signed to a contract worth 40 million dollars which is worth a top 5-6 pick in the draft. Thomas Jones was traded for a swap of #2's but signed to a contract worth 20 mil and 12 mil guaranteed which is worth what the 10th pick in the draft might get. So the teams signing them think they are worth what those picks would get.

You cannot compare rookie salaries to free agent salaries. Rookies taken in the draft are beholden to the teams drafting them for 3-4 years. The fact that they cannot be bought in the open free agent market is why their salaries are so low for the first four years. Adrian Peterson would likely get more money than McGahee if he were a free agent right now.

 

 

4]A trade down from #12 to #30 is worth about 600 points on the trade chart, which is worth a 2nd round pick. And a #1 pick next year on the trade chart is worth a #2 pick in this years draft so Michael Turner either is or isn't worth a #1 pick.

 

The fact remains, regardless of what we give up for him, if we trade for him, if he's great, it's a great trade, if he's rather good it's a rather good trade, and if he's crappy it's a rather crappy trade. With a small consideration for who was available in retrospect as an alternative. But every trade and every draft pick is a gamble.

 

You speak, and many of the posters speak, of a "crapshoot," a "gamble," as if it is chance. While there is an element of chance involved, the overriding theme is maximizing value (worth). Trades and draft picks are calculated decisions based on what will help the team most in the short and long term (read: what gives the team most value).

 

In regards to trading or not trading for Michael Turner, the question is not difficult: What are you willing to give up for a very good running back who is comparable to 1st-round talent, (Talent, not value.), who has only one cheap year left on his contract, and who will likely be expecting a big contract upon trading? In my opinion, the long-term value of an unproven, lots-of-potential rookie RB that can be had on the cheap for four years vastly outweighs the returns of an unproven, lost-of-potential NFL RB that will command a big contract.

 

Look at the best teams in the league and their view of how the RB position should be handled:

• Denver: RB is expendable. Use a mid-round pick or a cheap FA pickup and plug into great OLine. Trade or let go when price too high.
  
• New England: use young RBs, spend money on QB, O and DLines; traded for Dillon with late 2nd-round pick. they, however, were ready to win right away in the short-term. He was a 2-year rental.
  
• Indy: let Edge walk when he wanted $$$, draft cheap RBs, let Rhodes walk.
  

No one is talking about how much Turner will cost. He will demand a big contract-- essentially another free agent contract-- and we will be giving up a 1st-day draft pick. If we give up more than a 3rd, it is a bad trade.

[Kelly the Dog]

Dog, your posts are usually spot on. But your theme of worth/value is not as murky as you think.

McGahee has higher value than TJones, thus the Bills got more for him in their trade. Turner has more value than McGahee, thus will get more in a trade. Is it a 1st-rounder? Doubtful. But equating Turner to TJones and WMcGahee is erroneous.

Yes, I agree that Turner would be a mid-round 1st-round draft pick if he were a rookie about to receive a rookie contract. But he is going to be much more expensive than the comparable 1st-round pick, thus the comparable rookie 1st-rounder is more valuable (higher worth) than Turner.

You cannot compare rookie salaries to free agent salaries. Rookies taken in the draft are beholden to the teams drafting them for 3-4 years. The fact that they cannot be bought in the open free agent market is why their salaries are so low for the first four years. Adrian Peterson would likely get more money than McGahee if he were a free agent right now.

You speak, and many of the posters speak, of a "crapshoot," a "gamble," as if it is chance. While there is an element of chance involved, the overriding theme is maximizing value (worth). Trades and draft picks are calculated decisions based on what will help the team most in the short and long term (read: what gives the team most value).

 

In regards to trading or not trading for Michael Turner, the question is not difficult: What are you willing to give up for a very good running back who is comparable to 1st-round talent, (Talent, not value.), who has only one cheap year left on his contract, and who will likely be expecting a big contract upon trading? In my opinion, the long-term value of an unproven, lots-of-potential rookie RB that can be had on the cheap for four years vastly outweighs the returns of an unproven, lost-of-potential NFL RB that will command a big contract.

 

Look at the best teams in the league and their view of how the RB position should be handled:

• Denver: RB is expendable. Use a mid-round pick or a cheap FA pickup and plug into great OLine. Trade or let go when price too high.
  
• New England: use young RBs, spend money on QB, O and DLines; traded for Dillon with late 2nd-round pick. they, however, were ready to win right away in the short-term. He was a 2-year rental.
  
• Indy: let Edge walk when he wanted $$$, draft cheap RBs, let Rhodes walk.
  

No one is talking about how much Turner will cost. He will demand a big contract-- essentially another free agent contract-- and we will be giving up a 1st-day draft pick. If we give up more than a 3rd, it is a bad trade.

I respect those opinions a lot, and you may be right, but lets take them one at a time.

 

1] My point was in reference to other people making the connections to the trades of Thomas Jones and McGahee. I was simply listing all the various uses of "worth". I think you can't compare the trades and what other teams got for those guys, as each trade needs to be looked at as you stated. What is he worth. It may or may not be a 1 or a 2 but you cannot say it's definitely not a 1 or a 2 just because another player got a different deal.

 

2] I guess I just don't agree with your premise. Just because the #1 pick is going to be cheaper doesn't mean that's better value. It may be, in the coaches and scouts and managements eyes that Turner at 20 mil is better value than Lynch at 14 mil because they think he has a much better chance at becoming a star or very good player.

 

3] Rookies are cheaper only from, say, pick 10 down. Adrian Peterson is probably going to get similar money as McGahee, at least 40 million and maybe more depending on when he is drafted. My comparison was only in the terms of "worth" being semantic. If you're going to pay Turner 20 mil and swapping firsts versus using your first on Lynch and paying him 14 mil, I think that's a valid comparison. You have to make that choice. It's my opinion that I would rather swap firsts or use a second on Turner and still have a pick for another position than take Lynch and pay him 14 mil or wait on a 2nd round RB, none of which are anything more than 50-50 crapshoots to me. It's just an opinion but i think Turner is more like 65-35 or 75-25. The extra million a year out of 112 million is worth it to me for the extra percentage that Turner and a LB are going to fulfill the promise as opposed to Lynch, or Tony Hunt/Kenny Irons will.

 

4] Of course they are very calculated decisions and GMs/coaches/scouts are paid good money to make recommendations. But they don't know how it's going to turn out. It's like baseball. A great hitter bats .333 but all that means is he's out twice as much as he hits. The teams think everyone of their 7-8 guys are going to be good or have a very good chance of being good and yet only 2-3 of them usually are, an sometimes just one.

 

5] Denver just signed Henry to a contract similar to what Turner will get because their just stick anybody in there hasnt been working. The Pats spent their #1 on a RB. The Colts didn't want to get rid of Edge at all but simply had paid Peyton, Harrison and Wayne too much and decided their passing game was more important because of Manning. I just don't think that was a good example.

[Stiffler]

I respect those opinions a lot, and you may be right, but lets take them one at a time.

 

1] My point was in reference to other people making the connections to the trades of Thomas Jones and McGahee. I was simply listing all the various uses of "worth". I think you can't compare the trades and what other teams got for those guys, as each trade needs to be looked at as you stated. What is he worth. It may or may not be a 1 or a 2 but you cannot say it's definitely not a 1 or a 2 just because another player got a different deal.

 

2] I guess I just don't agree with your premise. Just because the #1 pick is going to be cheaper doesn't mean that's better value. It may be, in the coaches and scouts and managements eyes that Turner at 20 mil is better value than Lynch at 14 mil because they think he has a much better chance at becoming a star or very good player.

 

3] Rookies are cheaper only from, say, pick 10 down. Adrian Peterson is probably going to get similar money as McGahee, at least 40 million and maybe more depending on when he is drafted. My comparison was only in the terms of "worth" being semantic. If you're going to pay Turner 20 mil and swapping firsts versus using your first on Lynch and paying him 14 mil, I think that's a valid comparison. You have to make that choice. It's my opinion that I would rather swap firsts or use a second on Turner and still have a pick for another position than take Lynch and pay him 14 mil or wait on a 2nd round RB, none of which are anything more than 50-50 crapshoots to me. It's just an opinion but i think Turner is more like 65-35 or 75-25. The extra million a year out of 112 million is worth it to me for the extra percentage that Turner and a LB are going to fulfill the promise as opposed to Lynch, or Tony Hunt/Kenny Irons will.

 

4] Of course they are very calculated decisions and GMs/coaches/scouts are paid good money to make recommendations. But they don't know how it's going to turn out. It's like baseball. A great hitter bats .333 but all that means is he's out twice as much as he hits. The teams think everyone of their 7-8 guys are going to be good or have a very good chance of being good and yet only 2-3 of them usually are, an sometimes just one.

 

5] Denver just signed Henry to a contract similar to what Turner will get because their just stick anybody in there hasnt been working. The Pats spent their #1 on a RB. The Colts didn't want to get rid of Edge at all but simply had paid Peyton, Harrison and Wayne too much and decided their passing game was more important because of Manning. I just don't think that was a good example.

 

Love it. The over-arching point I want to make is that when assessing value, or worth, one must look at two things: 1) talent and/or potential to succeed in the NFL and 2) contract. For example, comparing Turner to McGahee's value: 1) talent: Turner a slight edge because of his huge potential to be great whereas McGahee is a known solid commodity. (2) Contracts will be about equal: Both had one year left on a rookie contract. Thus, Turner's value is higher.

 

To your points:

 

1) You can and should compare trades. Although not perfect, completed trades set a market value for running backs. Granted, as we both stated, all RBs are different; but that does not mean you cannot compare. It would be negligent not to. McGahee was worth 2 late 3rd-round picks. If the Bills, like most of the league, see Turner as having more value than McGahee, then he will command a better draft pick. Another relevant trade to look at is New England giving a late 2nd-round pick to the Bengals for Corey Dillon. He was a proven RB in his prime (with character issues) making a big salary. Is Turner the same value as Dillon back then? I'm not sure, but it seems to be close. Again, these trades aren't setting an exact market price, but they do give a good idea.

 

2) Yes, cheaper is better value if the two players are of comparable talent and potential. If they are not, and I assume you are saying that Turner has a better chance to succeed, then of course, the analysis involves a trade-off between price and talent.

 

3) Paying extra for more sure talent is fine. But I think your premise that it is only an extra million a year is far on the low side. Turner is going to want McGahee money or more; a Lynch could be had on the very cheap. The difference (including bonuses) between Turner and Lynch's contracts could be 3 or 4 million a year. (I don't want Marshawn, I'm just sayin.) McGahee's contract is essentially 4 yrs / $20M. Addai and Maroney are essentially 5 yrs / $10M (see links below). That's a difference of more than $3M / year!

 

5) The best teams don't pay for the RBs. Henry's deal was 5 years and $12 million guaranteed. Not expensive at all. Turner will get much more than that. New England and Indy used first round picks because they get four or five years of cheap service and they get production right away: NFL rookie RBs can contribute immediately.

 

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=2265

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=3642

[Kelly the Dog]

Love it. The over-arching point I want to make is that when assessing value, or worth, one must look at two things: 1) talent and/or potential to succeed in the NFL and 2) contract. For example, comparing Turner to McGahee's value: 1) talent: Turner a slight edge because of his huge potential to be great whereas McGahee is a known solid commodity. (2) Contracts will be about equal: Both had one year left on a rookie contract. Thus, Turner's value is higher.

 

To your points:

 

1) You can and should compare trades. Although not perfect, completed trades set a market value for running backs. Granted, as we both stated, all RBs are different; but that does not mean you cannot compare. It would be negligent not to. McGahee was worth 2 late 3rd-round picks. If the Bills, like most of the league, see Turner as having more value than McGahee, then he will command a better draft pick. Another relevant trade to look at is New England giving a late 2nd-round pick to the Bengals for Corey Dillon. He was a proven RB in his prime (with character issues) making a big salary. Is Turner the same value as Dillon back then? I'm not sure, but it seems to be close. Again, these trades aren't setting an exact market price, but they do give a good idea.

 

2) Yes, cheaper is better value if the two players are of comparable talent and potential. If they are not, and I assume you are saying that Turner has a better chance to succeed, then of course, the analysis involves a trade-off between price and talent.

 

3) Paying extra for more sure talent is fine. But I think your premise that it is only an extra million a year is far on the low side. Turner is going to want McGahee money or more; a Lynch could be had on the very cheap. The difference (including bonuses) between Turner and Lynch's contracts could be 3 or 4 million a year. (I don't want Marshawn, I'm just sayin.) McGahee's contract is essentially 4 yrs / $20M. Addai and Maroney are essentially 5 yrs / $10M (see links below). That's a difference of more than $3M / year!

 

5) The best teams don't pay for the RBs. Henry's deal was 5 years and $12 million guaranteed. Not expensive at all. Turner will get much more than that. New England and Indy used first round picks because they get four or five years of cheap service and they get production right away: NFL rookie RBs can contribute immediately.

 

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=2265

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=3642

Cool. It remains to be seen what Turner will get. I highly doubt he will get anything more than Jones or Henry got, 12 million guaranteed. Maybe 20 mil total over 4-5 years. You seem to think he will get much more. If that's the case, I wouldn't want him either.

[The Dean]

Cool. It remains to be seen what Turner will get. I highly doubt he will get anything more than Jones or Henry got, 12 million guaranteed. Maybe 20 mil total over 4-5 years. You seem to think he will get much more. If that's the case, I wouldn't want him either.

 

 

Agreed. i think the TRADE is the issue here...not the contract. But, what the hell do any of us really know.

[Stiffler]

Agreed. i think the TRADE is the issue here...not the contract. But, what the hell do any of us really know.

 

This is my point. You cannot separate the trade from the contract. Once we trade a 2nd or a pair of 3rds for Turner, he is not going to be happy with sitting on the contract he has. Nor are the Bills going to want to let him walk after 2007 season. Therefore, an extension would immediately follow the trade. As such, the contract, imo, will resemble the one that McGahee, who also had one year left on his rookie contract, got from the Ravens. Bottom line: Turner is going to be expensive. Then again, as you stated Dean, I probably know less than most people.

[I 90]

As such, the contract, imo, will resemble the one that McGahee, who also had one year left on his rookie contract, got from the Ravens. Bottom line: Turner is going to be expensive. Then again, as you stated Dean, I probably know less than most people.

 

The McGahee deal is freakishly absent of a guaranteed future for a man who has suffered a serious injury.

 

Signing bonus 7.5 million, roster bonus 6.5 million after 2007, 1.5 million after 2008. The salary is around 600 thousand for the next three years, ramping up to 3.6 million in 2010 and 6 million in 2011.

 

In yesteryear terms that is pretty much 14 million guaranteed. Which is a reasonable expectation for Turner's starting point.

 

Contract

[BuffOrange]

The fact remains, regardless of what we give up for him, if we trade for him, if he's great, it's a great trade, if he's rather good it's a rather good trade, and if he's crappy it's a rather crappy trade. With a small consideration for who was available in retrospect as an alternative. But every trade and every draft pick is a gamble.

 

Who would you say is a good example today of a "rather good" back who helps his team win games? Just curious because, IMO, the difference between a good and average back is the players around him (and no I don't think this nearly as true for other positions).

I guess my point is if he's something between great and crappy (which is pretty likely) I think there should be more than a small consideration for possible alternatives in terms of evaluating the trade.

BTW I didn't know anyone was shopping Stephen Alexander for a 2nd

[Kelly the Dog]

Who would you say is a good example today of a "rather good" back who helps his team win games? Just curious because, IMO, the difference between a good and average back is the players around him (and no I don't think this nearly as true for other positions).

I guess my point is if he's something between great and crappy (which is pretty likely) I think there should be more than a small consideration for possible alternatives in terms of evaluating the trade.

BTW I didn't know anyone was shopping Stephen Alexander for a 2nd

Rudi Johnson. Stephen Davis or Deshaun Foster when they were completely healthy. Warrick Dunn. Willie Parker. I think that kind of player I would be pretty happy with in Michael Turner. It's possible he could be a star and possible he could be a flop.

[The Dean]

Rudi Johnson. Stephen Davis or Deshaun Foster when they were completely healthy. Warrick Dunn. Willie Parker. I think that kind of player I would be pretty happy with in Michael Turner. It's possible he could be a star and possible he could be a flop.

 

i have to say, the chances of him being a flop are far less than any player in the draft...and that INCLUDES AP.