ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Which means that you have invested one draft pick in that player. We invested two firsts and one fourth in Watkins. The result of the trade Whaley actually made is exactly the same as it would be if Cleveland stayed at #4 overall, selected Watkins with that pick, and then traded Watkins to us for 2 firsts and a fourth. Now thump your chest some more and tell us how smart you are.

http://www.economist.com/node/13361472 http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream

Seems like "haboob" would be more apt than "tsunami" . . .

You can legitimately criticize Kiper for a lot of things, but you choose to criticize him for grading "tough" because he grades at a "B- curve?" So you're from Lake Wobegon, and a B- midpoint for the curve isn't far enough above average to satisfy you? http://www.theonion.com/articles/mel-kiper-trapped-for-3-days-under-toppled-big-boa,35979/

When the draft started we had this year's first rounder, next year's first rounder and next year's fourth rounder. We now have Watkins, and none of those three picks. Do the math.

The picks have time value to the people making the decisions, because they are employed by impatient owners who will fire them if they don't show results fairly quickly. But as a fan, I'm all for making trades that give the Bills the best chance of winning a Super Bowl, even if that takes a few years. Maybe if I had a terminal disease, and knew I wouldn't be around to enjoy some future Super Bowl victory, I would value draft picks the way you suggest. What would you rather have - - (1) no playoffs in 2014, playoffs in 2015, and a Super Bowl victory a few years later, or (2) playoffs in 2014 and 2015 but no future championship? Personally, I would go for the future championship. If most fans would prefer immediate playoffs with no championship, that says more about (1) how fans value immediate psychological gratification, than it does about (2) how much future draft picks can improve the team.

Actually, $1 million cash right now is worth more than $1 million in cash next year because of inflation. You don't even have to compare (1) cash in hand, with (2) a mere promise to pay the same amount of cash in the future, to reach that conclusion. Unless you think the NFL will fold before next year's draft, the comparison is between a pick this year and a pick next year - - not between a pick this year and a mere promise that you'll be allowed to make a pick next year. But the whole "time value of money" thing is a false analogy. Money has value because you can exchange it for stuff. Money has "time value" because $100 will usually buy you less pencils a year from now than it will today, because inflation will make the cost of each pencil higher a year from now. But draft picks are different. The #1 overall pick in this year's draft can be exchanged for the best player in this year's draft. The #1 overall pick in next year's draft can be exchanged for the best player in next year's draft. So unless you have some reason to think that the overall talent level of football players is declining each year, the #1 overall pick next year is generally worth just as much as the #1 overall pick this year (in terms of the amount of talent it can add to your team). Sometimes conventional wisdom is a whole lot more conventional than it is wise.

If it's true that the talent in this years draft runs much deeper than the talent expected to be available in next year's draft, then you can make a rational argument that, at least for this particular year, "a 1st next year is worth a 2nd this year." But that's not what you're saying. By saying it's a "general rule," you're claiming that you should always discount next year's picks by 1 round. The OP also claims that picks in a draft 1 year later should be discounted - - by 50% of their point value on the trade chart. I realize that both of you may have read these claims somewhere, but what's the logic behind that thinking? Why is a pick a year in the future ALWAYS worth so much less than a pick now? I'm curious about the rationale, because that makes no sense to me. I can see how future picks are always worth less to the GM, because he might get fired before next year's draft comes around. But if you aren't a Bills employee, how does that make any sense? Do Olympic athletes win gold medals with successively slower times every four years? Is the general population of college age kids becoming gradually less athletically capable over time? Please give me some rational explanation for why a future pick in any given round should ALWAYS be evaluated at a discount compared to this year's pick in the same round. I don't think that makes any sense.

Back at ya!

It's not difficult to understand at all - - maybe it's just semantics. I would agree that "we are out a 2015 1st and 4th" IN ADDITION TO the pick that we actually used this year to draft Watkins. That makes the total investment in Watkins = 2 firsts and a fourth. If there had been no trade, and Watkins somehow fell to us because nobody else picked him, our investment in Watkins would be one first. Do you disagree with that?

So you think we still have this year's first?

No, I would say we used a first to get Watkins. We gave up a first next year and fourth next year to get the right to use this year's first on Watkins. That means we now have Watkins, but we no longer have this year's first, next year's first and next year's fourth. Total investment in Watkins = 2 firsts and 1 fourth. Seriously, you can't see that?

We gave up two picks in the trade, and used another one to actually choose Watkins. So the total investment to get Watkins was 2 firsts and a fourth.

Now just stop and actually think for a minute. At the start of today's draft, we had a 1st round pick this year, a first round pick next year and a fourth round pick next year. At midnight tonight, we had Watkins, but no longer had any of those three picks. How do you conclude that the Bills invested something other than 2 first round picks and a fourth round pick in Watkins?

So the wife's a Bills fan, huh?

Who do I want? Jessica Alba, but I'd settle for Scarlett Johansson.

North Korea showing off its breakthrough semi-invisible tank brigade?

Maybe it was a schnauzer from New Zealand named "Monty:" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20614593 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2245771/New-Zealand-dogs-pass-driving-test-really-CAN-drive-car.html

"We need to take a QB in the first round every year until we find one that takes us to the playoffs, because it's a QB-driven league."

Hold on a sec - - there IS a 3D model. Some guy made it with Legos: http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/Fan-shows-ultimate-devotion-one-LEGO-at-a-time/7863e26e-c47e-43d4-8821-80c185a38686

Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this video (about synthetic marijuana use on the Auburn 2010 national championship football team) was previously posted: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9204786 Edit: At 5:37 of the video, it mentions that Univ. of Alabama started testing for spice in the spring of 2010. The Bills took Dareus in the 2011 draft.

If new stadium lease terms were similar to the current lease terms, I suppose getting out of Erie County's obligation to pay millions of dollars every year for (1) annual capital payments, (2) working capital payments, (3) game day expenses, and (4) operating expenses ought to be worth something: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/index.php?q=buffalo-bills-lease-terms-summary If it hasn't already been paid, maybe Erie County could even negotiate to get out of paying the "Carryover Obligations" that survived the termination of the "old" 15 year lease signed back in 1998: http://www2.erie.gov/exec/sites/www2.erie.gov.exec/files/uploads/Stadium%20Lease%20Termination%20Agreement.pdf

Interesting interview, but the most interesting part is that it was conducted by a guy with a PhD in chemical engineering (from Stanford, no less) who runs a sports analytics website. I'd like to ask him some questions.

Mr.Stay Puft:

Telling someone there are "holes in their cultural literacy" is more like saying they have blind spots rather than accusing them of being totally culturally illiterate. That said, being unaware of a specific episode - - not a blind spot. Being unaware of a regular role in a popular series that ran for 8 years - - yes, I consider that a blind spot. I admit I found the show very funny, though, so I'm probably biased. The Darryl brothers first appeared in the scene upthread from episode #2, and they became regular cast members starting in season #3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhart They also had a memorable scene in the Newhart series finale - - you can read about it in the above link in the unlikely event that you're interested.