Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I find it fascinating how organizations (and fans) think. A few questions to clarify what I mean: 1. If you're the Vikings, would you trade Bridgewater for Sammy? I think we all agree that the answer is "of course not." 2. Some fans bemoan the trading up to draft Sammy rather than taking a QB with our initial pick, or even trading down to take a QB later. The same fans agree that Sammy had a very good rookie season (particularly given the fact that he didn't exactly have great QB play feeding him), and that his star is on the rise. Yet they never consider trading Sammy for what we need more: a QB, or the chance to draft a QB. This is what economists call the "endowment effect." You tend to overvalue what you have, and undervalue what you could get. http://en.wikipedia....ndowment_effect This is something some great sports GMs like Billy Beane do not run afoul of. Think you need a pitcher to finally make it to a World Series? Go get Lester and Samardzija! That doesn't work? Let Lester go, trade Samardzija, reload with some other players! If you want a QB now your best trade chip is Sammy and it's not even close. So at least consider it ... all you'd be doing is a classic Billy Beane transaction: you traded up to try to get it done in 2014, you came close, but didn't make it. Now you're stuck with no first round pick in 2015? Simply undo that by trading Sammy. No harm done. But it takes guts, which most GMs lack. um no. Who are we trading for Mariota, Winston? no thanks the number one? need a lot more than Sammy for that. Bring in some vet (Matt Schaub) and trade up if need be in 2016 for a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 The question is: "Is there anything out there in the draft that we need and can't get in the second round worth our proven #1 WR?" The answer is probably no. Even if we miracluously snagged a #1 overall pick for last years #4 pick, who would we draft? Mariota is basically EJ Manuel 2.0, and Winston would be booed by fans if he got into more trouble in Buffalo I don't recall EJ ever doing what Mariota just did. This thread is ridiculous. I'd rather get cutler or RG3 or Foles. Unless we can trade Sammy for Andrew Luck, I'm not gonna be happy with a trade involving Watkins. Now that's ridiculous. As I stated in the thread starter, no way Minnesota would trade Bridgewater (a still unproven 30th pick overall) for Sammy. If we had beaten Oakland and they were in the running for Mariota or Winston, they might have given us Carr for Sammy. Might have. And Carr didn't exactly impress. There's probably about 20 QBs out there that it would make sense to trade Sammy for, since otherwise we will be playing, at best, maybe the 35th best QB in the NFL next year. A good QB is worth far more than even an exceptional WR. Russell Wilson + Golden Tate > John Skelton + Larry Fitzgerald. That's the NFL. Here's my list of who I'd probably trade Sammy for and I'm guessing many posters here would likely cut my list in half: Arron Rodgers, Andrew Luck Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan Tony Romo, Matt Stafford, Big Ben,, maybe Wilson in Sea. I think you're kind of proving my point. You wouldn't trade Sammy straight up for Peyton Manning? For Brady? For Kaepernick? For Cam Newton? Maybe for Wilson (I'm sure Seattle would find that amusing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 No because in a year or two Manning and Brady will be retired or very very close. You want to trade Sammy for a pile or potential garbage. Foles, Winston, 3rd best QB in draft You say Minn wouldn't trade Sammy for Brdgewater who has IMO has a much better chance at flame out than Sammy does, so then why do you want to get rid of a proven star for likely someone who may be out of football in a few years or will drift from team to team as a backup. I think you're kind of proving my point. You wouldn't trade Sammy straight up for Peyton Manning? For Brady? For Kaepernick? For Cam Newton? Maybe for Wilson (I'm sure Seattle would find that amusing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) No because in a year or two Manning and Brady will be retired or very very close. You want to trade Sammy for a pile or potential garbage. Foles, Winston, 3rd best QB in draft You say Minn wouldn't trade Sammy for Brdgewater who has IMO has a much better chance at flame out than Sammy does, so then why do you want to get rid of a proven star for likely someone who may be out of football in a few years or will drift from team to team as a backup. Bridgewater does have a much better chance of flaming out than Sammy. So if you're satisfied with an Orton type at QB during the final year or two of a dominant defense, a shot at a 9-7 or even 10-6 record in one or both of those years, perhaps one or even two first round playoff losses, then you're absolutely right. Hang onto Sammy and whatever other key assets you think you might have and patch together the QB situation. You may just scale the heights of success like the Kansas City Chiefs just did. Might I remind you that KC: (1) beat us, again. (2) came much closer to making the playoffs than we did. (3) did so with zero WR TD catches. And actually made the playoffs last year, so we're not even at the mediocre level of success yet. Edited January 1, 2015 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 A. Sammy's not worth a first B. Post trade we'd need another receiver C. / close thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickelCity Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Sammy is going to have a fantastic career. Unless it's for a proven quarterback, I don't want to trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) A. Sammy's not worth a first B. Post trade we'd need another receiver C. / close thread Not worth even THE FIRST PICK? Really? Here's how you know that's not true: Tampa wouldn't give us the first pick for him! Remember, I started this thread by talking about the endowment effect, the tendency of people to overvalue what they already have and undervalue the alternative things they could have. Again, you guys are proving my point. Let me put it another way: Tampa's QB situation is lousy, but not as bad as ours. So presumably if you're right they would prefer Glennon + Sammy to, say, Mariota + their current crop of WRs. So let's make that deal ... Edited January 1, 2015 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I don't recall EJ ever doing what Mariota just did. Now that's ridiculous. As I stated in the thread starter, no way Minnesota would trade Bridgewater (a still unproven 30th pick overall) for Sammy. If we had beaten Oakland and they were in the running for Mariota or Winston, they might have given us Carr for Sammy. Might have. And Carr didn't exactly impress. There's probably about 20 QBs out there that it would make sense to trade Sammy for, since otherwise we will be playing, at best, maybe the 35th best QB in the NFL next year. A good QB is worth far more than even an exceptional WR. Russell Wilson + Golden Tate > John Skelton + Larry Fitzgerald. That's the NFL. I think you're kind of proving my point. You wouldn't trade Sammy straight up for Peyton Manning? For Brady? For Kaepernick? For Cam Newton? Maybe for Wilson (I'm sure Seattle would find that amusing). I am still missing something. If the goal is to be championship competitive, how does trading a young WR who could be great for the 15-20th best starting QB in the league help? This team is not championship caliber with Foles or Alex Smith or Andy Dalton, etc and no Watkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Not worth even THE FIRST PICK? Really? Here's how you know that's not true: Tampa wouldn't give us the first pick for him! Remember, I started this thread by talking about the endowment effect, the tendency of people to overvalue what they already have and undervalue the alternative things they could have. Again, you guys are proving my point. Let me put it another way: Tampa's QB situation is lousy, but not as bad as ours. So presumably if you're right they would prefer Glennon + Sammy to, say, Mariota + their current crop of WRs. So let's make that deal ... No idea what you're trying to say. IMO Sammy would not garner a first round pick, let alone #1 overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 No idea what you're trying to say. IMO Sammy would not garner a first round pick, let alone #1 overall. OK, I get it. And that's just as obviously wrong on the other side. Sammy is still very affordable, under team control for several years, and clearly would be worth at least a top half of the first round pick. Objectively I'd say he's worth what we used for him -- a 4th overall pick or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 No I want better QB play but your solution is to trade Sammy to get better at QB, then you suggest Foles Winston, and the 3rd best QB in the draft. I'd take EJ for 2015 over those options, can find someone better next year. Sammy has shown enough in the one season even with poor QB play to have a high degree of confidence that he will become a very good to elite player. You want in return a player who you have no idea if he'll ever be any good and based on past QB play has a low likelihood of success. Bridgewater does have a much better chance of flaming out than Sammy. So if you're satisfied with an Orton type at QB during the final year or two of a dominant defense, a shot at a 9-7 or even 10-6 record in one or both of those years, perhaps one or even two first round playoff losses, then you're absolutely right. Hang onto Sammy and whatever other key assets you think you might have and patch together the QB situation. You may just scale the heights of success like the Kansas City Chiefs just did. Might I remind you that KC: (1) beat us, again. (2) came much closer to making the playoffs than we did. (3) did so with zero WR TD catches. And actually made the playoffs last year, so we're not even at the mediocre level of success yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 This could work.... After whaley gets fired and becomes a gm elsewhere, he's sure to offer two first round picks for Sammy.. Then the two first round picks can be shopped for a qb. Can't lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejsohio Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Two wrongs don't make a right. Whaley shouldn't of traded away our 1st pick for Watkins, and we should of drafted O. Beckham instead and kept our pick. But Watkins is a really good player and will get better. T. Bridgewater is not the answer and in my opinion neither is any other quarterback in he draft or via trade. Were going to have to find somebody in free agency and draft a quarterback in the middle rounds to develop like a Russell Wilson who we could of had but took TJ Graham instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 Two wrongs don't make a right. Whaley shouldn't of traded away our 1st pick for Watkins, and we should of drafted O. Beckham instead and kept our pick. But Watkins is a really good player and will get better. T. Bridgewater is not the answer and in my opinion neither is any other quarterback in he draft or via trade. Were going to have to find somebody in free agency and draft a quarterback in the middle rounds to develop like a Russell Wilson who we could of had but took TJ Graham instead. Here's where I'm coming from: management has to choose. Without a franchise QB, the idea that you're building for sustained winning over a decade or so is nonsense. So you gotta choose. I see peak defensive talent right now, and some decent offensive talent. The defense won't last. There's young guys like Bradham and Alonso and Preston Brown, but the core is older players like Dareus, or players already heading into their decline phases like Kyle and Mario. (They played great this year; how many linemen moving well into their 30s maintain that level?) So if I'm Pegula, I'm saying the future is now. But there's another way of looking at it which is perfectly rational. We'll build a long term system. Develop good young players. Keep all the young talent we can, and hope to draft and develop the QB of the future. We probably won't win anything right away. A playoff appearance or two at best. But we'll keep focused on drafting/developing/keeping the best talent available. What bothers me is this: standing pat, dubbing players untouchable (we've all heard it: sign Dareus at any cost! re-sign Hughes! And now, the response I was expecting: don't touch Sammy whatever you do!), plugging in another stopgap or two, and hoping against hope that in the next couple years the Patriots finally decline, and Miami stalls, or the AFC gets weak enough that 10-6 or even 9-7 may get us a playoff appearance. I see no value in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jletha Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 OK, I get it. And that's just as obviously wrong on the other side. Sammy is still very affordable, under team control for several years, and clearly would be worth at least a top half of the first round pick. Objectively I'd say he's worth what we used for him -- a 4th overall pick or so. You're out of your mind if you think anyone would give up a 4th overall pick for him. You talk about teams "overvalueing what they have" and you're doing just that. You're over valuing Sammy Watkins. Look at how many good rookie WRs there were this year. Why would someone give up assets when they can get their own WR in the draft? We may get a second rounder for Sammy and that isn't worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 You're out of your mind if you think anyone would give up a 4th overall pick for him. You talk about teams "overvalueing what they have" and you're doing just that. You're over valuing Sammy Watkins. Look at how many good rookie WRs there were this year. Why would someone give up assets when they can get their own WR in the draft? We may get a second rounder for Sammy and that isn't worth it. That's my guess too, 2nd rounder. But even that could be problematic .... if we're offering him up for trade bait after a year what's the signaling effect? That we've concluded he's not that good? Or there's an injury concern? Remember last 1st rounder traded after his rookie season was Trent Richardson and that was a disaster for colts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jletha Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 That's my guess too, 2nd rounder. But even that could be problematic .... if we're offering him up for trade bait after a year what's the signaling effect? That we've concluded he's not that good? Or there's an injury concern? Remember last 1st rounder traded after his rookie season was Trent Richardson and that was a disaster for colts Yea trading him for a second would be a mistake. He's worth more to us than a second round pick because of what you said and also we would need to address WR again after the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) You're out of your mind if you think anyone would give up a 4th overall pick for him. You talk about teams "overvalueing what they have" and you're doing just that. You're over valuing Sammy Watkins. Look at how many good rookie WRs there were this year. Why would someone give up assets when they can get their own WR in the draft? We may get a second rounder for Sammy and that isn't worth it. You are out of your mind. That crop of wide receivers only comes around once a decade or so. You are acting as if teams will just get theirs this year. Some teams didn't get theirs, so yes teams would absolutely trade a 1st round pick for Sammy Watkins. Would someone give a 1st for Odell Beckham? Jesus Christ. Now I see a 2nd rounder might even be questionable. Sheesh. You guys need to take some time off, and relax. Edit: I should mention that I am certainly not advocating trading Sammy Watkins, I think that idea is ludicrous. Edited January 2, 2015 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 You are out of your mind. That crop of wide receivers only comes around once a decade or so. You are acting as if teams will just get theirs this year. Some teams didn't get theirs, so yes teams would absolutely trade a 1st round pick for Sammy Watkins. Would someone give a 1st for Odell Beckham? Jesus Christ. Now I see a 2nd rounder might even be questionable. Sheesh. You guys need to take some time off, and relax. Of course beckham gets a first, but he's on a completely different level than Watkins. Only in the mind of bills homers are they somehow equals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jletha Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 You are out of your mind. That crop of wide receivers only comes around once a decade or so. You are acting as if teams will just get theirs this year. Some teams didn't get theirs, so yes teams would absolutely trade a 1st round pick for Sammy Watkins. Would someone give a 1st for Odell Beckham? Jesus Christ. Now I see a 2nd rounder might even be questionable. Sheesh. You guys need to take some time off, and relax. A team in the bottom of the first round would probably give up a first rounder for Beckham to maybe get over the edge in a push for a Super Bowl but not for Sammy. Beckham had a much better season in less games. WRs are just not valuable except for maybe 2-3 and Sammy didn't prove he's one of those guys this year. I doubt anyone would give a first rounder for him and definitely not a top first rounder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) A team in the bottom of the first round would probably give up a first rounder for Beckham to maybe get over the edge in a push for a Super Bowl but not for Sammy. Beckham had a much better season in less games. WRs are just not valuable except for maybe 2-3 and Sammy didn't prove he's one of those guys this year. I doubt anyone would give a first rounder for him and definitely not a top first rounder No Sammy didn't prove that to you because he didn't do better than Beckham. I saw the change in attitude amongst many people as soon as Beckham started doing well (mostly the fingertip catch). They all went to their computers and looked up when Beckham was drafted, and monday morning quarterbacked the draft pick. That is when people started devaluing Sammy Watkins. The funny part is that he is the same WR that we drafted him to be, and he will be successful. The Bills failed to do their part and get him a QB. Constantly had to adjust to the ball all year and make circus catches, or play defense. Of course beckham gets a first, but he's on a completely different level than Watkins. Only in the mind of bills homers are they somehow equals We will come back to this debate in 3-4 years. Edited January 2, 2015 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jletha Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 No Sammy didn't prove that to you because he didn't do better than Beckham. I saw the change in attitude amongst many people as soon as Beckham started doing well (mostly the fingertip catch). They all went to their computers and looked up when Beckham was drafted, and monday morning quarterbacked the draft pick. That is when people started devaluing Sammy Watkins. The funny part is that he is the same WR that we drafted him to be, and he will be successful. The Bills failed to do their part and get him a QB. Constantly had to adjust to the ball all year and make circus catches, or play defense. I love Sammy and I think he'll be a very good WR for us in the future especially with a good QB. I definitely am not for trading him at all. My point is that he won't draw a first round pick from a team, especially not a team in the top half. I'm not devaluing him and his future but facts are facts. He went for less than 1000 yards, had some games where he was non-existent and dropped way more passes than he should have. If a team were looking to trade for a WR they would likely trade for Beckham first. My opinion of Sammy didn't change at all with Backham breaking out, my opinions were formed by watching him every game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) I love Sammy and I think he'll be a very good WR for us in the future especially with a good QB. I definitely am not for trading him at all. My point is that he won't draw a first round pick from a team, especially not a team in the top half. I'm not devaluing him and his future but facts are facts. He went for less than 1000 yards, had some games where he was non-existent and dropped way more passes than he should have. If a team were looking to trade for a WR they would likely trade for Beckham first. My opinion of Sammy didn't change at all with Backham breaking out, my opinions were formed by watching him every game. There are 8 wide receivers who had 1,000+ yard rookie seasons in 20 years. Sammy had 982. You are devaluing him because of Beckham in every post. "if a team were looking to trade for a WR, they would trade for Beckham first". What does Beckham have to do with trading for a WR? Do you not trade for Drew Brees because you would prefer Peyton Manning? Rough comparison I know, but you get the gist. You may not think he is worth it, but we will have to agree to disagree because I think he clearly is and I think a few WR needy teams would jump at the chance. Edited January 2, 2015 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enlightener Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 yes and since we need a guard, lets just trade glen and henderson for one, problem solved! you realize youd be trading in essence, two first rounders and a 4rth for one first rounder? this is what in mathematics is called, "an idiot trying to calculate something" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jletha Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 There are 8 wide receivers who had 1,000+ yard rookie seasons in 20 years. Sammy had 982. You are devaluing him because of Beckham in every post. "if a team were looking to trade for a WR, they would trade for Beckham first". What does Beckham have to do with trading for a WR? Do you not trade for Drew Brees because you would prefer Peyton Manning? Rough comparison I know, but you get the gist. You may not think he is worth it, but we will have to agree to disagree because I think he clearly is and I think a few WR needy teams would jump at the chance. I guess we will agree to disagree. But saying person 1 is more valuable than person 2 doesn't mean I'm de-valuing person 2. It's not like I my thoughts and perceived value of Sammy dropped when Beckham came around. If you had a choice between Manning and Brees you would likely take Manning. likewise I think teams would rather have Beckham than Sammy and therefor would be willing to give up more for him. That's all I'm trying to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I guess we will agree to disagree. But saying person 1 is more valuable than person 2 doesn't mean I'm de-valuing person 2. It's not like I my thoughts and perceived value of Sammy dropped when Beckham came around. If you had a choice between Manning and Brees you would likely take Manning. likewise I think teams would rather have Beckham than Sammy and therefor would be willing to give up more for him. That's all I'm trying to say But there are plenty of players that are better or worse. Beckham may not be on the table, but Watkins would. (not really though, because we both agree its ridiculous ) It just sounds as if you are saying Beckham or no one else is worth it. I don't think that's the way to approach it. But to each their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Logic is never a prerequisite for starting a discussion on TBD. Trading one of you most talented players on your team and the best WR they have had in a decade for a first round draft pick in a lean draft year. Every draft is not the same. Last years draft was very deep. Experts have said this will be a down year in talent. No trade. Work to build up the core of the team. Hire a rock solid forward thinking Head Coach and an Offensive Coordinator who can design an offense that exploits the talents of the players. The fans deserve a shot at the play offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I find it fascinating how organizations (and fans) think. A few questions to clarify what I mean: 1. If you're the Vikings, would you trade Bridgewater for Sammy? I think we all agree that the answer is "of course not." 2. Some fans bemoan the trading up to draft Sammy rather than taking a QB with our initial pick, or even trading down to take a QB later. The same fans agree that Sammy had a very good rookie season (particularly given the fact that he didn't exactly have great QB play feeding him), and that his star is on the rise. Yet they never consider trading Sammy for what we need more: a QB, or the chance to draft a QB. This is what economists call the "endowment effect." You tend to overvalue what you have, and undervalue what you could get. http://en.wikipedia....ndowment_effect This is something some great sports GMs like Billy Beane do not run afoul of. Think you need a pitcher to finally make it to a World Series? Go get Lester and Samardzija! That doesn't work? Let Lester go, trade Samardzija, reload with some other players! If you want a QB now your best trade chip is Sammy and it's not even close. So at least consider it ... all you'd be doing is a classic Billy Beane transaction: you traded up to try to get it done in 2014, you came close, but didn't make it. Now you're stuck with no first round pick in 2015? Simply undo that by trading Sammy. No harm done. But it takes guts, which most GMs lack. Are you TRYING to start the year off with the worst post of 2015? It's ambitious, but I think you've legitimately got a shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 Are you TRYING to start the year off with the worst post of 2015? It's ambitious, but I think you've legitimately got a shot! You're right. We went 9-7! A winning record! Why fix what ain't broken! And dammit, we have the best tailgating experience in the NFL! Such are the low expectations of Bills fans ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section242 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I find it fascinating how organizations (and fans) think. A few questions to clarify what I mean: 1. If you're the Vikings, would you trade Bridgewater for Sammy? I think we all agree that the answer is "of course not." 2. Some fans bemoan the trading up to draft Sammy rather than taking a QB with our initial pick, or even trading down to take a QB later. The same fans agree that Sammy had a very good rookie season (particularly given the fact that he didn't exactly have great QB play feeding him), and that his star is on the rise. Yet they never consider trading Sammy for what we need more: a QB, or the chance to draft a QB. This is what economists call the "endowment effect." You tend to overvalue what you have, and undervalue what you could get. http://en.wikipedia....ndowment_effect This is something some great sports GMs like Billy Beane do not run afoul of. Think you need a pitcher to finally make it to a World Series? Go get Lester and Samardzija! That doesn't work? Let Lester go, trade Samardzija, reload with some other players! If you want a QB now your best trade chip is Sammy and it's not even close. So at least consider it ... all you'd be doing is a classic Billy Beane transaction: you traded up to try to get it done in 2014, you came close, but didn't make it. Now you're stuck with no first round pick in 2015? Simply undo that by trading Sammy. No harm done. But it takes guts, which most GMs lack. Comparing to MLB is tough. I believe the A's get a 2nd rd pick for Lester signing with the Cubs. Would get Cubs pick in 1st but it's protected. Also can't trade draft picks in MLB. Also the A's collapsed after the Lester trade. I'd trade any guy on this roster for a proven elite QB. With that said the valuable trade parts on the Bills are more valuable to the Bills than they are to other teams. Like buying a new car, once you drive it off the lot it's value goes down. Watkins had a decent season and I think because he's good already we're also diminishing him. As a rookie with below average QB play he was the Bills best play-maker. Anything less than an elite QB then no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) We will come back to this debate in 3-4 years. I think you and some others are awfully confused in this entire thread. One on hand it centers on Sammy's trade value now, then you say no wait 3-4 years. This thread would have been better off not having started. Edited January 2, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) I think you and some others are awfully confused in this entire thread. One on hand it centers on Sammy's trade value now, then you say no wait 3-4 years. This thread would have been better off not having started. No my statement was derived from your post that Beckham is on a whole different level. If you were limiting it to trade value at this point in time then I would agree. However, something tells me those "Bills Homers" you were speaking of aren't thinking of trade value though. Regardless I think we both agree it's not safe to say one is leagues better than the other before we give it a few years right? You're right. We went 9-7! A winning record! Why fix what ain't broken! And dammit, we have the best tailgating experience in the NFL! Such are the low expectations of Bills fans ... Do you think Foles throwing to Woods, and Goodwin is really even 9-7 material? I like Woods and all but geez. Next thing we know, we will hear that "QBs cant be expected to be good if they have noone to throw to! Look at Cam Newton" For that matter, do you think maybe its a possibility we could get a QB without giving away our best offensive weapon? If you think we are a QB away from the playoffs then let's trade next years 1st round pick for someone. Imagine your dream QB WITH Watkins. Edited January 2, 2015 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I find it fascinating how organizations (and fans) think. A few questions to clarify what I mean: 1. If you're the Vikings, would you trade Bridgewater for Sammy? I think we all agree that the answer is "of course not." 2. Some fans bemoan the trading up to draft Sammy rather than taking a QB with our initial pick, or even trading down to take a QB later. The same fans agree that Sammy had a very good rookie season (particularly given the fact that he didn't exactly have great QB play feeding him), and that his star is on the rise. Yet they never consider trading Sammy for what we need more: a QB, or the chance to draft a QB. This is what economists call the "endowment effect." You tend to overvalue what you have, and undervalue what you could get. http://en.wikipedia....ndowment_effect This is something some great sports GMs like Billy Beane do not run afoul of. Think you need a pitcher to finally make it to a World Series? Go get Lester and Samardzija! That doesn't work? Let Lester go, trade Samardzija, reload with some other players! If you want a QB now your best trade chip is Sammy and it's not even close. So at least consider it ... all you'd be doing is a classic Billy Beane transaction: you traded up to try to get it done in 2014, you came close, but didn't make it. Now you're stuck with no first round pick in 2015? Simply undo that by trading Sammy. No harm done. But it takes guts, which most GMs lack. You @$#hole CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 No my statement was derived from your post that Beckham is on a whole different level. If you were limiting it to trade value at this point in time then I would agree. However, something tells me those "Bills Homers" you were speaking of aren't thinking of trade value though. Regardless I think we both agree it's not safe to say one is leagues better than the other before we give it a few years right? Again you're very confused. My comment clearly was about trade value now as I said "of course beckham gets a 1st". And I never said "leagues" better just that he's on another level. My long term view on them is not relevant to the subject of this thread, and clearly it was not referenced here either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Your question is wrong. The correct questions are: 1. Can we make the playoffs and be competitive in them over the next 2 seasons with Sammy at WR and Manuel or Matt Moore at QB? 2. Can we make the playoffs and be competitive in them over the next 2 seasons without Sammy at WR but with someone like Foles, or the 3rd best QB in the draft, or even Winston (if he drops) at QB? I think the answer is clearly "no" to Q.1, and very possibly "yes" to Q.2. why is the answer to the first question clearly no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerNapalm Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 This thread made me GOL. (Groan out loud) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 You're right. We went 9-7! A winning record! Why fix what ain't broken! And dammit, we have the best tailgating experience in the NFL! Such are the low expectations of Bills fans ... I don't disagree with your fundamental assumptions here at all, unlike a lot of posters in this thread. If Sammy can be moved for a quality QB one way or the other, you move him. Period. That's a no brainer. But as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe once said: "God is in the details." What's the plan? What are you coupling with Sammy? What are you getting in return at QB? How proven is that QB? It has to be the right deal. Someone up thread said if he could get a young top 10 QB for Alonso and Sammy, both are gone tomorrow. Hell, throw in some draft picks too! Until we have "the guy" at QB, we will more or less be on the outside looking in. Not to change topics, but Whaley has amply demonstrated that he doesn't get this. Our QB situation has been and remains a train wreck. Whaley should be gone for this reason alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Again you're very confused. My comment clearly was about trade value now as I said "of course beckham gets a 1st". And I never said "leagues" better just that he's on another level. My long term view on them is not relevant to the subject of this thread, and clearly it was not referenced here either. I'm not confused at all. I very clearly stated if you meant one thing thing I agree. If you meant the other then I don't. We clearly agree that in terms of trade value at this moment in time, beckham is worth more. Long term is different but you weren't commenting on that. I think you have fooled yourself into thinking this is some type of battle that you need to win or lose. It's just a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinES3 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) You're right. We went 9-7! A winning record! Why fix what ain't broken! And dammit, we have the best tailgating experience in the NFL! Such are the low expectations of Bills fans ...God forbid some outside the box type thinking after 15 years... We don't take kindly to original thought around these parts. I don't disagree with your fundamental assumptions here at all, unlike a lot of posters in this thread. If Sammy can be moved for a quality QB one way or the other, you move him. Period. That's a no brainer. But as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe once said: "God is in the details." What's the plan? What are you coupling with Sammy? What are you getting in return at QB? How proven is that QB? It has to be the right deal. Someone up thread said if he could get a young top 10 QB for Alonso and Sammy, both are gone tomorrow. Hell, throw in some draft picks too! Until we have "the guy" at QB, we will more or less be on the outside looking in. Not to change topics, but Whaley has amply demonstrated that he doesn't get this. Our QB situation has been and remains a train wreck. Whaley should be gone for this reason alone. +1,000Nice post. Though I'm not sure it all falls on Whaley. Buddy was, and for a short time still is, far too involved. Edited January 3, 2015 by SmokinES3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLEN1QB Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I refuse to get involved in this nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts