Thurman#1 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) It is just the semantics that trip people up. They didn't trade three picks. They traded two picks. When some people see "gave up 3", they think "traded 3." It's understandable. They traded 2. They used 3. "Trade away" equals "use" equals "give up." They're all synonyms. Edited July 31, 2015 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 The Bills and Browns swapped positions in the 1st round...even swap with regards to number of picks involved....The Bills gave the Browns a 1st and 4th round pick to do this. The Bills net loss in picks is 2. What is so difficult about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 The Bills and Browns swapped positions in the 1st round...even swap with regards to number of picks involved....The Bills gave the Browns a 1st and 4th round pick to do this. The Bills net loss in picks is 2. What is so difficult about this? America is bad at math and science. Only teaching positions open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 The Bills and Browns swapped positions in the 1st round...even swap with regards to number of picks involved....The Bills gave the Browns a 1st and 4th round pick to do this. The Bills net loss in picks is 2. What is so difficult about this? I'm sure Maddog69 will be here to explain it to you in a moment. And we'll all roll our eyes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 This represents the Watkins trade....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Well it appears Ty Dunne has gotten into a "feud" with Wawrow on Twitter over music... This won't end well for TD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Well it appears Ty Dunne has gotten into a "feud" with Wawrow on Twitter over music... This won't end well for TD! Yeah, but they both agree U2 sucks now. I'm sure they'll hug it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Considering he's spent years cultivating relationships in GB and just moved to WNY a few months ago, it's to be expected. And if it is GB, that's good -- they're a well run, smart franchise. Edited August 1, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 That's not the end of the story. It's a grammatically incorrect way to frame the trade positively. The Bills absolutely did give up three picks to get Watkins. They started out with three picks, two firsts and a 4th. When they finished, the three picks were gone and they ended up with Watkins and nothing else out of those picks. Considering "give up" only means relinquish, and that all three of those picks were relinquished, given up, vacated, surrendered, ceded, parted with, forked over, dropped, parted with and any other synonyms you can come picks up with ... yeah, they gave up three picks. Now, it's true that for every draftee you have to give up one pick. So it would be fair to say they only gave up two extra picks. Bottom line, though, it's totally reasonable to say they gave up three picks, whereas the Giants only gave up one pick, their own, for Odell Beckham. Ah, got it. So if you start with three apples and trade them for a much better apple, and then you exchange that really excellent apple for an orange, you only gave up two apples to get the orange. Makes total sense ... wait, no, it actually completely doesn't. Why do you get to say they "ended up with Watkins" and speak only of the net? How about one second before we drafted Watkins, what did we have? Hello a first round pick - that was the trade. Watkins wasn't picked yet - we gave up 3 picks and got one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timtebow15 Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Less because you're not factoring in the math of moving up. Maybe this will help you. Bills got 4th overall pick - 1,800 points Bills gave 9th overall (1,350), 2015 1st round pick (19) (875 points), and 2015 4th round pick (115) (64 points) - 2,289 points We gave the equivalent of a 2nd round 41st overall pick to get Sammy Watkins (489 points) We win!!!! This is the best way of looking at it. We gave up two picks (three minus one so stop saying three picks!) but picks are not equal. You can argue the value of the chart (because there are no certain picks I think the lower picks in the first round are undervalued) but you should not oversimplify the exchange of picks as if every first round pick is equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCD Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I remember the very single moment the Tampa Bay Buccaneers announced they "lost" their first pick of the first round in the 2015 NFL Draft by trading it for the ability to pay Jameis Winston to be their newly appointed franchise QB. Wouldn't they rather have 24 million dollars? What Idiots... But its even worse that we lost three whole draft picks and were forced to pay Sammy Watkins 20 million ... Sammy must be very greedy if he demanded three draft picks and 20 million dollars, when Jameis only consumed one draft pick and 24 million Next year, I hope we hold on to the pick... and the money... screw the draft. What a bunch of slugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Allan in MD Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 It's just sloppy. The net cost to the Bills for drafting Sammy was 2 picks. Traded 3 away, got 1 in return. Used that pick to draft him. Bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 We coulda had Justin Gilbert ! We lose. if anything could be said good of trading down to get EJ Manuel it means we got McCoy and don't have Tavon Austin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I can't believe people are arguing over how many picks the Bills gave up or used to get Watkins. If Watkins was already in the league and we gave up two first rounders and a fourth, everyone would agree that the Bills gave up three picks to get him. It would still be a net of two players, but we gave up three picks to get one guy. Just because we traded to get the pick to draft, it is irrelevant. The Bills gave up three picks to get Sammy, not two. Good god, there are some dummies here that need to be buckled in to a crashing car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 God this Watkins issue again. Look at is the "net" cost, which simply means the "balance" after all is said and done. In this case, the two first rounders (simple 'merica sucks at math) cancel each other out (even though the Bills got the better of the two picks) and therefore the Bills net cost was the additional two picks, hence the actual net cost is two picks. Jesus can this die already. In any case, I came to say that Dunne rots. I am sick of anonymous sources. The problem with them is we are supposed to just assume Dunne is credible. How do we judge his credibility? It seems that because he's a writer, he's automatically credible. So because he write's for the paper, we're supposed to just take his word for everything and never question it? We're supposed to also accept his sources are real? What if that source was the worst NFL executive ever or he called everyone NFL and 31 of 32 have the same opinion and he quotes the one with the contrarian opinion because it fits the way he framed his story or the paper's general editorial approach? I have zero respect for writers who use anonymous sources and lean on their unearned credibility as justification for using them. I had really hoped this guy was better than the other's at the rag but the constant use of anonymous sources takes away from otherwise decent skill. Stopped reading him this week. I've sadly turned to Twitter for training camp updates but even there, holy hell, it's garbage. Every talking head and reporter is retweeting each other's stories. Better than the News by far though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts