K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 That's not how it works, but that's how you're framing the argument. It may lend credence to a negative framing of the whole story, but "trading two first round picks (and a fourth)" is just factual. That's all I have left to say at this junction. That's exactly how it works. At least when you're honest enough to cite the fact that we received a first round pick from Cleveland in the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Yep. So it cost us two picks: the extra first and fourth. The year he was drafted we were using a first round pick, just that it became the fourth pick in round 1 vs. the 9th. Using a pick doesn't cost you that pick. Well no not really. We still used 3 picks. Using a pick does cost you a pick. It costs you the pick you use. I know what you are saying and its just a different mindset from my own, but your mindset is that Marcel Dareus didn't cost anything. We got him for free. My mind set is Dareus cost us a first round pick.... to use a different example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 That's exactly how it works. At least when you're honest enough to cite the fact that we received a first round pick from Cleveland in the deal. It has nothing to do with the truth of the statement. We DID in fact trade 2 first round picks for pick #4. It is false to say "we did not trade 2 first round picks for #4." I can see this is all in a misguided attempt to preemptively dig trenches in case we do end up trading Sammy for nothing. Good luck to you. I wonder how many people on Kansas City's board are arguing that they traded 2 first round picks for Mahomes . "How many picks did we use to trade for Alex Smith?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 I was referring to pick #4 overall in the draft; the pick some refuse to acknowledge in the transaction. Yeah I realized that as I read through and put in an edit. Rest of my post is still accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Well no not really. We still used 3 picks. Using a pick does cost you a pick. It costs you the pick you use. I know what you are saying and its just a different mindset from my own, but your mindset is that Marcel Dareus didn't cost anything. We got him for free. My mind set is Dareus cost us a first round pick.... to use a different example. It really just depends on the verb you pick. I don't think draft picks cost you anything because they are given to a team to use. They only cost you something if you package them in a trade. If you trade two picks and get one in return it cost you one pick. And so on. Thus Sammy cost an extra first and fourth. Saying we traded three picks is an incomplete analysis because it ignores the puck we got in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 I know...just trying to break up a dead end debate with a different take that might be a little more light hearted. Nice try, but it was an uphill battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) Try it this way... Pick #9(2014) + pick #19(2015) + pick #115(2015) = pick #4(2014.) 3 picks, count 'em THREE, total picks to receive ONE pick Pick #4(2014) = Sammy Watkins Subatomic particles lol Edited May 28, 2017 by JaCrispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 It really just depends on the verb you pick. I don't think draft picks cost you anything because they are given to a team to use. They only cost you something if you package them in a trade. If you trade two picks and get one in return it cost you one pick. And so on. Thus Sammy cost an extra first and fourth. Saying we traded three picks is an incomplete analysis because it ignores the puck we got in return. Really I am fine with any verbiage. Its people that argue semantics for 3 years about it that drives me nuts. No reason to argue about it. Everyone knows what happened. Its just arguing word choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) Ok lets lay it out one more time because people are still arguing and this is more fun than doing laundry. Scenario 1: If we were to pick Sammy Watkins at #9, he would have cost us one 1st round pick. Scenario 2: If we were to swap picks with Cleveland (their 4th for our 9th) then picking Sammy Watkins, still would have cost us JUST ONE 1st round pick even though we traded our pick. Scenario 3 (reality): We swapped picks with Cleveland (thus still costing us 1 pick to pick Sammy Watkins as in scenario 2), and we gave Cleveland a 2015 1st, and 4th for their troubles. The idea that swapping 2014 1st rounders with Cleveland was "trading away a 1st round pick" is silly and misleading because we got a BETTER pick in return for swapping and that is the point of being a stickler about phrasing in this entire argument. Edited May 28, 2017 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMF2006 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) We traded pick #8 and a 2015 first, actually. But they would have used that pick(9) for player X regardless. They traded a 1st and a 4th. Maybe this staff think he is soft,he does have a lot to prove this year. Edited May 28, 2017 by JMF2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Not sure how much credence to give this radio station but it's out there https://sportstalk360.com/2017/05/26/buffalo-bills-receiving-sammy-watkins-trade-offers/ One word: Do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 But they would have used that pick(9) for player X regardless. They traded a 1st and a 4th. Maybe this staff think he is soft,he does have a lot to prove this year. We still traded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 A soggy baseball card has as much trade value as Watkins does right now. Gotta ride it out and hope he develops into A full time player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 You're high. Gilmore has been a more producer player than Watkins. Gilmore was a high quality corner that played at a Pro Bowl level the entire time he was playing press zone. Watkins has flashed at a top 5 talent level - which is what enamours so many - but he hasn't produced. His best seasons have been at a good level. Gilmore was not even close to Sammy in terms of talent. Not only that, he came up short in the clutch and gave up key first downs and other big plays. Tell me, in all the time he was here, how many games did he win for us? NE could sign him because they have about 100 billion dollars in cap space. If he busts out in Foxboro the Pats will be fine as long as they have Brady in top form. He DOES have some talent but his effort was lackluster and I am being kind. I know it really is hard for people to accept but Stephon Gilmore was just another name on the list of wasted draft picks for the Bills. And yes, I know he was "good" so I won't call him a "bust." But, he was a dumb selection and I said this the day he was drafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyC81 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 It really just depends on the verb you pick. I don't think draft picks cost you anything because they are given to a team to use. They only cost you something if you package them in a trade. If you trade two picks and get one in return it cost you one pick. And so on. Thus Sammy cost an extra first and fourth. Saying we traded three picks is an incomplete analysis because it ignores the puck we got in return. We got a puck in return? Was this possible because the Pegulas own both the Bills and Sabres? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 We got a puck in return? Was this possible because the Pegulas own both the Bills and Sabres? Fat thumbs, small phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 A soggy baseball card has as much trade value as Watkins does right now. Gotta ride it out and hope he develops into A full time player. He would get more in a trade than any other player on the roster. If we had picked up his option, he'd get more yet. how Sammy got to be the scapegoat is beyond me. I like watching my favorite team when they have exceptional players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyC81 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 Fat thumbs, small phone Understand. Sometimes it's difficult to resist the temptation to be a smart a$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 One word: Do it. Math class was earlier. That didn't go well either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 One word: Do it. ummm... technically, that's two words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts