Trade Rumors? (only Rumors)

[BADOLBILZ]

20 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Except the Browns are going to take Allen either way. They can either take the assets offered and get pick 2 or just take Allen at 1. The 2019 1st HAS to be the absolute last asset added. The scenario Hokie laid out makes a ton of sense.

 

They may have to do it but I agree with you......try everything you can from this draft first.

 

This 2018 will have been all about QB's in retrospect...........there has been months of hype on a lot of "meh" prospects that make fans think the draft is deeper than it actually is,  but the depth outside of QB is otherwise non-money positions or clearly flawed guys at pass rush/WR/CB etc............the 2019 draft will have much more solid talent at other money positions and the Bills figure to be selecting high at this point.     They've really raped the roster in the past 12 months it will be pretty impressive if they can find it in them to play over their heads for another full season and win 9-10 games again.

 

[billykay]

20 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s not though. Why would the Browns just take Allen when they can trade down a spot and get him? They can turn around and trade 12 & 35 for 6 and get Chubb. They basically get the guys that they were taking at 1 & 4 and turn the 35th pick into the 22nd pick. It’s a no-brainer for Cleveland.

Agree with this. But, just wondering - how does Cleveland know that we won't take their guy, Allen ? Would it be possible, as part of the trade, that we agree to take Darnold, and if so, is it enforceable ? Could the agreement be somehow recorded in the League Office ?

[cle23]

ESPN Cleveland just floated a rumor of 12 and 22 to Indy for 6, then 6 and 2019 1st for Cleveland's 4th overall.

[KDIGGZ]

Just now, billykay said:

Agree with this. But, just wondering - how does Cleveland know that we won't take their guy, Allen ? Would it be possible, as part of the trade, that we agree to take Darnold, and if so, is it enforceable ? Could the agreement be somehow recorded in the League Office ?

we would have to pinky swear.  the Browns would also want to call the league office and let them know that they called dibs.

1 minute ago, cle23 said:

ESPN Cleveland just floated a rumor of 12 and 22 to Indy for 6, then 6 and 2019 1st for Cleveland's 4th overall.

i wouldn't like giving up next year's first to only go from 6 to 4.  they might be fine staying at 6.  it would be a draft night decision for sure

[Kirby Jackson]

Just now, billykay said:

Agree with this. But, just wondering - how does Cleveland know that we won't take their guy, Allen ? Would it be possible, as part of the trade, that we agree to take Darnold, and if so, is it enforceable ? Could the agreement be somehow recorded in the League Office ?

I don’t think that you could enforce that but I would think that you’d operate in good faith. It’s a small league and the last thing that you want to do is intentionally lie. I don’t think that it would be a good look to say, “we want Darnold” and then get them to trade back a spot and take Allen. You will have to make more deals in the future and your reputation matters. 

 

With that being said I don’t think that you want to look desperate either. That’s what happened to the Bears last year IMO. The word got out and the 49ers took advantage. They basically forced the Bears to pay a bloated price for a guy that they were going to get a pick later. 

[billykay]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t think that you could enforce that but I would think that you’d operate in good faith. It’s a small league and the last thing that you want to do is intentionally lie. I don’t think that it would be a good look to say, “we want Darnold” and then get them to trade back a spot and take Allen. You will have to make more deals in the future and your reputation matters. 

 

With that being said I don’t think that you want to look desperate either. That’s what happened to the Bears last year IMO. The word got out and the 49ers took advantage. They basically forced the Bears to pay a bloated price for a guy that they were going to get a pick later. 

thank you

[Chuck Wagon]

15 minutes ago, kdiggz said:

we would have to pinky swear.  the Browns would also want to call the league office and let them know that they called dibs.

i wouldn't like giving up next year's first to only go from 6 to 4.  they might be fine staying at 6.  it would be a draft night decision for sure

 

12 / 22 / 2019 1st is #1 overall pick value.  I can't see McBeane doing that for potentially the 4th QB.  If Cleveland wants that much value, they can give #1.

[dollars 2 donuts]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t think that you could enforce that but I would think that you’d operate in good faith. It’s a small league and the last thing that you want to do is intentionally lie. I don’t think that it would be a good look to say, “we want Darnold” and then get them to trade back a spot and take Allen. You will have to make more deals in the future and your reputation matters. 

 

With that being said I don’t think that you want to look desperate either. That’s what happened to the Bears last year IMO. The word got out and the 49ers took advantage. They basically forced the Bears to pay a bloated price for a guy that they were going to get a pick later. 

 

 

I agree, Kirby, but considering these are essentially contracts or agreements, couldn't they just state in the trade that if player X (Cleveland's guy) is taken it kicks in another trade that sends that player to Cleveland, and a reversion of picks or penalty of picks?

 

What would prevent language like that?

 

Or even (in short), "our Number 1 for your number 12, 22 etc., However, if you take X, we also get your 2019, 2020 and 2021 number 1s."

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by dollars 2 donuts

[HappyDays]

9 minutes ago, cle23 said:

ESPN Cleveland just floated a rumor of 12 and 22 to Indy for 6, then 6 and 2019 1st for Cleveland's 4th overall.

 

If we're giving up 3 1st rounders we better get to #2 or #1

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

I agree, Kirby, but considering these are essential contracts or agreements, couldn't they just state in the trade that if player X (Cleveland's guy) is taken it kicks in another trade that sends that player to Cleveland, and a reversion of picks or penalty of picks?

 

What would prevent language like that?

 

Or even (in short), "our Number 1 for your number 12, 22 etc., However, if you take X, we also get your 2019, 2020 and 2021 number 1s."

This really isn't something that comes up in the negotiations at all. Cleveland isn't going to tell us who their guy is, and we aren't going to tell them who our guy is. The reason we are paying a premium to move up is because of the risk they are taking.

[dollars 2 donuts]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

This really isn't something that comes up in the negotiations at all. Cleveland isn't going to tell us who their guy is, and we aren't going to tell them who our guy is. The reason we are paying a premium to move up is because of the risk they are taking.

 

 

Yeah, BH but it might be right at that time before the draft and we are talking about the number one pick...the team that has it is the only one that is allowed to negotiate in advance of the draft.

 

...but I get ya.

[BuffaloHokie13]

I actually think in a recent interview Beane even said that he'd never do a deal with someone who insisted on knowing prior to the deal. Maybe I'll dig for it later.

[Logic]

I think that anyone that gives much credence to the notion of an (extremely rare) 3-way trade and the Bills ending up with the #1 pick is setting himself up for disappointment. 

I find it quite likely that the Bills will ultimately trade up and select a quarterback. It find it highly UNlikely that it will come the form of what's being discussed by Bucky Brooks. If it turns out to be true, I'll eat my hat.

[YoloinOhio]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I actually think in a recent interview Beane even said that he'd never do a deal with someone who insisted on knowing prior to the deal. Maybe I'll dig for it later.

Yes he did say that. He said he was asked once. He didn’t divulge, and the trade still went down. 

[PastorMKC]

 

NFL Draft Value Chart:

1. 3,000 PTS.

 

12. 1200 PTS.

22. 780 PTS.

53. 370 PTS.

56. 340 PTS.

65. 265 PTS. 

Total: 2,955 PTS.

 

12. 1200 PTS.

22. 780 PTS.

2019 #1 (16) 1,000 PTS.

Total: 2,980 

 

Anyone trading into #1 always overpays ... I could see it costing Buffalo what the Rumor has said 12, 22, 53, 56 and 2019 1st 

 

[KDIGGZ]

6 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I actually think in a recent interview Beane even said that he'd never do a deal with someone who insisted on knowing prior to the deal. Maybe I'll dig for it later.

that's why it would be the Browns who would say we are getting ready to take player X but if you want to trade up with us and take someone else then maybe we can work something out.  otherwise we will just take our guy.  they could set this up as a hypothetical situation with plans to reveal their guy the day of the draft and if Bills want someone else then they will have the deal worked out already to swap the pieces around.  i think by now all of the teams have an idea of who the other teams are targeting

[cle23]

16 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

 

12 / 22 / 2019 1st is #1 overall pick value.  I can't see McBeane doing that for potentially the 4th QB.  If Cleveland wants that much value, they can give #1.

I think 12 and 22 is fair for 6, and 6 and a 2019 1st is over paying for 4, but no way is Cleveland giving up 1. A team who hasn't had a franchise QB for 25 years can't pass on the top guy on their board.  It would be beyond stupid.

 

And teams get desperate for QB, so anything is possible. Washington traded the 6th overall,  plus 2 more 1sts and a 2nd for #2 and RG3. Buffalo is moving up a lot further from 12.

[Kirby Jackson]

17 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

 

 

I agree, Kirby, but considering these are essentially contracts or agreements, couldn't they just state in the trade that if player X (Cleveland's guy) is taken it kicks in another trade that sends that player to Cleveland, and a reversion of picks or penalty of picks?

 

What would prevent language like that?

 

Or even (in short), "our Number 1 for your number 12, 22 etc., However, if you take X, we also get your 2019, 2020 and 2021 number 1s."

 

 

I don’t know how the CBA reads. I don’t know when these guys are technically a part of the league. I am assuming that it isn’t until after they are selected. That’s why I’m not sure that will work. 

[Chuck Wagon]

10 minutes ago, cle23 said:

I think 12 and 22 is fair for 6, and 6 and a 2019 1st is over paying for 4, but no way is Cleveland giving up 1. A team who hasn't had a franchise QB for 25 years can't pass on the top guy on their board.  It would be beyond stupid.

 

And teams get desperate for QB, so anything is possible. Washington traded the 6th overall,  plus 2 more 1sts and a 2nd for #2 and RG3. Buffalo is moving up a lot further from 12.

 

It's a bad overpay for #6 followed by a bad overpay for 4.  12 and 22 is worth more than 4, depending on the value chart one is using, the bills have A LOT of other picks available to use, they aren't going to give up 3 1st for pick #4.

[whatdrought]

Well, This is the best thread I've ever started....