Trade Rumors and Specualtion

[jrb12711]

Sometimes I think I missed my calling. If quoting your "manager" who is a part-time D1 ref who happens to ref a preseason Bills game counts as a reliable enough source to catch on, I have no doubt I could "report" as well.

[The Gipper]

11 hours ago, Ghoolie said:

He is a coffee fetcher. He had to accept a 1 - 31 head coach and was told by the owner that he is not the HCs boss. 

This is true.....but he still controls the draft.

[The Gipper]

11 hours ago, Ghoolie said:

Ah................. they drafted Winslow, Manzeil, Quinn, Coleman, Willie Green, Two_Tackle-Texac and Crisco Hands Coleman......................WTF made sense in any of that?

Those players basically were rated as being prospects worthy of the position the Browns drafted them.   It made all the sense in the world to take them where they took them.....at the time.

Its just that they turned out busts.....along with a few others equally positioned that you did not mention.....Gilbert, Erving, Mingo, Weeden, Quinn etc. If they had not busted for us, they would have busted for the team that picked one pick behind where we took them.

[Tour2ma]

If a deal was "in place" 4 days ago, then what is holding up the announcement?

 

[LondonBrown]

Filing this one under B for Bullsheeeet

[LionOfBuddha]

25 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

If a deal was "in place" 4 days ago, then what is holding up the announcement?

 

If it’s in place, probably the final details. As others have pointed out, the Browns get the short end of the stick so if it’s in place they’re all probably hashing it out for the final details

[JamesMadisonSkinsfan]

13 hours ago, Nero said:

As Hoorta said, looking at the charts we lose a lot of draft value on this trade. 

The only way I see it happening is if we got any interesting Bills' players. And I can only think of Tre'Davious, and he's too young and too promising to be involved in a trade, I think.

I'm trying to figure this one out myself ...

 

The only scenario that makes sense for me is:

Cleveland moves from #1 and #4 to #2 and #12 and gets #51, 53 and 65 from Buffalo and a 2019 1st (valued as pick #33 this year). That would give Cleveland 8 of the first 65 picks (and their first in the 3rd round back that they gave up for Tyrod) ... and a 2019 1st round pick ... and the new trade-value chart says they give up 1,490 and get back 1,539

NYG give up #2 and get #4 and #22 .... which is giving up 717 in value for 743 back

Buffalo gives up #12, 22, 51, 53, 65 and a 2019 1st round pick to get the #1 pick, which is giving up 1,074 to get back 1,000

It actually, on paper, makes sense for all involved. But with that being said, does the Browns roster really need 2 1st round picks and 5 2nd round picks and the first 3rd round pick in the draft? Or do the Browns then turn around and use all of those 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st at least once, and still come away with a 1st in 2019.

Browns could trade #33, #51 and #65 to move up to #11
Browns could trade #35, #53 to move up to #19

So in theory, Browns could convert #1, #4, #33, #35, #64 into #2, #11, #12, #19 and #65 and a 2019 1st

I don't follow the team as much as you guys obviously, but if this trade were to go down, I don't see the Browns sitting around with 6 picks between 33 and 65 and not moving back into the 1st at least once.

 

[The Gipper]

23 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkinsfan said:

I'm trying to figure this one out myself ...

 

The only scenario that makes sense for me is:

Cleveland moves from #1 and #4 to #2 and #12 and gets #51, 53 and 65 from Buffalo and a 2019 1st (valued as pick #33 this year). That would give Cleveland 8 of the first 65 picks (and their first in the 3rd round back that they gave up for Tyrod) ... and a 2019 1st round pick ... and the new trade-value chart says they give up 1,490 and get back 1,539

NYG give up #2 and get #4 and #22 .... which is giving up 717 in value for 743 back

Buffalo gives up #12, 22, 51, 53, 65 and a 2019 1st round pick to get the #1 pick, which is giving up 1,074 to get back 1,000

It actually, on paper, makes sense for all involved. But with that being said, does the Browns roster really need 2 1st round picks and 5 2nd round picks and the first 3rd round pick in the draft? Or do the Browns then turn around and use all of those 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st at least once, and still come away with a 1st in 2019.

Browns could trade #33, #51 and #65 to move up to #11
Browns could trade #35, #53 to move up to #19

So in theory, Browns could convert #1, #4, #33, #35, #64 into #2, #11, #12, #19 and #65 and a 2019 1st

I don't follow the team as much as you guys obviously, but if this trade were to go down, I don't see the Browns sitting around with 6 picks between 33 and 65 and not moving back into the 1st at least once.

 

Well done.  I can see where that is plausible.  They would get a QB they want....likely...for as I said...to me all the QBs are about of equal ....unknown....value.  A guy I may like as well may actually not go until round 2. Plus they could get a defender for sure  either DB or DL...plus an OT.

I am willing to convert 5 draft picks into 4....and get two more first rounders who could hopefully fill our needs at a quality level.

[nickers]

Why in hell are we interested in helping the Bills?.. It makes 0 sense.. even for Analytics...

[Tour2ma]

46 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkinsfan said:

The only scenario that makes sense for me is:

That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".

I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.

[hoorta]

22 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".

I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.

I'll help you out- since that was my math. Using the old draft value chart going #1 to #2. and moving #4 to #12.  roughly equals 1,000.  I'll posit losing the #4,  getting #12 and a first round pick from the Bills in 2019 isn't nearly enough. 

Even if the Bills offered us the #12, and both second rounders- don't think I'm interested. What would we do with five second round picks?  I'm on a Quality kick this year Tour- heck with Quantity. We already have 5 in the first 64.     

[JamesMadisonSkinsfan]

25 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

That's a lot of math! Problem is that the name of the game is not "Even Steven", it's "Win".

I am curious as to what chart you are using that values the #1 pick at 1000. I'm not familiar with that one.

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

It's apparently the new and accepted trade-value chart.

[hoorta]

2 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkinsfan said:

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

It's apparently the new and accepted trade-value chart.

I see where you got that- but the results are still the same...   The #12 and both the Bills second round picks don't get it done, not even close...  

[JamesMadisonSkinsfan]

2 minutes ago, hoorta said:

I see where you got that- but the results are still the same...   The #12 and both the Bills second round picks don't get it done, not even close...  

#1 = 1,000
#4 = 490

#2 = 717
#12 = 346

Swapping 1/4 for 2/12 is -427 n pick value, which is roughly equivalent to pick #7.

But if you add up the values of #51, 53 and 65 ... you get 296 back ... so now you're -131 with the trade

I used the value for pick #33 to represent a 2019 1st round pick value for Buffalo ... which is worth 180 ... bringing the trade to a +49 value for Cleveland, which is the value of a mid-3rd rounder.

But I do understand the argument being made that breaking even or slightly winning isn't the goal, killing it should be. And the truth is that I would expect Cleveland to be able to get #12, 22 and #51 from Buffalo for pick #4 alone ... so if they were to trade #1 I would think it would be for #12, 22, 51 and probably next year's 1st ... but then you're not picking until #4 and you're getting the 4th QB in all likelihood. Hence why in this scenario, the Browns are swapping with the Giants so Cleveland has #2 to still get "their QB" presumably knowing that whoever Buffalo is going to #1 for is not "their" guy (or they wouldn't make the trade).

 

[Nero]

Nice maths there, James! Even though I'm against this kind of trade (I'm up for #4 in exchange of 12-22-65, though) I have to say that how could these trades work always intrigues me. 

As others said, we seek quality not quantity in this draft, but this kind of stuff entertains us till Draft Day

[Tour2ma]

Thanks for the chart... I'll add it to my collection.

 

Bottom line here is this depends upon us not being set on a top six position player and believing our guy falls to 12. If we're good with our guy at 12, then it's a win all the way around. But....

I just can't see the Giants trading out of #2 when they have a chance of getting their QB of the future.

 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, hoorta said:

I see where you got that- but the results are still the same...   The #12 and both the Bills second round picks don't get it done, not even close...  

Isn't that why they threw in the #1 from next year?

[LondonBrown]

37 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Thanks for the chart... I'll add it to my collection.

 

Bottom line here is this depends upon us not being set on a top six position player and believing our guy falls to 12. If we're good with our guy at 12, then it's a win all the way around. But....

I just can't see the Giants trading out of #2 when they have a chance of getting their QB of the future.

 

Think I heard on a podcast that Gettleman has never traded down from his position  in the first round as well

[The Gipper]

37 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Thanks for the chart... I'll add it to my collection.

 

Bottom line here is this depends upon us not being set on a top six position player and believing our guy falls to 12. If we're good with our guy at 12, then it's a win all the way around. But....

I just can't see the Giants trading out of #2 when they have a chance of getting their QB of the future.

 

Well....maybe the guy they want at #12 would be  Ward, or Josh Jackson or Guice or somebody.

[LondonBrown]

5 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Well....maybe the guy they want at #12 would be  Ward, or Josh Jackson or Guice or somebody.

I don’t see the Browns drafting Ward, he doesn’t have the takeaway ability  that Greg Williams craves or at least hasn’t shown it yet. 

Josh Jackson on the other hand sure does. 

[Zombo]

Sorry had to change the thread title ....

Zombo

[LionOfBuddha]

2 minutes ago, Zombo said:

Sorry had to change the thread title ....

Zombo

So where is the evidence it’s a wacky trade that’s not likely to go down? 

 

[runyon27]

21 minutes ago, LionOfBuddha said:

So where is the evidence it’s a wacky trade that’s not likely to go down? 

 

Logic and reason. I mean I give it high marks for creativity but of the 3 teams in this trade, its the Browns that come out on the short end. I would rather have my choice of QB and one of the top players in the draft then #2 and #12 plus some phantom other stuff.

[Ghoolie]

I am looking forward to lauging at how Hue fuhks up yet another draft.

[Tour2ma]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

Well....maybe the guy they want at #12 would be  Ward, or Josh Jackson or Guice or somebody.

Or three other random players...

[LionOfBuddha]

35 minutes ago, runyon27 said:

Logic and reason. I mean I give it high marks for creativity but of the 3 teams in this trade, its the Browns that come out on the short end. I would rather have my choice of QB and one of the top players in the draft then #2 and #12 plus some phantom other stuff.

Just because something isn’t simple doesn’t mean it doesn’t have logic and reason. No one knows what the Browns would get out of it exactly, so no one knows if they’d come out on the short end.

Daniel Jeremiah and Bucky Brooks commented on it, logic and reason would tell you it’s more likely to happen than not 

[Zombo]

1 hour ago, LionOfBuddha said:

So where is the evidence it’s a wacky trade that’s not likely to go down? 

 

"Where is the evidence..." Stop right there. And think.

If trade goes through we will change the title again and make you "poster of the month".

Zombo

 

 

[hoorta]

1 hour ago, Ghoolie said:

I am looking forward to lauging at how Hue fuhks up yet another draft.

 Direct quote from Hue, Building the Browns Episode 1- just watched it today. "We have a (draft) process led by you (Dorsey)". Sorry Tom, when it comes to the draft, Dorsey is calling the shots, not Hue. 

 "If there was a consensus (general manager) John (Dorsey) had come to, he would've told me," Jackson said. "That's not the case."  Dorsey isn't one to tip his hand. Really sounds like Hue's the one in charge there.  

Just keep on a trollin' pal- only in your warped mind does Hue have a major say. Spin it however you want- Dorsey and Wolf have the final say. Period. 

[Dutch Oven]

3 hours ago, LondonBrown said:

I don’t see the Browns drafting Ward, he doesn’t have the takeaway ability  that Greg Williams craves or at least hasn’t shown it yet. 

Josh Jackson on the other hand sure does. 

Why did the Browns take Peppers last draft then, by that logic?

[Orion]

41 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

Why did the Browns take Peppers last draft then.......?

Because he played goalie in youth soccer.

It totally befuddled me why we took a guy who liked to play up closer to the LOS, and played him in punt formation all the time.  Of course Dorsey has attacked the secondary vigorously so far.