Trade Gilmore...build your team.

[HHURRICANE]

I actually think this is a player we shouldn't sign but trade him with now and get draft picks or a player. We free up $11,000,000 and apparently Kevon Seymour has looked excellent in camp.

Thoughts?

[Ginger Vitis]

No

[HHURRICANE]

Not sure our cap is going to allow it anyway especially if Tyrod plays his was into an extension.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

No.

Camp is camp, real games are a different matter. Gilmore is a proven corner, very good but not great in my opinion. Seymour has proven nada.

I mentioned before we have franchise tag in hand that we can actually retain Gilmore for one more year after this year, just in time for Darby to prove his worth of big money and Seymour to prove he can play in this league. I have to think that Gilmore's camp see that and try their best to force the hand right now.

[SpikedLemonade]

I agree.

Trade him.

Too costly and risky an investment.

[Luisito23]

Trade him while his stock is high and before he gets hurt again!

[justasportsfan]

I don't think Gilmore is an elite cb but he's solid .

in HH's case he wants to get rid of a proven player but keep a struggling coach (see his Rex thread). Got it.

[Skooby]

We seem stocked at the position until someone gets hurt, then we all collectively go whew thank God we got this guy to play.

[Joe Fo Sho]

We seem stocked at the position

Other teams call that 'depth.' The Bills should look into it.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Don't be the same old Bills team in the 2000s when we were the development team for other teams.

[justasportsfan]

We seem stocked at the position until someone gets hurt, then we all collectively go whew thank God we got this guy to play.

Only Gilmore and Darby are solid. Any injury to either and we're back to being thin. We don't have 2014 and 2015's pass rush anymore to help the db's.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Only Gilmore and Darby are solid. Any injury to either and we're back to being thin. We don't have 2014 and 2015's pass rush anymore to help the db's.

You must not have heard about our 6th round compensatory selection who has recently been cured of his blindness.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I'm not 100% sold on Gilmore, but I can't see how we possibly get real compensation. Unloading him for a third seems silly.

[justasportsfan]

You must not have heard about our 6th round compensatory selection who has recently been cured of his blindness.

He caught a cold?

[TacklingDummy]

I actually think this is a player we shouldn't sign but trade him with now and get draft picks or a player. We free up $11,000,000 and apparently Kevon Seymour has looked excellent in camp.

Thoughts?
I would be ok with a 1st or 2nd rounder for him. He's too injury prone to give a long term big dollar deal to.

[Mace]

If I could get a Roman system RT, or a couple picks, I'd consider it. I'm curious to see how Gilmore does this year though. Might just be better to let him play like nuts for a new contract while they work on Seymour and then let him go to become another teams Byrd.

[SpikedLemonade]

Don't be the same old Bills team in the 2000s when we were the development team for other teams.

Simpleton.

- - - Updated - - -


You must not have heard about our 6th round compensatory selection who has recently been cured of his blindness.

That was beautiful!

Well done sir!

[SpikedLemonade]

I'm not 100% sold on Gilmore, but I can't see how we possibly get real compensation. Unloading him for a third seems silly.

I was thinking a 2017 second round pick or a conditional 2018 first round pick.

[Mahdi]

People are forgetting that Darby struggled down the stretch last season.

Gilmore is still the better man to man cover corner and he should be retained. That's what good teams do with their high draft picks when they perform well.

[Turf]

This team needs to stop drafting 1st round draft choices they have no commitment to signing after 3-4 years.

[feldspar]

Here we go again trading football cards.

There is no point in talking about what is not going to happen. No way Gilmore is being traded...period. And the way to build your team is not by getting rid of your better players in hopes of replacing him in later drafts. Any player worth a damn is going to get more money than you think he should in most cases, as if it's your money anyway. With the salary cap always getting larger, the money Gilmore will see will seem a lot less later on down the line too. Trading him would be a thing of regret right away IMO.

And the Bills are in "win now" mode...they are not in rebuilding mode, especially since the fans have their heads up their collective ass from not making the playoffs for 16 years and want to call for everybody's head at the drop of a hat.

Gilmore is on the team this year, and I'd bet my right testicle on that.

[Night Train]

He'll play big this year if he stays healthy. It's contract year.

Still, the " You keep your best players, top draft picks " comment doesn't apply to all. You don't sink a kings ransom into the defensive secondary positions. Your best pass defense is still pressure from the front 7. In addition, college has produced an incredible amount of top CB's with speed the last decade and there isn't any shortage of them. They get replaced in the draft with ease. Let other teams use the Dick Jauron thinking of building from the secondary in, instead of from the DL out.

[SpikedLemonade]

Here we go again trading football cards.

There is no point in talking about what is not going to happen. No way Gilmore is being traded...period. And the way to build your team is not by getting rid of your better players in hopes of replacing him in later drafts. Any player worth a damn is going to get more money than you think he should in most cases, as if it's your money anyway. With the salary cap always getting larger, the money Gilmore will see will seem a lot less later on down the line too. Trading him would be a thing of regret right away IMO.

And the Bills are in "win now" mode...they are not in rebuilding mode, especially since the fans have their heads up their collective ass from not making the playoffs for 16 years and want to call for everybody's head at the drop of a hat.

Gilmore is on the team this year, and I'd bet my right testicle on that.

Do you only have one? What I mean by that is I want to know what is at stake for you and how committed you are to this opinion.

I agree that Gilmore will not be traded.

[feldspar]

Do you only have one? What I mean by that is I want to know what is at stake for you and how committed you are to this opinion.
.

Yeah, just the right one.

So I'm all in.

[coastal]

Get rid of him now...

JD Williams type players are a dime a dozen.

[Arm of Harm]

He'll play big this year if he stays healthy. It's contract year.

Still, the " You keep your best players, top draft picks " comment doesn't apply to all. You don't sink a kings ransom into the defensive secondary positions. Your best pass defense is still pressure from the front 7. In addition, college has produced an incredible amount of top CB's with speed the last decade and there isn't any shortage of them. They get replaced in the draft with ease. Let other teams use the Dick Jauron thinking of building from the secondary in, instead of from the DL out.

Every time a team uses a first round pick on a player, the objective should be to obtain a long-term building block for the team. Any time a first round pick goes first-contract-and-out, it means someone messed up. Mistake 1) is using the first round pick on a bad football player. Mistake 2) is using the pick on a position you think is overpriced. So you let your first round DB go first-contract-and-out not because he's a bad player, but because you think he'd be too expensive to re-sign. Mistake 2) is almost as bad as mistake 1).

Not every bust gives you exactly zero years of good play. Losman had a pretty good year for the Bills. So did Mike Williams. On the other hand, there are good football players who went first-contract-and-out, who didn't exactly light the NFL up during their rookie years. A good football player who goes first-contract-and-out is better than a bust. But not as much better as you might think! Not remotely as beneficial to your team as a long-term building block.

I'd have no objection to the Bills trading Gilmore away--but only for a first round pick. Anything less than a first round pick is a discussion ender, as far as I'm concerned. If they can't get a first round pick for him, then they need to sign him to an extension. There are several C level players on the roster getting paid as though they were B+ type guys. Some of those guys could be released to make room for Gilmore's salary cap space.

The absolute worst-case scenario would be to let Gilmore walk without getting draft pick compensation. Gilmore must not be allowed to become another Antoine Winfield story!!

[Joe Fo Sho]

Every time a team uses a first round pick on a player, the objective should be to obtain a long-term building block for the team. Any time a first round pick goes first-contract-and-out, it means someone messed up. Mistake 1) is using the first round pick on a bad football player. Mistake 2) is using the pick on a position you think is overpriced. So you let your first round DB go first-contract-and-out not because he's a bad player, but because you think he'd be too expensive to re-sign. Mistake 2) is almost as bad as mistake 1).

Just because a position is overpriced does not mean that it's not important. Getting a good player for 5 years at a discounted rookie contract is not necessarily a mistake.

I'd be surprised if a team was able to have 5 or 6 1st round picks on their second contract and stay under the salary cap, especially if one of them is a quarterback. In reality, this is not even close to as cut and dry as you're trying to make it out to be.

What if he's a good player but wants to get paid like a hall of fame player? That wouldn't be a smart investment, and shouldn't be considered a mistake to let the player walk and let some other team over pay for him.

What if the players you drafted were considered some of the best at their position, how is a team supposed to be able to afford that? Do you think a team could afford Andrew Luck, Josh Norman, Ndamukong Suh, and Julio Jones? The rest of their team would be full of scrubs and the team probably wouldn't be able to compete.

If you draft well, you can invest wisely.

[stuckincincy]

[QUOTE=Joe Fo Sho;4222116

If you draft well, you can invest wisely.[/QUOTE]

Nailed it...

[Arm of Harm]

Just because a position is overpriced does not mean that it's not important. Getting a good player for 5 years at a discounted rookie contract is not necessarily a mistake.

I'd be surprised if a team was able to have 5 or 6 1st round picks on their second contract and stay under the salary cap, especially if one of them is a quarterback. In reality, this is not even close to as cut and dry as you're trying to make it out to be.

What if he's a good player but wants to get paid like a hall of fame player? That wouldn't be a smart investment, and shouldn't be considered a mistake to let the player walk and let some other team over pay for him.

What if the players you drafted were considered some of the best at their position, how is a team supposed to be able to afford that? Do you think a team could afford Andrew Luck, Josh Norman, Ndamukong Suh, and Julio Jones? The rest of their team would be full of scrubs and the team probably wouldn't be able to compete.

If you draft well, you can invest wisely.

You've made two points in your post, both of which are valid under some circumstances. 1) If your team has a ton of talent already, it won't necessarily be in a position to afford to re-sign all its successful first round picks. 2) If a player demands to be over-compensated for what he actually provides, and if some team is willing to pay him what he wants, you'll lose him through no fault of your own.

The Bills have the longest active playoff drought in the NFL. At no point during that playoff drought did we have so much talent that we needed to let our successful draft picks go first-contract-and-out. Your first point would be relevant to a team like the mid-'90s Cowboys, but is not relevant to the post-Polian era Bills. If a Bills' draft pick turned into a good player, and if that player went first-contract-and-out, that first-contract-and-out was always the result of front office incompetence, or a result of your second point.

Your second point was relevant to a few players, such as Nate Clements and Andy Levitre. Personally I think the Bills should have slapped the franchise tag on Clements another year, then traded him. But he clearly wasn't worth what San Francisco paid for him. Nor did Levitre deserve the contract he was given. When players leave due to being grossly overpaid, I'm less harsh on the Bills' front office than I would be in a case such as Antoine Winfield's.

TD had originally been in negotiations to extend Winfield. But then TD broke off negotiations, so that he could free up the salary cap space he needed to overpay for an aging Lawyer Milloy. (His desire to overpay for an aging Troy Vincent should also be included in this discussion.) Milloy lasted just three years with the Bills, compared to the nine years Winfield provided to the Vikings.

Using a first round pick on a player expected to go first-contract-and-out is shortsighted. A shortsighted approach might make sense if you have most of the pieces in place, and are just a player or two away. In particular, you absolutely must have a franchise QB in place before this kind of shortsightedness makes sense. The Bills haven't had a real QB since Kelly hung up his cleats. At no point during the post-Polian era has that type of shortsightedness ever been remotely justified. But it's nonetheless been quite common among Bills' front offices. The two pillars of the playoff drought have been shortsightedness and bad player evaluations.

[stuckincincy]

What club would sell off a 1st rnd pick for Gilmore? He's ok, sure, but has a bit of injury history.

[Joe Fo Sho]

You've made two points in your post, both of which are valid under some circumstances.

Good, that's what I was trying to do as I was countering your argument that started with the following sentence:


Every time a team uses a first round pick on a player...That was a broad statement that sounded like you were trying to encompass every team who has ever had a 1st round draft pick. Phew.


Your second point was relevant to a few players, such as Nate Clements and Andy Levitre. Personally I think the Bills should have slapped the franchise tag on Clements another year, then traded him. But he clearly wasn't worth what San Francisco paid for him. Nor did Levitre deserve the contract he was given. When players leave due to being grossly overpaid, I'm less harsh on the Bills' front office than I would be in a case such as Antoine Winfield's.

TD had originally been in negotiations to extend Winfield. But then TD broke off negotiations, so that he could free up the salary cap space he needed to overpay for an aging Lawyer Milloy. (His desire to overpay for an aging Troy Vincent should also be included in this discussion.) Milloy lasted just three years with the Bills, compared to the nine years Winfield provided to the Vikings.

I would bet that everyone here thinks the Clements move was fine, while the Winfield move was terrible.


Using a first round pick on a player expected to go first-contract-and-out is shortsighted.

I doubt that this has ever happened in the recent history of 1st round draft picks. No one expects a first round pick to only last a handful of years, but things happen. Five good years out of a 1st round pick is probably better than average.


A shortsighted approach might make sense if you have most of the pieces in place, and are just a player or two away. In particular, you absolutely must have a franchise QB in place before this kind of shortsightedness makes sense. The Bills haven't had a real QB since Kelly hung up his cleats. At no point during the post-Polian era has that type of shortsightedness ever been remotely justified. But it's nonetheless been quite common among Bills' front offices. The two pillars of the playoff drought have been shortsightedness and bad player evaluations.

Every single contract extension is unique to the player, team, and front office. Each situation should be considered on a case by case basis and the blanket approach of resigning decent 1st round picks for the sake of continuity and gaining a 'long term building block' is what is actually shortsighted.

[sdbillsfan2]

Reason enough to trade him...typical Bills logic.

http://www.si.com/article-list/positional-rankings-outside-cornerbacks-richard-sherman-darrelle-revis/stephon-gilmore-bills

[Arm of Harm]

Good, that's what I was trying to do as I was countering your argument that started with the following sentence:

That was a broad statement that sounded like you were trying to encompass every team who has ever had a 1st round draft pick. Phew.

I would bet that everyone here thinks the Clements move was fine, while the Winfield move was terrible.

I doubt that this has ever happened in the recent history of 1st round draft picks. No one expects a first round pick to only last a handful of years, but things happen. Five good years out of a 1st round pick is probably better than average.

Every single contract extension is unique to the player, team, and front office. Each situation should be considered on a case by case basis and the blanket approach of resigning decent 1st round picks for the sake of continuity and gaining a 'long term building block' is what is actually shortsighted.

Any time you're attempting to achieve a goal--whether football-related or otherwise--you should begin with the end in mind. You wouldn't begin construction on a house, for example, without knowing more or less what you wanted the house to look like when everything is finished.

The goal of building a football team should be to have a team which will seriously content for a Super Bowl ring, and remain in serious contention for a long period of time. If successful, that approach is likely to result in one or more Lombardi Trophies. Long-term building block type players are of course an absolutely essential part of that vision.

If you know you need long-term building block players, where do you get them? The obvious answer is that you get them from wherever you can, but especially from your first and second round draft picks. If a first round pick fails to turn into a long-term building block, it's almost always the GM's fault. Maybe the GM drafted a bad football player. Or maybe the GM drafted a good football player, who was then allowed to go first-contract-and-out.

There are two possible exceptions to the general rule that it's the GM's fault. One is if a player absolutely refuses to sign a reasonable contract offer, and insists on testing the waters in free agency. And then that player finding that someone is willing to overpay for him. The Titans definitely overpaid for Levitre. But how hard did the Bills work to prevent him from hitting free agency in the first place? Did they make him a competitive offer a year before his contract ended? If they didn't, the blame for his departure resides partially with the front office, even though he was clearly worth nowhere near what he ultimately received.

The second exception to the rule that it's the GM's fault is if the team already has so much talent and so many long-term building blocks already that it's impossible to retain all the building blocks. Obviously, that second exception can have no possible relevance at all to the post-Polian Bills.

At this point, the Bills need to either a) trade Gilmore for a first round pick, or b) offer him a very competitive extension. If no one is willing to yield up a first round pick for Gilmore, then their one good option is b). They can't control whether Gilmore accepts their offer, but that offer absolutely needs to be on the table. If it's not, the front office has done something seriously wrong. Any possible excuses for letting Gilmore go first-contract-and-out are not applicable here.