Willing to trade an RB for 1st rd pick next year?

[mysticsoto]

In what circumstances would you consider trading one of our RBs (WM or TH) for a 1st round pick next year?

1) Both WM and TH do good
2) WM does good TH does okay (some fumbles)
3) TH goes good, WM doesn't show top form
4) Both WM and TH do bad

The good thing is the Bills like Shaud Williams. Along with Joe Burns, our RB backfield is way too crowded. They may need to get rid of one regardless.

If you had to pick, which one would you pick to go based on the scenarios above?

My opinion:

1) If they both do good, keep TH. He's shown he's a warrior (and is cheap). Of course, WM is younger...it may depend on how good each one was and how close in performance they were...

2) if WM does better, trade TH - perhaps back to Dallas for our pick back. If you think about it, we come out winning on that. Dallas traded their 1st round pick to us and we got Losman to train for a year and add some knowledge and experience to his belt. In turn, we got to keep TH for a year before giving him to them. I think that's one we come out on top!

3) If TH does good and WM doesn't, we may have to shop around to see who might be willing to take a chance with WM. We will have to sell him as a RB that has potential but hasn't fully recovered yet. Hopefully, somebody would buy into that.

4) If they both do bad, it's probably not their fault and the OL instead. However, it means that something else is wrong that needs fixing. If we somehow got the opportunity to trade one of them for a 1st rd pick to get a Robert Gallery type of guy that Oakland got, it would be worth it. Sadly, I guy like that doesn't come around often!!!


Mystic

[G. Host]

No reason to trade either back for a first round pick. Both are in unique situations:

Travis Henry still has 2 years left on a contract at a very, very low rate due to him messing up his money.

Willis McGahee cost us a first round pick last year, was paid to do nothing includign a heafty signing bonus and there is no guarenteee that next year's pick will be as good as that one.

Even if a team like the California Raisins traded for one of them, nothing would prevent them from immediately trading the player again.

[Canadian'eh!]

I like how we get a first rounder no matter what happens. Do you honestly think a team is gogin to give us a 1st rounder for either player if they have a bad year?

I had my doubts we would have gotten a 1st rounder for either one of them this year. I assume by a bad year we are talking about 8 or 900 yards. you don't get a 1st round pick for a 900 yard back.

The only way we get a 1st is if they both have great years and then we decide to trade one. someone is going to have to break 1000 yards on limited carries and the other (while having less carries) will have to show that given a feature roll he will also easily break 1000.

As for who to keep. you can't just say TH is proven. If WM shows more potential, and especially more BIG PLAY ability, then he is the guy. We know what TH is. A 1300 yard grinder who isn't about to break an 80 yarder on any given play but is gonna churn out consistent 4-5 yarders with 2 guys on his back. A great guy to have, but that will never make him the same weapon as a Jamal Lewis or Clinton Portis.

Anyway, it's complicated, but unless both guys have very good years you can forget about a 1st.

[Ebenezer]

TD uses TH and the 2005 2nd round pick to move up into the first round...Losman ends up costing less in the end...

[Canadian'eh!]

right....

so Losman costs us the 1st round pick we used to take him.
1 of TH or WM
2 2nd round picks
a 5th round pick

4 picks and a star RB to get a guy that may or may not develop in a good QB

great deal

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Canadian'eh!
right....

so Losman costs us the 1st round pick we used to take him.
1 of TH or WM
2 2nd round picks
a 5th round pick

4 picks and a star RB to get a guy that may or may not develop in a good QB

great deal

????? Where do you get 4 picks and TH??

if you trade TH and a second to get into the first round all you have spent to get Losman is:

2004 5th (which can be rationalized as Jason Peters since everybody started screaming to take him in the 3rd round)

2005 2nd

and

Travis Henry...

the 2nd in 2004 became the first rounder you used to pick up Losman...and in my scenario you are getting a 2005 1st rounder back...




Let me ask it this way: would you have traded Travis Henry, a 2004 5th rounder and a 2005 2nd rounder to move up almost a full round to get JP Losman considering Cincy only got a 2nd rounder for Corey Dillion??

[mysticsoto]

First, let me answer some questions brought up by Canadian, Eh...

There are scenarios where if either RB doesn't do good, he can still be in high enough demand to warrant a 1st rd pick. 1st, if Mularkey uses them both evenly - both their numbers will be down. That is not an indication that they are any less of a talent and other teams will acknowledge that. Put it to you this way, what if TH is the main guy and gets 75% of the carries, but each time WM touches the ball, he gets atleast 10 yds. Teams will not hold it against him. As long as he shows the potential of a top running back.

My scenario of both doing bad would be b'cse of something else like the OL not gelling properly or something to that effect.

In any case, my question was as to which would you get rid of. Ideally, sure, it'd be lovely to keep both. But I have a feeling that after this year, we will decide if we can afford to keep them both. And when I say this, I don't necessarily mean from a monetary pt of view (as I am aware that TH is costing us peanuts). But there may be positions that we need to address in the draft next year and without a 1st round pick, we may be severely handicapped. We will then need to weigh having two top RBs vs other needs on the team...

[nodnarb]

More trade a RB talk...

If they "have to" next year, I'd rather the Bills trade McGahee if he can produce and entice this year. Because his trade value could actually be higher. He has a long term contract that's profoundly affordable. If he shows the world something this year, teams are going to want him. He has every talent a RB should have. It all comes down to that knee. If he can come back like JLewis did in year 1 back, his trade value will be very good. Better than Henry's...TH will only have one year left after this year...not good trade bait.

McGahee will probably be better NEXT year than this year, it's just how major knee injuries go. They take a while, and a lot of it's mental. If he's able to do what we saw him do in college, he'll net TWO high picks, perhaps three, or two and a good starter.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by nodnarb
If they "have to" next year, I'd rather the Bills trade McGahee if he can produce and entice this year. Because his trade value could actually be higher. He has a long term contract that's profoundly affordable. If he shows the world something this year, teams are going to want him. He has every talent a RB should have. It all comes down to that knee. If he can come back like JLewis did in year 1 back, his trade value will be very good. Better than Henry's...TH will only have one year left after this year...not good trade bait.

McGahee will probably be better NEXT year than this year, it's just how major knee injuries go. They take a while, and a lot of it's mental. If he's able to do what we saw him do in college, he'll net TWO high picks, perhaps three, or two and a good starter.

Welcome to the Zone!

[nodnarb]

gracias

Originally posted by The Spaz


Welcome to the Zone!

gracias, senor.

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by nodnarb
If they "have to" next year, I'd rather the Bills trade McGahee if he can produce and entice this year. Because his trade value could actually be higher. He has a long term contract that's profoundly affordable. If he shows the world something this year, teams are going to want him. He has every talent a RB should have. It all comes down to that knee. If he can come back like JLewis did in year 1 back, his trade value will be very good. Better than Henry's...TH will only have one year left after this year...not good trade bait.

McGahee will probably be better NEXT year than this year, it's just how major knee injuries go. They take a while, and a lot of it's mental. If he's able to do what we saw him do in college, he'll net TWO high picks, perhaps three, or two and a good starter.

have you compared the two contracts?? WM is going nowhere...

[nodnarb]

the length of their contracts are public.

the longer and more affordable the contract, the more trade value you have, because it's a more desireable aquisition.

what is your issue with this?

[Canadian'eh!]

My point was only that RB's have been far easier to come by lately. the fact that RB needy teams were not scrambling to get them and even passing them up in the draft shows a trend that RB's are not commanding as much value as they once did.

So, unless 1 of our 2 young RB's shows a stellar potential this year... and i mean the ability to be a top 5 NFL back, we may not get a 1st....

Clinton Portis had 1800 yards and was traded. no matter how good Bailey is that would not happen in years where RB's had more value.

As for who to trade.... as i said. we keep the guy who the brass thinks has more upside. someone will distinguish himself as THE GUY this year. and he'll be the keeper. we know what TH is so it's all about what WM shows.

EB.... my point was that we used a 1st (which yo need to spend on a player to get him of course... not a complaint there)

and in your scenario we had to give up another 2nd rounder and TH to get a 1st.

SO... we gave up a 2nd and 5th... plus a RB and another 2nd to get another 1st. but it's not that simple of course.

as for your peters arguement.. no dice. he cannot be substituted for our lost 5th. he would have been available to us as an undrafted FA no matter if we had used that pick or not. so we could have had Peters AND our 5th... we still lose the 5th.

you can't just say that because you got a good FA that it's equivlent to a lost pick.

that's why i hated the we got Kelsay in the 2nd so it was ok to take WM. the truth is that we could have gotten Kelsay in the 2nd no matter what so you could have tken any one of many players instead of WM. (i like the pick now, but i just say that "we got the guy we might have taken anyway" is a lame argument)

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Canadian'eh!
My point was only that RB's have been far easier to come by lately. the fact that RB needy teams were not scrambling to get them and even passing them up in the draft shows a trend that RB's are not commanding as much value as they once did.

So, unless 1 of our 2 young RB's shows a stellar potential this year... and i mean the ability to be a top 5 NFL back, we may not get a 1st....

Clinton Portis had 1800 yards and was traded. no matter how good Bailey is that would not happen in years where RB's had more value.

As for who to trade.... as i said. we keep the guy who the brass thinks has more upside. someone will distinguish himself as THE GUY this year. and he'll be the keeper. we know what TH is so it's all about what WM shows.

EB.... my point was that we used a 1st (which yo need to spend on a player to get him of course... not a complaint there)

and in your scenario we had to give up another 2nd rounder and TH to get a 1st.

SO... we gave up a 2nd and 5th... plus a RB and another 2nd to get another 1st. but it's not that simple of course.

as for your peters arguement.. no dice. he cannot be substituted for our lost 5th. he would have been available to us as an undrafted FA no matter if we had used that pick or not. so we could have had Peters AND our 5th... we still lose the 5th.

you can't just say that because you got a good FA that it's equivlent to a lost pick.

that's why i hated the we got Kelsay in the 2nd so it was ok to take WM. the truth is that we could have gotten Kelsay in the 2nd no matter what so you could have tken any one of many players instead of WM. (i like the pick now, but i just say that "we got the guy we might have taken anyway" is a lame argument)

whatever, you are just lining up on the "I don't want Losman here" parade...

again, don't even bother me unless you put forth a solution to the future of the QB position...who do you want to be the QB in the future??

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by nodnarb
the longer and more affordable the contract, the more trade value you have, because it's a more desireable aquisition.

what is your issue with this?

my issue is that TH has two years on his deal with almost no bonus to acclerate...the second year is just over $1.25 mil...very acceptable to teams to pick up...

WM has bonuses to accelerate and other bonuses, that if he reaches, become very costly...not acceptable to teams to pick up...

In other words...teams trading for TH get a very experienced work horse cheap...teams trading for WM get a raw player (even if he plays every down in 2004) who will cost them lots of money.

which would you trade for?