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]

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!:up::beers:

[nodnarb]

Originally posted by The Spaz


Welcome to the Zone!:up::beers:

gracias, senor. :log:

[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 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?

[mysticsoto]

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...

Do you think that means that they would feature Travis more and be tentative with WM? Not that Mularkey appears to be that type of person, but if TH is cheaper, why feature WM too much other than to let him occasionally showcase what he can do to other teams that might be in the market next year.

And I disagree with Canadian, eh that RBs are not in much demand anymore. Though the demand is slightly lower than in years passed - why would the Redskins trade a shutdown corner for Portis if they werent' desperate for a good running back. Why would the Patriots give up their 2nd rd draft pick for a guy who had injuries and was a disruption to his previous team.

The truth is, this draft class was low on quality running backs, and so teams made sure they were set with RBs (trading for them like Washington did) so they wouldn't need to worry about it as much at draft time. But Dallas is one that still has ???s with running backs, and there's Oakland, and I'm sure many others that would love to have a RB like what the college WM showed the potential for. If he looks even close to his original form this year, I bet TD will be fielding the phones on offers at the end of the year...

[nodnarb]

Originally posted by Ebenezer


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?


I think you're missing the point. First of all, I said ASSUMING WM HAS A GOOD YEAR AND SHOWS HIS FORMER ABILITY. "Raw" would not apply. And look at his contract. He's not expensive at all. His contract is cheap for a RB of his talent and a 1st round pick.

Why would a team trade for TH and a one year contract? TH wouldn't have to agree to stay with them, so if he didn't like the trade, he could stick them and be a FA after one year.

TH loves the Bills. We're lucky to have a great RB who also wouldn't choose any other team to play for. Ralph Wilson loves TH too.

Trades are more attractive when the aquiring team is acquiring a LONG TERM contract. WM's numbers are BEANS for a RB of his caliber, which makes him even more desireable.

Barring an extension, there's no way in HELL that TH is traded. WM is more likely based on their contracts alone.

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by nodnarb
I think you're missing the point. First of all, I said ASSUMING WM HAS A GOOD YEAR AND SHOWS HIS FORMER ABILITY. "Raw" would not apply. And look at his contract. He's not expensive at all. His contract is cheap for a RB of his talent and a 1st round pick.

I believe I am familar with the contracts:

if we trade WM after 2004...it would escalate the amoritized signing bonuses spread into 2006 and 2007 into the 2005 cap year...that's $2.07 million...his base salary in 2005 is $529,000...thus, it would cost almost $1.5 million to trade him...

Next, take a look at the escalators in McGahee's contract: in year 5 of the contract WM gets a bonus if he runs for:
1,000 yards in any two seasons add $1.25 million
1,250 or more in any two years add $250,000 more
1,500 or more in any two years add $500,000 more
1,500 or more in a 3rd season adds $500,000 more

meaning that if he is a great player his 5th year salary would increase by $2.5 million from $905K to $3.4 mil...

TH on the other hand would save the Bills $1.25 mil if traded after the 2004 season...the only number counting against the cap would be the 100,000 bonus that was prorated from 2003.

So:

1) If you are an NFL GM...are you going to trade for WM and suck up that contract with its incentives or are you going to trade for TH at $1.25 mil.

2) If you are TD are you going to spend $1.5 mil to trade WM or are you going to save $1.25 to trade TH.

[nodnarb]

yes. those are the numbers all right.

and they're still DIRT CHEAP for a stud - or even potential stud - running back.

If I'm a GM, there's NO WAY IN HELL that I trade value for one year of TH. It's not going to happen.

Your post reinforces what I'm trying to say. AS THEIR CONTRACTS STAND, WM is a more attractive trade to buyers because it's a long term deal and it's cheap, the escalators are EXTREMELY manageable and well defined, and they get a guy who just might be the next Marshall Faulk.

NOBODY will 'purchase' travis henry for one year.

Now, if he extends his contract with the Bills, everything I'm saying changes.

[BillsOwnAll]

BLAH BLAH. sHUT UP. WE ARE NOT TRADEING EITHER BLAH BLAH OLD TALK LETS END THIS NON SENSE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL IF YOU WANNA TRADE HENRY. wm I CAN UNDERSTAND IF YOU WANNA TRADE HIM AND DONT HAVE AITH YET BUT STILL TRUE FANS HAVE FAITH. GET OUT IF YOU WANNA TRADE TH PLEASE.I MEAN HOW MANY THREADS DO WE HAVE T HAVE ABOUT THIS??

[BillsOwnAll]

BTW TH DOESNT FUMBLE MUCH. IT WAS JUST HIS FIRST YEAR

[STAMPY]

Originally posted by BillsOwnAll
BTW TH DOESNT FUMBLE MUCH. IT WAS JUST HIS FIRST YEAR

Very true BOA

[Kramer]

Originally posted by Ebenezer


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?

Actually Ebenezer, like I said in a previous post, drafting Willis in the 1st round and then trading him for a 1st rounder makes no sense at all. Why pay his salary this year and last year if all we are going to do is get back the 1st rounder that we spent on him??

[SABURZFAN]

i'll worry about it next year.

[Bill Brasky]

can we start banning these "trade our RB threads"... they're getting extremely annoying to see EVERY DAY

:mad: :mad:

[BillsOwnAll]

Originally posted by jfreeman
can we start banning these "trade our RB threads"... they're getting extremely annoying to see EVERY DAY

:mad: :mad: AAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNN to that man.

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Kramer
Actually Ebenezer, like I said in a previous post, drafting Willis in the 1st round and then trading him for a 1st rounder makes no sense at all. Why pay his salary this year and last year if all we are going to do is get back the 1st rounder that we spent on him??

I agree.

[TigerJ]

I would be willing to trade one under any of the four scenarios, especially if you can get a first round pick. Reasoning: Both of them believe they have starting ability and neither looks to me like they would be willing to share a starting role indefinitely. You won't get any more contract extensions out of TH, and McGahee's rookie contract is the only one he'll ever sign with the Bills if they have to share. That means you'll eventually lose one of them, whichever contract runs out first. By trading, at least you control which one you get rid of and you get something out of it.

Moreover, if they end up sharing snaps ad nauseum, you never get full value out of him. Granted, Travis Henry gets paid like a back up now, but if he's sharing snaps, he doesn't have near the potential value of a first round pick. Who knows, that first round pick you get next year might make your team enough better in 2005 that it is the difference in winning the Super Bowl.

[mysticsoto]

The long term effect on both RBs should also be looked at. With neither getting the majority of the numbers, they could become annoyed and want to leave themselves to star somewhere else ala Peerless Price.

For the person that questioned why trade WM for a 1st rd pick when that's what we paid for him. That's true, but this year, we get some use out of him. If he were to say - help us get to the playoffs, then he was worth it simply for that.

The other thing to consider is how good Shaud Williams is. The Bills seem to like him alot. Is he good enough to next year fill the role that WM had were we to trade him? We don't know, obviously b'cse we haven't seen him - but that's something the coaching staff can evaluate. If they do think he has that kind of potential, that raises the bar and could allow for the trade of WM!

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by mysticsoto
The other thing to consider is how good Shaud Williams is. The Bills seem to like him alot. Is he good enough to next year fill the role that WM had were we to trade him? We don't know, obviously b'cse we haven't seen him - but that's something the coaching staff can evaluate. If they do think he has that kind of potential, that raises the bar and could allow for the trade of WM!

Shaud Williams is a non factor...he won't even make the PS.

[BillsOwnAll]

Originally posted by Ebenezer
Shaud Williams is a non factor...he won't even make the PS.

Yah i know.


And WHO CARES WHAT WE GAVE FOR HIM? Id give EVERY draft pick one year. If he helps us win a Superbowl. there tering to win that super bowl for you but you so Friken by anlyzing every spet they talk you forogt to sit the hell down and watch the games and not worry bout what is going to happen 5 years from now. So just sit down, put down your pen and penicl, and wait for football and watch the damn games and be happy! jeez damn people.


(goes to all the people whoever started a thread about RB's)