TE Jimmy Graham, CHI (1 Viewer)

[Faust]

Loomis: No deadline for Graham deal

 

[KellysHeroes]

surprised how quiet this has been

 

[False Start]

surprised how quiet this has been

The quietness means that they are negotiating, its a good thing.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

If I was Graham, I'm not playing until I had a long term deal or at least the WR tag... The guy is dominant and deserves to be paid.

No. The only way Graham would deserve $12 million/year is if he were able to consistently abuse a Richard Sherman + Earl Thomas double-team all day, every day. Even when hobbled.

But he's proven to be stoppable by physical coverage. Smaller guys (esp Aqib Talib and the Seattle defenders) hold his arms and completely neutralize Graham. That film has gotten around ... hard to see Graham sniffing his 2011-2013 stats ever again. Maybe he can learn to consistently beat hyper-physical coverage, but I'd want him to prove it before I paid him top-5 WR money.

huh?

This whole post smells like a Saints fan that devalues Graham since he wants big bucks.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I suppose since Graham missed the grievance deadline, there are positive conversations between the Saints and Graham. Why else would Graham's agent not send in the petition just to be safe?

 

[Soulfly3]

traded at the draft

 

[saintfool]

traded at the draft

i would love that.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

But he's proven to be stoppable by physical coverage. Smaller guys (esp Aqib Talib and the Seattle defenders) hold his arms and completely neutralize Graham. That film has gotten around ... hard to see Graham sniffing his 2011-2013 stats ever again.

Wow! That sounds like a pretty strong take. Care to expand on the term "sniffing"? Are you saying Graham will never be a top 6? Top 10? Top 20?

 

[ghostguy123]

But he's proven to be stoppable by physical coverage. Smaller guys (esp Aqib Talib and the Seattle defenders) hold his arms and completely neutralize Graham. That film has gotten around ... hard to see Graham sniffing his 2011-2013 stats ever again.

Wow! That sounds like a pretty strong take. Care to expand on the term "sniffing"? Are you saying Graham will never be a top 6? Top 10? Top 20?

Doug is on drugs. The kind of drugs I DON'T want.

 

[One More Rep]

But he's proven to be stoppable by physical coverage. Smaller guys (esp Aqib Talib and the Seattle defenders) hold his arms and completely neutralize Graham. That film has gotten around ... hard to see Graham sniffing his 2011-2013 stats ever again.

Wow! That sounds like a pretty strong take. Care to expand on the term "sniffing"? Are you saying Graham will never be a top 6? Top 10? Top 20?

Doug is on drugs. The kind of drugs I DON'T want.

 

[Faust]

Tom Pelissero ‏@TomPelissero

The NFLPA has filed a grievance against #Saints on behalf of Jimmy Graham. Franchise-tag fight is on.

Tom Pelissero ‏@TomPelissero

No hearing date set for Graham grievance. Presumably, it'll get pursued on an expedited basis.

Tom Pelissero ‏@TomPelissero

This was the inevitable next step when no deal was struck between #Saints and Graham. Difference of over $5M could swing leverage in talks.

 

[Faust]

SI_DougFarrar ‏@SI_DougFarrar

Jimmy Graham's grievance: positional snap counts will eventually, successfully, be currency in negotiations. Whether teams like it or not.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I wish the last CBA had just taken care of this. These grey situations really aren't even necessary.

What's a "franchise player"? Well, for sure, it isn't your GD kicker, but teams use them on STers as much as anything, because they are easy. So while the rules say that is a viable option, it doesn't really make sense with respect to the original idea behind the tag.

In most cases, your franchise player is probably your QB. Could be a lineman, a WR, maybe even a DB or LB on occasion, but mostly it's your QB. Not surprisingly, they typically make the most money. But in ANY case, doesn't it just make sense to get rid of positional consideration altogether? If a guy is a your franchise guy, pay him an average of the top guys in the league regardless of position. If it really is Revis or Calvin Johnson, they should be (and typically are for that matter) compensated like the rest of the league's top players.

That just makes more sense to me in general, AND removes any issues with trying to figure what position a guy plays. I get why teams worked it out the way it is now, as it is a clear advantage to them, but it really is just a perversion of the concept at this point.

All that said, the rules are what they are at this point so you have to look at the next most logical standpoint with respect to Graham's case. Are his true peers WRs or are they TEs? I think you can make both cases, but I think he DOES have peers at TE (Gronk, Davis, Witten, Gates etc), and a many of those guys line up wide or in the slot a lot too. If the average was of ALL TEs you could make a stronger case that it isn't a fair comparison. But at the top of the salary heap, he is being compared to other guys who catch the ball a lot, not the grinders who are blocking 90% of the time. Bottom line, if Gronk makes 4M and Davis makes 5M and Witten makes 5M and Gates makes 5M, it is not all outrageous to suggest that a "fair" number for Graham to be 7M - at least in the context of the current franchise tag rules.

BTW, the reason the salaries I listed for the other guys are considerably lower than the franchise figure is that they don't take bonuses into account. Obviously, when you average them out, the numbers look a lot closer to the 7M franchise figure.

 

[Faust]

NFLPA files grievance for Saints TE Jimmy GrahamBy Gregg Rosenthal

Around The League Editor

New Orleans Saints general manager Mickey Loomis said Wednesday that he had "nothing to report" on long-term extension talks with tight end Jimmy Graham. One big reason: They are waiting to confirm whether he's really a tight end or not.

The NFL Players Association filed a grievance on behalf of Graham Wednesday, according to NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport. USA Today first reported the story. The expected move was a long time coming, but it's the next necessary step in Graham's contract process. By waiting until this week to file the grievance, the decision will get maximum attention.

The Saints placed the franchise tag on Graham back in February, with the franchise number for tight ends being $7.035 million. Graham has not signed his one-year tender offer, and the NFLPA is going to make the case that Graham should be counted as a wide receiver because so many of his snaps happen away from the line of scrimmage. The wide receiver franchise tag number is $12.3 million.

We believe it's a longshot that Graham will win this grievance, but there is some historical precedent for compromise. Terrell Suggs argued in 2008 that he should be counted as a defensive end, not a linebacker. An arbitrator wound up bumping up Suggs' salary.

Graham has a tougher case to make, and there is more money at stake here. We wouldn't be surprised if the Saints and Graham compromise on a long-term contract before the grievance is even settled.

The "Around The League Podcast" Draft Preview Spectacular is all you need before draft day.

 

[Faust]

Timing of Graham grievance is curious

Posted by Mike Florio on May 7, 2014, 3:01 PM EDT

When Saints tight end Jimmy Graham didn’t immediately file a grievance challenging the amount of his franchise tag, it appeared that he didn’t want to inflame the situation pending efforts to work out an acceptable long-term deal.

Ultimately, it appeared that Graham would wait to see whether the Saints sign him to a long-term deal before the July 15 deadline. Absent a long-term deal, Graham then could have filed his grievance as of July 16.

So why file now?

Apart from the impact the resolution of the grievance may have on negotiations regarding a long-term deal (and if Graham wins he definitely gets more leverage), the move provides the rest of the league with a clear reminder that, after teams use their first-round picks on Thursday night, they can fatten their offseason haul by signing Graham to an offer that, if not matched by the Saints, would cost first-round picks in 2015 and 2016.

For teams with General Managers on the hot seat, signing Graham becomes an intriguing possibility. If the G.M. won’t be around to use the 2015 and 2016 picks anyway, who cares about sending them to the Saints? Given that it’s very rare nowadays for General Managers to be fired by one team and then to become General Managers with another team, guys who have those jobs sometimes need to make bold moves to keep those jobs.

Intriguing options include the Texans (who with the right moves in 2014 will be picking a lot lower in 2016), the Browns (who seem to be intent on making a splash, somehow), the Raiders (whose G.M. clearly needs a big year), the Falcons (where snagging Graham from the arch-rivals in New Orleans to replace Tony Gonzalez would send shock waves through the league), the Bills (whose G.M. soon will have a new boss), the Lions (who seem to be intent on finding a Jimmy Graham for new offensive coordinator Joe Lombardi), and the Giants (whose G.M. seems to realize that time is running out, and who could use the weapon for Eli Manning).

The challenge would be to craft a deal the Saints wouldn’t be able to match. Currently, the Saints have $3.4 million in cap space. Of the team listed above, the Texans have $12.5 million, the Browns have a whopping $29.1 million, the Raiders have $12.7 million, the Falcons have $8.4 million, the Bills have $13.5 million, the Lions have only $1.369 million, and the Giants have $3.9 million.

Teams that easily could pilfer Graham with an offer the Saints couldn’t match include the Bengals ($23.7 million), the Jaguars ($27.2 million), the Dolphins ($16.3 million), the Jets ($23.7 million), and the Eagles ($20.2 million).

Ultimately, the question for those teams becomes whether there’s a reason to give up first-round picks in 2015 and 2016 at a time when none of their General Managers are in obvious (or grave) danger of being fired.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@HubbuchNYP: TRANSCRIPT: "Mr. Mediator, I'd like to note Jimmy Graham's Twitter bio about his claim that he's not a tight end." http://t.co/MX6hwWGEHl

 

[BoltzNBrew]

They should just split the difference and give him $10Mil

 

[Louche]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

 

[kutta]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

It wasn't two first round picks. It was one first and one fourth. How can they even say that?

 

[cstu]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

It wasn't two first round picks. It was one first and one fourth. How can they even say that?

They gave up the 9th pick and next year's 1st. Matter of perspective I guess but to me Watkins cost 2 1st's and a 4th.

 

[kutta]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

It wasn't two first round picks. It was one first and one fourth. How can they even say that?

They gave up the 9th pick and next year's 1st. Matter of perspective I guess but to me Watkins cost 2 1st's and a 4th.

So let's say there was nothing else to the trade, but the Browns and Bills just swapped first round picks. Would you say that the Bills gave up a first round pick for Evans?

 

[Deuceman]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

It wasn't two first round picks. It was one first and one fourth. How can they even say that?

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

 

[Louche]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

It wasn't two first round picks. It was one first and one fourth. How can they even say that?

They gave up the 9th pick and next year's 1st. Matter of perspective I guess but to me Watkins cost 2 1st's and a 4th.

So let's say there was nothing else to the trade, but the Browns and Bills just swapped first round picks. Would you say that the Bills gave up a first round pick for Evans?

In that example I wouldn't necessarily say that they "gave up" a first round pick but I would say that they spent a first round pick. Just like Buffalo spent two first round picks and a fourth to get Watkins, and like a team would need to spend two first round picks to get Jimmy Graham. In matters like this I view picks as a currency, for the team that is acquiring a player, so I don't get your line of thinking at all, to be honest. After getting Watkins they have two 1 st round draft picks and a 4th less than what they had before they got him. Ergo; they used two 1st round draft picks and a 4th to get him. I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way as long as you are looking at it from a perspective of what a team is sacrificing to get a certain player.

 

[Faust]

I think that with the NFL Draft now concluded, this becomes one if the most interesting stories to watch in the NFL over the next few months.

Are the Saints and Graham's camp able to come to some kind of resolution that keeps both sides happy?

Is there a team willing to give up first round Draft picks in 2015 and 2016, and sign Graham to the type of new contract that he would be seeking?

If no team signs Graham to an offer sheet, and this stalemate isn't resolved, what will be the outcome of the grievance hearing?

I am awaiting the answers to these questions with extra interest, as I have Graham in one of my leagues where his contract has expired, and I can franchise him at the average salary of the top 5 players at his position; however our rules state that his position is dictated by what NFL.com will list him at, and if he wins his grievance, I may have a challenge on my hands.

 

[Doug B]

If no team signs Graham to an offer sheet, and this stalemate isn't resolved, what will be the outcome of the grievance hearing?

Seems like the outcome of the grievance determines all. Neither side should make a move until that's decided.

If Graham wins the grievance: It would be highly unpopular with the fan base, but I think the Saints have to insta-cut Graham if he insists on his top-end figure. If it's all agent posturing, and he's got room to come down, then maybe there's something to negotiate.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

The grievance hearing for Saints franchise player Jimmy Graham is scheduled for June 17-18.
The NFL's Management Council decides what position franchise tags are applied to. They ruled Graham was a tight end despite lining up in the slot or split wide on 67 percent of his snaps. The NFLPA has filed an appeal of that ruling, hoping Graham will be deemed a wide receiver and thus earn more than $5 million extra on his 2014 deal.

Source: Mike Triplett on Twitter

 

[FreeBaGeL]

So what are we talking here? What are we chances that Graham isn't playing for the Saints in week 1 this year? What are the chances that he's not playing for them at all?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If no team signs Graham to an offer sheet, and this stalemate isn't resolved, what will be the outcome of the grievance hearing?

Seems like the outcome of the grievance determines all. Neither side should make a move until that's decided.

If Graham wins the grievance: It would be highly unpopular with the fan base, but I think the Saints have to insta-cut Graham if he insists on his top-end figure. If it's all agent posturing, and he's got room to come down, then maybe there's something to negotiate.

If they traded Sproles and Bush they can trade Graham, no need to "insta-cut" anybody.

But it's not going to get that far. Both sides can hedge their risk by agreeing to a contract in advance of the final decision.

Jared Cook signed a 5 year / $35.10 million contract with the St. Louis Rams, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $16,000,000 guaranteed, and an annual average salary of $7,020,000.

Cook was able to do that because the Titans and Rams saw that he might win his grievance. Graham is worth more than that and the Saints will pay more than that. By hook, crook or absolute book-cooking they will do that.

 

[ghostguy123]

??????

The bills invested pick 9, their 2015 1st, and a 2015 4th on Watkins.

They traded a 2015 1st and 4th..........and USED pick 9.

You guys are all saying the same thing and arguing about it because you are wording it differently. If you all view it as an investment, which is what it is, pretty sure you will see eye to eye. And if not, then pretty clear one of you is blind.

If you want to say the Bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for WAtkins, go for it (since they traded all that for pick 4, and then drafted Watkins. Had the Browns drafted Watkins then traded him, the trade would be two 1sts and a 4th for Watkins. Arguing over whether or not they traded two 1sts and a 4th or one 1st and a 4th due to Watkins not being drafted yet is just a dumb argument to have).

 

[ghostguy123]

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

The Bill gave two 1sts and a 4th

The Bills got pick 4.

The Bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for pick 4. Pick 4 = Watkins.

When you say they "traded a 1st and 4th for the right to move up 5 spots", you are right.

When other people say "the bills traded pick 9, a 2015 1st, and a 2014 4th for Watkins", they are also right.

It's like people arguing if some 500 pound guy is "big" or "large". You're both right.

 

[kutta]

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

The Bill gave two 1sts and a 4th

The Bills got pick 4.

The Bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for pick 4. Pick 4 = Watkins.

When you say they "traded a 1st and 4th for the right to move up 5 spots", you are right.

When other people say "the bills traded pick 9, a 2015 1st, and a 2014 4th for Watkins", they are also right.

It's like people arguing if some 500 pound guy is "big" or "large". You're both right.

Totally agree. My point is that people would not say that Buffalo gave a first round pick for Watkins if the entirety of the trade was swapping first round picks with Cleveland. They would say they swapped picks and got the good end of that deal. But when we add in other picks it suddenly becomes that they gave 2 firsts and a second.I get that we are all right. It just sounds weird to me.

 

[Faust]

Report: Date set for grievance hearing of Saints TE Jimmy GrahamBy John Breech | CBSSports.com

Is Jimmy Graham a tight end or a wide receiver? That's a multi-million dollar question we should have an answer to by the end of next month. Graham's franchise-tag grievance hearing has been scheduled for June 17-18, according to ESPN.com.

Back in March, Graham was tagged as a tight end, but his camp believes he should have been tagged as a wide receiver. Since that didn't happen, Graham ended up filing a grievance with the NFLPA.

Basically, the matter comes down to money: a tight end hit with the franchise tag will make $7.035 million in 2014, while a receiver will earn $12.312 million. That's a $5.277 million difference, and the arbitrator will have to decide which salary Graham is entitled to.

The arbitrator's decision will also likely affect any long-term contract negotiations between Graham and the Saints.

The NFLPA will argue Graham's case and the main point will undoubtedly be that Graham lined up in the slot or as a wideout on 67 percent of the snaps he played in last season. That might sound like a lot, but it didn't lead the league.

According to ESPN.com, there were at least five NFL tight ends who topped 67 percent with Ravens tight end Dennis Pitta leading the way at 74 percent.

Although the hearing date has been scheduled, it can be avoided. If Graham reaches a salary compromise with the Saints or if the two sides hammer out a long-term contract before June 17, then there will be no arbitration.

 

[Faust]

Bills should have simply made a run at Jimmy GrahamTo be fair, it isn't just the picks that are a factor here, it is also the salary cap ramifications as well.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Jimmy Graham - TE - Saints

Unsigned franchise player Jimmy Graham is sitting out Saints OTAs.

As you were. At the very least, Graham will be sitting out all Saints activities until his grievance is heard on June 17-18. It's of zero concern for his 2014 status.

Source: Katherine Terrell on Twitter

May 29 - 1:25 PM

 

[Zaphod]

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

The Bill gave two 1sts and a 4th

The Bills got pick 4.

The Bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for pick 4. Pick 4 = Watkins.

When you say they "traded a 1st and 4th for the right to move up 5 spots", you are right.

When other people say "the bills traded pick 9, a 2015 1st, and a 2014 4th for Watkins", they are also right.

It's like people arguing if some 500 pound guy is "big" or "large". You're both right.

It could be that he is just 'big boned'.

 

[cstu]

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

The Bill gave two 1sts and a 4th

The Bills got pick 4.

The Bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for pick 4. Pick 4 = Watkins.

When you say they "traded a 1st and 4th for the right to move up 5 spots", you are right.

When other people say "the bills traded pick 9, a 2015 1st, and a 2014 4th for Watkins", they are also right.

It's like people arguing if some 500 pound guy is "big" or "large". You're both right.

Totally agree. My point is that people would not say that Buffalo gave a first round pick for Watkins if the entirety of the trade was swapping first round picks with Cleveland. They would say they swapped picks and got the good end of that deal. But when we add in other picks it suddenly becomes that they gave 2 firsts and a second.I get that we are all right. It just sounds weird to me.

Since every requires a pick to be used I don't like people phrasing it as "they gave up two 1st's for him".

It's technically true but is a confusing way to put it.

 

[SelenaCat]

Out of curiosity, if Graham gets tagged as a WR as he'd like (and your league's hosting site makes the change), how does this affect his ranking and our thoughts on TE's in general?

Based on FBG projections, he'd be around the WR5, which is still pretty decent, though no longer a first round pick outside of WR-heavy leagues.

It would also reduce the gap from TE1 to TE10, making it easier to stomach sloughing the TE position in order to get talent at other positions.

 

[Soulfly3]

Browns are serious about acquiring him.

 

[Phenix]

Out of curiosity, if Graham gets tagged as a WR as he'd like (and your league's hosting site makes the change), how does this affect his ranking and our thoughts on TE's in general?

Based on FBG projections, he'd be around the WR5, which is still pretty decent, though no longer a first round pick outside of WR-heavy leagues.

It would also reduce the gap from TE1 to TE10, making it easier to stomach sloughing the TE position in order to get talent at other positions.

This again? Pointless discussion.

If the league says he will get paid like a WR that does not mean the Saints will list him as one on their roster.

MFL lists players how they are on NFL rosters.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Out of curiosity, if Graham gets tagged as a WR as he'd like (and your league's hosting site makes the change), how does this affect his ranking and our thoughts on TE's in general?

Based on FBG projections, he'd be around the WR5, which is still pretty decent, though no longer a first round pick outside of WR-heavy leagues.

It would also reduce the gap from TE1 to TE10, making it easier to stomach sloughing the TE position in order to get talent at other positions.

This again? Pointless discussion.

If the league says he will get paid like a WR that does not mean the Saints will list him as one on their roster.

MFL lists players how they are on NFL rosters.

No it doesn't.

MFL lists based on what Rotoworld has.

 

[Phenix]

Out of curiosity, if Graham gets tagged as a WR as he'd like (and your league's hosting site makes the change), how does this affect his ranking and our thoughts on TE's in general?

Based on FBG projections, he'd be around the WR5, which is still pretty decent, though no longer a first round pick outside of WR-heavy leagues.

It would also reduce the gap from TE1 to TE10, making it easier to stomach sloughing the TE position in order to get talent at other positions.

This again? Pointless discussion.

If the league says he will get paid like a WR that does not mean the Saints will list him as one on their roster.

MFL lists players how they are on NFL rosters.

No it doesn't.

MFL lists based on what Rotoworld has.

Ok, then Rotoworld list players who they are on NFL team rosters. Same point.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

ESPN Saints reporter Mike Triplett expects franchise player Jimmy Graham to receive an extension worth between $10.5 million and $11 million annually.
Graham is sitting out OTAs and has a grievance hearing scheduled on June 17-18. He could earn an additional $5 million if he's declared a wide receiver, so there's incentive for the Saints to extend him in the next two weeks. Graham lined up in the slot or split wide on 67 percent of his 2013 snaps. The deadline for signing franchise-tagged players to long-term deals is July 15.

Source: ESPN.com

 

[ghostguy123]

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

The Bill gave two 1sts and a 4th

The Bills got pick 4.

The Bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for pick 4. Pick 4 = Watkins.

When you say they "traded a 1st and 4th for the right to move up 5 spots", you are right.

When other people say "the bills traded pick 9, a 2015 1st, and a 2014 4th for Watkins", they are also right.

It's like people arguing if some 500 pound guy is "big" or "large". You're both right.

Totally agree. My point is that people would not say that Buffalo gave a first round pick for Watkins if the entirety of the trade was swapping first round picks with Cleveland. They would say they swapped picks and got the good end of that deal. But when we add in other picks it suddenly becomes that they gave 2 firsts and a second.I get that we are all right. It just sounds weird to me.

Since every requires a pick to be used I don't like people phrasing it as "they gave up two 1st's for him".

It's technically true but is a confusing way to put it.

If the Browns had drafted watkins at 4, and then when it got to pick 9 they made the deal, would you say they have up two 1sts and a 4th for watkins?? Yes.

They traded for pick 4. Pick 4 is watkins.

I don't care how people phrase it since there are a few correct ways to say it, but don't say it is incorrect to say they bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for watkins, because they did.

 

[kutta]

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

The Bill gave two 1sts and a 4th

The Bills got pick 4.

The Bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for pick 4. Pick 4 = Watkins.

When you say they "traded a 1st and 4th for the right to move up 5 spots", you are right.

When other people say "the bills traded pick 9, a 2015 1st, and a 2014 4th for Watkins", they are also right.

It's like people arguing if some 500 pound guy is "big" or "large". You're both right.

Totally agree. My point is that people would not say that Buffalo gave a first round pick for Watkins if the entirety of the trade was swapping first round picks with Cleveland. They would say they swapped picks and got the good end of that deal. But when we add in other picks it suddenly becomes that they gave 2 firsts and a second.I get that we are all right. It just sounds weird to me.

Since every requires a pick to be used I don't like people phrasing it as "they gave up two 1st's for him".

It's technically true but is a confusing way to put it.

If the Browns had drafted watkins at 4, and then when it got to pick 9 they made the deal, would you say they have up two 1sts and a 4th for watkins?? Yes.They traded for pick 4. Pick 4 is watkins.

I don't care how people phrase it since there are a few correct ways to say it, but don't say it is incorrect to say they bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for watkins, because they did.

So again, if the entirety of the trade was the bills and browns swapping first round picks, would you say the bills traded a first round pick for Watson?

 

[False Start]

5 years for 53 million with 28 guaranteed is what my guess will be.

The will work the deal to have a minimal cap hit this year.

 

[False Start]

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

The Bill gave two 1sts and a 4th

The Bills got pick 4.

The Bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for pick 4. Pick 4 = Watkins.

When you say they "traded a 1st and 4th for the right to move up 5 spots", you are right.

When other people say "the bills traded pick 9, a 2015 1st, and a 2014 4th for Watkins", they are also right.

It's like people arguing if some 500 pound guy is "big" or "large". You're both right.

Totally agree. My point is that people would not say that Buffalo gave a first round pick for Watkins if the entirety of the trade was swapping first round picks with Cleveland. They would say they swapped picks and got the good end of that deal. But when we add in other picks it suddenly becomes that they gave 2 firsts and a second.I get that we are all right. It just sounds weird to me.

Since every requires a pick to be used I don't like people phrasing it as "they gave up two 1st's for him".

It's technically true but is a confusing way to put it.

If the Browns had drafted watkins at 4, and then when it got to pick 9 they made the deal, would you say they have up two 1sts and a 4th for watkins?? Yes.They traded for pick 4. Pick 4 is watkins.

I don't care how people phrase it since there are a few correct ways to say it, but don't say it is incorrect to say they bills traded two 1sts and a 4th for watkins, because they did.

So again, if the entirety of the trade was the bills and browns swapping first round picks, would you say the bills traded a first round pick for Watson?

Why are you trying to make something so easy to understand so complicated?

Yes they gave up two firsts, because they could have kept that first, but instead they traded it. Doesn't matter what pick they get in return, they traded two firsts for that pick.

They gave up two firsts for Watson, who just so happened to be the player they selected with the pick they gave up two firsts up for. Yes we know most teams want a first for an early first but it is still a first you are trading away.

They would have traded those two firsts for Graham, instead they traded two firsts for pick four where they selected Watkins. It would almost be like they could of gave up that much and selected Graham if he was in the draft. I really don't understand what is so hard to understand.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

It wasn't two first round picks. It was one first and one fourth. How can they even say that?

Made this same point to a few people in the past about trades like that. It's disingenuous to say the Bills gave 2 1st and 4th for Watkins. For the right to move up 5 spots the Bills gave a 2015 1st and 4th.

Every time one of these trades takes place where a team pays a premium to move-up in order to select a player, for some reason the price paid is always questioned when it should not.

The price is cut-and-dried.

The Bills did not trade the Browns 2 first-round picks to get WR Sammy Watkins, they only gave the Browns their 2015 1st and 4th round picks but they did wound up paying this price to draft Watkins:

- 2014 first round pick

- 2015 first round pick

- 2015 fourth round pick

Their is no way around the fact that is the price the Bills paid to draft WR Sammy Watkins.

 

[ghostguy123]

If A=B and B=C.......then A=C.

Watkins = pick 4

Bills traded pick 9 and a future 1st and fourth.......for pick 4.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

Every time one of these trades takes place where a team pays a premium to move-up in order to select a player, for some reason the price paid is always questioned when it should not.

The price is cut-and-dried.

The Bills did not trade the Browns 2 first-round picks to get WR Sammy Watkins they only gave the Browns their 2015 1st and 4th round picks but they did wound up paying this price to draft Watkins:

- 2014 first round pick

- 2015 first round pick

- 2015 fourth round pick

Their is no way around the fact that is the price the Bills paid to draft WR Sammy Watkins.

Not up to speed on this thread, and not sure what you're getting at here, but this post is confusing and the bolded is just flat out wrong. The Bills traded the Browns two 1st round picks for Wakins (one this year and one next year). I mean, the trade was literally for the Bills 2014 1st Round Pick, 2015 1st Round Pick & 2015 4th Round Pick. Not sure how you can say the Bills didn't trade two 1st's and then turn around and say it was just "the price they paid". Makes zero sense.

 

[ghostguy123]

Or.....the bills traded a future 1st and 4th to swap 2014 1sts.

Or, they traded two 1sts and a 4th for pick 4.

Both are true.

Silly.