- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Tripplet serious?!
Posted on 6/20/18 at 9:41 am to Bert Macklin FBI
Posted on 6/20/18 at 9:41 am to Bert Macklin FBI
Moving up 13 picks = 2019 first + 147
Pretty easy concept to understand
Pretty easy concept to understand
1
Posted on 6/20/18 at 9:48 am to scutfarcus
We didn’t trade pick 27? Who did we draft with that pick then?
This post was edited on 6/20/18 at 9:49 am
Posted on 6/20/18 at 9:53 am to sicboy
quote:
And got 1 back.
Math is hard.
Everyone knows what happened. You are arguing the semantics of it. Who the hell cares about that? It doesn't change the reality.
If you get Triplett to agree that we traded an extra first round pick in order to swap picks (and move up) to #14) do you think he would no longer be able to make his point?
Posted on 6/20/18 at 10:04 am to sicboy
quote:
I don't get why this is so hard to understand
Me neither. Regardless, I liked our off-season moves. I usually like Tripplet but I gotta disagree with his assessment
Posted on 6/20/18 at 10:17 am to sicboy
quote:
This "we gave away 2 1st round picks for him" narrative is just fodder for people who want to bash the move and make it sound worse than it actually is.
I know syntax is hard for some people, but we had to acquire and then use 2 first round picks to choose him. So all the people who are also "uhh we only traded"...yeah, we did use 2 first picks for him.
I'm not really mad at it regardless because it's the first time since Cam we've finally used some serious capital to finally get some pass rush help. It was still a steep price to pay though.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 10:38 am to Browncoatrebel
I dont like saying that we lost 2 first round pick. We lost 1.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 10:45 am to Bert Macklin FBI
I hear no one saying, "GB gave up a first round pick."
I agree it's a bit silly to argue semantics, but the media is using the language to make it sound worse than it is.
Instead of saying we gave up two firsts to move up and draft Davenport, they are trying to frame it more dramatically by saying we gave up two firsts for Davenport.
They almost never mention the (higher) first we got back in return (which was also a fair value trade minus the extra 5th thrown in).
It's just a way for the media to spin it into some incredibly risky move.
So yeah we're kind of arguing semantics, but people are tired of seeing the spin job of pretty much never mentioning the higher first we got back.
I agree it's a bit silly to argue semantics, but the media is using the language to make it sound worse than it is.
Instead of saying we gave up two firsts to move up and draft Davenport, they are trying to frame it more dramatically by saying we gave up two firsts for Davenport.
They almost never mention the (higher) first we got back in return (which was also a fair value trade minus the extra 5th thrown in).
It's just a way for the media to spin it into some incredibly risky move.
So yeah we're kind of arguing semantics, but people are tired of seeing the spin job of pretty much never mentioning the higher first we got back.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 11:16 am to bonethug0108
It is all syntax of language. You guys may not remember but ATL "gave up" 2 1st round picks to get Julio a few years back too.
Everyone here at the time was saying: "HAHAHA ATL gave up 2 firsts for a WR".
I think it would be better syntax to simply say: "Team X used up 2 first round picks to acquire Player A". You did, by definition, use this years 1st and next years 1st to acquire Davenport. As did ATL for Julio, etc.
ETA: But if it works out for you guys and Davenport is good over the next 3-4 years, will anyone care what you gave up? I don't hear anyone saying ATL gave up too much for Julio anymore. Time will tell but I think Davenport should be good.
Everyone here at the time was saying: "HAHAHA ATL gave up 2 firsts for a WR".
I think it would be better syntax to simply say: "Team X used up 2 first round picks to acquire Player A". You did, by definition, use this years 1st and next years 1st to acquire Davenport. As did ATL for Julio, etc.
ETA: But if it works out for you guys and Davenport is good over the next 3-4 years, will anyone care what you gave up? I don't hear anyone saying ATL gave up too much for Julio anymore. Time will tell but I think Davenport should be good.
This post was edited on 6/20/18 at 11:28 am
Posted on 6/20/18 at 11:57 am to 3HourTour
quote:
Based on your idiotic responses in this thread, I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually do work for the FBI.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 12:00 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
Green Bay did get two firsts, but they traded 14 for 27 moving back.
Saints traded 27 for 14 and the cost to do that was the 2019 1st. That’s the only first rnd pick The Saints “gave up”.
Saints traded 27 for 14 and the cost to do that was the 2019 1st. That’s the only first rnd pick The Saints “gave up”.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 12:00 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
And don’t act like the Saints didn’t move up to 14 from 27
Posted on 6/20/18 at 12:02 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
Is 14 a first round pick? Is it better than 27? Good god man
Posted on 6/20/18 at 12:22 pm to TigerBlazer
If the guy becomes a sack machine, nobody is going to remember anything about using 2 picks.
With that said, we did use 2 picks to acquire him.
Journalist want to use the wording “gave up 2 first round picks”, which is misleading. But it did take 2 first round picks to acquire him.
I’m all for it. I’m glad they went and got their guy. They felt like they are that one guy, a couple plays away from playing for a Super Bowl.
They have a history of going after the guy they want in the high rounds, and they have proven that their evaluation has served them well (mostly)
Mark Ingram
Brandin Cooks
Alvin Kamara
Von Bell
All trades up for
With that said, we did use 2 picks to acquire him.
Journalist want to use the wording “gave up 2 first round picks”, which is misleading. But it did take 2 first round picks to acquire him.
I’m all for it. I’m glad they went and got their guy. They felt like they are that one guy, a couple plays away from playing for a Super Bowl.
They have a history of going after the guy they want in the high rounds, and they have proven that their evaluation has served them well (mostly)
Mark Ingram
Brandin Cooks
Alvin Kamara
Von Bell
All trades up for
This post was edited on 6/20/18 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 6/20/18 at 12:38 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
I hear no one saying, "GB gave up a first round pick."
I agree it's a bit silly to argue semantics, but the media is using the language to make it sound worse than it is.
Instead of saying we gave up two firsts to move up and draft Davenport, they are trying to frame it more dramatically by saying we gave up two firsts for Davenport.
They almost never mention the (higher) first we got back in return (which was also a fair value trade minus the extra 5th thrown in).
It's just a way for the media to spin it into some incredibly risky move.
I always say, swapped 1st and traded next years first.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 12:39 pm to sicboy
quote:Nobody trades two first round picks for nothing. It's a given that a team gets something in return.
And got 1 back.
Math is hard.
We gave up:
*Our 2018 first round pick
*Our 2019 first round pick
*A 2018 fifth round pick (the higher of two 5th round picks)
In return we got:
*Green Bay's 2018 first round pick
So the net result is that we traded two 1st round picks and a 5th round pick for Marcus Davenport.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 12:55 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
We did trade 2 first round picks....
We gave up one and swapped (or traded) one.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 12:56 pm to L.A.
quote:
So the net result is that we traded two 1st round picks and a 5th round pick for Marcus Davenport.
Not sure you understand how "net" works.
Our 2018 first round pick(-)
Our 2019 first round pick (-)
A 2018 fifth round pick (the higher of two 5th round picks) (-)
In return we got:
Green Bay's 2018 first round pick (+)
=
- 2018 5th Round Pick
- 2019 1st Round Pick
This post was edited on 6/20/18 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 6/20/18 at 1:01 pm to t00f
Who the frick taught you guys math, Big Brother?
Posted on 6/20/18 at 1:12 pm to sicboy
I should have said "end" result, or bottom line.
Posted on 6/20/18 at 1:13 pm to L.A.
quote:
So the net result is that we traded two 1st round picks and a 5th round pick for Marcus Davenport.
The "net" result is that the Saints gave up, lost, paid, however you want to describe it, a 2018 5th round pick and a 2019 1st round pick. The Saints had only one 2018 first round pick before the trade. They still had one 2018 first round pick after the trade. The ONLY difference is that as a result of the agreement with GB the Saints made that pick at #14 INSTEAD of #27. Conversely, GB agreed to pick at 27 instead of 14. Neither team got anything "extra" or more than they already had, in the 2018 first round. They still each made one pick. The only difference is the spots in the round where they made those picks.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News