Laremy Tunsil Trade

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Yes, the thread title is about a LT, but that’s not what you and I are debating.

I did not mention any position, my point is that, yes, especially during a period of rebuilding if you can incrementally improve roster/contract value in a trade than you do it, period. Fixing all the holes is not an option in one offseason.

I honestly have no idea what we’re debating. This might be the worst conversation I’ve had in years on CCS.

 

[jooo83]

Why would the rebuilding Texans trade an elite 27 year old LT for defensive players in their 30s?

 

[Discus fish salesman]

I honestly have no idea what we’re debating. This might be the worst conversation I’ve had in years on CCS.

No offense baba, but all your conversations are pretty awful

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

No offense baba, but all your conversations are pretty awful

Ouch.

 

[TheWinman]

Texans are going to want draft capital, not older but yet still expensive players.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

This team doesn’t need to be trading assets. They need to be ACQUIRING assets…. Without giving talent up. No trading picks for players. No trading players for players. The End.

... and no trading players for picks.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

No offense, Sheep, but questions:

1. It's magical thinking that we are going to acquire assets without giving up assets. Which of the other 31 teams is asking "hey, why can't we give up players and/or draft picks to the Bears without getting anything in return?" It's an absurd notion.

2. I can never comprehend when anyone says to trade Player A or never trade Player A. That's fan-boy thinking. All players have value relative to their contracts and profile, some have positive value, others negative value, and some are market-rate (i.e., neutral). All players, that is every player should always be on tradable if there is a positive return on the transaction.

Picks do not have much value. Picks are expensive lottery picks. If you get lucky, you win the lottery and get a star. Most of those picks are MEH starters at best.

A bird in the hand (Mack or Quinn( is money in the bank.

Getting rid of them in a trade is going to cost huge service fees (cap hit) and then it is going to take some of those lottery picks to probably end up with a shit starter that is going to be a huge loss in talent.

Thus, you end up with new glaring holes and terrible patches on the old holes that still need to be addressed.

BaBa never talked about some fairytale world where teams would just give the Bears picks for shits and giggles. What I believe he meant to say is that the Bears should keep their talent and get additional draft picks by trading down, costing no talent currently on the roster and trading their few draft picks for more but lower draft picks.

See? Not some fairytale after all.

 

[Bearly]

No offense, Sheep, but questions:

1. It's magical thinking that we are going to acquire assets without giving up assets. Which of the other 31 teams is asking "hey, why can't we give up players and/or draft picks to the Bears without getting anything in return?" It's an absurd notion.

2. I can never comprehend when anyone says to trade Player A or never trade Player A. That's fan-boy thinking. All players have value relative to their contracts and profile, some have positive value, others negative value, and some are market-rate (i.e., neutral). All players, that is every player should always be on tradable if there is a positive return on the transaction.

This is effectively like trying to sign the 1st wave of FAs in terms of collateral so I don't want it nor think that Poles will even table it since he's already said he's bargain shopping this year.

That said, I absolutely agree that no player is untouchable. It always depends on what's received in return. I just don't see that happening this year with the contracts and players involved.

 

[EDPeezy]

It’s about trading guys for picks so you can get players on cheap rookie deals. And then getting production out of those guys on rookie deals. Trading one expensive asset for another expensive asset isn’t really getting you anywhere.

 

[RacerX]

Picks do not have much value. Picks are expensive lottery picks. If you get lucky, you win the lottery and get a star. Most of those picks are MEH starters at best.

A bird in the hand (Mack or Quinn( is money in the bank.

Getting rid of them in a trade is going to cost huge service fees (cap hit) and then it is going to take some of those lottery picks to probably end up with a shit starter that is going to be a huge loss in talent.

Thus, you end up with new glaring holes and terrible patches on the old holes that still need to be addressed.

BaBa never talked about some fairytale world where teams would just give the Bears picks for shits and giggles. What I believe he meant to say is that the Bears should keep their talent and get additional draft picks by trading down, costing no talent currently on the roster and trading their few draft picks for more but lower draft picks.

See? Not some fairytale after all.

I challenge your premise. The market at large and NFL GMs specifically disagree with you, known commodities (rostered players) obviously get traded for picks all the time. Ipso facto draft picks have value.

Secondarily, I don't believe Mack or Quinn or any players can be characterized as "money in the bank" just because they are proven talents. I will use a hockey analogy to simplify: Kane and Toews under your definition are clearly "money in the bank". But, take into consideration their age and cap hit and the team's window to compete, and they are not a "bird in the hand", they are diminishing value assets and will not be part of any future Cup runs in light of the team's overall profile, so they should be traded in order to generate any sort of return before their value diminishes even further.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

I challenge your premise. The market at large and NFL GMs specifically disagree with you, known commodities (rostered players) obviously get traded for picks all the time. Ipso facto draft picks have value.

First round picks have, at best a 50-50 chance of being successful. Second round picks have less than 50 percent of being successful and on and on.

ABSOLUTE FACTS!

There is no argument with this. DO NOT EVEN TRY!

These are lottery picks.

Opening a hole or two to get a few of these scratcher tickets is about 95% certain to make the team worse.

Secondarily, I don't believe Mack or Quinn or any players can be characterized as "money in the bank" just because they are proven talents. I will use a hockey analogy to simplify: Kane and Toews under your definition are clearly "money in the bank". But, take into consideration their age and cap hit and the team's window to compete, and they are not a "bird in the hand", they are diminishing value assets and will not be part of any future Cup runs in light of the team's overall profile, so they should be traded in order to generate any sort of return before their value diminishes even further.

If the Bears are all about tanking for a top 5 2023 draft pick, go ahead, trade everyone that has any value. At least there is a coin flips chance of getting a good player when the Bears 1st round pick is very high.

Trading players for 2nd and 4th round picks in 2022 will give the Bears extra lottery picks but they would be much higher chances of being busts and would be coming from a weaker talent pool also.

Like I said before, the Raiders traded Mack and got a ton of draft picks. How many 1st round picks did the Raiders throw away with the result of still not being able to replace Mack?

Why? Because the lottery picks did not win.


Honestly, I am neither here nor there on the Bears keeping Quinn or Mack, but people need to realize that draft picks are more like major league baseball hitting percentages than they are NBA free throw shooting percentages.

I constantly see people here talking about the Bears draft picks filling key openings when the reality is that more than half of those picks are going to be failures and will end up as special teams players at best.

If there are holes at LT, C, WR1, WR3, WR4, WR5, CB2, slot CB, 3 Tech, Will and Safety (at least), wouldn't it be better to try to fill those 11 holes than to create 13 holes and try to fill them with half of the lottery tickets (half will be thrown away)?

Consider:

The Bears currently have 5 draft picks. Let's say they trade down once to get to 6 draft picks. Chances are that 3 or more of those draft picks will not pan out.

Thus, those 3 players will fill 3 of the 11 openings at best. So there will be 8 holes. At least they should have a nice pass rush and some cap room to address some of their major holes.

If the Bears trade Mack and Quinn for 2 draft picks each, the will have 9 and with one trade down, they will have 10 picks.

At least 5 of those picks will be trash. Thus, they will fill 5 of their 13 opens at best and will have 8 holes to fill. They will also have zero pass rush. Their cap situation will be horrible in 2022 because of trading Mack and Quinn and will be looking to fill those 8 holes with 4th and 5th tier players because they can't afford better.

How did this help the Bears in 2022?

Fields is going to have a different version of shitty linemen to block for him and a different version of shitty WRs to catch his passes because the Bears have lost out on so much cap space.

Wouldn't it be better to keep Mack and Quinn for one more year, get a LT, C, maybe bring back Daniels if he is not too expensive, a 3 tech and a couple of receivers and a CB in free agency and the draft?

Mack and Quinn would help all of these new defensive players look better as they get acclimated with the NFL. If their is no pass rush, they are all going to look like crap from a combination of learning the NFL speed and just having to cover forever because of a lack of pass rush.

I can see people complaining about not having a veteran presence on the field. What do they expect if their two best defensive line vets were traded away?


Will the Bears chant be, "Drop the guns for Will Anderson" (Right now the top non-QB in the 2023 draft)?

It could happen, but it will be a long, hard year for the Bears and their fans.

 

[RacerX]

First round picks have, at best a 50-50 chance of being successful. Second round picks have less than 50 percent of being successful and on and on.

ABSOLUTE FACTS!

There is no argument with this. DO NOT EVEN TRY!

These are lottery picks.

Opening a hole or two to get a few of these scratcher tickets is about 95% certain to make the team worse.

Yeah, it's pretty well established that NFL draft picks are hit/miss. But that has nothing to do with my point, which is that picks have obvious significant market value and NFL GMs are always willing to trade known commodities to move up or into a higher draft slot.

As for Mack & Quinn, again, we are not winning with them (our window to compete won't open until they have negative contract value) so try to optimize their ROI.

More importantly, our roster is pretty garbage overall and we lack draft assets and cap room, team is gonna be very mediocre for at least a year or two no matter what the GM does.