- Joined:
- Aug 29, 2012
- Posts:
- 23,354
- Liked Posts:
- 26,738
- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 36,931
- Liked Posts:
- 35,638
i noticed @Mighty Joe Young ignored this complete destruction of him.
LIBlue
Active member
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 368
- Liked Posts:
- 389
Realistically, it would likely cost 39, 71 and next years first at a minimum, but more likely would be 39, 48 and next years first.
Montucky
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 21, 2020
- Posts:
- 9,519
- Liked Posts:
- 4,014
Which is an absolutely ludicrous price to pay when the Bears have as many issues as the Bears have. All to fulfill this fantasy of Justin Fields, who could very easily suck, getting to play catch with one of his college teammates in a Bears uniform.
I know people look at Joe Burrow reuniting with Ja'Marr Chase and envision the same with the Bears, but Fields is no Burrow. Not even in the same universe right now.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,514
- Liked Posts:
- 24,036
- Location:
- USA
Mayfield is not going to play for that team
rawdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2013
- Posts:
- 8,013
- Liked Posts:
- 6,460
I know we're all desperate for the Bears to do something big, since everyone else is. But nothing about Poles' tenure so far should make you believe that he's going to pull off a big move to get the Bears a top 10 pick this year or a player on a big contract now or that needs to signed to a big contract shortly.
Ryan Pace wasn't even aggressive his first year or 2 on the job, and he's more aggressive than most.
So no, the Bears aren't going to trade a 2023 1st for a 2022 1st. They aren't going to trade Roquan for DK Metcalf or whatever, they aren't going to trade for Stefon Diggs.
Ryan Pace wasn't even aggressive his first year or 2 on the job, and he's more aggressive than most.
So no, the Bears aren't going to trade a 2023 1st for a 2022 1st. They aren't going to trade Roquan for DK Metcalf or whatever, they aren't going to trade for Stefon Diggs.
dennehy
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 29, 2015
- Posts:
- 11,162
- Liked Posts:
- 12,008
- Location:
- Jewels to get a case of Squirt
I've never even been mean to the guy, he just ignores every critique I give of his posts.
I did once tell him that it was hard to take a guy who believed in Pizzagate seriously, but I feel like that it a pretty widely-held sentiment.
- Joined:
- Aug 29, 2012
- Posts:
- 23,354
- Liked Posts:
- 26,738
My favorite teams
- Joined:
- Aug 29, 2012
- Posts:
- 23,354
- Liked Posts:
- 26,738
My favorite teams
- Joined:
- Aug 29, 2012
- Posts:
- 23,354
- Liked Posts:
- 26,738
My favorite teams
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts:
- 385
- Liked Posts:
- 256
My favorite teams
Here you go. A little insight into the Browns war room
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,774
- Liked Posts:
- 2,217
- Location:
- Austin
Well, the value is uncertain because we don't have 2023 draft position. It's the risk you base your evaluation of the trade on. You know what you're giving up this year:
#7 overall is worth 1500
#39 is worth 510
The difference in value (990) would be the #16 (1000) pick overall (Jimmy Johnson draft value chart). The question is how can they best make up that value in a swap next year?
Say the Bears and Giants finish with the same draft position next year (neutral scenario), the swap value in 2023 looks like this:
#37 overall (Giants) is worth 530
#7 overall (Bears) is worth 1500
The Bears would be giving up 970 in value and are ahead by 20 (the value of a 2023 5th).
If the Giants are returning a 3rd rounder instead—#69 overall is worth 245—the Giants are ahead by 265.
The 3rd rounder probably makes sense because in a scenario where the Bears squeak into the playoffs, there's a lot more risk for the Giants to finish way behind in value (around 650 points if the Giants stay the same). If the Giants sneak into the playoffs, the Bears would be behind about 250 points if their draft position stays the same. The Giants would want to mitigate that risk
Again, I'm not sayin the Giants would do the deal, but I'm indulging them in a conversation because they're broadcasting a desire to move their pick back a year to position themselves for a QB.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,514
- Liked Posts:
- 24,036
- Location:
- USA
Future trades are valued at one round behind. The Bears giving up a future 1st rounder is equivalent to a second round in value, not a mid first round pick....that's your flaw
Mighty Joe Young
Living in Troll's Heads Rent-Free for Decades
- Joined:
- Feb 8, 2021
- Posts:
- 10,101
- Liked Posts:
- 8,822
My favorite teams
Of course we all know that.
Y'all need to stop taking it so serious - we're just fucking around and having fun.
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 4,723
If the Bears decide to trade up for a WR they really covet, it will only be if that player falls to say the mid 20s, at the earliest. We aren’t giving up the farm to trade up.
And if a crazy number of WRs get drafted in the 1st round…you guys better be ok with defense being drafted this year…
And if a crazy number of WRs get drafted in the 1st round…you guys better be ok with defense being drafted this year…
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,774
- Liked Posts:
- 2,217
- Location:
- Austin
Yeah, but given the interest the Giants are showing publicly, do you make that call as a GM to find out?
The likely scenario is the Giants are going to want a 2 this year and a 1 next year in return, which is a dealbreaker for me. Poles isn't going to want to give up picks but he might be willing to jockey draft position.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,774
- Liked Posts:
- 2,217
- Location:
- Austin
Future picks are valued 1 round behind—technically as the last pick of their original round—because you don't know draft position and are attributing lowest possible value to the pick.
Realistically, the Bears aren't picking at #32 next year. We see GMs gamble on that all the time. That's why I was looking at different scenarios.
Mighty Joe Young
Living in Troll's Heads Rent-Free for Decades
- Joined:
- Feb 8, 2021
- Posts:
- 10,101
- Liked Posts:
- 8,822
My favorite teams
We are rebuilding. And we don't need a quarterback. This is a great draft to get a lot of pics for. Try to get something as high as you can and then trade down and acquire more and more picks.
I mean you don't go as far as to trade out of the first round, but if you're able to find a way to get something really high and then trade down to the middle of the first round and pick up whatever you can on the way.
TexasBearfan
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 3,705
- Liked Posts:
- 2,292
years ago i attended this fantasy baseball symposium with some hardcore draftniks, one of them had a rule he said always go against positional runs, so if there's a run on WR's for instance it's human nature to panic, but why take the 10th best WR when you can get the 2nd rated TE or 5th rated CB or whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if they take a LB, DT or OL with the initial second rounder.....of course if Fields flops this year they've got an entirely new set of issues to deal with
Dejo
Godfather of FTO
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2011
- Posts:
- 16,507
- Liked Posts:
- 20,174
