Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I strongly dislike the idea that Fields has shown enough that you can't possibly question him or consider replacing him with the absolutely golden opportunity that the No. 1 overall pick provides you.

 

But I'm fine with examining it and deciding that none of the QBs available have shown enough to make you want to move on from Fields.

 

God I hope we fix the rest of the offense, though. If this turns into "well, BPA was a defensive player in the first round, and we really went big on defensive front-7 in free agency, and we really like Mooney and Claypool and Kmet, and Jones/Jenkins have to be given room to grow" I'm gonna be annoying about it. I wasn't going to be annoying in any other scenario but that one, I swear.

 

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get.

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

PFF is awful and people should stop quoting it, stop linking it, and stop looking at it.

 

There's this whole industry that popped up in the post-sabermetric era where you make a name for yourself as a pundit putting out crappy data science, but you've got decimal points in your hot takes so people don't want to question it because it makes them feel anti-stats to do so. PFF is one of the worst offenders.

 

Yeah, the only way the Bears somehow had the 14th ranked OL is off some other teams' QBs died on the field.

 

i tend to think that although the Bears have some young, promising talent on the O-line (Jenkins and Jones, specifically), the massive hole that resides at the very middle position is what drags them down

 

Periodic reminder that Braxton Jones is absolutely awful at LT.

[bddavidson]

I strongly dislike the idea that Fields has shown enough that you can't possibly question him or consider replacing him with the absolutely golden opportunity that the No. 1 overall pick provides you.

 

But I'm fine with examining it and deciding that none of the QBs available have shown enough to make you want to move on from Fields.

 

God I hope we fix the rest of the offense, though. If this turns into "well, BPA was a defensive player in the first round, and we really went big on defensive front-7 in free agency, and we really like Mooney and Claypool and Kmet, and Jones/Jenkins have to be given room to grow" I'm gonna be annoying about it. I wasn't going to be annoying in any other scenario but that one, I swear.

 

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get.

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

Two additional cheap rookie contract years would be of more value to many teams in need of drafting a QB

[jersey cubs fan]

Fields’ value is more volatile than the draft pick because once you shop him you can’t really call a bluff and hold onto him. You need a QB needy team with a win now roster that loves Fields enough to make it worth the risk of alienating the guy you already spent 12 months screwing over with no support.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get.

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

Two additional cheap rookie contract years would be of more value to many teams in need of drafting a QB

The actual cost isn't that big of a deal since Fields would be very cheap for an acquiring team.

 

Theres probably still generally a control factor, but actual cost wise it's more like a one year difference where Fields over 3 years is the same cost as a new rookie over 4 (with a top 1 pick)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get.

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

Two additional cheap rookie contract years would be of more value to many teams in need of drafting a QB

 

So why aren't they more valuable to us?

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

Two additional cheap rookie contract years would be of more value to many teams in need of drafting a QB

 

So why aren't they more valuable to us?

because those two years are in the proverbial bush

[WrigleyField 22]

I strongly dislike the idea that Fields has shown enough that you can't possibly question him or consider replacing him with the absolutely golden opportunity that the No. 1 overall pick provides you.

 

But I'm fine with examining it and deciding that none of the QBs available have shown enough to make you want to move on from Fields.

 

God I hope we fix the rest of the offense, though. If this turns into "well, BPA was a defensive player in the first round, and we really went big on defensive front-7 in free agency, and we really like Mooney and Claypool and Kmet, and Jones/Jenkins have to be given room to grow" I'm gonna be annoying about it. I wasn't going to be annoying in any other scenario but that one, I swear.

 

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get.

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

Well at this point we don't know what any NFL team is actually willing to give up for Bryce. Lots of media conjecture, but it's very possible Poles sits still because he gets tepid offers.

 

And we'll defintely never know what Fields could actually get if he was placed in the open market, either.

[David]

I strongly dislike the idea that Fields has shown enough that you can't possibly question him or consider replacing him with the absolutely golden opportunity that the No. 1 overall pick provides you.

 

But I'm fine with examining it and deciding that none of the QBs available have shown enough to make you want to move on from Fields.

 

God I hope we fix the rest of the offense, though. If this turns into "well, BPA was a defensive player in the first round, and we really went big on defensive front-7 in free agency, and we really like Mooney and Claypool and Kmet, and Jones/Jenkins have to be given room to grow" I'm gonna be annoying about it. I wasn't going to be annoying in any other scenario but that one, I swear.

 

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get.

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get.

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

 

I reminds me of my mother-in-law's shopping strategy in the super market. She was born and raised outside of Manila and moved here in her 30's, so much of American life was learn-on-the-fly. Essentially, she would walk around and watch what other people bought and buy those items, judging if they were popular they must be good. I dont think its a great way to grocery shop OR evaluate your NFL QB, she could quickly over-buy inferior products and in Poles case, walk away from a better QB prospect for the sake of misguided perceptions

[17 Seconds]

all i know is that trading fields makes this team way less fun

[raw]

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

 

I reminds me of my mother-in-law's shopping strategy in the super market. She was born and raised outside of Manila and moved here in her 30's, so much of American life was learn-on-the-fly. Essentially, she would walk around and watch what other people bought and buy those items, judging if they were popular they must be good. I dont think its a great way to grocery shop OR evaluate your NFL QB, she could quickly over-buy inferior products and in Poles case, walk away from a better QB prospect for the sake of misguided perceptions

 

 

LOL. I thought this was going to be a horrible story and analogy based on the 1st sentence, but it's actually not bad.

[WrigleyField 22]

Believe the hypothetical thrown out by that Tannenbaum guy was a 1st and 3rd.. .

 

Now there's a wide range of value as to what that actually means if you scan actual QB needy teams. But if I just average all the QB needy teams and add up a hypothetical value 1+3 from those teams, it would actually imply a value of the #6 pick.

 

Now a team trading up to #1 may give an additional excess. I've seen some conflicting values (probably based on how the future FRP are computed), but it's possible that excess value given may only be an extra high second to mid third.

 

So all-in Bryce value is say #1 plus a premium of #60. All in Fields value is #6.

 

Now the point value between those two points is rather difficult to conceptualize to actual $, but in $ terms over 4 years we can probably peg Justin Fields excess cost over Bryce (@#1) to be something in the range of $40M total over 4 years. If we went to 5 years, probably a cost difference of $55-$60M, after which point they'd both be fully vet QBs.

 

So in dollar value terms would you pay $40-60M to account from #6 value to #1+#60 value?

 

Well in chart terms it's actually saying the spread there is #5. And the spread if it was #4 instead is #7. Or #3 + #14. Or #2 + #26. And honestly all of these sound like they'd be absurd values for a hypothetical team with top 6 value trying to get Bryce or most #1 QBs in a given year. The likely case is they wouldn't. If they had to pay no premium the pick combos now become 6/8, 5/10, 4/12, 3/21, 2/50. Which all still seem to make zero sense on any sort of rational basis, especially relative to each other.

 

Though the possibility that some team might buck up for Bryce ignores maybe a team really into Fields would also give a lot more than the #6 value too.

 

So anyways all this trade value talk often ends up being a psuedo intellectual circle jerk that's way more prone to impulsive nature of non-rigorously analytical old men. The draft market is exceedingly irrational (the JJ chart still being the market chart nonetheless).

 

So a really good hypothetical question would be to poll Colts fans and see if they prefer

 

#4 for Fields+#92 (~equivalent to Tannabaums implied value)

or

#4+#35+24 1st +24 2nd for Bryce (rough estimate of the draft premium)

 

It's very likely the market is just dumb.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get.

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

 

Why can't you say the same thing about the no. 1 pick? The second you put it on the market, you're devaluing the top prospect. It's a stain all on its own.

 

We've seen some very, very stained QBs get full value on the trade market in recent years. If NFL teams believe Fields can play QB at a high level, he'll demand full value. If they don't, then why are we so sure they're wrong?

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

 

Why can't you say the same thing about the no. 1 pick? The second you put it on the market, you're devaluing the top prospect. It's a stain all on its own.

 

We've seen some very, very stained QBs get full value on the trade market in recent years. If NFL teams believe Fields can play QB at a high level, he'll demand full value. If they don't, then why are we so sure they're wrong?

'

 

because the #1 pick holds the value of ANY prospect in the draft, so its impossible to devalue any single one by trading it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

 

Why can't you say the same thing about the no. 1 pick? The second you put it on the market, you're devaluing the top prospect. It's a stain all on its own.

 

We've seen some very, very stained QBs get full value on the trade market in recent years. If NFL teams believe Fields can play QB at a high level, he'll demand full value. If they don't, then why are we so sure they're wrong?

'

 

because the #1 pick holds the value of ANY prospect in the draft, so its impossible to devalue any single one by trading it.

 

Then by trading, we're not just staining the consensus No. 1, we're staining every single player in the draft class.

[minnesotacubsfan]

i had no idea the Bears had that much power lol

[WrigleyField 22]

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

A good point.

 

But even if you could put Fields in a totally live "market" without consideration to the Jimmy Johnson trade chart, I'm not convinced teams wouldn't give up more for Fields, even if the contract costs for each was the same as it is in the real world.

 

I guess the closest we could get to create this hypothetical market is this:

 

Poles keeps the pick and shocks the world and picks Bryce #1 and then goes out on the draft stage WWE style and says "markets open for both, make your best offer for both, you have 10 minutes" then mic drop and then watch the offers role in, and take whichever is richer. Now that would be super entertaining.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I'd lose my mind if Poles did that.....like I dont have enough stress related digestive issues

[UMFan83]

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

 

Why can't you say the same thing about the no. 1 pick? The second you put it on the market, you're devaluing the top prospect. It's a stain all on its own.

 

I don't see that as the same. When someone trades a top 3 pick its usually because there is a high profile QB available and the team holding that pick is set at QB. The Bears trading the number 1 pick with Fields on the roster doesn't mean that teams think Bryce Young must suck. It just means that the Bears are satisfied with their young QB and value getting multiple future high picks instead.

[Tryptamine]

I'm not sure I can take 4 months of this trade Fields banter.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick.

 

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own.

 

Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case.

 

Why can't you say the same thing about the no. 1 pick? The second you put it on the market, you're devaluing the top prospect. It's a stain all on its own.

 

We've seen some very, very stained QBs get full value on the trade market in recent years. If NFL teams believe Fields can play QB at a high level, he'll demand full value. If they don't, then why are we so sure they're wrong?

Because fields is a person on the bears roster and the #1 pick is just a fixed asset that can be anything.

 

Another way of thinking of it is the #1 pick is almost always on the market. It is to be expected. But you don’t have any pressure to trade it because a theoretical pick isn’t going to feel slighted by being shopped around. The players are shopping themselves alread.

 

NFL starting quarterbacks under contract are rarely on the market. If you put them on there they are as good as gone.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

I reminds me of my mother-in-law's shopping strategy in the super market. She was born and raised outside of Manila and moved here in her 30's, so much of American life was learn-on-the-fly. Essentially, she would walk around and watch what other people bought and buy those items, judging if they were popular they must be good. I dont think its a great way to grocery shop OR evaluate your NFL QB, she could quickly over-buy inferior products and in Poles case, walk away from a better QB prospect for the sake of misguided perceptions

I have my doubts about Poles and his judgement, but come on, this is nothing like an immigrant blindly shopping for popular products. If anything Poles has shown the complete opposite by not going after the popular items on everybody else’s list.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

I reminds me of my mother-in-law's shopping strategy in the super market. She was born and raised outside of Manila and moved here in her 30's, so much of American life was learn-on-the-fly. Essentially, she would walk around and watch what other people bought and buy those items, judging if they were popular they must be good. I dont think its a great way to grocery shop OR evaluate your NFL QB, she could quickly over-buy inferior products and in Poles case, walk away from a better QB prospect for the sake of misguided perceptions

I have my doubts about Poles and his judgement, but come on, this is nothing like an immigrant blindly shopping for popular products. If anything Poles has shown the complete opposite by not going after the popular items on everybody else’s list.

Isn't he saying that's the pro Bryce logic?

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

I reminds me of my mother-in-law's shopping strategy in the super market. She was born and raised outside of Manila and moved here in her 30's, so much of American life was learn-on-the-fly. Essentially, she would walk around and watch what other people bought and buy those items, judging if they were popular they must be good. I dont think its a great way to grocery shop OR evaluate your NFL QB, she could quickly over-buy inferior products and in Poles case, walk away from a better QB prospect for the sake of misguided perceptions

I have my doubts about Poles and his judgement, but come on, this is nothing like an immigrant blindly shopping for popular products. If anything Poles has shown the complete opposite by not going after the popular items on everybody else’s list.

 

I'm not saying Poles is or will act this way, I'm saying what hairyduck is suggesting is analogous to the way she shopped