WrigleyField 22

Missd the tic tac toe tweet. I mean, we all assumed Zach wasn't super bright already right? :lol:

This is an overreaction.

Think that's too much to ask. Bears are the ones trading up here. Hard to get an extra pick out of that scenario. If they wanted an extra pick at that point, they'd probably have to trade down from 71, though a 4th would be hard to come by unless it's a trade down probably to the 90s. Yea I'd love to tack on 121 and some trade charts would support that. So theres always some back and forth, but being the team trading up probably hurts leverage in that case. But if your the Bears you're doing it because the guy at 30 is rated much higher and above your comparable players in whatever groups make up your next 9 options. I just have basically no interest in walking out of the weekend without 6 picks. Saw somewhere the Bears already have the least amount of 90 man guys. So they're already primed to be active in UDFA and the post draft FA market. Oh on the note, the comp pick dreams for 2023 officially die for the Bears on Monday. The new rules have clearly made it much easier for teams and players to wait out the market for comp pick planning reasons.

I will keep pounding the table that the only trade up idea that makes sense is to use 39+48 to get into the late first and stay still in the late 2nd. Depending on exact trade value chart, 30+62 for 39+48 is a good framework to start from. Just really want them to not dip back below 6 total pucks, so gotta stay pick nuetral at least. I'd probably be OK with this type of move. Ironically, there may be some ability to pull this exact move off as Ryan Poles' old team, has both of those picks. They also have pick 29 from the Tyreke Hill trade. That also could provide incentive for the Bears to move up, as 1) the Chiefs could potentially take WR5 or WR6 off the board and 2) would get the Bears ahead of the Lions at 32 and 34 who may take a WR at either pick. And in a time where WR money is become a huge issue around the league, the Bears could really see the upside to getting a 5th year option on a WR, which could delay big money issues for an additional year. And if the Bears are hellbent on getting WR and OL help, this may be a good idea as the WR(s) they like most could be gone by 39. And unless a 1st round talented OL falls, the difference between the options at 39-48 (Tyler Smith, maybe Bernhard Raimann) aren't that much better than the guys that could be on the board at 60 (Cole Strange, Dylan Parham, Ed Ingram) and the guys in the latter group were college guards unless Smith or Raimann who would either change to a position they haven't played or move someone else (Borom/Jenkins) to guard. Exactly right. 30+62 certainly wasn't accidental given all those circumstances that make it make tons of sense.

I will keep pounding the table that the only trade up idea that makes sense is to use 39+48 to get into the late first and stay still in the late 2nd. Depending on exact trade value chart, 30+62 for 39+48 is a good framework to start from. Just really want them to not dip back below 6 total pucks, so gotta stay pick nuetral at least.

I don't see a dynasty forming, but this is probably the best path for now. In NBA flexibility is key. As long as they can be an attractive destination, you just gotta just be ready to pounce.

I like this idea. Jusuf Nurkic is a free agent. Sign and trade for Vuc with spare parts moving around? Not sure who else is out there that could replace Vuc’s rebounding and provide an upgrade defensively. Also wouldn’t mind Drummond in a backup role, but I’d be hesitant relying on him as the primary big. He's one of the few that wouldn't be a rebound downgrade. Younger. Doesn't have a 3 pt game. Not really a D upgrade right?

One of the hard things about trading vooch, IMO, is its basically gonna be impossible to find a better individual rebounder who really upgrades the D too. He is nearly a top 10 rebound rate guy and top 8 in total rebounds per game. They're already a very weak rebounding team. How do you take away a top 10 individual rebounder and improve your total team rebounding rate? They played small without Williams most of the year, but he isn't a huge presence there either. If you're pretty locked into a wing core of DeRozon, Lavine, Ball, Caruso, and plan to depart with Vooch, I feel like PWill needs to be on table to upgrade that one PF/C spot as much as possible.

Over the Cap released their trade chart in a interactive tool that includes positional adjustment and I've been geeking out today. Draft day is too far away still.

At least he's getting all the reps this offseason.

Thing is, if they moved on from Pace/Nagy after 2020, Poles or whoever the new GM would have been, probably doesn't trade up for Fields last year. All new GMs are big on talking "build thru the draft". I don't see anyone coming in and making a bold move like giving up a future pick for Fields. That's basically tying your tenure as a GM to Fields. And if he fails, you're looking at 3 years on the job at most. I mean why do anything? there are risks involved!! I don't think raw is defending non action in that case. But yes football men are among the most needlessly conservative bunch of decision makers in the world. But yea, they do get risk being fired in 3 years from their billionaire fantasy football owners so its self preservation sometimes too (their billionaire owners also being needlessly conservative)

BTW can we update this title since "Pace/Nagy" FIRED ain't exactly breaking news anymore.

Here's your entertainment minny

I'm pretty near absolutely opposed to any trade where they gotta turn right back around for some massive extension. And I'm by no means cap cautious (quite the contrary), but they do really gotta start hitting and developing draft picks. Anyways I bet 49ers will priorize a AFC team if they can. KC makes too much sense.

Son, if you can’t drink 8 beers in 154 minutes that’s on you. Coulda had 10 beers but only had time for 8.

Coulda had 8 beers, but only had time for 6.

Rounds 2-5 is just a convenient cutoff for Bears (2 in each of 2nd and 5th), but saw this and perked up

Pace had a top 5 D to pair with Trubisky. That's a pretty good bet to make since you have 1/2 of the team already at top performance. If Trubisky hits big, the Bears are real good. Poles has Fields,,,,,,and that's about it. He has to build SOMETHING Yes, and that's why his approach does make sense. Fields alone doesn't make a team contend, despite being the most important piece. So, Poles concluded it didn't make much sense to pay an older guy like Mack, when he could trade him for a pick to select a younger player to build along with Fields. And why it didn't make much sense to him to spend big money on 1-2 positions to help Fields and potentially have those guys eating into cap room they'd need to really go for it with Fields. I posted my mock offseason. I would have loved a proven WR. I really wanted Laken Tomlinson (and eventually Terron Armstead) to really solidify at least 1 spot on the OL. But I get why Poles didn't do that (or maybe he wasn't able?). Hopefully, this time next year we're looking at a team that not only has Justin Fields to build around but also has Darnell Mooney, Cole Kmet, Teven Jenkins, Larry Borom, Khalil Herbert, and two 2022 2nd round picks who all stepped up to be part of this team's future on offense. Yea I supported the Mack move partially because it also did open up cap go realloacote towards O and supporting Fields, while also helping to restock sorely needed draft capital. But basically all that cap won't get tapped into until 2023 and it didn't have to be that way.

I don't really think it has much validity, but also the moves they have made to date are not equivalent to many other moves teams make around a 2nd year QB historically. The big difference of course being regime change. It is gonna be easier for Poles to cut bait. He doesn't have to tie his stakes to Fields. That's plainly factual. Yeah and honestly, it's probably the smart way to play it. Pace put all his eggs in the Trubisky basket and went big to win with him in his rookie contract window in 2018 (Mack, ARob, paying players already on the team). If Poles did that and Fields wasn't the guy, that's basically a waste of time. If Fields shows what they expect him to, they can be the 2021 Bengals or 2020 Bills really quick. They will have the money and/or draft pick ammunition to add almost whoever they want with Fields. Even with another couple splashes, they'd still have basically all the flexibility they would need in 23 to continue to build around Fields, if he hits. You basically have to buy really high on "his ultimate success will have very little (or none) to do with his 2022 supporting cast". That true even if they find 3 day 1 starters with their draft picks, because they've left little room for error (injury or otherwise). It will be very frustrating if Fields does look like a star but they're like 8-9 because they were so overly patient and conservative on year 1. Kind of a waste of a year. Granted their schedule is so bad a 8 win season might not even be that impressive. Anyways my highly controversial take is trying to win more games each year is good.

I don't really think it has much validity, but also the moves they have made to date are not equivalent to many other moves teams make around a 2nd year QB historically. The big difference of course being regime change. It is gonna be easier for Poles to cut bait. He doesn't have to tie his stakes to Fields. That's plainly factual.

ITT we dunk on millionaire college coach idiots.

Love the 100% unwarranted optimism lol

To me it seemed like about 500k too much, but Young's seems like at least a 500k bargain. So altogether a good value day for Poles yesterday, but if you had given me both values and it was a price is right game, I'd have lost.

Thought the Griffin money was kind of a lot for a #2 TE who isn't really a move TE. Like unless their running a lot of true big personnel isn't he a true backup for Kmet?

Wonder if players can even be minority owners. I 2 minute search of the CBA didn't show me anything but there are huge potential salary cap implications of that.