WrigleyField 22

Yea, seems like it's shaking out to be a good year for OT. I guess some are slotting Slater as a OG due to short arms, but others think he'll be fine. I've also seen Mayfield drop into rd2. I think there's some small school guy who could go end of Rd1. Some guy from NDSU maybe? I can't remember his name but I've seen him mocked Rd1. As to QB I'm reading more and more about Wilson maybe being QB2 over Fields and now with the Jets projected at 2 many are speculating they could stick with Darnold for another year if they aren't in a position for Lawrence. They'd still probably have a shot next year for a decent QB prospect if Darnold flops and they can give him a shot under a new regime. So suddenly it's feasible QB 2 is number 4 to Carolina, and could be Wilson. Then Fields could drop. Does Atlanta bite on a QB to replace Ryan? Detroit to replace Stafford? A team like Saints or Indy trade up? SF could look to replace Jimmy G. Either way though you are potentially outside the top 10 for QBs 3 and 4.

Kmet has had it locked down all of like 2 games and plenty of good teams utilize 2 TE's. (we can basically do this about every position of we wanna be bearish enough). From a practical perspective I think Pitts is the only TE that will go high and it will likely be in the top 10. But if he drops to the mid first you probably have a compelling value case on your hands. Agreed. If Pitts is there in the teens, you take him and easily scheme him in with Kmet. CB (Fuller and Johnson + Vildor and Shelley are decent depth even after Skrine is cut) and RB (Montgomery + poor positional value in the first round) are the only positions I would be shocked to see the Bears pick in the first round. Yea, Etienne looks like RB1 and he's really exciting, but I don't think he's that Rd1 RB value. Though I would pop if there was one there, and not let Montgomery block that. As for CB, Fuller is, as of now l, entering his final contract year and about to enter the downside of the age curve. I think you could argue some need there. Not sure what the Rd1 CBs look like.

Also, damning with faint praise and all, but I felt Mooney was the most exciting young WR the Bears have ever had all year and now he's statistically backed it up: (note he's still behind Forte and Ditka for all Bears rookies)

Kmet has had it locked down all of like 2 games and plenty of good teams utilize 2 TE's. (we can basically do this about every position of we wanna be bearish enough). From a practical perspective I think Pitts is the only TE that will go high and it will likely be in the top 10. But if he drops to the mid first you probably have a compelling value case on your hands.

If you resign Trubisky, you can draft EDGE or WR in the 1st round, depending on who is there. That frees up letting Arob go or trading Mack. If you draft OL, you will likely have to bring Arob back. Or, you simply BPA the pick I guess the point is if Trubisky plays himself into a new contract you have more options than if he flat out sucked and you HAVE to draft QB in the 1st. I’m really not in the mood to draft a linebacker. My preferences for the first round would be o-line, QB, WR I generally hate narrowing down on the first round. Just get the best players you can. Obviously positional value plays some role if you're talking QB v ILB, but I can come up with needs anywhere on the roster basically.

In a trade you don't pick up the guaranteed salary hits, just pro-rations from bonuses. So theres 5M in guaranteed 2021 (4) and 2022 (1) the new team picks up. Bears just eat the signing bonus pro-ration from signing bonus from the restructure. In a cut, the Bears eat that pro ration and the guarantee base salaries. I'm admittedly starting to go on a bit of a "the base salaries are all that matters crusade.". The signing bonuses are all sunk costs and you don't want to fall into a sunk cost fallacy with your decision making. So even moves that people say "cost you" cap space really are net savings in a big picture. The cap hits year over year are pretty fungible so there's almost always ways to move around dead hits without increasing guarantees. Basically if you can get out of unearned cash payments, these moves always save cap. If you cant get out of new cash payments, they don't. So if he's traded (rather than cut), the new team takes the cap hit on guaranteed but not-paid-yet money, right? That would be his 2021 salary, $1m of his 2022 salary, and a 2022 $4m roster bonus. Also, if Trubisky manages to stay healthy and play these last two games, we avoided any of his escalator clauses. Yep. I think that roster bonus for 2022 isn't earned until next year though.

In a trade you don't pick up the guaranteed salary hits, just pro-rations from bonuses. So theres 5M in guaranteed 2021 (4) and 2022 (1) the new team picks up. Bears just eat the signing bonus pro-ration from signing bonus from the restructure. In a cut, the Bears eat that pro ration and the guarantee base salaries. I'm admittedly starting to go on a bit of a "the base salaries are all that matters crusade.". The signing bonuses are all sunk costs and you don't want to fall into a sunk cost fallacy with your decision making. So even moves that people say "cost you" cap space really are net savings in a big picture. The cap hits year over year are pretty fungible so there's almost always ways to move around dead hits without increasing guarantees. Basically if you can get out of unearned cash payments, these moves always save cap. If you cant get out of new cash payments, they don't.

Since he has all that dead money, knowing Pace he will trade Foles and a 4rd round pick for a conditional 7th rounder to get rid of him. But in all seriousness, having Foles stuck on the roster should not hinder the Bears from trying to find and develop a potential QB of the future. Yea can't let the dead hits dictate Foles. He's a somewhat tradeable contract for the receiving team. But worst case he's a backup and you have to carry 3 QBs assuming you have a rookie too. If you really only wanted to go 2 QBs then I guess you take the dead hits even though it doesn't save you anything at all.

The Mariota comp is an interesting one as far as contracts go. It was ~10 guarantee, which is the important number. Give Mitch 2/12 with 10 guarantee and some snap count incentives/escalators that guarantee his 2022 portion... that basically makes it a Mariota equivalent. And it's a small enough contract the high guarantee isn't a huge issue. Winston got the minimum on the other hand, and while I'd rather have Mariota over Winston, it's not a 10M difference, IMO. So the market can be tough to predict. If Pace doesn't get set on one guy I'm pretty sure someone will shake out of the bottom of the market that's acceptable for a super low cost. Speaking of Mariota, he's a cut candidate. If Mitch gets outbid elsewhere for dumb money, they could do worse that Mariota as a bridge QB.

Yea, I'm like at 12/2 range tops and that's assuming he plays well the next two weeks. Same, and even that feels like a sentimental overpay. *looks at what it would cost to get rid of Foles* God *dammit* pace Trade him for a conditional 2034 7th rounder.

Okay I need 6.5 points tomorrow. Ty Higgins or Chase Claypool?

Yea, I'm like at 12/2 range tops and that's assuming he plays well the next two weeks.

Trubisky's 5th year option was either the amount of the transition tag or franchise tag. So that would still technically be an option (though that sounds insane to me) if it really came to it. Though you lose the ability to use the tag for Arob. All things considered, it was a super low risk move to not pick up that option, even given a super low odd outcome where he came out and slayed all 16 games.

My decision to drop Fournette a couple weeks back may likely end up very consequential as my Rd 1 opponent picked him up and he just had a solid outing. I have to decide between Higgins or Claypool Monday night. He has Chubb tonight and I have about a 8 point edge right now (and if Mahomes picks up a few more here).

Cue the Riddick for GM rumor mill

Coward was such ass he just pulled the whole unit down with him. But this version of the O is even better than the first couple of weeks.

You're making a lot of sense but I don't want to change my mind. I still don't like being down 3 picks whereas a lot of the best franchises average 8+ picks per draft, largely due to comp picks. So you could still say he's down a net 9 picks from where you'd hope to see, even if trade charts have overall supported his net movements. So don't change your mind. Although they've now gotten comp picks the past two years, so maybe there's hope. I suppose that's where I'm at. A little underwhelmed, but if they keep Pace I can squint and act like hes about to hit his draft management peak.

Is the difference between 10th and 20th that big? You're starting to get away from the tail of the bell curve there. At a high level, no I dont think it's historically a big difference. But something like the traditional trade value chart would tell you it's pretty substantial.

I suppose it's due to the 7th seed now, but discussing playoff opportunities with a team like this is kind of wild. If this was pre-2020 is there some outside narrow shot where we're sitll talking about the 6th seed and making the playoffs?

You're all crazy, it's obviously the next Lebron that's in him. Probably a bit stronger and a more developed shot though.

Same exercise with a likely more analytically designed value chart (Blog here https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/) They still start at a 10th overall average value. Their trades brought them down to the average trade value of a 21st pick this time. Which is a larger drop. Though due to the different curve of this chart's points, that value (676 points "given up") come out to one 26th overall value pick. So an overall similar story. If, when we run through any trade value model and they all come out and say basically that Pace has given up a later first rounder, net, in all his wheeling and dealing, and that includes netting Mack... it doesn't seem to be an area likely to stress over. Though granted, it is a net loss of 3 picks overall verse expected. Although that includes Mack still and doesn't consider whether he's done above or below average in UDFA.

Well for all the mid round picks he lit on fire, if my analysis is right (again just based on the trade value chart), he "only" gave up the equivalent in value of a 19th overall pick, which includes getting Mack. So for whatever you think of individual moves (and some I also didn't like as well) this annual tradition doesn't seem to exactly be netting them annual overall value losses (though I'd be interested to run it on a more analytically sound model the traditional chart isn't completely without worth). Is he adding value? Well depends on how you value Mack. Certainly not a significant amount I guess (and you'd have to value his earlier departures in trades) Like I said with Graham, as with the rest of the 2020 FA class, that was the big departure for him. Before that they basically paid for the type of profiles you want to. Some work out like Arob. Other less so, like Burton, but the approach has seemed legit in 5 of 6 offseasons. Not sure what the Fuller thing even references. That was a match type situation as I believe they transition tagged him. Packers made an offer, Bears had right of first refusal. Regardless that has turned out great contract as Kyle has been stellar. Could he try to add more excess value in the draft? I guess. But acting like any trade up is bad (basically) is pretty short sided. And if those trades are for positions like QB and EDGE thats exactly where you want to be aggressive as the marginal value of a rookie deal verse replacement FA is largest. It's just that two of the picks were the wrong guy.

Alright, unless I messed something up here; If the Bears had stood pat, their average draft value via the "traditional" trade value chart should come out to about the 10th pick overall (12,942 points, over 6 drafts or 2,157 points per draft) Their actual draft position has yielded 11,375 or 1,895 points/draft, or about the value of the 14th point. So in exchange for a value trade off from 10th team to 14th team over 6 years (which is actually quite a bit - in points terms about one 19th overall pick). For all that moving draft position, they also got Khalil Mack, Eddy Piniero, and Nick Foles. They traded away Bennet, Allen, Marshall, and Shaheen and lost in FA Amos who netted a comp pick. Their FA losses of Daniels, Williams, and perhaps Pierre Louis will also net some comp picks this year. So do with that as you will as far as his valuing of draft (and there's probably better value tools than the traditional chart, that's just the most readily available)

I was talking about those 5 specific trades that were made for a very specific target. Well you also mentioned the trade downs too that netted extra picks. Seems relevant. Nevermind, I miscounted as well. They're at 22 round 4 picks through 6 drafts. So -2. And will be another -1 this year assuming no additional movement. Also 39 total picks through 6 drafts so -3 overall as well. I think they'll be at +1 overall this year with the late comp picks.

Must be missing +1 somewhere in a trade down or vet trade. Martellus Bennet netted them a 4th (though they gave up a 6th). So on the whole they're net negative 1 in the top 4 rounds through this next year, while also being plus Mack and less Bennett in that movement. They also netted an Amos comp pick they traded for Foles. Early on he had some other vet trades like Marshall and Allen pick up day 3 picks, I think. And will start to pick up some more day 3 comp picks this year and perhaps next. Last time I looked he was averaging right about 7 picks per draft, so it's just a question of overall value (i.e. Should have been average 10th pick value and was 15th pic value) and then considering any outgoing and incoming vets as part of that transactional data, I suppose. I was talking about those 5 specific trades that were made for a very specific target. Well you also mentioned the trade downs too that netted extra picks. Seems relevant.