Bears 12.0

[fleet]

JFC I had forgotten the awfulness of that deal. No way.

Read on Twitter

[nomorezorro]

part of the reason the mack trade stung so bad is because we whiffed on 3/4 first round picks we made leading up to that trade, and also traded our 2019 second round pick for a whiffed pick in 2018, and also sacrificed another first round pick in the fields deal before mack left the team

there's a way to make these picks-for-a-proven-commodity deals work. you just have to do them pretty selectively, and it helps if you're aggressive about replenishing your till of picks in the aftermath to balance things out.

i don't really have any faith in the bears to do things right, and i also just don't think parsons is actually going to get traded. but all the surrounding stuff is on the team to figure out. if we acquire a superstar-level player at a position of need in their prime, i'm going to be excited about it!

[Dresden]

My inclination is to say no to a Parsons trade if it's similar to the Mack deal. Too many picks to give up for one player, AND you have to pay him a ton of money on top of it.

[Dresden]

If he was already signed to a reasonable deal that would be another thing, but he's looking to break the bank on a new deal. We got Montez Sweat for a 2RP, and paid him a reasonable contract. I'd rather have 3 Sweats than one Parson.

[Dresden]

If he was already signed to a reasonable deal that would be another thing, but he's looking to break the bank on a new deal. We got Montez Sweat for a 2RP, and paid him a reasonable contract. I'd rather have 3 Sweats than one Parson.

I take that back, I didn't realize Sweat was making 24M. You couldn't even afford two Sweat's in place of Parsons.

[Dresden]

Maybe we could trade DJ and Sweat for Parsons?

[Betta Bulleavit]

I’d easily give up Kmet, 2 firsts and a 4th for Parsons. The reason that I’d be okay with parting with Kmet is because we’d need his salary to help absorb Parson’s salary. Flame away!

[nomorezorro]

Maybe we could trade DJ and Sweat for Parsons?

you almost never see this kind of player-for-player trade in the NFL, although sweat going back in a parsons trade is maybe a little more plausible if you imagine jerry as a guy who wants to stay competitive in the short-term. trading moore right now doesn't really make sense for us or the cowboys though

i think the idealized shoot-the-moon version of a parsons trade would be that you move off sweat by next offseason for assets, since you don't want to be paying $80m a year to DEs, and also odunze/burden make DJ expendable and you trade him for assets in 2026 or 2027.

theoretically you could have parsons and (eventually) jaylon as the only two $20+ million players on the roster in 2026 and 2027. you've got guys on rookie contracts for 3+ seasons who could potentially slot in at QB, WR1-2, LT and RT. not having to spend market value on any of the premium offensive positions for a few years would make a parsons contract a lot more manageable.

(but you absolutely can't depend on that happening, and also again i do not believe parsons is being traded)

[CROBulls]

I would give up 2 first for Parsons. At some point GM needs to go all in on this team. If you confident you have right QB (on rookie deal), right coach. You need to go for guy asking for trade in their prime. Try not get robbed, but you need to get that star player who is not QB. I think Parsons fit that, given he is anchoring best defense in league when playing.

This kind of opportunities dont happen often.

Read on Twitter

[Dresden]

Maybe we could trade DJ and Sweat for Parsons?

you almost never see this kind of player-for-player trade in the NFL, although sweat going back in a parsons trade is maybe a little more plausible if you imagine jerry as a guy who wants to stay competitive in the short-term. trading moore right now doesn't really make sense for us or the cowboys though

i think the idealized shoot-the-moon version of a parsons trade would be that you move off sweat by next offseason for assets, since you don't want to be paying $80m a year to DEs, and also odunze/burden make DJ expendable and you trade him for assets in 2026 or 2027.

theoretically you could have parsons and (eventually) jaylon as the only two $20+ million players on the roster in 2026 and 2027. you've got guys on rookie contracts for 3+ seasons who could potentially slot in at QB, WR1-2, LT and RT. not having to spend market value on any of the premium offensive positions for a few years would make a parsons contract a lot more manageable.

(but you absolutely can't depend on that happening, and also again i do not believe parsons is being traded)

I think trading DJ makes a lot of sense for us, with Burden, Rome, Loveland and Kmet. Not to mention Zacheaus looking good in camp. I just don't know if the Cowboys would be interested in that, as they just gave Lamb that big contract.

[dice]

I would give up 2 first for Parsons. At some point GM needs to go all in on this team. If you confident you have right QB (on rookie deal), right coach. You need to go for guy asking for trade in their prime.

This kind of opportunities dont happen often.

EXACT same argument for trading for mack. is the QB/coach combo for the bears more enticing now? yes. still not sound strategy. 'cause guess what - if caleb/BJ is the real thing, the championship window is indefinite. and hitting on as many draft picks as possible is the lifeblood of continued success

then there's the fundamental logic that simply doesn't go away no matter how much the wide-eyed stargazers want it to: you have to add the value of the traded assets to the salary of the incoming player! E.g.:

a random first round pick could probably be sold for $25 mil ($5 mil per year of the contract). that means that if the bears give up 2 firsts (thus forcing them to extend parsons on HIS terms - say 5/200 conservatively), they're now effectively doling out 50 mil a year in assets for his services. when the cowboys don't even want to pay him his $40 mil a year market value

let someone else be that desperate

[Chi town]

I would give up 2 first for Parsons. At some point GM needs to go all in on this team. If you confident you have right QB (on rookie deal), right coach. You need to go for guy asking for trade in their prime.

This kind of opportunities dont happen often.

EXACT same argument for trading for mack. is the QB/coach combo for the bears more enticing now? yes. still not sound strategy. 'cause guess what - if caleb/BJ is the real thing, the championship window is indefinite. and hitting on as many draft picks as possible is the lifeblood of continued success

then there's the fundamental logic that simply doesn't go away no matter how much the wide-eyed stargazers want it to: you have to add the value of the traded assets to the salary of the incoming player! E.g.:

a random first round pick could probably be sold for $25 mil ($5 mil per year of the contract). that means that if the bears give up 2 firsts (thus forcing them to extend parsons on HIS terms - say 5/200 conservatively), they're now effectively doling out 50 mil a year in assets for his services. when the cowboys don't even want to pay him his $40 mil a year market value

let someone else be that desperate

Exactly.

Hendrickson for way less picks and salary is the much beer value.

I’d simply keep the picks because those rookie contracts are so cheap.

[Susan]

I would give up 2 first for Parsons. At some point GM needs to go all in on this team. If you confident you have right QB (on rookie deal), right coach. You need to go for guy asking for trade in their prime.

This kind of opportunities dont happen often.

EXACT same argument for trading for mack. is the QB/coach combo for the bears more enticing now? yes. still not sound strategy. 'cause guess what - if caleb/BJ is the real thing, the championship window is indefinite. and hitting on as many draft picks as possible is the lifeblood of continued success

then there's the fundamental logic that simply doesn't go away no matter how much the wide-eyed stargazers want it to: you have to add the value of the traded assets to the salary of the incoming player! E.g.:

a random first round pick could probably be sold for $25 mil ($5 mil per year of the contract). that means that if the bears give up 2 firsts (thus forcing them to extend parsons on HIS terms - say 5/200 conservatively), they're now effectively doling out 50 mil a year in assets for his services. when the cowboys don't even want to pay him his $40 mil a year market value

let someone else be that desperate

Exactly.

Hendrickson for way less picks and salary is the much beer value.

I’d simply keep the picks because those rookie contracts are so cheap.

How old is Hendrickson?

Khalil Mack has missed the pro bowl once in his career and is still highly productive at 33.

The dumb part about this argument is that the extensions that these top of the line players sign are value contracts because they never hit FA in their prime.

When done correctly - it can absolutely catapult a team. AJ Brown was traded for the pick that gave the Titans Treylon Burks - Burks was just cut and Brown just was hoisting the Lombardi trophy in February.

The discussion is pointless though - Parsons agent would never trade him to Chicago.

[biggestbullsfan]

Read on Twitter

Say what you want about Poles, but he has been ahead of the curve on paying his guys before the market raises the floor. And he’s done it multiple times.

[dice]

Read on Twitter

Say what you want about Poles, but he has been ahead of the curve on paying his guys before the market raises the floor. And he’s done it multiple times.

the idea is that paying early runs the risk of being on the hook for a lot of money in the event of significant injury. which is the same reason the player will take less a year early - they don't wanna make a huge gamble in a sport as violent as football. nobody knows what the market will be a year out

[dice]

EXACT same argument for trading for mack. is the QB/coach combo for the bears more enticing now? yes. still not sound strategy. 'cause guess what - if caleb/BJ is the real thing, the championship window is indefinite. and hitting on as many draft picks as possible is the lifeblood of continued success

then there's the fundamental logic that simply doesn't go away no matter how much the wide-eyed stargazers want it to: you have to add the value of the traded assets to the salary of the incoming player! E.g.:

a random first round pick could probably be sold for $25 mil ($5 mil per year of the contract). that means that if the bears give up 2 firsts (thus forcing them to extend parsons on HIS terms - say 5/200 conservatively), they're now effectively doling out 50 mil a year in assets for his services. when the cowboys don't even want to pay him his $40 mil a year market value

let someone else be that desperate

Exactly.

Hendrickson for way less picks and salary is the much beer value.

I’d simply keep the picks because those rookie contracts are so cheap.

How old is Hendrickson?

Khalil Mack has missed the pro bowl once in his career and is still highly productive at 33.

The dumb part about this argument is that the extensions that these top of the line players sign are value contracts because they never hit FA in their prime.

When done correctly - it can absolutely catapult a team. AJ Brown was traded for the pick that gave the Titans Treylon Burks - Burks was just cut and Brown just was hoisting the Lombardi trophy in February.

WR is much more valuable analytically than EDGE

AJ brown had a 17.5 mil cap hit last season
parsons will make at least 40 mil a year going forward

who played a big part in helping the eagles win the SB? EDGE josh sweat. the eagles let him walk for a 19 mil/year deal. probably smartly

The discussion is pointless though - Parsons agent would never trade him to Chicago.

i'd like to think that poles would not spend big money on a starting EDGE in FA only to turn around and dump ANOTHER 50 mil a year in assets into parsons...on a position that is wildly overvalued analytically. yes, it would likely provide a temporary bump - just like it did w/ mack - but there is a reason that every team in the league w/o 2 stud EDGEs (almost every team in the league) isn't jumping out of their shoes to trade multiple 1sts for parsons

[Dresden]

Read on Twitter

Say what you want about Poles, but he has been ahead of the curve on paying his guys before the market raises the floor. And he’s done it multiple times.

the idea is that paying early runs the risk of being on the hook for a lot of money in the event of significant injury. which is the same reason the player will take less a year early - they don't wanna make a huge gamble in a sport as violent as football. nobody knows what the market will be a year out

Nobody knows what the market will be a year out, other than they know it will more than it currently is.

[fleet]

Read on Twitter

Say what you want about Poles, but he has been ahead of the curve on paying his guys before the market raises the floor. And he’s done it multiple times.

Poles has paid market value on his deals, don’t make it out to be more than it has been. The market moves past most free agents in a couple years after signing if they maintain their level of play. If JJ (or even Gordon) wanted to sign a year early at less than what he could have gotten had he waited, that’s more of a JJ thing than a genius Bears move.

Generally, paying a wide receiver like DJ is not something you want to do. Not unless you’re already set up for making a very deep run. And it hasn’t quite paid dividends. The best WR strategy is keep drafting them high, and trading them before the big payday. And the contracts to Kmet and Sweat have not paid off relative to their salaries. And lets not talk about Nate Davis and Edmunds even though that’s not the point you were trying to make. Dayo doesn’t appear to be a value deal. Poles has an extremely mixed record on paying free agents.

[Chi town]

Ozzy will all the reps with the 1s today according to Jahns. They had been mixing reps each day.

He could be in the lead at LT. love to see it.

[fleet]

The Bears offense should be average or better this year. This is beginning to appear like it’s gone beyond questionable. At some point in this barrage of offseason acquisitions on offense, the Bears crossed the threshold of being respectable, barring injury. As long as Caleb becomes a top 15 quarterback.

Read on Twitter