CWood21 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 On 2/16/2024 at 4:28 PM, sparky151 said: Sam Darnold and Josh Rosen say hi. Matt Cassel got a 2nd with Vrabel included. Depending on how far back you want to go, there are plenty of examples of one team giving up a first or second round pick for a QB that another team didn't want to keep around. Matt Cassel was actually good with New England unlike Fields with Chicago. Josh Rosen was traded after a SINGLE year in Arizona, which meant he still had 4 years of team control. And the Rosen trade had more to do with the fact that the Cardinals were picking #1, and Kliff Kingsbury managed to convince the organization to select Kyler Murray. Sam Darnold is really the only one that is comparable to Fields. And ironically, it's the same GM that negotiated the trade up for Bryce Young, so unless Scott Fitterer manages to land a GM spot that's not open it seems unlikely that a SRP gets it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 On 2/16/2024 at 6:16 PM, Soggust said: Just curious - What do you think Trevor would go for, if the Jags were to hypothetically move him this offseason? They wouldn't. The only way you move someone like Trevor Lawrence is if you're getting someone you're genuinely believe is better than your current starting QB. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 On 2/16/2024 at 5:43 PM, sparky151 said: And I think everyone would agree that Fields is better than Rosen. Rosen fetched a 2nd rounder because the bloom wasn't entirely off the rose, not because of his contract. A team trading for Fields will believe he'll thrive in their scheme and will presumably exercise his 5th year option. In hindsight? Sure. But remember, Arizona was/is a dumpster fire. There was a distinct lack of talent on that roster, and the coaching situation wasn't very good either. Add on the fact that Josh Rosen still had 4 years (3 plus the 5th year option) of team control remaining, and there was enough reason to believe that he was still a franchise QB. Take away 2 of those years, and you'll have to knock down value off of him. Justin Fields hasn't consistently shown he's better than Josh Rosen when Rosen was traded. Obviously, using the power of hindsight we know that Rosen wasn't very good. Even if you think Rosen is a fair comparison, you have to account for the fact that you get 2 less years of team control. That hinders Fields' value substantially. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggust Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 21 minutes ago, CWood21 said: They wouldn't. The only way you move someone like Trevor Lawrence is if you're getting someone you're genuinely believe is better than your current starting QB. I think I would legitimately rather have 1.1 (Williams) than TL, but let's ignore that for arguments sake. The conversation is what Fields' value is, right? Which should be determined by what someone offers them, not necessarily what the team would accept? Like, if the Bears are asking for 3 1sts, but the best offer they get is a third-round pick across 31 other teams, is Fields' value 3 firsts or a third-round pick? It's what the market determines, I would think? So, the question in my mind is not, "What would the Jags take?", but rather "If the Jags had the 1.1 from CAR and were hypothetically willing to move on from TL, what is the best any other team would offer?" And if it's better than a 2nd round pick, it feels like that's a reasonable example of an up and down QB with similarish stats and context to Fields that would garner > top 64 pick imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teen Girl Squad Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 19 minutes ago, CWood21 said: In hindsight? Sure. But remember, Arizona was/is a dumpster fire. There was a distinct lack of talent on that roster, and the coaching situation wasn't very good either. Add on the fact that Josh Rosen still had 4 years (3 plus the 5th year option) of team control remaining, and there was enough reason to believe that he was still a franchise QB. Take away 2 of those years, and you'll have to knock down value off of him. Justin Fields hasn't consistently shown he's better than Josh Rosen when Rosen was traded. Obviously, using the power of hindsight we know that Rosen wasn't very good. Even if you think Rosen is a fair comparison, you have to account for the fact that you get 2 less years of team control. That hinders Fields' value substantially. I think the Darnold trade is setting the value more than the Rosen one, even if the Darnold move was seen as a bad overpay even in real time. All that said, I still see Fields topping out at a 3rd, just that there is enough precedent for a 2nd that I wouldn't be stunned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 2 minutes ago, Soggust said: I think I would legitimately rather have 1.1 (Williams) than TL, but let's ignore that for arguments sake. The conversation is what Fields' value is, right? Which should be determined by what someone offers them, not necessarily what the team would accept? Like, if the Bears are asking for 3 1sts, but the best offer they get is a third-round pick across 31 other teams, is Fields' value 3 firsts or a third-round pick? It's what the market determines, I would think? So, the question in my mind is not, "What would the Jags take?", but rather "If the Jags had the 1.1 from CAR and were hypothetically willing to move on from TL, what is the best any other team would offer?" And if it's better than a 2nd round pick, it feels like that's a reasonable example of an up and down QB with similarish stats and context to Fields that would garner > top 64 pick imo I mean, you're effectively wrapping up 2 very different questions into 1 for simplicity's sake. But it's rarely that easy. There's usually a benchmark that has to be hit for a team to be willing to trade away a player. Let's use Trevor Lawrence for example, the Jaguars would probably need a young, franchise QB (i.e. Caleb Willams) plus multiple future FRPs and probably some combination of young players and extra picks to move him. Does that make sense for a team like Chicago? Probably not. So when a team is unwilling to meet the benchmarks to trade for that player, they're effectively "off-limits" in trade discussions. Let's say, the Jaguars had 1.1 and were willing to move Trevor Lawrence, I'd still think it'd take at least 3 FRPs+ to even move him. At that point, Jacksonville has the leverage that they could flip that #1 pick for a ransom, and they'd probably be better off with that. I'd argue the market price for Caleb Williams given age, contract status, production, etc. is probably higher for Caleb Williams than it is for Trevor Lawrence. That's not to say that Caleb Williams is better than Trevor Lawrence, but given all that's included I'd argue that Caleb Williams is more valuable than Trevor Lawrence. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggust Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 9 minutes ago, CWood21 said: I mean, you're effectively wrapping up 2 very different questions into 1 for simplicity's sake. But it's rarely that easy. There's usually a benchmark that has to be hit for a team to be willing to trade away a player. Let's use Trevor Lawrence for example, the Jaguars would probably need a young, franchise QB (i.e. Caleb Willams) plus multiple future FRPs and probably some combination of young players and extra picks to move him. Does that make sense for a team like Chicago? Probably not. So when a team is unwilling to meet the benchmarks to trade for that player, they're effectively "off-limits" in trade discussions. No doubt I'm probably framing it bad as always, but the only question I'm trying to ask is - What is the best offer another team will make for Fields? Because imo, that's what his value is. At that point, it will be up to CHI to accept/decline. But they can only make that decision based on what the best offer they get is. You're suggesting that "it's not a reasonable comp to TL, because the Jags wouldn't take it", but again, I don't think I agree that drives what another team is willing to offer. Otherwise, the Bears would just demand 5 first round picks and drive Fields' price up. I don't think it's the Bears that set his value, but other teams. And I think if the Jags were staring 1.1 in the face, I do think they would have a legitimate decision to make given the younger, cheaper option (and arguably even better prospect). 4 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Let's say, the Jaguars had 1.1 and were willing to move Trevor Lawrence, I'd still think it'd take at least 3 FRPs+ to even move him. At that point, Jacksonville has the leverage that they could flip that #1 pick for a ransom, and they'd probably be better off with that. I'd argue the market price for Caleb Williams given age, contract status, production, etc. is probably higher for Caleb Williams than it is for Trevor Lawrence. That's not to say that Caleb Williams is better than Trevor Lawrence, but given all that's included I'd argue that Caleb Williams is more valuable than Trevor Lawrence. I know I'm obv missing the point here, but again I'm not sure why this is unique to JAX and not CHI. Caleb Williams also has more value than Fields, right? Couldn't the Bears similarly just say "well we love Fields, so 3 firsts or we're willing to theoretically keep and trade 1.1?" Like, just because they overvalue him, doesn't mean that's what would be offered by other teams necessarily? Do you think another team would offer 3 FRPs + in that scenario? If so, Fields should def go for a first+ imo. If not, and the best they would get is a mid-late FRP (what I think), I think Fields should go for a second (slightly worse). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 13 minutes ago, Soggust said: No doubt I'm probably framing it bad as always, but the only question I'm trying to ask is - What is the best offer another team will make for Fields? Because imo, that's what his value is. At that point, it will be up to CHI to accept/decline. But they can only make that decision based on what the best offer they get is. You're suggesting that "it's not a reasonable comp to TL, because the Jags wouldn't take it", but again, I don't think I agree that drives what another team is willing to offer. Otherwise, the Bears would just demand 5 first round picks and drive Fields' price up. I don't think it's the Bears that set his value, but other teams. And I think if the Jags were staring 1.1 in the face, I do think they would have a legitimate decision to make given the younger, cheaper option (and arguably even better prospect). Teams can ask for the moon for any player, but that doesn't mean that other teams are inclined to match that price. The Bears could demand 5 FRPs for Fields, but every other team is going to laugh and move on. If you overprice your players, teams generally tend to avoid dealing with you. See Danny Ainge in the NBA. The market is effectively set by whatever teams are willing to give up. Doesn't mean the Bears (or any other team) are inclined to accept that deal. I'm struggling too see a team that'd be willing to give up a SRP for Fields. Carolina - Bryce Young New England - Probably takes Drake Maye or Jayden Daniels at 3 Arizona - Kyler Murray Washington - Probably takes either Drake Maye or Jayden Daniels at 2 LA Chargers - Justin Herbert Tennessee - Will Levis NY Giants - Is he a big enough upgrade over Daniel Jones? Green Bay - Jordan Love Minnesota - Might have a need, but does Chicago trade within the division? Atlanta - Probably has some interest Las Vegas - Probably has some interest New Orleans - Derek Carr Indianapolis - Anthony Richardson Jacksonville - Trevor Lawrence Cincinnati - Joe Burrow Philadelphia - Jalen Hurts Pittsburgh - Possibly? LA Rams - Matthew Stafford Cleveland Browns - Deshaun Watson Miami - Tua Dallas - Dak Prescott Tampa - Seems to be Baker Mayfield's spot to lose. Houston - CJ Stroud Buffalo - Josh Allen Detroit - Probably not enough to unseat Jared Goff. Baltimore - Lamar Jackson San Francisco - Brock Purdy Kansas City - Patrick Mahomes I mean, looking at the SRPs, it really only looks like Atlanta has the clear and obvious suitor unless Chicago is willing to deal within the division. I think Pittsburgh might have some interest, but I doubt they're dealing a SRP unless they plan on having Justin Fields as their starting QB. I don't know how to justify trading a SRP without entrenching Fields as your starting QB. I've got New England (pending what they do at 3), NY Giants, Atlanta, Minnesota (pending what happens with Kirk Cousins), Las Vegas, and Pittsburgh as potential suitors for Justin Fields. If Denver had their SRP, I probably would have included them but they don't. If a SRP doesn't come from Atlanta or New England, it isn't coming IMO. 23 minutes ago, Soggust said: I know I'm obv missing the point here, but again I'm not sure why this is unique to JAX and not CHI. Caleb Williams also has more value than Fields, right? Couldn't the Bears similarly just say "well we love Fields, so 3 firsts or we're willing to theoretically keep and trade 1.1?" Like, just because they overvalue him, doesn't mean that's what would be offered by other teams necessarily? Do you think another team would offer 3 FRPs + in that scenario? If so, Fields should def go for a first+ imo. If not, and the best they would get is a mid-late FRP (what I think), I think Fields should go for a second (slightly worse). You can ask for whatever you want for a player, but that doesn't mean the team they're discussing the trade with is inclined to make that trade. If you're asking for 3 FRPs for Fields, I'm moving on as a GM. I'm not even wasting my time negotiating with you. At the end of the day, everyone in the NFL knows that the Bears aren't/can't hold onto both Justin Fields and Caleb Williams. This isn't like taking a CB after having one, because you play multiple CBs. You don't play multiple QBs. ASSUMING the Bears like both QBs equally, I'd imagine there's a price tag for both players and the first to meet that price tag gets traded. If they prefer one to the other, they ask for a bit more than what they think that players' market is without alienating the other team so they can negotiate to a bit more than what they believe the market is. So if the Bears view Justin Fields market as a late SRP worth of value, they might ask for an early SRP plus a future mid-round pick that's conditional knowing that they'll negotiate down to something like an early 3rd round pick plus a conditional pick in the future with a bit more upside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggust Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 9 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Teams can ask for the moon for any player, but that doesn't mean that other teams are inclined to match that price. The Bears could demand 5 FRPs for Fields, but every other team is going to laugh and move on. If you overprice your players, teams generally tend to avoid dealing with you. See Danny Ainge in the NBA. The market is effectively set by whatever teams are willing to give up. Doesn't mean the Bears (or any other team) are inclined to accept that deal. I'm struggling too see a team that'd be willing to give up a SRP for Fields. ... You can ask for whatever you want for a player, but that doesn't mean the team they're discussing the trade with is inclined to make that trade. If you're asking for 3 FRPs for Fields, I'm moving on as a GM. I'm not even wasting my time negotiating with you. At the end of the day, everyone in the NFL knows that the Bears aren't/can't hold onto both Justin Fields and Caleb Williams. This isn't like taking a CB after having one, because you play multiple CBs. You don't play multiple QBs. ASSUMING the Bears like both QBs equally, I'd imagine there's a price tag for both players and the first to meet that price tag gets traded. If they prefer one to the other, they ask for a bit more than what they think that players' market is without alienating the other team so they can negotiate to a bit more than what they believe the market is. So if the Bears view Justin Fields market as a late SRP worth of value, they might ask for an early SRP plus a future mid-round pick that's conditional knowing that they'll negotiate down to something like an early 3rd round pick plus a conditional pick in the future with a bit more upside. 100% agree with all of this, which is why I didn't understand why the Jags overvaluing Trevor would affect his value to other teams. 2 minutes ago, CWood21 said: I've got New England (pending what they do at 3), NY Giants, Atlanta, Minnesota (pending what happens with Kirk Cousins), Las Vegas, and Pittsburgh as potential suitors for Justin Fields. If Denver had their SRP, I probably would have included them but they don't. If a SRP doesn't come from Atlanta or New England, it isn't coming IMO. Also 100% agree with this analysis, but I am curious why you think LV, PITT, NYG, or MINN wouldn't send a second, if you could see it coming from ATL or NE. I'm not looking to critique your answer, I'm just wondering if the train of thought is due to their other picks situation (idk what they are tbh)? Or maybe just not being overleveraged by the current QB situation (since those have more costly current QBs)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 10 minutes ago, Soggust said: 100% agree with all of this, which is why I didn't understand why the Jags overvaluing Trevor would affect his value to other teams. Because there's no motivation for Jacksonville to move him. They're not going to improve upon him, and they're not getting an insane amount of value for him so there's no reason to move him. Hence, the reason he's effectively off-limits in trade discussions. I mean, I'd listen to offers on Jordan Love. Doesn't mean I'm going to get anywhere near what teams would offer for him. 11 minutes ago, Soggust said: Also 100% agree with this analysis, but I am curious why you think LV, PITT, NYG, or MINN wouldn't send a second, if you could see it coming from ATL or NE. I'm not looking to critique your answer, I'm just wondering if the train of thought is due to their other picks situation (idk what they are tbh)? Or maybe just not being overleveraged by the current QB situation (since those have more costly current QBs)? I don't see Chicago trading him within the division. Unless Minnesota is far and away the best offer, I think teams would rather take a lesser package from a non-divisional rival. If Minnesota is offering their SRP for Fields and say a 5th, and Atlanta is offering their 3rd plus a 5th year next year, I think Chicago would take Atlanta's offer despite Minnesota probably offering the better package. I don't think teams actively looking to be the reason a divisional rival would improve their QB situation. It'd be a different situation if Minnesota was offering their SRP, but the next best offer was a mid-to-late 4th. As for the other teams, I'm struggling to justify sending a SRP for a guy who might be a replacement for your current starting QB. That's why I think Pittsburgh is a really big wild card in this one. Giants seem more interested in drafting a QB than trading for a QB, but I wouldn't rule them out. I'm not sure why, but I get this feeling Las Vegas ends up with McCarthy, but I think they're probably the most willing to pass on a QB this year. I could see them having interest, but only if the value is low. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 18 hours ago, Dr A W Niloc said: One of my favorite maxims is "Good teams trade up, bad teams trade down." 28th in aggregate talent, third in cap space, I fill as many holes as I can before April 25th. Then I decide whether or not a franchise QB and an Edger makes the Bears a contender for first in the tough NFC-North. If so I sit and take Caleb at #1. Assuming Joe Alt is gone at #9 I take Latu. If the Bears are still a year away I trade down as far as I have to in order to land three firsts. Meanwhile, I take a couple of flyers at QB on the weekend. Justin Fields? I'd play hardball, insisting on a first round pick. I won't get it now but I can try again in midseason after a few injuries. With that salary, as Pearl Gray (who loves her paradoxes) would say, "he's not worth giving away." If you trade down and build up the supporting cast, the Bears might be a playoff team with Fields at QB. They could probably do something like tag Jaylon Johnson, sign Stone or McKinney at FS, sign Curtis Samuel or Tyler Boyd as WR3 and add Barkley or Jacobs or Swift at RB. Trading down from pick 1 might get them Dallas Turner, JPJ, and Troy Franklin plus a 1st next year. Depending on how quickly the new guys fit into the scheme, that could be a pretty good team. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaReylo Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: Because there's no motivation for Jacksonville to move him. They're not going to improve upon him, and they're not getting an insane amount of value for him so there's no reason to move him. Hence, the reason he's effectively off-limits in trade discussions. I mean, I'd listen to offers on Jordan Love. Doesn't mean I'm going to get anywhere near what teams would offer for him. I don't see Chicago trading him within the division. Unless Minnesota is far and away the best offer, I think teams would rather take a lesser package from a non-divisional rival. If Minnesota is offering their SRP for Fields and say a 5th, and Atlanta is offering their 3rd plus a 5th year next year, I think Chicago would take Atlanta's offer despite Minnesota probably offering the better package. I don't think teams actively looking to be the reason a divisional rival would improve their QB situation. It'd be a different situation if Minnesota was offering their SRP, but the next best offer was a mid-to-late 4th. As for the other teams, I'm struggling to justify sending a SRP for a guy who might be a replacement for your current starting QB. That's why I think Pittsburgh is a really big wild card in this one. Giants seem more interested in drafting a QB than trading for a QB, but I wouldn't rule them out. I'm not sure why, but I get this feeling Las Vegas ends up with McCarthy, but I think they're probably the most willing to pass on a QB this year. I could see them having interest, but only if the value is low. The only time I recall a team trading a starting quality QB to a division rival was when The Eagels traded Donovan McNabb to The Redskins, and surprise surprise he didn't do that well in Washington. It's almost as if Andy Reid knew Donovan was going to bust with The Burgundy & Gold? 🤔 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 4 hours ago, CWood21 said: Matt Cassel was actually good with New England unlike Fields with Chicago. Josh Rosen was traded after a SINGLE year in Arizona, which meant he still had 4 years of team control. And the Rosen trade had more to do with the fact that the Cardinals were picking #1, and Kliff Kingsbury managed to convince the organization to select Kyler Murray. Sam Darnold is really the only one that is comparable to Fields. And ironically, it's the same GM that negotiated the trade up for Bryce Young, so unless Scott Fitterer manages to land a GM spot that's not open it seems unlikely that a SRP gets it done. Kingsbury wanting Murray is why the Cards traded Rosen. But it has nothing to do with why the Dolphins gave a 2nd for him. That was simply because despite his poor play, the rest of the league (or at least the fins) though he'd been mishandled and they could get more from him. That's the same thesis that's happened numerous times in recent league history and would be the case with Fields in a potential trade. I'd also blame Tepper for the Panthers need to trade up and probably for their choice of Young over Stroud. 4 hours ago, CWood21 said: In hindsight? Sure. But remember, Arizona was/is a dumpster fire. There was a distinct lack of talent on that roster, and the coaching situation wasn't very good either. Add on the fact that Josh Rosen still had 4 years (3 plus the 5th year option) of team control remaining, and there was enough reason to believe that he was still a franchise QB. Take away 2 of those years, and you'll have to knock down value off of him. Justin Fields hasn't consistently shown he's better than Josh Rosen when Rosen was traded. Obviously, using the power of hindsight we know that Rosen wasn't very good. Even if you think Rosen is a fair comparison, you have to account for the fact that you get 2 less years of team control. That hinders Fields' value substantially. Fields has never been as bad as Rosen was in his season with the Cards or his season with the Dolphins. If the Bears didn't have the top pick, they be more likely to exercise Fields 5th year option than trade him or bring in a new starter. 3 hours ago, Teen Girl Squad said: I think the Darnold trade is setting the value more than the Rosen one, even if the Darnold move was seen as a bad overpay even in real time. All that said, I still see Fields topping out at a 3rd, just that there is enough precedent for a 2nd that I wouldn't be stunned. Unless you think no team would want Fields as their starter in 2024, someone will give up a 2nd for him. It could be someone like NE if they want to use pick 3 on MHj (or trade it for a haul), someone like Atlanta so they can use pick 8 on a pass rusher, Vegas if they don't want to pay the price to trade up, etc. I could even see a team like the Rams trade for him if Fields is amenable to a contract extension that pays him based on playing time while Stafford is around. A year or two of tutelage from McVay might help his career longevity. 3 hours ago, Soggust said: No doubt I'm probably framing it bad as always, but the only question I'm trying to ask is - What is the best offer another team will make for Fields? Because imo, that's what his value is. At that point, it will be up to CHI to accept/decline. But they can only make that decision based on what the best offer they get is. You're suggesting that "it's not a reasonable comp to TL, because the Jags wouldn't take it", but again, I don't think I agree that drives what another team is willing to offer. Otherwise, the Bears would just demand 5 first round picks and drive Fields' price up. I don't think it's the Bears that set his value, but other teams. And I think if the Jags were staring 1.1 in the face, I do think they would have a legitimate decision to make given the younger, cheaper option (and arguably even better prospect). The best offer can also be a matter of bluffing by the Bears and how desperate another team is. Various pundits have speculated the Steelers might give up their 1st rounder for Fields. That would be a good trade for Chicago if they are determined to move on at QB. Right now Pittsburgh is sort of stuck at QB with Kenny Pickett, the guy they benched for the playoff game in favor of Mason Rudolph. I'm sure they would prefer to pay less in 2024 even at the cost of a conditional pick for 2025. But if they are convinced the Raiders or whomever are involved, they may overpay to get their upgrade. Fields had more passing TDs than Pickett and Rudolph combined last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 The rationale for avoiding a trade within the division is that if you get similar compensation, it still leaves your rival with an unfilled need. The counterpoint to that is if the Bears don't want Fields on their team, maybe they would want him on the Vikings, especially if Minnesota is offering the most for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 10 minutes ago, BeaReylo said: The only time I recall a team trading a starting quality QB to a division rival was when The Eagels traded Donovan McNabb to The Redskins, and surprise surprise he didn't do that well in Washington. It's almost as if Andy Reid knew Donovan was going to bust with The Burgundy & Gold? 🤔 It's just a really awkward situation. You don't want to be the GM that fixed a divisional rivals QB position, which is arguably the single most valuable position in all of professional sports. That is unless the package is overwhelmingly better at which point it's negligence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.