Fake news, vaccines cause autism, climate change is a conspiracy, tornado sirens are annoying, blah blah blah. I cannot break it down to any simpler form. As a consequence of Pace's trades, there is a vacuum of 1st through 3rd round picks for a couple of years. This causes a distortion in the value added from rookie contracts. I literally cannot be any simpler than that.
Well no, we are short a first and third next year, but gained a second rounder (from the hopeless Raiders) back. After that, we're in the clear. Last draft's first was spent on Mack, who is clearly more valuable than any first rounder that was available in the entire draft (and without Mack, we aren't picking in the back half of the first). Last year's second was spent to acquire Miller in the previous draft, who comes in this year poised to start (which is what you want out of a second rounder, so we got out value).
I'm not asking you to make it simpler. Everyone here understands what a budget is. We all know what it cost to turn this team into a playoff contender. What I asked was to substantiate your claim; Provide evidence that the Bears are worse off because we traded for Mack to support your assertion. Because when you're claim amounts to "we could have had unproven players on cheaper contracts," all you're doing is complaining about the pricetag for the best player on our team.
This concern just appears groundless and I don't know why you're sticking to it. If not having the picks we traded for Mack is a long-term concern, then the logical and prudent move is to trade Mack for whatever we can get now while he is a young future hall of famer.
So let's cut to the chase - if the raiders offered to trade for Mack and offered the same deal we gave them, do you take it?