Report: Poles ‘gut’ told him not to trade twice in top ten of 2023 draft

[monkforasia]

Trade deadline. Glazer reported it and confirmed it after the trade a few weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589306910205169666

What was their record at trade deadline?

 

[vabearsfan15]

These attempts at nuance fall completely flat with the remybrain. I agree with each one of them, but he's not coming off these valuations.

I am particularly baffled by how poorly future picks are valued in this scheme. it is so easy to sit here and picture this time next year and think "you know what'd feel really good about now? Another first round pick". Nobody wants to explain this, particularly remy. Whatever, its his "personality" to be this rigid.

Yes, but it is hard to know how to value each and every pick.

Though I do agree with you in thinking the biggest flaw of these type of charts is that generally they undermine the value of future picks. It's not so simple as placing a nice simple number on it. Otherwise, you would see alot more teams trading for future picks and that's it.

But GMs usually want a 2 for 1 deal (1 later pick now and 1 pick in the future in exchange for one higher pick now) rather than making a nice simple 1 for 1 deal. (One pick in the future for one pick now). But not many want to give up the 2 for 1 deal. And not may want to receive the 1 for 1 deal.

 

[Spartan]

REPORT: Ryan Poles 'gut' told him to turn down massive double trade in first round

Chicago Bears general manager Ryan Poles had the opportunity to trade twice in the top ten of the draft. He chose to go with his "gut".

www.chicitysports.com

How could his gut tell him that whilst he literally has no guts.

 

[vabearsfan15]

What was their record at trade deadline?

Their record was 3-5, but its not much of a stretch to think they would have made the playoffs in a very weak NFC had they attained Moore.

But I think it also makes a difference that it was not known where the Packers would pick when that trade was offered. And you add in the fact it was offered mid season. So Packers would have received an extra half a season of services from Moore than we did. Also, the Panthers would have had to wait until the offseason to use their pick, so if using the chart system that would take alot of points away.

 

[remydat]

I appreciate the work put into this and can see how the value is comparable when using a draft site number chart. At the end of the day, the numbers are a different to each NFL team and how they value each draft class.

I would wager the #1 pick this year, with two QBs worth taking #1 is worth more than say last year when Kenny Lickett was the top QB and Travon Walker went #1 overall.

I also don't think it's as simple as saying a Rd 2 this year is the same value as a Rd 1 next year. Etc. The numbers vary, and getting an extra crack of the bat, per se, holds a base value that is hard to define in a numerical chart. Each team values it differently.

Also, the whole equation changes explicitly how you value DJ Moore. I said mid 1st rd without being specific. Maybe he is valued as an early 20th pick. Etc. It all changes the equation dramatically.

Except your wager would be wrong. There has been ample research showing that the Jimmy Johnson trade chart which is what I used actually aligns with the actual trade data in the NFL. There has also been ample research that shows teams do in fact discount future first round picks by a round. So while I appreciate in your heart of hearts you may feel differently, the reality is the NFL does not. The below even has examples of when some NFL teams tried to use more updated charts, other NFL teams told them to stuff it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/04/25/nfl-trade-value-chart/

These attempts at nuance fall completely flat with the remybrain. I agree with each one of them, but he's not coming off these valuations.

I am particularly baffled by how poorly future picks are valued in this scheme. it is so easy to sit here and picture this time next year and think "you know what'd feel really good about now? Another first round pick". Nobody wants to explain this, particularly remy. Whatever, its his "personality" to be this rigid.

By nuance all you really mean is you going off of your biases. I stick with what the data and NFL GMs say ie the JJ trade chart is still used and future 1st round picks are discounted by a round. What you have is basically, "I feel like it should be this but I have no evidence to back that up so I am just going to whine and whine about it."

 

[vabearsfan15]

Except your wager would be wrong. There has been ample research showing that the Jimmy Johnson trade chart which is what I used actually aligns with the actual trade data in the NFL. There has also been ample research that shows teams do in fact discount future first round picks by a round. So while I appreciate in your heart of hearts you may feel differently, the reality is the NFL does not. The below even has examples of when some NFL teams tried to use more updated charts, other NFL teams told them to stuff it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/04/25/nfl-trade-value-chart/

Really, you think the #1 overall this year is worth the exact same as the #1 overall last year? Are you telling me that the Jaguars passed up an opportunity to get multiple 1st and 2nd rd picks but elected to draft Travon Walker?!

 

[remydat]

Really, you think the #1 overall this year is worth the exact same as the #1 overall last year? Are you telling me that the Jaguars passed up an opportunity to get multiple 1st and 2nd rd picks but elected to draft Travon Walker?!

No I think you are overcomplicating things. The published price of a big mac is $3. At any given time, there may be some people willing to pay that and others like me who think that Big Mac is shit so wouldn't pay that price. However, the published price is still the published price.

Likewise, the No 1 pick has an assigned value to it. At any given time, some teams may be willing to trade up for that assigned value while other teams may not but the assigned value is still the assigned value. So last year, no team may have wanted to pay the Jags the assigned value but because the Jags had that assigned value in mind they were not willing to sell the pick for less than the assigned value.

So last year proves the point. If people didn't think the No 1 pick still had roughly the same assigned value then the Jags likely just take whatever they can get for the No 1 pick. However because they did not want to be seen as giving away the No 1 pick for less than it was worth they kept it and drafted Walker.

The history of the trade data in the NFL is that few trades in the top 10 go for significantly less than the perceived assigned value. Why? Because humans and human and no GM wants to be seen as giving away picks for less than the assigned value because then they feel like teams will think they can be taken advantage of. That is why the trade value chart persists. I am not arguing it is correct or accurate or even that it makes sense. I am arguing that the data is that human NFL GMs are still largely governed by it. It really doesn't matter if it is right. It matters if they are still using it which they are.

 

[bamainatlanta]

Really, you think the #1 overall this year is worth the exact same as the #1 overall last year? Are you telling me that the Jaguars passed up an opportunity to get multiple 1st and 2nd rd picks but elected to draft Travon Walker?!

No one wanted the #1 pick last year. There wasn’t a franchise QB available. That will always drive up the demand of the #1pick

 

[Moses Moreno]

Their record was 3-5, but its not much of a stretch to think they would have made the playoffs in a very weak NFC had they attained Moore.

But I think it also makes a difference that it was not known where the Packers would pick when that trade was offered. And you add in the fact it was offered mid season. So Packers would have received an extra half a season of services from Moore than we did. Also, the Panthers would have had to wait until the offseason to use their pick, so if using the chart system that would take alot of points away.

It's not too far off still if you use what Philly traded to get AJ Brown.

They gave up the 18th pick + 101 and had to give him that 4/$100M contract whereas we're getting Moore for 3/$52M with Carolina eating $14M in dead cap from his original contract.

It's in that 14-19 pick ballpark IMO.

 

[vabearsfan15]

No one wanted the #1 pick last year. There wasn’t a franchise QB available. That will always drive up the demand of the #1pick

That's my point. The value of the #1 pick and really any pick fir that matter fluctuates depending on who is available and how badly a team wants the available player(s).

 

[vabearsfan15]

No I think you are overcomplicating things. The published price of a big mac is $3. At any given time, there may be some people willing to pay that and others like me who think that Big Mac is shit so wouldn't pay that price. However, the published price is still the published price.

Likewise, the No 1 pick has an assigned value to it. At any given time, some teams may be willing to trade up for that assigned value while other teams may not but the assigned value is still the assigned value. So last year, no team may have wanted to pay the Jags the assigned value but because the Jags had that assigned value in mind they were not willing to sell the pick for less than the assigned value.

So last year proves the point. If people didn't think the No 1 pick still had roughly the same assigned value then the Jags likely just take whatever they can get for the No 1 pick. However because they did not want to be seen as giving away the No 1 pick for less than it was worth they kept it and drafted Walker.

The history of the trade data in the NFL is that few trades in the top 10 go for significantly less than the perceived assigned value. Why? Because humans and human and no GM wants to be seen as giving away picks for less than the assigned value because then they feel like teams will think they can be taken advantage of. That is why the trade value chart persists. I am not arguing it is correct or accurate or even that it makes sense. I am arguing that the data is that human NFL GMs are still largely governed by it. It really doesn't matter if it is right. It matters if they are still using it which they are.

I don't see myself as overcomplicating the matter, but moreso trying to argue that it isn't as cut abd dry as some rigid number chart.

McDonalds doesn't dictate the price of Big Macs as much as the market does. If no one is willing to pay the price of the Big Mac, McDonald's is stuck with it. The market is what determines price. And each and every year there are different offerings.

Last year, there were no top QBs or players worth trading capital for. Teams were content to stand by because they didn't see much separation in the top picks. Thus where your chart says the #1 pick is worth 3000 and the 5th pick worth 1700. I'd argue last year maybe teams valued the #1 pick at 2000 and 5th pick at 1700. The numbers fluctuate for each team. But the point is that those values have to align for a buyer and seller to meet. Both have to think they are getting a good deal regardless of whatever value they assign each pick that given year. It's not about some published chart. I'm sure if someone offered half if what we received this year to Jaxksonville last year, they would have taken the trade. My guess is that there was no demand for the pick.

 

[remydat]

That's my point. The value of the #1 pick and really any pick fir that matter fluctuates depending on who is available and how badly a team wants the available player(s).

That is irrelevant though if the data is such that trades only really occur around a given value. If for example the No 1 pick was worth 2000 points then it doesn't matter if the Jags would never sell at that low a value. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you think the No 1 pick is worth 4000 this year if no team is going to buy at that value. So you are focused on the theoretical idea that the value fluctuates when the practical reality is that again trade history is such that trades largely occur at the assigned value.

I don't see myself as overcomplicating the matter, but moreso trying to argue that it isn't as cut abd dry as some rigid number chart.

McDonalds doesn't dictate the price of Big Macs as much as the market does. If no one is willing to pay the price of the Big Mac, McDonald's is stuck with it. The market is what determines price. And each and every year there are different offerings.

Last year, there were no top QBs or players worth trading capital for. Teams were content to stand by because they didn't see much separation in the top picks. Thus where your chart says the #1 pick is worth 3000 and the 5th pick worth 1700. I'd argue last year maybe teams valued the #1 pick at 2000 and 5th pick at 1700. The numbers fluctuate for each team. But the point is that those values have to align for a buyer and seller to meet. Both have to think they are getting a good deal regardless of whatever value they assign each pick that given year. It's not about some published chart. I'm sure if someone offered half if what we received this year to Jaxksonville last year, they would have taken the trade. My guess is that there was no demand for the pick.

Again see above, the problem with your theory is that it doesn't really stack up to the trade data. If your argument was true you should be able to find instances where a team simply accepted significantly less for a draft pick. So where are these trades? You tried to offer the Niners trade as being so much better than the Bears but I have already shown you that it actually wasn't. So pick any trade you want and let's see how it stacks up to the chart. What you will find is that again trades largely happen around the values in the trade value chart.

 

[Toast88]

That's the key. I don't like this deal nearly much as i do without Moore added. Getting first-rounders the next two years would be cool but getting a legit #1 right away on a cheap deal compared to other #1's is a real coup on Poles' part, while also getting a future 1st and second no less.

That really is the key. I keep thinking about it like this:

The Bears **got paid** draft picks to get DJ Moore, rather than **paying** draft picks to get DJ Moore. That’s really a cool way to think about it, I think.

I would’ve preferred the Bears find a way to stay in the top 4 and draft elite talent, but hey, I ain’t gonna complain about getting a handful of picks, a #1 receiver, and still probably being able to grab a great talent at 9.

 

[nc0gnet0]

That is irrelevant though if the data is such that trades only really occur around a given value. If for example the No 1 pick was worth 2000 points then it doesn't matter if the Jags would never sell at that low a value. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you think the No 1 pick is worth 4000 this year if no team is going to buy at that value. So you are focused on the theoretical idea that the value fluctuates when the practical reality is that again trade history is such that trades largely occur at the assigned value.



Again see above, the problem with your theory is that it doesn't really stack up to the trade data. If your argument was true you should be able to find instances where a team simply accepted significantly less for a draft pick. So where are these trades? You tried to offer the Niners trade as being so much better than the Bears but I have already shown you that it actually wasn't. So pick any trade you want and let's see how it stacks up to the chart. What you will find is that again trades largely happen around the values in the trade value chart.

2022

Lions trade #32, 34 & 66 to Minny. Detroit gets #12 & #46

590 + 560 + 260 = 1410 vs 440 + 1200 = 1640

 

[JoJoBoxer]

I was thinking about this a while back and would only trade with Houston if they agreed to declared their pick right after the trade. Getting Moore tipped these scales before FA. So much easier to game plan now and may have benefits beyond the actual current trade values.

But Houston would never do that. They would wait until they were on the clock on draft day because anything could happen with draft prospects between now and the draft, like an accident to their QB1, a cancer diagnosis, some as-yet hidden damning tweet or ex-girlfriend alleging abuse.

 

[Bearly]

But Houston would never do that. They would wait until they were on the clock on draft day because anything could happen with draft prospects between now and the draft, like an accident to their QB1, a cancer diagnosis, some as-yet hidden damning tweet or ex-girlfriend alleging abuse.

Sure, but it's not like they're locked in until he signs. I said declare their intentions for a reason and to be fair, if they signed him early, which would be their prerogative, it's the same risk we just assumed with signing Edmunds, as in, considered more than acceptable. There's actually less risk declaring intentions since they could then change streams if their guy befell some tragedy and is not yet signed. Nobody's locked in until the draft or signed but intentions would need to be expressed.

The problem here was that Young hasn't yet had his Pro Day and Texas may have not been prepared to make that decision or even care to move. It's a GMs job to test those waters.

The reason stating intentions would be important to that deal is because it makes the #2 pick that much more valuable to the team that prefers the QB not selected at #1 and give Poles time to work another deal. That said, it was a long shot to happen that way at this time and Poles did the right thing to line things up now as far as I'm concerned.

Here's a nice article on the process.

Loading…

www.charlotteobserver.com

 

[vabearsfan15]

That is irrelevant though if the data is such that trades only really occur around a given value. If for example the No 1 pick was worth 2000 points then it doesn't matter if the Jags would never sell at that low a value. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you think the No 1 pick is worth 4000 this year if no team is going to buy at that value. So you are focused on the theoretical idea that the value fluctuates when the practical reality is that again trade history is such that trades largely occur at the assigned value.



Again see above, the problem with your theory is that it doesn't really stack up to the trade data. If your argument was true you should be able to find instances where a team simply accepted significantly less for a draft pick. So where are these trades? You tried to offer the Niners trade as being so much better than the Bears but I have already shown you that it actually wasn't. So pick any trade you want and let's see how it stacks up to the chart. What you will find is that again trades largely happen around the values in the trade value chart.

There are quite a few examples of teams paying more than the trade chart (2021 49ers Trey Lance, 2012 RG3 Trade, 1999 Ricky Williams Trade, 1998 Ryan Leaf)

And then teams paying less than the trade chart (2016 Goff Trade, 1997 1st and 2nd pick)

There is a reason why everyone wants to trade down in their mock drafts and yet it rarely happens. It's because teams generally value their picks and aren't easily willing to give them away.

Also, I'm not saying that teams don't use a chart. I think they do. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as the one publicly shared on the internet. Particularly concerning the top of the draft where the chart has large point gaps between each pick. And I don't think teams arbitrarily just say player 1 on their board is 400 points different than player 2 on their board, and so on.

Anyways, to answer your point I think the 1997 and 1998 trades show a major discrepancy between perceived vakue for the top pick.

1997

Player picked at No. 1: OT Orlando Pace

Jets received: 1,954 Points
1997 first-round pick (No. 6) - 1600 points
1997 third-round pick (No. 67) - 255 points
1997 fourth-round pick (No. 102) - 92 points
1997 seventh-round pick (No. 207) - 7 points

Rams received: 1997 No. 1 overall pick (Pace) - 3000 Points

That is over a 1,000 point negative differential. Yet only one year later the 2nd overall pick went for more value for a trade for Ryan Leaf.

Player picked at No. 2: QB Ryan Leaf

Arizona Cardinals received: 3,280 points + 2 players
1998 first-round pick (No. 3) - 2200 points
1998 Second-round pick (No. 33) - 580 points
1999 1st rounder - 500 points
RB/WR Eric Metcalf
LB Patrick Sapp

Chargers Received: 1998 No.2 overall pick (Leaf) - 2600 Points

So in summary, in 1997 the #1 overall Pick netted 1,954 Points while a year later the #2 overall pick netted 3,280 points and two players.

 

[remydat]

2022

Lions trade #32, 34 & 66 to Minny. Detroit gets #12 & #46

590 + 560 + 260 = 1410 vs 440 + 1200 = 1640

That is only 210 points different in value compared to the 372 difference I just showed for the Bears trade. It also isn't a trade of a top 10 draft pick.

 

[remydat]

There are quite a few examples of teams paying more than the trade chart (2021 49ers Trey Lance, 2012 RG3 Trade, 1999 Ricky Williams Trade, 1998 Ryan Leaf)

And then teams paying less than the trade chart (2016 Goff Trade, 1997 1st and 2nd pick)

There is a reason why everyone wants to trade down in their mock drafts and yet it rarely happens. It's because teams generally value their picks and aren't easily willing to give them away.

Also, I'm not saying that teams don't use a chart. I think they do. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as the one publicly shared on the internet. Particularly concerning the top of the draft where the chart has large point gaps between each pick. And I don't think teams arbitrarily just say player 1 on their board is 400 points different than player 2 on their board, and so on.

Anyways, to answer your point I think the 1997 and 1998 trades show a major discrepancy between perceived vakue for the top pick.

1997

Player picked at No. 1: OT Orlando Pace

Jets received: 1,954 Points
1997 first-round pick (No. 6) - 1600 points
1997 third-round pick (No. 67) - 255 points
1997 fourth-round pick (No. 102) - 92 points
1997 seventh-round pick (No. 207) - 7 points

Rams received: 1997 No. 1 overall pick (Pace) - 3000 Points

That is over a 1,000 point negative differential. Yet only one year later the 2nd overall pick went for more value for a trade for Ryan Leaf.

Player picked at No. 2: QB Ryan Leaf

Arizona Cardinals received: 3,280 points + 2 players
1998 first-round pick (No. 3) - 2200 points
1998 Second-round pick (No. 33) - 580 points
1999 1st rounder - 500 points
RB/WR Eric Metcalf
LB Patrick Sapp

Chargers Received: 1998 No.2 overall pick (Leaf) - 2600 Points

So in summary, in 1997 the #1 overall Pick netted 1,954 Points while a year later the #2 overall pick netted 3,280 points and two players.

I already calculated the points for the Niners trade. It was 2200 vs 2292. But yes the Titans got less value for the 2016 first round pick which is all the more reason that claiming our trade was just ok is weird as we got 3372 of value compared to 2680 for the Titans even when they went all the way down to 15.

It was simply an OK trade by Poles. And getting DJ Moore has greatly helped his mediocre FA signings receive less scrutiny then he should.

As I said, if you look at the trades of top picks, we got more value than most which is why your abo statement made no sense. It was more than just ok.

The trade chart was created in 1991 so would not include the 90s trades because unclear how well circulated it was in the 90s. It would have taken several years before it became widely adopted. People shit on some of those tradee such as the Ricky Williams one and called Mike Ditka nuts for doing it. So dumb trades like that are what probably lead to people adopting the trade value chart. It was like the wild wild west until widespread adoption of the JJ chart.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Sure, but it's not like they're locked in until he signs. I said declare their intentions for a reason and to be fair, if they signed him early, which would be their prerogative, it's the same risk we just assumed with signing Edmunds, as in, considered more than acceptable. There's actually less risk declaring intentions since they could then change streams if their guy befell some tragedy and is not yet signed. Nobody's locked in until the draft or signed but intentions would need to be expressed.

The problem here was that Young hasn't yet had his Pro Day and Texas may have not been prepared to make that decision or even care to move. It's a GMs job to test those waters.

The reason stating intentions would be important to that deal is because it makes the #2 pick that much more valuable to the team that prefers the QB not selected at #1 and give Poles time to work another deal. That said, it was a long shot to happen that way at this time and Poles did the right thing to line things up now as far as I'm concerned.

Here's a nice article on the process.

Loading…

www.charlotteobserver.com

Again, what does Houston get for telling teams who they are going to pick early?

Or, in other words, why would Houston help the Bears or any other team?

If you want to talk reality, if the Bears had traded with Houston, Houston would have waited until they were on the clock before people would know who they were going to draft. The Bears would have then had 10(?) minutes to trade the 2nd pick.

That's it. End of story.

Even when teams had their QB already picked, they usually waited to announce their player on draft night. Even Peyton Manning was announced on draft night.

Question for you. When will Carolina announce their pick at #1? Next week? April Fools day? The morning of Draft Day? While they are on the clock?

Maybe that article you mentioned has all the answers, but it is behind a pay wall and I do not feel like paying for the CharlotteObesrver.