Would you make this trade?

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Bears trade: 9, 53, 61

To Steelers for 17, 32, 49.

Think I first saw Greg Gabriel propose this.

I don’t think I would because at 17 there’s a good chance you’re missing out on the top 3 tackles in the draft. And getting a day 1 starter at OT is priority #1 for me with this draft.

 

[Les Grossman]

I definitely wouldn't for the same reason you mentioned.

Aside from that, the compensation seems a bit light to me. Basically netting a a swap of a 3rd round pick to a 2nd round pick

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Bears trade: 9, 53, 61

To Steelers for 17, 32, 49.

Think I first saw Greg Gabriel propose this.

I don’t think I would because at 17 there’s a good chance you’re missing out on the top 3 tackles in the draft. And getting a day 1 starter at OT is priority #1 for me with this draft.

In the end, I would likely do that deal, yes. But I think Pit should add in the 80th pick as well as a sweetener.

 

[Chicagosports89]

Bears trade: 9, 53, 61

To Steelers for 17, 32, 49.

Think I first saw Greg Gabriel propose this.

I don’t think I would because at 17 there’s a good chance you’re missing out on the top 3 tackles in the draft. And getting a day 1 starter at OT is priority #1 for me with this draft.

Pittsburgh seems to be getting pretty great value there.

 

[sevvy]

Not sure a swap like that would be worth it to lose 8 spots in the 1st. Maybe if we swapped a later round pick like, 9/61/103 for 17/32/49. Or if we had to give up our first 3 picks, they threw in an extra pick somewhere, too. so 3 for 4.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Pittsburgh seems to be getting pretty great value there.

It was about 60 points in Pitt's favor. So fairly even.

 

[TheRightWay]

No deal...to bow out of Top 10 they need to add more pick compensation to the pot

 

[bamainatlanta]

Bears trade: 9, 53, 61

To Steelers for 17, 32, 49.

Think I first saw Greg Gabriel propose this.

I don’t think I would because at 17 there’s a good chance you’re missing out on the top 3 tackles in the draft. And getting a day 1 starter at OT is priority #1 for me with this draft.

They need to throw in a mid-round pick either this year or next.

 

[bears51/40]

I definitely wouldn't for the same reason you mentioned.

Aside from that, the compensation seems a bit light to me. Basically netting a a swap of a 3rd round pick to a 2nd round pick

Bears would need to get more back, probably Steelers would have to throw in a 2024 pick. If they did that I would take that trade.

The their option was the Bears give up 9 and 53 for 17 and 32.

 

[MDB111™]

In the end, I would likely do that deal, yes. But I think Pit should add in the 80th pick as well as a sweetener.

At least throw in Mitch. He be an excellent back-up. Or if the line doesn't gel this season, the Bears could throw him out to die instead of Fields Gawd.

 

[Aesopian]

Commanders need OT at 15 they're still starting Charles Leno at LT. I don't think Darnell Wright passes by them.

 

[greg23]

It was about 60 points in Pitt's favor. So fairly even.

So bears are losing.... why do it?

Esp if it's Carter they're targeting...make them pay the tax

 

[remydat]

It was about 60 points in Pitt's favor. So fairly even.

Bears are giving up the best pick so would expect it to favor them more. Especially if we are passing on Carter or a top OL.

Having said that, if it was truly the best offer I probably still take it but again think there should be a better offer out there.

 

[JesusHalasChrist]

This is basically even. So what sort of premium would you want going from 9 to 17?

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

So bears are losing.... why do it?

Esp if it's Carter they're targeting...make them pay the tax

Good lord. Do you really think that a few points on a "trade chart" means one team is "losing"? The stupid trade chart isn't the end all be all.

The reason to do it is if you think it's in the Bear's advantage to have higher picks in the second round.

I wouldn't do it because I want a top tackle. But a few points on a trade chart is pretty meaningless.

 

[BradyJay]

View attachment 28400

This is basically even. So what sort of premium would you want going from 9 to 17?

Why would the Bears want to leave the top 10 to break even?

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Why would the Bears want to leave the top 10 to break even?

Because your second pick jumps 21 spots

Because your third pick jumps 12 spots

You do it if you think the talent at 9 and 17 is fairly even BUT the talent is greater towards the top of round 2 versus the bottom.

 

[dennehy]

I think you'd want to get more picks in the deal, trade away fewer picks than you receive. Chances are you'd be giving up a 'blue' player in this scenario, I think Poles would want the opportunity to at least have another crack later in the draft.

 

[SugarWalls]

I think you'd want to get more picks in the deal, trade away fewer picks than you receive. Chances are you'd be giving up a 'blue' player in this scenario, I think Poles would want the opportunity to at least have another crack later in the draft.

Didn't Poles say he thought there were only 7 blue players this draft? He traded to 9 knowing he would be LIKELY passing on a blue player.

32 and 49 is much better than 53 and 61.

The question is how much more valuable is pick 9 compared to 17 in this draft. I think most analysts would suggest this is not a great draft and the value falls of significantly after the few top defensive prospects are taken.

 

[knoxville7]

Didn't Poles say he thought there were only 7 blue players this draft? He traded to 9 knowing he would be LIKELY passing on a blue player.

32 and 49 is much better than 53 and 61.

The question is how much more valuable is pick 9 compared to 17 in this draft. I think most analysts would suggest this is not a great draft and the value falls of significantly after the few top defensive prospects are taken.

Which leads me to an answer that nobody here will like, but it’s true…a trade like this depends on whomst has come off the board in the first 8 picks. That’s what would determine whether or not I’d make a trade like this