Possible Trade Scenarios for #1

[dplank]

I put down to #4, and also all the way down to 21-32 as my options.

My preferred path if we can get any sort of decent return would be to stay top 4 and nab Anderson or Carter. But, if someone wants to blow my nuts off with a massive offer, I'd be willing to listen and go all the way down to the end of the first round if necessary. The package would have to be massive.

So basically, I view the 4th pick as my red line where my asking price for the trade would dramatically shift. I'd take a lot less from Indy than what I would need from Seattle even though they are just 1 pick apart.

[dplank]

Yea I suppose Murphy is the next guy fi we missed those other two. The more I think about it the more I see LB as a need for us also. I just don't like what we have at all, I'm not nearly as positive on Morrow as the board seems to be. And our lesser used SAM position is true scrub level - I get it's not used all that much but it's gotta be better than Adams. And WLB is a crucial spot for us in this defense, second only to 3T. I do think they want a bigger, stronger guy at that spot than Roquan, I really think Roquans position fit is ultimately what led to him moving to Baltimore. No interest in moving to a Roquan debate, just thinking about the profile of player they should target for WLB and I'm wondering if we get a nice haul of picks on a trade down if it's worth nabbing a higher end prospect than we've been proposing here recently.

[bearsoldier]

I agree, LB is very much a need. If the trade went down like that with Seattle, could use #37 on Drew Sanders or Henry To'o To'o or possible look toward using a later pick on Jack Campbell.
#83 is close to where he is projected at on big boards. #37 might also be a good spot to gain OG or OT as well and would give us good options to take BPA at positions of need.

[bearsoldier]

I would like to stay inside top 5... Rather trade with Seattle for a haul of picks this year but Indy seems to be the more likely trade partner if all the speculation is true.

[Heinz D.]

Good idea there, @The Marshall Plan . Hopefully, this becomes the go-to draft thread, as I think this is really what it's all about.

For now, I'll dismiss what John McClain said the other day, which I mentioned in a different draft thread. (Forget which one.)

As it stands today, here is my dream scenario, which assumes the demand for the first pick is super high:

FIRST TRADE: The Chicago Bears trade #1 to the Indianapolis Colts for #4, #35, '24 first round pick, and Michael Pittman. ('Cuz he was mentioned by name in the leak.)

SECOND TRADE: The Chicago Bears trade #4 to the Carolina Panthers for #9, #39, #60, and '24 3rd round pick.

If somehow Anderson or Carter is still there at #9, obviously you take either. There's an outside chance Murphy will be there, he'd be a fine get. Maybe take the DE from Texas Tech, or "reach" for Dexter. One of the top two WRs will likely be there. Most, or all, of the top OTs will be there. If you're still unhappy, trade down again--maybe the Patriots, maybe the Commanders.

[The Marshall Plan]

Is the question

"What's my ideal range to trade to" (assuming all offers are appropriately balanced for distance dropping down)
or
"What's the lowest realistic trade down I'd be willing to seriously consider"




The former is 4-7.
But I'd be willing to consider all the way down to 20ish, if the teams down there are seriously ponying up.

The lowest you'd be willing to go.

[Moriarty]

Is the question

"What's my ideal range to trade to" (assuming all offers are appropriately balanced for distance dropping down)
or
"What's the lowest realistic trade down I'd be willing to seriously consider"




The former is 4-7.
But I'd be willing to consider all the way down to 20ish, if the teams down there are seriously ponying up.

The lowest you'd be willing to go.

OK

Technically, I'd consider anything, if they were going crazyass (Here, take my 1/2/3 for the next 4 years!), but realistically, around 20

[thunderspirit]

I put down to #4, and also all the way down to 21-32 as my options.

My preferred path if we can get any sort of decent return would be to stay top 4 and nab Anderson or Carter. But, if someone wants to blow my nuts off with a massive offer, I'd be willing to listen and go all the way down to the end of the first round if necessary. The package would have to be massive.

So basically, I view the 4th pick as my red line where my asking price for the trade would dramatically shift. I'd take a lot less from Indy than what I would need from Seattle even though they are just 1 pick apart.

Pretty much this.

[The Marshall Plan]

The lowest you'd be willing to go.

OK

Technically, I'd consider anything, if they were going crazyass (Here, take my 1/2/3 for the next 4 years!), but realistically, around 20

What you're saying is technically correct.

Sure. If a team offered something batshit like the 1/2/3 for the next 4 years like you said.

But then.

There's an opportunity cost. You don't get Anderson, Carter, Murphy, Skoronski, Johnston or some of these other guys.

Then by delaying gratification like that, you're also delaying the rebuild POTENTIALLY. The missing piece is FA here.

There's a totally valid argument to be made if FA is a total home run for us.

Humor me.

We sign Ngakoue, Payne, McGlinchey, Bozeman and maybe another player or two. We have the money for that.

So now on paper we're a much better team BEFORE the draft even starts. Then we still have a nice amount of picks even after the first round.

At that point, the batshit trade could make a lot of sense because it sets up our drafts to be plentiful for almost half a decade. From one pick.

I voted for #5 overall because I don't want to miss out on Murphy and I feel we can still get a decent amount of picks in addition to that from Seattle.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

Houston, or Seattle.

Supposedly they have multiple first round picks to throw around.

[Grizzled]

We all want to see tons of high draft picks for that #1. The simulator sites are not realistic. The trades in the link show what the Bears might reasonably expect based on differing draft trade charts. The lower the Bears are willing to go, the greater the initial haul. The article doesn't address the Bears making multiple trades down, i.e. to #2, then to #4. After that, who knows, the Raiders and Panthers might still come calling for their QB.

https://beargoggleson.com/2023/01/21/ch ... ors-first/

[Grizzled]

I selected #2 and then #4. But the Bears can look at another trade back with Vegas, Atlanta, or Carolina depending on their QB needs and rake in extra 2nd round picks.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

If I’m trading out of the top 10 I’m going to need a player in there to make up for the loss.
If I get at least one good vet I’d be willing to go to 15. Half way down the draft order

If there’s no top vet coming the other way then I’m staying top 10

[Heinz D.]

I voted for #5 overall because I don't want to miss out on Murphy and I feel we can still get a decent amount of picks in addition to that from Seattle.

I laid out what I termed my "dream" scenario...as I don't think either Seattle or Detroit will be interested in moving up to #1.

But, if we're talking "out there" scenarios? Then Seattle's picks or Detroit's picks eight days a week. Getting #5 and #20 would be absolutely phenomenal. I wouldn't even ask them for much more than that (if anything).

[Burl]

This team doesn't just need bodies or solid contributors, it needs an identity and when you've got a draft pick this high, you need to make it count.
I dont know the number, but no further back than the elite talent goes.

[Mikefive]

Good idea there, @The Marshall Plan . Hopefully, this becomes this go-to draft thread, as I think this is really what it's all about.

For now, I'll dismiss what John McClain said the other day, which I mentioned in a different draft thread. (Forget which one.)

As it stands today, here is my dream scenario, which assumes the demand for the first pick is super high:

FIRST TRADE: The Chicago Bears trade #1 to the Indianapolis Colts for #4, #35, '24 first round pick, and Michael Pittman. ('Cuz he was mentioned by name in the leak.)

SECOND TRADE: The Chicago Bears trade #4 to the Carolina Panthers for #9, #39, #60, and '24 3rd round pick.

If somehow Anderson or Carter is still there at #9, obviously you take either. There's an outside chance Murphy will be there, he'd be a fine get. Maybe take the DE from Texas Tech, or "reach" for Dexter. One of the top two WRs will likely be there. Most, or all, of the top OTs will be there. If you're still unhappy, trade down again--maybe the Patriots, maybe the Commanders.

This is an excellent topic for discussion.

My answer was #9 Carolina. But like others have said, I'm kinda open. The way I see it, we lack and need quality players. I'm not going to complain if we drop to 4 and get Carter or Anderson. That said, I feel like those guys aren't sure things. Carter has the right body type and penetrating type of game. But is he a HITS principle hustle guy? He didn't show that vs. Alabama. I love Anderson's game. But at only 240#, is he big enough to play on an OT's outside shoulder, which we often do? Maybe. But it's not certain. If those guys were drop dead locks, my answer would be different. There are other very good players that will be available back a few spots like Murphy, WRs and OTs. And we'll get more quality picks out of it who can hopefully end up being good players for us. My vote is for power in numbers.

[IE]

I voted 8 and 9. To make that trade, it would need to be a bounty of picks and maybe also a player or two. Although it would definitely miss on the top 2-3 guys, I would be OK with Murphy or Skoronski (sp) from Northwestern plus all the other high round picks including I'd assume a first and second rounder next year.

A LOT of HOFers don't come from the first 4 picks. The top picks are skewed to QB and for good reason - but even a lot of them fail (as we know). So to me it is all about the overall value... if one of those lower teams are desperate and back up the truck with draft capital it is worth consideration. It is also true that almost every year some players with potential to go very high just don't because of teams trading up & changing the dynamics of the top 10-15. The Bears benefitted from that once recently, and got a franchise QB. Why couldn't the Bears trade to Carolina or Atlanta and then if a guy they really want is still there at 6 use some of that desperation capital from another team to move up a pick or two to get a guy.

And, importantly, this thinking is influenced by the financial position that Poles has gotten himself to - where he can buy a good amount of top available talent. If he comes away after the draft with an all-new stud Dline, a couple of new OL and a handful of other really cool pickups in addition to a couple extra high picks next year.. that's awesome.

[thefish7]

I selected 4 and 21-32, but it's probably not quite right. For me you trade with Houston only if you can get 2 and 12. If you can, you do that and don't look back. You try to trade 2 then to Indy, Seattle, or Detroit or whomever. If you actually get 4 out of the second trade, then you put that up for sale too. I am definitely on the numbers side of this debate. My wettest dream is to position the team with 3 first rounders in this draft somehow and try to deal with OT, Smith-Njigba, and a defensive player. Picks 12, a top 20, and another pick late in the round or early second might do that for you.

[Hema2.0]

I picked Indy at 4. But like many others have said, if you get an offer you can't refuse, do it again. This team just lacks so much talent that the more picks you can accumulate in the top 100, or next draft, the better.

[Heinz D.]

My answer was #9 Carolina. But like others have said, I'm kinda open. The way I see it, we lack and need quality players. I'm not going to complain if we drop to 4 and get Carter or Anderson. That said, I feel like those guys aren't sure things. Carter has the right body type and penetrating type of game. But is he a HITS principle hustle guy? He didn't show that vs. Alabama. I love Anderson's game. But at only 240#, is he big enough to play on an OT's outside shoulder, which we often do? Maybe. But it's not certain. If those guys were drop dead locks, my answer would be different. There are other very good players that will be available back a few spots like Murphy, WRs and OTs. And we'll get more quality picks out of it who can hopefully end up being good players for us. My vote is for power in numbers.

Yeah, thanks for that. I don't think this gets stressed enough.

Carter may not be the best fit for a 3T in the defense Eberflus wants to run. Anderson may be best as a 3-4 OLB. If he becomes a Bear, he has to gain A LOT of weight...and who knows what that does to his game.

I'm not super excited about Poles drafting either dude. Which is why I'm more open to trades and stuff than a lot of guys...

[wab]

I don't understand why people keep talking about Anderson's weight when one of the most talked about FA possibilities (Ngakoue) is almost exactly the same size. Anderson is listed as 6'4 243. Ngakoue is listed as 6'2 246.

Unless Anderson comes in at like 6'2 225 or something crazy, then I don't see the issue.

[wab]

To answer the question, I said 4 and then maybe again back to 9. But I can't really answer until FA has happened.

[Arkansasbear]

I said 4 and 8. Should have said 9.

Like I said else where, the dream is trade to 2 and then to 4 and still get Anderson.

I'd be fine if it was a strait move to 4.

But at 4 there is only one guy I want and that is Anderson. I don't want him enough to pass on the extra picks we would land in a trade down. I'm not sold enough on Carter to say you stand put and take him if Anderson is gone. But after Anderson there are several guys I'd take - Q. Johnson, P. Johnson, Murphy, Bresee, Carter and Skoronski.

All of those guys are pretty equal as far as quality and impact on helping this team. So if 2 QBs and Anderson on gone, you can move to 9 and still be assured of getting one, liking picking from about 3 of them.

[Arkansasbear]

We all tons of high draft picks for that #1. The simulator sites are not realistic. The trades in the link show what the Bears might reasonably expect based on differing draft trade charts. The lower the Bears are willing to go, the greater the initial haul. The article doesn't address the Bears making multiple trades down, i.e. to #2, then to #4. After that, who knows, the Raiders and Panthers might still come calling for their QB.

https://beargoggleson.com/2023/01/21/ch ... ors-first/

I still think most of those trades are a bit lite in what we would get. I only say that because I think there will be a huge bidding by teams wanting to move up to number 1 which will drive up the price.

I also think it is possible in Houston is "all in" one QB, the Bears could give up the 1st pick and get number 2 and Houston's number 1 next year and nothing else. It's good for Houston as they still have number 12 and 33 to build around the guy. From the Bears standpoint, they get the top player they want and a decent shot at a top 5 pick next year. Maybe even the number 1 pick. I think Houston is that bad and they will have a completely new staff / system the team needs to learn.

[wab]

I said 4 and 8. Should have said 9.

Like I said else where, the dream is trade to 2 and then to 4 and still get Anderson.

I'd be fine if it was a strait move to 4.

But at 4 there is only one guy I want and that is Anderson. I don't want him enough to pass on the extra picks we would land in a trade down. I'm not sold enough on Carter to say you stand put and take him if Anderson is gone. But after Anderson there are several guys I'd take - Q. Johnson, P. Johnson, Murphy, Bresee, Carter and Skoronski.

All of those guys are pretty equal as far as quality and impact on helping this team. So if 2 QBs and Anderson on gone, you can move to 9 and still be assured of getting one, liking picking from about 3 of them.

The wildcard is AZ. Assuming the Bears trade back to 4...

Imagine if Levis and Stroud go 1/2 and Bryce Young is there at 3...you'd have to imagine teams like Carolina (who started a 5'10 QB for a good part of the season) would be interested in moving up.

Then you have to make a real choice. Do you take Anderson or move back with a team like Atlanta who would want Anderson. Or do you try and entice the Eagles to move up for Anderson and get their two 1st rounders?

If I move back to 4 and Anderson is there...I stay put and take Anderson. Again, this is also assuming a couple of key positions were already addressed in FA.

[wab]

We all tons of high draft picks for that #1. The simulator sites are not realistic. The trades in the link show what the Bears might reasonably expect based on differing draft trade charts. The lower the Bears are willing to go, the greater the initial haul. The article doesn't address the Bears making multiple trades down, i.e. to #2, then to #4. After that, who knows, the Raiders and Panthers might still come calling for their QB.

https://beargoggleson.com/2023/01/21/ch ... ors-first/

I still think most of those trades are a bit lite in what we would get. I only say that because I think there will be a huge bidding by teams wanting to move up to number 1 which will drive up the price.

I also think it is possible in Houston is "all in" one QB, the Bears could give up the 1st pick and get number 2 and Houston's number 1 next year and nothing else. It's good for Houston as they still have number 12 and 33 to build around the guy. From the Bears standpoint, they get the top player they want and a decent shot at a top 5 pick next year. Maybe even the number 1 pick. I think Houston is that bad and they will have a completely new staff / system the team needs to learn.

Houston has two first round picks next year as well. So giving up one to move up a spot isn't that crazy of a notion. I'd want their 2nd this year too though. Give me #2, #35 and one of next years #1 picks and #1 is all yours.

Another benefit of Houston trading up one spot that doesn't really get talked about, is that they can start negotiating with whoever they want to draft essentially whenever they want.

[Arkansasbear]

I said 4 and 8. Should have said 9.

Like I said else where, the dream is trade to 2 and then to 4 and still get Anderson.

I'd be fine if it was a strait move to 4.

But at 4 there is only one guy I want and that is Anderson. I don't want him enough to pass on the extra picks we would land in a trade down. I'm not sold enough on Carter to say you stand put and take him if Anderson is gone. But after Anderson there are several guys I'd take - Q. Johnson, P. Johnson, Murphy, Bresee, Carter and Skoronski.

All of those guys are pretty equal as far as quality and impact on helping this team. So if 2 QBs and Anderson on gone, you can move to 9 and still be assured of getting one, liking picking from about 3 of them.

The wildcard is AZ. Assuming the Bears trade back to 4...

Imagine if Levis and Stroud go 1/2 and Bryce Young is there at 3...you'd have to imagine teams like Carolina (who started a 5'10 QB for a good part of the season) would be interested in moving up.

Then you have to make a real choice. Do you take Anderson or move back with a team like Atlanta who would want Anderson. Or do you try and entice the Eagles to move up for Anderson and get their two 1st rounders?

If I move back to 4 and Anderson is there...I stay put and take Anderson. Again, this is also assuming a couple of key positions were already addressed in FA.

I think if Anderson is there at 4 you take him. He's the only guy I few as a "generational talent." So I'm prepared to take him at four after getting all the other picks (especially if we are able to go to 2 and then 4).

That said, crazy offers could come in that you simply have to take (Ditka giving up his draft for Ricky Williams kind of stuff).

Sticking with Levis Stroud going 1/2, what if the Cardinals simply fall in love with another player other that Anderson and we are on the board with Young still there. If the Raiders, Falcons and Panthers haven't solve their QB issues, what might each of them be willing to offer for Young? You might be looking at their one and two this year and 2 more 1st round picks. 1st round picks I think would still be in the top 10. That would be very hard to pass up.

[Grizzled]

I still think most of those trades are a bit lite in what we would get. I only say that because I think there will be a huge bidding by teams wanting to move up to number 1 which will drive up the price.

I also think it is possible in Houston is "all in" one QB, the Bears could give up the 1st pick and get number 2 and Houston's number 1 next year and nothing else. It's good for Houston as they still have number 12 and 33 to build around the guy. From the Bears standpoint, they get the top player they want and a decent shot at a top 5 pick next year. Maybe even the number 1 pick. I think Houston is that bad and they will have a completely new staff / system the team needs to learn.

Houston has two first round picks next year as well. So giving up one to move up a spot isn't that crazy of a notion. I'd want their 2nd this year too though. Give me #2, #35 and one of next years #1 picks and #1 is all yours.

Another benefit of Houston trading up one spot that doesn't really get talked about, is that they can start negotiating with whoever they want to draft essentially whenever they want.

I would be surprised if they made a trade like that but would jump all over it. The big question is are they feening for one particular QB and would do almost anything to get him. This seems to afflict a lot of teams leading up to the draft.

[Arkansasbear]

Houston has two first round picks next year as well. So giving up one to move up a spot isn't that crazy of a notion. I'd want their 2nd this year too though. Give me #2, #35 and one of next years #1 picks and #1 is all yours.

Another benefit of Houston trading up one spot that doesn't really get talked about, is that they can start negotiating with whoever they want to draft essentially whenever they want.

I would be surprised if they made a trade like that but would jump all over it. The big question is are they feening for one particular QB and would do almost anything to get him. This seems to afflict a lot of teams leading up to the draft.

The guys being listed as the top 3 QBs to me are all very different players with different skill sets that will fit into different schemes differently. (wow that used different a lot). So although a team may say they are okay with their 2nd or 3rd rated QB, they are going to strongly favor one over the other 2 and will want to target a specific guy.

[Grizzled]

I would be surprised if they made a trade like that but would jump all over it. The big question is are they feening for one particular QB and would do almost anything to get him. This seems to afflict a lot of teams leading up to the draft.

The guys being listed as the top 3 QBs to me are all very different players with different skill sets that will fit into different schemes differently. (wow that used different a lot). So although a team may say they are okay with their 2nd or 3rd rated QB, they are going to strongly favor one over the other 2 and will want to target a specific guy.

I agree teams are looking at specific guys. Indy and Carolina seem to be leaning towards Levis then Stroud. Houston towards Young. I would imagine, though, that any of the teams could pivot from their first choice. Any of them drafting a rookie QB highly will implement an offensive system to maximize his chance of success (kind of the anti-Nagy approach) and could use any of the 3.