Official: Bears trade 1st ovr pick to Panthers for WR DJ Moore & multiple future 1st rounders

[The Cooler King]

The more I think about it and greed sets in, the more I wish we’d have gotten their high 2nd instead of the low one. Pretty big talent drop there.

It's tough. Market value wise, it's a significant drop. But actual expected value wise, it's not a big deal.

It will be really interesting to see if Poles actually makes 3 picks between 54-64. Seems ripe for making more movement.

[RichH55]

The more I think about it and greed sets in, the more I wish we’d have gotten their high 2nd instead of the low one. Pretty big talent drop there.

Situationally, it seems fine to me. That is right about where the Centers are coming off the board - and Poles should be able to grab one of the top 2 (Scmitz or Wypler, or Tippman - who I don't hear people talking about too much).

Yep - The Bears should be in a good position come 2nd Round - If they are looking Center or Tight End (I assume both are potentially on the list) - or ILB. 50-60 could be the sweet spot

[thunderspirit]

The majority of KC's drafted offensive line during Ryan Poles' time there came in rounds 2 and 3. Philadelphia had some nice luck on Day 3 guys during Ian Cunningham's time there, too.

I'm hopeful we see more of the former this year after seeing the latter last year.

[RichH55]

With the sole exception of Eric Fisher, the majority of KC's drafted offensive line durong Ryan Poles' time there came in rounds 2 and 3.

Philadelphia had some nice luck on Day 3 guys during Ian Cunningham's time there, too. I'm hopeful we see more of the former this year after seeing the latter last year.

And they waited even longer on their Guard from Tenn

There is real value in having premium positions filled - at positions like Guard /Center and ILB and HB and Tight End - there is real value to be had in the 2nd/3rd Rounds

[karhu]

I think we done good.

In rough descending order of scarcity and typical draft value, we need a DE, a 3T, a RT, and a C. Could also use a rotational NT/1T and another DE.

That'll change a bit after FA, but I suspect that it won't change much. I have half a hunch that we'll end up with Dre'Mont Jones, a thirtysomething upgrade at RT, maybe another off-ball LB, and some investments in upside.

Which would leave us needing a DE, a long-term RT, and a C. It'd be nice if we were picking 9-10-11, but as things stand we're pretty well positioned relative to our needs. It's entirely possible that Carolina's higher 2nd would have made them balk at adding Moore to the deal, and it certainly would have lowered the return we got on future picks.

[karhu]

The more I think about it and greed sets in, the more I wish we’d have gotten their high 2nd instead of the low one. Pretty big talent drop there.

It's tough. Market value wise, it's a significant drop. But actual expected value wise, it's not a big deal.

It will be really interesting to see if Poles actually makes 3 picks between 54-64. Seems ripe for making more movement.

Yeah, I can see 54 turning into 68 and 69, something like that. Go DE at #9, and the only semi-premium position we'd really need would be 3T, and that's only if we strike out in FA.

[spudbear]

A little late to the party - I was in ER Friday at 4 am and just catching up now that I'm back home. I'll give the trade a thumbs up as they got a proven #1 WR and high picks in the future. The Bears lacked playmakers and getting Moore is a big plus to increasing that number.
They should go for best DE left at #9, but not take a gamble on a Leonard Floyd type player AGAIN. Floyd may have had a potential high ceiling but did not have the strength to go with his speed. The Bears need a big fast man at DE, not necessarily a future All-Pro but one that opposing offenses have to take into account. Those kinds of rushers do not end up in FA.

[Hero]

Couldn't Carolina trade back and get a 2024 1st? Hell yeah.

[Mikefive]

I think we done good.

In rough descending order of scarcity and typical draft value, we need a DE, a 3T, a RT, and a C. Could also use a rotational NT/1T and another DE.

That'll change a bit after FA, but I suspect that it won't change much. I have half a hunch that we'll end up with Dre'Mont Jones, a thirtysomething upgrade at RT, maybe another off-ball LB, and some investments in upside.

Which would leave us needing a DE, a long-term RT, and a C. It'd be nice if we were picking 9-10-11, but as things stand we're pretty well positioned relative to our needs. It's entirely possible that Carolina's higher 2nd would have made them balk at adding Moore to the deal, and it certainly would have lowered the return we got on future picks.

This is exactly what I've been pondering. Except you made an error in the first sentence of paragraph 3. That would leave us needing 2 DEs, not one in addition to the rest, right?

[karhu]

I think we done good.

In rough descending order of scarcity and typical draft value, we need a DE, a 3T, a RT, and a C. Could also use a rotational NT/1T and another DE.

That'll change a bit after FA, but I suspect that it won't change much. I have half a hunch that we'll end up with Dre'Mont Jones, a thirtysomething upgrade at RT, maybe another off-ball LB, and some investments in upside.

Which would leave us needing a DE, a long-term RT, and a C. It'd be nice if we were picking 9-10-11, but as things stand we're pretty well positioned relative to our needs. It's entirely possible that Carolina's higher 2nd would have made them balk at adding Moore to the deal, and it certainly would have lowered the return we got on future picks.

This is exactly what I've been pondering. Except you made an error in the first sentence of paragraph 3. That would leave us needing 2 DEs, not one in addition to the rest, right?

Not relative to the bare minimums I listed in my second sentence, which are what I think we need to make this a successful offseason. One DE but a helluva DE (read: Van Ness), a Mazi Smith/Keanu Benton-level 1T/flex DT, a Matt Bergeron-level RT candidate, and a top-3 center would do the trick IMSO, and we're set up for improvements on some of those. Another DE would be great, but I haven't given up on Gibson or Robinson just yet, especially if we feed them a steady stream of one-on-one matchups.

[Cartman]

I love this trade. I feel the Bears fleeced the Panthers. DJ Moore is just the icing on the cake. But getting the picks is only half the battle. Now we need to draft quality players.

For the first time in years I'm cautiously optimistic entering the draft. I just want Poles to concentrate on o-line (protecting Fields) and d-line (rushing the QB). If we do that, I'll be a happy camper. Look what the Lions did. They picked a lot of offensive lineman these past few years and now they have one of the best lines in football and turned Goff into a darn good looking QB. Give Fields time in the backfield so he's not always running for his life and/or taking constant hits, and our team improves immeasurably.

[Heinz D.]

A little late to the party - I was in ER Friday at 4 am and just catching up now that I'm back home. I'll give the trade a thumbs up as they got a proven #1 WR and high picks in the future.

ARE YOU FUCKING OKAY?!?!

My apologies if you work in the ER, or something...but a quick read of this, and I'm kinda worried!

[HisRoyalSweetness]

An interesting 'blow-by-blow' account of how the trade came about.

Inside the Bears–Panthers Trade: Deal Was All About QBs for Both Teams

A step-by-step look at how Carolina GM Scott Fitterer took the plunge for the top spot in April's draft, and how he put together a deal that satisfied Chicago’s price.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/03/13/bears ... draft-mmqb

[bearsfaninaz]

Great trade for all involved. Sure seems like we got the better deal of the two for a change as well. Still think we might trade back one more time to the 12-15 range and pick up a 2nd. Fields now has imo a good 1-3 punch in WRs with Kmet at TE. Now Mooney will have more room in the slot, Claypool to WR2 which fits him better.

[The Cooler King]

This isn't a very good sign for Carter

[wab]

Ooooof. That’s not good. I was expecting him to be down frown the combine.

[crueltyabc]

It's tough. Market value wise, it's a significant drop. But actual expected value wise, it's not a big deal.

It will be really interesting to see if Poles actually makes 3 picks between 54-64. Seems ripe for making more movement.

Yeah, I can see 54 turning into 68 and 69, something like that. Go DE at #9, and the only semi-premium position we'd really need would be 3T, and that's only if we strike out in FA.

I think the goal should be to fill in gaps so they can always catch guys who fall and don't miss on any "clouds" of players. Now I don't know who is interested in trading but I'm using the Spielberger Chart and choosing a random early-2nd round team:

Hypothetically say they trade to Pick 37 which is worth 1170 pts

Bears trade up and hopefully get good value but here are some possibilities:

Great value - 64 and 218 (1163 pts)
Leaving them with 9, 37, 53, 61, 103, 133, 136, 148, 258

Bad value - 64 and 136 (1402 pts)
Leaving them with 9, 37, 53, 61, 103, 133, 148, 218, 258

[karhu]

Yeah, I can see 54 turning into 68 and 69, something like that. Go DE at #9, and the only semi-premium position we'd really need would be 3T, and that's only if we strike out in FA.

I think the goal should be to fill in gaps so they can always catch guys who fall and don't miss on any "clouds" of players. Now I don't know who is interested in trading but I'm using the Spielberger Chart and choosing a random early-2nd round team:

Hypothetically say they trade to Pick 37 which is worth 1170 pts

Bears trade up and hopefully get good value but here are some possibilities:

Great value - 64 and 218 (1163 pts)
Leaving them with 9, 37, 53, 61, 103, 133, 136, 148, 258

Bad value - 64 and 136 (1402 pts)
Leaving them with 9, 37, 53, 61, 103, 133, 148, 218, 258

Yeah, I was thinking about moving down into the midst of the cloud, but it works both ways. We're in the middle of the road with 57 players under contract right now, so a bit of consolidation might make sense.

On the other hand, as much as I admire the ambition behind the Spielberger chart, it strikes me as a pretty unhelpful guide to what might actually happen. Our trade with Carolina, ferinstance, would've netted us #9, #61 and #145...provided we added #218 as a sweetener. Houston could've swapped picks with us for a sixth-rounder.

[The Cooler King]

I think the goal should be to fill in gaps so they can always catch guys who fall and don't miss on any "clouds" of players. Now I don't know who is interested in trading but I'm using the Spielberger Chart and choosing a random early-2nd round team:

Hypothetically say they trade to Pick 37 which is worth 1170 pts

Bears trade up and hopefully get good value but here are some possibilities:

Great value - 64 and 218 (1163 pts)
Leaving them with 9, 37, 53, 61, 103, 133, 136, 148, 258

Bad value - 64 and 136 (1402 pts)
Leaving them with 9, 37, 53, 61, 103, 133, 148, 218, 258

Yeah, I was thinking about moving down into the midst of the cloud, but it works both ways. We're in the middle of the road with 57 players under contract right now, so a bit of consolidation might make sense.

On the other hand, as much as I admire the ambition behind the Spielberger chart, it strikes me as a pretty unhelpful guide to what might actually happen. Our trade with Carolina, ferinstance, would've netted us #9, #61 and #145...provided we added #218 as a sweetener. Houston could've swapped picks with us for a sixth-rounder.

Spielberger chart is great, but even Brad himself basically doesn't use it because it's not a market chart (he's basically said as much on Twitter)

I look at it more like "which combo of picks on the JJ chart yields the best return on my chart"

So like maybe Im talking trade with a team and they throw out an offer that's a +5% bonus on the JJ chart, and an alternate offer that's +3% bonus. But my chart prefers the +3 one at a 20% to 15% edge. I strike in that arbitrage opportunity even though the market likes it less. I'm still not gonna take less that market value (at least not dramatically so).

[crueltyabc]

Well JJ chart says we'd need to send 61 and 64 for 37 so that won't work.

[karhu]

Spielberger chart is great, but even Brad himself basically doesn't use it because it's not a market chart (he's basically said as much on Twitter)

I look at it more like "which combo of picks on the JJ chart yields the best return on my chart"

So like maybe Im talking trade with a team and they throw out an offer that's a +5% bonus on the JJ chart, and an alternate offer that's +3% bonus. But my chart prefers the +3 one at a 20% to 15% edge. I strike in that arbitrage opportunity even though the market likes it less. I'm still not gonna take less that market value (at least not dramatically so).

Yep. I probably haven't dug around it as much as you have (and I don't even have a Twitter account), but the Spielberger chart seems most useful as a way of fine-tuning an offer or counter against a team's specific needs and the way its board falls. A way of asking "All things being equal, which of these deals is friendliest to our salary structure?" Not that all things are often equal.

[The Cooler King]

Spielberger chart is great, but even Brad himself basically doesn't use it because it's not a market chart (he's basically said as much on Twitter)

I look at it more like "which combo of picks on the JJ chart yields the best return on my chart"

So like maybe Im talking trade with a team and they throw out an offer that's a +5% bonus on the JJ chart, and an alternate offer that's +3% bonus. But my chart prefers the +3 one at a 20% to 15% edge. I strike in that arbitrage opportunity even though the market likes it less. I'm still not gonna take less that market value (at least not dramatically so).

Yep. I probably haven't dug around it as much as you have (and I don't even have a Twitter account), but the Spielberger chart seems most useful as a way of fine-tuning an offer or counter against a team's specific needs and the way its board falls. A way of asking "All things being equal, which of these deals is friendliest to our salary structure?" Not that all things are often equal.

Yep, exactly.

OTC also has a fun update to that chart which is a position multiplier. So you could plug in the positional value of who you would pick to refine the value from a market perspective. Real smart idea.

https://overthecap.com/trade-calculator

[IE]

Yep. I probably haven't dug around it as much as you have (and I don't even have a Twitter account), but the Spielberger chart seems most useful as a way of fine-tuning an offer or counter against a team's specific needs and the way its board falls. A way of asking "All things being equal, which of these deals is friendliest to our salary structure?" Not that all things are often equal.

Yep, exactly.

OTC also has a fun update to that chart which is a position multiplier. So you could plug in the positional value of who you would pick to refine the value from a market perspective. Real smart idea.

https://overthecap.com/trade-calculator

Is there really enough data on pick combinations like that to generate confident results? I'm surprised.

[The Cooler King]

Yep, exactly.

OTC also has a fun update to that chart which is a position multiplier. So you could plug in the positional value of who you would pick to refine the value from a market perspective. Real smart idea.

https://overthecap.com/trade-calculator

Is there really enough data on pick combinations like that to generate confident results? I'm surprised.

Specific to the positional value? I think it's just a generic market multiplier. So it's not like detailed enough to change multiplier by round or anything. And yea, probably not enough data exists to go that detailed.

The base chart though is basically just a market chart based on second contracts which they use to estimate expected pick value. Basically places trust in the NFL evaluators to grade a players value rather than some statistical output. A reasonable choice I think given the difficulty in trying to wrap up football value into a single number.

[IE]

Is there really enough data on pick combinations like that to generate confident results? I'm surprised.

Specific to the positional value? I think it's just a generic market multiplier. So it's not like detailed enough to change multiplier by round or anything. And yea, probably not enough data exists to go that detailed.

The base chart though is basically just a market chart based on second contracts which they use to estimate expected pick value. Basically places trust in the NFL evaluators to grade a players value rather than some statistical output. A reasonable choice I think given the difficulty in trying to wrap up football value into a single number.

Going to check it out thanks.

[UOK]

[Kylo Bearen]

No surprise there; I absolutely love it! I already view it as a precursor that Fields and Moore will be a devastating 1 2 punch to defenses in the upcoming seasons!

[MoFugger]

A little late to the party - I was in ER Friday at 4 am and just catching up now that I'm back home. I'll give the trade a thumbs up as they got a proven #1 WR and high picks in the future. The Bears lacked playmakers and getting Moore is a big plus to increasing that number.
They should go for best DE left at #9, but not take a gamble on a Leonard Floyd type player AGAIN. Floyd may have had a potential high ceiling but did not have the strength to go with his speed. The Bears need a big fast man at DE, not necessarily a future All-Pro but one that opposing offenses have to take into account. Those kinds of rushers do not end up in FA.

Hey man, whatever the situation that you were in the ER at 4:00 in the morning, that's kind of never good.
I hope you're okay!

[Arkansasbear]

Shouldn't Santos have at least been given the chance to "sell" the number and get a watch, shotgun or a chic-fil-et combo meal out of Moore?

[The Cooler King]

Shouldn't Santos have at least been given the chance to "sell" the number and get a watch, shotgun or a chic-fil-et combo meal out of Moore?

If Moore is a good guy there's a present coming for Santos. Technically Santos needs to go buy up all his jerseys in order to make that change (I believe that's a standard NFL rule). Might be a pretty penny