Not many are defending it. But those who are, IMO are trying to create a false equation:
"Those draft picks are in exchange for Trubisky. It's a great investment, for that reason. Not a very high price to pay for a starting QB."
No, those draft picks moved Chicago
one spot up so it could draft one of
several QBs (or athletes at other positions) with similar grades. As in, the extra picks didn't go straight up in return for
just Trubisky. They went straight up in return for the
DIFFERENCE between him and those other QBs. It's not an exchange for a whole QB, IOW. It's just for the perceived difference
between athletes.
If I'm the GM, I never, ever think in terms of trading draft picks to move up in that way. I'm not going to think, "I trade X number of picks and I get X player." I'm going to think, "I trade X number of draft picks for the difference between players. And if I don't think that difference equals the value of the draft picks, one to one, I don't do the deal."
I was against the Goff trade for that reason. To me, there wasn't enough of a significant difference in talent or potential between Goff and the next few QBs (or players at other positions) to warrant so many lost draft slots. And each of those slots likely represented a starter or a future starter for the Rams. I'm not going to trade starters or likely starters in exchange for slight differences.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2017 08:30AM by Billy_T.
