Quote
Billy_T
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 equates to 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 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.
That is the difference one spot can make for the right player, particularly a QB.
If San Diego trading what Chicago paid PLUS how many more picks to move up ONE slot...does your one spot argument hold water?
"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"
- Oscar Wilde
I demolish my bridges behind me - then there is no choice but forward.
- Fridtjof Nansen
