|
|
I still don't get why some folks don't understand the concept of opportunity costs . . . .
Just watched a bit of DVR from Mike and Mike this morning, and caught a conversation about the draft, and Chicago's move up for Trubisky. Shefter said he had no problem with the trade, and then went even further. To paraphrase: "It wouldn't have mattered if they had given up three 1st Rounders, as long as Trubisky turns out to be a good QB."
Problem with that view is that by doing so, Chicago gives up a shot at three high impact players, plus the chance to draft any other QB not named Trubisky, or any other high impact player at the 3rd slot.
As in, it's not a straight up trade of three 1sts for just Trubisky, and it's not like . . if they didn't get Trubisky, there are no other talented QBs -- or players at other positions -- to choose from. I don't think even the Bears would try to claim that after Trubisky, the talent level fell off the cliff and you were left with scrubs. If they had to grab a QB, ya still had Watson, Kizer, Mahomes, etc. etc. plus all kinds of great front seven defenders, DBs, big time running backs, two likely elite and freakishly athletic TEs, etc. etc.
It's one thing to say you're willing to trade those 1st Rounders, cuz you want to avoid having to go from Trubisky to scrubs. But it's another to try to defend trading those picks for the difference between Trubisky and the next available guy, who likely is gonna be at least as good.
IMO, best way to set this up, before diving in? Ask yourself would you trade the next best available player, at any position, plus three more potential pro-bowl players in future drafts -- which might bring you a QB too -- for just Trubisky. And, remember, we've never seen ANY of these guys take a single snap as an NFL player. So it's a roll of the dice for Trubisky too.
Me? I'd never make Shefter's trade. Strikes me as absolutely crazy. I would never make the trade they ended up making, much less changing the 3rd rounders to 1sts.
Thoughts?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2017 01:47PM by Billy_T.
Just watched a bit of DVR from Mike and Mike this morning, and caught a conversation about the draft, and Chicago's move up for Trubisky. Shefter said he had no problem with the trade, and then went even further. To paraphrase: "It wouldn't have mattered if they had given up three 1st Rounders, as long as Trubisky turns out to be a good QB."
Problem with that view is that by doing so, Chicago gives up a shot at three high impact players, plus the chance to draft any other QB not named Trubisky, or any other high impact player at the 3rd slot.
As in, it's not a straight up trade of three 1sts for just Trubisky, and it's not like . . if they didn't get Trubisky, there are no other talented QBs -- or players at other positions -- to choose from. I don't think even the Bears would try to claim that after Trubisky, the talent level fell off the cliff and you were left with scrubs. If they had to grab a QB, ya still had Watson, Kizer, Mahomes, etc. etc. plus all kinds of great front seven defenders, DBs, big time running backs, two likely elite and freakishly athletic TEs, etc. etc.
It's one thing to say you're willing to trade those 1st Rounders, cuz you want to avoid having to go from Trubisky to scrubs. But it's another to try to defend trading those picks for the difference between Trubisky and the next available guy, who likely is gonna be at least as good.
IMO, best way to set this up, before diving in? Ask yourself would you trade the next best available player, at any position, plus three more potential pro-bowl players in future drafts -- which might bring you a QB too -- for just Trubisky. And, remember, we've never seen ANY of these guys take a single snap as an NFL player. So it's a roll of the dice for Trubisky too.
Me? I'd never make Shefter's trade. Strikes me as absolutely crazy. I would never make the trade they ended up making, much less changing the 3rd rounders to 1sts.
Thoughts?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2017 01:47PM by Billy_T.
