Valuable at cost is not the same as valuable though. Phrasing it that way gets back into the idea of surplus value over contract, which you described in talking about Wentz. This is another reason first round picks are so highly coveted and why he attempted assigning value to the picks traded for Mack.

A dominant edge rusher being paid at his worth, "doing his job at a rate that is balanced out by his compensation" as you put it, is valuable. There aren't many of those guys around the league. But having to pay him roughly what it's worth drastically reduces his value when compared to his salary, which again, you pointed out yourself with the Wentz example.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Any player better than the league average at his position is valuable regardless of how they are paid though. Jay Cutler was valuable.

In that case, a player can be valuable and not improve your expectation of wins. Is that correct?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I think that's the crux of our disagreement. Adrian Amos is a good, above average safety. Even has star potential. If you paid him Aaron Rodgers money he would no longer be a valuable asset to a team.


That's incorrect. They specifically traded future capital and future cap flexibility to improve their win expectation in the short term.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Isn't that using my definition of valuable though?
Isn't that surplus value though? He can't be figuring in a decline as Mack is still relatively young. The only true loss of value would have to come in 2020 when they would otherwise have had 2 players but only have 1.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

This is the greatest word salad website link I've ever seen

Nope. You sorta stated the exact opposite actually - Any player better than the league average at his position is valuable regardless of how they are paid though.


Surplus value over what? Over unused cap space and yet-to-be-used draft picks? Yes, of course Mack provides surplus value over literally nothing. That's why they traded away future resources for an immediate improvement over wins. However, it definitely limits their ability to further acquire top end talent over the next 5 years.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

That's a pretty useless definition. I mean, are we really arguing whether Mack is better than the league average and therefore he is valuable?

You said the Bears have increased their win expectation with the trade? Isn't that surplus value? If the Bears hadn't made the trade then they would win less games over the next 5 years.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

LOL. That's your definition! YOU said that, not me.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I said they increased their win expectation next year. I don't know that they have over the next 5 years. I'm inclined to think they haven't raised it by much over the next 5 though, no.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Favre spending as much time in the Bears section as Mack and Floyd will be spending in the Packer backfield on Sunday.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

What are you laughing at? It is a useless definition because it's so generic it has little to no meaning.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

It's nice to finally see a thread garner some activity without being exclusively about soy boys and nazis.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Agreed. It's a pretty useless definition. Not sure why you employed it in the first place.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You seem to be jumping back and forth. I assume you don't think there will be a significant decline in his play over the next 5 years given his age. Therefore, you expect him to be the same type of player he was in Oakland. You seem to think in the short term that he will add a good amount of wins. What happens in year 3-5 to cause him to give back all of those wins from year 1 and 2?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

In years 3-5 the Bears will have little to zero cap flexibility to acquire talent and will be bereft of recent first round young talent due to the trade. They improved their roster significantly this season at the expense of having the flexibility to further improve it going forward.

It's odd to me that you're pretending you don't understand the opportunity cost of this transaction, because I'm pretty sure you do.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

The cap flexibility isn't needed if he is meeting the expectations on the field from his salary. If we are projecting, Mack will pretty clearly be better than "2019 First Round Pick X" for the length of his contract. Assuming the Bears were unlikely to have a top 3 pick in 2019, you can't make a realistic projection that the player drafted would be better than a top 3 defensive player in the league. So, losing that pick is meaningless. Your team is better for those 4 years by having Mack. So, that takes us to the year after. They would have had a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick in 2020. Now, they have a 2nd and a 2nd round pick in 2020. That actually isn't a huge price to pay if that is the net loss in terms of draft picks in order to have a far superior player suiting up in 2018 and 2019 who still will be in 2020. Now, maybe those two players would eventually surpass him but the odds of that are low. Here is your challenge. They can be either offensive or defensive players but not a quarterback since the Bears at worst are looking for a new one in 2021. You can count two years apart if the quarterback was chosen in between. Choose the first round draft picks of the same team in consecutive years in recent years. Would you trade those two players for Mack? I'm guessing that it would be hard to find more than a few teams who have two players like that. In my opinion, I think it is safe to say that they are better off with Mack over the two first round picks, with an added bonus that a 3rd round pick became a 2nd round pick to lessen the blow of not having that 1st.

So then it comes down to the contract, but as we talked about, you and me both seem to think that he will perform to a level that at least justifies what he is being paid for the length of the contract.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

But that's a very poor analysis of the trade. Barnwell's was much better. If at any point in the analysis you come to the conlcusion that the first round pick being given up is meaningless, just start over. The process that led you to that conclusion was necessarily deeply flawed.

They lost a total of three draft picks in the trade, two of them being first rounders. So that's three players right there instead of Mack, two who should be projected as starters. Then you have to include the opportunity cost of the contract. $20-25 million annually can net you anywhere from 1 stud and a starter, a few good starters, etc. You're sacrificing a significant portion of your future resources to make this deal.


Since before the trade I have been consistent that I think it's a good idea to give up the necessary draft capital for Mack and pay him what he wants. I think he's that good. I'm just trying to explain to you that the cost was indeed enormous for the Bears. I don't believe I ever said it was a bad idea.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I didn't say it was meaningless. I said it was replaced by Mack.

They didn't lose three draft picks in the trade. They lost two if you don't count the late round stuff.

Before trade.
Bears gave up a 1st in 2019, a 1st in 2020, and a 3rd in 2020.
Bears got a 2nd in 2020.

That is two picks lost.

As for the 2019 pick, let's say the Bears and Packers traded. The trade was Aaron Rodgers for Mitch (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky. Would you say the loss of Mitch (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky was meaningless or did they "lose" Mitch (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You literally said it was meaningless.

The Bears also gave up a 6th round pick. It's three picks lost.

I would say they lost Mitch (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky, no quotes needed. Unless you are under the impression Mitch literally has zero value in the NFL, you should agree.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

My man FF goes the extra mile to ensure his posts aren't being read metaphorically.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

people love off season football discussion

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

No one cares about a 6th round pick but that is more than made up in value of we are talking about moving up from the 3rd to the 2nd.

So any examples of the 2 consecutive first round you wouldn't trade for Mack? Don't be a soy boy.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I'm certain I can find two consecutive first round picks plus $140 million in cap money worth of players that I wouldn't trade for Mack.

No matter how many times you say it the cost for Mack was more than two first round picks.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

It’s still only 13% of their cap.

Right. $90 million in guaranteed money would have been the better way to phrase it anyway

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Ok. I'd be interested in who you find. Seems to be pretty rare. I'll take my chances with Mack over the 1 percent chance that you hit a home run in two drafts.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

He’d have to hit a grand slam.

A lot of money but not my money

FF is so jealous of what the Bears did.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!