MHS831

It still comes out to a good trade (and you have to factor in the value of getting the top QB in the draft when you need a QB--which i did not consider), but I disagree that giving someone their draft pick value when they are veterans on a second contract is an accurate way of determining that player's current value.

I think they had a ton of $$ to spend in free agency, and they wanted a veteran player now (on a good contract). Further, they wanted this done before free agency, for that same reason. If I were a Bear's fan, I would applaud the move, but I would not claim to have fleeced anyone. As a Panther fan, I am stoked.

I come here to get away from it, but when I see everyone bitching about getting fleeced, I decided to step into my alter ego and pull some Bill Nye out of my ass.

Not me, the conclusions. I don't take stuff personally--In research, if you quantify an unknown quantity, you have an obligation of determining how you arrived at that conclusion. I did that, so it really is not subject to an "attack" because it was fully disclosed. There is a degree of variation that the reader then applies to the findings--I would argue that if you polled people on this biased site to determine Moore's 2023 draft trade value, #30 overall would probably be very close--and you did not correct the math by interjecting numbers that are no longer applicable or valid to the evaluation of the player--you skewed it.

we didn't. According to the formulas and some interpretations of value (jeez) we actually came out on top by an estimated early third rounder. (See the other thread about Quantitative analysis...)

Come on. I don't know where to begin with this--if you think rating veterans value should be based on their draft status, then OK--go with that. I used the Darnold/Warner examples to show you how illogical that is--and you are attacking my conclusions because I explained my method for determining the value of an immeasurable variable. There are many variables that could have been considered, and what you do in research is you explain the determination of value to immeasurable quantities. Please understand that I realize what you are trying to say, and all research has various degrees of validity---so if you see an immeasurable quantity, take it into consideration, but do not apply an invalid quantity to the formula to attempt to make the math work. This is not really about the math, it is about painting as realistic picture as possible. Applying your suggestions does not increase the validity--please take that from a research professor who does this quite often.

Why would you assume a veteran with a proven resume should be given their draft value? Does that mean that Kurt Warner's trade value was "0"? Or that Sam Darnold's trade value is equal to that of the third overall pick (2200)? Moore was the 18th rated WR in 2022 (subjective rating, but he had 880 yards and 7 TDs) so by the end of the season, he was not worth a first rounder--I was being generous--giving him the benefit of the doubt. I doubt he would get more than a second rounder in a trade right now, which is when the trade took place.

Lotta emotions and speculative assumptive opinions flying around Huddle Nation--and it is not becoming of true scholars. For all you whiny babies and boo hooers, this is some "in your face" data. Let's take a look at the trade using the data we use to analyze trades in the NFL concerning Draft picks. First, the "one round per year" rule has been proven to be accurate (Do not let the formula discourage you--just to show how scientific this study was): From the research report: "Thaler & Massey (2012) measured the discount rate of future year draft picks to be 136% for all draft-day trades from 1983 to 2008. Remarkably, our results yield a discount rate of 135% for trades from 2009 to 2016. The consistency of these findings aligns with a well-known convention described as the one round per-year rule: The market for future year picks is defined by a one-round [current-year] devaluation in price." https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2017/04/17133825/CapstonePaper_NFLDraft_March2017.pdf Now let's take a look at the trade with the Bears for DJ Moore and a windfall of picks from the perspective of the research data: Panthers Bears 3000 (#1 overall 2023) 1350 (#9 pick in 2023 draft) 292 (#61 pick in the 2023 draft) 420 (2024 first rounder - ave. 2nd rd valuation) 70 (2025 second rounder - ave. 4th rd. valuation) 620 (Pick #30, 2023-DJ Moore estimated value) TOTALS Panthers: 3000 points Bears: 2752 points DIFFERENCE Advantage Panthers +248 points DIFFERENCE VALUE 248 points is the equivalent of an early third round selection, between picks 68 and 69 CONCLUSION The Panthers did the Fleecing if anyone did--technically, the Panthers got a deal, and the Bears helped themselves tremendously. If the Panthers pick in the top 10 again in 2024, the advantage slides toward the Bears. If they pick in the top 20, then this advantage increases. If there is a criticism, I would say that they Bears traded down too far, taking themselves out of the conversation to get one of the three or four elite defensive players, but they have many needs. NOTE: If you are wondering where I came up with the late first round value for Moore, it was based on rumors when the Packers tried to trade for him--reporters from Milwaukee estimated his worth at a second and fourth; rumors suggest the Packers offered a first rounder. Now, you could argue that the Packers pick turned out to be 15th, but that was not the value at the time of the speculations; the Packers were 3-1 at the time and were expecting to make a Super Bowl run. So it is fair to give Moore a late first round valuation, from this view.

Moore was a good, solid WR. He did not instill fear in defenses--someone said it best, "He is a #2." His contract was team friendly as a #1. In an article from Green Bay after Rhule was fired, the writer suggested/estimated that a trade for Moore would cost: " If there is a deal to be done, it could be a for 2023 2nd-round pick and a 2024 4th-rounder." https://wisportsheroics.com/is-a-dj-moore-trade-feasible-for-the-packers/ So yes, instead of a 2025 first round selection, they basically got the 2023 equivalent of a second and fourth. This was worth it for the Bears because Fields needs veteran WR help now, and it was worth it for the Panthers, who probably did not want to go more than 1 year without a first round selection.

And on the seventh day, they rested.

Yeah, Aggie, you have been cursed with a brain that functions like mine. I just can't see passing on Stroud. If it is Young, I celebrate too.

I think Stroud, but the long tradition of Ohio State QB busts is bothering me.

Young is the best overall QB in this draft right now. However, with McCown, Reich, and Caldwell on this staff, Stroud can be better than Young in a season or two. Factor in that his college productivity was arguably better than Young, and his 6-3, 218 lbs. size is more ideal, I just think you have to go with Stroud because his ceiling might be higher. I hate to say this because this is the kind of post that gets brought up in 3 years, but I see the upside greater with Stroud and the risk (health) higher with Young.

Tepper picked Rhule on his own.

The Bears had a good reason--they have a ton of cap room, and Fields is in year 3, his "make or break" year. They needed a player now, not in 2025. The Panthers, on the other hand, need cap space and, frankly, would never get a first round draft pick in a trade for Moore--maybe a second or third. I They have some young WRs who could be turning the corner (Marshall, Smith) and I think they will add one in the draft and in free agency.

If we take Young or Stroud, I think they might start day 1. Not ideal, but they could. Maybe we sign a veteran, but I would not trade Corral.

I wager that he still is.

If we traded DJ Moore, do you think we'd have been offered a first rounder? I do not. Maybe a second or third. I have been reading your posts, and you represent the other side of the coin that we will be tossing--you are not wrong, but you are not right either--we shall see.

The TE market is going to be cheaper because the draft is so solid at TE. I am thinking someone like Foster Moreau from Vegas--he can be had for $8m and some change. There is some WR talent in this draft in round 2.

I was glad to see #39 preserved. I figured we'd lose it and keep #61

Save that move for another day, Pilgrim. Enjoy the moment sitting in your recliner unencumbered by protrusions.

If you did not think the Panthers were going to be aggressive, you were not paying attention. Losing Moore hurts, but so would losing a first and second in 2025. I think we can replace Moore. Most people were bitching about losing 3 firsts, and now you are bitching about Moore. Don't get it. The Bears also need DL and OL, I think. They could have gone after Brown or Moton. It was a great deal for the Bears--it was a great deal for Carolina. They are not done, perhaps, so we shall see.

Irony: If DJ Moore kept his helmet on in Atlanta, he is still a Panther. Discuss.

yes. He should be there, but he had a good combine, so he could go earlier that 39

I am sure this will be stated later, but DJ was $20m vs the cap and the Bears had a ton of cap room. So we can replace him in the draft and use the $$ in free agency