Justin Fields Anyone?

[Doc16LT56]

Do we think the cost of Fields in a trade would only be a third or fourth round pick (ie "mid round")? I am not so sure about that. I totally get that his value has declined precipitously given he will be entering the final year of his rookie contract, but he is still a starting QB who has shown some ability on a bad team (albeit has not excelled). I would have guessed he would command more than that, but maybe I'm wrong.

If you're right and the cost would only be something like a third rounder, then I totally agree that that would be a viable option and, given that's the cost, i wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to exercise the 5th year option either. And then you effectively have a one year QB with no further obligation unless you want one.

If he were to command more than a third rounder though, I don't love the idea of doing the trade unless our front office legitimately has the view that he is a long term option, in which case you might as well do the 5th year option.

Overall I find it hard to get myself to really be interested, but if it's just a mid-rounder then that's a different proposition than what I was envisioning it to be.

No, I agree with everything you said here. I have no idea what Chicago could theoretically get for Fields. I might be interested if the discussion is a mid-round pick. Higher than that and I lose interest. I'm not sure I'd want to do a 3rd rounder. 4th rounder, yes, I'd be happy to take a one year shot with Fields. No idea if that's even possible. Just saying that would be my one call to Chicago.

But again, it brings us back to the Daniel Jones free agency scenario. If he plays poorly, have you really gained anything? If he plays well, are you willing to spend real money on him? He would have to have a major breakthrough in order to be anything more than a one year rental.

[uconnjack8]

Heck NO!

I really miss the old days/pre-free agency days when you watched the same Giants on Sunday like Simms and LT. Now with free agency and Dungeons & Dragons football -- every Tom, Dick, & Harry has to propose ridiculous trade ideas and, I cannot even open up a web browser without seeing some one who does it for a living.

I think a lot of fans feel that way for every sport, but it is in the past and it's not going back. 

Personally, my feelings have always been mixed on it.  I certainly wish there were some players the team could have retained, but I its important for the players to have some choices of where they play after a certain amount of time and are not completely at the mercy of billionaire owners. 

[Fletch]

Baseball was not always like that. Not in my lifetime anyway. And not for along time anyway.

[uconnjack8]

Baseball was not always like that. Not in my lifetime anyway. And not for along time anyway.

Baseball, which was the most popular sport then, was the first to have free agency as we know it.  I believe it was in 1976. 

Just to add, I agree with you completely with all the trade suggestions. 

[DaveBrown74]

No, I agree with everything you said here. I have no idea what Chicago could theoretically get for Fields. I might be interested if the discussion is a mid-round pick. Higher than that and I lose interest. I'm not sure I'd want to do a 3rd rounder. 4th rounder, yes, I'd be happy to take a one year shot with Fields. No idea if that's even possible. Just saying that would be my one call to Chicago.

But again, it brings us back to the Daniel Jones free agency scenario. If he plays poorly, have you really gained anything? If he plays well, are you willing to spend real money on him? He would have to have a major breakthrough in order to be anything more than a one year rental.

Agreed. He would need to be exceptional for me to want to sign him beyond 2024. I have no interest in handing a big second contract to just a "good" QB. Maybe there's a one in ten chance (if that) of him leaping to heights in year four where I'd be interested in keeping him.

So you're right - it's fair to question what you have gained if you do that, given you have lost a pick. I guess you gain a longshot chance to have your QB for the next decade without giving up anything major, and worst case you get competent QB play for a year. It really isn't that palatable of a proposition in my opinion. I suspect if this guy is going to be a legit star we would be aware of that by now, or at least more hopeful of the chances of that happening.

Needless to say, I'll be delighted if the Beas announce that he's not going to be available because they're planning on keeping him and looking to trade out of the first pick and intend to take two non-QBs. I don't think I'd be so delighted about that if I were a Bears fan though.

[Philosophers]

Not sure Fields gives us the boost in QB play we all want.

[Rosehill Jimmy]

Would be ironic if it happened considering it was a trade with us that landed him in Chicago originally and the added drama around the players we received in return