A Quantitative Analysis of the Panthers-Bears Trade

[MHS831]

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.

 

[TheCasillas]

I think you have to give Moore his original pick value for this math to add up. Mainly bc he has met expectations as a first rounder. Original pick value would track as opposed to assumed trade value during a point in which teams thought the Panthers were in middle of a fire sale.

So the math would be r1 p 24 which =740

Edited March 11, 2023 by TheCasillas

[MHS831]

Just now, TheCasillas said:

I think you have to give Moore his original pick value for this math to add up. Mainly bc he has met expectations as a first rounder. Original pick value would track as opposed to assumed trade value during a point in which teams thought the Panthers were in middle of a fire sale.

So the math would be r1 p 24 which =740

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.

[TheCasillas]

4 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

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.

I understand that you are attempting to use Darnold and Warner to make a statement, but there is a lot wrong with that figurative comparison. I am not sure why you did not use AJ Brown as your comparison, it would have been much easier because it is a very similiar sitation: (65 receptions, 5 TDs, 869yds) traded for a first round pick.

You stated in your original post that you used the Packers offer for DJ Moore as your barometer. That just isnt the right way to view it. If someone offers you 10k for your house, does that means that is what it is worth? no. If you want to use data and math you have to use a based value, not a situationally perceived value like the Packers trying to acquire DJ Moore during a franchise low point. 

DJ Moore's market value would start at his original pick worth in the framing of your math. I feel like this has to make sense to you in relation to your post.

[MHS831]

Just now, TheCasillas said:

I understand that you are attempting to use Darnold and Warner to make a statement, but there is a lot wrong with that figurative comparison. I am not sure why you did not use AJ Brown as your comparison, it would have been much easier because it is a very similiar sitation: (65 receptions, 5 TDs, 869yds) traded for a first round pick.

You stated in your original post that you used the Packers offer for DJ Moore as your barometer. That just isnt the right way to view it. If someone offers you 10k for your house, does that means that is what it is worth? no. If you want to use data and math you have to use a based value, not a situationally perceived value like the Packers trying to acquire DJ Moore during a franchise low point. 

DJ Moore's market value would start at his original pick worth in the framing of your math. I feel like this has to make sense to you in relation to your post.

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. 

[TheCasillas]

4 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

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. 

I apologize if you feel that I’m attacking. I felt that my positioning language was soft enough to be received as suggestion/recommendation.

 

i kept this as flat as math should be, but now reading this note from you, I see that this is not about the math but rather painting the picture. This went from being objective to subjective fast. 
 

since your intentions are of that, I’ll just leave my inputs where they are and let whoever else use them if they choose to. 

[Jon Snow]

[MHS831]

Just now, TheCasillas said:

I apologize if you feel that I’m attacking. I felt that my positioning language was soft enough to be received as suggestion/recommendation.

 

i kept this as flat as math should be, but now reading this note from you, I see that this is not about the math but rather painting the picture. This went from being objective to subjective fast. 
 

since your intentions are of that, I’ll just leave my inputs where they are and let whoever else use them if they choose to. 

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.

[MHS831]

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

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.

[Pejorative Miscreant]

45 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

I think you have to give Moore his original pick value for this math to add up. Mainly bc he has met expectations as a first rounder. Original pick value would track as opposed to assumed trade value during a point in which teams thought the Panthers were in middle of a fire sale.

So the math would be r1 p 24 which =740

Makes sense to me.  Still comes out to me as a decent trade.  

[MHS831]

1 minute ago, Pejorative Miscreant said:

Makes sense to me.  Still comes out to me as a decent trade.  

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.

[Icege]

Mathematically, the trade is incredibly fair. The onus now is on the scouting process to put the team in the best position to hit on #1.  Landing a franchise QB alone makes the picks worth it. If they can also hit on finding a replacement for DJ then the team only improved from this.

This team is a playoff team with Bryce Young or CJ Stroud and the current coaching staff. They were almost there with Wilks and the shell of Rhule's regime and Sam Darnold. A postseason for the rookie QB makes that future 1st a non-issue imo, as well as the future 2nd should they ball out that year as well.

Going to be interesting seeing a team eager to win now. It's been awhile... incoming back-to-back winning seasons finally?

[MHS831]

1 minute ago, Icege said:

Mathematically, the trade is incredibly fair. The onus now is on the scouting process to put the team in the best position to hit on #1.  Landing a franchise QB alone makes the picks worth it. If they can also hit on finding a replacement for DJ then the team only improved from this.

This team is a playoff team with Bryce Young or CJ Stroud and the current coaching staff. They were almost there with Wilks and the shell of Rhule's regime and Sam Darnold. A postseason for the rookie QB makes that future 1st a non-issue imo, as well as the future 2nd should they ball out that year as well.

Going to be interesting seeing a team eager to win now. It's been awhile... incoming back-to-back winning seasons finally?

I expect there to be growing pains, and some will be screaming "Bust!" after the first interception, but I think this is a giant first step.  As you say, I think either of the top 2 QBs will be successful because they seem to demonstrate the skill set and decision-making a QB needs.  We shall see.

 

[Shocker]

 

Colts fans today…

Edited March 11, 2023 by Shocker