adambr2

I feel like the Bears' brass all got together in the offseason with the ultimate impossible goal of finding a QB worse for their team than Mitchell Trubisky and by golly, they pulled it off.

I just wanted to say people should have a greater appreciation for what Alex Smith has done. He had 17 surgeries. He could have died. He never should have made it back, but he did.

I think the justification was pretty clearly explained and it wasn't to make the trade appear more even. Retroactively isn't an accurate word, that implies changing the pre-trade valuations after the fact. The trade was the cause and the effect was the adjusted valuations. Obviously we aren't going to agree on this and that's fine but I have zero problem with what they did. From my perspective NOT changing the valuations would have been the stubborn, refuse to admit we're wrong approach.

The "as time goes by" portion of your argument is null and void, though. The trade values site certainly didn't foresee Grisham's and Davies' strong 2020 seasons judging by their valuations of both players, especially before the trade. Even if the site's justification in changing the values was to essentially "right a wrong", the optics of the timing were simply terrible. Since then, in essence, the "wrong" has been "righted" with the justified change in those players values after their 2020 performance. If you go in and do a "trade back", Davies/Grisham are now nearly double the surplus value of Urias/Lauer. I think the crux of the issue is that the trade value site seems slow to update values on minor league players who "break out" in a quick fashion, such as what Grisham did, while they are also slow to lower the values on highly thought-of Top 100 guys like Urias when they don't live up to that advanced billing early on. They certainly didn't need to go in to their system the day of the trade and raise the value of the guys the Brewers traded off, though, while lowering the value of the guys the Brewers got back. At that time, those players did nothing to justify the value adjustments. Player performance is only one aspect of valuation. How these players are perceived by MLB GMs in a real life trade scenario is absolutely another. To further address that and Peavy's question above about why people feel the need to defend the site and their explanation, my answer would be this: what they are doing is really tough; actually, impossible, and certainly arbitrary. There will be times when valuations seem dead nuts, other times they will seem out of whack. You have hundreds if not thousands of assets whose values are constantly evolving, and you can't possibly keep them up to date daily. Think of how much the value of Devin Williams and Corbin Burnes changed just month to month this year. Obviously, it's easier to stay on top of it in the offseason but you still have other factors influencing valuation change other than just raw player performance. Yes, it's not perfect. Yes, it's arbitrary. It can't be perfect. Value of a certain player varies just from one TEAM to another based on the team needs and how well that player fits with that team. There are too many intangibles to even assign a definite grade to a player based on his fit for one team, let alone a general grade that fits for all 30. It's not just that way for the site. It's that way for every valuation system. That's why we have dozens of different ranking sites none of which say exactly the same thing. There's subjectivity at play anytime you're dealing with any system of player evaluation. The same goes for Pro Football Focus. So when I see a website that does valuation better, sure, I'll come out and say, "the grades on baseballtradevalues.com are junk." Until then, I respect the difficulty of what they are trying to do and think it's just another valuable tool for fans rather than looking at it as the end all be all and garbage if it doesn't say exactly what I think it should.

The changing of the grades was explained in detail on this very forum and had zero to do with saving face or making the trade look better or anything like that. You literally said "rather than take the L and admit they didn't have the players valued correctly, they went in and changed them after the fact." Um, isn't changing them an admission that they did in fact have them wrong? If they knew they were wrong, why on earth would they stubbornly keep the same valuation? It's not like the player valuations just ended after the trade. They didn't value them "retroactively." Their trade value estimate changed based on the market. If Kelley Blue Book says your car is worth $15K and one thousand cars of your type sell for $13K, the valuation will change because that is the price they are going for. It makes perfect sense that player values would be adjusted because of what the real trade market says they are worth and it doesn't have anything to do trying to make themselves look better. The trade value site is a nice tool for those who take it for what it is, a best guess current estimate based on the knowledge they have, and don't expect it to be valuation gospel. I'd trust/respect them less if they didn't change their estimate based on some macho need to avoid "taking the L." So, by your logic, it appears you don't believe one team can come out way ahead of another team value-wise when making a deal? In my opinion, that's what the site should have done. That's not what I said. There were two possibilities -- that their grading had been off, or that the Brewers came out way ahead. The adjustment accounted for both of those possibilities, because even after the adjustment Urias and Leuer were still ranked SIGNIFICANTLY ahead of Grisham/Davies. And that's a point peiple keep disregarding. The site DID stick by its original assessment that Urias/Leuer were considerably more valuable. The adjustment accounted for the partial possibility that they were simply wrong, and as more time goes by, it does indeed look like they were wrong as were all experts who loved that trade for the Brewers. I thought the main problem was that Grisham was criminally undervalued/underrated. But not just by the site. By pundits, by fans, by prospect rankings when he was breaking out in AAA. He seems to be proving that to be true. And there's never going to be a perfect balance even in analytics, you're always going to have players who are overrated/underrated by a system or writer.

Woof. Well, not a game I'll be replaying on DVR, but they won.

4th and 26, lol.

Playing against a 6th round rookie QB, I should hope so. I agree but they aren’t the reason for today’s blunder of an effort is all I’m saying. Yeah the offense and special teams have played very poorly for sure.

And there it is. Run run run punt.

Playing against a 6th round rookie QB, I should hope so.

I really thought they'd go for it. I hope we don't just run 3 times and punt. I trust our offense a lot more to close this game than our D.

Jennings is totally miffed that we aren't bringing heat on 3rd down. I hear ya, Greg.

4th and 10. Here we go.

Robinson >>>>> AJ Dillon

This call....what?

Wait, he bets $99K to win $9K? Wouldn't that be a $90K loss? If the Jaguars win. Yep.

This is such a classic Brew4U post to say something like this when things are going bad. I dont mean that in a bad way. I know you're right.

That 3rd down conversion was so hugely needed.

Ready for a 3rd and 12 three man rush for 16?

We are seriously talking about this team making the Super Bowl?

It's amazing to me that you are always so high on the Packers but the Bucks can be on pace to win 70 games and they'll have a game where they'll allow 45% from 3 and you'll be all over how bad their 3 pt defense is and how that will keep them from winning it all even if they win that game by 15.

Best special teams play of the day.

We're lucky the Jags have the QB that they do, or that was more easy money.

I don't want to hear any more nonsense about how it's just the wind. The Jags have had the wind against them in the 3rd and have dominated this entire quarter.

No pressure, easy 1st.