Even if we did give up 96 and 101, we still get the picks we'd have had before all the changes: 32, 64 and 97. In effect, we are not giving up anything.
I think "not giving up anything" is a poor turn of phrase. I'm not against the idea of trading up for the right player, but let's not be dismissive about what it is that we'd be giving up. #96 and #101 could be very serviceable players for us, and we could even find starters at those spots.
Compare:
#20 - CB Byron Jones
#64 - DT Grady Jarrett
#97 - OG Ali Marpet
Against:
#32 - LB/SS Shaq Thompson or CB Eric Rowe
#64 - DT Grady Jarrett
#96 - OG Ali Marpet
#97 - WR Tyler Lockett, Stefon Diggs or Chris Conley
#101 - RB David Cobb, David Johnson
You'd have to think Jones is something really special to give up on two players that would be competitive for a Week One job. The complexion of the draft class is entirely different with five players from the top 101, instead of just three.
As mentioned, the dropoff in talent at CB is rather speculative from #20 to #32. Plus, there's nothing to say Jones couldn't last to #32 if you're willing to wait for him; he is not consistently mocked into the top-30. The nfl.com 7 round mock has him going #45 to Miami.
The Steelers are probably thinking DB (although maybe SS is their target) at #22. After Pittsburgh, none of the teams will be targeting CB in their draft strategy for sure. OL, DL, WR and RB options at the bottom of the first are pretty legit. If there's a feeding frenzy for WRs (not impossible), then the top CBs are likely to be there at #32 with no effort required.
As a compromise, rather than trading all the way to #20 to make sure of the favorite CB, it might be worth (using #131?) on a small trade up to get ahead of Green Bay at #30, but only if your targeted player lasts. This is the Middle Path: the draft board has to cooperate to some degree, but then we make a moderate trade up to close the deal. It's a Read-Option trade strategy.