Micah Parsons has OFFICIALLY requested a trade.

[Patriot Missile]

One of the few players I’d give up 2 1sts for. Jefferson and Chase being the other 2.

 

[Uptown]

 

[patfanken]

Is two firsts to much for Micah Parsons?

If getting him essentially guaranteed you a playoff spot each season I’d say it’s not too much.

It certainly didn't guarantee Dallas a spot last season.
When are you going to get it. Football is NEVER about one player, or the next shiny object. Amassing talent is very different from "building a TEAM".

I gotta stay off this thread, its no good for my health.

 

[n1997y]

im requesting a trade too

What’s your starting offer?

 

[KCSVEN]

A huge win for the buying team? The whole point of a trade is to make your team better and win games, especially playoff games. The Bears won zero playoff games with Mack, zero. The Bears gave up two first-round picks, a third-round pick, and a sixth-round pick for Mack, a second-round pick, and a conditional fifth-round pick. Now you're saying the Bears won the trade because the Raiders drafted like **** in hindsight?

YES, 100% absolutely. you can't knock the trade because Bears failed to build around Mack.
Since they got back a 2nd and a 5th they really only gave up 2 firsts.

2 firsts for a DPOY candidate? Every time. 50% of 1st round picks bust so your likely trading Mack for 1 actual starter with this trade, and that's exactly what happened.

You have to wager that your team will out draft the average by a ton or you'll finish with the top pick. Otherwise you do that deal every time.

The trade was Mack for Jacobs.

From a 20 Year NFL President and CEO with Eagles and Brown

 

[maust]

Jerruh is more likely to franchise Parsons year to year for 3 years than trade him. Heck, with the current value of the tag for DE's he'd get him cheaper than extending him. Maybe that was Jerruh's plan all along and why he's slung so much BS about having a verbal deal with a player that had representation

 

[Triumph]

There is only 1 comparable trade. It was a HUGE win for the buying team.

Khalil Mack and Cole Kmet for Josh Jacobs, Damon Arnette and Brya Edwards

Mack had 3 pro Bowl seasons in Chicago, the first year he finished 2nd in Defensive Player of the Year. Kmet was a contributor. Jacobs is a good player, the other picks washed out.
100% the Mack trade was a win for Chicago, nor even remotely close.

The Bears eventually traded Mack away and Kmet has been mediocre at best.

Chicago did go 8 - 8 and lose in the Wildcard round. Since that its been all single digit win seasons and no playoffs. Was paying Mack all that money worth it? I say no. When the results don't turn out as good as predicted you're throwing more money and resources to help Mack.

To warrant a move like this you better be knocking on the Super Bowl door in a few years

 

[KCSVEN]

The Bears eventually traded Mack away and Kmet has been mediocre at best.

Chicago did go 8 - 8 and lose in the Wildcard round. Since that its been all single digit win seasons and no playoffs. Was paying Mack all that money worth it? I say no. When the results don't turn out as good as predicted you're throwing more money and resources to help Mack.

To warrant a move like this you better be knocking on the Super Bowl door in a few years

That seems a ridiculous bar to set for a trade. Who else are you spending this money on?
Personally, I'm trading to get better, I'm not just going to assume I won't build the team properly over the next few years

 

[Triumph]

That seems a ridiculous bar to set for a trade. Who else are you spending this money on?
Personally, I'm trading to get better, I'm not just going to assume I won't build the team properly over the next few years

This trade would be ridiculous.

Dallas would want multiple high round picks and then they would go out and find the next Parsons. Which is exactly what the Pats should be doing so they get a few years of top production at a minimal cost. Trading away future picks for Parsons and then signing him to a block buster contract is going backwards.

Just like you said, its not Mack's fault that the Bears did not build a great team around Mack.

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

YES, 100% absolutely. you can't knock the trade because Bears failed to build around Mack.
Since they got back a 2nd and a 5th they really only gave up 2 firsts.

2 firsts for a DPOY candidate? Every time. 50% of 1st round picks bust so your likely trading Mack for 1 actual starter with this trade, and that's exactly what happened.

You have to wager that your team will out draft the average by a ton or you'll finish with the top pick. Otherwise you do that deal every time.

The trade was Mack for Jacobs.

From a 20 Year NFL President and CEO with Eagles and Brown

The trade was not Mack for Jacobs, stop it. You think that a team acquiring the picks says "well we're gonna miss on 1 1st rounder so you gotta give us 2"? The team they are dealing with would tell them to draft better and pound salt. The Raiders could've drafted 2 probowlers, their draft futility had nothing to do with the trade at the time. And to repeat, the Bears won zero playoff games with Mack on the roster. Maybe the 2 firsts they gave up woulda been studs. So the trade netted the Bears zero playoff wins and cost them 2 1st round picks. How you see that as a clear win is strange.

 

[KCSVEN]

This trade would be ridiculous.

Dallas would want multiple high round picks and then they would go out and find the next Parsons. Which is exactly what the Pats should be doing so they get a few years of top production at a minimal cost. Trading away future picks for Parsons and then signing him to a block buster contract is going backwards.

Just like you said, it’s not Mack's fault that the Bears did not build a great team around Mack.

I don’t think there’s a real chance they trade Parsons anyways, but if itt happened and it was a similar trade that was done for Mack I’d do it.
I suspect if they ever got to the point of trading him they would want too much back but nice to dream

 

[KCSVEN]

The trade was not Mack for Jacobs, stop it. You think that a team acquiring the picks says "well we're gonna miss on 1 1st rounder so you gotta give us 2"? The team they are dealing with would tell them to draft better and pound salt. The Raiders could've drafted 2 probowlers, their draft futility had nothing to do with the trade at the time. And to repeat, the Bears won zero playoff games with Mack on the roster. Maybe the 2 firsts they gave up woulda been studs. So the trade netted the Bears zero playoff wins and cost them 2 1st round picks. How you see that as a clear win is strange.

That was the actual end result tho and based on history of first round picks that would be the expected result in most cases. Yeah a team could beat the draft odds, of course. Just playing percentages

 

[mayoclinic]

I generally agree with Ken about shiny toys and building a team vs. acquiting talent.

That said, Parsons is a very special player. Given his age, versatility and impact, he's probably #1 on the list of players I'd consider giving up the bank for. Very unlikely, not holding my breath, but still intriguing.

Would never give up a 1st for a 30yo WR.

 

[TommyD4207]

I generally agree with Ken about shiny toys and building a team vs. acquiting talent.

That said, Parsons is a very special player. Given his age, versatility and impact, he's probably #1 on the list of players I'd consider giving up the bank for. Very unlikely, not holding my breath, but still intriguing.

Would never give up a 1st for a 30yo WR.

Nobody would, unless it was Jerry Rice, and even then.

I like Parsons as a player a lot. If the Patriots were contenders it would make sense. They're not, they're still a year or two away assuming things go well.

 

[JohnJH]

The issue is there isn’t a world where the economics would work for NE.

Not only would they have to give him a massive contract (probably doable) but it would GUT their draft picks for a few years thus creating a young talent void that they are only just now beginning to recover from.

To me, too many needs and not good timing.

Agreed. The cost for Parsons would start at least Two 1st Round Picks (with at least two more Day Two Picks being needed as well). Then, there's paying him. Plus, what about our own young player's that we'd want to keep within the next two years to three? And, what about potential young (in their Mid-20's) players that might become available as UFA's that we could really use next year, that won't cost us the draft capitol AND Parson's money? If Vrabel and the coaching staff can get this team back into the proper mindset and learning to win again, and the guys we drafted this year pan out, then another solid off season of FA and another draft, and of course no major injuries (especially an injury free Maye) Etc., and we'll be in a very good place and certainly headed upward.

 

[Joey007]

And the Bears won exactly zero playoff games with Mack. Parsons is fantastic, the cost would be too much.

That’s entirely due to their poor QB and coaching.

If you believe Drake is the guy, it frees you to justify these moves.

 

[Triumph]

The 2026 draft is rumored to be loaded with pass rushing talent.

Stay the course and keep building with young talent and the occasional Vet at a decent cost.

 

[Triumph]

That’s entirely due to their poor QB and coaching.

If you believe Drake is the guy, it frees you to justify these moves.

The Bears defense was questionable too.

BB never opted for these get rich quick schemes. The Jets had to have Revis back and it got them nothing.

 

[signbabybrady]

The 2026 draft is rumored to be loaded with pass rushing talent.

Stay the course and keep building with young talent and the occasional Vet at a decent cost.

Micah is young talent. Why wait until 2026 for a rumor when you can guarantee what you're asking for now?

 

[slash83]

When was the last time a superstar got traded after asking for one?