I'm probably in the minority but I think this is a lose-lose trade.
GB: They give up two first rounders likely around pick #28, and Clark. In return, the odds of winning the Super Bowl increased from ~ 5% (+1,850) to ~ 7% (+1,400). So the markets, at the moment are saying there is 93% they don't win the Super Bowl this year and the odds of winning only increased 2%. This was for the opportunity to pay Parsons ~ $47mm AAV per year (don't know all contract details yet). $47mm or 17% of the salary cap or 34% of salary cap for defense (assume 50/50 split for discussion). This doesn't seem the way to build a sustainably excellent franchise (see KC Chiefs, Baltimore Ravens). Parson's feels like an overpay but not sure. Injury risk is also not inconsequential when the player takes up so much cap space.
Dallas: It seems like it would have been challenging to pay Dak, Lamb, & Parsons such a large % of the salary cap and expect to be competitive year in and year out. So I can appreciate the logic of trading Parsons but the compensation seems lite. It's a tough sell to the fans and a bad look for Jones. Feels a bit like the Rafael Devers trade from Dallas standpoint. I think Dallas fans (and Red Sox fans) are wondering how come we didn't we get more.
Eagles gave up a 1st & 3rd I think for AJ Brown but only $32mm AAV and it worked for them. And Parson's is a better player. So that seems like a reasonable counterpoint. Maybe it's the $47mm AAV that is bothering me. Also, I'm surpised how little GB super bowl odds increase, very little impact. Maybe Parson's will attract other veteran free agents willing to play at below market contracts.
Curious what others think as I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this.