And even if that were true (it’s not, even remotely), I don’t see how that is very relevant to what we saw yesterday.
They were both situations where a team wanted a guy, the team in front of them didn't want the guy, and the team gave up assets to move up one spot and get him (even though the other team didn't want them).
In one of the situations you thought the Bears got fleeced for spending to move up and get a guy the 49ers didn't even want (ignoring that there were multiple other teams trying to trade into that spot). In the other situation you thought the Bears got fleeced for receiving an asset to move back a spot and let someone else take a guy they didn't even want.
It doesn't surprise me you don't see the relevance, obviously, but ... they were pretty similar. A team wanted a guy, and traded with the team one spot in front of them (who didn't even want their guy) to make sure they got him. You just reacted to them in totally opposite ways.