Khalil Mack traded to the Bears (Page 19)

[Nodisrespect]

Mack and Donald have the same agent nobody will or should take a discount. In a few years when it's time to sign the new wave of dpoy level players this will seem like a deal. 

[RaidersAreOne]

49 minutes ago, Nodisrespect said:

Mack and Donald have the same agent nobody will or should take a discount.

Damn they do? I didn't know that. Honestly I think Donald is slightly better than Mack but I don't know if thats enough to differentiate millions. 

[JBURGE]

7 hours ago, billking said:

Unfortunately he may now want 24m, the thing also is the Raiders need to stress the benefit for both sides to back load this contract, No state income taxes is a big deal for Mack, I think the top rate  kicks in pretty early for a single filer in CA at 13.2% at 20m that would be 2.6 million.

I am out of likes for the day but I wanted you to know I'm thinking of you

[BackinBlack]

8 hours ago, billking said:

Unfortunately he may now want 24m, the thing also is the Raiders need to stress the benefit for both sides to back load this contract, No state income taxes is a big deal for Mack, I think the top rate  kicks in pretty early for a single filer in CA at 13.2% at 20m that would be 2.6 million.

I have a feeling though, the Raiders want to front load the contract, as they usually do under Reggie.

[NickButera]

Have to wonder if Penn's paycut helps free up some money for Mack.  Penn had a pretty high planned cap hit these next 2 years of 8 mil this year and 10 mil next year if he stayed on the roster. 

[StocktonSav]

6 hours ago, Nodisrespect said:

Mack and Donald have the same agent nobody will or should take a discount. In a few years when it's time to sign the new wave of dpoy level players this will seem like a deal. 

Are you sure about that? Where is that info from? Existing info indicates that Donald's agent is Todd France and Mack's is Joel Segal. Not even the same agency, let alone agent.

[RaidersAreOne]

48 minutes ago, NickButera said:

Have to wonder if Penn's paycut helps free up some money for Mack.  Penn had a pretty high planned cap hit these next 2 years of 8 mil this year and 10 mil next year if he stayed on the roster. 

I was reading that although it cleared some space, it wasn't a substantial amount whatsoever. It won't have much barring on a Mack contract.

[big_palooka]

1 hour ago, RaidersAreOne said:

I was reading that although it cleared some space, it wasn't a substantial amount whatsoever. It won't have much barring on a Mack contract.

As someone put it. It's like cancelling your Netflix subscription to buy a new car 

[holyghost]

I dispute the idea that Oakland doesn't have the money to pay Mack and that is the reason why things are not being signed and sealed. M. Davis mentioned having 500 mil in cash when the stadium discussion was in articles. 270+ mil was just disbursed by the league to the team. And as of a few weeks ago we raised something like 175 mil on PSL sales. And more is coming related to the new stadium in other things like ad deals, naming rights, and so on. Plus the huge amount of loan money from BOA is coming at some point. Not that all of these are sources for payroll, but cash flow situation has changed in Oakland since the stadium got approved and moved forward. And will change a great deal more when they get to Las Vegas.

Educated guess, but my thinking is this is 100% about the fact that the team can pay him 10-12 million less over the next 3 years than a long term deal would right now, and Mack's asking price involves him getting top pay from day one for a long deal. I'm sure he will ask for 22-24 mil per for 6 years, but reality is we can pay him an average of 17-18 for the next 3 until he is 30. I don't think him and his agents want to choke that down. Carr's situation was different, we had no option year on him and the tag on QBs is far higher. Plus you don't want a holdout/tag situation with your QB, see Cousins for evidence of that. This is more of a Leveon Bell story, where I bet Pitt dumps him not that far into the future. They put this off so they could exploit his prime. 

If I was the team I wouldn't cave. Mack has little leverage. He's here for those 3 years unless he makes it really, really ugly. 

I'd concede a little bit to him with a 7th year so his agents can play up a BS story of this huge contract that he got, and give an average of 22. Which is really 18 per for the first 3 years and 25 per for the next 4 after that. And give him guaranteed just a hair above what the next closest defender got, put all the gtd money into the first 4 years as a concession and to keep cap issues somewhat healthy. His agents can boast all they want, team gets what they're not going to give up, and cap issues are as smooth as they're going to be. If he doesn't like something like that he can choke down the next 3 years here then leave. 

Even in FA after 3 years we'll be a great competitor because Vegas taxes will be 0 so any offer we make is as good as any landing spot can be.

[Nodisrespect]

6 hours ago, StocktonSav said:

Are you sure about that? Where is that info from? Existing info indicates that Donald's agent is Todd France and Mack's is Joel Segal. Not even the same agency, let alone agent.

Oh, I guess I read some fake news. Smh

[StocktonSav]

3 hours ago, holyghost said:

I dispute the idea that Oakland doesn't have the money to pay Mack and that is the reason why things are not being signed and sealed. M. Davis mentioned having 500 mil in cash when the stadium discussion was in articles. 270+ mil was just disbursed by the league to the team. And as of a few weeks ago we raised something like 175 mil on PSL sales. And more is coming related to the new stadium in other things like ad deals, naming rights, and so on. Plus the huge amount of loan money from BOA is coming at some point. Not that all of these are sources for payroll, but cash flow situation has changed in Oakland since the stadium got approved and moved forward. And will change a great deal more when they get to Las Vegas.

Educated guess, but my thinking is this is 100% about the fact that the team can pay him 10-12 million less over the next 3 years than a long term deal would right now, and Mack's asking price involves him getting top pay from day one for a long deal. I'm sure he will ask for 22-24 mil per for 6 years, but reality is we can pay him an average of 17-18 for the next 3 until he is 30. I don't think him and his agents want to choke that down. Carr's situation was different, we had no option year on him and the tag on QBs is far higher. Plus you don't want a holdout/tag situation with your QB, see Cousins for evidence of that. This is more of a Leveon Bell story, where I bet Pitt dumps him not that far into the future. They put this off so they could exploit his prime. 

If I was the team I wouldn't cave. Mack has little leverage. He's here for those 3 years unless he makes it really, really ugly. 

I'd concede a little bit to him with a 7th year so his agents can play up a BS story of this huge contract that he got, and give an average of 22. Which is really 18 per for the first 3 years and 25 per for the next 4 after that. And give him guaranteed just a hair above what the next closest defender got, put all the gtd money into the first 4 years as a concession and to keep cap issues somewhat healthy. His agents can boast all they want, team gets what they're not going to give up, and cap issues are as smooth as they're going to be. If he doesn't like something like that he can choke down the next 3 years here then leave. 

Even in FA after 3 years we'll be a great competitor because Vegas taxes will be 0 so any offer we make is as good as any landing spot can be.

I get what you're saying and I agree from a business perspective. But man, does that approach rub me the wrong way. I think what Pit is doing to Leveon is wrong and I don't think it can be understated the harm a franchise/front office can do to its reputation by doing business like that. 

IMO of there is no middle ground on a contract with Mack then just trade him. I would much prefer that to having a malcontent on the team, and rightfully so, if he's getting screwed over.

[reddevil]

3 hours ago, StocktonSav said:

I get what you're saying and I agree from a business perspective. But man, does that approach rub me the wrong way. I think what Pit is doing to Leveon is wrong and I don't think it can be understated the harm a franchise/front office can do to its reputation by doing business like that. 

IMO of there is no middle ground on a contract with Mack then just trade him. I would much prefer that to having a malcontent on the team, and rightfully so, if he's getting screwed over.

I’m with you. For me, you reward good performances and keep your best players happy so they can continue to perform well. Obviously if Mack is asking for the moon, you can’t just give him what he wants, but you have to think that the way Reggie has done business in the past, he is working towards keeping Mack andpaying him what he deserves. And besides, we are talking about one of the best players in the league here.

[Rolni]

On 2018. 08. 14. at 6:09 AM, RaidersAreOne said:

I agree with you. Donald is the best IMO. Mack is #2.

Could be true, but historically best EDGE gets more than best DT...

We might very well need to give at least the same deal to Mack...

[holyghost]

10 hours ago, StocktonSav said:

I get what you're saying and I agree from a business perspective. But man, does that approach rub me the wrong way. I think what Pit is doing to Leveon is wrong and I don't think it can be understated the harm a franchise/front office can do to its reputation by doing business like that. 

IMO of there is no middle ground on a contract with Mack then just trade him. I would much prefer that to having a malcontent on the team, and rightfully so, if he's getting screwed over.

It shouldn't rub you the wrong way. I'm having the team make concessions. A 7th year, record high in guaranteed money, paid during Mack's prime so it's not fantasy money. 154 mil 7 year deal, even though the last 3 years are iffy. But at least his agents get to throw those massive numbers around the internet. 

If those concessions aren't adequate, well then Mack and his team are in the clouds thinking that a team will throw out it's leverage just because he has demands. A team is a business, and any team or team execs operating beyond their leverage on ideas of generosity are just not doing their jobs as they are described. I don't like the cold, cold way money operates in the world and am not advocating for the way things are done. I'm just presenting ideas that fit the fact that this is a business and team negotiators and contract execs are in fact mere businessmen. 

 

Also, regarding Bell. The franchise tag pays pretty damn well in the grand scheme of things. If he thinks Pitt is doing him dirty he can just play the next two years on whatever he can get out of it then retire. The sport isn't good for a guy anyway. That's more then enough money to live his entire remaining life in luxury. And if he's bent out of shape about it he can make a mental note to himself for the next life - "don't be a running back", or "play professional soccer". Why the heck would the guy want to play past 30 anyway? So you can live in pain the rest of your life, then lose your mind slowly, for the difference between a net worth of 40 million and 60 million? If that 20 extra million possibly buys you the complete inability to enjoy any of it?

 

Playing on the tag isn't much different than the reality many people live in. If you get injured in some significant way and can't work, the whole house of cards comes crumbling down. I'm sympathetic to the players, but not that much. Not sympathetic to the owners and execs at all, but mostly they hold the power at the moment.

[Nodisrespect]

When it's time for the new CBA in 2020, Mack,OBJ, Donald, and Bell(Cooper too if he plays too good next this year)will be prime examples of teams abusing the spirit of pay for play contracs in a high contact sport. You guys are cool with the team riding hall of fame players tread down for a fraction of there true open market worth but all bills come due.