Jump to content

Khalil Mack traded to the Bears (Page 19)


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, holyghost said:

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.

Sure it doesn't seem like he's losing out if he stays healthy enough to make it through that scenario. The security of a multi year deal is critical. Otherwise every player would be willing to sign one year deals for more money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StocktonSav said:

Sure it doesn't seem like he's losing out if he stays healthy enough to make it through that scenario. The security of a multi year deal is critical. Otherwise every player would be willing to sign one year deals for more money. 

Those long term deals are illusory anyway. They're pushed through by agents to make the huge year and total $ numbers seem amazing in the news. The guys end up getting cut or getting paid the same way in either scenario based on health and performance. If Mack performs and stays healthy he'll make all he's worth. If he's still in top form 4 years from now he'll be paid for it. So it's all pretty much moot. The only way he might get more is if he forces his way into free agency, which aside from a brutally ugly type of holdout, he cannot do until 3 years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the contracts have bubbled beyond where we'll be in 10 years. I think the NFL peaked a few years ago and they will blame the 'protest' as the reason for the decline. Carr, Mack and finally Cooper because in Vegas we won't worry about them getting in trouble. After that it's scrape the barrel for players who want to win and weren't signed the first month of free agency.

Just pay the man so we can get this franchise on track to winning championships. Hate to reflect to Manning, Harrison/Wayne and Freeney but that's probably our future. Always in the hunt but needing the other pieces without having the cash to add them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Humble_Beast said:

Penn took a paycut so now we could have our tackles

LT:  Kolton, Ware

RT: Penn, Parker

saving 3.4m in Penn new deal, and could save another 3m waiving Breno Giacomini

We can save 2,5M with a Breno cut, since he had 1M as signing bonus already.

Could save 2M more with Roberts.

We could have around 12,5M after the 53 man roster is made.

Mack is in the books for 13,8M in '18, so we could offer him 25M in 2018 or bring that 12M over to next year and give him a huge salary for 2019. I know there are rumours about he want his big money in Vegas, but I can't really see that since it 2020 at the earliest...

They can "play" 5th year option, fr.tag, fr.tag and big deal, but I think he would benefit more from a big 20+M/year deal now with 5 extra years and a promise to review the deal whe we arrived in Vegas. If his play stay at the elit level he could ask for more then anyway IMO...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, G said:

I think the contracts have bubbled beyond where we'll be in 10 years. I think the NFL peaked a few years ago and they will blame the 'protest' as the reason for the decline. Carr, Mack and finally Cooper because in Vegas we won't worry about them getting in trouble. After that it's scrape the barrel for players who want to win and weren't signed the first month of free agency.

Just pay the man so we can get this franchise on track to winning championships. Hate to reflect to Manning, Harrison/Wayne and Freeney but that's probably our future. Always in the hunt but needing the other pieces without having the cash to add them...

Which is why our prime window is the next couple years. After that our money is tied up to a small group of players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/08/2018 at 11:27 PM, StocktonSav said:

Sure it doesn't seem like he's losing out if he stays healthy enough to make it through that scenario. The security of a multi year deal is critical. Otherwise every player would be willing to sign one year deals for more money. 

Exactly, players want the security of a long term contract especially in a sport where you are one play away from having life altering injury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2018 at 9:06 PM, holyghost said:

Those long term deals are illusory anyway. They're pushed through by agents to make the huge year and total $ numbers seem amazing in the news. The guys end up getting cut or getting paid the same way in either scenario based on health and performance. If Mack performs and stays healthy he'll make all he's worth. If he's still in top form 4 years from now he'll be paid for it. So it's all pretty much moot. The only way he might get more is if he forces his way into free agency, which aside from a brutally ugly type of holdout, he cannot do until 3 years from now.

If he stays healthy, is always a huge if. Betting on yourself 3 years in a row is also very risky. You got to get the most guaranteed money as fast as possible in this league. Not one player ever is going in saying pay me by year. Those long terms are just for my agent anyway. Ill be good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dante9876 said:

If he stays healthy, is always a huge if. Betting on yourself 3 years in a row is also very risky. You got to get the most guaranteed money as fast as possible in this league. Not one player ever is going in saying pay me by year. Those long terms are just for my agent anyway. Ill be good. 

I'm not advocating that. Nor do I think guys say that. But the rules are entirely bent to the team on this. The team has far better leverage than the player on the coming 3 years with the option and two tags. Even if he gets the long term deal his agents want, the team can craft an easy out after 3 or 4 years and end up paying the same amount. With simple things like how cap money is arranged, how gtd. money is paid out. The last 2, 3 years can easily be made to be a mirage by the team, and very often are. Just in the language of how the contract is laid out. And don't forget, agents agree to this kind of crap all the time. If anything, the agents sell out both sides day in and day out and noone chirps about it one bit. Agents let language into the contracts, put there by the teams, that allows easy outs for the team. I don't hear them complaining about that one bit as they gladly announce the massive deceiving numbers they "got" for their client.

The likelihood of the guy getting the full amount they love to announce when the deal is struck is slim. At least option years and tag amounts are fully guaranteed. And the likelihood of a guy like Mack having a bad enough injury where the Raiders decide not to franchise tag him next year or the year after is not that high. Not impossible, but not very likely either. If he had a major injury they'd still more than likely tag him and snd him to rehab. Either way he'll most probably get roughly the same money the next 3 or 4 years, no matter how this plays out. 

The only time these guys get fully screwed is when a guy does something moronic like Plaxico Burress or Jason Pierre Paul, or a terrible fluke happens like Shazier. Even Pierre Paul kept raking in money. If they get a major injury after 30 then they've probably been paid well already. Point being, if you get hurt and you're a middling player, maybe you're screwed. But if you're Khalil Mack, you're going to get paid and keep getting paid for some time. So all in all I'm really not sympathetic to either player or team. They're all doing quite fine for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not clickbait, just think if you were Mack.

Would you risk anymore than necessary earning 13 mil if it could possibly effect you making 100 million and 70 guaranteed in the future? If I'm Mack I'll see you in week 10, and the longer the Raiders wait the worse this gets, pass rusher salaries will reach new highs after free agency.

Its just not worth it for him to hit the field at his current salary. He has to play this smart this will probably be his only big deal.

It sucks for us, but nflpa just needs to do they're dam job and get the 1st rounder deals down to 3 years and the tag needs to be much more so that teams negotiate contracts in earnest vs a players true open market value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...