Jump to content

Khalil Mack traded to the Bears (Page 19)


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

On 22/08/2018 at 1:18 PM, big_palooka said:

So sick of hearing this stuff. It's not a bad look for Mark Davis. They are paying him 13.85 million this season under his 5th year option. If Mack's agent doesn't like it, then blame the CBA that was established. 

Donald, Bell, etc. are in similar situations with their teams. Is it a bad looks on their owners? Problem with fans, they. Just don't understand the business side of sports.

Naive to say that it’s not a bad look. Mack wants the Raiders to give him some security and appreciate his worth like they did with Carr and Gruden. Making your star (best) player play on a 1 year deal is not a good look...at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Dessie said:

Naive to say that it’s not a bad look. Mack wants the Raiders to give him some security and appreciate his worth like they did with Carr and Gruden. Making your star (best) player play on a 1 year deal is not a good look...at all.

Complicated situation with a lot of money on the line. You can look at OBJ who staged a "halfway" holdout. He attended all of the camps but didn't participate. The Giants rewarded him with a huge contract and I'm sure his "halfway" holdout was a positive contribution to the contract talks.

With Mack, you have a team that has stated in the clearest of terms that they will not negotiate with any player who is not participating in team activities. What made Mack's agent think that holding out would help the contract talks? Can you blame the Raiders for not being held hostage by an agent who is trying to set a negative blueprint in how to deal with the Raiders? 

In the end, I'm hoping it's as Nickdawg said. The Raiders were OK (but not happy) with Mack holding out while they cleared up some cap space for him. They weren't going to play him in preseason if he did report so why give in to his agents demands? Why reward the holdout? Why telegraph to every other agent that if they want a fat contract hold the player out? Instead, wait until the week before the season starts and Mack reports, then reward him for breaking the holdout with a contract. A man can dream..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, raiders4life said:

In the end, I'm hoping it's as Nickdawg said. The Raiders were OK (but not happy) with Mack holding out while they cleared up some cap space for him. They weren't going to play him in preseason if he did report so why give in to his agents demands? Why reward the holdout? Why telegraph to every other agent that if they want a fat contract hold the player out? Instead, wait until the week before the season starts and Mack reports, then reward him for breaking the holdout with a contract. A man can dream..

How dare you get me mixed up with him. I'm much better looking than that guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickButera said:

How dare you get me mixed up with him. I'm much better looking than that guy. 

Bah too much time lurking not enough posting. At least I didn't call you HiFi right? Would've cause a wormhole in the space-time continuum or something

My apologies nick :S

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, raiders4life said:

Bah too much time lurking not enough posting. At least I didn't call you HiFi right? Would've cause a wormhole in the space-time continuum or something

My apologies nick :S

 

I'm way cooler than HiFi too.

 

......notice how I'm coincidentally not tagging anyone in these responses :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NickButera said:

I still think we give Mack a new deal before the season starts. Especially if the Aaron Donald news is true and he ends up getting his deal soon. 

The logical side of me is sitting here and watching us clear cap space little by little as players get beat out or don't perform. Between Penn, Giacomini and Switzer, and then Obi and Whalen going to IR... these moves save little in and of themselves. But combined we're clearing up over 5-7 million. A few more cuts and we can give Mack 20+ million of his guarantees and cap hit in his first year, which is usually Reggie's MO to front load a contract.  This year was the hardest to fit 20+ million of his contract compared to the next 2. But as of now it's much more clear compared to 4 weeks ago. 

 

I think you are right!

I think by the time we are down to 53 we will have that 20+M you talk about.

Now after the Giacomini cut, Obi wave and Swtizer trade we are at 6,8M and 13,8M is booked in for Mack in that.

After a few more cuts like 

Mario Edwards Jr. almost 1,3M saving

EJ Manuel 900K saving

We could be around 9M cap space with the 53 man roster. Add Mack's 13,8M to that and we have 22,8M for Mack if we want to, maybe not all of that, but 20M guaranteed for 2018 could be in play easily...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, raidersedge said:

We really don't need $20+ million free right now. It all depends on how the contract is structured. Paying Mack long term could actually free money up if they wanted to. This whole issue is about the guaranteed money. 

yeah it is about guaranteed money and if we can give him 20M guaranteed this year it could help right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, raidersedge said:

We really don't need $20+ million free right now. It all depends on how the contract is structured. Paying Mack long term could actually free money up if they wanted to. This whole issue is about the guaranteed money. 

We don't *need* it, but when you look at the history of Reggie's contracts, you don't find one where he doesn't push the guarantees up front and reduce the cap hit in future years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dessie said:

Naive to say that it’s not a bad look. Mack wants the Raiders to give him some security and appreciate his worth like they did with Carr and Gruden. Making your star (best) player play on a 1 year deal is not a good look...at all.

We've had disagreements over the yesrs Dessie but this is spot on. You don't make star players play on one year deals unless you are fully prepared to not retain their services (Redskins never planned on keeping Cousins long term). It's basically an insult to make them play on a one year deal. They've already proved themselves. Give them their reward and security. We can still pay him 13M this year and his increase starts next year. Usually how these extensions work. 

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...