Jump to content

Khalil Mack traded to the Bears (Page 19)


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

 The offer was made in good faith he should’ve showed up to the OTAs in good faith .

You see how that work? You don’t have to hold out when the  team is negotiating with you.

 

 

 

Also I think if Mack took the deal we would’ve rewarded him with more $ in Vegas. 

Shoulda woulda coulda nobody knows what really happened behind closed doors all speculation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, dante9876 said:

Cap space shouldnt matter in the compensation we got for Mack. Why are people reaching to try to defend dumb stuff we do. 

How does it not matter? Dumbest thing I've ever heard.  The cap space is part of it whether you like it or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Agree. Cap space is so overblown. If you want certain players, you can fit them. See the Rams. 

All the cap space Gruden wasted this offseason, he could have paid Mack, started younger guys and the team would have been better for it. 

Then the dumber argument.... well with Mack, we're picking 10 anyway. But without him we're picking 1 overall which we all hope to draft Bosa to rush the passer lol 

Please stop with this.  Why do you act like we had all this cap space and signed all of these big time contracts to waste said space? 

This what we had available at the start of free agency, $17,355,013. We signed 20+ guys on that! Think about it for a minute. No please, I'll wait.

   

Before the trade and everyone flipped out.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/01/raiders-would-save-tens-of-millions-in-cap-space-by-trading-mack-for-two-first-round-picks/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we basically have 6 1st round picks the next two years.... that second is basically a late 1st... plus over 100M in cap space..... relax, Rome wasn't built in a day.... If we had Mack maybe we would have 2 or 3 more wins... Reggie missed on too many picks, we lack talent..Plain and simple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

 The offer was made in good faith he should’ve showed up to the OTAs in good faith .

You see how that work? You don’t have to hold out when the  team is negotiating with you.

Sure... risk injury and your career in "good faith". That's why players hold out, especially in OTAs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, true2form said:

Please stop with this.  Why do you act like we had all this cap space and signed all of these big time contracts to waste said space? 

This what we had available at the start of free agency, $17,355,013. We signed 20+ guys on that! Think about it for a minute. No please, I'll wait.

   

Before the trade and everyone flipped out.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/01/raiders-would-save-tens-of-millions-in-cap-space-by-trading-mack-for-two-first-round-picks/

There was flexibility. You could have cut Irvin like we all were saying should be done and freed up more space. The cap is fluid, they had options to sign quality players, instead tried they went cheap and got cheap results. 

My main point was they could have paid Mack, period. There is no argument otherwise. Egos got in the way is the only reason Mack isn't a Raider now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Humble_Beast said:

we basically have 6 1st round picks the next two years.... that second is basically a late 1st... plus over 100M in cap space..... relax, Rome wasn't built in a day.... If we had Mack maybe we would have 2 or 3 more wins... Reggie missed on too many picks, we lack talent..Plain and simple

Ugh... I hate when people say "we basically have" A high 2nd is not a late first. The talent drop off is generally extensive. 

Good teams don't do stupid stuff.... they build around their start players at premium positions. Guys like you saying "you build through the draft" and then try to defend not paying a great player you drafted to build around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, true2form said:

How does it not matter? Dumbest thing I've ever heard.  The cap space is part of it whether you like it or not. 

Cause the bears didnt give us cap space. So if mack would had signed for 30 mill a year, do that means the bears would have gave us less picks for him. Comparing a trade, is comparing the two sides of compensation. Bears cap space vs raiders cap space dont matter in the trade. If bears gave us 2 2nd rd picks. Nobody would say well it's ok cause raiders save 30 mill in cap space, so they got fair compensation. That's idiotic. Mack is one of the if not the best player at his position. Gruden out of his own mouth said we tried to trade him to a team that we thought would get high picks. If the cap space is what mattered, just trade him to any team that would give us 2 firsts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dante9876 said:

Cause the bears didnt give us cap space. So if mack would had signed for 30 mill a year, do that means the bears would have gave us less picks for him. Comparing a trade, is comparing the two sides of compensation. Bears cap space vs raiders cap space dont matter in the trade. If bears gave us 2 2nd rd picks. Nobody would say well it's ok cause raiders save 30 mill in cap space, so they got fair compensation. That's idiotic. Mack is one of the if not the best player at his position. Gruden out of his own mouth said we tried to trade him to a team that we thought would get high picks. If the cap space is what mattered, just trade him to any team that would give us 2 firsts. 

Have to agree with True here.  The cap space played a role in the decision to trade Mack but not in who we traded him too.  Getting better draft picks has a greater benefit than the extra cost on the rookie salary cap.  Therefore getting higher draft picks is worth more than the extra million or three in cap space.  Spending $20+million to a DE is a completely different conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2018 at 3:18 AM, big_palooka said:

Just because you signed Mack, doesn't mean you have to extend Cooper.... those things are not related. What if.... you signed Mack. Traded Cooper and could get out of Carr's contract if he's underperforming? 

If you don't want "mediocre" then you don't give away your HOF pass rusher and sign mediocre FA's like Whitehead and the rest of these bums.

Exactly we could have signed Mack and still made all the other moves and be sitting on 60M with Mack rightnow teaching our young guy's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

 Risk injury?  He’s already under contract. 

He was under a contract that did not pay him as the highest paid defensive player in the league. Now he is paid as the highest paid defensive player in the league. That's some very significant risk!  It's very common though and usually most stark with star players, obviously. For example, there was a lot of discussion about this same risk leading up to Russell Wilson's extension in 2015. Also someone who was going to go from insanely underpaid to very, very rich at the stroke of a pen. Risk assessment and allocation is integral to the substance and timing of these kinds of negotiations.

Is your position that the Raiders should end negotiations with any player who doesn't accept the team's first offer? Or is that that they should end negotiations with any player who holds out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 808sinfour4time said:

He was under a contract that did not pay him as the highest paid defensive player in the league. Now he is paid as the highest paid defensive player in the league. That's some very significant risk!  It's very common though and usually most stark with star players, obviously. For example, there was a lot of discussion about this same risk leading up to Russell Wilson's extension in 2015. Also someone who was going to go from insanely underpaid to very, very rich at the stroke of a pen. Risk assessment and allocation is integral to the substance and timing of these kinds of negotiations.

Is your position that the Raiders should end negotiations with any player who doesn't accept the team's first offer? Or is that that they should end negotiations with any player who holds out?

 Holding out is not the norm majority of players keep on showing up and  their agents negotiate the contract.

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...