What would you offer for Khalil Mack?

[MWil23]

8 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Agreed. It'd have to be two Top 3 1sts. Bears or Jets. They wouldn't do that but it's the only two firsts I'd consider.

We will see if the FO would agree or panic. I don't know why they haven't just ponied up the cash yet.

8 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Mack is a once in a lifetime HoF caliber player.

He's a fantastic player. To say he's "once in a lifetime" is laughable.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

The Raiders are not trading Mack. All this click bait has gone to everyones heads. Gruden said he took this job because of Carr and Mack, mentioning them by name. Mack is playing on his 5th year option. The team has the leverage in this situation (similar to Donald in LA). Everything will work out in due time. It's the same formula as Donald and others. Player outplays his rookie contract, but is locked into a 5ht year option. Agent holds them out, but in the end, they report when game checks are on the line. Mack is due 13.8 million for this season. 

It's funny, because Donald is holding out for a second season. Thomas is holding out in Seattle. Little mention, trade rumors, etc. involved around them. But MACK..... it's all the headlines. Why? Because the pitchfork crowd want to see Gruden fail. They want drama with the Raiders and to point at Gruden and say "he's ruining the team". That's it..... this is all clickbait and everyone is taking it.

Donald is progressing in talks with LA, the Raiders aren't doing anything with Mack.

You have the legal leverage, the perception leverage is all Mack's. Sorry but it's a just poor front office work to have the cap you do and make Mack play on the 5th year with no extension. If I'm an agent or a player, Oakland isn't on my radar with the way they've treated Mack. If Mack doesn't report Tuesday and you let him rot, the perception only gets worse.

See the Packers with Rodgers, you pay the HOF caliber players on your roster when they earn it, regardless if you hold leverage on them or not. 

Probably 80% of the league would back the Brinks truck up to Mack right now, I wouldn't step foot near Oakland if I were him until I had a deal. No reason to. 

[BayRaider]

21 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

We will see if the FO would agree or panic. I don't know why they haven't just ponied up the cash yet.

He's a fantastic player. To say he's "once in a lifetime" is laughable.

Miller and Watt are once in a lifetime too. Think you took my saying too literal. 

[BayRaider]

19 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Donald is progressing in talks with LA, the Raiders aren't doing anything with Mack.

You have the legal leverage, the perception leverage is all Mack's. Sorry but it's a just poor front office work to have the cap you do and make Mack play on the 5th year with no extension. If I'm an agent or a player, Oakland isn't on my radar with the way they've treated Mack. If Mack doesn't report Tuesday and you let him rot, the perception only gets worse.

See the Packers with Rodgers, you pay the HOF caliber players on your roster when they earn it, regardless if you hold leverage on them or not. 

Probably 80% of the league would back the Brinks truck up to Mack right now, I wouldn't step foot near Oakland if I were him until I had a deal. No reason to. 

He would have to report at some point. If he sat out the entire year it will really effect his value next season. Instead if getting 21M per year he'd probably be fetching 15M. Players do not sit out a year and have the same value. 

Plus we can tag him and then what is he gonna do, sit out two years?

I agree we should just pay Mack. He deserves every dollar. However, I'm not in the FO. But you're a fool to say Mack holds the leverage. The FO has all the leverage here. 

[Packerraymond]

6 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

He would have to report at some point. If he sat out the entire year it will really effect his value next season. Instead if getting 21M per year he'd probably be fetching 15M. Players do not sit out a year and have the same value. 

Plus we can tag him and then what is he gonna do, sit out two years?

I agree we should just pay Mack. He deserves every dollar. However, I'm not in the FO. But you're a fool to say Mack holds the leverage. The FO has all the leverage here. 

Legally yes, PR wise, it's Mack's. As a potential FA, an agent with FAs/ draft picks, internally in the locker room, he could do a ton of damage to your organization. He's been classy thus far keeping his mouth shut, but if he doesn't report and you still aren't offering him a deal, that could change.

[BayRaider]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Legally yes, PR wise, it's Mack's. As a potential FA, an agent with FAs/ draft picks, internally in the locker room, he could do a ton of damage to your organization. He's been classy thus far keeping his mouth shut, but if he doesn't report and you still aren't offering him a deal, that could change.

That's not Macks personality. His character is A+. Fully confident he wouldn't do that to his teamates. 

[Soko]

2 hours ago, big_palooka said:

ThIt's funny, because Donald is holding out for a second season. Thomas is holding out in Seattle. Little mention, trade rumors, etc. involved around them. But MACK..... it's all the headlines. Why? Because the pitchfork crowd want to see Gruden fail. They want drama with the Raiders and to point at Gruden and say "he's ruining the team". That's it..... this is all clickbait and everyone is taking it.

 Am I missing something? 

Earl has been mentioned in trade topics all offseason. Donald’s reports are all of optimism. All Mack’s reports say is that he and the Raiders haven’t talked about a deal in 6 months. 

This is a hypothetical thread about a high profile player that hasn’t had positive reports come out about getting a deal done. Pretty sure there was one about Bell too IIRC.  

[MWil23]

30 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Miller and Watt are once in a lifetime too.

 

once-in-a-lifetimeadjective [ before noun ] 

UK  /ˌwʌn.sɪnəˈlaɪf.taɪm/ US  /ˌwʌn.sɪnəˈlaɪf.taɪm/

A once-in-a-lifetime experience or opportunity is very special because you will probably only have it once:

 

30 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Think you took my saying too literal. 

[Shanedorf]

Maybe the Raiders strategy was to say nothing until Donald's deal was done - and then begin discussions at that point. Can't say its the best strategy, but until the bar is set, its just both sides talking in hypotheticals.  Does the Mack crew have a specific number in mind ( Quantitative) or is it more important for Mack and his agents to have the largest deal for a non-QB ? ( Qualitative)

[Thomas5737]

53 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

once-in-a-lifetimeadjective [ before noun ] 

UK  /ˌwʌn.sɪnəˈlaɪf.taɪm/ US  /ˌwʌn.sɪnəˈlaɪf.taɪm/

A once-in-a-lifetime experience or opportunity is very special because you will probably only have it once:

 

This is a once in a lifetime post. I've seen several just like it but it is once in a lifetime quality.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, BayRaider said:

That's not Macks personality. His character is A+. Fully confident he wouldn't do that to his teamates. 

I get that, but you guys haven't done a single thing right by him so far this off-season, how long is that going to continue if you don't even work with him on his demands?

[Forge]

1 hour ago, BayRaider said:

That's not Macks personality. His character is A+. Fully confident he wouldn't do that to his teamates. 

The funny thing is, and I mentioned this in the 49er forum about Mack, is that his personality and character may actually be hurting him here. I think when you're in this situation, it behooves you to make a big stink, drag things through the mud, and basically make the situation entirely untenable. He's handled this with class, remained quiet, and I admire him for that. But I wonder if he couldn't be escalating the situation to force the Raiders' hand. He's not going to lose money by doing that of course, but obviously he may lose some love in public perception and may make him the person he doesn't want to be, so I don't begrudge him for not doing that, I just wonder if it were in his better interest if he did. 

Like they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. 

[big_palooka]

 

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Donald is progressing in talks with LA, the Raiders aren't doing anything with Mack.

You have the legal leverage, the perception leverage is all Mack's. Sorry but it's a just poor front office work to have the cap you do and make Mack play on the 5th year with no extension. If I'm an agent or a player, Oakland isn't on my radar with the way they've treated Mack. If Mack doesn't report Tuesday and you let him rot, the perception only gets worse.

See the Packers with Rodgers, you pay the HOF caliber players on your roster when they earn it, regardless if you hold leverage on them or not. 

Probably 80% of the league would back the Brinks truck up to Mack right now, I wouldn't step foot near Oakland if I were him until I had a deal. No reason to. 

Because they don't have to. Same as Donald a year ago. The team doesn't have to negotiate with a player that is currently under contract. 

Why is it poor front office work when Oakland won't negotiate, but it's okay with other teams. Because let's be real.... the stalemate will eventually end. And likely ends soon as Donalds now 2 year old hold set the market for defensive players.

And what is your perception of the Rams and Donald? They've extended literally everyone, signed some high end FAs but Donald is still holding out

Rodgers is a QB.... no comparison. QBs are treated differently and impact the game more than any other position.

No reason to? How about loosing almost a million per game. Same reason Donald showed up after holding out all last offseason. 

Again...the double standard here is hilarious. Player holds out in Oakland, horrible organization no nobody will ever want to sign there with this "treatment". Hold out in Seattle, Pittsburg, LA..... crickets. 

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

 

Because they don't have to. Same as Donald a year ago. The team doesn't have to negotiate with a player that is currently under contract. 

Why is it poor front office work when Oakland won't negotiate, but it's okay with other teams. Because let's be real.... the stalemate will eventually end. And likely ends soon as Donalds now 2 year old hold set the market for defensive players.

And what is your perception of the Rams and Donald? They've extended literally everyone, signed some high end FAs but Donald is still holding out

Rodgers is a QB.... no comparison. QBs are treated differently and impact the game more than any other position.

No reason to? How about loosing almost a million per game. Same reason Donald showed up after holding out all last offseason. 

Again...the double standard here is hilarious. Player holds out in Oakland, horrible organization no nobody will ever want to sign there with this "treatment". Hold out in Seattle, Pittsburg, LA..... crickets. 

Rams are equally as stupid for signing a WR like Cooks over Donald. I stated that when they signed Cooks. 

I laugh at all the "he's under contract" stuff, so was Donald Penn, why was it OK for your team to go to him and ask for that money they agreed to give him? He had a contract!

Teams have no loyalty to players unless they're getting value, I have no problem with Mack having no loyalty to the Raiders because 13m for him is far from value for Mack. He's a 20+ guy.

[big_palooka]

6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Rams are equally as stupid for signing a WR like Cooks over Donald. I stated that when they signed Cooks. 

I laugh at all the "he's under contract" stuff, so was Donald Penn, why was it OK for your team to go to him and ask for that money they agreed to give him? He had a contract!

Teams have no loyalty to players unless they're getting value, I have no problem with Mack having no loyalty to the Raiders because 13m for him is far from value for Mack. He's a 20+ guy.

Donald Penn wasn't due 14 million and looking to be among the highest paid players in professional football.

Mack's a 20+ million a year guy. And the Raiders also have a 20+ million a year guy under contract. Find another team where that exists. The Raiders are in unprecedented territory here.