Small Town Values Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 On 01/08/2018 at 8:47 AM, Jimmy Austin said: A bag of Doritos from 1975 and a poster of Mila Kunis in a bikini. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 On 8/1/2018 at 8:32 AM, Nightmare said: This seems to be media nonsense. Gruden refuted the rumor that he hasn't spoken to Mack since he accepted the job, and McKenzie did the same regarding the stuff about no contract discussions taking place, saying he "will continue to talk" with Mack's agent. Don't get me wrong - as a Raiders fan, the situation is hardly ideal. It'll be tough to pay him what he wants, and with Donald also needing paid, Mack has an additional bargaining chip which is undoubtedly making things harder. But any chat about Mack or his representatives not even talking to the team look to be wildly off. Which is unsurprising, given that it's offseason and the media need something to yell about. Can you share some links? Schefty is usually pretty on the ball. He reported Mack and Gruden haven’t talked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 I would look at Von Miller's contract and give him more than that. Highest paid pass rusher ever is a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Ducks Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 On 7/31/2018 at 4:45 PM, game3525 said: Nothing. The Chargers already have Ingram and Bosa and on top of that you would have to pay Mack. Yup. We don't need him. Maybe give up Varrett? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 On 7/31/2018 at 10:21 PM, PapaShogun said: Foster and a 1st? I'm not giving up foster in a deal for Mack to go along with a first. Foster has legit all pro talent. I can justify the picks for Mack because it's unlikely you are going to hit on all of them and highly unlikely you would get someone of Macks' caliber and people tend to over value picks (and even then, I'm not sure I'd be willing to give up the two firsts that most of our forum seems okay with - I'd probably get them to try and swallow a first, a second, and then a conditional pick that can be as high as a #2 since I view the market for Mack as fairly limited at that price). Foster has some questions about his health and off the field situation, no doubt about that, but he's also flashed potential all pro talent on the field. Sure, Mack plays the more important position, but you also need cheap, great labor, which is what Foster is right now. There's also something I don't like about taking an important piece like foster from the team to make this move. Now if the team wanted to send McGlinchey to the Raiders instead along with a pick, I'd be up for negotiating something there. Would leave us with a big question at right tackle, but I'd be willing to hope and pray that Gilliam could hold it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugashane Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 I'd trade Roquan Smith's rights and a 2019 3rd. This isn't anything to do with Roquan's contract either, I want a legit passrusher opposite of Floyd (which is why I drafted Davenport and Landry in the first 2 picks of my real-time mock) and I like the combo of Trevathan/Kwiatkoski at ILBs more than most. All this contingent on us getting a long-term deal negotiated before finalizing of course. I'd give him a deal between Watt and Miller's deals (guessing $18 mil/year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNBlackFan Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Most These offers would be downright laughable for a 26 y/o consensus top 3 defensive player not yet in his prime. But I can't even laugh because Gruden is liable to do something dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 On 8/2/2018 at 5:30 PM, Forge said: I'm not giving up foster in a deal for Mack to go along with a first. Foster has legit all pro talent. I can justify the picks for Mack because it's unlikely you are going to hit on all of them and highly unlikely you would get someone of Macks' caliber and people tend to over value picks (and even then, I'm not sure I'd be willing to give up the two firsts that most of our forum seems okay with - I'd probably get them to try and swallow a first, a second, and then a conditional pick that can be as high as a #2 since I view the market for Mack as fairly limited at that price). Foster has some questions about his health and off the field situation, no doubt about that, but he's also flashed potential all pro talent on the field. Sure, Mack plays the more important position, but you also need cheap, great labor, which is what Foster is right now. There's also something I don't like about taking an important piece like foster from the team to make this move. Now if the team wanted to send McGlinchey to the Raiders instead along with a pick, I'd be up for negotiating something there. Would leave us with a big question at right tackle, but I'd be willing to hope and pray that Gilliam could hold it down. This is why Oakland probably would turn down even accepting Foster and a 1st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugashane Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 2 hours ago, SilverNBlackFan said: Most These offers would be downright laughable for a 26 y/o consensus top 3 defensive player not yet in his prime. But I can't even laugh because Gruden is liable to do something dumb. That's why they are laughable, because the chances of a young talent like Mack hitting the market is almost impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crickett Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 2 hours ago, SilverNBlackFan said: Most These offers would be downright laughable for a 26 y/o consensus top 3 defensive player not yet in his prime. But I can't even laugh because Gruden is liable to do something dumb. It's almost as though there is a reason players of Khalil Mack's ability don't get commonly traded. So, here's a question for you, how much would you be willing to trade for a 26 y/o consensus top 3 defensive player not yet in his prime such as Aaron Donald (Donald is 27 but so is Mack) if you couldn't include Khalil Mack as part of the deal? Would you be willing to give up three or four first rounders and then pay him 30 million mostly guaranteed dollars a year? I'm betting that you wouldn't nine times out of ten, and the tenth time is you trying to prove a point about Khalil Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 5 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said: This is why Oakland probably would turn down even accepting Foster and a 1st Also a valid point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 The raiders don't have a choice, they have to trade him. They can't afford to pay him. In the NFL, all of the guaranteed money for the life of any contract has to be put in an escrow account the day the contract gets signed. The raiders simply do not have the cash to do this. So yes, some of these trade proposals are 'laughable' but so is the idea that the raiders have any leverage here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 1 hour ago, N4L said: The raiders don't have a choice, they have to trade him. They can't afford to pay him. In the NFL, all of the guaranteed money for the life of any contract has to be put in an escrow account the day the contract gets signed. The raiders simply do not have the cash to do this. So yes, some of these trade proposals are 'laughable' but so is the idea that the raiders have any leverage here. Meh, I think they are fine. They still have leverage via franchise tag. At most that runs them about 15 million, and they don't have to worry about it until next year. Mack isn't going to sit out the season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 23 minutes ago, Forge said: Meh, I think they are fine. They still have leverage via franchise tag. At most that runs them about 15 million, and they don't have to worry about it until next year. Mack isn't going to sit out the season If that's the Raiders "end game" in negotiations , then I hope Mack pulls a Vincent Jackson for 10 weeks. All I keep reading is concensus top 3 defensive player yet like Donald neither Franchise is in a hurry to spend that $100+M? If their own Franchises are hesitant what on Earth makes any of you think other Organizations would be willing to do that plus the Rediculous amounts of Picks for such a talent? Any trade "because" of that looming massive contract would come at a discounted rate. Raiders would never get multiple first, that's a pipe dream. Or the GM trading for him is an idiot. It's basically the LB version of Cousins and Washington, pick compensation was never going to be adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 With the Packers you'd have to run it by Aaron first as he'd have to make sacrifices in his new contract to bring in Mack and give him a long term deal. If he gave it the green light I'd offer the higher of the 2 firsts we end up with this year, a conditional pick ranging from a 1st to 4th next year tied into Mack's performance and also team success and Clay Matthews because I'm sure an old former Gruden grinder would get his blood pumping, and the 10+ mil he would free up we could use to dump a lot of Mack's cap hit in year 1. Then maybe wait and do Aaron's deal next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.