Interesting case of Khalil Mack

[dll2000]

I'm not in favor of two 1s, but I will point out that Saints just spent two 1s on an unproven pass rusher.  So at least one team that has made some decent moves in recent years thinks that price is worth it   Yeah their window is now, but Bears have a window in next 2-4 years if they add top tier talent like Mack and MT develops into a player.  A lot of IFs, but championships are a gamble. Anyone can be .500.

Leaving contract aside of course, but I think a contract is doable and won't be overly burdensome with young core.  

[topwop1]

I really like Mack as a fit for the Bears but heck no I'm not giving up two 1st round picks to acquire him, especially when you are going to have to make him the highest paid defender in the league whenever he signs his new deal.

Also Bears are already without a 2nd in next year's draft due to the trade up for Anthony Miller, so if they traded away their next two 1sts for Mack that'd mean their highest draft pick in the next two years would be a 2nd rounder in 2020.  Yeah...not cool.

If we were on the cusp of being a SB winning team then I would be more open to giving up numerous assets for a guy like Mack, but this team still has some work to do in order to even be a playoff contender.  

I sense that the asking price will come down the longer this drags out.  No need for Pace to get overly eager here.

[JAF-N72EX]

As someone who doesn't over-value draft picks, I get the proven player>>>unproven draft pick argument and I agree with that in general and in some cases but not in ours I don't. 

Those who use this argument to try an justify the trade don't seem to be applying that same logic when looking at the rest of the roster that is filled with unproven talent all over the place. Including the most important position in football and a HC. If we did have proven talent then we wouldn't be one of the worst teams in football - but we are until shown otherwise. And Mack does not change any of that. So why throw all of your eggs into one basket before we even find out what we currently have. 

Again, we made that mistake with the Cutler trade. Everyone (well not all of us) were all happy happy joy joy. That was until everyone saw the trickle down effect when they found out that we had more holes in our roster than expected and no draft picks or money to fill those holes. Needless to say that trade set us back big time and I see no need to make the same mistake again. Especially now that things are finally starting to look up. 

Ride out the season as is so we atleast go into the offseason with alot less uncertainties and let pace/Nagy continue to build around it. It's a process.    

-JMO 

[AZBearsFan]

The contract part of this is really the least of my concerns. 

1. Some of the annual cost is offset in the trade by not having to pay a guy 1st round money in 2019 and possibly 2020. 

2. The cap keeps going up like $9M per year. In 3 years a presumptive Mack contract would be about the 8th highest at his position.

3. We are already well under the cap for the foreseeable future anyway even after a presumptive Goldman extension.

4. Big cap hits are cyclical. As we take on more in the next few years big ones already here (Prince? Long? DT?) will fall off. 

5. Look at what the Rams can fit under the cap right now while their QB is well under market. There’s always a way, and if we open up a 4-5 year legit contender window by having to POTENTIALLY take one “eat a lot of bad deals” year in like 2024 I’m 100% on board with that. 

If Trubisky is legit adding Mack could be like GB adding Reggie White. He’s that much of an impact player. 

And no, it’s still not likely. 

[Sugashane]

3 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Those who use this argument to try an justify the trade don't seem to be applying that same logic when looking at the rest of the roster that is filled with unproven talent all over the place. Including the most important position in football and a HC. 

It shouldnt be looked at the exact same IMO. We have already made the investment of the 2nd overall pick (trading up to get it) and the guaranteed money for Nagy. There is more to be invested to get Mack but there is clearly far more known about him too.

 

I'm fine with people not wanting to invest so much of course, just a difference of opinion. 

[BayRaider]

Rumor has it the Bears have offered three first round picks for Mack. Let's get it done.

[AZBearsFan]

8 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Rumor has it the Bears have offered three first round picks for Mack. Let's get it done.

No. They haven’t. 

[beardown3231]

4 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Rumor has it the Bears have offered three first round picks for Mack. Let's get it done.

I doubt it. Get lost.

[BayRaider]

I see Bear fans have no sense of humor

Enjoy the 2-5 win season.

[CBears019]

 

[Heinz D.]

2 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

I see Bear fans have no sense of humor

Enjoy the 2-5 win season.

Well...I think it's pretty clear that most of us--if you dig long enough, have at least some sense of humor. 

And, the likelihood is the Bears win more than five games, but...

As a Raiders fan, are you willing for the team to unload Mack? 

That's what interests me the most. I could make a good argument that the Raiders are in a prime position to deal Mack...but I ain't a Raiders fan.

What are your thoughts? And what do you think is reasonable compensation? 

 

[Sugashane]

18 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

I see Bear fans have no sense of humor

Enjoy the 2-5 win season.

[JAF-N72EX]

9 hours ago, Sugashane said:

It shouldnt be looked at the exact same IMO. We have already made the investment of the 2nd overall pick (trading up to get it) and the guaranteed money for Nagy. There is more to be invested to get Mack but there is clearly far more known about him too.

 

I'm fine with people not wanting to invest so much of course, just a difference of opinion. 

I hear ya and I understand that perspective as well - we already have an invested interest, lets get the most out of it while he is still on a rookie contract and I agree with that mindset 100%. Rookie contracts give bottom feeder teams like us a fair shot at building by allowing that 4 year window. I would say we're all pretty much in agreement with that.

IMO, I think where the differences in opinions begin to change all starts at how each of us envision exactly HOW to use that 4 year window (well, 3 now - realistically). 

From a competitive standpoint going into this season, some think this a borderline playoff team, while others believe this is still an 8 win team at best. Me personally, I'm more in-line with the latter. 

I say that to say this. This is how I personally how I think we should use this 3-4 year window:

Stage 1 - 2018: Fix the problems left by Fox and find out what we truly have on our roster - talent wise.
Stage 2 - 2019: Improve the roster based on what we saw in the players to become atleast competitive(not a lucky) borderline PO team by cleaning out dead weight.
Stage 3 - 2020: Make proper changes to our roster up to become a PO team and possibly even a perennial PO team and not just a one or two hit wonder.
Stage 4 - 2021: Continue to look at the progression and regression of players and reload the roster(not rebuild like we have for a decade) to become perennial Super Bowl contenders.

And I get the feeling that some people believe that we are already in that late stage 2, stage 3 phase and we're not, imo. That's where I think alot of the discrepancies begin. 

I know, I know....the Rams did it in one year. But they already had proven core players before McVay and even Goff. 

 

[JAF-N72EX]

12 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

The contract part of this is really the least of my concerns. 

1. Some of the annual cost is offset in the trade by not having to pay a guy 1st round money in 2019 and possibly 2020. 

2. The cap keeps going up like $9M per year. In 3 years a presumptive Mack contract would be about the 8th highest at his position.

3. We are already well under the cap for the foreseeable future anyway even after a presumptive Goldman extension.

4. Big cap hits are cyclical. As we take on more in the next few years big ones already here (Prince? Long? DT?) will fall off. 

5. Look at what the Rams can fit under the cap right now while their QB is well under market. There’s always a way, and if we open up a 4-5 year legit contender window by having to POTENTIALLY take one “eat a lot of bad deals” year in like 2024 I’m 100% on board with that. 

If Trubisky is legit adding Mack could be like GB adding Reggie White. He’s that much of an impact player. 

And no, it’s still not likely. 

What is interesting about the cap for us though is that we have a ton of core players who's contract are up following the 2020 season. What makes this interesting is that this is also happens to be at the end of the current CBA. This is important because at the start of the new CBA in 2011, teams salary cap decreased 7-8% IIRC.  

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

If the cost was really a first and a first, I think it's at least considering.

 

What would we use 2019 first round pick, v likely in the teens on? Pass rush, and probably not any of the top three options either.  We'd drop the dice with some j Allen or Shaq Lawson level prospect. If all it takes is another first to get a proven player, I think it makes sense. No one seems bent on the financials a just the draft capital.