Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[JBURGE]

5 minutes ago, oldmansmell said:

I am not really too keen on reading this whole thing. But is there any substantiated stuff beyond that original article that said we were trying to trade for Mack because we lost the "pass rushing prowess" of Jake Ryan? Because that logic is hilarious.

The only news we have is Gute saying they are always interested in talking about players of that caliber in his presser, and Oddsshark announcing that the Packers are betting favourites right now to have Mack on their roster by the end of October. That is either trying to generate bets on green bay, or they know something the gen pop doesn't

[Beast]

2 hours ago, eyecatcher said:

Cap space isn't the issue with them.  It's available cash for bonus and guarantee.  That money needs to be placed in escrow at signing and they don't have it.  I believe the Packers are in a better spot financially.

Assuming the Raiders don't have it... the NFL has processes in place to help owners out when ever they need to borrow liquidated cash...  because an owners not having the money is a bad image and the NFL has been more about image than anything else under Roger Goodell (even more so than morals and justice) and who's not going to loan money to the NFL? For the right interest rate, I'll gladly loan the NFL money... and to be repaid, the NFL will just take the money out of the team's future piece of revenue sharing.

So liquidated cash isn't the problem even if the Raiders are cashed strapped.

[Norm]

25 minutes ago, Beast said:

Assuming the Raiders don't have it... the NFL has processes in place to help owners out when ever they need to borrow liquidated cash...  because an owners not having the money is a bad image and the NFL has been more about image than anything else under Roger Goodell (even more so than morals and justice) and who's not going to loan money to the NFL? For the right interest rate, I'll gladly loan the NFL money... and to be repaid, the NFL will just take the money out of the team's future piece of revenue sharing.

So liquidated cash isn't the problem even if the Raiders are cashed strapped.

I thought this too.. I'm way out of my league here but I said earlier, who wouldn't loan an NFL team money... What's the freaking risk

[eyecatcher]

1 hour ago, Beast said:

Assuming the Raiders don't have it... the NFL has processes in place to help owners out when ever they need to borrow liquidated cash...  because an owners not having the money is a bad image and the NFL has been more about image than anything else under Roger Goodell (even more so than morals and justice) and who's not going to loan money to the NFL? For the right interest rate, I'll gladly loan the NFL money... and to be repaid, the NFL will just take the money out of the team's future piece of revenue sharing.

So liquidated cash isn't the problem even if the Raiders are cashed strapped.

If this is the case then why are sportswriters and TV sports analysts talking about cash being the issue?  I'm not arguing you are wrong, just asking because I've never heard of these processes.  I've also never heard of a team being strapped for cash so who knows.

[Beast]

10 minutes ago, eyecatcher said:

If this is the case then why are sportswriters and TV sports analysts talking about cash being the issue?  I'm not arguing you are wrong, just asking because I've never heard of these processes.  I've also never heard of a team being strapped for cash so who knows.

I don't know the answer to that (especially sportswriters)... but depending on which TV people we're talking about, I've considered some TV sports "analyst" more as drama sports entertainers that need to talk about something. (or maybe they know something that I don't).

Warning Personal Biased Rant Coming: And there are certain TV drama sports entertainers that have been more than willing to pretend to be serious, while completely making stuff up to be entertaining, trolling and get/keep viewers...  to be clear I'm thinking of guys like Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd, and Jason Whitlock. There are more, but most of entertainers types don't pretend to be completely serious like those three, which makes them worse in my mind.

Back to Previous Scheduled Programming: The only thing I can think of, that would make the Raiders cash strapped after the NFL teams' revenue share topped $8 billion in 2017 (average of 250 million per team, which I don't think counts the money a team personally made locally), is the Raiders move to Vegas deal... that MIGHT have the Raiders cash strapped and the NFL programs have limits of how much you can borrow. But with permission of other owners they can go over that limit too.

I don't want to go look it up, but during the Jerry Jones/Goodell feud, there was a very good article written how there was almost had a quid pro quo, where Jones needed to borrow more than limit in cash and Goodell (not yet commissioner) pushed for other teams to back up Jones even though they didn't want to and sorta as repayment, Jones strongly pushed Goodell to become the new commissioner even though it sounded like someone else was the favorite and they have back each up ever since until the RB Ezekiel Elliott suspension. Jones claimed he was pissed during the Elliott suspension because Goodell said he'd get cleared with no punishment and some reports suggested the owners twisted Goodell's arm into the suspension because they wanted 1) They felt Elliott did worse than some of their players that got suspended and Jones forcefully threw their players case under the bus 2) They wanted Jones to get what he has been dishing out.

[packfanfb]

Interesting way to think about the Mack debate for people worried about paying him $20+ million/yr. If Mack had been drafted by GB and was about to be a FA next year, would anyone here be willing to let him walk in FA versus paying him in a new deal? 

In other words, would you be willing to let a likely Hall of Fame EDGE player, still in his prime, to walk in exchange for likely a 3rd rd comp. pick?

[MacReady]

For what it's worth, betting sites have the Packers at the best odds of landing Mack in a trade.  Probably solely based on our two first round picks, but still.  

[Beast]

Also if Mack wants to resign with the Raiders, he might want to back load his contract just like Jon Gruden... because he has to pay California 13.3% in income tax rate... where Nevada has not income tax... which could save him millions. 

9 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Interesting way to think about the Mack debate for people worried about paying him $20+ million/yr. If Mack had been drafted by GB and was about to be a FA next year, would anyone here be willing to let him walk in FA versus paying him in a new deal? 

In other words, would you be willing to let a likely Hall of Fame EDGE player, still in his prime, to walk in exchange for likely a 3rd rd comp. pick?

Yes it would be interesting way to completely forget we have to pay another team for the right to sign him... but reality is the Raiders are going to want something in return since he's under contract and most people seem to think Mack is franchise tag worthy... they got him under contract for basically two (or three) years or when someone pays them 1st first round picks.

[packfanfb]

 

 

[packfanfb]

29 minutes ago, Beast said:

Yes it would be interesting way to completely forget we have to pay another team for the right to sign him... but reality is the Raiders are going to want something in return since he's under contract and most people seem to think Mack is franchise tag worthy... they got him under contract for basically two (or three) years or when someone pays them 1st first round picks.

Of course but it seems like more people here are less concerned about the compensation we would have to give Oakland than the compensation we'd have to pay Mack after the fact. The fact is, Mack even at $20-22 mil per year is manageable.

[TransientTexan]

6 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Of course but it seems like more people here are less concerned about the compensation we would have to give Oakland than the compensation we'd have to pay Mack after the fact. The fact is, Mack even at $20-22 mil per year is manageable.

I don’t think people are saying that at all. Just because they make those comments with the underlying scenario of trading picks for him doesn’t mean they’d make those same comments in a vacuum if we were just talking about signing a FA

[Norm]

14 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Of course but it seems like more people here are less concerned about the compensation we would have to give Oakland than the compensation we'd have to pay Mack after the fact. The fact is, Mack even at $20-22 mil per year is manageable.

Not me. I think the idea we can get him for two late firsts is a joke. He's worth 20m

[packfanfb]

Just now, Norm said:

Not me. I think the idea we can get him for two late firsts is a joke. He's worth 20m

All depends on how motivated the Raiders are to deal him coupled with Mack's resolve to hold out.

Two firsts isnt something to smile at. Really good compensation for any non-franchise QB. Bottom line, I'd argue the trade would make good sense for both teams. 

[Norm]

8 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

All depends on how motivated the Raiders are to deal him coupled with Mack's resolve to hold out.

Two firsts isnt something to smile at. Really good compensation for any non-franchise QB. Bottom line, I'd argue the trade would make good sense for both teams. 

Yeah I bet you'd feel this way if we had him and made that deal. 

Have some ******* perspective.

Yes it's easy to Google trades that happened that worked. There's no database of every time every teams fans thought stealing some guy was fair that DIDN'T happen.

I'm so tired if listening to it's fair comp for something they would never do in the opposite position.

[Beast]

13 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

I don’t think people are saying that at all. Just because they make those comments with the underlying scenario of trading picks for him doesn’t mean they’d make those same comments in a vacuum if we were just talking about signing a FA

I agree, if it were JUST $22 million per year, or JUST two 1st round picks, I could probably go for it. But the fact that it's both... that's potentially equal to David Bakhtiari, Jimmy Graham,  Kenny Clark and Kevin King.... Mack is a great player, I'm just not sure he's better than potential 4 very good players.

9 minutes ago, Norm said:

Not me. I think the idea we can get him for two late firsts is a joke. He's worth 20m

Yeah when someone mentioned the idea, that the Raiders could just let Mack play out his current contract and then put the non-exclusive franchise tag on him, then any team that signed him would give up two 1st round picks... if the Raiders want two first round picks, they can wait...  so they might want even more to make the move right now.

6 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

All depends on how motivated the Raiders are to deal him coupled with Mack's resolve to hold out.

Two firsts isnt something to smile at. Really good compensation for any non-franchise QB. Bottom line, I'd argue the trade would make good sense for both teams. 

We can argue of anything including weather Pluto is a planet or not... that doesn't change the fact that it's there. 

Nor does it change the fact that you're going to have pay Mack's value twice, once to the Raiders and once to Mack's contract.

Is Mack really worth twice Mack's value?