Jump to content

Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack


cooters22

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Norm said:

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

Great point. If we had Mack in a contract year, would we trade him away or would we sign him.

I think we'd all say sign him.

Also I've read that their LT Donald Penn held out... and they refused to talk contract with him until he came into camp (just like they are doing right now with Mack). And shortly after Penn come into training camp, they worked out a new contract and everything was good (at least until Penn tore his ACL).

My point being, they might resign Mack shortly after he gets into camp (just like they did with Penn).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Beast said:

Great point. If we had Mack in a contract year, would we trade him away or would we sign him.

I think we'd all say sign him.

Also I've read that their LT Donald Penn held out... and they refused to talk contract with him until he came into camp (just like they are doing right now with Mack). And shortly after Penn come into training camp, they worked out a new contract and everything was good (at least until Penn tore his ACL).

My point being, they might resign Mack shortly after he gets into camp (just like they did with Penn).

Mack just lost a mil not showing up before preseason. He isn't showing up without a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Norm said:

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.

Depends on how you feel as a Raiders fan. Do you think your team is close to being a SB contender? If so, then yes, I probably wouldn't trade Mack for anything. 

Same reason why GB should try to get him. We are on the cusp and Mack is the difference maker we need. If we were the Bears I'd rather have the 2 No. 1 picks and keep building. We've been building, it's time to go for it.

So where do the Raiders fit in that spectrum...that would influence my decision on Mack v. 2 No. 1 picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An NFL team is trying to figure out if Mack is worth the contract he's demanding and so far have fallen on the side of "No".

I get the Raiders aren't exactly  considered a fountain of infinite wisdom, but we're talking about writing that contract, sending two first round picks, and cutting loose two contributors. 

I'm just struggling to make that math work. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

An NFL team is trying to figure out if Mack is worth the contract he's demanding and so far have fallen on the side of "No".

I get the Raiders aren't exactly  considered a fountain of infinite wisdom, but we're talking about writing that contract, sending two first round picks, and cutting loose two contributors. 

I'm just struggling to make that math work. 

 

Why are we cutting anyone? Tear up the 5th year option, make the year one cap hit as low as possible. Next year Cobb and Matthews will have to be casulaties but I imagine there was a good chance they were anyway. Bulaga and Tramon can get us another 10m if need be and converting salary in guarantees for Daniels and Aaron can get you another 20m more. There's plenty there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Mack just lost a mil not showing up before preseason. He isn't showing up without a deal.

If he signs this year, then he'll get the million back (maybe more)... and unless he retires one of them is going to have to give in sooner or later unless he retires.

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

We are on the cusp and Mack is the difference maker we need. If we were the Bears I'd rather have the 2 No. 1 picks and keep building. We've been building, it's time to go for it.

So you just want to throw all your resources at that one player like the Redskins (under current owner) and the later years of Al Davis? And maybe Packers under GM Mike Sherman with not having his 2nd and 4th rounders... Their teams just got worse year after year as they kept chasing their tails to get one players that would put them over the top. The one player away stuff is a myth that taking this one action is a proven thing, when it's shown that it's anything but that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

An NFL team is trying to figure out if Mack is worth the contract he's demanding and so far have fallen on the side of "No".

I get the Raiders aren't exactly  considered a fountain of infinite wisdom, but we're talking about writing that contract, sending two first round picks, and cutting loose two contributors. 

I'm just struggling to make that math work. 

 

Peters got moved for far less than 2 1sts.  When a team is ready to move on, they move on.  I wouldn't expect the packers are gonna make that kind of deal.

More likely we are talking Clay matthews and a pick.  Which frees up some cap room this year.

 

I don't think this trade is even a shred of real from the packers perspective unless we are talking 2nd round pick or so, mostly for the reasons you state - too much investment on the contract side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

An NFL team is trying to figure out if Mack is worth the contract he's demanding and so far have fallen on the side of "No".

I get the Raiders aren't exactly  considered a fountain of infinite wisdom, but we're talking about writing that contract, sending two first round picks, and cutting loose two contributors. 

I'm just struggling to make that math work. 

 

I wouldn’t send both 1st rounders. I’d send a 1st, and another draft pick or two (not first rounders)  but two first rounders and a monster contract is way to valuable to give up for a 27 year old imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Why are we cutting anyone? Tear up the 5th year option, make the year one cap hit as low as possible. Next year Cobb and Matthews will have to be casulaties but I imagine there was a good chance they were anyway. Bulaga and Tramon can get us another 10m if need be and converting salary in guarantees for Daniels and Aaron can get you another 20m more. There's plenty there.

You're advocating for basically signing a fully guaranteed contract for a defender at around 24 million per year. 

Also, if Matthews and Cobb are cap casualties, you're giving up the right to spend the money you would have had with them next year.

I'm just not sure any single defender is worth that much money, to say nothing of the draft picks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Why are we cutting anyone? Tear up the 5th year option, make the year one cap hit as low as possible. Next year Cobb and Matthews will have to be casulaties but I imagine there was a good chance they were anyway. Bulaga and Tramon can get us another 10m if need be and converting salary in guarantees for Daniels and Aaron can get you another 20m more. There's plenty there.

So we're back to this one player is worth more than four or more other players combine. One talented guy doesn't make a complete talented team... even if he's extremely talented. Have we not learned anything from having Favre and Rodgers... and yet we still believe this one guy can be an entire team? ... if that was true don't you think we'd have more than two Super Bowls with those two by now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Peters got moved for far less than 2 1sts.  When a team is ready to move on, they move on.  I wouldn't expect the packers are gonna make that kind of deal.

More likely we are talking Clay matthews and a pick.  Which frees up some cap room this year.

 

I don't think this trade is even a shred of real from the packers perspective unless we are talking 2nd round pick or so, mostly for the reasons you state - too much investment on the contract side.

Peters was a problem child and not in an, "I'm looking to get paid" way. I just don't see the comparison. You'd have to think the Raiders are looking to get this contract signed. They didn't sign Derek Carr to that contract to not go for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Beast said:

So you just want to throw all your resources at that one player like the Redskins (under current owner) and the later years of Al Davis? And maybe Packers under GM Mike Sherman with not having his 2nd and 4th rounders... Their teams just got worse year after year as they kept chasing their tails to get one players that would put them over the top. The one player away stuff is a myth that taking this one action is a proven thing, when it's shown that it's anything but that.

Did any of those teams have a guy named Aaron Rodgers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...