Packerraymond Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: If Mack isn't playing this year on the player option for Oakland, why are we thinking he's playing on it for us? If he has a 5 year 110m deal inked that guarantees him more money than one needs in multiple lifetimes I highly doubt he's going to hold out. The holdout has to deal with the fact the Raiders haven't met his long term demands, not that he's opposed to playing this year for 14m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: If Mack isn't playing this year on the player option for Oakland, why are we thinking he's playing on it for us? Exactly! ... just because there is a change in teams doesn't mean the problem disappears, the problem is still in place, he's demanding a mega contract right now. 10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I have somewhere between 8-10m right now, if I trade Matthews in that deal that's another 11.4. I can easily afford Mack and sign him to his extension while utilizing the 5th year option this year. Next year Cobb walks, I can cut Bulaga if Spriggs or Murphy show anything. Now I have 46m in cap plus probably 4-5 Ive rolled over. The only potential young guy I need to lock up is HHCD. I can convert Aaron's 20m base salary into up to 19m dollars of cap space by converting it all to guaranteed money in his new deal that I give him and now I'm up over 60m in space. I'll probably even have some to throw offers at Cobb, CMIII and Wilkerson if I so choose. This team is healthy financially, the contract won't be the issue. So you're going to give up 5 players for a single player? Giving up Matthews, Cobb, Bulaga and two first round picks... all for a single player... that sounds like a horrible trade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, Norm said: I. Emailed this to Gute. If he doesn't do it, you need to join fire Gute squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, Beast said: Exactly! ... just because there is a change in teams doesn't mean the problem disappears, the problem is still in place, he's demanding a mega contract right now. So you're going to give up 5 players for a single player? Giving up Matthews, Cobb, Bulaga and two first round picks... all for a single player... that sounds like a horrible trade! Matthews, Cobb and Bulaga might not be Packers in 2019 anyway, I don't get your point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: If he has a 5 year 110m deal inked that guarantees him more money than one needs in multiple lifetimes I highly doubt he's going to hold out. The holdout has to deal with the fact the Raiders haven't met his long term demands, not that he's opposed to playing this year for 14m. Why won't they do it? It's a no brainer to give up tons of assets and him twenty per for us. With a new long deal. Why are they not just giving him money with nothing else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Norm said: Why won't they do it? It's a no brainer to give up tons of assets and him twenty per for us. With a new long deal. Why are they not just giving him money with nothing else? Think the Donald situation is holding things up, that's why I give it like a 5% chance he actually gets moved. I think when the first one signs the other will get done. Only reason I see even a 5% chance is the Gruden arrogance factor. Mack is willingly missing his first camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Matthews, Cobb and Bulaga might not be Packers in 2019 anyway, I don't get your point... Why would they want to trade for a guy who's getting cut after this year? Clay's trade value is ****. We're not even in the stratosphere of what they'd want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 Just now, Packerraymond said: Think the Donald situation is holding things up, that's why I give it like a 5% chance he actually gets moved. I think when the first one signs the other will get done. Only reason I see even a 5% chance is the Gruden arrogance factor. Mack is willingly missing his first camp. Can gruden actually go over McKenzie's head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Matthews, Cobb and Bulaga might not be Packers in 2019 anyway, I don't get your point... The point is a team is clearly wasting resources when trade high draft picks away for a player they then have turn around and give a huge contract to. The team would lose both draft picks and cap space, instead of just losing one or the other. They would be paying twice as much when they don't have to. Yes they might not physical have Matthews, Cobb and Bulaga, but they'll have their cap space. Where with Mack you lose two 1st round draft picks and the cap space... because if you act impatient, then you have to pay twice as much... which just hurts the team in the long run, when teams should be attempting to maximum their resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Norm said: Why would they want to trade for a guy who's getting cut after this year? Clay's trade value is ****. We're not even in the stratosphere of what they'd want. Also we don't know this... but they potentially might get the Packers comp picks if the Packers don't resign them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Beast said: Also we don't know this... but they potentially might get the Packers comp picks if the Packers don't resign them. True. I just can't get past a few people thinking Clay and a first would get this done lol Could you imagine if we had Mack and took that deal? Wait, they'd probably like it like the Kizer trade lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNBlackFan Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 5 hours ago, eyecatcher said: Mack and CMIII have very similar stats for their first 4 years. 40.5 sacks for Mack 42.5 for CMIII, 7 FF for CMIII and 9 for Mack, 1 INT for Mack 4 for CMIII. With that said, how long can Mack stay at that level. With the addition of Mack, Clay could move back inside more and that front 7 would be the best in the NFL. Mack is 5x better than Clay Matthews ever was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 29 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: If he has a 5 year 110m deal inked that guarantees him more money than one needs in multiple lifetimes I highly doubt he's going to hold out. The holdout has to deal with the fact the Raiders haven't met his long term demands, not that he's opposed to playing this year for 14m. Lot of cash for a non QB. This secondary has 4 question marks. That's a lot for me to be mortgaging the future on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 17 minutes ago, Norm said: Why won't they do it? It's a no brainer to give up tons of assets and him twenty per for us. With a new long deal. Why are they not just giving him money with nothing else? Exactly! ... if the Raiders were to move on from him, then they would be admitting that the value that they were getting is more than they think he is a value to them. So if they're were to do this trade, then they thought the two 1st round picks and cap space is worth it. And they got more cap space currently available in future years with 22 million more over the next two future years AND they already have their starting QB locked up for the future. So the Raiders are in a much better place than the Packers cap space wise, and they haven't been willing to sign, so now Packers are suppose to give up high draft picks and do what the Raiders won't? 4 minutes ago, SilverNBlackFan said: Mack is 5x better than Clay Matthews ever was You're totally missing the point, for the purpose of trash talking... and I have no interest in trash talking, so buh bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 18 minutes ago, SilverNBlackFan said: Mack is 5x better than Clay Matthews ever was I know Raiders fan love drugs, but next time come in sober. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.