oldmansmell Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, PACKRULE said: To me that's just not worth it on top of opening the door to having to pay a single D player that much money. I'd prefer to put that off for a bit as our highest defensive players is making half of what Mack wants. Mack may be a great player but dam he's just not worth all the possibilities of what those picks could be plus the new picks. Great D is more than just one player ask Denver last year. Fair enough, was just trying to put out what I thought might be a realistic example of the necessary compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmansmell Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 1 minute ago, TransientTexan said: I don't think that does it. Future picks are valued less, so the sum total of that is probably equivalent to the value of the Jets' 2019 1st and I'm betting the Jets offered at least that in the deal that was rumored to have been declined by OAK. Do the 1sts upfront then? I don't know, never really seen a deal like this for a non-QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 12 minutes ago, Leader said: 5,488,844 left maybe Mack will play for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, oldmansmell said: Fair enough, was just trying to put out what I thought might be a realistic example of the necessary compensation. All good your thoughts are likely on or even low s TT suggested. Just way to much to give up for one guy on the D. Let me spread that out over 2-3 players on top of the rooks and extend players. With that said if this was ARods last year or two i'd be more inclined as we'd have a rook QB coming on the books sooner and AR would be cheap at the end of the deal. Just don't see the fuss on Mack great player but he didn't take Oakland to the promised land in his all pro years in Oakland. Just shows that it takes more then one player not a QB. Heck we have one of if not the best pure QB in the game and we haven't been to a super bowl this Decade. Stay the course and hopefully with new eyes hit on those early DP's at a better rate than recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 1 minute ago, oldmansmell said: Do the 1sts upfront then? I don't know, never really seen a deal like this for a non-QB. that's a bit better. it probably depends what slots OAK projects those picks to be. worst case, they'd be at least around the equivalent of the #12 pick. 'best' case (for OAK) would probably be around #7 if both GB & NOR lose in the wildcard round, which is probably unlikely. Jets' 1st could easily be in the top-10 by itself. They've gotten #6 three times in the last 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmansmell Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 11 minutes ago, TransientTexan said: that's a bit better. it probably depends what slots OAK projects those picks to be. worst case, they'd be at least around the equivalent of the #12 pick. 'best' case (for OAK) would probably be around #7 if both GB & NOR lose in the wildcard round, which is probably unlikely. Jets' 1st could easily be in the top-10 by itself. They've gotten #6 three times in the last 5 years. I think that's probably right. Although, in some ways I don't really see the point of that bias of presentism, just an opinion though. That regime has at least three years of job stability, and having capital flexibility spread out over three years, might give you some different opportunities. It also lets you spread out your capital over multiple classes, and potentially staggers the 5th year options, instead of, if you hit on both, needing to do two extensions over the same period. Its apparently only a hypothetical at this point anyway though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrILL! Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 Packers trade for Mack: go 13-3 and win Superb Owl Jets trade for Mack: go 5-11 Maybe NYJ can offer him more $ but maybe Mack would refuse an extension with the Jets bcuz he doesn’t want to play for a crappy team. *While we’re daydreaming and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetana34 Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 Why do you people want to trade Clay? Isn't the idea of trading for Mack is to add to our edge corp, not trade it away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 5 minutes ago, smetana34 said: Why do you people want to trade Clay? Isn't the idea of trading for Mack is to add to our edge corp, not trade it away? Not ideal for sure. If it was absolutely necessary to do the deal, I'd do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 23 minutes ago, smetana34 said: Why do you people want to trade Clay? Isn't the idea of trading for Mack is to add to our edge corp, not trade it away? I think mostly his salary versus production makes people want him out and he wouldn't "start" anymore in their minds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 44 minutes ago, Norm said: 5,488,844 left maybe Mack will play for free? Only if we get to 100 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 15 minutes ago, smetana34 said: Why do you people want to trade Clay? Isn't the idea of trading for Mack is to add to our edge corp, not trade it away? people don't 'want' to trade him just for kicks. due to the salary cap, it would almost be required, given the way Arod's deal is structured. if they want to trade for Mack & sign him to a deal, I'm estimating GB would need to clear about $9-10m. There aren't alot of cut-candidates for that amount. It's either CMIII or Cobb. And I don't think people are comfortable rolling with Allison as the #2 WR and a pack of rookies at #3. CMIII as your 3rd edge is more of a luxury than a need, and his contract is up in a year anyways. Mack wasn't necessarily about edge depth, though that would have been a bonus if feasible. It was about getting a blue-chip player at a position that's generally unavailable in free agency even for teams that have the money to spend. And hard to find in the draft outside to top-10 picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Norm said: 5,488,844 left maybe Mack will play for free? I mean, we gained an extra $700,000 by trading Hundley. That should be more than enough to extend Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Vince Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Leader said: I was hearing on sports talk radio that Rodgers contract freed up 15M for 2018. If this is true time to lock this puppy up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 1 minute ago, St Vince said: I was hearing on sports talk radio that Rodgers contract freed up 15M for 2018. If this is true time to lock this puppy up. Joe Arrigo ?? @joearrigo 5h5 hours ago More Side note to the Aaron Rodgers deal: #Packers have freed up over $15M in cap space. Does that mean they try to pull off a trade for another player or lock up another one of their players scheduled to become a FA? lol. Dude is never right about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.