Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[Uffdaswede]

8 hours ago, Scoremore said:

This thread just won't die.  The media keeps fanning the flames as well.  Forget about Mack he's not coming to GB.  Put this discussion on par with day dreaming about what to do once you win the lottery.  Considering his contract demands and the sacrifice we would have to make in terms of draft picks not sure it would be a good idea anyway.

I’m tilting your way. I don’t see how the Khalil Mack story can possibly last more than 67 more pages. 

[MacReady]

A lot of people are completing and totally neglecting a lot of facts here.  It's bothersome. 

Mack is going to turn 28 years old in February of this year. 

It's not a matter of an unproven commodity versus a proven commodity.  Obviously most people would take the proven commodity over the unproven commodity if all things were equal, but all things are not equal.

Rodgers is not playing longer than 4 more years, and if he does, he's not going to be the most important player on our team. 

Mack is going to be elite for 4 more years tops.  Probably three more years, then good for two years. 

So essentially, you're passing on two key contributors on your team for the next ten years versus four years out of one player. 

That's 20 years of potential for 4 years. 

Some people (like me) want to get that head start once Rodgers leaves.  Teams have built up super teams before trying to win a Super Bowl.  Sometimes it works and you get a Super Bowl win right before your team falls apart.  Other times you end up screwing your team for the next five to ten years.  The Saints did it.  The Packers did it with Favre before Thompson took over.  The Patriots did it (and went 4 years, then another 4 years between Super Bowl appearances). 

Making moves like this and crippling your cap health for one player can get you a Super Bowl win, absolutely.  Regardless of whether or not it gets you a Super Bowl win, it DOES and WILL cripple your team afterwards. 

So I see it as two choices:

1. Cripple your team for five years after the movie guaranteed with a great shot at winning a Super Bowl.
2. Don't cripple your team for five years after by not making the move and still have a good shot at winning a Super Bowl. 

 

[Uffdaswede]

Reading on the mobile the inserted ads get me once in a while. Either I mistake an ad for a meme graphic or I mistake the meme for an ad.

I do find it interesting that the Mack story floats in this unresolved zombie ether: no amount of rational argument can defeat the other side as long as the issue remains a holographic projection. 

[Kenrik]

7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You have no nothing to go on other than opinion. Jared Allen got traded after leading the NFL in sacks in the same circumstances and age Mack is now for a 1,3,3,6 which I'd argue is worth less than a 1,1. 

If Khalil Mack gets dealt he's not going for more than two 1s. No team can afford more than that. I can't remember any non QB going for more than a single 1st in the last decade, let alone 3 or more 1sts.

Also they aren't late 1sts. Has the draft order been set? They are 1sts with a lower chance to be a top pick than say the Browns or Jets. Weird stuff happens in the NFL every year, injuries are completely unpredictable. 

Cooks just did it twice. Patriots traded 32nd and 3rd rounder and got Cooks and a 4th. Patriots then traded Cooks to LA for the 23rd pick and 6th rounder. Cooks isn't even a top 10 WR.

I would assume Reggie would value the Packers 1sts round picks as late rounders especially after acquiring Mack. 2 firsts this year and another next year would be the asking price. 

[Dubz41]

2 minutes ago, Kenrik said:

Cooks just did it twice. Patriots traded 32nd and 3rd rounder and got Cooks and a 4th. Patriots then traded Cooks to LA for the 23rd pick and 6th rounder. Cooks isn't even a top 10 WR.

I would assume Reggie would value the Packers 1sts round picks as late rounders especially after acquiring Mack. 2 firsts this year and another next year would be the asking price. 

Then that is waaaaay too much and it won't happen. 

It probably isn't happening anyway.  Raiders need to be good when they move to Las Vegas, they'll keep him.

[Norm]

17 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You have no nothing to go on other than opinion. Jared Allen got traded after leading the NFL in sacks in the same circumstances and age Mack is now for a 1,3,3,6 which I'd argue is worth less than a 1,1. 

If Khalil Mack gets dealt he's not going for more than two 1s. No team can afford more than that. I can't remember any non QB going for more than a single 1st in the last decade, let alone 3 or more 1sts.

Also they aren't late 1sts. Has the draft order been set? They are 1sts with a lower chance to be a top pick than say the Browns or Jets. Weird stuff happens in the NFL every year, injuries are completely unpredictable. 

You know you're desperate to make a case when you have to sell that the picks might be Lotto tickets.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, Norm said:

You know you're desperate to make a case when you have to sell that the picks might be Lotto tickets.

I'm not desperate for anything.

[packfanfb]

7 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

A lot of people are completing and totally neglecting a lot of facts here.  It's bothersome. 

Mack is going to turn 28 years old in February of this year. 

It's not a matter of an unproven commodity versus a proven commodity.  Obviously most people would take the proven commodity over the unproven commodity if all things were equal, but all things are not equal.

Rodgers is not playing longer than 4 more years, and if he does, he's not going to be the most important player on our team. 

Mack is going to be elite for 4 more years tops.  Probably three more years, then good for two years. 

So essentially, you're passing on two key contributors on your team for the next ten years versus four years out of one player. 

That's 20 years of potential for 4 years. 

Some people (like me) want to get that head start once Rodgers leaves.  Teams have built up super teams before trying to win a Super Bowl.  Sometimes it works and you get a Super Bowl win right before your team falls apart.  Other times you end up screwing your team for the next five to ten years.  The Saints did it.  The Packers did it with Favre before Thompson took over.  The Patriots did it (and went 4 years, then another 4 years between Super Bowl appearances). 

Making moves like this and crippling your cap health for one player can get you a Super Bowl win, absolutely.  Regardless of whether or not it gets you a Super Bowl win, it DOES and WILL cripple your team afterwards. 

So I see it as two choices:

1. Cripple your team for five years after the movie guaranteed with a great shot at winning a Super Bowl.
2. Don't cripple your team for five years after by not making the move and still have a good shot at winning a Super Bowl. 

 

You are way over-exaggerating the "cripple" part here. Again, you're basically talking about paying 1 player what you would pay 2 players instead. Pick your players: Clay, Perry, Cobb are 3 good ones to start. Look at their combined salaries for 2 out of the 3 over the last 3-4 years. Now remove those 2 salaries and insert Mack. Now ask yourself, would I rather have Mack or 2 or those 3 guys? Hell, Mack versus all 3 of them...

We have "financial" guys for a reason who are charged with having the cap situation all figured out. It is manageable to get Mack, go for the throat for 3-4 years, and still have a healthy overall team in the aftermath. Hell, in 4-5 years under your scenario, look at the money we will have when we are no longer paying Rodgers and Mack? Moreover, when Rodgers leaves, expect a rough patch for a few years anyways....I mean we won't have Aaron Rodgers anymore, it's gonna suck. 

[Beast]

4 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

You take everything I say an exaggerate it to an dumb extreme.

Just copying the getting Mack is easy and no way a problem crowd... because apparently this is basically a Madden football game where draft picks and cap means absolutely nothing to people, so I just continued. 

 

4 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

If you want to actually have an educated debate let me know.

I've tried, people just ingore it.

If Mack was on your team, would you trade him away? No, so why would the Raiders? 

If Mack was on your team, why would you trade him for two first round picks now when you could franchise tag him and get two first round picks two years from now?

Heck the Raiders could just keep tagging him and have him for less than what the suggestion new contract cost would be.

So if you want to have an educated debate first explain why everyone is making dumb extreme assumptions that the Raiders are stupid... 

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

Just copying the getting Mack is easy and no way a problem crowd... because apparently this is basically a Madden football game where draft picks and cap means absolutely nothing to people, so I just continued. 

 

I've tried, people just ingore it.

If Mack was on your team, would you trade him away? No, so why would the Raiders? 

If Mack was on your team, why would you trade him for two first round picks now when you could franchise tag him and get two first round picks two years from now?

Heck the Raiders could just keep tagging him and have him for less than what the suggestion new contract cost would be.

So if you want to have an educated debate first explain why everyone is making dumb extreme assumptions that the Raiders are stupid... 

This is an internet forum, if all we discussed were concrete situations with guarantees we wouldn't exist.

All there is is a little smoke here, but it makes for good discussion about the merits of adding Mack. That's the purpose of being apart of a forum.

[CWood21]

12 minutes ago, Beast said:

I've tried, people just ingore it.

If Mack was on your team, would you trade him away? No, so why would the Raiders? 

If Mack was on your team, why would you trade him for two first round picks now when you could franchise tag him and get two first round picks two years from now?

Heck the Raiders could just keep tagging him and have him for less than what the suggestion new contract cost would be.

So if you want to have an educated debate first explain why everyone is making dumb extreme assumptions that the Raiders are stupid... 

If we're going to use that logic, no good players would ever be traded.  There's a reason why there seems to actually be some legitimate smoke to the rumors that Mack might actually be available.  But that doesn't mean that the Raiders are going to trade him away for anything short of a haul.  Will the Packers be that team?  Probably not, but it's still worth having discussion even if it's not likely to happen.

[Kenrik]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

If we're going to use that logic, no good players would ever be traded.  There's a reason why there seems to actually be some legitimate smoke to the rumors that Mack might actually be available.  But that doesn't mean that the Raiders are going to trade him away for anything short of a haul.  Will the Packers be that team?  Probably not, but it's still worth having discussion even if it's not likely to happen.

I'm positive Gute has given Reggie a call. The longer Mack holds out and the saints lose  the more likely Reggie will listen to Gute

[Leader]

10 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

"..........but that doesn't mean that the Raiders are going to trade him away for anything short of a haul.  Will the Packers be that team?  Probably not, but it's still worth having discussion even if it's not likely to happen"

If its not us (and I dont think it will be.....) just keep him over in the AFC......like in CINN or TN.....or some other obscure place
Now that I give it some thought.....MIA or the NYJ's wouldnt be bad destinations - as they could make Brady's last days unbearable.
AZ - where he could torment SEA and remind them of what they once were.
BUF - where most players go to die - but in this case he could pair up with Tremaine Edmunds and REALLLY make Brady's last days unbearable.

 

[MacReady]

1. Mack has 3 years of guaranteed high quality play left. 
2. It's not as simple as saying "remove Cobb and Matthews."  You also remove who we would have signed/re-signed after losing their contracts. 
3. It's not as simple as saying our first round picks are lottery picks.  They ARE lottery picks, but not just in the sense that who we draft could be a hit or a bust.  Those picks could both be top 10 picks for all we know.  Even WITH Mack, another injury to Rodgers early in the season gives us a top 16 pick. 
4. The Packers cannot sustain losing two quality players in Cobb/Matthews/Bulaga/first round pick.  We are a draft and develop team.  We are not getting relatively cheap free agent signings to replace the likes of Cobb/Matthews/Bulaga.  One elite player does not counter the loss of three good players.  It certainly doesn't negate the loss of four good players (and that's just ONE first round draft pick). 

Other than Derek Sherrod, our last ten first round picks have started for us in their first year.  They've all been okay to good players in their first year.  So by trading away two first round picks and losing Matthews, Cobb and Bulaga next year, you are literally trading away five starters for one starter.  One starter who will be 28 years old. 

Then there's a FIFTH aspect that's also being neglected, which @AlexGreen#20 mentioned.  The Raiders.  Why aren't they already done re-signing him? 

The Raiders have nobody becoming a free agent next offseason that they even want to retain except for Mack.  They have 45 million in cap space next year, 114 million in cap space the year after that with only Amari Cooper as anyone close to a must-re-sign other than Mack. 

I find it funny that Ray can and will mention a player was not wanted when they get traded (particularly with Coleman), and yet he cannot accept that maybe Mack has some issues that the Raiders aren't overly thrilled with. 

I'd like to see the precedent for trading first round picks for 27-year-old players who will be turning 28.  I just don't think it happens. 

First round picks are extremely rare in trades UNLESS they're trades for draft picks.  Brandin Cooks was traded twice for first round picks, but he isn't even 25 years old yet and he has the ability to be an elite receiver.  That's 4 years younger than Mack.  For late first round picks. 

Everybody is hung up on Mack's elite pass rush status, but they're not focusing on the fact that he's not some 24 year old.  If this was Joey Bosa we were talking about, yeah.  You absolutely trade two first round picks and then some.  That's because Bosa would be here AFTER Rodgers.  Mack won't be, and if he is, he won't be anything more to us than Clay Matthews is to us now. 

[Norm]

44 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I'm not desperate for anything.

Sure. You're totally not trying to convince people this is a good idea.

Point being, Reggie isn't going to add value because guys might get hurt. He's going to value them as late picks. What they end up being is irrelevant