Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[JBURGE]

19 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

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. 

And this is why I think 1 first round pick would be enough

[Shanedorf]

WRs don't matter, pass rushers do.

[MacReady]

Just now, Shanedorf said:

WRs don't matter, pass rushers do.

A 24-year-old elite receiver who will not get paid like the #1 player at his position is worth more than a 27-year-old pass rusher who WILL be paid like the #1 player at his position.  Also, with the Cooks trades, the trading team knew exactly which draft pick they were trading. 

[TheBitzMan]

4 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

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. 

Your points are just wild exaggerations and accusations against Mack. There are multiple reports/theories that the Raiders don't have the cash flow to give out a big guaranteed contract out. On top of that Gruden hasn't even spoken with him since he became the coach, this isn't exactly the New England Patriots we are talking about here. The Raiders are more likely to mess this up than 90% of other teams in the league. 

The Packers once upon a time made Clay Matthews the 3rd highest paid defensive player and a few days later made Rodgers the highest paid player in NFL history. Your talk about crippling the franchise is just illogical. 

You're so focused on the future and not giving up five starters for one. Well when Cobb & Matthews aren't on the team next year any ways there goes two of them. Bulaga is iffy and may be gone as well. Then we have two picks in the late 20's are hit or miss. Just because someone starts doesn't make him good, I think we should know this. 

Your whole argument is jaded by the fact you don't like Rodgers. We get it, you think he is going to be done in 4 years. 

Well in those 4 years I want every chance possible to win a Super Bowl. I am sorry but Cobb/Matthews aren't going to be the ones that win us a super bowl this year, it will be Rodgers and an above average defense. If you have to sacrifice 2 picks & matthews to add an elite player you do it 10/10 times. 

[Norm]

11 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

And this is why I think 1 first round pick would be enough

You guys are bat **** crazy

[KingOfTheNorth]

Story posted last night in the GB Press-Gazette with the following quote:

"Look, nobody’s saying that trading for and signing Mack doesn’t come with real risk. It would be better if he were 25 or 26, not 27. And he could get hurt, miss a lot of games and maybe never be the same. Then a lot of money and draft capital goes down the tubes.

But there are plenty of risks for doing nothing, too. Picking late in the first round, even twice, well, look at the Packers’ draft history that last decade. The closest they’ve come to a first-rounder of Mack’s caliber is Matthews, and they’ve had some big swings and misses, too. Trading into the top 10 or even top 5 and finding an elite player is a crap shoot, as well.

This franchise is in business to compete for and win Super Bowls. Rodgers’ clock is ticking. This is exactly the time for a big, bold move"

 

Pretty much sums up both sides. I say go for it! Both options are risky, but I would rather go with the one that includes a DPOY in his prime.

[Beast]

47 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

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.

I have no problem with discussing it, but there needs to be some logic to it.

I still haven't heard a single answer as to why they would want to get  rid of Mack. People that want Mack are saying late 1st round picks are nothing, so why would the Raiders want them?

For this to make sense, it would have to make sense for both teams yet most of these hypothetical trade offers only makes sense for single team.

39 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.

Wrong, he's a franchise player not a good player... good player don't cost two 1st round picks and more than two franchise tags in a row...

What ever team holds his current contract and could just franchise tag him twice (so three years counting his current year) and save money over giving him that huge contact that he's demanding.

[Packerraymond]

39 minutes ago, Norm said:

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 

I couldn't care less what you or anyone else think about my opinion on a potential deal. I'm not trying to convince anyone to think a certain way.

I'm arguing against the logic that Mack is going to cost QB price. Also I'm sure GM's look at draft picks in a sense of a lottery pick. The Packers pick might have an 8% chance to be a top 10 pick, whereas the Browns a 65% chance. Reggie doesn't say "oh the Packers are offering us an end of round 2019 pick."

[CWood21]

15 minutes ago, Beast said:

Wrong, he's a franchise player not a good player... good player don't cost two 1st round picks and more than two franchise tags in a row...

What ever team holds his current contract and could just franchise tag him twice (so three years counting his current year) and save money over giving him that huge contact that he's demanding.

It was an umbrella statement.  The problem is that you're not only paying a premium to convince the Raiders to part ways with him, but you're also handing him a mega-extension.  You're throwing at a bare minimum 5/$100M, and that's a STEEP price to pay just in terms of money.  You can swallow money, but you're swallowing the money AND giving up multiple FRPs.  That's probably the point where the Packers pass.

[Packerraymond]

29 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

A 24-year-old elite receiver who will not get paid like the #1 player at his position is worth more than a 27-year-old pass rusher who WILL be paid like the #1 player at his position.  Also, with the Cooks trades, the trading team knew exactly which draft pick they were trading. 

No. I know an opinion can't be wrong, but if you're trying to say Cooks is more valuable than Mack I'm not sure what else that could be classified as.

[Norm]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

I couldn't care less what you or anyone else think about my opinion on a potential deal. I'm not trying to convince anyone to think a certain way.

I'm arguing against the logic that Mack is going to cost QB price. Also I'm sure GM's look at draft picks in a sense of a lottery pick. The Packers pick might have an 8% chance to be a top 10 pick, whereas the Browns a 65% chance. Reggie doesn't say "oh the Packers are offering us an end of round 2019 pick."

That's the way he's going to value it when he's talking to our front office.... Why would he do anything else

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Norm said:

That's the way he's going to value it when he's talking to our front office.... Why would he do anything else

There's nothing he can compare our offer to, sure if we're up against another team that can offer 2 firsts this year and are more likely to be bad, then those percentages go against us. We're literally the only team in the NFL that can offer 2 2019 first round picks.

If Arizona calls and offers a 2nd and 1st does that beat two 1sts? Sure they have a better chance to be bad, but now you're talking a whole round later for the next pick. 

I can't speak for any GM but the lure of two first in the same year should outweigh the chance of a high pick and a later pick or picks in future years.

[Beast]

53 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

1. Mack has 3 years of guaranteed high quality play left. 

55 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

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

And the team holding Mack's contact can just hold him for that final years and franchise tag him twice for cheaper than that mega contract to get those 3 years out of him.

And the Raiders might simply doing to Mack what they did to Penn last year. We don't negotiate anyone that is not in Camp. And then shorter after he gets to camp, he gets a new deal.

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

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. 

And the two 1st round picks and a 2nd might get the Packers into the top 6 picks with the next Bosa and some say the next Arron Donald plus many other packed pass rushers in the draft which again is cheaper deal.

So the Mack deal from a value standpoint is crazy stupid from a value standpoint. You are paying extra for the excitement of Mack's name and the cowardness or not trusting yourself to find talent yourself.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

No. I know an opinion can't be wrong, but if you're trying to say Cooks is more valuable than Mack I'm not sure what else that could be classified as.

He's not more valuable.  In a trade, yes, he absolutely is more valuable.  Three years younger, about 10 million less in money. 

You act like Mack's contract isn't a factor in any team weighing what he's worth in a trade.  It absolutely is a factor.  Period. 

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

There's nothing he can compare our offer to, sure if we're up against another team that can offer 2 firsts this year and are more likely to be bad, then those percentages go against us. We're literally the only team in the NFL that can offer 2 2019 first round picks.

If Arizona calls and offers a 2nd and 1st does that beat two 1sts? Sure they have a better chance to be bad, but now you're talking a whole round later for the next pick. 

I can't speak for any GM but the lure of two first in the same year should outweigh the chance of a high pick and a later pick or picks in future years.

The 5th and 37th pick in the draft is worth WAY WAY WAY more than the 25th and 29th pick.