Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[Norm]

3 minutes ago, 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.

I agree with this for sure

[Beast]

9 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

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.

I very much agree, ALSO your trusting that he will stay healthy and at playing at a high level for the entire contact which historical defensive players with those mega contracts haven't lived up to them either because getting too comfortable (hard to keep a chip on your shoulder while holding $100 million) or too injured.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

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. 

It's a factor based on the value of the deal. If Mack wanted 30m, yeah that reflects his trade value. If he's asking to be paid what he's worth? No it doesn't.

Cooks isn't elite, his contract is more than Davante (he's not as good as Tae) and he's not worth what he's being paid.

Is a young kicker more valuable via trade than Matt Ryan? An old QB on an expensive deal?

Players are worth what their positional value states they are, which EDGE is leagues higher than WR. Age is a factor when you're talking about a guy in his prime vs a guy out of it. 24 vs 27 is not that example. The contract comes into play when a player is being paid more than fair value, not just solely the amount without context.

No way in hell does Cooks have more trade value than Mack, not even close.

[squire12]

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

I very much agree, ALSO your trusting that he will stay healthy and at playing at a high level for the entire contact which historical defensive players with those mega contracts haven't lived up to them either because getting too comfortable (hard to keep a chip on your shoulder while holding $100 million) or too injured.

Trusting the rookie draft picks will hit AND stay healthy AND stay out of trouble AND not fiddle away their new found money.  

Both roads have their risks.  

[Golfman]

7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

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

Your statement at this point of the proceedings is based on a false premise. What if Mack goes to the team in question and turns them into a playoff team. It could happen by the way. It could also happen that a team could lose it's HOF QB and suddenly stink. This is a classic bird in hand vs. 2 in the bush scenario. You take the 1-2nd round picks if you are a smart GM. 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, Golfman said:

Your statement at this point of the proceedings is based on a false premise. What if Mack goes to the team in question and turns them into a playoff team. It could happen by the way. It could also happen that a team could lose it's HOF QB and suddenly stink. This is a classic bird in hand vs. 2 in the bush scenario. You take the 1-2nd round picks if you are a smart GM. 

No, you look at teams and rosters and attempt to determine the most likely outcome. 

You would much rather have the Browns first two picks than the Packers first two picks.

[Packerraymond]

11 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

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

And when that team you thought was going to be bad goes 9-7 and now you have the 17th and 49th picks? And everyone in your organization knows you turned down 2 firsts on that gamble? Then what?

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

It's a factor based on the value of the deal. If Mack wanted 30m, yeah that reflects his trade value. If he's asking to be paid what he's worth? No it doesn't.

No way in hell does Cooks have more trade value than Mack, not even close.

If he's not even close, then two firsts ain't gonna get it done. 

You're exaggerating things again and refusing to accept things. 

1. Age.
2. Cost (to make the trade)
3. Cost (to afford the trade)
4. Why the Raiders aren't re-signing him to what he wants with more money than we have
5. The unknown value of what it would take to get him (our two firsts could for all we know become two top 5 picks)

None of these were an issue in the Cooks trades.  None of them.  An elite receiver 24 years old is absolutely worth a first round pick considering that's 2 years older than any first round pick. 

For as much grief as I'm given for taking hard stances, you're doing the exact same thing. 

Brandin Cooks, all things considered, was absolutely worth a known quantity first round pick in a trade.  Mack is, too.  A higher pick even.  He is NOT, however, worth two first round picks that are of unknown value.  He is NOT worth, say, a top 5 pick and a 10-20th overall pick.  He flat out isn't.  Not at his contract price tag, and not at his age. 
 

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

And when that team you thought was going to be bad goes 9-7 and now you have the 17th and 49th picks? And everyone in your organization knows you turned down 2 firsts on that gamble? Then what?

How is that any different than everyone knowing that you turned down 6 and 38 and ended up with 25 and 29?

 

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

If he's not even close, then two firsts ain't gonna get it done. 

You're exaggerating things again and refusing to accept things. 

1. Age.
2. Cost (to make the trade)
3. Cost (to afford the trade)
4. Why the Raiders aren't re-signing him to what he wants with more money than we have
5. The unknown value of what it would take to get him (our two firsts could for all we know become two top 5 picks)

None of these were an issue in the Cooks trades.  None of them.  An elite receiver 24 years old is absolutely worth a first round pick considering that's 2 years older than any first round pick. 

For as much grief as I'm given for taking hard stances, you're doing the exact same thing. 

Brandin Cooks, all things considered, was absolutely worth a known quantity first round pick in a trade.  Mack is, too.  A higher pick even.  He is NOT, however, worth two first round picks that are of unknown value.  He is NOT worth, say, a top 5 pick and a 10-20th overall pick.  He flat out isn't.  Not at his contract price tag, and not at his age. 
 

You have a better chance of all of a sudden loving Aaron Rodgers and Julio Jones and desiring us to pick a guard in the 1st next year than those picks both have a chance to be top 10 picks. Not even worth arguing such minute possibilities. One maybe, both? That's an extreme set of circumstances.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How is that any different than everyone knowing that you turned down 6 and 38 and ended up with 25 and 29?

 

Because you're playing it safe. Those two picks have a 100% guarantee of being 1-32. You're betting on 1-64 with the others.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

You have a better chance of all of a sudden loving Aaron Rodgers and Julio Jones and desiring us to pick a guard in the 1st next year than those picks both have a chance to be top 10 picks. Not even worth arguing such minute possibilities. One maybe, both? That's an extreme set of circumstances.

That's not exactly what I said.  It is not unheard of for the Saints to have a bottom 5 season.  They've been 7-9 for the past X amount of years with two outlier 11-13 win seasons and everyone acts like it's a foregone conclusion they're going to the playoffs.  They're in worse shape without Brees than we are without Rodgers. 

Either way, Mack at 27 years old demanding a contract the Raiders won't give him is not worth giving up the potential for a top 5 pick and the 32nd overall pick. 

Show me precedent for players who were traded for two first round draft picks.  I'm sure it's a very short list.  A very, very, very short list. 

[Shanedorf]

3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

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

Indeed. And for football people that's an easy call

But in the court of public opinion ( casual fans) getting (2) 1st rounders is "better" than a 1st and a 2nd

Raiders have to be careful of the public backlash here as they are currently a lame duck in Oakland and are trying to sell PSLs in LV

Packer fans are spoiled because we don't ever have to worry about filling a stadium, selling PSL's or boosting merchandise sales- so the football guys are free to make football decisions. For other teams, there are economic and PR considerations that stick their nose into the football realm. And right now economics are crucial to Mark Davis' over-stretched bank account.

Somebody mentioned earlier that Davis could go to the NFL for loans - that's probably a non-starter because he already tapped that vein. This is the most precarious time for the Davis family as one of the least wealthy owners in the League, running one low-income stadium while simultaneously paying for another

...But you can bet Vegas’ lack of overall wealth is a serious cause of concern for Davis and the Raiders, who’ve taken on nearly $980 million in debt for the Vegas move. Davis owes $600 million for a Bank of America loan tied to the $1.9 billion Vegas stadium tab. He also owes the NFL $378 million over 10 years for the league’s relocation fee. Annual payments to offset the Raiders’ combined debt could quickly chew up yearly income and create red ink for a team that made $41 million in profit in 2016, according to Forbes magazine.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

That's not exactly what I said.  It is not unheard of for the Saints to have a bottom 5 season.  They've been 7-9 for the past X amount of years with two outlier 11-13 win seasons and everyone acts like it's a foregone conclusion they're going to the playoffs.  They're in worse shape without Brees than we are without Rodgers. 

Either way, Mack at 27 years old demanding a contract the Raiders won't give him is not worth giving up the potential for a top 5 pick and the 32nd overall pick. 

Show me precedent for players who were traded for two first round draft picks.  I'm sure it's a very short list.  A very, very, very short list. 

As I said earlier to people who think Mack will cost more than that, I don't think it's happened this decade.

Never been a 27 year old DPOY, best pass rusher in the league on the market either.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Indeed. And for football people that's an easy call

But in the court of public opinion ( casual fans) getting (2) 1st rounders is "better" than a 1st and a 2nd

Raiders have to be careful of the public backlash here as they are currently a lame duck in Oakland and are trying to sell PSLs in LV

Packer fans are spoiled because we don't ever have to worry about filling a stadium, selling PSL's or boosting merchandise sales- so the football guys are free to make football decisions. For other teams, there are economic and PR considerations that stick their nose into the football realm. And right now economics are crucial to Mark Davis' over-stretched bank account.

Somebody mentioned earlier that Davis could go to the NFL for loans - that's probably a non-starter because he already tapped that vein. This is the most precarious time for the Davis family as one of the least wealthy owners in the League, running one low-income stadium while simultaneously paying for another

...But you can bet Vegas’ lack of overall wealth is a serious cause of concern for Davis and the Raiders, who’ve taken on nearly $980 million in debt for the Vegas move. Davis owes $600 million for a Bank of America loan tied to the $1.9 billion Vegas stadium tab. He also owes the NFL $378 million over 10 years for the league’s relocation fee. Annual payments to offset the Raiders’ combined debt could quickly chew up yearly income and create red ink for a team that made $41 million in profit in 2016, according to Forbes magazine.

You don't know what pick numbers are yet. Therefore 2 ones is better than 1-2.

Of course 5 and 37 are better than 22 and 28 but you don't have designations for the picks yet.