Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[TransientTexan]

16 minutes ago, 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?

17th & 49th is not all that different in value from 25th & 29th. So even in your worst-case scenario, the team that picked the 1st & 2nd wouldn't be losing much. 

[Beast]

18 minutes ago, squire12 said:

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.  

I completely agree and that's what I've been saying this whole time. But somehow those draft picks have been considered nothing because something bad might happen, but Mack is guaranteed to be all pro every year.

I just want the same measuring stick to be applied to both hypotheticals... if you're going to assume perfection then assume perfection for both sides. If you assume disaster then assume disaster for both sides. 

If you fail to use the same measuring stick then one is biased, and we've gotten a lot of that where the big named gets hyped biased.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

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.

That's a cheap answer.  Has it EVER happened?  You also have to ask why a 27 year old DPOY IS on the market. 

[Shanedorf]

On 8/8/2018 at 10:53 PM, Cadmus said:

How the hell is this 13 37 pages already?

Wooooooooo !!!

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

That's a cheap answer.  Has it EVER happened?  You also have to ask why a 27 year old DPOY IS on the market. 

Have you read nothing in this thread? There is talk that due to the move to Vegas and the borrowing going on there they may not have the cash for the SB, they spent a lot in the off-season on FAs and just did Carr's deal.

[Leader]

BREAKING NEWS: Jordy Nelson has left the OAK Training Camp and demanded he be traded WITH Khalil Mack back to the Green Bay Packers.
When questioned, Nelson responded: "They dont have to give up much for me. I thought I'd be okay.....I thought I could kick it.....but I just gotta have me some bratwurst!"

 

[Norm]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Have you read nothing in this thread? There is talk that due to the move to Vegas and the borrowing going on there they may not have the cash for the SB, they spent a lot in the off-season on FAs and just did Carr's deal.

I've still not understood how the raiders are unable to get money loaned to them

[AlexGreen#20]

22 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.

The only way the Raiders made only 41 million in profit in 2016 is if they wrote off huge chunks of debt repayment as operating expenses.

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Norm said:

I've still not understood how the raiders are unable to get money loaned to them

Maybe they can and the basis of the argument is $$$ based?

So far Mack has said nothing, the Raiders have said nothing and the Raiders and Mack are saying nothing too each other lol. So everything is pure speculation. It could just be that Gruden is still stuck in the 90s and won't negotiate until Mack shows up.

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Maybe they can and the basis of the argument is $$$ based?

So far Mack has said nothing, the Raiders have said nothing and the Raiders and Mack are saying nothing too each other lol. So everything is pure speculation. It could just be that Gruden is still stuck in the 90s and won't negotiate until Mack shows up.

I think you nailed it there. Probably wants to do it face to face.

Gruden is totally Jeff Fisher.

[eyecatcher]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think you nailed it there. Probably wants to do it face to face.

Gruden is totally Jeff Fisher.

Do HCs and players negotiate contracts?  

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, eyecatcher said:

Do HCs negotiate contracts?  

Not typically but Gruden isn't just the coach. He's basically the football czar

[eyecatcher]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Not typically but Gruden isn't just the coach. He's basically the football czar

I don't think so but even if its Gruden calling the shots, Mack wont be negotiating.  It will be his agent.

[mikemike778]

I don't see any way this works satisfactorily.

1. If you deal 2 first rounders then that's basically 4 players in all taking into account the salary, not just scrubs but we are talking about 2 high paid starters plus 2 first round draft picks. You win on the salary cap by hitting on draft picks as you get good players on good contracts. Dealing 2 first rounders severely dents your chance of winning the salary cap game and you need to be winning the salary cap game to afford mega earners like Mack and Rodgers in the future.

2. Ending the season, the team appeared to have a lot of holes. We may have sorted them with the draft and free agency but we don't really know. Either way the base doesn't look strong enough to pull 4 blocks out and still be standing.

3. Virtually all our premium draft picks have gone on defence. At this point when you do this, you have to give your defence a chance to win - throwing another 2 premium picks and a stack load of money on the defence shouldn't be needed. The offense is getting old and the players that are young are late round and undrafted players - unless we get lucky, it almost certainly needs a lot of love in next year's draft.

4. Ultimately I think you can do this sort of thing when you have had a good run in the draft as drafting well puts you in a good position cap wise and roster wise. We haven't really been hitting home runs in the draft recently so I don't see it working for us. 

 

[AlexGreen#20]

11 minutes ago, eyecatcher said:

I don't think so but even if its Gruden calling the shots, Mack wont be negotiating.  It will be his agent.

And the theory is that Gruden isn't going to pick up the phone and make that call until Mack is in camp.

He wants the teammates pressing him to sign and get playing