incognito_man Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Beast said: like a horny man trying without sex from his very sexy wife, you know the holdout will only last until it starts threatening his future (or less), in hold out cases, that threatening the future limit is what the accrued season limit, which I'm not sure, but I believe says he has to play 9 or 10 games or something? Wtf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffdaswede Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 37 minutes ago, G said: Edit: As a Raider fan I heard mack was in Oakland. I thought he snuck onboard the Green Bay plane to further raise expectations of the trade talks?!? U R doing it rite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Vince Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: Superstar athletes like Julio Jones? OBJ? Why aren't those players holding out longer if the lost money means so little to them? There's a reason why it's rare for players under contract to continue holding out as the season approaches. It's because they actually do care about losing 2M dollars. OBJ is a superstar in his own mind. One handed circus catches don't equate to superstardom. He hasn't shown much in production to warrant that title. Hes an overhyped celebrity athlete who does lame commercials. Julio Jones is bad with his money that's why he couldn't hold out for long. The same guy who paid 25k for a dive team to find one 150k diamond earring he lost jet skiing on a lake. I highly doubt superstars who are good with their money like Gronk and Marshwn Lynch would miss 2M. I don't know how Mack is with money but I know his value is as high as it ever will be and he's gonna hold out for the biggest contract of his NFL career and not lose sleep over a measly 2M when he has his sites set on 100M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Outpost31 said: Nope. He's going to get paid one way or another. You can't say he's willing to let 2 million go to make 100 million because that would suggest he wouldn't get a new deal unless he did sit out. We all know he's going to get another deal, and we all know he's going to get paid 18 million per in the absolute worst case scenario. He's willing to let 2 million go to make 10 million more. Every week he sits out, he's worth less in a deal, too. He's worth less to the Raiders the longer he sits out, and he's worth less to a different team the longer he sits out. This isn't somebody sitting out and missing a training camp and preseason with a coach he's been with for five years. It's a brand new coaching staff. With each week he sits out, he's less likely to be traded to a new team for what he's worth, which makes the Raiders less likely to trade him. Let's say the Packers have offered both first round picks for Mack. You don't think the Packers are less-inclined to keep that deal valid two, three weeks into the season considering Mack would have to learn a completely new defensive scheme? Therefore, sitting out makes it less likely for another team to pay him what he wants since the Raiders would be less likely to trade him considering the midseason compensation they would get for him. You can't win this argument. If the Raiders wouldn't pay Mack 18 million per year over 5 years, that's a serious red flag. They know something we don't. 18 per for 5 years = 90 million dollars. 20 per for 5 years = 100 million dollars. Therefore, he's willing to lose close to a million dollars every game in order to make 10 million more over 5 years. You think that's intelligent betting? Losing close to a million dollars a week in order to gain 10 million more over 5 years? Run that by your accountant. The Raiders play the Rams in week one. After that game, he is going to lose any upper hand he could possibly have as the Raiders play the Broncos, Dolphins, Browns. The longer he holds out, the more money he loses. If he holds out long enough for a playoff appearance to be unlikely, why would the Raiders do it at that point? If he holds out long enough for the Raiders to be poised for a playoff appearance without him, why would they do it then? If he goes into the offseason after having held out the entire year, the Raiders could franchise tag him and hold him hostage another year, lowering his value even more with a year of sitting out of football. There's a reason players don't win their holdouts. Teams know their real worth more than they do. You think the Texans would have allowed JJ Watt to get this far into a holdout? Packers with Aaron Rodgers? The further he gets into his holdout shows what the Raiders really think of him. What if he comes back, goes to make a tackle like Collins or Shazier? Or tears an ACL and MCL or severely dislocates a knee cap? There you go, I've won the unwinnable argument. He thinks his leverage over the Raiders is more than their leverage over him. Yes they have all the actual legal leverage, but when it comes to the perception of the locker room,media, fans, agents and players around the league, he owns all that leverage and he's better they won't let him sit and rot because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: Wtf I was trying to be colorful... and I also thought about the times guys have been mad and tried to cut the women off ( lol, it doesn't work so well ) If you don't like it, sorry for going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Packerraymond said: What if he comes back, goes to make a tackle like Collins or Shazier? Or tears an ACL and MCL or severely dislocates a knee cap? There you go, I've won the unwinnable argument. He thinks his leverage over the Raiders is more than their leverage over him. Yes they have all the actual legal leverage, but when it comes to the perception of the locker room,media, fans, agents and players around the league, he owns all that leverage and he's better they won't let him sit and rot because of it. Let's not act like he wouldn't get 90 million if he tore an ACL and hit the open market next year. Let's just not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 2 hours ago, JBURGE said: 2 hours ago, Outpost31 said: Yeah, I didn't even want to touch on that sex with sexy wife analogy. I didn't understand it, and I didn't want to try to understand it. I knew this day would come. You see, when a man and a woman love each other Only took 70+ pages before we have @JBURGE explaining "the birds and the bees" to @Outpost31. Long live this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 2 hours ago, Outpost31 said: Let's not act like he wouldn't get 90 million if he tore an ACL and hit the open market next year. Let's just not. Pretty poor counter argument. Sure he'd still get a big contract, but I bet the guaranteed money goes way down and the number of suitors go down too. What happens if more than his ACL tears? That happens to a couple guys every year. What if it's a back or neck or spine? Your point makes zero sense to me, you don't want him because he's willing to leave 2m on the table for a contract that will pay him 100+, you'd rather he take the 2m, risk a 16 games season and hope he performs to an equal level? Sometimes your arguments are just so odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 5 hours ago, JBURGE said: I knew this day would come. You see, when a man and a woman love each other.. Don't have to love each other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 48 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Pretty poor counter argument. Sure he'd still get a big contract, but I bet the guaranteed money goes way down and the number of suitors go down too. What happens if more than his ACL tears? That happens to a couple guys every year. What if it's a back or neck or spine? Your point makes zero sense to me, you don't want him because he's willing to leave 2m on the table for a contract that will pay him 100+, you'd rather he take the 2m, risk a 16 games season and hope he performs to an equal level? Sometimes your arguments are just so odd. That's not my only argument though. It's an add-on to my entire argument, which has been stated throughout this thread. Two first round picks and 22 million dollars a year is fine for a QB or a top 5 pass rusher who is 25 years old, but it's not okay for a pass rusher who will be 28 at season's end who is willing to risk 2 million dollars to get 10 million more than he would get. So it's an add-on to the argument that, if the Raiders thought he was worth what he's asking for, they'd give it to him. If the Raiders won't, why should we? Also, he wouldn't risk anything OR lose 2 million if he signed for 20 million a year right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 6 hours ago, St Vince said: OBJ is a superstar in his own mind. One handed circus catches don't equate to superstardom. He hasn't shown much in production to warrant that title. Hes an overhyped celebrity athlete who does lame commercials. Julio Jones is bad with his money that's why he couldn't hold out for long. The same guy who paid 25k for a dive team to find one 150k diamond earring he lost jet skiing on a lake. I highly doubt superstars who are good with their money like Gronk and Marshwn Lynch would miss 2M. I don't know how Mack is with money but I know his value is as high as it ever will be and he's gonna hold out for the biggest contract of his NFL career and not lose sleep over a measly 2M when he has his sites set on 100M. So what you are saying is that you only want to consider the superstars that fit your narrative. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 You guys keep saying that he's risking 2 million dollars. The Raiders will waive the fines when he signs that deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 8 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: You guys keep saying that he's risking 2 million dollars. The Raiders will waive the fines when he signs that deal The bigger question is will GB waive any of those fines when he signs with GB!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 came across this one from back in July: "It is my understanding that restoring the traditional financial relationship between the highest-paid quarterback and non-quarterback which has existed under the current CBA is an important consideration to the players' representatives. This would mean a contract averaging over $23 million per year with $85 million in guarantees where $65 million to $70 million is fully guaranteed at signing is needed in order to recreate the balance. Not surprisingly, there is reluctance to dramatically reset the non-quarterback market." What they are saying is that there was a ratio between QB and non-QB salaries and as the QB paychecks went up, the non-QB paychecks have not increased commensurately. The numbers listed above are apparently what is required to re-balance the ratios. QBs wanna tie their pay to the rising cap and non-QBs want to hitch a ride and tie their pay to the rising QB market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 Looks like @incareratedbob has infiltrated the ranks of PFT unless some other "source" is out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.