Jump to content

Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack


cooters22

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said:

So while the Raiders haven't done anything *insane* precisely, the Raiders have been known to allow personality issues override professional sense, like when they cut Marquette King (who is a very good punter and was affordable) for no apparent reason beyond "Gruden didn't like him."

So if Gruden boots his punter because he's colorful and Gruden wants to be the "Get off my lawn" curmudgeon, who's to say he won't react even more irrationally to a young player "asking for more than he's worth" or "not honoring his contract" or whatever.

You're over simplifying it to the point it's not correct. The Raiders are cap strap this year and like most teams that are cap strapped they release some people to get under the cap, which makes a lot of professional sense which is why Ted Thompson also let some guys go when he got to Green Bay.

Gruden never met him, so who knows if he did or didn't like him... but the fact that he (a punter) has been cited for getting 15 yards penalties and being anti-authority, when Gruden wants to play sheriff and dictator, it probably would have been a problem in the locker room (and some suggested it was already a problem, but just the coaches before thought his talent over weighted the problem). 

Last that I've heard, Mack has been a great person from every perceptive, and while the Raiders don't have cap space this year, they have lots of cap space in the future to sign someone to a long term deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BlondeonBlonde said:

Considering nobody wanted Charles Woodson, it would be closer to the former. 

Yes closer to Reggie than Woodson, but in reality like neither... as they were UFAs, Mack isn't a FA of any type.

Raiders could hold onto his contract this year (if they can't him to agree to a long term deal) and just Franchise Tag him next year and see if anyone is willing to give up two 1st round picks for him... see if they sign him off the non-exclusive franchise tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beast said:

Yes closer to Reggie than Woodson, but in reality like neither... as they were UFAs, Mack isn't a FA of any type.

Raiders could hold onto his contract this year (if they can't him to agree to a long term deal) and just Franchise Tag him next year and see if anyone is willing to give up two 1st round picks for him... see if they sign him off the non-exclusive franchise tag.

I could see them doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Beast said:

You're over simplifying it to the point it's not correct. The Raiders are cap strap this year and like most teams that are cap strapped they release some people to get under the cap, which makes a lot of professional sense which is why Ted Thompson also let some guys go when he got to Green Bay.

Gruden never met him, so who knows if he did or didn't like him... but the fact that he (a punter) has been cited for getting 15 yards penalties and being anti-authority, when Gruden wants to play sheriff and dictator, it probably would have been a problem in the locker room (and some suggested it was already a problem, but just the coaches before thought his talent over weighted the problem). 

Last that I've heard, Mack has been a great person from every perceptive, and while the Raiders don't have cap space this year, they have lots of cap space in the future to sign someone to a long term deal.

Cap space isn't the issue with them.  It's available cash for bonus and guarantee.  That money needs to be placed in escrow at signing and they don't have it.  I believe the Packers are in a better spot financially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, eyecatcher said:

Cap space isn't the issue with them.  It's available cash for bonus and guarantee.  That money needs to be placed in escrow at signing and they don't have it.  I believe the Packers are in a better spot financially.

Can you explain this to me? To clarify I understand what escrow is and how it works, but who facilitates for NFL teams? Owners? Team revenue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

Can you explain this to me?

Not much to explain other than I've seen a couple articles or videos that suggested the Raiders don't have the available cash to put away to pay Mack the guaranteed money/signing bonus he wants.  It may have been speculation but if true it would explain why they aren't getting an extension done.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

Can you explain this to me? To clarify I understand what escrow is and how it works, but who facilitates for NFL teams? Owners? Team revenue?

From what I understand, when a player signs the contract, the signing bonus money is paid up front.  There may be some contract language that specifies the specific  dates that those payments are made.   Example was Joey Bosa for LAC last offseason.  Bosa wanted the full signing bonus paid "immediately" vs the LAC wanted to split it into 2 payments 1 at signing, the other in mid  November.  (I may be off on the dates, but that was the gist of things)

So the teams cash reserves, cash on hand is what may make the Mack deal harder to do for the Raiders vs GB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyecatcher said:

Not much to explain other than I've seen a couple articles or videos that suggested the Raiders don't have the available cash to put away to pay Mack the guaranteed money/signing bonus he wants.  It may have been speculation but if true it would explain why they aren't getting an extension done.  

 

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

So the teams cash reserves, cash on hand is what may make the Mack deal harder to do for the Raiders vs GB.

This is what I was asking. Is it team cash reserve from revenue, or does the owner fund things like this in the form of a loan to the business, or both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JBURGE said:

 

This is what I was asking. Is it team cash reserve from revenue, or does the owner fund things like this in the form of a loan to the business, or both

I think it is team cash reserve but I'm not sure.  

This is from the 2011 CBA

Section 9. Funding of Deferred and Guaranteed Contracts: The NFL may require that by a prescribed date certain, each Club must deposit into a segregated account the present value, calculated using the Discount Rate, less $2,000,000, of deferred and guaranteed compensation owed by that Club with respect to Club funding of Player Contracts involving deferred or guaranteed compensation; provided, however, that with respect to guaranteed contracts, the amount of unpaid compensation for past or future services to be included in the funding calculation shall not exceed seventy-five (75%) percent of the total amount of the contract compensation. The present value of any future years’ salary payable to a player pursuant to an injury guarantee provision in his NFL Player Contract(s), shall not be considered owed by a Club under this Section until after the Club has acknowledged that the player’s injury qualifies him to receive the future payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oldmansmell said:

I am not really too keen on reading this whole thing. But is there any substantiated stuff beyond that original article that said we were trying to trade for Mack because we lost the "pass rushing prowess" of Jake Ryan? Because that logic is hilarious.

The trade stuff is all speculation and a long shot to happen but the possibility exists.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...