Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack

[CWood21]

12 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I am certain it has happened because I remember this catching my eye recently. I don't recall the teams involved however.

I recall it being attached to whether or not a team received a compensatory pick or not.

[Leader]

42 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm with Arthur on this one.  Two FRPs and handing out a mega extension to Mack isn't high on my priority list.

I was joking with the Ted comment actually. 
I've been on record from the get go saying I dont see this happening.

[packfanfb]

1 hour ago, Arthur Penske said:

 You’re flattering me.

I want Mack on the Packers if possible, but the only position I’m giving 2 first round picks and a huge contract to a 27 year old player is a franchise QB.

Mack is your franchise QB on defense. 

[packfanfb]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

Okay Ted

I mean Ted wouldnt trade for Mack for a 4th round pick based on his contract alone. ?

[incognito_man]

With the emergence of Reggie Gilbert, is this thread still a thing?

[Arthur Penske]

33 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Mack is your franchise QB on defense. 

Well no because Franchise QBs play offense,  touch the ball every play, and can typically play more years in the NFL.

[packfanfb]

28 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

With the emergence of Reggie Gilbert, is this thread still a thing?

Hey dont joke, some people actually truly believe after Thursday's game that Mack should no longer be "pursued" because of Gilbert's game. In fact, Harlan and Lofton said this during the game. 

[Arthur Penske]

32 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

With the emergence of Reggie Gilbert, is this thread still a thing?

Reggie is encouraging but i’d Still like to see something proven added at edge as we all know Perry and aren’t going to play 16 games. Need to move on from Odom and replace him with a vet. Whether that be something like a trade for Mack or very free agent that’s available after cuts.

[Beast]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I recall it being attached to whether or not a team received a compensatory pick or not.

I believe it was the Jamie Collins trade between the Patriots and Browns... where if the Browns got a 3rd round comp pick, then the Patriots got that, if the Browns didn't, then they got the Browns 4th round pick (which was only 5 spots down from their 3rd round comp pick, which later got traded to the Packers who selected OLB Biegel with it).

[Beast]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

With the emergence of Reggie Gilbert, is this thread still a thing?

Was this thread a thing even before Gilbert's emergence? ... I mean why would a team give up such a talented player? I mean when he's reported a great person off the field and in the locker room, there is nothing bad to say about Mack. I doubt some team would pay the price it would take for the Raiders to let him go and the Mack contract, when the Raiders could simply just pay the mack contract.

[Shanedorf]

The thing that's interesting from the Raiders side of the coin is that their SB window doesn't open for another couple years. Its often year 3-4 of the new HC regime when teams make their run. And that corresponds with their move to Las Vegas. They're not going anywhere in 2018, and even 2019 seems questionable 

In the mean time, they are stretched on cap space and cash flow. The other part of it from the Raiders POV is that the 2019 draft is loaded with top defenders including Ed Oliver and Nick Bosa

By moving Mack now, they recoup the cash flow, the cap space and they re-set the clock on their defense.

IF they have (3) 1sts to go up and get Bosa / Oliver - then they'll have young ascending talent to replace Mack. Its almost like a Time Machine in terms of grabbing a 21 year old in exchange for a 27 year old. And for the teams with the 1st or 2nd pick of the draft - nobody else has the ammo that the Raiders would have to move up.

Fans have opined that there is no freaking way that the Raiders would move Mack, but if you consider the Big Picture, its possible that there's a future value to them that supersedes the current value in terms of syncing up with their Championship window.

Without a loaded draft class, the move doesn't work. But with a loaded draft class, maybe it does.

The Packers won't have the draft capital to go get one of those very Top Defenders, even with N.O's pick added to their own. Not saying there won't be talent available at pick 10-15 , but the beast pass rushers will all be gone by then.

[incognito_man]

Yeah for sure there's always a sensible side to trading away a premium player as you outlined. I'd be looking to move them too. This happens a lot more in baseball for some reason, I think a team that utilizes a similar approach in the NFL will reap the benefits.

It makes even more sense when you have a 10yr contract

[Golfman]

Not sure their Super Bowl window is a few years away from starting. Their QB is on his second contract now and that is usually when it is closing, not opening. They have little cap space right now and guys they will need to extend beyond Mack. They have about a 2-3 year window which is reason not to trade him. 

[Mr Anonymous]

35 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Yeah for sure there's always a sensible side to trading away a premium player as you outlined. I'd be looking to move them too. This happens a lot more in baseball for some reason, I think a team that utilizes a similar approach in the NFL will reap the benefits.

It makes even more sense when you have a 10yr contract

That's a very good point about Gruden's contract. Not many coaches are so well positioned to so easily absorb parting with an elite talent. Gruden wold catch no flack (McKenzie would) and have the job security (years) to re-build with the assets acquired (and cap space retained).

[Beast]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

The thing that's interesting from the Raiders side of the coin is that their SB window doesn't open for another couple years. Its often year 3-4 of the new HC regime when teams make their run. And that corresponds with their move to Las Vegas. They're not going anywhere in 2018, and even 2019 seems questionable 

In the mean time, they are stretched on cap space and cash flow. The other part of it from the Raiders POV is that the 2019 draft is loaded with top defenders including Ed Oliver and Nick Bosa

By moving Mack now, they recoup the cash flow, the cap space and they re-set the clock on their defense.

IF they have (3) 1sts to go up and get Bosa / Oliver - then they'll have young ascending talent to replace Mack. Its almost like a Time Machine in terms of grabbing a 21 year old in exchange for a 27 year old. And for the teams with the 1st or 2nd pick of the draft - nobody else has the ammo that the Raiders would have to move up.

Fans have opined that there is no freaking way that the Raiders would move Mack, but if you consider the Big Picture, its possible that there's a future value to them that supersedes the current value in terms of syncing up with their Championship window.

Without a loaded draft class, the move doesn't work. But with a loaded draft class, maybe it does.

The Packers won't have the draft capital to go get one of those very Top Defenders, even with N.O's pick added to their own. Not saying there won't be talent available at pick 10-15 , but the beast pass rushers will all be gone by then.

**golf clap** You've given the best reasoning that I've seen why the Raiders might do this.

Of course, the reasons that the Raiders might want to do it, are the same exact reasons why the Packers might not want to do it. They'd basically be going all in on a yer or two and then be in trouble with cash flow, lack of cap space and needing some draft picks because they don't have much cap space to work with in resigning their own guys.

Also your assumes Gruden is mentally willing to rebuild from scratch, which many people have mentioned his ego, which include a short temper and an inability to wait, which is one reason he likes veteran players and won the battle in Tampa Bay, over the GM, to bring in much more veteran players... so Gruden doesn't exactly love young players. It is also assumes that some team would be willing to pass on Bosa/Oliver and trade down. Which Packers might be able to also do with two 1st round picks and a 2nd rounder. Also three very high picks might be better than one single player, just saying.

But seriously, but reasoning I've seen way the Raiders might do it. I just don't see teams being willing to put in the draft/cash/cap capital that would be needed to get Mack from the Raiders... it's basically the price of signing another team's franchise tag player, and (as far as I know) we just haven't seen a team willing to give up two 1st round picks AND a major $100 million veteran contract out, especially to a non-QB (again, as far as I know).