Dodo Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Wouldn't read much into what Albright said, he also claimed that we didn't want to trade Mack. Since when does a team do something they don't 'want' to do? If they wanted to find a way to pack Mack they would've. What they obviously don't want is having two players on mega-deals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfishwars Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I don't care what the compensation is, you don't trade away talent like that. This is the type of move that could derail the entire locker room, especially so close to the start of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, ET80 said: This is a franchise that is worth $2.1B, $500mm isn't a "cash strapping" investment. Not even that, because Gruden is only $10m /year, not the full $100m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: I dont see how you cant separate the two. If I trade my expensive sports car in for something reasonable and use the extra money to buy a house, I made a smart economical choice. If I then drive my new sedan directly into the house destroying the value of both, I didnt gain anything. This isnt a hard concept. The Raiders did the right thing today. Now lets see if they take advantage of it or piss it away. You are needlessly combining multiple transactions. The Rams traded RGIII for draft picks. That is one transaction, and should be judged individually. The Rams drafted Brockers, Jenkins, and a bunch of other players with those draft picks. The decisions to draft those players should be judged individually, separately from the method they used to acquire the draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Bigger than Donald's? Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, ET80 said: This is a franchise that is worth $2.1B, $500mm isn't a "cash strapping" investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVRamsFan Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: So take out a loan. The Raiders generate something like ~$400M revenue annually, and have TV contracts alone that count for something like $250MM of that which are locked in for the foreseeable future. They can get tons of stable credit. (Related sidenote: Billionaire owners should pay for their own ******* stadiums) I agree they should pay for their stadiums that's what makes the Rams situation so good. As for the rest how many loans will an owner be willing to take out who's only worth $500 million? The stadium, Carr, Gruden, Mack and now you're well over his net worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACO Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Bullet Club said: I am a Packer fan and I am a strong combination of unhappiness and saltiness. I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, RaidersAreOne said: Bigger than Donald's? Jesus. Donald's would've been bigger than Mack's had he gotten his second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, drd23 said: Pretty sure they need to put all the guaranteed money for the contract into escrow at signing, even if the money only gets paid in two or three years. Maybe the $100m spent on Gruden and the money paid to move to Vegas has bled them dry? 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: So take out a loan. The Raiders generate something like ~$400M revenue annually, and have TV contracts alone that count for something like $250MM of that which are locked in for the foreseeable future. They can get tons of stable credit. (Related sidenote: Billionaire owners should pay for their own ******* stadiums) 1 minute ago, ET80 said: Again, we're talking about a $2.1B franchise. If they're cash strapped, it mean Mark Davis is taking out equity for himself - completely legal to do so as it's his organization, but you'll find scenarios such as this crop up. No way a NFL owner can use the broke angle here given their net worth. Maybe start a GoFundMe page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 10 minutes ago, Malik said: NFL fans are obsessed with draft picks in ways that no other sports fan is. Having to pay a proven great player bothers people more than maybe getting a cheap young player who you HOPE gets to be as good as the guy. Because the NFL is the only sport with a hard cap? In an era where one player takes up to 20% of your franchises cap space? Would say 90% of a good team is built on them? Seems like a legit reason why that's the case. So the Bears have Mack, and are still considered by most the 3rd best team in their own division. Now let's look outward to the NFC, does anyone see them as better than LA, Phi or ATL with this move? So at the very best they're the 6th best team, with no 1st rounders for the next two years and possibly more. So any talent you add is either going to have to be a late round steal or the premium a team pays on the market. You went all in on Mitch Trubisky, the only way you really improve is through his development. Don't think Ive seen enough yet from him to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, NVRamsFan said: I agree they should pay for their stadiums that's what makes the Rams situation so good. As for the rest how many loans will an owner be willing to take out who's only worth $500 million? The stadium, Carr, Gruden, Mack and now you're well over his net worth. This is now a different conversation though - it's not that the Raiders can't get the cash flow to sign Mack, it's that they didn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, goldfishwars said: I don't care what the compensation is, you don't trade away talent like that. This is the type of move that could derail the entire locker room, especially so close to the start of the season. How so? He hasn't been their since Feb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, rob_shadows said: Yeah but what the franchise is worth and what the franchise has available in liquid assets is two completely different things. Even then however...I have a hard time believing an NFL team literally couldn't afford a players contract. As @ramssuperbowl99 said - secure a loan for the amount. Use some of the upcoming TV revenue to pay off that loan. My overall point is that something is not being managed correctly if the team doesn't have the cash flow to retain its best player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.