bucsfan333 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, SirA1 said: How so? He hasn't been their since Feb. The tweets from Oakland's players don't seem all that great. And some can't be posted here. There's obviously some sort thing going on among the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 If the Raiders didnt have the cash flow, how was they in position to setup to meet with Suh around the time Suh was meeting with a select few of teams? I know Suh never did meet with the Raiders because he was so blown away with the Rams meeting that he cancelled the trip. What if he went ahead to meet with the Raiders? Like the Raiders wouldve had the cash flow to sign Suh but not Mack? Thats just crazy thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, ET80 said: 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. Yeah for one second let's pretend the financial world has collapsed and banks won't be falling over themselves to give the Raiders money. The Raiders thought long and hard, knowing they could only keep one of Jon Gruden and Khalil Mack, then chose Jon Gruden. Read that sentence again. That means Mark Davis is even dumber than his haircut would tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said: The tweets from Oakland's players don't seem all that great. And some can't be posted here. There's obviously some sort thing going on among the players. Noted. I avoid social media like the plague so wouldn't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Wow.. I can't believe this is happening. I thought for sure the Raiders would find a way to retain their best player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jroc04 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 23 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Was that post inregards to mack at all? Somebody said Wares name, so I explained what happened with Ware. Same thing happened with JJ Watt so far. It happens with a lot of players. Its why putting all your eggs in one basket is dumb. Like I said, if 20% of your cap is dedicated to your #2 &3 players you are screwed. Because that typically means that your top 3 players account for ~35-40% of your cap, leaving you little for the other 50 players. Aren’t the top 2-3 guys on a team, especially a winning one, routinely taking up 20% of the cap? It’s almost every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfishwars Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, SirA1 said: How so? He hasn't been their since Feb. Because teams don't trade away their best player, nobody in that locker room would have expected anything other than a deal getting done. It's going to be massively impact them psychologically knowing they're not going to be as potent as they could have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said: Bigger than Donald's? Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: So the Bears have Mack, and are still considered by most the 3rd best team in their own division Yeah... I'm in the minority I guess I... but I think they've pulled even with the Packers after this move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 TO EVERYONE CALLING THE RAIDERS DUMB: I would please ask you to provide me a list of times where trading 2 first rounds for a player has: 1. Lead the team that received the player (Bears) to winning a superbowl 2. Lead the team that traded the player (Raiders) to 'implde'; especially after the two draft picks were made. 3. Now list all the times it backfired - IE the Cowboys giving up 2 first for Rocket Ishmail only for him to never play more than a handful of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, goldfishwars said: Because teams don't trade away their best player, nobody in that locker room would have expected anything other than a deal getting done. It's going to be massively impact them psychologically knowing they're not going to be as potent as they could have been. Not to mention the idea that if they want to earn a big contract they're gonna have to get it from somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, ET80 said: 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. You wouldn’t even have to secure a loan. A company that big can probably draw off a huge equity line with any bank. A lot of companies do this to make payroll while they wait for checks to come in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 20 minutes ago, Tyty said: I thought I was your homie Used to be my homie...used to be my ace..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, stl4life07 said: If the Raiders didnt have the cash flow, how was they in position to setup to meet with Suh around the time Suh was meeting with a select few of teams? I know Suh never did meet with the Raiders because he was so blown away with the Rams meeting that he cancelled the trip. What if he went ahead to meet with the Raiders? Like the Raiders wouldve had the cash flow to sign Suh but not Mack? Thats just crazy thinking. Suh isn't commanding $23mm/yr, that's why. Mack is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.