Raiders, Bears Reach Agreement on Khalil Mack Trade

[Forge]

4 minutes ago, I <3 Faulk said:

Is Carr widely seen as average now? Am I missing something? 

Average with upside. I mean, when you really start listing the quarterbacks out, it's really hard to find a spot for him in the top twelve

[G]

6 hours ago, BayRaider said:

2019 we use a Top pick on a DE to replace Mack

2018 and 2019 Carr has two average seasons.

2020 we use our other 1st from the Bears on a QB.

Back to square one. If this scenario played out I'd be outraged.

Could have traded Carr to the Browns and drafted Rosen. Bring that future to today...

[I <3 Faulk]

Just now, Forge said:

Average with upside. I mean, when you really start listing the quarterbacks out, it's really hard to find a spot for him in the top twelve

Yea you're right.  I wasn't making a statement for it either way, just wondering because if you flash back a year I'm not sure you find a top 10 without him. 

[Tugboat]

1 hour ago, daineraider said:

It has to be about money.  I dont believe the reports that the Raiders dont have the $$ to pay him though.  I think Gruden cant wrap his head around paying a defensive player QB money.  Usually I would agree, but there are a handful of players in the league that are worth paying for and Mack is one of those.

As far as sending a message goes, we have paid plenty of people lots of money(some good deals, some bad), but Donald and Mack are about to make $3-4 mil higher than any other defender in history, so Im thinking the sticker shock scared him.  My issue with that is that we draft players hoping they turn into players like Mack, at some point you have to pay those players.  I love Mack and am still pretty pissed right now, but Gruden isnt 100% wrong here.  Giving Mack $22-$23 mil along with Carrs $25 would make it extremely hard to build any other part of the roster.  My issue is no one else is a guarantee to produce like Mack(or anywhere near him).  So now we have to try to rebuild a defense without the best defensive player we have had in years and years.

Yeah.  It's a tough pill to swallow, and depending on what exactly the return is, and what the Raiders end up doing with those pieces, it could easily be a terrible trade.  But it's absolutely about the money and the bolded specifically.  There's a thread of rationale in there that i can buy into.  Not in that the Raiders can't afford Mack, but in that football is a team sport and that's the kind of money committed to a two individual players that makes it legitimately extremely difficult to field a strong team around them.

It'd be one thing if Mack is one of those players who can completely carry a defense, but we've mostly seen that for all Mack's personal success and accolades, it hasn't made the Raiders defense a top tier unit.  That's not all his fault obviously, but when you're asking for that kind of money...that's going to come with some lofty expectations.  Teams pay QBs that kind of money because the whole offense runs through them and good QB play substantially elevates the play of surrounding personnel.  Is Mack doing that for the defense?  Hasn't really appeared that way to me.  Largely a byproduct of his position, but that's kinda the point.  Do you want to pay that kind of "elevates everyone around them" money to a position where it's extremely hard to consistently influence the game to that depth and breadth?

 

There's another message in it as well.  To me, it's saying, "no one individual's success is going to come before the team".  It's a suggestion that "if everyone comes together and performs, there's going to be more money to go around"...rather than handing it all to one individual player in Mack, which would inevitably mean other guys traded or cut loose when their turn for a big "earned" contract re-up comes in the next 1-5 years.  It's a sign that doing great individual things isn't enough, if it isn't accompanied by team success.  That's not the worst message i don't think.  Steep a price as it may have come at.  It's the kind of big warning shot you can afford to fire if you're Gruden with a lifetime contract extension or whatever it is.

 

1 hour ago, showtime said:

This is what I keep going back to.  You draft players because you hope they are Khalil Mack.  So lets say the Raiders draft a linebacker next year that turns out to be elite, is this going to happen all over again in 4-5 years?  Mack wasn't only a great player, but he was great off the field.  He was great in the community, never got into any trouble and has no injury concerns.  As you and others have pointed out, Mack was also a leader in the locker room as well.

Here's to hoping that the Raiders can draft some great players with the picks they have acquired from the Bears.

 

I think it's naive to pretend this isn't becoming an extremely cap-driven league.  Teams absolutely have to work in "windows" and prioritize what few things they really want to spend on.  You can't pay everyone.  The perennial contender teams do this masterfully for the most part, turning over really good players every year, when they aren't identified as part of that critical core.  You're constantly retooling around your Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Roethlisberger/Wilson et al.  Which is what Carr is already being paid to be for the Raiders (whether he's delivered or not, that's your cap reality and Gruden inherited that decision).  It's where sometimes you sacrifice big talent for younger, cheaper talent.  Lose a bit at one specific spot, to spread the wealth around for a better team on the whole.

You never want to let a guy like Mack go, and you're deluding yourself if you go into those draft picks expecting to replace Mack with elite talent from those selections.  You hope it happens, and then you've got another amazing trade chip to keep the cycle going in 4-5 years...but it's not likely.  You're more just hoping that you can get a couple players who can plug glaring holes and give you good quality starting play.  PLUS, and cool $22-23M of cap space to distribute around the rest of your roster for the next 4-5 years.  Obviously some of that eaten up by a couple rookie deals and whoever the player ends up being...but that's a huge chunk of money that you can spend on plugging yet another hole or two, or even three. 

Really can't overstate how important that can be.  This deal might be sacrificing one "elite" DE/LBer, to provide flexibility to plug as many as 4-6 other holes with "good quality starting players".  That's big.  Granted, i think part of the reaction is how little faith a lot of people have in Gruden and Co. to actually find those quality starting pieces to maximize the return...instead of just blowing it all on old washed up has-beens and misfit toys in the draft.  That's fair, but i don't think the rationale underpinning this trade isn't as crazy as a lot of people are making it sound.  Or near as simple as just, "keep all your best players no matter what it costs" either.

[JAF-N72EX]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Raiders were never getting 2 FRPs AND a notable player.  Sorry, there isn't a non-QB that is going to garner that kind of trade value.  This might be a tad lighter than what I'd have expected, but people are freaking out about the 2nd round pick that the Raiders are giving up.  The Raiders save face by saying they got 2 FRPs and the Bears don't completely drop out of the '20 draft.  Hell, next year they won't pick until their 3rd round pick.  They're pretty much the same team for the next 2 years.

That's not what I'm saying at all. the deal should have stayed the same as what was initially being reported; Mack in exchange for two 1st rounders + player.

The fact that Pace was able to swindle his away out of having to give up a player AND receive a 2nd rd + a conditional pick is amazing. 

Oh believe me, I understand it's a high risk, high reward type of deal. Which is why I didn't even want this trade to happen at all. But looking at the details now, I don't see how anyone could pass this up.

Hypothetical scenario. Let's say it was mandatory for NFL teams to disclose their asking price on a player before putting them on the trade block and the terms are non-negotiable from either party. I guarantee the only teams in the league who would not be on the phone were the ones who didn't have the resources to match the offer.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

2 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

Yeah.  It's a tough pill to swallow, and depending on what exactly the return is, and what the Raiders end up doing with those pieces, it could easily be a terrible trade.  But it's absolutely about the money and the bolded specifically.  There's a thread of rationale in there that i can buy into.  Not in that the Raiders can't afford Mack, but in that football is a team sport and that's the kind of money committed to a two individual players that makes it legitimately extremely difficult to field a strong team around them.

It'd be one thing if Mack is one of those players who can completely carry a defense, but we've mostly seen that for all Mack's personal success and accolades, it hasn't made the Raiders defense a top tier unit.  That's not all his fault obviously, but when you're asking for that kind of money...that's going to come with some lofty expectations.  Teams pay QBs that kind of money because the whole offense runs through them and good QB play substantially elevates the play of surrounding personnel.  Is Mack doing that for the defense?  Hasn't really appeared that way to me.  Largely a byproduct of his position, but that's kinda the point.  Do you want to pay that kind of "elevates everyone around them" money to a position where it's extremely hard to consistently influence the game to that depth and breadth?

 

There's another message in it as well.  To me, it's saying, "no one individual's success is going to come before the team".  It's a suggestion that "if everyone comes together and performs, there's going to be more money to go around"...rather than handing it all to one individual player in Mack, which would inevitably mean other guys traded or cut loose when their turn for a big "earned" contract re-up comes in the next 1-5 years.  It's a sign that doing great individual things isn't enough, if it isn't accompanied by team success.  That's not the worst message i don't think.  Steep a price as it may have come at.  It's the kind of big warning shot you can afford to fire if you're Gruden with a lifetime contract extension or whatever it is.

 

 

I think it's naive to pretend this isn't becoming an extremely cap-driven league.  Teams absolutely have to work in "windows" and prioritize what few things they really want to spend on.  You can't pay everyone.  The perennial contender teams do this masterfully for the most part, turning over really good players every year, when they aren't identified as part of that critical core.  You're constantly retooling around your Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Roethlisberger/Wilson et al.  Which is what Carr is already being paid to be for the Raiders (whether he's delivered or not, that's your cap reality and Gruden inherited that decision).  It's where sometimes you sacrifice big talent for younger, cheaper talent.  Lose a bit at one specific spot, to spread the wealth around for a better team on the whole.

You never want to let a guy like Mack go, and you're deluding yourself if you go into those draft picks expecting to replace Mack with elite talent from those selections.  You hope it happens, and then you've got another amazing trade chip to keep the cycle going in 4-5 years...but it's not likely.  You're more just hoping that you can get a couple players who can plug glaring holes and give you good quality starting play.  PLUS, and cool $22-23M of cap space to distribute around the rest of your roster for the next 4-5 years.  Obviously some of that eaten up by a couple rookie deals and whoever the player ends up being...but that's a huge chunk of money that you can spend on plugging yet another hole or two, or even three. 

Really can't overstate how important that can be.  This deal might be sacrificing one "elite" DE/LBer, to provide flexibility to plug as many as 4-6 other holes with "good quality starting players".  That's big.  Granted, i think part of the reaction is how little faith a lot of people have in Gruden and Co. to actually find those quality starting pieces to maximize the return...instead of just blowing it all on old washed up has-beens and misfit toys in the draft.  That's fair, but i don't think the rationale underpinning this trade isn't as crazy as a lot of people are making it sound.  Or near as simple as just, "keep all your best players no matter what it costs" either.

That is one helluva gamble though. You want to talk about the importance of how 1 player can change the whole team. If they could get even above average pieces around him, then he can make them better by just making offenses focus on him. 

Oakland should riot, move the whole damn team to a new city!

[CWood21]

25 minutes ago, TankWilliams said:

Interesting to me that Packers and Lions fans seem to be falling over themselves to rip the trade.  

Honestly, I don't see it being a slam dunk deal for either the Raiders or the Bears tbh.  I think it has it's pro and cons.  Between this and the Mack trade, the Bears don't pick until th3 3rd round and right now the only way they can really improve their roster next offseason is to either deal future picks for present picks or go out in FA.  I still don't trust their OL, and I don't think they really have enough offensive weapons.  And I've been pretty vocal about my opinion that I don't think Trubisky is anything special.  As for the Raiders, they're trading arguably the best defensive player in the NFL.

[Buc Ball]

54 minutes ago, The LBC said:

Also, IIRC didn't Gruden notoriously take Monte Kiffin's ability to take guys that were undervalued by the rest of the league (at the time) because of lack of prototypical size and scheme them into a top-flight defense?  Hubris has always been his Achilles heel.

It was more Lane Kiffin getting the Tennessee job and Monte deciding to take the DC role going into 2009 that lead to the downfall of that regime in 2008.

Gruden didn’t handle it well apparently and the talk at the time was that factored into the decision to fire him.

Gruden absolutely believes that he knows best, even when on the face of it, his decisions make little sense. The Mack situation is the most extreme example of it that I’ve seen.

[El Ramster]

4 hours ago, lancerman said:

Tbf he was kicked out of the Raiders because the big knock on him was that he was an always the bridesmaid never the bride type guy and he needed someone else’s team to get over the hump. 

His absence creates nostalgia and made people overlook his flaws. It’s like when you get back with an ex after a few months/years and realize “oh yeah, these were issues”.

Takes you that long? Takes me a few hours once we get back 

[Tugboat]

2 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

That is one helluva gamble though. You want to talk about the importance of how 1 player can change the whole team. If they could get even above average pieces around him, then he can make them better by just making offenses focus on him. 

Oakland should riot, move the whole damn team to a new city!

It's less of a gamble when you have the security of a 10 year contract in hand, and basically carte blanche to do whatever you want and remake the entire team in your image.

 

Of course, it's far more of a gamble from the outside, when you're expecting Gruden and Co. to actually hit those picks and signings out of the park after a long hiatus doing broadcasting.  But the leash to make these sort of bold gambles is kind of a big part of what that contract represents, and what enticed Gruden out of a pretty cushy gig as a broadcaster in the first place.

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Between this and the Mack trade, the Bears don't pick until th3 3rd round

When did the Bears give up a 2nd round pick - in 2019 or 2020? Nobody is reporting that this deal included any 2nd round pick from Chicago (they actually got Oakland's 2nd Rd pick in 2020 as well).

I see very little downside for the Bears.

[Scoundrel]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

When did the Bears give up a 2nd round pick - in 2019 or 2020?

Anthony Miller trade 

[MonserinNC]

Just now, ET80 said:

When did the Bears give up a 2nd round pick - in 2019 or 2020?

We gave up next years for Anthony Miller....but honestly it was like hey can I borrow a dollar today and pay you back tomorrow. I dont think we gave up anything extra

[Scoundrel]

Bears traded 105 and 2019 2nd to the Pats to select him

[ET80]

1 minute ago, Counselor said:

Anthony Miller trade 

 

Just now, MonserinNC said:

We gave up next years for Anthony Miller....but honestly it was like hey can I borrow a dollar today and pay you back tomorrow. I dont think we gave up anything extra

Aha, got it. Yeah, that's just cashing that pick out now vs in 2019, nothing horrible about it.

Point still remains, Bears have no real loss from this.