Raiders, Bears Reach Agreement on Khalil Mack Trade

[TecmoSuperJoe]

16 minutes ago, megatechpc said:

I think there is just a ton of knee-jerk reactions going on about this trade and how badly the Raiders supposedly screwed up.  The key to remember here is that Jon Gruden has himself a TEN YEAR contract and he isn't necessarily building this team to win in 2018.  He clearly wants a complete rebuild based around Derek Carr and spending $141 million on a guy who had little impact for the team overall last year is not a good way to build a team for the future.  I personally don't think Gruden is a good GM and wouldn't trust him with this rebuild myself, but the idea here of moving on from an overpriced LB in order to secure a boatload of draft picks over the next two years isn't outlandish at all if handled properly. 

Real talk.  The Raiders finished 6-10 last year (WITH Mack) yet some people around here act like they were on the cusp of a SB!  I already had them pegged for last place in the AFCW long before this trade ever happened and in my view nothing has changed here.  Gruden has properly assessed that this team, as constructed, was not going to get it done this year no matter what they did, so he decided to reconstruct this thing from the gound up.  The only question is whether or not Gruden is the right guy to be assembling this team over the next two years, and I have my doubts about that for sure.

Even without the move to trade Mack, some of the decisions he's made are strange. Like signing guys such as Dominque Rodgers Cromartie, Doug Martin, Leon Hall, and Derrick Johnson. Up to 11 players, that were in their 30's were signed this offseason. Now I haven't seen who they cut, but still, it's just a baffling move if you're trying to get a rebuild started. He also cut Marquette King, one of the best punters in the NFL, because he was a goofball or something. I don't know, this entire affair with Gruden just seems set up to fail. Maybe he proves everyone wrong, but he's been out of football for 15 years. When he left, it wasn't like he was doing a remarkable job with the Buccaneers either. I think he's gotten by on reputation for that Super Bowl win, and his unique image for way too long. So much that it's built this kind of false epic narrative. Mark Davis at least should haven't handed out a 10 year, 100 million dollar contract. 

Also, if the Raiders were going to trade Mack, they should have done it before the draft this year. Apparently there wasn't really any contact between Mack and the Raiders since February. At least not directly. Gruden didn't even meet with the guy or have a conversation with him? Don't know how true that is obviously, but they had some time to try and trade him. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten the offer that was on the table now, but it seems now like they were never going to give him the money he was seeking. Maybe it all just clicked into place though once Donald got his deal signed. They could have also just waited for Mack to report. I doubt that he was going to miss $800,000 a game.

[megatechpc]

21 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Even without the move to trade Mack, some of the decisions he's made are strange. Like signing guys such as Dominque Rodgers Cromartie, Doug Martin, Leon Hall, and Derrick Johnson. Up to 11 players, that were in their 30's were signed this offseason. Now I haven't seen who they cut, but still, it's just a baffling move if you're trying to get a rebuild started. He also cut Marquette King, one of the best punters in the NFL, because he was a goofball or something. I don't know, this entire affair with Gruden just seems set up to fail. Maybe he proves everyone wrong, but he's been out of football for 15 years. When he left, it wasn't like he was doing a remarkable job with the Buccaneers either. I think he's gotten by on reputation for that Super Bowl win, and his unique image for way too long. So much that it's built this kind of false epic narrative. Mark Davis at least should haven't handed out a 10 year, 100 million dollar contract. 

Also, if the Raiders were going to trade Mack, they should have done it before the draft this year. Apparently there wasn't really any contact between Mack and the Raiders since February. At least not directly. Gruden didn't even meet with the guy or have a conversation with him? Don't know how true that is obviously, but they had some time to try and trade him. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten the offer that was on the table now, but it seems now like they were never going to give him the money he was seeking. Maybe it all just clicked into place though once Donald got his deal signed. They could have also just waited for Mack to report. I doubt that he was going to miss $800,000 a game.

Don't really disagree with a thing you said there.

[BayRaider]

25 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Even without the move to trade Mack, some of the decisions he's made are strange. Like signing guys such as Dominque Rodgers Cromartie, Doug Martin, Leon Hall, and Derrick Johnson. Up to 11 players, that were in their 30's were signed this offseason. Now I haven't seen who they cut, but still, it's just a baffling move if you're trying to get a rebuild started. He also cut Marquette King, one of the best punters in the NFL, because he was a goofball or something. I don't know, this entire affair with Gruden just seems set up to fail. Maybe he proves everyone wrong, but he's been out of football for 15 years. When he left, it wasn't like he was doing a remarkable job with the Buccaneers either. I think he's gotten by on reputation for that Super Bowl win, and his unique image for way too long. So much that it's built this kind of false epic narrative. Mark Davis at least should haven't handed out a 10 year, 100 million dollar contract. 

Also, if the Raiders were going to trade Mack, they should have done it before the draft this year. Apparently there wasn't really any contact between Mack and the Raiders since February. At least not directly. Gruden didn't even meet with the guy or have a conversation with him? Don't know how true that is obviously, but they had some time to try and trade him. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten the offer that was on the table now, but it seems now like they were never going to give him the money he was seeking. Maybe it all just clicked into place though once Donald got his deal signed. They could have also just waited for Mack to report. I doubt that he was going to miss $800,000 a game.

I agree with all of this. Mack would of reported, he's not destroying his value by missing a season. And we could also franchise tag him for two seasons. I'd rather have three seasons of Mack and get no compensation than two 1st Round Picks and no more Mack. Plus it's not even a real two first round picks because we gave them a second....

[El Ramster]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jimtrotter_nfl/status/1036023978832289792?s=21

[Uncle Buck]

I'm not an expert on the Raiders' financial situation, but I heard on the radio that the reason the Raiders weren't talking to Mack all along is that they just don't have the money to pay a huge signing bonus.  They were basically forced to trade him for this reason.  It wasn't Gruden's decision/mistake.  It all came down to the money.  Again, I'm no authority on the situation, but it did sound plausible.  What do Raiders fans think of this theory?

[Forge]

15 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

I'm not an expert on the Raiders' financial situation, but I heard on the radio that the reason the Raiders weren't talking to Mack all along is that they just don't have the money to pay a huge signing bonus.  They were basically forced to trade him for this reason.  It wasn't Gruden's decision/mistake.  It all came down to the money.  Again, I'm no authority on the situation, but it did sound plausible.  What do Raiders fans think of this theory?

It's been mentioned quite a bit. There's really no way to know. The raiders are never going to come out and say that of course. What we do know is that Davis isn't as well off as some of the other owners. We know that there is a rather archaic funding rule that any cash guaranteed has to be put into an escrow account, and we know that Davis has had to shell out a ton of money as part of the relocation. So is it possible? Sure. Probable? Don't know without the financials of course. 

[Dr LBC]

12 minutes ago, Forge said:

It's been mentioned quite a bit. There's really no way to know. The raiders are never going to come out and say that of course. What we do know is that Davis isn't as well off as some of the other owners. We know that there is a rather archaic funding rule that any cash guaranteed has to be put into an escrow account, and we know that Davis has had to shell out a ton of money as part of the relocation. So is it possible? Sure. Probable? Don't know without the financials of course. 

And it's that archaic funding rule that really makes the question interesting.

The only signing bonus of note that they've given out the last several years is Derek Carr and even that was a pittance ($12.5m) compared to the size of the contract and the guaranteed amount.  Osemele didn't get a signing bonus, neither did Gabe Jackson on his extension, and I don't believe Rodney Hudson got one either.  But they all got significant guarantees, so Mark found that money somewhere.  One could argue the only reason Carr got the overall size of the contract he got was because he was being asked to take so little up-front (10% of the total contract value is low by standards of contracts which set new benchmarks).

Still, if the Raiders knew they weren't going to be able to afford the signing bonus on Mack's extension (Chandler Jones got $15m in 2017, so did Danielle Hunter earlier this year).  Now, granted, I don't think anyone could have predicted Donald's $40m signing bonus, but the expectation had to be that in order to keep the annual salary (which sans any kind of signing bonus below that $15m mark, they'd likely have to guarantee 45+% of the contract as they did with Carr, Osemele, and Jackson) they'd have to shell out at least $20m.  Thing is, they would have known back in April if they were going to be liquid enough to afford a $20m signing bonus (and honestly the difference between $15m and $20m is pretty negligible) and if they couldn't then they were just delaying the inevitable and mucked this up at least some by not trying to pull off the trade before the draft when they could have gotten more immediate return on it.

And yes, I know the argument has been made that Gruden is trying to build a team around Derek Carr.  But Carr is already 27.  If we're allotting Gruden 3+ years to rebuild this team (standard timeframe on a rebuild - if not really underbidding it a little), we're looking at using up 1/3 of Carr's prime as well as using up 3 of the 5 years on his extension - where they already paid him as the highest among his position on this most recent extension they signed him too so they really don't have an excuse to not meet that demand a second time in 2023, unless he gets "Brady generous," which might be unlikely because he's never really gotten anything significant upfront on a contract (relative to the size of the actual deal he signed).

[Kip Smithers]

9 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Rodgers and Von Miller both have one SB. Von carried that Denver team way more than Rodgers carried that Packer team. 

How do you figure that?

[megatechpc]

4 hours ago, BayRaider said:

I agree with all of this. Mack would of reported, he's not destroying his value by missing a season. And we could also franchise tag him for two seasons. I'd rather have three seasons of Mack and get no compensation than two 1st Round Picks and no more Mack. Plus it's not even a real two first round picks because we gave them a second....

You actually traded them a 2nd for a 3rd in 2020, so you did really get two first rounders, which of course means you have 4 first round picks over the next two years.  Franchise tagging Mack would’ve been the only real option but that of course assumes he was ever going to show up which he gave no indication of doing.  As I said before, the general strategy of moving on from Mack for a boatload of picks and saving 15% of your cap space per year is definitely a defensible move, I just don’t trust Jon Gruden to be making the upcoming personnel decisions.  

I also personally think the Bears are going to end up regretting this trade in the long run, but we’ll see...

[oakdb36]

6 hours ago, BayRaider said:

 Plus it's not even a real two first round picks because we gave them a second....

A 1st and 3rd for a 2nd is 1st round value. We're getting 2 1st.

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, oakdb36 said:

A 1st and 3rd for a 2nd is 1st round value. We're getting 2 1st.

Depends on where the teams are when the picks are made.

If OAK finishes bottom 10 (or let's say bottom 7) in 2019, and CHI makes the playoffs, then the 2020 deal looks like:

1.20's pick

3.80's pick

for

2.30's pick

At best, that's a 500+ pt return - at worst in the 20's/30's difference, if OAK is really bad and CHI gets into the final 4 or final 8, then it's a 300 point return.   That's no where even close to 1st round value.

And again, not all 1sts are created equal.  The whiff/hit rate profile of a pick in the 20's isn't much better than the whiff/hit rate profile of a pick in the 30's.    

A 2019 pick in the teens, a 2020 pick in 20's and 80's doesn't likely get you a Mack type-impact combined.   Sending a 30's pick back (which is very possible if OAK doesn't pull a 2019 version of 2017 NO draft) really takes the impact of the trade return a lot.

If CHI finishes with a bottom 10 pick and OAK isn't bottom-10, then the impact is much less.  But the more likely scenario is OAK finishes with a high pick order, and CHI is close to, if not in the 20's.  Then that 2nd back really negates the 2020 returns.   It's not opinion, it's easy to see.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

5 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

I'm not an expert on the Raiders' financial situation, but I heard on the radio that the reason the Raiders weren't talking to Mack all along is that they just don't have the money to pay a huge signing bonus.  They were basically forced to trade him for this reason.  It wasn't Gruden's decision/mistake.  It all came down to the money.  Again, I'm no authority on the situation, but it did sound plausible.  What do Raiders fans think of this theory?

How does this work exactly, the whole signing bonus thing is something I've never really understood even though players have their contacts restructured to where some of there money becomes one. Dont understand though how that would be a problem here

[ET80]

7 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

How does this work exactly, the whole signing bonus thing is something I've never really understood even though players have their contacts restructured to where some of there money becomes one. Dont understand though how that would be a problem here

It's new to me as well, but this thread has informed me a lot on this. Apparently, when you have a signing bonus such as this, the funds have to be placed in escrow, so the cash is on hand in the event a player is cut (so that guaranteed portion could still be paid out, I guess?)

For example, Mack got $90mm guaranteed, $60mm upon signing. So that means the Bears cut Mack a check for $60mm right then and there, then put the remaining $30mm in that escrow account. If for some reason the Bears cut Mack, they'll pull the $30mm from escrow and give it to Mack. 

I think that's how it is, based on what I read here. Oakland could have found the money in some capacity - draw on equity, pull out a loan, talk to the Las Vegas Sports Authority to front the funds and recoup on taxes once the Raiders are in town - plenty of options out there. They just didn't go that route.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

7 minutes ago, ET80 said:

It's new to me as well, but this thread has informed me a lot on this. Apparently, when you have a signing bonus such as this, the funds have to be placed in escrow, so the cash is on hand in the event a player is cut (so that guaranteed portion could still be paid out, I guess?)

For example, Mack got $90mm guaranteed, $60mm upon signing. So that means the Bears cut Mack a check for $60mm right then and there, then put the remaining $30mm in that escrow account. If for some reason the Bears cut Mack, they'll pull the $30mm from escrow and give it to Mack. 

I think that's how it is, based on what I read here. Oakland could have found the money in some capacity - draw on equity, pull out a loan, talk to the Las Vegas Sports Authority to front the funds and recoup on taxes once the Raiders are in town - plenty of options out there. They just didn't go that route.

So basically if they weren't moving the team to Vegas, then they could afford to sign him?

[holyghost]

10 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

According to Mckenzie, he zeroed in on teams that had the potential to yield a high first round pick next year. I'm assuming he also wanted Mack out of the AFC. That means the Packers were for sure a no go, considering they're almost a lock for the playoffs every year with Rodgers healthy.

Oakland is, sorry to say at this point, infamous for the BS narratives they spew to the incompetent local media who refuse to press them on any questions. And now, famous for the fans who lap up the lies. 

He didn't zero in on any teams. He took the best offer. Dreamy ideas of the Raiders picking and choosing the suitors blew apart when they accepted essentially less than two firsts for Mack. Which goes directly against the media narrative of the preceding days, which was "2 first round picks PLUS", and "an offer they can't say no to". All in all it says that they "HAD" to trade Mack. Couldn't pay him. Or wouldn't. And that's all there really is to it. The garbage put out that they traded him because they couldn't say no to the amazing return, or really any narrative based on this being a trade about return value is a bold faced lie. Anyone who believes it has their buried in sand.