megatechpc Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 But how does the CBA affect whether or not blockbuster trades historically end up working out? I think the point was that its not necessarily a slam dunk that bringing in a big name for a ton of money actually results in success for said team. Remember when Minnesota shipped their entire draft to Dallas for Herschel Walker? He was a great player and actually did well in Minnesota for a while, but that trade by itself basically made the Cowboys a 3-time SB champ in the years that followed. I'm pretty sure Jon Gruden is thinking along the exact same lines with this trade. Now whether or not he'll be able to do what Dallas did with those picks is debatable, but at least he already has the franchise QB position taken care of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, megatechpc said: But how does the CBA affect whether or not blockbuster trades historically end up working out? Read the link and understand how the CBA affected rookie contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Small Town Values Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 All depends on what the Raiders do with those picks? One of three things is going to happen... ~ A front office masterstroke that catapults the team to long term prosperity. ~ A non event. Stagnation period. ~ A catastrophic failure that cost people jobs, sets the Raiders back years, & wastes the prime years of their talented QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: Read the link and understand how the CBA affected rookie contracts. I understand that, but my overall point still stands. If the Raiders use all those picks to assemble a team that wins multiple SB's do you really think Raiders fans are going to care about Khalil Mack anymore? Conversely, if Mack only gets 7 sacks this year in Chicago and the Bears only win one or two more games than last year, do you really think Bears fans are still going to be so ecstatic about their new $141 pass rusher? I'm not saying any of that is going to happen, but there is certainly more precedent out there of blockbuster trades not working out than teams having massive success... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 Just now, megatechpc said: I understand that, but my overall point still stands. If the Raiders use all those picks to assemble a team that wins multiple SB's do you really think Raiders fans are going to care about Khalil Mack anymore? Conversely, if Mack only gets 7 sacks this year in Chicago and the Bears only win one or two more games than last year, do you really think Bears fans are still going to be so ecstatic about their new $141 pass rusher? I'm not saying any of that is going to happen, but there is certainly more precedent out there of blockbuster trades not working out than teams having massive success... No offense, but I really don't think you do understand. Again man, go read how the CBA works if you wanna learn and you will see why I used 2011 as a cut-off year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
base615 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 I think we're just ahead at the moment but I think we'll know the winner pretty quickly. I will say, I would absolutely laugh my arse off if we somehow won the Owl in 2019 with the Raiders finishing worst and we made our 2nd round pick (from them) 1 spot after their 1st round pick (from us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 7 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Collective_Bargaining_Agreement How is this possibly relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: How is this possibly relevant Because without the rookie wage scale this trade most likley isn't even possible and does not even happen. Mack sign an 4 yr 18.6M/11gtd contract as a 1st round, 5th overall pick in 2014. If Mack had been drafted prior to the rookie scale these numbers go up tremendously and changes how Oakland's FO maneuvers entirely - especially with Carr. Likewise, the Bears would have already had Mitch signed to a large contract as well. Heck, Mclain, a 7th overall pick who wasn't even an edge rusher signed a 5 yr 40M/23gtd in 2010. Just imagine what Mack would have received without teh scale 4 years later? These things change the dynamics significantly because the only reason the Bears were even able to pull this deal off is because key players such as; Mitch, Howard, Cohen, etc are all still on rookie contracts. I get your point here. But again, it's a little unfair to compare the Mack trade to others. Besides, how many teams have traded away a prime position player who has a DPoY, 2x All-pros at two different positons and 3 pro-bowls under his belt in only 4 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsooie5 Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 17 hours ago, frenchie said: Obviously in the minority here, but I think if anyone came out on top, it's the Raiders. They got 2 first rounders out of it, and best of all, they aren't the fools that paid a defensive end $141 million... Sure, they lost a tremendous player in Mack, but it's a bit comical how Mack is spoken of as this irreplaceable god-like player. Hell, he had 10 sacks last year. 17 other guys had at least as many. Does Mack make the Bears better? Sure, But it's not like they're going to the Super Bowl... They weren't and still aren't a single player away from competing; if they were, this would actually make some sense. But with that contract, minus 2 first round picks, they've made it very difficult for them to continue to build the team.. IMO, the Raiders are an 8 win team with or without Mack... The Bears are obviously better than they were last week, but honestly are still the worst team in their division. So nothing has really changed, except Chicago is now on the hook for a ridiculous contract and without a first round pick in the next 2 drafts, still with glaring needs across the board... I wouldn't necessarily say the Raiders 'won', but I think Chicago clearly put themselves in quite a bind for the next few years. If the Bears front office can manage it and still continue to build around Trubisky, then I'll be the first to say I was wrong, but typically teams that make wild trades like this usually get worse before they get better... What glaring needs across the board does Chicago have that you’re referring too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 4 hours ago, pigsooie5 said: What glaring needs across the board does Chicago have that you’re referring too? I asked him the same thing a few days ago and he still hasn't answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 13 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said: Because without the rookie wage scale this trade most likley isn't even possible and does not even happen. Mack sign an 4 yr 18.6M/11gtd contract as a 1st round, 5th overall pick in 2014. If Mack had been drafted prior to the rookie scale these numbers go up tremendously and changes how Oakland's FO maneuvers entirely - especially with Carr. Likewise, the Bears would have already had Mitch signed to a large contract as well. Heck, Mclain, a 7th overall pick who wasn't even an edge rusher signed a 5 yr 40M/23gtd in 2010. Just imagine what Mack would have received without teh scale 4 years later? These things change the dynamics significantly because the only reason the Bears were even able to pull this deal off is because key players such as; Mitch, Howard, Cohen, etc are all still on rookie contracts. I get your point here. But again, it's a little unfair to compare the Mack trade to others. Besides, how many teams have traded away a prime position player who has a DPoY, 2x All-pros at two different positons and 3 pro-bowls under his belt in only 4 years? The question is "Who won the Mack trade?" which has nothing at all to do with the CBA. Furthermore, the guy that you responded to simply asked to name the last blockbuster trade that resulted in the acquiring team going on to be successful, so again the CBA doesn't really matter nor do any big trades that happened prior to 2011 need to be disqualified because of the CBA. Regardless of whether or not this trade would've happened without the current CBA, it did happen, and there's no reason at all that we can't compare it to other big trades in NFL history. As I've said countless times, we simply can't know who won the trade right now so any positions taken one way or the other are based purely on opinions without any corroborating facts. Its still entirely possible that BOTH teams ultimately "won" the trade (and Mack himself certainly did if all he cared about was getting the most money possible), but its possible either team won as well (or neither team). I just think that the massive dumping on the Raiders by the media and fans is not necessarily warranted and that a lot of them are simply dismissing this move as proof that Jon Gruden is just an old fuddy-duddy who doesn't understand the current NFL or players, and that he should've just written Mack a blank check to make sure he stayed a Raider without considering the very significant reasons that Gruden decided the team couldn't afford to do that (and I don't mean that they didn't have the money either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 22 minutes ago, megatechpc said: The question is "Who won the Mack trade?" which has nothing at all to do with the CBA. So cap and contracts don't matter to you? Besides I have already given my answer numerous times about this question on the forum. 22 minutes ago, megatechpc said: Furthermore, the guy that you responded to simply asked to name the last blockbuster trade that resulted in the acquiring team going on to be successful, so again the CBA doesn't really matter nor do any big trades that happened prior to 2011 need to be disqualified because of the CBA. Regardless of whether or not this trade would've happened without the current CBA, it did happen, and there's no reason at all that we can't compare it to other big trades in NFL history. Proper context does matter. Alot actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 On 9/5/2018 at 7:46 PM, incognito_man said: Quick, somebody tell me the last blockbuster trade that resulted in a guy getting a top contract that worked out for that team. Keyshawn. His season wasn't great, but they may not win the super bowl without him. That alone can justify that trade. Granted, he only played four years there, and he wasn't really all that great overall, but again, if the basis is super bowl, then that was a success. Jared Allen was definitely a success and worth the price they paid (both contractually and in pick compensation), but obviously they didn't win the super bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 10 minutes ago, Forge said: Keyshawn. His season wasn't great, but they may not win the super bowl without him. That alone can justify that trade. Granted, he only played four years there, and he wasn't really all that great overall, but again, if the basis is super bowl, then that was a success. Jared Allen was definitely a success and worth the price they paid (both contractually and in pick compensation), but obviously they didn't win the super bowl. If I wanted to go back that far (without context) my first reaction was Champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 1 minute ago, JustAnotherFan said: If I wanted to go back that far (without context) my first reaction was Champ. That's a good one. I think that people would have fought you on the basis of that being a one for one trade (not that that was part of the original question / requirement and would be moving the goal posts, but this is NFL gen, so I would expect it lol) and they didn't unload a treasure trove of assets to acquire champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.