MrOaktown_56 Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 18 hours ago, megatechpc said: 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). 1 Shh. It's ok. Confirmation bias is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigInBoys Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 I think some if not all of this might have had to do with the fact that Raiders ownership might just not have been able to afford the contract. We all know Davis probably has the least money of any NFL owner, and Gruden straight out said their offer was nowhere near the Bears. Then they've got all of the costs associated with the Vegas move, Gruden's deal etc. Not to mention they traded him right after Donald's deal was announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 1 hour ago, DigInBoys said: I think some if not all of this might have had to do with the fact that Raiders ownership might just not have been able to afford the contract. We all know Davis probably has the least money of any NFL owner, and Gruden straight out said their offer was nowhere near the Bears. Then they've got all of the costs associated with the Vegas move, Gruden's deal etc. Not to mention they traded him right after Donald's deal was announced. It's easier just for fans to make Gruden the scape goat then except this as the most plausible explanation that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said: It's easier just for fans to make Gruden the scape goat then except this as the most plausible explanation that's all. I don't think a lack of funds is at all the most plausible explanation though. I think its as basic as Gruden simply not believing Mack (or any other non-QB for that matter) is worth anywhere near the kind of money he got from the Bears. He's a great player and has proven he can get after the QB (though can we calm down about the HOF stuff for a guy who has averaged 10 sacks a year please?), but you just can't be paying a LB as much money as you are your franchise QB, especially when said LB didn't do anything last year to keep the team from finishing 6-10. With Mack on the roster and little opportunity to fix the numerous other issues the team has currently, you could expect the Raiders to continue to finish 7-9 or 8-8 over the next few years. At least with 5 first round picks over the next 3 years the Raiders will have the chance to address multiple other areas of need (at rookie prices) with highly skilled prospects. The savings will also allow them flexibility to spend money (not Mack money, but money) on multiple areas of concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigInBoys Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 18 hours ago, megatechpc said: I don't think a lack of funds is at all the most plausible explanation though. I think its as basic as Gruden simply not believing Mack (or any other non-QB for that matter) is worth anywhere near the kind of money he got from the Bears. He's a great player and has proven he can get after the QB (though can we calm down about the HOF stuff for a guy who has averaged 10 sacks a year please?), but you just can't be paying a LB as much money as you are your franchise QB, especially when said LB didn't do anything last year to keep the team from finishing 6-10. With Mack on the roster and little opportunity to fix the numerous other issues the team has currently, you could expect the Raiders to continue to finish 7-9 or 8-8 over the next few years. At least with 5 first round picks over the next 3 years the Raiders will have the chance to address multiple other areas of need (at rookie prices) with highly skilled prospects. The savings will also allow them flexibility to spend money (not Mack money, but money) on multiple areas of concern. Possibly, but we just saw both the Rams and Bears award contracts in that range to premiere defensive players so we know that there is a school of thought in the NFL that believes they are worth that kind of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 2 hours ago, DigInBoys said: Possibly, but we just saw both the Rams and Bears award contracts in that range to premiere defensive players so we know that there is a school of thought in the NFL that believes they are worth that kind of money. Its an important point to note that both the Bears and Rams are still in the fortunate situation of not having to pay their QB's a ton of money since they are still on their rookie deals. The Raiders already gave Carr a massive contract last year so they don't have the flexibility to pay a non-QB the same kind of money. Can you think of any teams out there that have had to pay their franchise QB a massive contract that have also offered more than $20 million per year to any other players on their roster? I can't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 1 minute ago, megatechpc said: Its an important point to note that both the Bears and Rams are still in the fortunate situation of not having to pay their QB's a ton of money since they are still on their rookie deals. The Raiders already gave Carr a massive contract last year so they don't have the flexibility to pay a non-QB the same kind of money. Can you think of any teams out there that have had to pay their franchise QB a massive contract that have also offered more than $20 million per year to any other players on their roster? I can't... It's coming soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 Well clearly the pay scale of the entire league is on the rise but I am definitely of the opinion that the NFL will suffer massively from that. Right now the NFL is the only major sport left where the owners still have the power and have managed to keep the players from running the league and we all know that pro football is far and away the best sport there is in terms of parity. The NBA and MLB have been completely taken over by the selfish players and there is basically no reason to watch their regular seasons anymore because only a handful of teams any given year have any chance to win it all. The NFL however sees massive turnover in its playoff teams almost every year and that is because teams can't simply buy their way to championships like teams in the other sports can. I know that nobody is playing any violins for the billionaire owners but to me this is not a money or wealth issue, but instead an issue of protecting the sports themselves. The players running their respective leagues and wielding all the power simply leads to a degradation of the product on the field and if the NFL owners don't keep their employees in check in the upcoming CBA you can expect pro football to become just as stale and unwatchable (at least in the regular season) as the NBA and MLB are. Just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patriotsheatyan Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, megatechpc said: Well clearly the pay scale of the entire league is on the rise but I am definitely of the opinion that the NFL will suffer massively from that. Right now the NFL is the only major sport left where the owners still have the power and have managed to keep the players from running the league and we all know that pro football is far and away the best sport there is in terms of parity. The NBA and MLB have been completely taken over by the selfish players and there is basically no reason to watch their regular seasons anymore because only a handful of teams any given year have any chance to win it all. The NFL however sees massive turnover in its playoff teams almost every year and that is because teams can't simply buy their way to championships like teams in the other sports can. I know that nobody is playing any violins for the billionaire owners but to me this is not a money or wealth issue, but instead an issue of protecting the sports themselves. The players running their respective leagues and wielding all the power simply leads to a degradation of the product on the field and if the NFL owners don't keep their employees in check in the upcoming CBA you can expect pro football to become just as stale and unwatchable (at least in the regular season) as the NBA and MLB are. Just my opinion though. What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatechpc Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 I know its an unpopular opinion and I'm sure to get a lot of heat for saying it, but the truth of the matter is that players having control over their respective sports is ultimately terrible for those sports in the long run, not because I hate the players or love the owners, but because there has to be a framework in place that keeps players hungry, competitive and accountable for their play. The only way that can happen is if the teams themselves retain control of the money and how much of it they can spend on their rosters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 25 minutes ago, megatechpc said: I know its an unpopular opinion and I'm sure to get a lot of heat for saying it, but the truth of the matter is that players having control over their respective sports is ultimately terrible for those sports in the long run, not because I hate the players or love the owners, but because there has to be a framework in place that keeps players hungry, competitive and accountable for their play. The only way that can happen is if the teams themselves retain control of the money and how much of it they can spend on their rosters. Clearly the opinion of someone who doesn't watch hockey lol... The other sports as well, but I focus on hockey because of the grueling playoffs. But seriously, not a great take imo. You're going to have players in all sports who pay and then lay down, and others who get paid and fight until they can't anymore. **Edit** Okay, you also referenced a hard cap, so hockey wasn't the best example, but I still don't see how this changes the idea of basketball or baseball players being less accountable or competitive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 1 hour ago, megatechpc said: Its an important point to note that both the Bears and Rams are still in the fortunate situation of not having to pay their QB's a ton of money since they are still on their rookie deals. The Raiders already gave Carr a massive contract last year so they don't have the flexibility to pay a non-QB the same kind of money. Can you think of any teams out there that have had to pay their franchise QB a massive contract that have also offered more than $20 million per year to any other players on their roster? I can't... All true, and the heart of the trade, I think. 17 minutes ago, megatechpc said: I know its an unpopular opinion and I'm sure to get a lot of heat for saying it, but the truth of the matter is that players having control over their respective sports is ultimately terrible for those sports in the long run, not because I hate the players or love the owners, but because there has to be a framework in place that keeps players hungry, competitive and accountable for their play. The only way that can happen is if the teams themselves retain control of the money and how much of it they can spend on their rosters. Huh? How on earth do the players have control of MLB and the NBA? This doesn't make any sense. At all. Could you explain why you feel this way? For clarity, at least? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobikus Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 The players running the sport and pushing out the owners sounds like a great idea actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper652 Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 I'd say the Bears won easily. He's worth every penny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Mack is the first player since 1982 to have a sack, interception, td, fumble, and fumble recovery in the 1st half. I bet the Raiders as a team wont do that in one half all season long. The Raiders really screwed it up. They let go of a guy who wrecks offensive gameplans and nearly ruined the Packers season. Like the salary cap is increasing every year. It wouldnt be as bad as people think if the Raiders wouldve signed Mack long term.This trade looks bad by the second for the Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.