Who won the Khalil Mack trade?

[Pool]

3 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

I might be bias because I’m a packer fan (I will also say that I was against gb trading for Mack) but I’ll say Oakland won and Chicago was stupid for making tho deal. I don’t think Chicago is close enough to make this worth their time. They are still a 7 win team. If you are going to make a trade like this for a non qb, you have to be somewhat close. In 3 years Mack will 30, they’ll be paying him 20m a year, and won’t have as many young pieces. For Oakland they got picks (cheap labor with 4 years of control) and extra cap space. It sucks for this year, but in 3 years they’ll be better off

I think after this season a lot of people will realize that Chicago is a lot closer than they think they are right now. They very likely will have a top 5 D. They have talented WR's, RB's, and TE's. A solid O-line that might get better with Daniels and a 2nd year QB who should improve drastically from last year because of the new offensive weapons, coaching change, and the play calling. If they are a 7 win team this year it'll only be because they are still adjusting to new schemes, teammates, etc, being on the losing side of a couple really close-could have gone either way- type games, injuries, or Trubisky is just bad. Not to mention an absolutely brutal NFC. Year 2 they could be a ten win playoff bound team with ease. A lot of that will depend on Trubisky though and that is still a pretty big question mark.

[Pool]

1 minute ago, BayRaider said:

Raiders and Bears are the two worst teams in the league this year and the Raiders get Ed Oliver and Nick Bosa, the two best defensive prospects since Myles Garrett 

Whaaaaaat? 

[Soko]

12 minutes ago, patriotsheatyan said:

Yeah, the only way to win in the NFL is with Khalil Mack, with all of the great defenses he has lead. Without Mack, you cannot content. 

Can you name a single good defensive  player on the last couple Raiders teams..? 

Bruce Irvin and one year of David Anderson are probably all we’re looking at here, with some sprinkles of a Mario Edwards. Maybe one year of Reggie Nelson. Raiders fans can come correct me if I’m missing anyone substantial, but that team hasn’t exactly been swimming in defensive talent - which is exactly why the FO wanted to trade Mack, for more resources to shore up the holes on their team. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

26 minutes ago, patriotsheatyan said:

Yeah, the only way to win in the NFL is with Khalil Mack, with all of the great defenses he has lead. Without Mack, you cannot content. 

That's not in any way what I said, but okay.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Yea, you're forgetting half of the importance of this trade. The Raiders get those picks AND $23 million per year in cap room that isn't going to Mack. 

I mean, I guess...

[MrOaktown_56]

2 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

I mean, I guess...

This is all contingent on the Raiders. The bears have gotten a stellar defensive player and are paying him accordingly. The Raiders could take the combination of picks and cap space and create something amazing. Or it could crash and burn.

For what it's worth , Casey Hayward, KJ Wright, and Linval Joseph are making less than 23.5 million combined this year. Obviously, those are good values/contracts and not overpays, but it goes to show that you can get good talent for that kind of money.

[Gannon12]

20 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Can you name a single good defensive  player on the last couple Raiders teams..? 

Bruce Irvin and one year of David Anderson are probably all we’re looking at here, with some sprinkles of a Mario Edwards. Maybe one year of Reggie Nelson. Raiders fans can come correct me if I’m missing anyone substantial, but that team hasn’t exactly been swimming in defensive talent - which is exactly why the FO wanted to trade Mack, for more resources to shore up the holes on their team. 

The god Jihad the terminator Ward 

[jaa1025]

The Raiders won. 

Mack is one of the best defenders in the league at a premium position. He's in his prime. 

The Raiders had 3 choices: 

1) Call his bluff and force him to play on his 5th year + franchise tag him. He'd have likely fallen off by then and they could resign for cheaper. 

2) Sign him to a contract like this, which is a horrible contract and will hurt the bears for a few years. 

3) Trade him. 

 

I'm shocked at the return they got to be honest. People generally believe only certain QB's are worth multiple 1st round picks and only certain ones. Mack is 27? He has 20.5 sacks in the past two seasons. How many seasons does he have left until he starts his decline if he hasn't already? Tamba Hali is probably a good comparison and his last good season was at 30. He fell pretty hard after that. 

 

[Soko]

11 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

For what it's worth , Casey Hayward, KJ Wright, and Linval Joseph are making less than 23.5 million combined this year. Obviously, those are good values/contracts and not overpays, but it goes to show that you can get good talent for that kind of money.

Casey Hayward’s extension is 3-years for $36M ($12M AAV). Linval’s extension, signed in 2017, is 4-years for $50M ($12.5M AAV). Wright’s extension, signed in 2014, is 4-years for $27M ($6.75M AAV). 

So not only does that AAV breach Mack’s AAV ($31.25M vs $23.5M) but only one of those was a deal made in 2018. Contracts are inflating, so while a guy like Joseph may still be around for his contract value - give or take - Wright’s deal is 4 years old.

I know you said that that’s what they’re making in 2018, specifically avoiding their AAV, but that seems pretty disingenuous if you’re going to use Mack’s AAV but not their’s. 

 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

5 minutes ago, jaa1025 said:

The Raiders won. 

Mack is one of the best defenders in the league at a premium position. He's in his prime. 

The Raiders had 3 choices: 

1) Call his bluff and force him to play on his 5th year + franchise tag him. He'd have likely fallen off by then and they could resign for cheaper. 

2) Sign him to a contract like this, which is a horrible contract and will hurt the bears for a few years. 

3) Trade him. 

 

I'm shocked at the return they got to be honest. People generally believe only certain QB's are worth multiple 1st round picks and only certain ones. Mack is 27? He has 20.5 sacks in the past two seasons. How many seasons does he have left until he starts his decline if he hasn't already? Tamba Hali is probably a good comparison and his last good season was at 30. He fell pretty hard after that. 

 

wtf?

[megatechpc]

2 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

That 23 million is not insignificant. The way we win this trade is IF WE CAN CONSTRUCT A SOLID ROSTER. One player, as amazing as Mack is, will not do that. They won't. If we can acquire good (not great) defensive talent on rookie deals and sign smart free agents, this may help us.

This is exactly what I've been screaming ever since news of this trade hit the wires.  Every talk radio show I listen to couldn't wait to jump in and start smashing the Raiders and Jon Gruden for being so incredibly stupid to trade away Khalil Mack but I was sitting there thinking, wait, this actually isn't a bad plan at all.  Granted, you cannot just assume they will turn those 4 first rounders into perennial pro-bowlers, but you don't make moves like this assuming anything other than the potential gain that four top-32 draft picks can get you (and its not as if any GM assumes all their picks are gonna be bad).  Just look at this year's draft for instance; most of the first rounders brought in this year are widely considered to be great players (I can't think of many picks this year that were projected to be bad players) such as Derwin James, Bradley Chubb, Quenton Nelson, Saquon Barkley, Roquan Smith, etc.  Which of those players are you assuming will be bad players or couldn't possibly end up on the level with a Khalil Mack?  Well the Raiders now have FOUR bites at the apple coming to them in the next two years, so to assume all four will end up being no where near the caliber of Mack is just as silly as assuming all four will be better than him.

When all is said and done, I think you have to judge this trade not on however great you think Mack is, or on how supposedly dumb Gruden is for shipping him to Chicago, but instead on whether or not the PLAN they have has merit or not.  The plan really looks like a strategic decision to sacrifice the short term success of the team (which didn't look all that promising even with Mack on the roster) for the long term outlook through the acquisition of a ton of high-rated prospects and its a strategy that has yielded immense success for other organizations recently (Houston Astros, Philly 76ers, etc) so its not a strategy that should be dismissed out of hand.  

And don't forget, I didn't even mention the massive cap savings that this trade yielded the Raiders and the fact that ALL of these high end college prospects will be coming in at bargain prices, even any of the players that may be even potentially BETTER than Mack (if the Raiders get lucky with just one of their four picks).

Edited September 4, 2018 by megatechpc

[MrOaktown_56]

7 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Casey Hayward’s extension is 3-years for $36M ($12M AAV). Linval’s extension, signed in 2017, is 4-years for $50M ($12.5M AAV). Wright’s extension, signed in 2014, is 4-years for $27M ($6.75M AAV). 

So not only does that AAV breach Mack’s AAV ($31.25M vs $23.5M) but only one of those was a deal made in 2018. Contracts are inflating, so while a guy like Joseph may still be around for his contract value - give or take - Wright’s deal is 4 years old.

I know you said that that’s what they’re making in 2018, specifically avoiding their AAV, but that seems pretty disingenuous if you’re going to use Mack’s AAV but not their’s. 

 

I was trying to illustrate an extreme. But on their current deals, KJ Wright and Hayward still cost less than Mack. Those are two very good players. And while contracts are still inflating, my point stands that you can add 2 good starters with that money, if not 3 who aren't quite at these guys level.

[RandyMossIsBoss]

Easily the Bears, and I believe anyone who say otherwise simply overvalues draft picks and "potential." Khalil Mack is a future HOFer at arguably the 2nd most important position. Getting a player like that for what amounts to about 1 1st and 1 2nd/3rd is incredible value. Of course you have to pay him, and that will hurt early, but the Bears were a team that could easily afford such a contract and also are dealing with a QB who won't need to get paid for at least another few years.

 

For the Raiders, I mean, I don't know I just don't think you ever trade that kind of talent because you're never going to get a fair return since the team trading for such a player is going to have to give them an enormous contract. However, if set on moving on from Mack, this is probably about as well as they could have done. I believe teams value picks a lot more in 2018 than they did back when Jared Allen fetched 2 1st round picks.

 

 

I know the Eagles don't have a bit of regret for paying Cox years ago to what would be a similar contract today, and Cox was/is an inferior player. Value picks too much and you will fall down a dangerous hole. If you have good talent, keep them. I believe this approach was instrumental to Eagles SB run, and we saw the Rams do it this offseason. 

Edited September 4, 2018 by RandyMossIsBoss

[megatechpc]

9 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

Easily the Bears, and I believe anyone who say otherwise simply overvalues draft picks and "potential." Khalil Mack is a future HOFer at arguably the 2nd most important position. Getting a player like that for what amounts to about 1 1st and 1 2nd/3rd is incredible value. Of course you have to pay him, and that will hurt early, but the Bears were a team that could easily afford such a contract and also are dealing with a QB who won't need to get paid for at least another few years.

 

For the Raiders, I mean, I don't know I just don't think you ever trade that kind of talent because you're never going to get a fair return since the team trading for such a player is going to have to give them an enormous contract. However, if set on moving on from Mack, this is probably about as well as they could have done. I believe teams value picks a lot more in 2018 than they did back when Jared Allen fetched 2 1st round picks.

That's not how I see the trade.  I see it as Mack for two firsts, and the second rounder was just swapped for Chicago's third rounder.  Either way, the fact is that Oakland now has 4 of the first 64 picks over the next two years, and with the way everybody was slobbering all over this year's first round picks I don't think that's bad value at all (especially when you also consider the monetary cap savings not having to sign Mack gives the Raiders as they start their rebuild).*  

Had Oakland followed up 2016's surprise success with a 2017 where they made a serious playoff run I'd agree that this trade was crazy.  But they didn't.  They finished 6-10 last year and had little reason to believe they'd be among the top teams in the AFC this year or next either.  Thing is, they already have a pretty good franchise QB in place for years (which is always the hardest position to fill when you start a rebuild) so there is plenty of reason to believe that shipping Mack out and reallocating those resources to other areas of need while simultaneously ensuring yourself of 4 first round picks in the next two years is pretty much the best scenario you can have for a rebuild.

* Side note - People generally judge things with the present-tense first and foremost in their minds (and since we are just 3 days away from the start of a regular season that doesn't look so good for the Raiders, people are narrowing their focus down to just the immediate ramifications to this season), but ask Raiders fans how they view this trade in the run-up to the 2019 draft when they are sitting on two first rounders.  I bet they will be pretty happy then.

Edited September 4, 2018 by megatechpc

[MrOaktown_56]

14 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

Easily the Bears, and I believe anyone who say otherwise simply overvalues draft picks and "potential." Khalil Mack is a future HOFer at arguably the 2nd most important position. Getting a player like that for what amounts to about 1 1st and 1 2nd/3rd is incredible value. Of course you have to pay him, and that will hurt early, but the Bears were a team that could easily afford such a contract and also are dealing with a QB who won't need to get paid for at least another few years.

 

For the Raiders, I mean, I don't know I just don't think you ever trade that kind of talent because you're never going to get a fair return since the team trading for such a player is going to have to give them an enormous contract. However, if set on moving on from Mack, this is probably about as well as they could have done. I believe teams value picks a lot more in 2018 than they did back when Jared Allen fetched 2 1st round picks.

 

 

I know the Eagles don't have a bit of regret for paying Cox years ago to what would be a similar contract today, and Cox was/is an inferior player. Value picks too much and you will fall down a dangerous hole. If you have good talent, keep them. I believe this approach was instrumental to Eagles SB run, and we saw the Rams do it this offseason. 

3

3

Swapping a 2nd for a 3rd and gaining 2 first rounders is not equivalent to a 1st and a 2nd/3rd by any metric.

If we assume all these picks are at the middle of the round (16th):

By the trade value chart that GM's often use:

2 1sts 1000 points each, minus the second (-420 points), plus the 3rd(190 points).

That's a net of about 1800 points, which is like two first round picks around 18th.  

You're forgetting that the Eagles have a qb on a rookie deal and a lot of good players on rookie deals. If the Raiders did too, they would have extended Mack.

Edited September 4, 2018 by MrOaktown_56