Blue Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Technically we knew the final result of this trade last year, but with Damon Arnette's release, I would love to revisit one of the worst trades in NFL history just to emphasize how badly Jon Gruden screwed up. Chicago got: Edge Khalil Mack TE Cole Kmet OT Arlington Hambright Oakland/Las Vegas got: RB Josh Jacobs CB Blessuan Austin (traded as a draft pick to the New York Jets) CB Damon Arnette WR Bryan Edwards Even throwing out Arnette's recent situation...those weren't even bad draft picks by the Raiders, all things considered. But it really goes to show how dumb it is to trade a superstar talent just because you don't want to pay him (and let's be clear, that is the only reason the Raiders traded him). Some folks are gonna go, "well, the Raiders could have done better, you can't blame them for missing/not using those picks better," but that's kind of the point. This is a pretty decent haul for what they got from the Bears and they still clearly lost the trade. If winning a trade like this requires you to draft multiple star players in return, it wasn't a good trade--and any team that would be able to do that would also recognize that they already have a star on their hands in Khalil Mack and wouldn't have traded him in the first place. They'd absolutely be a better team now with Mack than they were with all the players they got from that trade, almost none of whom have panned out as every-down players or stayed healthy/on the team, and they've had to spend they money they saved on trading Mack and draft picks to upgrade the defensive end position anyways. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tk3 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Agreed. The Rams have the right approach. Convert several "unknowns" each year into 1 known commodity I don't remember the Mack situation specifically. If you're 100% sure he's going to walk, then getting that pick package is better than letting him walk, especially if you are not a contender. But if its just "I'm new here and want to make my mark on this team, and bring in MY guys", it's usually not big-braining to sell a superstar for a couple of picks, no matter how good they are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Didn't they also get $15 million or so from that trade in cap space? If not, then yeah, that's really bad, but I think you also have to account for the money gained when you offload a guy with a big contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Daniel said: Didn't they also get $15 million or so from that trade in cap space? If not, then yeah, that's really bad, but I think you also have to account for the money gained when you offload a guy with a big contract. I’d argue that there isn’t likely another player or two that can have the same impact as a superstar. Now if you have to pay a premier QB, than yeah, unloading a player like Mack might be a necessity. Wouldn’t put Carr in that premier group but I’m sure unloading Mack helped keep Carr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 41 minutes ago, Tk3 said: Agreed. The Rams have the right approach. Convert several "unknowns" each year into 1 known commodity I don't remember the Mack situation specifically. If you're 100% sure he's going to walk, then getting that pick package is better than letting him walk, especially if you are not a contender. But if its just "I'm new here and want to make my mark on this team, and bring in MY guys", it's usually not big-braining to sell a superstar for a couple of picks, no matter how good they are Even if they thought he was going to walk, they had him for at least two more years between 5th year option and franchise tag. Potentially 3 years if they really wanted. 32 minutes ago, Daniel said: Didn't they also get $15 million or so from that trade in cap space? If not, then yeah, that's really bad, but I think you also have to account for the money gained when you offload a guy with a big contract. Yes, but they've had to use that money anyways to fill the void (unsuccessfully). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrOaktown_56 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 8 minutes ago, Blue said: Even if they thought he was going to walk, they had him for at least two more years between 5th year option and franchise tag. Potentially 3 years if they really wanted. Yes, but they've had to use that money anyways to fill the void (unsuccessfully). You sure about that? Ngakoue is 4 years younger than Mack and is out producing him. Crosby is 24 and is out producing him. The trade sucked, but we are definitely on top now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said: You sure about that? Ngakoue is 4 years younger than Mack and is out producing him. Crosby is 24 and is out producing him. The trade sucked, but we are definitely on top now. 1) lol the most stats-oriented argument I've ever seen 2) this is ignoring the fact that you would have had Mack the past three years instead of one year of Ngakoue AND the fact Mack has outproduced Ngakoue for that entire span 3) you could have had Crosby either way 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tk3 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 17 minutes ago, Blue said: Even if they thought he was going to walk, they had him for at least two more years between 5th year option and franchise tag. Potentially 3 years if they really wanted. Oh, I agree 100% I was more talking about a hypothetical situation in which I WOULD be supportive of trading a superstar I agree the Mack deal specifically wasn't a smart decision 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tk3 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 13 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said: You sure about that? Ngakoue is 4 years younger than Mack and is out producing him. Crosby is 24 and is out producing him. The trade sucked, but we are definitely on top now.  8 minutes ago, Blue said: 1) lol the most stats-oriented argument I've ever seen 2) this is ignoring the fact that you would have had Mack the past three years instead of one year of Ngakoue AND the fact Mack has outproduced Ngakoue for that entire span 3) you could have had Crosby either way  Agree with Blue. The trade could be a serious net-negative AND you can still be ahead today from where you were at the time of the trade. They are not mutually exclusive. Imagine if you kept Mack AND you acquired Crosby and the other talent 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrOaktown_56 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 21 minutes ago, Blue said: 1) lol the most stats-oriented argument I've ever seen 2) this is ignoring the fact that you would have had Mack the past three years instead of one year of Ngakoue AND the fact Mack has outproduced Ngakoue for that entire span 3) you could have had Crosby either way Not really. Ngakoue is top 10 in pressures. And Ngakoue costs half as much as mack. Much rather have Yannick for 13 than mack for 23.5, especially considering the age difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrOaktown_56 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 11 minutes ago, Tk3 said: Â Â Agree with Blue. The trade could be a serious net-negative AND you can still be ahead today from where you were at the time of the trade. They are not mutually exclusive. Imagine if you kept Mack AND you acquired Crosby and the other talent I'm good. Mack isn't worth his contract anymore. From Mack's salary, we are paying our entire defensive line and more. And I love him as a player. Always have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 1 minute ago, MrOaktown_56 said: Not really. Ngakoue and Crosby are both top 10 in pressures. And Ngakoue costs half as much as mack. Much rather have Yannick for 13 than mack for 25, especially considering the age difference. Again: Mack being there has absolutely no bearing on whether you have Crosby or not, and you have only had Ngakoue for half a season. That half season is not worth as much as having Mack for the past two and a half. Even if you want to argue Mack is older and struggling through injuries, which are both fair points, he has still outproduced Ngakoue over the last three years and more importantly would have been producing for your team instead of Baltimore, Jacksonville, and Minnesota like Ngakoue was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrOaktown_56 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Just now, Blue said: Again: Mack being there has absolutely no bearing on whether you have Crosby or not, and you have only had Ngakoue for half a season. That half season is not worth as much as having Mack for the past two and a half. Even if you want to argue Mack is older and struggling through injuries, which are both fair points, he has still outproduced Ngakoue over the last three years and more importantly would have been producing for your team instead of Baltimore, Jacksonville, and Minnesota like Ngakoue was. 100%. But the intent of the trade was correct. We weren't going anywhere even with Mack. The defense was not even NFL caliber until this year in terms of talent. Now it's made a big jump, but there was no reason to hold onto an aging superstar during a rebuild. We blew the picks 100%, but there was a reason we made the trade. At least we got compensation for him. A lot more than the Broncos got for Von. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said: 100%. But the intent of the trade was correct. We weren't going anywhere even with Mack. The defense was not even NFL caliber until this year in terms of talent. Now it's made a big jump, but there was no reason to hold onto an aging superstar during a rebuild. We blew the picks 100%, but there was a reason we made the trade. At least we got compensation for him. A lot more than the Broncos got for Von. I feel like you're ignoring my other point, which is that I don't think you did blow the picks 100%. I think the Raiders did alright with their selections--but alright is not good enough when you're trading a player of Mack's caliber, imo. I also don't agree that they weren't going anywhere with Mack. This is a better team with Khalil Mack, and it's not like they spent the money they saved on not paying him on players who helped them win more games. As for "aging," he was 26 going on 27 when they made the trade. It's absurd to claim he was in any way "declining" at that point. If this was truly a concern, they still had him on a 5th year option and a franchise tag for another two years. If they felt he was declining at that point, then they still have the option to tag and trade him and pick up Ngakoue anyways. Maybe they don't get the same value that they got IRL, but they also get a superstar player for an extra two years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 (edited) Still a dumb trade for the Bears. Edited November 9, 2021 by incognito_man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.