Around the NFL

[Forge]

FWIW, I Think the most comparable player to Mack getting traded is probably still Jared Allen. Coming off an all pro season, 15.5 sacks, was only 25/26 at time of trade. He went for a first and two thirds and a swap of 6ths. Obviously, Allen would have been worth two firsts, but again, the market was simply not there. I think that's what happens to Mack. I'm all for going after Mack, I just don't know that two firsts is necessary. A first / second / conditional could probably get it done as the best deal for the Raiders (interestingly, I wonder if the Bears would shop Roquan to the Raiders in any deal involving Mack). 

Who was the last roster player who got traded for two firsts, does anyone know? I know that technically Walker got traded for 3 firsts, but that's because Minnesota was horribly outplayed and outsmarted with regards to the conditions on the trade (as it involved cutting players that the Cowboys acquired). Eric Dickerson yielded two first round picks. I'm trying to think of any player in recent memory, however, that has yielded that strong of a return. 

@y2lamanaki where you at with this research? 

[J-ALL-DAY]

With Buckner up for a deal this offseason, man those two will make up like 90% of our cap space from the defensive side of the ball lol.

[big9erfan]

The thing is that one first would only land us one player. Chances of that player being as good as Mack are slim, even if we were picking very high ... very low if we're picking near 30. So the premium of giving up a second first to know you're getting a guy like Mack instead of the crapshoot of guy in the lower part of the first round seems like a small price to pay to me. Maybe we can do better depending on who else wants to get into the bidding, but giving up one incremental low round first to get Mack instead of whoever we would land with the other first we'd give up still seems  like a good deal to me.

To me, Multi-time Pro Bowler >> two random low first rounders

[J-ALL-DAY]

5 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

The thing is that one first would only land us one player. Chances of that player being as good as Mack are slim, even if we were picking very high ... very low if we're picking near 30. So the premium of giving up a second first to know you're getting a guy like Mack instead of the crapshoot of guy in the lower part of the draft seems like a small price to pay to me. Maybe we can do better depending on who else wants to get into the bidding, but giving up one incremental low round first to get Mack instead of whoever we would land with the other first we'd give up still seems  like a good deal to me.

To me, Multi-time Pro Bowler >> two random low first rounders

Definitely, that is my thinking as well. And it fills a need of a position we desperately lack at. It is arguably the second most important position in the league and we are pretty suspect there. Mack instantly changes the outlook of this defense. Not even fair to think of Buckner/Mack together. May even be better than the Smith bros duo we had from 2011-2014. 

[Forge]

29 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

With Buckner up for a deal this offseason, man those two will make up like 90% of our cap space from the defensive side of the ball lol.

Buckner will be 17 million AAV I imagine. Mack 20. Jimmy G is 27 after next year. That's 64 million (a third of the cap), tied into 3 players. Believe it or not, if the cap somewhat flatlines (not expected, but you never know given declining ratings and the like), Jimmy's contract already puts us a bit behind the 8 ball. He counts for over 15.5% of the cap on an AAV basis...the highest cap hit for a quarterback on a superbowl winning team is a little over 13%, I believe (Steve Young). Now, I don't expect the cap to flatline, but that's important to note because now we are tying up a third of our cap on three players if that is the case. We would need cheap, good labor in that situation, particularly with the likes of Staley retiring soon at another of the most important positions in the nfl which would certainly be difficult without two first round picks. It's this reason that I don't think the market for him is two firsts. Sure, that could be the asking price, but I think the Raiders find the market a barren place in that situation because I think teams are reticent to give up that kind of return because of that exact situation I just mentioned. In that situation, you're largely gunning for the super bowl over a 2 year window, which is fine, but should set expectations. 

I could absolutely be wrong...after all, it takes just one team, but I really have a hard time seeing him go for two firsts despite the fact that he's easily worth it. 

[Forge]

Antonio Callaway cited for weed and driving on a suspended license. Well, I feel comfortable saying that my #95 pick in are you smarter than a GM won't work out too well LOL

[big9erfan]

2 hours ago, Forge said:

Buckner will be 17 million AAV I imagine. Mack 20. Jimmy G is 27 after next year. That's 64 million (a third of the cap), tied into 3 players. Believe it or not, if the cap somewhat flatlines (not expected, but you never know given declining ratings and the like), Jimmy's contract already puts us a bit behind the 8 ball. He counts for over 15.5% of the cap on an AAV basis...the highest cap hit for a quarterback on a superbowl winning team is a little over 13%, I believe (Steve Young). Now, I don't expect the cap to flatline, but that's important to note because now we are tying up a third of our cap on three players if that is the case. We would need cheap, good labor in that situation, particularly with the likes of Staley retiring soon at another of the most important positions in the nfl which would certainly be difficult without two first round picks. It's this reason that I don't think the market for him is two firsts. Sure, that could be the asking price, but I think the Raiders find the market a barren place in that situation because I think teams are reticent to give up that kind of return because of that exact situation I just mentioned. In that situation, you're largely gunning for the super bowl over a 2 year window, which is fine, but should set expectations. 

I could absolutely be wrong...after all, it takes just one team, but I really have a hard time seeing him go for two firsts despite the fact that he's easily worth it. 

Ahhhh. There's always the cap to consider.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

6 hours ago, Forge said:

Buckner will be 17 million AAV I imagine. Mack 20. Jimmy G is 27 after next year. That's 64 million (a third of the cap), tied into 3 players. Believe it or not, if the cap somewhat flatlines (not expected, but you never know given declining ratings and the like), Jimmy's contract already puts us a bit behind the 8 ball. He counts for over 15.5% of the cap on an AAV basis...the highest cap hit for a quarterback on a superbowl winning team is a little over 13%, I believe (Steve Young). Now, I don't expect the cap to flatline, but that's important to note because now we are tying up a third of our cap on three players if that is the case. We would need cheap, good labor in that situation, particularly with the likes of Staley retiring soon at another of the most important positions in the nfl which would certainly be difficult without two first round picks. It's this reason that I don't think the market for him is two firsts. Sure, that could be the asking price, but I think the Raiders find the market a barren place in that situation because I think teams are reticent to give up that kind of return because of that exact situation I just mentioned. In that situation, you're largely gunning for the super bowl over a 2 year window, which is fine, but should set expectations. 

I could absolutely be wrong...after all, it takes just one team, but I really have a hard time seeing him go for two firsts despite the fact that he's easily worth it. 

A good chunk of our cap being tied up in Jimmy, Mack, and Young Buck? I'll allow it.

[757-NINER]

16 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

With Buckner up for a deal this offseason, man those two will make up like 90% of our cap space from the defensive side of the ball lol.

Not quite 90% but yeah, those two along with Jimmy G will tie up a significant amount of our cap. But I think that's a good problem to have. When you have three players who are considered top tier@their position, you're going to have to to pay them. But I think a player like Mack makes us a legitimate playoff team. That's how much of impact I think he makes for this defense. He's like the prototype Leo. His presence on the edge transforms the front seven, as well as makes the secondary that much formidable. I just think the gains outweigh the cap impact. 

 

 

 

 

[Forge]

6 hours ago, 757-NINER said:

Not quite 90% but yeah, those two along with Jimmy G will tie up a significant amount of our cap. But I think that's a good problem to have. When you have three players who are considered top tier@their position, you're going to have to to pay them. But I think a player like Mack makes us a legitimate playoff team. That's how much of impact I think he makes for this defense. He's like the prototype Leo. His presence on the edge transforms the front seven, as well as makes the secondary that much formidable. I just think the gains outweigh the cap impact. 

If three players are taking up over a third of the cap, that's not really a good thing. It doesn't really outweigh the cap impact. Recent super bowl winners and the percentage of cap taken up by their highest paid 3 players - 

2017 - Philadelphia Eagles 17.38% (Their cap management is excellent - their top 6 players only took up 31% of the cap, but obviously that is considerably helped by Wentz on a rookie deal)

2016 - Patriots 21.56% (Top 6 took up about 34% of the cap)

2015 - Denver 28.47% (Top 4 took up 35% of cap). This is the one that would most closely resemble our situation, I think, and the one that would give us hope, though admittedly our defense even with Mack would have a hard time measuring up to that unit, though our offense would be vastly superior. In the two years following this one, they are 16-18. 

2014 - Seattle 22.23% (Top 5 took up slightly less than one third)

2013 - Baltimore 25% (Top 5 took up 34.8% of the cap). This is pretty close to the danger zone (and remember, Baltimore basically had to go through a complete tear down over the next two years)

2012 - Giants 23.47% (top 4 took up 30.64% of cap, top 5 pushed it to 37%). The following 4 years after this, they managed to win only 28 games (28 - 36)

2011 - Packers 21.09 (Top 5 took up 32.5% of the cap). 

If we are just talking based on AAV, based on Jimmy's 27m cap hit (he's higher this year, lower next year, but then right at 27 the next 3), Bucker @ 17 and Mack at 20, we'd have our highest three taking up a whopping 37% of the current salary cap. 

So if we were to do that, it's fairly unprecedented in recent years (I couldn't get info before 2011). That being said, this is based on a lot of supposition and guess work and timing and structure very much matter here. One, it assumes the cap flatlines, where it has consistently gone up 10M each year for the past 6 years. I don't expect that to continue indefinitely of course, but I wouldn't be shocked if it continues to rise another year or two (nor would I be surprised if it did in fact flatline). However, Even if it were to raise 20 million over the next two years, those three would still constitute over 33% of the cap number, which is nearly 5% over the highest super bowl winning team from 2011 - present.  It also assumes that the contract figures are right, though I think largely we are pretty good estimating that the average cap hit is going to be 20 (Mack) and 17 (Buckner), based on comparable player salaries with possible slight inflation (Buckner could hit close to 18 I suppose). 

The biggest thing though is that it would largely depend on the structure of the contracts, as well as the timing and signing of each. Jimmy G is already taken care of course. Mack would probably need to be signed immediately with a big hit the first year to match up with Jimmy G's lower cap hit next year. Buckner would wait a year, get re-signed the second year, and have his first year his coincide with Macks downplayed second year. Now, you don't want to use up all the guarantees early for Mack, or you may end up in a Julio situation, so the third year may need a fully guaranteed roster bonus that is pretty decent. It's a very tricky scenario. There are additional options though. By year three, you could extend Jimmy, which would be early, but allow for conversion of his base into signing bonus that could free up quite a bit of space, and given his age, wouldn't be hugely detrimental because you'd expect him to be able to play out even the extended contract at a high level. There's just a lot of moving parts. 

I'd have faith that Paraag could get this done where the three of them combined don't absorb a third of the cap, but until I would have real numbers, it's all guesswork, and if those three did take up a third of the cap, I don't think it's all that sustainable. I'm not really looking to just be competitive and go to the playoffs. We are on that track already in my opinion, and I would think that we are in that market as soon as next year (I know that some people think it's realistic this year, which is possible), so Mack does nothing for me if it's just about making us a legitimate playoff contender. 

[oldman9er]

I'm not even all that hyped on getting Mack at the expected cost (he's not much better than Marsh)

Goodwin's a deep speed baller, so other than him, they really don't have to spend big bucks at WR, RB, or TE for years to come. Jimmy G that good! They won't have to stick with guys like McKinnon or Garcon for much longer... and other guys with high price tags will be gone soon too.

[big9erfan]

7 hours ago, 757-NINER said:

Not quite 90% but yeah, those two along with Jimmy G will tie up a significant amount of our cap. But I think that's a good problem to have. When you have three players who are considered top tier@their position, you're going to have to to pay them. But I think a player like Mack makes us a legitimate playoff team. That's how much of impact I think he makes for this defense. He's like the prototype Leo. His presence on the edge transforms the front seven, as well as makes the secondary that much formidable. I just think the gains outweigh the cap impact. 

 

 

 

 

I've said it a number of times. Drafting for the future is outdated in the world of the Cap. Only two things happen with those young guys - they don't turn into much, or they do and you won't be able to afford to keep many of them. You need to nail down the QB spot and then you need young guys that can conteributre quickly wioth a sprinkling of FAs to fill some holes. When you see a window of opportunity you have to go for it. I'm probably more optimistic than many here. I see that we have potential now. So I'd be happy to go after Mack and see if that can push us over the top.

[Forge]

Just for fun, I did the super bowl runner ups each year as well. These are a lot more forgiving with regards to the cap being more in our situation. 

2017 - Patriots 22.05% top 3 (Top 6, 35%, Top 7 only 38%)

2016 - Falcons 29.91% top 3 (Top 4 33.4%). This is actually the one that would give us hope to be competitive. The Falcons haven't fallen off yet completely, though typically I would assume (as I said earlier), that you're looking at a 2 year window when structured up similar to this, so will be interesting to see what happens this year. What makes this so fascinating is that had they won, Ryan would have destroyed the record for highest cap hit percentage by a quarterback (by nearly 2.5%). They had 25% of their cap tied into two players (Ryan / Julio), Then everyone else was 4.15% or lower. Vastly different than the structures of the other teams at this time, which seem to have a heavy does of guys who tie up between 5-9% of the cap. This team got a lot of help from guys on rookie deals - Beasley, Neal, Coleman, Freeman, Deion Jones, Ricardo Allen and Robert Alford were all major contributors on that squad, and most made 600K or less. This is actually a pretty fascinating set up, all things considered. Obviously, got to hit on those non-first round picks to make this work. Also helps to have an outlier great season from your quarterback. 

2015 - Carolina 30.85% top 3. It basically took an outlier incredible season from Cam to make this work, but again, makes it look slightly more possible. 

2014 - Seattle 22.23% top 3 (top 5 32.5% of cap). 

2013 - Denver 30.7% top 3. This was Manning's insane 55 touchdown, 5500 yard season. 

2012 - 49ers 24.6% top 3 (Top 5, 34%)

2011 - Pats 23.21% top 3 (32.69% top 5). 

So while this is a little more forgiving, the outliers (FAlcons, Carolina, Denver), did rely on statistically variant MVP / historical seasons from it's quarterback that was out line with what they had done prior / since (well except Manning - he had come close to similar seasons before, just none as good as that one) 

[big9erfan]

9 minutes ago, oldman9er said:

I'm not even all that hyped on getting Mack at the expected cost (he's not much better than Marsh)

Goodwin's a deep speed baller, so other than him, they really don't have to spend big bucks at WR, RB, or TE for years to come. Jimmy G that good! They won't have to stick with guys like McKinnon or Garcon for much longer... and other guys with high price tags will be gone soon too.

Wow. Marsh as good as Mack?  All I can say is  that I hope you are right ... or that guys like Thomas and Bucker can get us enough sacks so we can get by with fewer from the traditional wide guys.

[J-ALL-DAY]

30 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Wow. Marsh as good as Mack?  All I can say is  that I hope you are right ... or that guys like Thomas and Bucker can get us enough sacks so we can get by with fewer from the traditional wide guys.

He was being sarcastic lol.