In hindsight: Khalil Mack

[Heyjoe4]

Correct. People would have to weigh for themselves if Mack is worth more or less on the field than both of the Smith's. I tend to think so.

As to serious contention, yes I believe the Packers were real contenders during that whole saga.

Thanks HRE. I, for one, am glad they didn’t make the deal. Time will tell if that’s right.

On to other things. What’s your take on the Daniels release?

 

[Dantés]

Thanks HRE. I, for one, am glad they didn’t make the deal. Time will tell if that’s right.

On to other things. What’s your take on the Daniels release?

Not really surprising given how much they've invested in interior pass rushers. I think he makes the roster better by being on it, but I understand why they didn't want to pay that kind of money for a guy who was to become a backup. And there are suggestions of locker room issues that might have explained their motivations.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Not really surprising given how much they've invested in interior pass rushers. I think he makes the roster better by being on it, but I understand why they didn't want to pay that kind of money for a guy who was to become a backup. And there are suggestions of locker room issues that might have explained their motivations.

Makes sense. For me, yeah, he would have been a $9mm backup, money they can’t get back. Well, I think they get back like $8.3mm in cap space.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Thanks HRE. I, for one, am glad they didn’t make the deal. Time will tell if that’s right.

On to other things. What’s your take on the Daniels release?

It was the right move.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Khalil Mack deal did not make sense when considering the draft capital that had to be added on top of the huge contract. However, assertions that he could not be afforded here were wrong, and they've been proven wrong.

His deal accounts for about 106M in committed cap space through 2022, at which point the Bears can cut him with minimal dead money. That's an average of 21.2M in cap space through the first five years of the deal.

Between the Smith's, the Packers have committed 118M in cap space to the EDGE position through 2022, which is an average of 29.5M through the next four seasons.

Financially, the swap would be Mack for the two Smith's. They proved that they could have afforded him, cap wise, by actually spending more of their cap over the next four seasons this offseason than they would have had to spend over that same time span on Mack last offseason.

But of course with the draft capital, it's more than just the two Smith's. And thus it was wise to pass on the deal. But since certain self-appointed cap gurus have written volumes to explain that the Packers could not or would not do what they actually turned around and did, I figured it was worth pointing this out.

That's a good summation. Any one player can be fit under the cap if one cares to make the necessary compromises.

I would make one additional point you might have overlooked: Mack's cap number last season was $13.8 mil. The Packers would have had to cut somebody(s) at the time without any obvious candidates to pick up the few million needed.

The larger point is that given the compromises that would have been reuquired, that trade would be going all-in with a weak hand if one happened to believe that Mack was insufficient to raise the roster to championship caliber.

 

[Dantés]

That's a good summation. Any one player can be fit under the cap if one cares to make the necessary compromises.

I would make one additional point you might have overlooked: Mack's cap number last season was $13.8 mil. The Packers would have had to cut somebody(s) at the time without any obvious candidates to pick up the few million needed.

The larger point is that given the compromises that would have been reuquired, that trade would be going all-in with a weak hand if one happened to believe that Mack was insufficient to raise the roster to championship caliber.

The cut candidate for that situation was obviously Matthews.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The cut candidate for that situation was obviously Matthews.

Yeah, obvious. Though Matthews had already shown decline, that's one less starter on the march to the championship with that much less of a championship caliber roster.

The point being, the Mack trade would have made sense if he was the difference in getting over the top (sans Matthews, as one possible name). I didn't see that then, and I don't see it now in consideration of the costs.

If Oakland had been stupid enough to take Matthews and one first rounder, as at least one poster originally proposed , the proposition gets a little warmer under a rebuild assumption in offloading $11 mil in cap to Oakland and losing one first rounder instead of 2. But that's not what went down.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Khalil Mack deal did not make sense when considering the draft capital that had to be added on top of the huge contract. However, assertions that he could not be afforded here were wrong, and they've been proven wrong.

His deal accounts for about 106M in committed cap space through 2022, at which point the Bears can cut him with minimal dead money. That's an average of 21.2M in cap space through the first five years of the deal.

Between the Smith's, the Packers have committed 118M in cap space to the EDGE position through 2022, which is an average of 29.5M through the next four seasons.

Financially, the swap would be Mack for the two Smith's. They proved that they could have afforded him, cap wise, by actually spending more of their cap over the next four seasons this offseason than they would have had to spend over that same time span on Mack last offseason.

But of course with the draft capital, it's more than just the two Smith's. And thus it was wise to pass on the deal. But since certain self-appointed cap gurus have written volumes to explain that the Packers could not or would not do what they actually turned around and did, I figured it was worth pointing this out.

The huge difference being that the Packers could release both Smiths after only two years and save a total of $57 million in cap space until 2022 if they don't perform up to expectations. The Bears don't have that option with Mack.

That lowers the risk significantly.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I like our team a lot better with Smith, Smith, Gary and Savage. You put Mack on this defense minus those other guys and he's neutralized almost every single play because there is nothing else to worry about other than kenny Clark maybe.

Spot on. This is what many seem to forget. We trade for Mack and in the process, we lose picks and a boatload of money to keep other players. As you state, no Gary, No Savage, no Smiths.

Also, just like we have seen happen with Rodgers the past 2 season, when your clear cut #1 guy goes down with an injury, your team is crippled quite a bit. Imagine the 2019 Packers with Mack and without those 4 other guys and then he goes down with an injury.

The Bears had a pretty solid defense before they traded for Mack, he just made them better. However, they still only played one more game than the Packers, a loss in the first round of the playoffs.

 

[Mondio]

Spot on. This is what many seem to forget. We trade for Mack and in the process, we lose picks and a boatload of money to keep other players. As you state, no Gary, No Savage, no Smiths.

Also, just like we have seen happen with Rodgers the past 2 season, when your clear cut #1 guy goes down with an injury, your team is crippled quite a bit. Imagine the 2019 Packers with Mack and without those 4 other guys and then he goes down with an injury.

The Bears had a pretty solid defense before they traded for Mack, he just made them better. However, they still only played one more game than the Packers, a loss in the first round of the playoffs.

I felt the need to agree with a post agreeing with my earlier post. and I'll add, as someone else did earlier, Amos is likely not here either in that scenario.

 

[Dantés]

The huge difference being that the Packers could release both Smiths after only two years and save a total of $57 million in cap space until 2022 if they don't perform up to expectations. The Bears don't have that option with Mack.

That lowers the risk significantly.

Yes, however Mack offers a much lower risk than those guys of needing to be released early due to performance.

 

[Dantés]

I felt the need to agree with a post agreeing with my earlier post. and I'll add, as someone else did earlier, Amos is likely not here either in that scenario.

Financially, there is no reason that the Packers couldn't have paid both Mack and Amos in the same way that they paid for Amos and the Smith's. However, if the Bears had not acquired Mack they might have spent to keep Amos away from FA. But GB could still have spent comparable money on the safety market.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The huge difference being that the Packers could release both Smiths after only two years and save a total of $57 million in cap space until 2022 if they don't perform up to expectations. The Bears don't have that option with Mack.

That lowers the risk significantly.

You don't even have to go out to 2022 to see the contrast. The contrasts begin now and continue to skew in the Packers favor from there.

After 2019:

The Smiths: $27 mil dead cap, $3.75 mil cap savings
The Smiths + Amos + Turner: $42 mil dead cap, $5.75 mil cap savings
Mack: $44.1 mil in dead cap, negative $17.5 mil cap savings

After 2020:

The Smiths: $18 mil dead cap, $18.75 cap savings
The Smiths + Amos + Turner: $28 mil dead cap, $26.75 cap savings
Mack: $21.4 mil dead cap, $5.25 mil cap savings

While no one would expect the Packer acquisitions to be worth less than those very modest cap savings in 2020, by 2021 the cap savings among these players are meaningful-to-significant. Stuff can happen, a losing record requiring more retooling, an underperforming player from injury or otherwise, a major suspension or a clubhouse disruptor, where cutting bait might be called for. We do not expect it, and it wouldn't be all 4 of those players, but stuff does happen. What would Mack have to do to be cut going into 2021 with that dead cap and small savings? Sex change operation?

That touches on an underappreciated aspect of the two scenarios: the Packers diversification thereby reducing risk. If Mack blows an ACL , their plan for 2019 is shot to h*ll, worse in 2020 where they'd be sitting on Mack's $26.6 mil cap cost with no player. Similar risks spread across four players sharply diminishes overall risk.

Then there are the two first round picks.

 

[Mondio]

Financially, there is no reason that the Packers couldn't have paid both Mack and Amos in the same way that they paid for Amos and the Smith's. However, if the Bears had not acquired Mack they might have spent to keep Amos away from FA. But GB could still have spent comparable money on the safety market.

yes, the money was there, but there was far more cost than just money.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I felt the need to agree with a post agreeing with my earlier post. and I'll add, as someone else did earlier, Amos is likely not here either in that scenario.

I'm going to agree your agree of my agree, seems like the most agreeable thing I have done all week!

 

[XPack]

Way too much agreeing going on here.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Way too much agreeing going on here.

I was going to be a smarta$$ and give you a Red X "Disagree", but I hold on to those, to only be used when I strongly disagree with something other than a mild opinion.

But I can't give you an agree or I would be buying into your statement.

So, I am going to split the difference and give you one of these:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[AmishMafia]

Way too much agreeing going on here.

I hit disagree. Happy now?

 

[XPack]

I hit disagree. Happy now?

Way too much disagreeing here.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Way too much disagreeing here.

Well now, you are just asking for a Red X

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, however Mack offers a much lower risk than those guys of needing to be released early due to performance.

There's no doubt that Mack is a more talented player than both Smiths combined but that doesn't change the fact the contracts are structured completely different, something that has to be acknowledged for when talking about if the Packers could have afforded Mack.

In addition the point a lot of posters were trying to make is that it would have been difficult for the Packers to surround Rodgers and Mack with a competitive roster and not that the team wouldn't have been able to somehow fit his contract under the cap.

 

[Sanguine camper]

The Smiths are decent starters but not difference makers and Gary is unproven. Mack is a future HOF player. We all saw how adding Reggie and Woodson made the difference. I would take Mack any day of the week.

 

[Mondio]

Adding Woodson would have done jack squat without Collins, Williams, motivated Raji, Prime Clay, Pickett, Hawk. Reggie was one of the best players to every play the football in the history of the league and he still had Gilbert, Santana, Sean Jones, Simmons, Koonce, Butler and Robinson. They didn't do it alone.

What would we have for a defense this year? would Keep Nick Perry so we actually have 3 OLB's on the team? LOL

I'm a lot more optimistic with Smith, Smith, Amos, Gary, and Savage then Mack added to what we have. Unless that player is a QB, a bunch of better than average to really good players are going to win more games than a bunch of nothing with a superstar. I know which defense I'd rather trot out every week.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Smiths are decent starters but not difference makers and Gary is unproven. Mack is a future HOF player. We all saw how adding Reggie and Woodson made the difference. I would take Mack any day of the week.

Once again, if you take a look at the situation in a vacuum there's absolutely no doubt Mack is the most talented player out of the group by a significant margin.

You have to consider the impact on the overall talent level of the roster and the salary cap as well though.

 

[sschind]

In addition the point a lot of posters were trying to make is that it would have been difficult for the Packers to surround Rodgers and Mack with a competitive roster and not that the team wouldn't have been able to somehow fit his contract under the cap.

That's the big thing. Not that they couldn't afford Mack but that it would make it more difficult for them to afford anyone else.

That's why, IMO, it made much more sense for the Bears. They already had a top defense and Mack made them that much better. He would not have done that for us and it may have prevented us from getting the guys we did or prevented us from resigning Lowry (maybe not that big of a deal) or perhaps Clark (remains to be seen) .

Now it may come back to bite the Bears in the *** if they have to pony up a ton for Trubisky or when the other defensive players start wanting their cut but for last year and this year at least I think Mack made more sense for them than us.

I also think that the players will be getting an even bigger cut once the new CBA is ironed out. What that will do to current contracts I have no idea but I don't think teams with high priced players after 2020 will be hurt. My gut tells me an extra game or two will be at the forefront of the owners minds and they will be willing to give up a lot to get it. A higher percentage of revenue to the players perhaps?