The Khalil Mack thread -- now a Bear for $155million

[Dantés]

Khalil Mack is not happy.

Khalil Mack wants a new contract.

He has not reported to camp.

The Raiders are not negotiating with him.

They haven't even talked to his agent since February.

John Gruden hasn't even met him.

SO! The Packers should trade one of their 1st round picks in 2019 and Clay Matthews to the Raiders for Khalil Mack.

Mack is a 27 year old, elite pass rusher. He's one of the most valuable players in the league. In his four years in the league, he has totaled 40.5 sacks, including 36.5 in the last three seasons. He's also an elite run defender. He has never missed a game.

The Packers could afford to fit a contract in for him if they unloaded Matthews' money. The Raiders seem to have a legitimate fetish for older players (especially Packers). So you unload Matthews in a contract year, free up his salary, and pick up Mack for a 1st rounder. You'd have to pay him, but you're talking about 4-6 years of a bonafide premier pass rusher, right in the heart of Rodgers' remaining years.

If they traded for him, they'd likely be looking at a 5 year, 100 million dollar investment, with around 50 million guaranteed. He's worth it.

I am not generally keen on these types of ideas, but this one makes all sorts of sense. They really should do this.

 

[Mondio]

I would not be opposed to something like that. Though I did just have my remaining 2 wisdom teeth removed, so I may less wise than usual LOL and I never set the bar very high anyway

 

[AmishMafia]

Khalil Mack is not happy.

Khalil Mack wants a new contract.

He has not reported to camp.

The Raiders are not negotiating with him.

They haven't even talked to his agent since February.

John Gruden hasn't even met him.

SO! The Packers should trade one of their 1st round picks in 2019 and Clay Matthews to the Raiders for Khalil Mack.

Mack is a 27 year old, elite pass rusher. He's one of the most valuable players in the league. In his four years in the league, he has totaled 40.5 sacks, including 36.5 in the last three seasons. He's also an elite run defender. He has never missed a game.

The Packers could afford to fit a contract in for him if they unloaded Matthews' money. The Raiders seem to have a legitimate fetish for older players (especially Packers). So you unload Matthews in a contract year, free up his salary, and pick up Mack for a 1st rounder. You'd have to pay him, but you're talking about 4-6 years of a bonafide premier pass rusher, right in the heart of Rodgers' remaining years.

If they traded for him, they'd likely be looking at a 5 year, 100 million dollar investment, with around 50 million guaranteed. He's worth it.

I am not generally keen on these types of ideas, but this one makes all sorts of sense. They really should do this.

Nice thought, but i think the cost will be higher. Word is the Bears have made an offer and I would bet their 1st is higher than the Packers.

 

[mradtke66]

This is something I'd be willing to explore, but the cost will be astronomical.

To even bring the Raiders to the negotiating table, we'd have to both of our 1st and Matthews. They might prefer Perry more--he's younger and on a longer contract.

And why wouldn't they? If they can't work out a deal, franchise him and just like that, any team that signs him would have to give the Raiders 2 1sts.

 

[Dantés]

Nice thought, but i think the cost will be higher. Word is the Bears have made an offer and I would bet their 1st is higher than the Packers.

So would you offer both 1st round picks? A 1st and a 2nd? A 1st and a 3rd?

 

[Dantés]

This is something I'd be willing to explore, but the cost will be astronomical.

To even bring the Raiders to the negotiating table, we'd have to both of our 1st and Matthews. They might prefer Perry more--he's younger and on a longer contract.

And why wouldn't they? If they can't work out a deal, franchise him and just like that, any team that signs him would have to give the Raiders 2 1sts.

This team genuinely seems to prefer older players. It is weird, but has been pretty consisntely demonstrates thus far under Gruden.

 

[Dantés]

The most similar situation that I can think of would be Chandler Jones. He was traded at age 26 (one year younger), coming off his first four years as a pro with 36 sacks (to Mack's 40.5). He was also in a contract year. The Patriots got a 2nd round pick and Jonathan Cooper.

Now Mack is better, but not by a huge margin. And Jones had some off-field concerns that it would seem that Mack does not. So the price needs to be ratcheted up. But all the way up from a 2nd and a bad guard to two 1st round picks? I'm not so sure. I would think a 1st round pick and an add on of something less valuable would be an appropriate increase.

 

[Mondio]

One of those 1sts and Matthews is as rich as my blood is getting.

 

[Dantés]

One of those 1sts and Matthews is as rich as my blood is getting.

I would probably go as high as a 1st, a 4th, and a player. This would be a transformative acquisition.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would definitely be excited if the Packers could acquire Mack but don't see the Raiders willing to trade him.

 

[Dantés]

I would definitely be excited if the Packers could acquire Mack but don't see the Raiders willing to trade him.

Probably not, but their behavior towards him has been extreme. And this Gruden regime seems unorthodox to say the least.

 

[AmishMafia]

So would you offer both 1st round picks? A 1st and a 2nd? A 1st and a 3rd?

No on the two 1sts. The downside on Mack is he will be expensive and may demand more money in subsequent years if he thinks he can get it. So are you giving up picks for just a 2 or 3 year player?

I would give up a 1st and 3rd and if they dont jump at that I would toss in Brett Hundly to seal the deal.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Perry, Mack, and our dline would destroy every oline they faced.... destroy.

But there's no way imo. #12,is our franchise player. Can't afford a second one until #12 is under contract til 40.

But the thought is nice....

 

[Dantés]

No on the two 1sts. The downside on Mack is he will be expensive and may demand more money in subsequent years if he thinks he can get it. So are you giving up picks for just a 2 or 3 year player?

I would give up a 1st and 3rd and if they dont jump at that I would toss in Brett Hundly to seal the deal.

I would imagine that a deal between Mack and Green Bay would be agreed to in principle before the trade took place. It would be expensive for sure. In all likelihood, it would require they trade either Matthews or Perry back to free up that space.

 

[Mondio]

I think Matthews would be better for us. Doesn't Perry still have a decent amount of deadcap if he was cut this year? I think next is when we can start seeing savings. But I've been known to be wrong on more than a couple occasions.

 

[AmishMafia]

I would imagine that a deal between Mack and Green Bay would be agreed to in principle before the trade took place. It would be expensive for sure. In all likelihood, it would require they trade either Matthews or Perry back to free up that space.

I'm sure they would agree, but Mack has shown to be a guy where that doesnt honor his conteact. If he wants more money next year he will hold out. Trading Matthews, your original premise, seems more likely to me now than my idea.

 

[Dantés]

I'm sure they would agree, but Mack has shown to be a guy where that doesnt honor his conteact. If he wants more money next year he will hold out. Trading Matthews, your original premise, seems more likely to me now than my idea.

A lot of players hold out for extensions in the final year of their rookie contracts. I don’t think that’s an indication that they will hold out every year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

From RaidersWire.....

https://raiderswire.usatoday.com/20...the-raiders-might-consider-for-khalil-mack/2/

My knee jerk is "no way" on giving up those first round picks, but then I look at what first round picks have netted the Packers over the years.

I would have gladly traded Randall, Dix AND Datone Jones for a guy like Mack.

What would worry me is the huge salary. That is a lot of money to eat on one defensive player.

 

[Dantés]

Precedent would seem to indicate that two 1st rounders is too high of an ask.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Whatever happens this is just another example of how much I hate this aspect of the NFL. Mack is under contract to be paid $13.8 million, the cost of the 5th year on his rookie deal. Suit up, shut up and worry about the contract later. I have read he is wanting somewhere in the range of $18-22M/year with $65M guaranteed.

Too much more of this and I really don't see the end of it and I'm done being interested.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

Sorry. But my feeling is, let him sit. I hate when players do this. Yes, I know that he is a fantastic player, but I don't care.

Nine times out of ten these players who have held out, come back and get hurt. No thanks. Besides, to me it is giving in to bad behavior.

 

[Poppa San]

Doesn't Perry still have a decent amount of deadcap if he was cut this year?

$8m if cut, $3.7m if traded per OTC

 

[Mondio]

not nearly as bad as I thought

 

[Dantés]

So if holding out as a negotiating tactic for a long term contract from a team is “bad behavior,” is it also bad behavior when a team cuts a play mid-contract because it was advantageous to them?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So if holding out as a negotiating tactic for a long term contract from a team is “bad behavior,” is it also bad behavior when a team cuts a play mid-contract because it was advantageous to them?

No, if the contract is written that way, why can't a team cut a player mid contract? A player can quit at anytime and not get paid and in many cases, keep the guaranteed money.

Now what would be bad behavior by a team is not to pay the player what the contract stipulates if the player fills his end of the contract but the team feels he should be paid less.

We see this every year on both ends. Players making less than they think they are worth. Or players like Matthews and Cobb being paid more than what they are probably worth. Its the nature of the NFL contract.

Wouldn't it be nice if both Matthews and Cobb said to the Packers "Contact or no contract, I'm not playing until you promise to pay me less money"