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

[Dantés]

Wilkerson will be a very interesting decision. He will only be 29 in October, which means he should have a couple of good years still ahead of him. If he actually plays up to his potential this year and the defensive line is a force, how do you not try and resign him? Maybe if Mo Adams breaks out, you can go with him. A good problem to have.

I forgot about Daniels, his contract is up after next season and he just turned 29.

I still wasn't pleased with the money they gave Perry. It's going to be hard to get out from underneath his contract anytime soon.

To answer your question, I think you look really hard at how badly he took his foot off the gas the last time he got a long term deal.

I'm guessing that they let Daniels play out his deal and walk.

 

[sschind]

Sounds like you would have Rodgers on offense and Mack on defense and a bunch of hopefuls on rookie deals if you let all these guys walk. That's not saying someone can't step up but no matter how you slice it paying 2 guys close to 50 million a year is going to be tough to work in and leave much room for anyone else. I'm not saying it can't be done but I think we would have to get very lucky for that to pay off.

 

[Dantés]

Sounds like you would have Rodgers on offense and Mack on defense and a bunch of hopefuls on rookie deals if you let all these guys walk. That's not saying someone can't step up but no matter how you slice it paying 2 guys close to 50 million a year is going to be tough to work in and leave much room for anyone else. I'm not saying it can't be done but I think we would have to get very lucky for that to pay off.

That’s not true. You’d still have Bakhtiari, Taylor, Linsley, Adams, and Graham on offense making real money. Daniels, Perry, and Clinton-Dix might be the only other guys on defense but that’s likely to be close to the reality whether they sign Mack or not because of how young they are on that side.

Certainly it’s money that makes you get creative, but if what you get back is a top 5 player at the two most valuable positions in football, I think you have to do it.

 

[Jerellh528]

What about including Perry in a potential deal instead of clay

 

[Poppa San]

What about including Perry in a potential deal instead of clay

If I read it correctly, the Packers have to immediately account for a $4.3m roster bonus from last March plus 4 years of $3.7m each signing bonus comes due immediately. They may be able to split it in half. With half going on next seasons books.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If I read it correctly, the Packers have to immediately account for a $4.3m roster bonus from last March plus 4 years of $3.7m each signing bonus comes due immediately. They may be able to split it in half. With half going on next seasons books.

I think that is correct, I tried to read all of the contract information from a few sites and still get a bit confused, but it basically looks like the Packers are still on the hook for around $19.1 M for Perry in dead cap. I really don't see any advantage of trading him away and eating that money, doing so would also probably leave the Packers short of a quality starting OLB in 2019.

I don't see this trade ever happening, not because of what it would cost in draft picks or players, but just the sheer money aspect of what Mack will command. Fingers Crossed that Gilbert and/or Biegel really shine this season, if they don't its back to Free Agency and/or the draft.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think at the end of the day, the Raiders keep Mack. But if he is available, you've got to give it a shot. IMO, it's either trade for Mack or package both 1st rounders to move up in next years draft for an elite pass rusher. The list of potential free agents next season isn't exactly thrilling.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think just about every fan base in the NFL is talking about the possibility of trading for Mack. Why not? He is probably one of the biggest upcoming and already there defensive stars of the NFL. Besides the Saints, probably every team has a first round pick in 2019, so if the Packers want him, they may have to give up both of their first rounders and probably more.

Now what would be even better for the Packers is if Mack decides to say "F U Raiders, I will play out my 5th year option, if you want to tag me go ahead, but if you don't, I am gong the FA route at the end of the season." Then the Packers sign him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I wouldn't have a problem at all with giving up a first, a 3rd and Matthews, as long as the $$ works. To me that would basically be giving up a 3rd. Since Matthews is probably gone after this year and a first would have to be spent on an unknown rookie in the 2019 draft anyway.

I'm not convinced the Packers can afford to let Matthews walk away in free agency if they stand pat at the position before next offseason.

I'd imagine that if they locked up Mack long term, Perry might get cut or traded before his contract runs out.

While the Packers would save some cap space by trading or releasing Perry next season the move would still take result in $11.1 million of dead money counting against the cap.

What about including Perry in a potential deal instead of clay

The Packers can't trade Perry at this point as it would result in an additional cap hit of close to $9 million.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thought this was interesting. OddShark now has the Packers as the odds on favorite to be the team Mack is playing for in 2018, even over the Raiders.

https://raiderswire.usatoday.com/20...d-over-raiders-for-khalil-macks-team-in-2018/

 

[Dantés]

I’m seeing that some Vegas odds makers are giving the Packers better odds to have Mack for week one than the Raiders! Go Gute go!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I’m seeing that some Vegas odds makers are giving the Packers better odds to have Mack for week one than the Raiders! Go Gute go!

*grins and points to the post right above yours*

 

[Mondio]

*grins and points to the post right above yours*

where do you think he saw it

 

[XPack]

I doubt we'd make a big signing before AR12 contract

 

[bigbubbatd]

Here is the question.

How much better is this team this year with Mack than Clay? I think a decent amount. Going forward getting a guy like Mack in his prime would be huge.

Would Oakland be interested in Clay? If so what plus clay would it take? If it is less than a 1st I would be all over it. I think a defense with Clark Daniels and Mack has a ton to build aroung going forward especially if any of the young dbs develop like I think they could.

 

[Dantés]

Here is the question.

How much better is this team this year with Mack than Clay? I think a decent amount. Going forward getting a guy like Mack in his prime would be huge.

Would Oakland be interested in Clay? If so what plus clay would it take? If it is less than a 1st I would be all over it. I think a defense with Clark Daniels and Mack has a ton to build aroung going forward especially if any of the young dbs develop like I think they could.

I think it would be like turning the clock back 5 years to Clay Matthews in his prime. In addition to being better, Mack has also never missed a a game. Matthews' ability has declined, but his availability (or playing ineffective because of nagging injury) has been the bigger issue.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here is the question.

How much better is this team this year with Mack than Clay? I think a decent amount. Going forward getting a guy like Mack in his prime would be huge.

Would Oakland be interested in Clay? If so what plus clay would it take? If it is less than a 1st I would be all over it. I think a defense with Clark Daniels and Mack has a ton to build aroung going forward especially if any of the young dbs develop like I think they could.

It's going to take at least a 1st rounder and maybe even both. Why? Because we are the only team that can offer the Raiders 2 firsts in 2019. Not to mention that both the Packers and the Saints are predicted to do relatively well in 2018, so individually those first round picks are probably a lot less valueable to the Raiders than one coming from say the Browns, Jets, etc.

Clay would just be a necessary toss in, for cap and someone the Raiders might want. But unless a new deal is struck with Clay, that extends him out for several years at a more reasonable rate, he doesn't have a hell of a lot of value in a trade IMO. The meat of the trade would be draft picks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think it would be like turning the clock back 5 years to Clay Matthews in his prime.

I don't believe Matthews performed on the same level as Mack even during his prime.

Clay would just be a necessary toss in, for cap and someone the Raiders might want. But unless a new deal is struck with Clay, that extends him out for several years at a more reasonable rate, he doesn't have a hell of a lot of value in a trade IMO. The meat of the trade would be draft picks.

In my opinion Matthews' trade value doesn't increase significantly even if signed to a more reasonable extension.

 

[Dantés]

I don't believe Matthews performed on the same level as Mack even during his prime.



In my opinion Matthews' trade value doesn't increase significantly even if signed to a more reasonable extension.

I'd say that his peak was comparable to current Mack, but that's a hard thing to qualify. Regardless, we'd go from an oft-injured, good player on the decline to one of the league's bonafide elite edge defenders. It would be great.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be in favor of doing this, but an ever crazier idea than trading for Mack and would rock the NFL world, is a trade involving Rodgers for Mack, Carr and other compensation. This idea is more to satisfy those posters that have a bit of a problem with Rodgers and his current contract negotiations as well as stir up the pot of hypotheticals. Carr didn't have that impressive of a 2017, but he is still a young up and coming QB in most peoples eyes, has a contract similar to Rodgers current one through 2022 and we all know about Mack. A deal like that would weaken the offense, but strengthen the defense, as well as the future cap outlook (if only Mack was obtained).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be in favor of doing this, but an ever crazier idea than trading for Mack and would rock the NFL world, is a trade involving Rodgers for Mack, Carr and other compensation. This idea is more to satisfy those posters that have a bit of a problem with Rodgers and his current contract negotiations as well as stir up the pot of hypotheticals. Carr didn't have that impressive of a 2017, but he is still a young up and coming QB in most peoples eyes, has a contract similar to Rodgers current one through 2022 and we all know about Mack. A deal like that would weaken the offense, but strengthen the defense, as well as the future cap outlook (if only Mack was obtained).

Please could we stop suggesting to trade Rodgers even if you're not in favor of it.

 

[bigbubbatd]

It's going to take at least a 1st rounder and maybe even both. Why? Because we are the only team that can offer the Raiders 2 firsts in 2019. Not to mention that both the Packers and the Saints are predicted to do relatively well in 2018, so individually those first round picks are probably a lot less valueable to the Raiders than one coming from say the Browns, Jets, etc.

Clay would just be a necessary toss in, for cap and someone the Raiders might want. But unless a new deal is struck with Clay, that extends him out for several years at a more reasonable rate, he doesn't have a hell of a lot of value in a trade IMO. The meat of the trade would be draft picks.

My only push back to clay being just a toss in is that he will perform at a fairly solid level when healthy and even if the Raiders dont resign him someone will pay Clay money and then the Raiders would get a decent comp pick in 2020. Obviously that is a ways out but solid production and 4th round pick doesnt seem like a toss in.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My only push back to clay being just a toss in is that he will perform at a fairly solid level when healthy and even if the Raiders dont resign him someone will pay Clay money and then the Raiders would get a decent comp pick in 2020. Obviously that is a ways out but solid production and 4th round pick doesnt seem like a toss in.

One of the big reasons I said Clay is basically a "toss in".....the Packers would probably have to cut him to make cap space for Mack anyway. Sure, they could turn around and try to trade him to another team, but at this time of year, how is that going to turn out?

I don't think a trade for Mack and the Packers is going to happen. I am also in the camp that you ride 2018 out with Clay and see what happens. With a better DL, secondary and Pettine, Clay might have a much better year. When the season is over, you assess his value then and as you said, he still has some value and if we let him walk, a comp pic may be what we get back.

 

[bigbubbatd]

One of the big reasons I said Clay is basically a "toss in".....the Packers would probably have to cut him to make cap space for Mack anyway. Sure, they could turn around and try to trade him to another team, but at this time of year, how is that going to turn out?

I don't think a trade for Mack and the Packers is going to happen. I am also in the camp that you ride 2018 out with Clay and see what happens. With a better DL, secondary and Pettine, Clay might have a much better year. When the season is over, you assess his value then and as you said, he still has some value and if we let him walk, a comp pic may be what we get back.

The Packers could cut someone other than clay even if that seems like a bad idea. Both Cobb and Bulaga could be cut and the Packers could have room. I dont think the Packers get Mack but i would love to have a top end player on that defense. Mack was rated at the 7th best player by pff this past year. You put him and Rodgers on the same team you have one of the best offensive and defensive players to go with Bahk, Adams, Daniels, Clark, Graham, Bulaga, etc. This team becomes even more formidable. It is a long shot but it is one of the few times I would actually be on board with a big splash like this

 

[sschind]

Here is the question.

How much better is this team this year with Mack than Clay? I think a decent amount. Going forward getting a guy like Mack in his prime would be huge.

Would Oakland be interested in Clay? If so what plus clay would it take? If it is less than a 1st I would be all over it. I think a defense with Clark Daniels and Mack has a ton to build aroung going forward especially if any of the young dbs develop like I think they could.

I don't think there is any way any team is doing to get Mack without giving up a first round pick no matter who they throw in. If the Packers picks are going to be in the mid 20's or higher it might even take both of therm. I don't think a first and Matthews would get it done either but if it would I say go for it. The problem is could the Packers afford the highest paid offensive and defensive player in the league and have any money left over especially since they also have a few other high priced players as well.