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

[PackerDNA]

Mack uttered the feared and dreaded words yesterday; " pay me or trade me".

 

[Mondio]

The Packers could suffer the same fate by acquiring Mack. I'm not sure that's the right way to handle business with Rodgers planning to play another six seasons.

That's what I'm worried about. and who doesn't get re-signed, Clark at some point? I mean it's great it they get him and we win it, but I don't think we're that far away now. I think they have a nice cap situation with some big money coming off, some big contracts coming up and some nice young players coming along. Of course all sorts of things can happen in a season, foreseen and mostly unforeseen. to our detriment or benefit. I really think with a good draft next season, which we have some good picks to do stuff with again, this team is poised for another 4-5 year run. Or we go all in now, maybe it works this year and lessens our ability to re-stock next year and affects us keeping good young talent. and god forbid either gets hurt, and we're screwed for 4-5 years.

 

[PackAttack12]

I doubt this effects Macks final payday much, but the Giants just gave Beckham a huge deal! Adams deal is looking even better now.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000951811/article/odell-beckham-giants-agrees-on-5year-95m-deal

If Adams turns into what I think he will turn into this year, his deal will be a bargain.

 

[GleefulGary]

If Adams turns into what I think he will turn into this year, his deal will be a bargain.

His deal is already a bargain.

 

[AmishMafia]

We should be all set:

Create roster space: Trade Hundley CHECK

Determine budget: extend Rodgers. CHECK

Sign Kahlil

* * pending * *

 

[RRyder]

We should be all set:

Create roster space: Trade Hundley CHECK

Determine budget: extend Rodgers. CHECK

Sign Kahlil

* * pending * *

Just looking at the raw numbers for Rodgers deal makes me want to trade for Mack less

 

[gbgary]

Just looking at the raw numbers for Rodgers deal makes me want to trade for Mack less

going for Mack now is the reason you do a deal like this for Rodgers. it's super bowl or bust.

 

[RRyder]

going for Mack now is the reason you do a deal like this for Rodgers. it's super bowl or bust.

Rodgers locked in for 6 years is pretty far from saying SB or bust this year. In fact it's the opposite. You dont want to be locked into cap hell for the final four years

 

[Dantés]

Rodgers locked in for 6 years is pretty far from saying SB or bust this year. In fact it's the opposite. You dont want to be locked into cap hell for the final four years

Most (all?) of the talk has been about this remaining superbowl window with Rodgers-- not just one season.

 

[Dantés]

Just looking at the raw numbers for Rodgers deal makes me want to trade for Mack less

Why though? We always knew he would get it sooner or later.

 

[RRyder]

Why though? We always knew he would get it sooner or later.

Well I was against trading for Mack knowing that we had to extend Rodgers. Seeing the numbers in black and white just hammers it home

 

[RRyder]

Most (all?) of the talk has been about this remaining superbowl window with Rodgers-- not just one season.

With how QBs can play up until 40 no a days the window is like 5 years. Not just this comming season or the next which it would be if we continue to crush our cap by trading for Mack and using high draft picks to do so

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers would possibly run into trouble to either re-sign some of their own players or be active in free agency next offseason by trading for Mack. According to Over the Cap the team currently would have approximately $38 million of cap space for 2019 assuming it raises to $190 million. Extending Rodgers and signing Mack to a deal for $20+ million would come close to going all in for this year.

It's hard to see how they could make this work.

 

[AmishMafia]

With how QBs can play up until 40 no a days the window is like 5 years. Not just this comming season or the next which it would be if we continue to crush our cap by trading for Mack and using high draft picks to do so

They play till 40 when the OL is playing good.

Rodgers contract is stunning, but will once again look like a bargain in 3 years. Signing Kahlil will look shocking now as well, but in a few years maybe considered a bargain as well.

I wonder if an escrow account is possible. We will give you X amount signing bonus but 50% goes into an escrow account payable when you are no longer a Packer. If you ever hold out, you will forfeit it.

 

[Dantés]

With how QBs can play up until 40 no a days the window is like 5 years. Not just this comming season or the next which it would be if we continue to crush our cap by trading for Mack and using high draft picks to do so

Exactly. 5 years of Rodgers and Mack, with most of it in their primes. That’s what I want.

 

[RRyder]

Exactly. 5 years of Rodgers and Mack, with most of it in their primes. That’s what I want.

Mack + Rodgers and a gutted roster isnt what I want though

 

[RRyder]

They play till 40 when the OL is playing good.

Rodgers contract is stunning, but will once again look like a bargain in 3 years. Signing Kahlil will look shocking now as well, but in a few years maybe considered a bargain as well.

I wonder if an escrow account is possible. We will give you X amount signing bonus but 50% goes into an escrow account payable when you are no longer a Packer. If you ever hold out, you will forfeit it.

Technically all guaranteed money has to be put into an escrow account allready I believe.

But to you first point. Overpaying guys right now (and if Mack gets 24-25 a tear he will be) because in a couple a years the deals wont look bad is not a good philosophy to have

 

[AmishMafia]

Technically all guaranteed money has to be put into an escrow account allready I believe.

But to you first point. Overpaying guys right now (and if Mack gets 24-25 a tear he will be) because in a couple a years the deals wont look bad is not a good philosophy to have

His price is what the market will bear. Most thought Reggie was way over paid at a staggering $4m per year. He was the 3rd highest paid player in the NFL behind Elway and Marino. At $23M Mack would rank 9th. The top 17 are QBs with Von Miller and OBJ next.

Yes, that's a lot of fricking money. I dont think he is as impactful as Reggie. I'm not sure what Kahlil is worth.

 

[RRyder]

His price is what the market will bear. Most thought Reggie was way over paid at a staggering $4m per year. He was the 3rd highest paid player in the NFL behind Elway and Marino. At $23M Mack would rank 9th. The top 17 are QBs with Von Miller and OBJ next.

Yes, that's a lot of fricking money. I dont think he is as impactful as Reggie. I'm not sure what Kahlil is worth.

That's the question.

Is he worth the draft captial? Yes

Is he worth the 24 a year he'll probably get? Like you said it's just the market

Either of those things separately sure. It'd be worth doing. Both combined is a big ole no

 

[sschind]

Considering the Packers are working on a contract extension that will make Aaron Rodgers the highest-paid player in the NFL – whether it’s this year or next – then working out a new deal with Mack on top of that would tie up an enormous amount of money in two players. Among other risks, if either sustained serious injury it could be a disaster financially and on the field.

But those are risks Gutekunst appears willing to live with, at least as a general philosophy regarding elite players. He can’t talk publicly about Mack, because that would violate NFL rules on tampering with another team’s player. But when asked if the Packers can afford to have the highest-paid quarterback in the league as well as one of if not the highest-paid defensive player in the league, Gutekunst suggested they could.

“When you’re talking about unique players, there’s only so many of them out there,” he said. “At the same time, the financial challenges may be difficult, but without players you can’t win. It’s like any significant player, they’re not inexpensive, but you have to have them to win.”

-Pete Dougherty, Green Bay press gazette

https://amp.packersnews.com/amp/1122519002?__twitter_impression=true

Rodgers is the highest paid player on offense, we trade for Mack and make him the highest paid on defense, isn't Crosby a FA next year? Why not go for the trifecta.

 

[Dantés]

Mack + Rodgers and a gutted roster isnt what I want though

You certainly would not be able to go out and add a bunch of other expensive free agents and more importance would be placed on rookie contracts, but you would by no means have to gut the roster.

 

[RRyder]

You certainly would not be able to go out and add a bunch of other expensive free agents and more importance would be placed on rookie contracts, but you would by no means have to gut the roster.

I've already gone into detail how acquiring and retaining Mack effectively costs almost half a quality starting lineup when draft picks and cap space spent on him are factored together. Losing out on almost half a starting lineup worth of quality guys for him IS gutting the roster

The extreme need to hit on the vast majority of draft picks to fill out the roster with quality players would be huge.

 

[Dantés]

I've already gone into detail how acquiring and retaining Mack effectively costs almost half a quality starting lineup when draft picks and cap space spent on him are factored together. Losing out on almost half a starting lineup worth of quality guys for him IS gutting the roster

The extreme need to hit on the vast majority of draft picks to fill out the roster with quality players would be huge.

Yes, obviously spending a big portion of the cap means there is more importance placed on drafting and developing to fill out the roster. But the Packers have had Rodgers and Matthews in a similar position and have been able to manage the cap fine, still retaining important players.

I would continue to remind you that your calculations assume you know what Mack would cost in picks and cap space. None of us do. If it’s two first round picks plus 25 million per year, then I would actually be on your side. That’s too expensive, even for him.

But if he costs a 1st and a player (i.e. a step up on the Chandler Jones price tag) and 20-21 million (i.e. a step up on Von Miller’s average), then I do that.

I think the challenges that having Rodgers and Mack taking up 30% of the cap create are more than made up for by their impact on the field. They’ve done the same thing for a lot of years to a somewhat lesser extent with Matthews. It never required them to gut the roster. In fact, they usually could have chosen to spent more than what they chose to.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Raiders are officially declaring they want 2 1st Round picks at least. Guess they're either asking someone to beat our offer or they're asking way too much.

 

[PikeBadger]

You certainly would not be able to go out and add a bunch of other expensive free agents and more importance would be placed on rookie contracts, but you would by no means have to gut the roster.

Lol, that would drive a lot of this forum’s posters completely crazy during the middle of March. How could we ever possibly win the off-season?!?!