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

[Dantés]

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"

All I’m saying is that people are quick to criticize players for doing what they believe is in their best contractual interests, but not the teams. If a player holds out, it’s bad behavior. If a team cuts a player under contract, it’s smart behavior.

 

[PackerDNA]

One of the options speculated about as to what the Packers would do with their two 1st rounders next year- both of which will likely be in the twenties- had them trading both to move up to say #10 to get an elite pass rusher. So why wouldn't it make sense to trade the picks for a proven elite pass rusher and playmaker widely regarded as one of the 5 best defensive players in the game?

 

[Jerellh528]

I wish. That would be huge for us, Mack has is one of my favorites, a legit beast. He can change a defense

 

[lambeaulambo]

Could we trade Bulaga w Matthews? Throw in Hundley for good measure.

 

[RRyder]

One of the options speculated about as to what the Packers would do with their two 1st rounders next year- both of which will likely be in the twenties- had them trading both to move up to say #10 to get an elite pass rusher. So why wouldn't it make sense to trade the picks for a proven elite pass rusher and playmaker widely regarded as one of the 5 best defensive players in the game?

The answer to your question would be that (good) players on their rookie contracts are unbelievably valuable. Plus if he wants 18-22 million a year as is rumored that's more then I'd pay any position outside of QB regardless of how great he is.

I love Mack. Hes an absolute beast but 2 first round picks (plus probably a conditional pick in two years) for the right to pay a non QB around 20 million a year is a very steep price and far from a no brainer

 

[BrokenArrow]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that none of this has any basis in reality.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

The Raiders would probably ask for another first round to take Hundley in a trade

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.

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

Actually the Packers would take an additional cap hit by either releasing Perry ($19.1 million in dead money, $8.35 million in extra cap hit) as well as trading ($14.8 million, $4.05 million respectively). As it's past June 1 the dead money could be spread out over the next two seasons though.

All I’m saying is that people are quick to criticize players for doing what they believe is in their best contractual interests, but not the teams. If a player holds out, it’s bad behavior. If a team cuts a player under contract, it’s smart behavior.

Well, the CBA allows teams to release players without having to pay the remaining balance on of a contract because the NFLPA continues to agree to not fully guaranteed contracts. Therefore I'm absolutely fine with it.

On the other hand I don't have any sympathy for a player under contract and scheduled to make $13.8 million holding out because he considers himself underpaid.

 

[AmishMafia]

An even more remote possibility is for the Bears to give up signing ILB Roquon Smith. A suggestion I saw had the bears giving Oakland Smith and a 1st round next year for Mack. They would probably not trade Smith to us, but maybe Oakland would then trade him to us for a 1st. I would like that deal.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

An even more remote possibility is for the Bears to give up signing ILB Roquon Smith.

I highly doubt the Bears are interested in trading Smith only months after selecting him in the first round of the draft.

 

[AmishMafia]

I highly doubt the Bears are interested in trading Smith only months after selecting him in the first round of the draft.

He is not helping them right now. The question should be, would caving in to his demands and signing him plus next years No. 1 provide as much benefit to them as having Kahlil Mack? It shouldn't matter who the player is or when or where he was drafted.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He is not helping them right now. The question should be, would caving in to his demands and signing him plus next years No. 1 provide as much benefit to them as having Kahlil Mack?

Mack most likely would provide a bigger impact to the Bears than Smith and next year's first round pick. On the other hand it would cost them close to a $100 million more over the next five years though.

 

[Dantés]

The Raiders would probably ask for another first round to take Hundley in a trade





Actually the Packers would take an additional cap hit by either releasing Perry ($19.1 million in dead money, $8.35 million in extra cap hit) as well as trading ($14.8 million, $4.05 million respectively). As it's past June 1 the dead money could be spread out over the next two seasons though.



Well, the CBA allows teams to release players without having to pay the remaining balance on of a contract because the NFLPA continues to agree to not fully guaranteed contracts. Therefore I'm absolutely fine with it.

On the other hand I don't have any sympathy for a player under contract and scheduled to make $13.8 million holding out because he considers himself underpaid.

The CBA doesn't allow for that too?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The CBA doesn't allow for that too?

No, it doesn't as the Raiders are allowed to fine Mack for every day of camp he misses. In addition if they don't agree to a contract by August 7 he won't be credited with an accrued season even if he ends up playing in 2018.

 

[AmishMafia]

Mack most likely would provide a bigger impact to the Bears than Smith and next year's first round pick. On the other hand it would cost them close to a $100 million more over the next five years though.

Yup. Money has to always factor in to every decision. The Bears, like every team, has a financial plan over the next few years and signing Mack would require a bunch of minds carefully considering the advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yup. Money has to always factor in to every decision. The Bears, like every team, has a financial plan over the next few years and signing Mack would require a bunch of minds carefully considering the advantages and disadvantages.

Agreed. The elephant in the room remains that I highly doubt the Raiders even consider trading Mack though.

 

[Dantés]

No, it doesn't as the Raiders are allowed to fine Mack for every day of camp he misses. In addition if they don't agree to a contract by August 7 he won't be credited with an accrued season even if he ends up playing in 2018.

And yet, he’s still within his rights to hold out as a negotiating tactic.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And yet, he’s still within his rights to hold out as a negotiating tactic.

That's your opinion. The league and I think differently about it.

 

[AmishMafia]

That's your opinion. The league and I think differently about it.

I would love for a team someday to sue a player for breach of contract. It would cause too much bad blood with rest of team. But if the player wasnt liked on the team . . .

 

[Half Empty]

All I’m saying is that people are quick to criticize players for doing what they believe is in their best contractual interests, but not the teams. If a player holds out, it’s bad behavior. If a team cuts a player under contract, it’s smart behavior.

I think the key word is bolded. Haven't actually read any of the contracts, but I'm pretty sure the player's side is "you pay me X dollars, and I'll play for you", while the team's is "IF we want you to play for us, we'll pay you X dollars". Hence, the player who holds out isn't living up to his signature, while the team that cuts a play is.

 

[AmishMafia]

I think the key word is bolded. Haven't actually read any of the contracts, but I'm pretty sure the player's side is "you pay me X dollars, and I'll play for you", while the team's is "IF we want you to play for us, we'll pay you X dollars". Hence, the player who holds out isn't living up to his signature, while the team that cuts a play is.

Exactly! Bothers me when people state that it isnt fair to the player.

I heard a talking head lament that Haynesworth got screwed because even though he signed a $100M he only go $42m over 2 years. I thought he screwed the Skins getting $42M and then taking it easy.

It is beneficial to players to NOT have 100% guaranteed contracts. At least players in general. Teams with 100% guarantees will end up cutting players or losing them to injury. Money tied up in players off the roster cannot go to other players.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Teams invest a lot in a player; draft pick, signing bonuses, coaching, etc. Personally, I think its B.S. that a player all of a sudden decides that he doesn't like the terms of the contract and wants to change them midstream. As someone who periodically invests in the stock market and poker games, I would love to be able to "stop the clock" and say "you know what, this isn't working out for me, let's pause for a moment and figure out a way it works better for me."

If a player and/or his agent does not understand the nature of the NFL contract, that is on them.

 

[AmishMafia]

To build on my thoughts, can you imagine a team signing a elite QB for 5 years and an elite OLB and both have career ending injuries the first year? With guaranteed contracts, that team is screwed for the next few years. Competitiveness is what makes the NFL so popular. Popularity is what creates high revenues which is tied to high salaries.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To build on my thoughts, can you imagine a team signing a elite QB for 5 years and an elite OLB and both have career ending injuries the first year? With guaranteed contracts, that team is screwed for the next few years. Competitiveness is what makes the NFL so popular. Popularity is what creates high revenues which is tied to high salaries.

Agreed. QB is about the only position I would be willing to do that and it would have to be for an elite player like Rodgers. I like Mack, but how many times have we seen guys like this signed in Free Agency (no picks even given up) and they end up being a huge cap anchor. No doubt a healthy Mack improves any team, but as you point out, an injury or lack of motivation changes all that. I also view a QB as the most important and intricate piece on the whole team. While an OLB can be important, he is just one of 11 guys making plays on the defense.

 

[Dantés]

That's your opinion. The league and I think differently about it.

“The league and I”! That’s good.

Our opinions apparently differ on the morality of what Mack is doing, but it’s a fact that he is within his rights to hold out for a contract. They can fine him for missing portions of their training camp program, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to do this if his camp believes it’s in their best interest.

 

[Dantés]

I think the key word is bolded. Haven't actually read any of the contracts, but I'm pretty sure the player's side is "you pay me X dollars, and I'll play for you", while the team's is "IF we want you to play for us, we'll pay you X dollars". Hence, the player who holds out isn't living up to his signature, while the team that cuts a play is.

So is a player not living up to his signature if he retires before his contract is up?