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

[Snoops]

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.

Where did u hear that?

 

[Dantés]

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?!?!

Right?? Maybe by reminding people that we had acquired a player way better than anyone else on the FA market in any given offseason.

 

[RRyder]

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.

I'm inclined to agree with everything you said but my posts are generally in response to the "get him in here at all cost" crowd.

Cost to acquire and cost to retain are big questions that many seem unconcerned with

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Where did u hear that?

I "officially" heard it a few posts ago.

 

[Dantés]

I'm inclined to agree with everything you said but my posts are generally in response to the "get him in here at all cost" crowd.

Cost to acquire and cost to retain are big questions that many seem unconcerned with

Sounds good. Count me out of that crowd.

 

[C-Lee]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1034947024620269568[/TWEET]

Source. Would you give our 2 first rounders for him?

 

[AmishMafia]

Source. Would you give our 2 first rounders for him?

No.

 

[sschind]

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.

what offer?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Step 1: Raiders, what are you asking?
Step 2: Do we have permission to talk to Mack's agent?
Step 3: Agent, what are you asking?
Step 4: *gag*, *choke*, hang up

This never got past Step 1. Gutekunst offered Matthews +

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

 

[Dantés]

I would think opening with that asking price means that they’re willing in reality to take something less than that. The important question now is— how much less?

 

[Spanky]

No one in the league is giving up two number one draft choices to make Mack the highest paid defensive player in the league.

Jon Gruden has a real sh**show on his hands. He can't pay Mack what he wants, and Gruden is asking for too much in a trade. That equals Mack as a hold out and no trade on the horizon. Lose-lose for the Raiders.

 

[Mondio]

so they went from "we're not trading him" to " this is our price to trade him" in about a week. He doesn't want to be there, They aren't going to keep him there. I don't know how long this drags out for, but the price isn't going to go op. Neither will Mack's value. By now, he can't even get up to speed with a team and their defense. and regardless of how one trains, there is time it takes to get into playing shape/condition. at this point I'd be very worried about trading, signing and then watching him get hurt.

 

[PikeBadger]

Step 1: Raiders, what are you asking?
Step 2: Do we have permission to talk to Mack's agent?
Step 3: Agent, what are you asking?
Step 4: *gag*, *choke*, hang up

This never got past Step 1. Gutekunst offered Matthews +

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

Agree. The good news is that the longer he holds out, the less trade value he commands.
Me? A guy under contract using the phrase “pay me or trade me” is the plague. Caving in to a guy like that means he’d use the same tactic again and so would his teammates. Bad behavior can’t be rewarded.

 

[PackerDNA]

I would think opening with that asking price means that they’re willing in reality to take something less than that. The important question now is— how much less?

Agreed. Start asking high, then drop. Maybe start/end with a 1st in 2019 and another in 2020, or a 1st and 4th plus Matthews. But word that they've opened extension talks with Clay would put that in doubt.

 

[Dantés]

Agreed. Start asking high, then drop. Maybe start/end with a 1st in 2019 and another in 2020, or a 1st and 4th plus Matthews. But word that they've opened extension talks with Clay would put that in doubt.

Unless... and this is unlikely... the Raiders want Matthews but not with one year left on his deal so the Packers are looking to extend and trade.

 

[AmishMafia]

Unless... and this is unlikely... the Raiders want Matthews but not with one year left on his deal so the Packers are looking to extend and trade.

That occurred to me, but Oak would probably be doing the negotiating.

or maybe . . . the Pack is trying to create cap space to sign Mack.

 

[sschind]

so they went from "we're not trading him" to " this is our price to trade him" in about a week. He doesn't want to be there, They aren't going to keep him there. I don't know how long this drags out for, but the price isn't going to go op. Neither will Mack's value. By now, he can't even get up to speed with a team and their defense. and regardless of how one trains, there is time it takes to get into playing shape/condition. at this point I'd be very worried about trading, signing and then watching him get hurt.

This is key. Anyone trading for him will be pressured to put him in ASAP and it may be too soon. You just know if he is traded in the next few days he will be playing in week 1. While I don't think getting up to speed with a teams defense would be an issue for a 5th year player, especially one of Mack's abilities and reported dedication, the injury factor could be. I'd also think Mack may try to do too much just to prove he was worth it and that could lead to injury issues as well.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

One thing with Mack that keeps popping into my head is this. Is Mack the missing link to make the Packers basically locks for the Super Bowl? We already know the answer when it comes to Aaron Rodgers, without Rogers the Packers are a marginal team. Does Mack change things that dramatically on defense? Rodgers contract is about $10M/year more than the numbers being thrown around for Mack. I have a hard time committing to the idea that one guy, can be such a disruptive force on defense, that he is worth committing that kind of resources (draft capital and salary) to. That kind of money committed to the cap for one guy puts a ton of pressure on that one guy to produce, since you have just removed the ability to use that money on 2-4 other potential starters, who collectively, might have a better chance at being the missing links. Not to even mention the draft cost to obtain Mack. While the odds of it happening are probably low, either one of those first round picks could land a top 10 player next year, a guy that you are paying peanuts for in comparison to Mack.

Would be a bold all in move by Gute, but not one I would fully support just based on the cost/risk side of it. No matter what, all the stars seem to have to be aligned perfectly each year for a team to win a Super Bowl and I am anxious to see what Pettine and the new player additions do for the defense, while Mack is a talented guy, the price is just too steep in my eyes.

 

[gbgary]

Is Mack the missing link to make the Packers basically locks for the Super Bowl?

Mack is a known quantity...we all know draft picks aren't. how long have we been lamenting the lack of a pass rush. there's only one reason to extend Rodgers and that's to win a SB in the near future. now is the time to go all-in.

 

[AmishMafia]

Mack is a known quantity...we all know draft picks aren't. how long have we been lamenting the lack of a pass rush. there's only one reason to extend Rodgers and that's to win a SB in the near future. now is the time to go all-in.

To me, it's not the picks, but the money. Signing him will result in the loss of someone else. Rip, Haha, Ryan and Clay this year. Daniels, Bulaga, Crosby, Spriggs, Lowry, Martinez next year.
Clark, Bahk, King, Adam's, Taylor, Linsley after that. All potential FA losses.

Expect a couple of more players will emerge and join all 3 of these year lists that we wont want to lose.

It's a big chunk of change for one guy, but one guy can make a difference. I think he would be a huge impact in play and leadership that could put the pack over the top. I am back and forth on whether this is a good idea or not. Very risky, with huge potential dividends.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Mack is a known quantity...

Yes, we know this but the value of say $24M/year cap space is a 100% rock solid known quantity. Mack is a really solid player, but there are no guarantees that he is the difference maker, stays healthy or continues to play at the same level over the life of the contract...see Clay Matthews and Randall Cobb for examples of this. However, we do know that every season, there is a lot that a team can do with$24M in cap space as well as the draft capital it would take to obtain Mack. $24M spent on one guy is really putting a lot of stock and risk into one guy on defense, when you can hedge your bets by spreading that money out and upgrading with 2-4 or more other guys.

 

[ExpatPacker]

My guess is that $24 M on today's market can get you two top players depending on position. The question is, is Mack that good that he's worth, say, a pro-bowl OL plus a very good but maybe not pro-bowl OLB or safety?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My guess is that $24 M on today's market can get you two top players depending on position. The question is, is Mack that good that he's worth, say, a pro-bowl OL plus a very good but maybe not pro-bowl OLB or safety?

$24M+ the draft capital to trade for him. This isn't just signing a Free Agent. So not only are you giving up the money to pay 2 decent players, you are potentially giving up a Jaire Alexander and Josh Jackson type of player, both playing on rookie deals for 4-5 years.

 

[rmontro]

Is Mack the missing link to make the Packers basically locks for the Super Bowl?

If Gute did pull the trigger on this deal, it would cause a lot of pressure. You would have to think that if we don't get a Super Bowl win out of it at some point, the signing would be considered a failure.

 

[sschind]

$24M+ the draft capital to trade for him. This isn't just signing a Free Agent. So not only are you giving up the money to pay 2 decent players, you are potentially giving up a Jaire Alexander and Josh Jackson type of player, both playing on rookie deals for 4-5 years.

Like I said in the other thread 4 players for 1 ... I'll take the 4.