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

[Deleted member 6794]

I’m not in favor of either party being able to change the contract at will.

That's what Mack is trying to do by holding out though.

 

[Dantés]

That's what Mack is trying to do by holding out though.

He’s trying to drive negotiation towards a new extension because he’s entering the last year of his deal. He’s not single handedly changing the contract. He can’t do that.

 

[RRyder]

I hate when players hold out, like why sign a contract with years on it if you’re just going to try to get a new contract whenever you want.
If you want to go that route, just sign 1 or 2 year deals like Lebron James did to maximize his earnings but I guess players like having the security of a contract with years and guaranteed money without the obligations of having to honor the duration of it.

Do you also hate when teams cut a player or force him to take a pay cut? If you do then I commend you for being consistent but it's the same thing just the other side of the coin

 

[RRyder]

Somehow every other major sport can handle guaranteed contracts, but the NFL can’t?

Do you know what guaranteed contracts (eventually) do? They lead to smarter, better contracts for the team. And it leads to smarter teams succeeding. And I have no issue with Mack. The team will do what’s best for the team, but the player can’t do that for himself? The team invests in the player, but the player doesn’t invest in the team?

In a league where there is a short term playing career, no complete guaranteed contract, they have set themselves up for holdouts! If I knew my value was higher than what I was earning, and I earn my wages in a dangerous environment, then damn right I’m gonna hold out.

But shoot...these guys should feel privileged to even earn $1 million a year, right? So why care about them? Only care about the team. Bah. Welcome to supply/demand. Idiots.

The NFL also has a hard cap and roster sizes that dwarf the other leagues.

And smarter contractors? lol Somebody doesnt follow the NBA

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And the Raiders annually make around 325 million. So what.

This isn’t about sympathy. It’s business negotiations. I’m just pointing out that most fans see it that way from the team’s perspective, but have a totally different view when it comes to the players. They have a double standard.

I think you are forgetting one aspect of this, players have choices. They choose to come out of college and play in the NFL, if they are that fortunate. Mack signed a pretty much preset lucrative Rookie deal and the Raiders liked him enough to extend him on his 5th year option, all contractually agreed to by the Raiders and Mack. This is all a preset way of doing things in the NFL that both sides are aware of before signing them. Holding out may be an option you support, but if it happened on a wide spread and consistent basis, under the current contract structure, it would probably ruin the game, as well as turn many fans, like myself away.

Again I ask, why even bother having contracts if they don't mean anything? Personally, I would love to see contracts all go to incentive based pay, you make only what you actually earn. But that isn't the case currently in the NFL and if Mack thinks he should be paid based on his potential, then I would offer him a contract purely with nothing but a bare minimum salary and the ability for him to make what he seeks, as long as he actually earns it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I’m not in favor of either party being able to change the contract at will.

"at will" means only one person makes the decision. The Raiders have given Mack their decision.

Yet Mack is attempting to force his will by holding out? The Raiders have held up their end of the contract, Mack is saying "I won't play, until you change the contract I signed", his will, not theirs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He’s trying to drive negotiation towards a new extension because he’s entering the last year of his deal. He’s not single handedly changing the contract. He can’t do that.

Mack is trying to force the Raiders to renegotiate his contract although he has another season left on his current one. That is definitely only his will and not the team's.

Do you also hate when teams cut a player or force him to take a pay cut? If you do then I commend you for being consistent but it's the same thing just the other side of the coin

Wrong, teams are allowed to release players according to league rules. There's no way for a team to force a player to take a pay cut.

 

[Dantés]

Mack is trying to force the Raiders to renegotiate his contract although he has another season left on his current one. That is definitely only his will and not the team's.



Wrong, teams are allowed to release players according to league rules. There's no way for a team to force a player to take a pay cut.

Obviously. But that’s very different from him being able to just adjust his contract without their agreement, which is what we were talking about.

 

[Dantés]

"at will" means only one person makes the decision. The Raiders have given Mack their decision.

Yet Mack is attempting to force his will by holding out? The Raiders have held up their end of the contract, Mack is saying "I won't play, until you change the contract I signed", his will, not theirs.

Mack is using the leverage at his disposal to try and get some longer term security as he is entering the last year of his deal and, to this point, has been paid a mere fraction of what his actual market value is. He can’t force them to give him a new deal, but he can try to incentivize them to negotiate. I don’t see what’s wrong with that, especially when his first contract was not really negotiated, but rather stipulated. They don’t have to say yes.

And just to make something clear, Mack was eligible to be extended last offseason. He didn’t hold out. He’s holding out now because he only has one year left on his deal. That’s pretty normal.

I mention that because it’s been posited a few times in here that we don’t want players just holding out every year they think they’re overpaid. That’s not really what tends to happen and it’s not what Mack has done either. If that was really who he was as a player, he would have held out last offseason.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

I like the idea of Mack in Green Bay, he'd be an upgrade (Big upgrade) from Matthews.

 

[PikeBadger]

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.

A 50% guaranteed contract??? Only if Russ Ball has suddenly become an opioid addict.

 

[Dantés]

A 50% guaranteed contract??? Only if Russ Ball has suddenly become an opioid addict.

I was just basing it on a little uptick from what Miller got. But Ball would surely resist that much guaranteed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Obviously. But that’s very different from him being able to just adjust his contract without their agreement, which is what we were talking about.

Mack IS adjusting the contract, he is sitting out. The contract calls for him to be at these practices and to eventually play.

We could go back and forth all day about this and it won't change either of our minds and I am not trying to change yours. I see your points, but I just happen to disagree with them and contend that a contract is a contract, either abide by it or be prepared to take your lumps.

 

[Dantés]

Mack is adjusting the contract, he is sitting out. The contract calls for him to be at these practices and to eventually play.

We could go back and forth all day about this and it won't change either of our minds and I am not trying to change yours. I see your points, but I just happen to disagree with them and contend that a contract is a contract, either abide by it or be prepared to take your lumps.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sorry Dantés

.....just had to add this

.....I use this kind of negotiating all the time in business. "Well....you know I can get a lot more for my money from these companies, so what can you do for me to sweeten the pot?" and that works if I am a "free agent". However, I have also heard this.....

"Well Mr. PokerBrat, we still have you under contract for 3 more years, if you would like to discontinue our service and cancel your contract, there will be a cancellation fee of $500, along with your kidney and first born..."

****insert sound of phone hanging up****

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I like the idea of Mack in Green Bay, he'd be an upgrade (Big upgrade) from Matthews.

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Meanwhile down in Jacksonville, Leon Jacobs a LB chosen in the 7th Round out of Wisconsin, is getting reps with starters on what was a very good defense last year.

 

[gbgary]

i like it but ted will never go for it.

 

[RRyder]

Mack is trying to force the Raiders to renegotiate his contract although he has another season left on his current one. That is definitely only his will and not the team's.



Wrong, teams are allowed to release players according to league rules. There's no way for a team to force a player to take a pay cut.

Good lord Cap. I not once brought up league rules. Couldn't care less in regards to this conversation. No **** league rules state teams can cut players.

The point is if you think a player holding out for a better contract is a ****** thing to do because " a contract is a contract" then when a team goes to a player and says "take less pay or we are going to cut you" if your not equally as willing to call it a ****** move your a hypocrite because well "a contract is a contract"

It's not about which side has the backing of the league. It's about what you think is a ****** move. You know that

 

[AmishMafia]

Okay, then you know more about me than this issue. Can you explain to me what you mean?

There are 2 court systems in the US, criminal and civil. Criminal, as you probably guessed, is for law breakers, the lives, rapists, murderers, speeders, etc. Civil is for non law breakers: divorce, contracting, or any dispute between citizens or business entities. Police are not involved in civil matters, only in criminal issues. They cannot adjudicate a contract.

If you contract with someone to build a pool, they take your money, and then dont build your pool, your only recourse is to sue them in court to get your money back. It is not much different for an NFL player. The only difference is there is an overriding CBA, but that is just another layer of requirements.

If you contract with a player, and he doesnt show up to mandatory training camp, he is violating his contract. Teams dont put their feet to the fire only because it would burn bridges with other players.

If I was a GM I would set a precedence of never redoing a contract. I would add years, but hold the contract in place. For example, with AR right now, I would add 3 years to his existing deal at $32M/year. Maybe $30m signing bonus. It works the same as a raise now, but there is a principal of honoring the old contract.

 

[AmishMafia]

Good lord Cap. I not once brought up league rules. Couldn't care less in regards to this conversation. No **** league rules state teams can cut players.

The point is if you think a player holding out for a better contract is a ****** thing to do because " a contract is a contract" then when a team goes to a player and says "take less pay or we are going to cut you" if your not equally as willing to call it a ****** move your a hypocrite because well "a contract is a contract"

It's not about which side has the backing of the league. It's about what you think is a ****** move. You know that

A team cutting a player is within the terms of a contract, the player holding out is not.

 

[Dantés]

There are 2 court systems in the US, criminal and civil. Criminal, as you probably guessed, is for law breakers, the lives, rapists, murderers, speeders, etc. Civil is for non law breakers: divorce, contracting, or any dispute between citizens or business entities. Police are not involved in civil matters, only in criminal issues. They cannot adjudicate a contract.

If you contract with someone to build a pool, they take your money, and then dont build your pool, your only recourse is to sue them in court to get your money back. It is not much different for an NFL player. The only difference is there is an overriding CBA, but that is just another layer of requirements.

If you contract with a player, and he doesnt show up to mandatory training camp, he is violating his contract. Teams dont put their feet to the fire only because it would burn bridges with other players.

If I was a GM I would set a precedence of never redoing a contract. I would add years, but hold the contract in place. For example, with AR right now, I would add 3 years to his existing deal at $32M/year. Maybe $30m signing bonus. It works the same as a raise now, but there is a principal of honoring the old contract.

I see what you're saying. I do know the difference between a civil and criminal issue. I just wasn't sure what you meant when you said that the contract "required" Mack to supply his services.

Now let me ask you this. Setting aside bonuses for a minute, which are more complicated, my understanding is that base salary is paid on a weekly basis (i.e. "game checks"). So if Mack held out for games, wouldn't he be forfeiting that money for those games missed? If that's right, then he's not actually taking money for services not rendered. Rather, he's forfeiting contractually agreed upon compensation in the effort to force a new negotiation.

And if he never came back and played for them, they could in fact come after him for some bonus money, could they not? I seem to hear about that happening with retirees from time to time.

 

[Dantés]

A team cutting a player is within the terms of a contract, the player holding out is not.

Genuinely asking-- does an NFL contract actually say that a team can cut a player at any time as part of the terms?

 

[AmishMafia]

I see what you're saying. I do know the difference between a civil and criminal issue. I just wasn't sure what you meant when you said that the contract "required" Mack to supply his services.

Now let me ask you this. Setting aside bonuses for a minute, which are more complicated, my understanding is that base salary is paid on a weekly basis (i.e. "game checks"). So if Mack held out for games, wouldn't he be forfeiting that money for those games missed? If that's right, then he's not actually taking money for services not rendered. Rather, he's forfeiting contractually agreed upon compensation in the effort to force a new negotiation.

And if he never came back and played for them, they could in fact come after him for some bonus money, could they not? I seem to hear about that happening with retirees from time to time.

I think the signing bonus would count as partial payment for services not rendered

Genuinely asking-- does an NFL contract actually say that a team can cut a player at any time as part of the terms?

Its in the CBA. I believe it is in each contract as expressed by guaranteed and non-guaranteed money.

 

[Dantés]

I think the signing bonus would count as partial payment for services not rendered

Its in the CBA. I believe it is in each contract as expressed by guaranteed and non-guaranteed money.

In which case, if a player held out for real games and a certain portion of their bonus was considered partial payment for those weeks of service, I would think the player should pay it back.