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

[RRyder]

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

Actually the player is allowed to as long as hes willing to pay a fine and team can cut a player as long as they're willing to take a cap hit.

In no way does that make a lick of difference though when someone says "a contract is a contract" but will refuse to acknowledge that cuts both ways ethically.

I could care less which side people are on as long as they weren't so hypocritical about it and using mental gymnastics in an effort not to admit it.

Ethics. Not legality is the point

 

[McKnowledge]

This is something I'd be willing to explore, but the cost will be astronomical.

To even bring the Raiders to the negotiating table, we'd have to both of our 1st and Matthews. They might prefer Perry more--he's younger and on a longer contract.

And why wouldn't they? If they can't work out a deal, franchise him and just like that, any team that signs him would have to give the Raiders 2 1sts.

The Packers have two 1st rounders next year...

 

[McKnowledge]

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.

I like it. I think Gruden would be willing to trade Mack to the Pack too. I think Jon Gruden wants to mold the Raiders in his image, and isn't too keen on signing Mack to a long term contract if at all. His ties to the Packers could facilitate a trade, question is...if the Pack traded for him, how do you make make the dollars match? Outside of draft picks, there will be salaries moving, which means productive players leaving. Is it a worthy gamble or risky investment?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Actually the player is allowed to as long as hes willing to pay a fine and team can cut a player as long as they're willing to take a cap hit.

In no way does that make a lick of difference though when someone says "a contract is a contract" but will refuse to acknowledge that cuts both ways ethically.

I could care less which side people are on as long as they weren't so hypocritical about it and using mental gymnastics in an effort not to admit it.

Ethics. Not legality is the point

There is no mental gymnastic here, its actually a pretty simple contract and can be ended in 3 simple ways. The Team fires the employee, the employee quits or the contract expires/extended. The first 2 ways, will probably have contractual stipulations, as well as in the case of the NFL, CBA stipulations, as to what each results in.

People are confusing the matter by equating a team firing (cutting) a player to be the same as a player holding out. Now you can view either or both as a "**** moves", but one is allowed in the contract and the other is just one of the parties not fulfilling his end of the contract.

Now if a team didn't pay the player the contractual amount for playing, that would be a violation of the contract and could be called a "**** move".

 

[Dantés]

I like it. I think Gruden would be willing to trade Mack to the Pack too. I think Jon Gruden wants to mold the Raiders in his image, and isn't too keen on signing Mack to a long term contract if at all. His ties to the Packers could facilitate a trade, question is...if the Pack traded for him, how do you make make the dollars match? Outside of draft picks, there will be salaries moving, which means productive players leaving. Is it a worthy gamble or risky investment?

I find the whole proposition unlikely, but the Raiders' behavior towards him gives me enough pause to consider it (and it's so tantalizing that I can't help myself). It's not uncommon for teams and players to be at something of an impasse by the beginning of camp. But it is unusual that they haven't had contact with his camp since February and that Gruden hasn't met him. Those details suggest to me that maybe there's something more than "hard ball" going on here.

As for the last question, that all comes down to what he costs to acquire. The contract is going to be around 5 years, 100 million. You can give or take a little bit there, but that's the ball park. And that part is easy for me-- if you have a chance to pay market value for an elite player at a premium position, you do it. If they included Matthews in the swap, as I suggested originally, that frees up 11.37M in space this season which would help fit his new contract in. Beyond this year, the Packers have 38M in space with more available in potential cuts (Bulaga, ~7M; Tramon Williams, ~5M). Now they also have to fit in Rodgers' new deal, so it's probable that both Rodgers and Mack would mean they couldn't do much else of note on the open market. But in my opinion, that's more than OK. You're getting a guy who is so far and away better than what normally hits the market as it is.

The real question to me (assuming the unlikely scenario that the Raiders are willing to do him) is what he will cost to acquire. Chandler Jones was not quite as good as Mack after year 4, but he was close. He was similar in age, position, and production. The Patriots flipped him to the Cardinals for a 2nd round pick and Jonathan Cooper (a failed guard). So I don't think a 1st and Clay Matthews is crazy. It's both a better pick and a better player than what the Pats got, so that allows for the fact that Mack should cost more. The Raiders would be saving more space than they'd incur with Matthews, and he would help replace that important production. They also seem to have an affinity for veterans and Packers.

So in that scenario, I would consider it a worthy, worthy gamble. And I don't even see that much risk. Mack is an established, durable, elite player. Barring a disastrous injury, I don't see the downside.

 

[GleefulGary]

Excuse me Captain, but that was just a sarcastic parroting of exactly how you’ve been talking to me about this issue all along. If that makes me a ****, look in the mirror. If you can’t handle the disagreement, I can’t help you.

Why are we looking at ****s in the mirror?

 

[GleefulGary]

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

And smarter contractors? lol Somebody doesnt follow the NBA

I do, actually.

The teams that deal out contracts well, do well. The teams that don’t...well, they’re screwed. It rewards smarter front offices.

 

[RRyder]

I do, actually.

The teams that deal out contracts well, do well. The teams that don’t...well, they’re screwed. It rewards smarter front offices.

More specifically it rewards teams that draft well due to the NBA having max contracts, (something the NFL doesn't have), as it allows the team to underpay their star players and have more money to fill out the roster especially under a soft cap.

The worst place to be is drafting an allstar level guy, but not a superstar, and knowing that you have to pay a max contract to keep him.

 

[swhitset]

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

that’s an interesting opinion. I suppose it’s within my rights to do anything I please. Of course there are consequences to everything.

 

[Dantés]

that’s an interesting opinion. I suppose it’s within my rights to do anything I please. Of course there are consequences to everything.

So are you arguing then that a player like Mack does not have the right to hold out?

 

[swhitset]

So are you arguing then that a player like Mack does not have the right to hold out?

Obviously.... he does not. He signed a legally binding contract and accepted a signing bonus at the time which means he has already accepted partial payment for the duration of that contract. By not showing up to his contractually stipulated practices he is in breach of that contract. So clearly he is not “allowed” to do it. The only question that remains is ... what are the consequences of him breaching the contract? Apparently part of the answer is fines. Technically he could be sued... and possibly even be forced to repay the team for whatever damages the courts decide that the team has incurred. This argument about what is “allowed” or what a player has a “right” to do is silly. The real question is what are the consequences for whatever action or inaction we happen to be talking about.

 

[Dantés]

Obviously.... he does not. He signed a legally binding contract and accepted a signing bonus at the time which means he has already accepted partial payment for the duration of that contract. By not showing up to his contractually stipulated practices he is in breach of that contract. So clearly he is not “allowed” to do it. The only question that remains is ... what are the consequences of him breaching the contract? Apparently part of the answer is fines. Technically he could be sued... and possibly even be forced to repay the team for whatever damages the courts decide that the team has incurred. This argument about what is “allowed” or what a player has a “right” to do is silly. The real question is what are the consequences for whatever action or inaction we happen to be talking about.

It’s not silly; it’s reality. Yes, the team can fine him and even come after him for some bonus monies if it comes to that. You see that sometimes when players retire mid-contract and their bonuses have been paid out. But the fact that the team has that recourse doesn’t mean Mack doesn’t have a right to hold out. Clearly he does, and he’s exercising it, as we see with a handful of players each year.

 

[swhitset]

It’s not silly; it’s reality. Yes, the team can fine him and even come after him for some bonus monies if it comes to that. You see that sometimes when players retire mid-contract and their bonuses have been paid out. But the fact that the team has that recourse doesn’t mean Mack doesn’t have a right to hold out. Clearly he does, and he’s exercising it, as we see with a handful of players each year.

As I said ... you have an interesting point of view.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why are people confusing "contractual rights" with "decisions making rights"? I have the right to buy a ticket to a Packers game. When I buy that ticket its somewhat of a contract or revocable license to attend the game, made between me and the Packers, There are written and implied conditions I must follow. I also have lots of choices I can make while attending the game. I can choose to streak across the field, that would be my own personal right/decision. However, that would be in violation of my ticket rights and there would be consequences for my actions.

Mack's contract does not give him the "right" to withhold services. Someone might say "he has the right to", sure he can make a decision to sit, but its a clear violation of his contract and the team will no doubt decide how they want to enforce the violation, which is set out in the contract with the player and the CBA with the Players Association.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

An NFL team isn't able to adjust a contract without the player agreeing either. Mack is trying to force the Raiders to renegotiate his deal by violating rules of the contract though.

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.

It's amazing that you consider a player holding out with another season left on a contract as normal. It seems there's absolutely no point in further discussing about it with you.

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

Mack has signed a contract which includes this paragraph:

Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player accepts such employment. He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game. Player will report promptly for and participate fully in Club’s official mandatory minicamp(s), official preseason training camp, all Club meetings and practice sessions, and all preseason, regular season and postseason football games scheduled for or by Club. If invited, Player will practice for and play in any all-star football game sponsored by the League. Player will not participate in any football game not sponsored by the League unless the game is first approved by the League.

Therefore he's obviously violating his contract by holding out.

On the other hand the CBA states that a team actually is allowed to terminate a contract in Article 4, Section 5 (d):

In addition to any rights a Club may presently have under the NFL Player Contract, any Player Contract may be terminated if, in the Club’s opinion, the player being terminated is anticipated to make less of a contribution to the Club’s ability to compete on the playing field than another player or players whom the Club intends to sign or attempt to sign, or another player or players who is or are already on the roster of such Club, and for whom the Club needs Room. This Subsection shall not affect any Club or Club Affiliate’s obligation to pay a player any guaranteed consideration.

I don't care about the ethical aspects of the agreement as all parties involved agreed on the parmeters of it with Mack being the one currently violating it.

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

Actually the CBA does. I quoted the relevant section above.

So are you arguing then that a player like Mack does not have the right to hold out?

Once again, Mack doesn't have the right to hold out. He signed a contract forcing him to show up for training camp.

 

[AmishMafia]

. . . .
Once again, Mack doesn't have the right to hold out. He signed a contract forcing him to show up for training camp.

Well said, that should end the argument. Except I would have used the word "obligating" instead of "forcing".

 

[Dantés]

Clearly I disagree and I think we can just leave it at that before Captain gets even more upset.

 

[PikeBadger]

I find the whole proposition unlikely, but the Raiders' behavior towards him gives me enough pause to consider it (and it's so tantalizing that I can't help myself). It's not uncommon for teams and players to be at something of an impasse by the beginning of camp. But it is unusual that they haven't had contact with his camp since February and that Gruden hasn't met him. Those details suggest to me that maybe there's something more than "hard ball" going on here.

As for the last question, that all comes down to what he costs to acquire. The contract is going to be around 5 years, 100 million. You can give or take a little bit there, but that's the ball park. And that part is easy for me-- if you have a chance to pay market value for an elite player at a premium position, you do it. If they included Matthews in the swap, as I suggested originally, that frees up 11.37M in space this season which would help fit his new contract in. Beyond this year, the Packers have 38M in space with more available in potential cuts (Bulaga, ~7M; Tramon Williams, ~5M). Now they also have to fit in Rodgers' new deal, so it's probable that both Rodgers and Mack would mean they couldn't do much else of note on the open market. But in my opinion, that's more than OK. You're getting a guy who is so far and away better than what normally hits the market as it is.

The real question to me (assuming the unlikely scenario that the Raiders are willing to do him) is what he will cost to acquire. Chandler Jones was not quite as good as Mack after year 4, but he was close. He was similar in age, position, and production. The Patriots flipped him to the Cardinals for a 2nd round pick and Jonathan Cooper (a failed guard). So I don't think a 1st and Clay Matthews is crazy. It's both a better pick and a better player than what the Pats got, so that allows for the fact that Mack should cost more. The Raiders would be saving more space than they'd incur with Matthews, and he would help replace that important production. They also seem to have an affinity for veterans and Packers.

So in that scenario, I would consider it a worthy, worthy gamble. And I don't even see that much risk. Mack is an established, durable, elite player. Barring a disastrous injury, I don't see the downside.

I haven’t seen this mentioned as I scanned this thread, but my initial thought was, from a management perspective, why would any general manager be interested in bringing into their locker room, a guy who is a contract holdout? To me, that’s like bringing in the ebola virus or beubonic plague.
And why are the Raiders exhibiting the forementioned “behavior” towards Mack? Certainly they know more about this guy than anyone else. The entire premise is courting organizational suicide imo.

 

[thequick12]

Obviously.... he does not. He signed a legally binding contract and accepted a signing bonus at the time which means he has already accepted partial payment for the duration of that contract. By not showing up to his contractually stipulated practices he is in breach of that contract. So clearly he is not “allowed” to do it. The only question that remains is ... what are the consequences of him breaching the contract? Apparently part of the answer is fines. Technically he could be sued... and possibly even be forced to repay the team for whatever damages the courts decide that the team has incurred. This argument about what is “allowed” or what a player has a “right” to do is silly. The real question is what are the consequences for whatever action or inaction we happen to be talking about.

So you don't think any worker has th

Well said, that should end the argument. Except I would have used the word "obligating" instead of "forcing".

So I guess maybe we don't agree on the definition of right? Because Mack as a free thinking human being has the right to withhold his services from his job just like any other human being. If he feels he's not being paid enough for the risks he's taking or in relation to his peers he has the right to quit which is essentially what holding out is. He's saying I quit now if the employer decides to say no hey don't quit we'll pay you more money, then ok and Mack goes back to work. If not he or john the factory worker goes and finds a new job. that's how it works you have the right to quit your job at anytime and you're employer has the right to fire you at anytime barring it's not for unjust reasons.
Now if you can get any player as good as Mack for a 1st round pick you do it. He is exactly what you are trying almost always in vain to draft in the first round year after year

 

[Dantés]

I haven’t seen this mentioned as I scanned this thread, but my initial thought was, from a management perspective, why would any general manager be interested in bringing into their locker room, a guy who is a contract holdout? To me, that’s like bringing in the ebola virus or beubonic plague.
And why are the Raiders exhibiting the forementioned “behavior” towards Mack? Certainly they know more about this guy than anyone else. The entire premise is courting organizational suicide imo.

You would have to have a deal agreed to in principle for an extension before you made the move. But at the risk of starting this all over, I’m in favor of it because I see nothing particularly weird, dangerous, or wrong with what Mack is doing. Others may disagree.

Von Miller also held out over mandatory portions of the offseason when he was negotiating his extension. I’m sure most reasonable Packer fans would love to have Miller in green and gold.

 

[PikeBadger]

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.

Fully guaranteed contracts? I’m totally against that concept.

I’m fine with guaranteeing a portion of the contract with signing, roster and award bonuses.

Imo, fully guaranteeing all contracts league wide under the NFL salary cap system would result in veteran role players and journeymen being squeezed out of the league or having their compensation lowered drastically. We’d see an entire league of mostly stars and rookie contract players. I think it would destroy the middle echelon players.

 

[AmishMafia]

So you don't think any worker has th


So I guess maybe we don't agree on the definition of right? Because Mack as a free thinking human being has the right to withhold his services from his job just like any other human being. If he feels he's not being paid enough for the risks he's taking or in relation to his peers he has the right to quit which is essentially what holding out is. He's saying I quit now if the employer decides to say no hey don't quit we'll pay you more money, then ok and Mack goes back to work. If not he or john the factory worker goes and finds a new job. that's how it works you have the right to quit your job at anytime and you're employer has the right to fire you at anytime barring it's not for unjust reasons.
Now if you can get any player as good as Mack for a 1st round pick you do it. He is exactly what you are trying almost always in vain to draft in the first round year after year

No, he is not like every human being or worker. He signed a contract.

As far as the NFL goes, he has the legal right to retire (leave the NFL) or to show up.

We have been discussing legal rights not human rights.

Think about it. Suppose you contract with a guy to build a pool for $50k and you give him $20k down payment. The day he is supposed to start he doesnt show up, when you call him, he demands an additional $10k or he wont build the pool. Is that his human or legal right? To withhold his services because he wants more money? This is your argument.

 

[Dantés]

No, he is not like every human being or worker. He signed a contract.

As far as the NFL goes, he has the legal right to retire (leave the NFL) or to show up.

We have been discussing legal rights not human rights.

Think about it. Suppose you contract with a guy to build a pool for $50k and you give him $20k down payment. The day he is supposed to start he doesnt show up, when you call him, he demands an additional $10k or he wont build the pool. Is that his human or legal right? To withhold his services because he wants more money? This is your argument.

To expand on the analogy, you and the other homeowners have obligated this contractor to build pools at a fraction of their market value for four years and now the contractor is attempting to get his actual value, rather than one that’s artificially low.

 

[AmishMafia]

To expand on the analogy, you and the other homeowners have obligated this contractor to build pools at a fraction of their market value for four years and now the contractor is attempting to get his actual value, rather than one that’s artificially low.

Do you honestly think that makes any difference? You think there is a legal clause out there that says you can change the terms of your contract if you change your mind suddenly want more profit?

Your contractor realizes his competition is now charging $70k with $30k in profit. He's only making $10k profit. Therefore, your contractor is now justified in demanding an extra $20k because other contractors are making that much.

Come on man.

 

[PikeBadger]

To expand on the analogy, you and the other homeowners have obligated this contractor to build pools at a fraction of their market value for four years and now the contractor is attempting to get his actual value, rather than one that’s artificially low.

The NFL Players Association disagrees with you. That’s why they changed the rookie pay scale years ago because high draft picks with no NFL game experience were suddenly making more money than 8 year veteran players.