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

[Half Empty]

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

Once again, a team cutting a player is totally within the provisions of the contract. And, the team can't force a pay cut - they can offer a take-it-or-leave-it option to take the reduction or be cut. I think, as with so many things in the forum, it's semantics. People are allowed to do anything they want, but some actions have consequences. Can a player hold out? Sure. Is it (here is where it gets tricky) right/legal/moral/ethical/reasonable/allowable? That's a whole different question.

 

[Dantés]

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.

No, I realize that doesn’t change the legal stipulations. But for me, it makes it understandable why Mack would hold out to try and incentivize negotiations. I see why he and his camp would do that without worrying that he’s a cancerous money grubber. So I wouldn’t be concerned about acquiring him, which was the origin of this debate.

Now all that said, I understand your points and just disagree with some of your perspective. I’m good with that. You good?

 

[GleefulGary]

I hope none of you support union workers going on strike.

 

[Half Empty]

Union workers don't go on strike as individuals. And, I have always been annoyed that people with 7-8 figure incomes are represented by one.

 

[AmishMafia]

Now all that said, I understand your points and just disagree with some of your perspective. I’m good with that. You good?

You kidding? I'm AWESOME!!!

I think the season is getting here just in time.

 

[AmishMafia]

I hope none of you support union workers going on strike.

Unions are not always right nor are they always wrong. For the most part, they have served their purpose in the early 20th century and are no longer necessary.

 

[Poppa San]

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.

Sure, provided we have an exclusive contract. He can't build a pool for any one else while he is withholding from me. The contract is for exclusive service. You work in this trade for me or for no one.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sure, provided we have an exclusive contract. He can't build a pool for any one else while he is withholding from me. The contract is for exclusive service. You work in this trade for me or for no one.

The nature of professional team sports is and probably always will be exclusive contracts, so kind of silly to even use that as point. Not to mention a clause that Mack willingly signed 4 years ago.

Mack however can go out and work other jobs, do endorsements, etc., as long they are allowed in his contract.

People who keep questioning the nature of a contract here aren't seeing this for what it is. Whether you have a contract with a pool guy, a phone service provider or a professional football team, there is language in every contract that stipulates what can and can't be done by all parties involved. I seriously doubt that there is a "sit out of practices and pout til you get more money" clause in Mack's contract.

 

[RRyder]

Once again, a team cutting a player is totally within the provisions of the contract. And, the team can't force a pay cut - they can offer a take-it-or-leave-it option to take the reduction or be cut. I think, as with so many things in the forum, it's semantics. People are allowed to do anything they want, but some actions have consequences. Can a player hold out? Sure. Is it (here is where it gets tricky) right/legal/moral/ethical/reasonable/allowable? That's a whole different question.

And I dont disagree with anything you said. I never once argued legaility though. The closest I said was a player is allowed to hold out so long as hes willing to pay the fine while does so. (Not unlike how your allowed to cancel a contract with your Cable provider if your willing to pay the fee to do so)

I was arguing against the moral ambiguity, that is applicable to both sides of the coin, in these types of contract disputes and how people tend to only recognize one side as a shady practice but then praise the other side of the coin as being "shrewd business". Hence the hypocrisy.

 

[AmishMafia]

Sure, provided we have an exclusive contract. He can't build a pool for any one else while he is withholding from me. The contract is for exclusive service. You work in this trade for me or for no one.

There is a reason there is a CBA. The NFL cannot exist in a completely free market economy. Gene Upshaw was a genius. He gave up individual rights for the greater good of all players both then and in the future. Instead of a big slice of a small pie he took a smaller piece because he knew by doing that, the pie would become huge. In the end, more players got a lot more pie.

The NFL thrives because it is competitive. The CBA protects the product and is in the players best interest as much as it is in the owners.

CBA goes away, the Packers are out in 10 years. Jerry Jones sings the top 10 players each season. Packers, Lions, Bill's, etc. Sign no players in the top 200. Cowboys win 15 of the next 20 SBs. Lions, Bill's, browns, ravens, have no fans and go winless. Go out of business. 2040 there are 5 teams. NFL revenues have dropped to $1B. 250 players make $500M combined. Compare that to now where 1500 players are splitting over $4B.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There is a reason there is a CBA. The NFL cannot exist in a completely free market economy. Gene Upshaw was a genius. He gave up individual rights for the greater good of all players both then and in the future. Instead of a big slice of a small pie he took a smaller piece because he knew by doing that, the pie would become huge. In the end, more players got a lot more pie.

The NFL thrives because it is competitive. The CBA protects the product and is in the players best interest as much as it is in the owners.

CBA goes away, the Packers are out in 10 years. Jerry Jones sings the top 10 players each season. Packers, Lions, Bill's, etc. Sign no players in the top 200. Cowboys win 15 of the next 20 SBs. Lions, Bill's, browns, ravens, have no fans and go winless. Go out of business. 2040 there are 5 teams. NFL revenues have dropped to $1B. 250 players make $500M combined. Compare that to now where 1500 players are splitting over $4B.

Well stated. If revenue sharing and the cap ever disappear from the NFL, as you stated, the Packers have a lot of low value Real Estate on their hands in a very short time frame. 10 or so years ago I heard talk that "pretty soon we will have to pay to watch any NFL game on TV". I doubt that ever happens. With the amount of money Networks are paying the NFL to carry games, I can't see the revenue stream even coming close on a Pay Per View basis.

The only really big sweeping change I would love to see happen in the NFL is all incentive based contracts. I won't rehash that again, since I tend to beat that drum too much. But a guy like Mack wouldn't be sitting on his *** right now, because he would know he would be paid exactly what he earned at the end of each season.

 

[RRyder]

Well stated. If revenue sharing and the cap ever disappear from the NFL, as you stated, the Packers have a lot of low value Real Estate on their hands in a very short time frame. 10 or so years ago I heard talk that "pretty soon we will have to pay to watch any NFL game on TV". I doubt that ever happens. With the amount of money Networks are paying the NFL to carry games, I can't see the revenue stream even coming close on a Pay Per View basis.

The only really big sweeping change I would love to see happen in the NFL is all incentive based contracts. I won't rehash that again, since I tend to beat that drum too much. But a guy like Mack wouldn't be sitting on his *** right now, because he would know he would be paid exactly what he earned at the end of each season.

To be clear. The CBA is a good thing.

That said the idea that the Packers would be out of the league in rather short order is foolish. Even if they were to do away with revenue sharing completely, which doesnt even really help the Packers right now, the Packers are one of the highest grossing revenue earners in the league.

You could argue that's due to the 25 years of sustained success and that shouldn't be counted on for the next 25 years but theres little doubt in my mind theres more then enough Packers fans around the country capable of supporting the team should revenue sharing go away.

Teams like the Jaguars are the teams that rely on revenue sharing. Not GB

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To be clear. The CBA is a good thing.

That said the idea that the Packers would be out of the league in rather short order is foolish. Even if they were to do away with revenue sharing completely, which doesnt even really help the Packers right now, the Packers are one of the highest grossing revenue earners in the league.

You could argue that's due to the 25 years of sustained success and that shouldn't be counted on for the next 25 years but theres little doubt in my mind theres more then enough Packers fans around the country capable of supporting the team should revenue sharing go away.

Teams like the Jaguars are the teams that rely on revenue sharing. Not GB

I'm not going to pretend to know the actual numbers involved, but logic would say that a good portion (more than 50%) of the Packers revenue is from the NFL's contracts with the Networks. If that share ever went away or was greatly reduced for the Packers, it would put a large dent in their operating budget. Now if ticket, merchandise, etc. sales can support them along with whatever they garner from TV contracts, great. However, I can't help but see them as an even smaller market "Milwaukee Brewers" if that happens. There are teams in MLB that pay their starting pitching rotation more than the entire Brewer roster earns. As Amish posted earlier, the Packers would be reduced down to some of the lowest paid guys in the NFL and probably wouldn't be competitive. That switch doesn't happen over night, but it wouldn't take long to see the long term effects of no revenue sharing and no cap on the Packers.

 

[RRyder]

I'm not going to pretend to know the actual numbers involved, but logic would say that a good portion (more than 50%) of the Packers revenue is from the NFL's contracts with the Networks. If that share ever went away or was greatly reduced for the Packers, it would put a large dent in their operating budget. Now if ticket, merchandise, etc. sales can support them along with whatever they garner from TV contracts, great. However, I can't help but see them as an even smaller market "Milwaukee Brewers" if that happens. There are teams in MLB that pay their starting pitching rotation more than the entire Brewer roster earns. As Amish posted earlier, the Packers would be reduced down to some of the lowest paid guys in the NFL and probably wouldn't be competitive. That switch doesn't happen over night, but it wouldn't take long to see the long term effects of no revenue sharing and no cap on the Packers.

Revenue sharing has only been around since what? 91?

Also theres a MUCH bigger difference in national following for the Packers versus the Brewers

 

[McKnowledge]

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 would also give up a 1st and CM3 to the Raiders for a Mack. I think AR12 would consider a slight cut below a huge deal, if it meant securing the services of Khalil Mack. A great defensive, along with a running game, would take pressure off of him as he ages. I would cut Bulaga immediately if meant carving out more money to appease Mack's contract demands. However, if Mack were willing to do a four $82-85M deal, it would appease him with the money without an extra year of possible decline. Maybe make the fourth year optional, and allow for a clean break, if GB needs to rebuild or re-tool.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Revenue sharing has only been around since what? 91?

Also theres a MUCH bigger difference in national following for the Packers versus the Brewers

Interesting date.....1991.....look at the Packers record for 20 years prior to it and after it. Coincidence?

Yes, right now the Packers have a big following and a lot of that has to do with Brett Favre, Aaron Rodger and their overall success in the last 25 years. How did that success come about? Revenue sharing perhaps also? How long will that last if the Packers have 1/4 of the money the Cowboys, Giants or <insert name of large market team>? I doubt all that long.

The Brewers are a relatively new team in Baseball and never had a national following. Now if they were able to win a few world series, that might change, for awhile.

As much as WE all love the Green Bay Packers, if you put them in the same type of structure that a team like the Brewers, who are in Milwaukee (not very small) are in, I think through time, they as well as many small market teams, cease to exist or are just sitting at the bottom of the standings every year.

 

[RRyder]

Interesting date.....1991.....look at the Packers record for 20 years prior to it and after it. Coincidence?

Yes, right now the Packers have a big following and a lot of that has to do with Brett Favre, Aaron Rodger and their overall success in the last 25 years. How did that success come about? Revenue sharing perhaps also? How long will that last if the Packers have 1/4 of the money the Cowboys, Giants or <insert name of large market team>? I doubt all that long.

The Brewers are a relatively new team in Baseball and never had a national following. Now if they were able to win a few world series, that might change, for awhile.

As much as WE all love the Green Bay Packers, if you put them in the same type of structure that a team like the Brewers, who are in Milwaukee (not very small) are in, I think through time, they as well as many small market teams, cease to exist or are just sitting at the bottom of the standings every year.

I did specifically state you could possibly make the correlation to the Packers sustained success but it should also be pointed out the Packers also survived a VERY long time WITHOUT revenue sharing. You could argue that maintain there current revenue generation would be reliant on what kind of success they continue to have but it isnt far fetched to argue that the Packers have a loyal enough fan base to weather any bad years that they would have

Sustained success would become more difficult but there are small market teams that show the ability to bust through in baseball. But the point I was making was in contrast to people stating they would effectively cease to exist without it which I would find patently false.

Teams like the the Jaguars (or really and Florida team), Rams, Lions, Panthers, Texans, Ravens, Titans, and Chargers would suffer much more then GB should revenue sharing be done away with. Even a team like NE would probably suffer more despite being in the Boston market as they're the 3rd biggest draw in the area

 

[AmishMafia]

To be clear. The CBA is a good thing.

That said the idea that the Packers would be out of the league in rather short order is foolish. Even if they were to do away with revenue sharing completely, which doesnt even really help the Packers right now, the Packers are one of the highest grossing revenue earners in the league.

You could argue that's due to the 25 years of sustained success and that shouldn't be counted on for the next 25 years but theres little doubt in my mind theres more then enough Packers fans around the country capable of supporting the team should revenue sharing go away.

Teams like the Jaguars are the teams that rely on revenue sharing. Not GB

The CBA is what makes the draft possible. Without it, every player could sign with any team they wanted. The league would quickly be dominated by rich teams that would sign all the beat players. It would be like 3 or 4 teams having all the picks in the first 5 rounds. Packers and other teams would be left with their leftovers or castoffs. Without competition, fans in many citizens would lose interest. The franchises would dry up. Revenue sharing may prolong the agony, but that revenue would steadily decrease.

 

[Half Empty]

The CBA is what makes the draft possible. Without it, every player could sign with any team they wanted. The league would quickly be dominated by rich teams that would sign all the beat players. It would be like 3 or 4 teams having all the picks in the first 5 rounds. Packers and other teams would be left with their leftovers or castoffs. Without competition, fans in many citizens would lose interest. The franchises would dry up. Revenue sharing may prolong the agony, but that revenue would steadily decrease.

While I certainly agree with everything after the first sentence, I don't quite understand it. There was a draft before the CBA, so how does it make the draft possible? Is it because the players, through the CBA, approve a draft and it otherwise would be deemed slavery or some such? Just wondering.

 

[sschind]

No different than me getting my arm caught in the Twinkie filling machine while I am working at Hostess. There are insurance and severance packages set up for my inability to no longer fill Twinkies. If Mack suffers a career ending injury, why should he paid money on "earning potential", when that potential is no longer there?

Personally, I don't buy into the notion that these guys should have $50M in their bank accounts "just in case". Many NFL players retire, get cut, quit, etc. and do just fine in the "real world". Their employer shouldn't have to make sure they still live like Kings, after their service is over. As I and several others keep pointing out, there is this great thing called insurance, the players have plenty of money to invest in it, the team shouldn't have to.

So you are the one who is responsible for my box of half filled Twinkies. I'm not angry Poker...I'm just disappointed.

 

[sschind]

Okay, I will end this now. You have mixed up civil vrs criminal issues. I am very familiar with contract law as it is a career function and have been in court numerous times. Believe me or not regarding these issues, I am moving on.

Just because you have been sued numerous times for breach of contract doesn't make you an expert

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So you are the one who is responsible for my box of half filled Twinkies. I'm not angry Poker...I'm just disappointed.

Oh hell, I hope you didn't get the one with my missing finger?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Unions are not always right nor are they always wrong. For the most part, they have served their purpose in the early 20th century and are no longer necessary.

Not willing to go into politics but I'll just point out that the decline of the unions has roughly coincided with declining/stagnant wages and rising income inequality.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

While I certainly agree with everything after the first sentence, I don't quite understand it. There was a draft before the CBA, so how does it make the draft possible? Is it because the players, through the CBA, approve a draft and it otherwise would be deemed slavery or some such? Just wondering.

I might be wrong on this but I don't believe it's the CBA that makes the draft possible, it's the Player's Union that makes the draft possible. If the union decertified then true free agency would reign and guys would sign wherever they wanted. The difference might just be semantics though, the union works with the league through the CBA so I'm not sure if one (the union) can work without the other (CBA).

 

[AmishMafia]

Just because you have been sued numerous times for breach of contract doesn't make you an expert

My clients are idiots. When they buy an 8 ft fence at 50% off, they are confused when I install a 4ft fence at full price. "We thought you meant 50% of the price!" Wha wha wha, cry me a river.