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

[AmishMafia]

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.

Wasnt necessary in the old days as the NFL wasnt very lucrative. Stories of draft picks opting for regular careers was not uncommon. As salaries and NFL revenues took off, the players unionized in the late 50s and had power by the mid 60s. They threatened to strike and the owners didnt want this ending up in the courts. They created the CBA to prevent complete FA as a compromise and to keep out of the courts. Players were smart and worked with owners to maintain competitive balance. CBA takes away a players right to work for whom he wants to. Seems odd and unfair if you think about it, but if you think further, you realize why it has to be.

Both sides seem to understand the golden goose situation and temper their greed. I'm concerned with the new breed of NFL owners. The franchises have become so valuable, only the extreme wealthy can afford. Guys like Jerry Jones can be greedy. I also dont like the new NFLPA president. They should have voted in Troy Vincent who was seen as too cooperative with the NFL. Smith was seen as aggressive vrs the owners and he won.

 

[sschind]

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

Nope, just some half empty Twinkies. I did find a band aid in a ding **** once though.

 

[OldSchool101]

Obviously having Mack would improve our Defense immediately so that part sounds fantastic.
I don’t believe there’s any player (outside of the QB position) that I’d pay $20M+ a year long term plus trade multiple 1st day draft picks. That deal reminds me of a certain player by the nickname of Mo. that didn’t work out so good either for the Jets.
I’ll keep my future 1st and 3rd rounders and pickup 2-3 players (like we did this year) in FA for that kinda $ (or less). We spent far less on Jimmie Graham, Mercedes and Mo combined and didn’t lose 1 futures contract.
The Fuller contract offer was about as aggressive as I’d get.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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

That's not a proper way to admit you're wrong.

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.

The Packers generated a total of $199 million of local revenue during the fiscal year that ended March 31. That includes game-day revenue, local broadcast fees, sponsorships and Lambeau Field Atrium-business income. On the other they made $255.9 million out of national revenue includes TV deals, road-game revenue sharing and other income, such as from NFL media operations.

While I believe the Packers could survive without revenue sharing the NFL keeping a hard cap is essential for the team being able to stay competitive.

I would cut Bulaga immediately if meant carving out more money to appease Mack's contract demands.

The Packers need an adequate replacement for Bulaga before being able to release him.

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).

I don't know about the way the league handled it before the current CBA but currently Article 6 of the CBA regulates the draft.

 

[Dantés]

That's not a proper way to admit you're wrong.



The Packers generated a total of $199 million of local revenue during the fiscal year that ended March 31. That includes game-day revenue, local broadcast fees, sponsorships and Lambeau Field Atrium-business income. On the other they made $255.9 million out of national revenue includes TV deals, road-game revenue sharing and other income, such as from NFL media operations.

While I believe the Packers could survive without revenue sharing the NFL keeping a hard cap is essential for the team being able to stay competitive.



The Packers need an adequate replacement for Bulaga before being able to release him.





I don't know about the way the league handled it before the current CBA but currently Article 6 of the CBA regulates the draft.

It’s a proper way of admitting we have a difference of opinion. I’m sorry that’s so hard for you.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It’s a proper way of admitting we have a difference of opinion. I’m sorry that’s so hard for you.

What makes it that hard for me is that I value you as one of the smartest guys around here. Yet you don't seem to understand there's no room for interpretation on if Mack is allowed to hold out.

 

[Dantés]

What makes it that hard for me is that I value you as one of the smartest guys around here. Yet you don't seem to understand there's no room for interpretation on if Mack is allowed to hold out.

It’s because we are using the term “allowed” to mean different things. I’m just suggesting we let that go and continue to regard one another as smart posters.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not to keep the ball up in the air too much longer, but there is a huge difference in saying "allowed" and "chooses to". Allowed implies that it is permissible with the contract terms. A contract such as Mack's does not "allow" him to sit out of mandatory practices, otherwise why even call them mandatory? Nor does the contract "allow" the Raiders not to pay him the salary he is contracted to earn when he fulfills his end of the contract terms. If they chose to pay him less, then Mack would have to seek enforcement of the contract.

Again, I don't agree with you, but I get what people are trying to say "if a player isn't happy, I am fine with him choosing to ignore his contract and sit out, pay the fines and whatever happens happens". You are just judging his actions, not the contract itself. However, nobody should confuse the issue by saying "The team is allowed to cut Mack, so Mack is allowed to sit out when he chooses to". Only one of those scenarios is contractually allowed.

This is not much different than a guy deciding he wants to skip a game to do something else. He may choose to do that, but its not allowed in his contract and its up to the team to decide how they will react to his breach of contract.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It’s because we are using the term “allowed” to mean different things. I’m just suggesting we let that go and continue to regard one another as smart posters.

It's probably in the best interest of everyone that we stop discussing about it as it seems there's no way we agree on what Mack is allowed to do. I wasn't aware there's any other definition of the word other than the one I know though.

 

[Dantés]

It's probably in the best interest of everyone that we stop discussing about it as it seems there's no way we agree on what Mack is allowed to do. I wasn't aware there's any other definition of the word other than the one I know though.

It comes down to “allowed by who or what?” We are answering that question differently. I understand what you and Amish and Poker think. I’m disagreeing and that does not have to be a problem. Like you said, we can stop discussing it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It comes down to “allowed by who or what?” We are answering that question differently. I understand what you and Amish and Poker think. I’m disagreeing and that does not have to be a problem. Like you said, we can stop discussing it.

The thread has been off topic for way too long.

As I've mentioned before, while I don't agree with Mack holding out by any means, I would be delighted if it ends up with him being traded to the Packers.

 

[McKnowledge]

The Packers need an adequate replacement for Bulaga before being able to release him.

I think a lineman that's younger, cheaper, and less injury prone would be an adequate replacement. At least restructure his contract. Bulaga's cap hit is not team friendly.

 

[Dantés]

I think a lineman that's younger, cheaper, and less injury prone would be an adequate replacement. At least restructure his contract. Bulaga's cap hit is not team friendly.

If you mean that it's not team friendly when he's hurt and off the field, that's true. But when he's playing, Bulaga is fairly priced. He's better than the right tackles making more than him, excluding maybe Lane Johnson.

 

[Dantés]

An hour ago:

Michael Cohen‏Verified account @Michael_Cohen13 55m55 minutes ago
Gutekunst asked about pass rusher Khalil Mack. Says he would call #Raiders GM Reggie McKenzie regardless of whether Mack is available — because they're friends — and then reiterates he's open to conversations with teams. Doesn't say anything about Mack specifically. #Packers

You work that phone Gute... bring me a big Mack.

 

[Mondio]

If you mean that it's not team friendly when he's hurt and off the field, that's true. But when he's playing, Bulaga is fairly priced. He's better than the right tackles making more than him, excluding maybe Lane Johnson.

Not just here specifically, but in general it seems there are a lot of people out there that hold some animosity towards bulaga because of his injuries. I mean I get they're frustrating, but they aren't going to hobble me when I'm 50 like they probably will him. And he's done nothing but battle back and give what he can to the team, that when healthy is as good as we'd ever need at the right tackle position. I'm sure he'd rather be earning his paycheck on the field and not in the training room.

Again, not necessarily from here but just around it seems people act like Bulaga has chosen to have these significant injuries to avoid playing or something. I like the guy. Seems like a good one on the field and off.

 

[AmishMafia]

An hour ago:



You work that phone Gute... bring me a big Mack.

Interesting. I wonder how often calls are made like this. Probably all the time with rarely results coming from them. Wolf had Bart Farve/Reggie and TT had Woodson. Maybe Gutes big slash is Mack.

The question is this: is Gute allowed to do this or is it illegal and outside the CBA?

 

[Dantés]

Interesting. I wonder how often calls are made like this. Probably all the time with rarely results coming from them. Wolf had Bart Farve/Reggie and TT had Woodson. Maybe Gutes big slash is Mack.

The question is this: is Gute allowed to do this or is it illegal and outside the CBA?

Why would it be illegal to trade for Mack?

 

[Dantés]

Not just here specifically, but in general it seems there are a lot of people out there that hold some animosity towards bulaga because of his injuries. I mean I get they're frustrating, but they aren't going to hobble me when I'm 50 like they probably will him. And he's done nothing but battle back and give what he can to the team, that when healthy is as good as we'd ever need at the right tackle position. I'm sure he'd rather be earning his paycheck on the field and not in the training room.

Again, not necessarily from here but just around it seems people act like Bulaga has chosen to have these significant injuries to avoid playing or something. I like the guy. Seems like a good one on the field and off.

It's typical of all NFL fan bases, in my experience, that a certain segment for the fans dump all over players who have bad injury luck. It's stupid. They're just frustrated and looking to blame someone for their frustration.

 

[Mondio]

I'm sure can always ask the team, but can't talk to a player unless given permission

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

An hour ago:

You work that phone Gute... bring me a big Mack.

Which is interesting, since I remember reading that Gute, not long ago, said something to the effect that the Packers aren't interested in signing any FA vets right now.

I'm sure he wasn't being 100% locked in on that statement, so we will see. If the Packers are even considering Mack, a new contract would be priority, otherwise you are just renting a guy for one year, who may "decide" on his own, not to play for the current amount the Raiders have him under contract for.

Doubt the Packers could fit a new contract for Mack under the current Cap without purging Bulaga, Cobb and another player or two.

 

[Dantés]

Which is interesting, since I remember reading that Gute, not long ago, said something to the effect that the Packers aren't interested in signing any FA vets right now.

I'm sure he wasn't being 100% locked in on that statement, so we will see. If the Packers are even considering Mack, a new contract would be priority, otherwise you are just renting a guy for one year, who may "decide" on his own, not to play for the current amount the Raiders have him under contract for.

Doubt the Packers could fit a new contract for Mack under the current Cap without purging Bulaga, Cobb and another player or two.

I agree that a trade would have to include an extension, but I disagree that such a deal would necessitate purging Bulaga and/or Cobb. The deal they would have to unload is Matthews', which is why I suggest that he be part of the trade.

Various sources I reference have the Packers with somewhere from 7-10M in space at the moment. Matthews would free up another 11.4M. The deal could easily be structured in such a way that the first year cap hit is a little bit smaller. Then next offseason, they can look at moving on from guys like Bulaga and Tramon Williams to free up a little bit more space.

Signing Mack and extending Rodgers would no doubt put hard limits on what else the team could afford to do in free agency, but I don't think it would necessitate a roster purge. And if you're not going to use your space to acquire/keep elite players at premium positions, then what is it for?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not just here specifically, but in general it seems there are a lot of people out there that hold some animosity towards bulaga because of his injuries. I mean I get they're frustrating, but they aren't going to hobble me when I'm 50 like they probably will him. And he's done nothing but battle back and give what he can to the team, that when healthy is as good as we'd ever need at the right tackle position. I'm sure he'd rather be earning his paycheck on the field and not in the training room.

Again, not necessarily from here but just around it seems people act like Bulaga has chosen to have these significant injuries to avoid playing or something. I like the guy. Seems like a good one on the field and off.

I totally agree with you. Bulaga has been a great first round pick, with the only black mark in his resume being injuries, something mostly beyond his control. I may talk about "freeing up cap space by cutting the guy", but that is only due to the question mark regarding his health and not his talent when healthy. As you said, when healthy he is an underpaid RT for what he does, but when he can't play, he just looks like a big cap sucker. I hope he finishes his career in Green Bay, but that might have to be at a reduced price, especially if all of his injuries start slowing him down.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree that a trade would have to include an extension, but I disagree that such a deal would necessitate purging Bulaga and/or Cobb. The deal they would have to unload is Matthews', which is why I suggest that he be part of the trade.

Various sources I reference have the Packers with somewhere from 7-10M in space at the moment. Matthews would free up another 11.4M. The deal could easily be structured in such a way that the first year cap hit is a little bit smaller. Then next offseason, they can look at moving on from guys like Bulaga and Tramon Williams to free up a little bit more space.

Signing Mack and extending Rodgers would no doubt put hard limits on what else the team could afford to do in free agency, but I don't think it would necessitate a roster purge. And if you're not going to use your space to acquire/keep elite players at premium positions, then what is it for?

I forgot about Clay, thanks for the reminder

My first thoughts were, Matthews is a tough one to try and trade. He is in the last year of a contract that he is currently under performing. However, if I read the numbers right, he would probably only cost the Raiders somewhere around $10-11M, with the Packers eating the rest of his dead cap. All that being said, I am sure the draft picks are what the Raiders would be more interested in, with Clay being "tossed in" as a bonus to sweeten the pot, since as you point out, he would probably need to be purged anyway to make the cap numbers work.

I still like Clay and he just turned 32, so at the right price, seeing him in Green and Gold until he retires isn't a bad thing IMO. Imagine restructuring Clays deal and still obtaining Mack. Perry, Clay, Mack and Martinez would give a lot of offensive lines fits.

 

[Dantés]

I forgot about Clay, thanks for the reminder

My first thoughts were, Matthews is a tough one to try and trade. He is in the last year of a contract that he is currently under performing. However, if I read the numbers right, he would probably only cost the Raiders somewhere around $10-11M, with the Packers eating the rest of his dead cap. All that being said, I am sure the draft picks are what the Raiders would be more interested in, with Clay being "tossed in" as a bonus to sweeten the pot, since as you point out, he would probably need to be purged anyway to make the cap numbers work.

I still like Clay and he just turned 32, so at the right price, seeing him in Green and Gold until he retires isn't a bad thing IMO. Imagine restructuring Clays deal and still obtaining Mack. Perry, Clay, Mack and Martinez would give a lot of offensive lines fits.

Maybe a 1st and 4th plus Matthews would get it done.

It would sting to move on from such a notable Packer, but you have to be about Super Bowls first and foremost. Player relations and PR, while important, are secondary. And this new regime has demonstrated that they will move on from a long time Packer (Jordy), if it's in the best interest of the roster.

The reason I think Matthews could actually be the key to the deal is that he would help mitigate the loss of pass rush help on the Oakland roster without requiring them to make the big, long term investment that they're clearly not happy to make in Mack (though they still might hold their nose and fork out a deal to Mack). This new Gruden version of the Raiders clearly prefers to work with veterans, isn't scared of old players, and seem to like former Packers (they already have three).

Green Bay would have to unload Clay to make the money work, and Oakland would have to get back a helpful edge rusher if they want to have any hope of a viable pass rush without Mack.

 

[AmishMafia]

Maybe a 1st and 4th plus Matthews would get it done.

It would sting to move on from such a notable Packer, but you have to be about Super Bowls first and foremost. Player relations and PR, while important, are secondary. And this new regime has demonstrated that they will move on from a long time Packer (Jordy), if it's in the best interest of the roster.

The reason I think Matthews could actually be the key to the deal is that he would help mitigate the loss of pass rush help on the Oakland roster without requiring them to make the big, long term investment that they're clearly not happy to make in Mack (though they still might hold their nose and fork out a deal to Mack). This new Gruden version of the Raiders clearly prefers to work with veterans, isn't scared of old players, and seem to like former Packers (they already have three).

Green Bay would have to unload Clay to make the money work, and Oakland would have to get back a helpful edge rusher if they want to have any hope of a viable pass rush without Mack.

All makes sense. What do you think it will take to sign Mack for 5 years? $100M!?!?!?!