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

[Dantés]

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

Yep.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

with half of that $100M guaranteed

 

[Dantés]

In 2013, the salary cap was at 123M. That was the first year of Matthews’ extension. He got 5 years, 66M with 20.5M guaranteed.

The cap for the 2018 league year is 177.2M. So a comparable deal adjusted for the new space would be 5 years, 94.8M, with about 30M guaranteed. I think something in that arena would be about right. Maybe you go slightly above just to get the deal done.

 

[AmishMafia]

I looked at von Miller at $19M per year and figured it would take at least as much.

 

[Dantés]

I looked at von Miller at $19M per year and figured it would take at least as much.

And the first year of that deal, the salary cap was 22M less than it is this season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

Bulaga is one of the best right tackles in the league when healthy. It's not that easy to adequately replace a player like him.

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.

The Packers could definitely fit Mack's contract under the cap this season by trading Matthews to Oakland to acquire him.

Various sources I reference have the Packers with somewhere from 7-10M in space at the moment. Matthews would free up another 11.4M.

According to the NFLPA the Packers currently have $10.8 million of cap space. If the Packers trade Matthews for Mack that would free up another $10.8 million (Clay already earned his $500K workout bonus with the Packers which definitely ends up counting against the team's cap). Gutekunst and Ball could definitely structure the contract in a way to make it work for this season.

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.

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.

The Raiders would have to pay Matthews $10.8 million this season if he appears in every single game. Trading him would only result in a $500K dead cap hit for the Packers.

I think it's close to impossible to keep Matthews and acquire Mack without releasing either Cobb or Bulaga.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think it's close to impossible to keep Matthews and acquire Mack without releasing either Cobb or Bulaga.

You and Dantés are probably both correct, if their was a player involved in the trade, Matthews would make the most sense. Same position and for the Packers, he would sort of be a "throw in", since they would most likely have to cut/trade him elsewhere to clear cap space anyway.

If the Raiders didn't want Matthews and were willing to do the trade strictly for "reasonable" draft pick compensation, the Packers might be able to quickly shop Matthews for future picks or a low priced up and coming player with another team.

Lots of moving parts to such a deal, especially with Mack sitting out and with the huge future salary he demands, I highly doubt it happens.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If the Raiders didn't want Matthews and were willing to do the trade strictly for "reasonable" draft pick compensation, the Packers might be able to quickly shop Matthews for future picks or a low priced up and coming player with another team.

I'm not convinced the Packers would easily find another team interested in giving up draft picks to acquire Matthews and pay him $10.8 million for this season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not convinced the Packers would easily find another team interested in giving up draft picks to acquire Matthews and pay him $10.8 million for this season.

If that is the case, why would he have any value in a trade for Mack? While his value is definitely hindered by his current contract, I am guessing that he has some value. Maybe that value is only a mid to late round pick, but better something than nothing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If that is the case, why would he have any value in a trade for Mack? While his value is definitely hindered by his current contract, I am guessing that he has some value. Maybe that value is only a mid to late round pick, but better something than nothing.

It would definitely not be enough for the Packers to solely trade Matthews for Mack though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It would definitely not be enough for the Packers to solely trade Matthews for Mack though.

Well of course not, but how much value does Clay add to a trade with Mack, if you assume he has very little or no trade value elsewhere? The obvious value of Matthews to a team is that he is a starter and can be a pretty decent one at that. If the Raiders trade Mack to the Packers, Matthews can take his spot, but I am sure there are other teams in a similar need of a starting OLB. "Throwing Matthews in" on a trade for Mack accomplishes 3 things. Gives the Raiders a replacement, gives the Packers cap relief, provides more value to both teams over just a straight up draft pick(s) trade and cutting of Matthews to clear cap room.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well of course not, but how much value does Clay add to a trade with Mack, if you assume he has very little or no trade value elsewhere?

The Raiders might take Matthews in addition to at least a first round pick and probably even more draft picks. Other teams would have to give the Packers at least one selection in return for him, which I don't think a lot of teams would be interested in by adding another $10.8 million in cap hit for 2018.

 

[98Redbird]

I'm sure everyone has seen the little blurbs here and there about Khalil Mack, and the Gutekunst presser the other day.

This isn't a thread about "if" he would wind up here, that still remains highly unlikely, I was more curious "what" exactly everyone would feel comfortable giving up to acquire him?

That additional first from the Saints make it an interesting conversation. Mack is most assuredly better than whoever you'd get with either of those picks considering how late we will probably be picking.

His contract would be significant as well. So contract aside, what would you give for a player like that?

 

[Mondio]

I don't know, on one had I'd really like him, but on the other I've been heading into this season as a 2 -3 year plan to get back to legit SB contender and I don't think signing Mack now helps a ton. I mean he helps, don't get me wrong. He's good but as I see it, it will take some luck this year for us. I might as well figure on some luck that matthews stays healthy. I don't think the drop off is significant enough for me to say, well there goes the super bowl, or here comes one if mack is here.

Though paying him what he wants and paying Rodgers, and the others we have and the others coming up? not sure there will be much around them in 2-3 years anyway.

 

[Poppa San]

We have a thread on Mack. Merging in 3....2....

 

[Mondio]

We have a thread on Mack. Merging in 3....2....

do you know someone? have inside info?

 

[Poppa San]

do you know someone? have inside info?

My sister's brother's cousin's boyfriend heard at the bar from a guy who knows an agent's ex-secretary's roommates herb supplier that the custodian found a torn scrap when cleaning out the offices that contained the word Khali.

 

[Dantés]

I'm sure everyone has seen the little blurbs here and there about Khalil Mack, and the Gutekunst presser the other day.

This isn't a thread about "if" he would wind up here, that still remains highly unlikely, I was more curious "what" exactly everyone would feel comfortable giving up to acquire him?

That additional first from the Saints make it an interesting conversation. Mack is most assuredly better than whoever you'd get with either of those picks considering how late we will probably be picking.

His contract would be significant as well. So contract aside, what would you give for a player like that?

One of the 1st round picks, a middle round pick, and Clay Matthews.

 

[AmishMafia]

My sister's brother's cousin's boyfriend heard at the bar from a guy who knows an agent's ex-secretary's roommates herb supplier that the custodian found a torn scrap when cleaning out the offices that contained the word Khali.

Hmmmmm, a clue. Note the actual spelling is Kahlil. I suspect the trade will be done on Christmas Day. Because at the end in his name there is no "L" - Noel? This Gute guy is a clever bastard alright.

 

[sschind]

Hmmmmm, a clue. Note the actual spelling is Kahlil. I suspect the trade will be done on Christmas Day. Because at the end in his name there is no "L" - Noel? This Gute guy is a clever bastard alright.

I see you got the chores done early again today.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Unless the Raiders are wanting a ton of picks (both 1st rounders and a second) I would be concentrated more on the cost of Mack and can you carry that for 4-5 years and keep the rest of your team in tact? The Packers are going to have to spend at least one, if not 2 high picks on OLB next draft. Getting Mack changes that need. As we have seen with all the CB picks over the last what 4 drafts, nothing is guaranteed to work out. Mack is pretty much about as guaranteed as one can get to have a rock solid OLB.

I wouldn't have a problem at all with giving up a first, a 3rd and Matthews, as long as the $$ works. To me that would basically be giving up a 3rd. Since Matthews is probably gone after this year and a first would have to be spent on an unknown rookie in the 2019 draft anyway.

 

[Dantés]

Unless the Raiders are wanting a ton of picks (both 1st rounders and a second) I would be concentrated more on the cost of Mack and can you carry that for 4-5 years and keep the rest of your team in tact? The Packers are going to have to spend at least one, if not 2 high picks on OLB next draft. Getting Mack changes that need. As we have seen with all the CB picks over the last what 4 drafts, nothing is guaranteed to work out. Mack is pretty much about as guaranteed as one can get to have a rock solid OLB.

I wouldn't have a problem at all with giving up a first, a 3rd and Matthews, as long as the $$ works. To me that would basically be giving up a 3rd. Since Matthews is probably gone after this year and a first would have to be spent on an unknown rookie in the 2019 draft anyway.

One thing that would help is that the Packers are in position to be pretty cheap at a number of positions. Aside from Adams, their receiving corps is likely to all be on rookie deals after this season. After this season, they can cut Tramon Williams and the cornerback corps will all be on rookie deals. They can probably manage to keep the RB corps on rookie deals for a while.

Furthermore, the cap has been going up by at least 10M per season since 2013. If you signed Mack and Rodgers to deals to combined to be ~28.2% of the cap in 2018, then you could expect that it would be 26.7% in 2019, 25.3% in 2020, 24.2% in 2021, etc.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

One thing that would help is that the Packers are in position to be pretty cheap at a number of positions. Aside from Adams, their receiving corps is likely to all be on rookie deals after this season. After this season, they can cut Tramon Williams and the cornerback corps will all be on rookie deals. They can probably manage to keep the RB corps on rookie deals for a while.

Furthermore, the cap has been going up by at least 10M per season since 2013. If you signed Mack and Rodgers to deals to combined to be ~28.2% of the cap in 2018, then you could expect that it would be 26.7% in 2019, 25.3% in 2020, 24.2% in 2021, etc.

Cant say that I have looked that far ahead, but eventually Clark and to some extent Blake M will probably get big paydays (2020?). But yes, once Matthews and Cobb are gone, the big money will be with Rodgers, Bahk, Adams and Graham on offense. Perry, Clark, Blake and who knows on defense. If Wilkerson shines this year, at his age, I hope we can wrap him up for more years.

 

[Dantés]

Cant say that I have looked that far ahead, but eventually Clark and to some extent Blake M will probably get big paydays (2020?). But yes, once Matthews and Cobb are gone, the big money will be with Rodgers, Bahk, Adams and Graham on offense. Perry, Clark, Blake and who knows on defense. If Wilkerson shines this year, at his age, I hope we can wrap him up for more years.

I'd imagine that if they locked up Mack long term, Perry might get cut or traded before his contract runs out. Signing two premium players like Rodgers and Mack might mean some hard decisions on guys like Martinez. What does he command and how replaceable is her? Personally, I wouldn't spend much of a linebacker who isn't strong in coverage. Wilkerson, in my opinion, is exactly the type of guy that you capitalize on during a prove-it year and then let walk. He didn't do too well the last time he got a big pay day.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wilkerson will be a very interesting decision. He will only be 29 in October, which means he should have a couple of good years still ahead of him. If he actually plays up to his potential this year and the defensive line is a force, how do you not try and resign him? Maybe if Mo Adams breaks out, you can go with him. A good problem to have.

I forgot about Daniels, his contract is up after next season and he just turned 29.

I still wasn't pleased with the money they gave Perry. It's going to be hard to get out from underneath his contract anytime soon.