Trade for Khalil Mack

[EastSideDawg]

3 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

That's true, how refreshing to have a football man pulling the levers and now blowing draft after draft.

the thing i like is he is trying to make a good football team with good football players.  He isnt worried about number crunching and winning contracts/deals.  kendricks is a perfect signing i dont think sashi would have signed him. dorsey seen a chance to make a good LB group potentially great. 

[hoorta]

1 hour ago, jcam222 said:

Reports are Oakland has made no progress on contract talks and he is likely to miss regular season games. If we can get him under long term would you give Ogbah and a 2nd round pick for him? I certainly would. Our D would be legendary status. Would that be enough to get it done with Gruden? 

1) We're not trading Ogbah, why would you want to trade a guy on his rookie contract for someone who apparently wants a $21 million dollar cap busting deal? 

2) We're not giving up a first round pick either. The Browns aren't one player away from the Super Bowl.

3) Chuckie is smart enough he's going to demand max value for Mack if he can't get him to agree to a long term deal

4) There's already a Mack thread, I'm going to merge it.   

 

 

[hoorta]

39 minutes ago, EastSideDawg said:

john dorsey doesnt mess around if he really is looking to improve the team any way possible he should call and see.

I dont know if it would work out salary cap wise in the next couple years with mack and garrett are going to be $100+ million  contract players.

The key is improve the team any way possible within reason. It's why we didn't sign Dez Bryant, and also the reason we're not interested in Mack- he's demanding way too much money- which would wreck the cap when some of our studs like Garrett come off their rookie deals. 

[gumby73]

NO! it will never happen..but I'd bet every nickel you own he's signed before we play Oakland..(they all come back to play us)

[jcam222]

5 hours ago, hoorta said:

1) We're not trading Ogbah, why would you want to trade a guy on his rookie contract for someone who apparently wants a $21 million dollar cap busting deal? 

2) We're not giving up a first round pick either. The Browns aren't one player away from the Super Bowl.

3) Chuckie is smart enough he's going to demand max value for Mack if he can't get him to agree to a long term deal

4) There's already a Mack thread, I'm going to merge it.   

 

 

1) Because he’s 100 times better and would make us elite along with Garrett for the next 4+ years. 2) Doesn’t matter if we are one player away, he’d be around until we contend. Secondly we may contend for playoffs this year 3) agree but a bird in th hand is better than a Mack home on the couch. 4) my bad lol merge away

[choco]

No...he would possibly make the defense elite. At a very high price to boot. Still gotta outscore the opponent, and he does little to make that happen

 

[Clevfan4life]

i was a mack honk before any of u were. Even the great ghoolie missed that one. I was pettine was going to get his star 34 olb'er, but he dropped back and took gilbert. That being said, the price now is too high. We have some young studs we're gonna need money in order to retain. 

Now if he was willing to come here for ~$15m or so......or if we could frontload some money now so we're good when the young guys come off rookie deals. Maybe

[Orion]

I'm not a big fan of the player that thinks he's gotta get so much money that he cripples his own team.....or a new team.  I just don't see it as being a 'team player'.  

[MLD Woody]

52 minutes ago, Orion said:

I'm not a big fan of the player that thinks he's gotta get so much money that he cripples his own team.....or a new team.  I just don't see it as being a 'team player'.  

Considering a player can have a career ending, life altering injury at any moment, I have no issue with someone trying to get as much as they can.

[Clevfan4life]

24 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Considering a player can have a career ending, life altering injury at any moment, I have no issue with someone trying to get as much as they can.

i agree with that sentiment.....to a point. Football is too much of a team sport. In basketball, one player can take u into the finals...as we know. In football, too many guys got to be paid. Players can go too far. 

[hoorta]

22 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Considering a player can have a career ending, life altering injury at any moment, I have no issue with someone trying to get as much as they can.

Mack is scheduled to make $13 million this year. It's apparently not enough to make him happy. BTW, the Raiders have cap issues. That's what happens when you give Carr a $125 million contract. 

 

5 hours ago, jcam222 said:

1) Because he’s 100 times better and would make us elite along with Garrett for the next 4+ years. 2) Doesn’t matter if we are one player away, he’d be around until we contend. Secondly we may contend for playoffs this year 3) agree but a bird in th hand is better than a Mack home on the couch. 4) my bad lol merge away

1) You don't know that, as far as him making the Browns an elite D.  2) Throwing huge money at Mack? So what happened when the Dolphins gave Suh a humongous contract? 

[MLD Woody]

27 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

i agree with that sentiment.....to a point. Football is too much of a team sport. In basketball, one player can take u into the finals...as we know. In football, too many guys got to be paid. Players can go too far. 

If he goes to far the market will react accordingly. If a GM pays a player so much that it cripples their roster that is on the GM, not the player, IMO.

[Clevfan4life]

8 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

If he goes to far the market will react accordingly. If a GM pays a player so much that it cripples their roster that is on the GM, not the player, IMO.

i agree, but the player also bares some responsibility. Especially a vet like mack, he's no dummy....he knows how the nfl works at this point.

[Tour2ma]

On 8/25/2018 at 6:08 PM, Gunz41 said:

Hey fellas, long time no post.

This is one of those things I have said in the past that just is a pet peeve to me.

"I wouldn't trade x pick for him, look at what we COULD get." True. Could get a great player, or could get Gilbert. Maybe not at 8, but it's not like Gilbert was going to be a low pick, he still would have been a 1st rounder. I did see him as a bust because of his skills, but that is beside the point.

Mack IS PROVEN. As in Defensive Player of the year proven.

I am not talking about the guys who are saying something about his salary, even though you get what you pay for, again DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR.

I'm talking about people who cover picks more than proven. If Mack were in the past draft with his tape from NFL, it wouldn't have been a question on #1. But but but, the LT from Alabama COULD be good

Welcome back, Gunz...

I'm not willing to assume misses in the draft and while I discount need,I do not ignore it completely.

As for pass-rushers...there's a pretty good list of elite to near-elite ones who have been selected after the 1st round.

That said, I was shocked when Mack was there when we had the 4th pick (IIRC it was the Bortles surprise that left him on the Board). I'd been a Watkins guy up 'til that moment. I converted very quickly only to be crushed when we traded down to take a CB that honestly was not even on my radar.

20 hours ago, EastSideDawg said:

john dorsey doesnt mess around if he really is looking to improve the team any way possible he should call and see.

I dont know if it would work out salary cap wise in the next couple years with mack and garrett are going to be $100+ million  contract players.

Agree... you have to call... but the price is going to be ridiculously high early. Keeping a player's rights is the only leverage a team has so the price is not exactly enticing.

12 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

i was a mack honk before any of u were.

Ahem... two years of U of Buffalo here...

10 hours ago, Orion said:

I'm not a big fan of the player that thinks he's gotta get so much money that he cripples his own team.....or a new team.  I just don't see it as being a 'team player'.  

Child, please... Did you ever turn down a raise for the good of the company? To keep in line with your peers? Didn't think so.

This is his shot to cash.

[Clevfan4life]

yeah i rem tour, it was like us and one other guy...maybe tia? in any case, he's making 13m right now? he's not on his rookie contract anymore right? 

[The Gipper]

9 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

If he goes to far the market will react accordingly. If a GM pays a player so much that it cripples their roster that is on the GM, not the player, IMO.

I heard this on the radio this morning:   that Jon Gruden is actually the guy with the say so on Mack's contract, not the GM McKenzie, or even the owner Mark Davis.   And Jon has been talking to his brother Jay....who as you know is the HC of the Redskins.   Recall that it is the Redskins that twice put the franchise tag on Kirk Cousins.    It was speculated that the Raiders may do the same with Mack:   Make him play out his contract he has, then do a double franchise tag on him for two years beyond that.

[MLD Woody]

50 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

i agree, but the player also bares some responsibility. Especially a vet like mack, he's no dummy....he knows how the nfl works at this point.

Which is exactly why he should get as much as he can. "Not For Long" and all that

[Clevfan4life]

thays fine but if he bitches then that tge raiders dont play meaningful games in december cause theres not enough talent around him......

[jcam222]

2 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

thays fine but if he bitches then that tge raiders dont play meaningful games in december cause theres not enough talent around him......

I think we have much more overall talent than Oakland now

[Gunz41]

1 hour ago, Tour2ma said:

Welcome back, Gunz...

I'm not willing to assume misses in the draft and while I discount need,I do not ignore it completely.

As for pass-rushers...there's a pretty good list of elite to near-elite ones who have been selected after the 1st round.

That said, I was shocked when Mack was there when we had the 4th pick (IIRC it was the Bortles surprise that left him on the Board). I'd been a Watkins guy up 'til that moment. I converted very quickly only to be crushed when we traded down to take a CB that honestly was not even on my radar.

Agree... you have to call... but the price is going to be ridiculously high early. Keeping a player's rights is the only leverage a team has so the price is not exactly enticing.

Ahem... two years of U of Buffalo here...

Child, please... Did you ever turn down a raise for the good of the company? To keep in line with your peers? Didn't think so.

This is his shot to cash.

It's not assuming a miss though. Chubb could be a pro bowl player for Denver, but there is a difference in PB and DPOY.

It is just a pet peeve, and this isnt the first time I have said something about people and coveting picks more than proven player. The example of Gilbert is that maybe he goes 16th, but he was still going to be a 1st round pick. So everyone missed on a grade.

But an example of what I am talking about from past. "No way do you trade a 2nd or 3rd for Landry". Yes the Browns got him for less, but that wasnt the argument being made. That argument was that pick was more valuable. Once the Browns got him, "we just got the best slot receiver in the NFL". And usually it's the same guys who say "that was a terrible pick we took at x"

Just be consistent, not one set of rules at one point, another next week, and yet another the week after.

[Tour2ma]

What is this "con-sis-ten-cy" of which you speak???

[hoorta]

2 hours ago, The Gipper said:

I heard this on the radio this morning:   that Jon Gruden is actually the guy with the say so on Mack's contract, not the GM McKenzie, or even the owner Mark Davis.   And Jon has been talking to his brother Jay....who as you know is the HC of the Redskins.   Recall that it is the Redskins that twice put the franchise tag on Kirk Cousins.    It was speculated that the Raiders may do the same with Mack:   Make him play out his contract he has, then do a double franchise tag on him for two years beyond that.

Some people weren't paying attention- no offense to you Gip. The red is exactly what I've been saying. Will Mack sit out and pout to the tune of $13 million this year?  The Raiders don't currently have the cap room to give him a huge signing bonus. 

All this Mack to the Browns is wishful speculation by some Browns fans here. The odds of him actually landing in Cleveland are incredibly remote. 

[Orion]

On 8/25/2018 at 7:08 PM, Gunz41 said:

This is one of those things I have said in the past that just is a pet peeve to me.

"I wouldn't trade x pick for him, look at what we COULD get."

And there is that.  Right?  What would you be doing with the draft pick?  Draft someone that you HOPE might be somewhere near as good as Mack?  If you can work out a deal, might as well get the real thing.  -  He's obviously a talent that would make any defense more than a little bit better.  But he's one of those guys that has to be paid like he's the best player in the league, by far.  I'm reminded of a Ravens team photo after Flaco signed his mega deal.  The team was sitting on a set of bleachers.....and every player except Flaco was edited out of the picture.

[Gunz41]

2 hours ago, Orion said:

And there is that.  Right?  What would you be doing with the draft pick?  Draft someone that you HOPE might be somewhere near as good as Mack?  If you can work out a deal, might as well get the real thing.  -  He's obviously a talent that would make any defense more than a little bit better.  But he's one of those guys that has to be paid like he's the best player in the league, by far.  I'm reminded of a Ravens team photo after Flaco signed his mega deal.  The team was sitting on a set of bleachers.....and every player except Flaco was edited out of the picture.

I'm not saying you should do it no matter what. Of course the contract plays into it. That isnt my beef. Mine is with exactly what I wrote, cant do this because X could be there and could be good.

I dont believe any team has ever drafted someone especially high and said, yea we took him because he isnt going to be good. Raiders thought Russell was their future, Browns with Gilbert, and Patriots didn't draft Brady to be best QB of all time. 

[Clevfan4life]

u cant sign a guy who breaks ur cap situation when u have young players like we do that will have to be paid. Him alone isnt taking us to the playoffs. Ill revisit this idea after this season when we know where we're at. If we get a real good look at the playoffs, unlikely, but if we do we can consider signing him cause we wont have that high a draft pick anyway. 

[Orion]

1 hour ago, Gunz41 said:

I'm not saying you should do it no matter what.

....but there's nothing wrong with the general idea of acquiring proven talent.  What's a draft pick?  It's a hope and a prayer.  What's proven talent?  It's not a hope and a prayer.

We trade a draft pick to team X......for a proven player.  We tell team X, Please use that draft pick to draft a good prospect.  If he turns out to be good, perhaps we'll trade you another draft pick for HIM.

[Gunz41]

6 minutes ago, Orion said:

....but there's nothing wrong with the general idea of acquiring proven talent.  What's a draft pick?  It's a hope and a prayer.  What's proven talent?  It's not a hope and a prayer.

We trade a draft pick to team X......for a proven player.  We tell team X, Please use that draft pick to draft a good prospect.  If he turns out to be good, perhaps we'll trade you another draft pick for HIM.

That is exactly what I have been saying 

[Orion]

1 minute ago, Gunz41 said:

That is exactly what I have been saying 

I know.  And I'm agreeing.

[Clevfan4life]

35 minutes ago, Orion said:

....but there's nothing wrong with the general idea of acquiring proven talent.  

there's nothing wrong with that unless the talent wants cap imploding money and said talent doesn't get this "current" team deep into the playoffs. For 21m that's a "piece" that gets us "home". As I said, for 15 or 16m....I would consider it. But not now, I would need a better idea of where this team is. If the defense isn't "close"...we're paying 21m and wrecking our ability to sign current talent, for a guy that's just gonna give the fans a few highlight sacks but get us nowhere in the rankings. That's not worth it, as much as I love Khalil mack...it isn't worth it. 

[hoorta]

46 minutes ago, Orion said:

....but there's nothing wrong with the general idea of acquiring proven talent.  What's a draft pick?  It's a hope and a prayer.  What's proven talent?  It's not a hope and a prayer.

We trade a draft pick to team X......for a proven player.  We tell team X, Please use that draft pick to draft a good prospect.  If he turns out to be good, perhaps we'll trade you another draft pick for HIM.

That's you're fallacy- You don't pay Kahlil Mack $21 million unless you think he's taking you to the Super Bowl. Just look back at NFL history. Name me one defensive player (other than Reggie White) FA who fits that description. Suh couldn't do it in Miami- so Mack is a sure shot in Cleveland? Not iMHO.