Packers and Khalil Mack: Why Not?

The Green Bay Packers, according to OddsShark, have the best current odds to land Oakland Raiders linebacker Khalil Mack.

Via their Twitter account on Sunday:

What's really "odd" about this, however, is that Mack isn't a free agent and this isn't March.  It's August.

He's entering the last year of his rookie deal and is set to make $13.9 million, all of which is guaranteed.  Mack has yet to report to Raiders training camp and is holding out.  So is Aaron Donald of the Los Angeles Rams.  It seems they're both waiting on each other to see who blinks first and reports.

Mack is reportedly looking for $22 million per season in a new deal.  Just a few years ago, that would have been quarterback money.  While it's not advisable to pay a non-quarterback the type of money that a quarterback should get, if there is a position where an elite player might be justified in asking for it, it's a pass rusher.

Many Packers fans want to see new General Manager Brian Gutekunst pull the trigger and do what it takes to land a transcendent talent like Mack. 

Mack has 40.5 sacks and 38 tackles for no gain or for a loss during his career.  That's an average of just over 10 sacks per season.  Mack has also not missed a single game.

Five or six years ago, Clay Matthews was viewed much like Mack is today.  Still young and yet to hit their prime.  Since then, Matthews has had an average salary of $11.8 million, but keep in mind that it was just $6.7 million in 2013 before jumping to $11 million in 2014.  Matthews is set to earn $11.3 million this season.

At the time, the Packers paid up and extended Matthews at a price comparable to what Mack is making today.  Since then, Matthews has racked up 38.5 sacks while missing games in three of those five seasons.  Would you pay top dollar for that type of production (or better) now?

Let's assume the Packers want to put together a trade for Mack.  Right now, he's only guaranteed to be theirs through this season so they'd have to put together an extension that he would agree to in order to make the trade.

Over the life of a four or five year deal, Mack would likely reel in an annual salary ranging from $16 million to $20+ million if you consider what the market rate will be for that type of player over the next several years.

That's a lot of money but players like Mack also don't grow on trees.  The Packers have the cap space to accommodate that type of deal and reports are that it wouldn't impact the team's ability to continue to pay Aaron Rodgers.  They also have Matthews' and Randall Cobb's ($12.8 million) salaries coming off the books after this season. 

Knowing that, why not pursue Mack?

Besides having to prepare to shell out big money, the Packers would need to compensate the Raiders for Mack's services.  It's not known what the Raiders are asking in return, but the Packers' two first-round picks would seem to be an easy ask for Oakland.  Raiders General Manager Reggie McKenzie and Head Coach/Czar Jon Gruden aren't likely to give their former team and friends, the Packers, any type of friendly discount.

Assuming the Packers make the postseason this year and the New Orleans Saints don't tank, both of Green Bay's first-round picks next year could potentially be in the mid 20's or later.  Is Mack worth those two picks?

It's an easy "yes" as far as I see it, but I don't make those types of decisions.  This could all become moot if Mack reports and decides to play out this season or if the Raiders get him signed to an extension.  Until then, the Packers have a chance to land the top defensive player in the game right now.  

Adding Mack to the Packers defense makes them an instant top five unit and could be the difference between a Super Bowl (or two) or none while Rodgers is still running the offense. 

The question is, are you in or out on Mack?

-------------------

Jason is a freelance writer on staff since 2012 and also co-hosts Cheesehead TV Live, Pulse of the Pack and Pack A Day podcasts.  You can follow him on Twitter here

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (85)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
HankScorpio's picture

August 13, 2018 at 06:20 am

When you can get "special", it is worth a very high price. Mack is special. I'd part with both 1s next year to trade for him, provided a contract can be worked out. I'd try to give less but both 1s would be ok by me f that is what it takes.

Of course, the cap is a big part of it. It will mean letting some youngsters walk when they hit the open market. "Special" is worth it. "Special" tilts games. more than "solid" or "above average". Heck, if they have to, they can dump Matthews to make the cap work. I'm a bigger fan of Matthews than many but it is a pretty easy choice between the 2.

What I don't get is why the Packers are considered the favorites for Mack by Vegas. I've been viewing all this Mack to GB speculation as typical day-dreaming so far. So that part doesn't make sense to me.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 06:52 am

I think GB has the best odds mainly because we have the draft capitol to swing the deal. 2 first round picks probably will look very attractive to Gruden right about now, who I'm sure is wanting to build his team his way with his ego and all. Having 3 first round picks next year might have them very interested in trading Mack.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:21 am

I get that point. But you have to believe that neither pick will be top 10. Or at least those would be the odds. So let's just say those two picks turn out to be 15 & 25. I doubt that is enough ammo to move into the top 5, where guys like Mack are drafted.

So the theory counts on Oakland throwing up their hands to retaining Mack and taking the best offer they can get. I don't think that is going to happen. Contract squabbles that get resolved are far more common than contract squabbles that end up with an elite player in his prime switching teams. If Mack is still a no-show after the regular season starts, that would change things. But we're not to that point yet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:23 am

According to the old JJ draft value charts, 15 and 25 get you to #4 overall.

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

You're right, though. To my knowledge, Oakland has not engaged in any serious trade discussions with anyone, nor have they made it common knowledge that they're shopping Mack. This feels more like agents trying to generate interest and bloggers pointing to a no-show and playing "what-if" more than anything else.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:01 am

So the next question is if you knew we had the 4th pick in the draft, would you trade that for Mack? I expect NO to make the playoffs, which would put their draft pick in the low 20s. I expect us to make it to the divisional round or better. Maybe it turns out to be 24 and 28, which would arguably mean they could be combined for about the 8th or 9th pick. Would you trade the 9th pick for Mack?

It is supposed to be a deep draft for pass rushers. I do buy to some extent that two number ones are or will be more valuable in 2019 than it was in 2018 or some other years, but I am relying on my draft guru buddies and a few articles.

I also suspect that two number ones is MSRP. Players on the 5th year option are all that different from players on a franchise tag. Teams have been known to rescind the tag on players for nothing in return. Josh Norman was the most recent example, although he was a one-year wonder and it appears that Carolina was correct in its evaluation of him, given the mediocrity that he's been.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:19 am

I would still trade for Mack, even though it's "supposed to be" a good crop of pass rushers in the next draft. Mack is a PROVEN bonifide game changer. He never misses a game (although that probably will change once he gets to Green Bay lol), he's been to pro-bowls, all-pro AND defensive player of the year... All when offenses could key on him and double him since he was a one man show on defense, espeically last year. In GB, putting him in our front 7 with Daniels, Mo (former first rounder), Clark (former first rounder), Adams, Perry (former first rounder), CM3 (former first rounder), and we will be strong, maybe elite, against run and pass. But i'd take a PROVEN player over a "potential draft pick" any day. The draft pick could turn out to be an all-pro like Mack, but why take the chance? Just sign Mack!

Plus, and nobody has touched on this yet, but trading for Mack surely would show one Aaron Rodgers that this new GM is not the old GM and he wants to win NOW. Draft and develop is fine. Really all top teams do that. But everyone knows "the window" is open for a limited time.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:03 am

I wonder what Pettine would say about Mack.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:50 am

.
.
.
.
;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:09 am

The same as everyone else- He's a beast.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GBPDAN1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 04:01 pm

" Adding Mack to the Packers defense makes them an instant top five unit and could be the difference between a Super Bowl (or two) or none while Rodgers is still running the offense. "

If we knew that our D would definitely be a "top 5 unit" by adding Mack, then obtaining Mack should be a priority. Rodgers having a top 5 D is a recipe for a SB. But, do we know that our D would be an " instant top five" ? The Raiders D wasn't good last year with Mack, so he definitely needs help ( which I think our D would provide).

I know we'd definitely be improved and our DBs would be even better with an elite pass rush. We would be top 10, maybe top 5? From what I see out of Fackrell and Biegel so far in camp, and with Clay's decline as an elite edge rusher and Perry's injury history, I think the Packers should try to land Mack. I do have hope for Gilbert, but he's obviously no Mack.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 06:56 am

Sorry about the 4 replies people. Accidently hit reply a few times when it appeared to not go through.

Hopefully nobody freaks out!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:04 am

there's an edit buton, and while you can't completely delete the duplicate msgs, you can reduce them to a single character, like a period, or whatever.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:21 am

Ahhh thanks for the advice!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:22 am

It happens to a lot of people (me included) from time to time. No big deal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:09 am

The TKstinator only freaks “in”, never “out”. He finds it unbecoming.
He is also amused by using third person.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Big Moe's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:00 am

While I believe Mack would be the best free agent since "the Eagle landed" in G.B. I don't see it happening, but Gute has all ready suprised me, so fingers crossed.

Go Pack! and F!!! the bears...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:32 am

That's the attitude I'm taking on this Mack talk. It makes sense to me for the Packers to try but it does not make sense to me that Oakland lets him go.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:03 am

I know others are totally against it but I woild trade both 1s and either Matthews or Perry for Mack. There are very few opertunities to aquire a guy like Mack and the chances of getting one with either of those picks is nomi al. The salary cap is is going to go way up and 20 mil for an elite pass rusher is possible.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:24 am

Agreed. The fact a young up and coming all-pro blue-chip player like this at one of the most important positions even becomes available is super rare! imagine all the teams lining up for him if he was a FA before the season! But for some reason, some fans question this move? I think it's a no brainer! more than our 2 first rounders, i'd pause, but if it's 2 first rounders, I think it's an easy decision!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:24 am

The key part of your statement is, "if he was a FA." There would be significantly more going into this than just cap dollars.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cubbygold's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:27 am

The fact that he's not a FA is exactly why fans are questioning the move. Not only will GB have to part with substantial draft capital to acquire him, but they'll also have to essentially outbid all other teams to retain him after this season. So, this is a more expensive route than if he was simply a FA.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:03 am

The presumption is that the trade would never happen unless a deal has been struck with Mack prior to the transaction...which would require Oakland allow teams to talk to Mack, which would make it common knowledge when they decide (IF they decide) to deal him. There haven't been any credible reports that this is yet the case. But you're right: you're buying out his ability to test the FA market. In Mack's case, I don't think that changes his asking price, but for most other players it's a crap shoot as to whether they turn out to be a bargain (Bakhtiari) or not (Perry).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:41 am

Except, he's not available, and would have to be baited with a pile jewels to make him available.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

August 13, 2018 at 04:02 pm

Maddygirl1, Yes, it's a "No brainer" because HE'S NOT A FA. It's a "no brainer' to NOT do a deal that WIPES OUT immense draft capitol (cue all the people who were upset that TT wouldn't do FA deals or trades. How do you then do trades with no draft capitol???" PLUS, you would then have to tie up crazy $$$$$$$ for a contract in ADDITION to the trade. That, IMHO, is just crazy for the future of the franchise, not to mention the possible issues that could erupt in the locker room over having all the available cap money tied up with Rodgers and Mack. No way this happens without substantial contracts in place. Not going to happen. Darn near everyone on this site was thrilled with Gute's 2018 draft; now you want to tie his hands for 2019????????? That's just 'crazy' in my opinion. Gute has (seemingly, we will need to see) shown an ability to be a shrewd drafter. I, for one, want to see what he does with those two number ones next year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 12:11 pm

Yeah, I'm assuming this would not be a one year rental! What's the point in giving 2 first round picks then! I don't think that is the deal everyone is talking about. If we trade for him, a long term deal would obviously have to be worked out.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:19 am

The Great Ron Wolf once said something like:

"If a GM is never going to take chances and is too scarred to take chances, he will never win a Super Bowl."

Getting an all-pro, defensive player of the year winner at one of the most important positions, in his prime, never missing a game and a top 5 blue chip player is worth the chance. He would upgrade our defense to at least top 10 with this current roster and we'd be in position for multiple super bowls for years to come while Rodgers window is still open.

To me, it's about as guaranteed of a risk as you'll ever get. Mack in Green and Gold!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:29 am

Getting back into the groove from vacation. Happy to be back, great to see preseason finally is here.

As far as Mack to GB, I will believe it when it happens. Until then its fun to talk about the possibility of it happening.

If they did add Mack to the current defense. I think it would be enough to put fear into every offense. They have added athletic CB's. They have Mathews who still makes plays. Perry is effective when healthy. But adding Mack to go with Wilkerson would make the front 7 as good as anyone's. With Clark and Daniels, Adams looks to be coming on, Martinez a tackling machine, adding a guy like Mack would definitely change our defense.

Again, I will believe it when I see it but it would be fun to see it happen.

Now the cost. Since they have 2 first rounders next year, I would definitely trade one of those for Mack. I'm not sure exactly what it would cost. But using one of those 2 first rounders would be worth it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:40 am

I am concerned about the cap and the length of deal Mack might want. I agree the cap will continue to rise through 2022, but there is a very good chance the cap could reverse course in 2023 and go down. That means the most the Packers can give Mack would be a four year deal after this year.

I have posted this on another article, but to review - television money drives the cap and the current deal lasts through 2022. NFL television viewership is down 19% since 2015. This has been partly caused by the kneeling protest, but the decline started before that protest ever happened. Television networks will not continue to pay the current rate for viewership that has declined by 19%. The NFL has four years to fix this or face significantly declining television revenues.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:59 am

Networks believe over-saturation and some really bad match ups in prime time are the main culprits. The match ups can't be helped- it's a function of things that look like good pairings before the preseason end up changing and being bad match ups by the time the games are played- but the NFL needs to see past the lure of more games during the week and understand that people get over exposure and don't really want to watch football on Sunday, Monday, AND Thursday. Pairing back thursday night football not only lessens over-exposure but would also mean 16 fewer spotlight games, hence the NFL could focus on only selecting the most "Fool proof" match ups for MNF. Win Win.

The supposed "protest problem" is an easy fix. Considering the anthem isn't even televised generally speaking, and now the new policy says basically, just stay inside, all the league has to do is not talk about punishment (if any,)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:44 am

hence the NFL could focus on only selecting the most "Fool proof" match ups for MNF. Win Win.

Agreed Oppy. They should just schedule 16 national slots for Packers games, and viewership should go up.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:09 am

I don't know how long the television deals last. The CBA ends after the 2020 season. I expect the players to get several percentage points more of the overall pie, perhaps even some sources of revenue that currently are not included in the revenue split between the players and the league.

In other words, I expect a sudden and at least noticeably large jump in the salary cap for the 2021 season. If Mack signs for 5 years, that would only help for 2021 and 2022. If AR signs for 5 additional years, that would help from 2021 through 2024.

Note though that the league and players thought the cap would jump in 2011, and it didn't budge.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
L's picture

August 13, 2018 at 12:42 pm

I just don't understand where the author of this article is coming up with the statement, "The Packers have the cap space to accommodate that type of deal." Per everything I know the Packers are looking at approximately $5M worth of cap space this year without waiving any big salaries (maybe closer to $10M if they can remove M.Bennett's dead money). And next year despite Matthews and Cobb's contracts coming off the book and clearing a chunk of cap space the sizable increases in salaries for several other players will wipe out the majority, if not all, of that created space. If the league's cap rises exponentially next year then we might have room for Mack's contract, but so should several other teams too. Making room for Mack would also mean having to let HaHa walk as well as several other players (depending on performance) + perhaps give consideration to waiving some guys and taking on a decent amount of dead money. I'm just not really seeing this Mack-to-Packers thing as a real possibility.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:55 am

It's all about structure for both Mack and Rodgers. Certainly everyone expects the Packers to be flush with cash starting next off-season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

August 13, 2018 at 01:31 pm

Many people do not even have cable anymore and local networks are terrible, at least around here. It is so easy to watch a pirated HD broadcast of a NFL game online, in real time, many have permanently cut the cable cord. it's a bigger pain in the butt to mess with the stupid local channel antenna then to search and find a HD live stream. I haven't had cable or local TV in 15 years and I've never had an issue finding and viewing Packers games live, online (tv connected to computer). I'd assume there are a lot of people like me who are doing this, especially the out of market folks. I wonder how the networks and the NFL account for viewers like me? There is no way to Neilsson rate us. Most of the streams are broadcast by NFL tv subscribers; there are no commercials.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

August 13, 2018 at 07:51 am

The Raiders have the cap space to sign their best player, so why haven't they? I suspect Mack wants a long term deal and every team has to be aware of the potential cap problem post 2022. The Raiders just recovered from cap hell about three years ago and they may be gun shy about going there again. I doubt the Packers would give Mack a $20+ million deal beyond 2022 either since they have always been cap conscious.

I would love to see Mack with the Packers, but I don't see it happening as Mack would have to modify his demands and if he did, the Raiders would sign their best player.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:38 am

Great players cost money. CM3 and Randall Cobb are both declining, aging vets. They are good players but not great players. CM3 WAS a great player when he was Mack's age. But both CM3 and Cobb's cost is about the equivilent to Mack, who is a great player. Next year CM3 and Cobb will either be restructured or released. But i'd take a great young healthy player, than 2 oft injured, slow, expensive, aging good players. You can always pick aging vets up for cheap to fill holes, but a player of Mack's value NEVER hits the market. It's similar to when Reggie White became available.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:59 am

Cobb and CMIII both are on expiring contracts. They'll be FAs after the season. Those are hard deals to restructure. ;)

I don't know why people keep calling Cobb "old" or an "aging vet". The guy turns 28 in two weeks and should be, physically, at his peak.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CheesyTex's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:53 am

"should be, physically, at his peak" -- if he can stay healthy. Given the track record, that's a big risk.

If a Mack deal were to materialize, IMO it is bye-bye Cobb and hello to one of the rookies to save the cap $.

Also, wouldn't Chuckie love to have both Cobb and Jordy?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 12:17 pm

True about Cobb! I guess he just seems like "an old vet" but you're right, his age says otherwise.

That said, he does seem he's in decline if you go by stats in the last few years plus injury history. Couple that with his huge salary being paid like a top reciever, he's just not a top reciever. I like him a lot and I hope he has a bounce back season and proves me wrong. He does have great stats when it comes to catches/drops. But he just seems really over paid imo.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

August 13, 2018 at 01:34 pm

28 is aging?? hahahahahahaha

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 01:55 pm

Ummm... "Aging" isn't just a number! Especially in the professional world of the NFL. Especially for the wide reciever postion. Players all the time get hurt, loose speed, loose quickness, get a bit timid or complacent.

Check his stats, check his injury history. Both have been in decline, actually for years. I like Cobb for many reasons on and off the field, but based on where his arrow seems to be pointing, he's definitly over paid. I hope he has a pro-bowl type year like his salary reflects, but I doubt it. His best year was 2014...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

August 13, 2018 at 02:06 pm

Heres a good article which analyzes peak age for a WR (27-31). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fantasypros.com/2017/04/fantasy-footbal...

Stats and injury history of a player are both mutually exclusive to age. Based on your input, a 6 month old who recieves a heart transplant has become aged (injury history). A real estate agent who posted record sales the previous 3 years has become aged in a year with a poor economy (statistical sales decline).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 13, 2018 at 02:27 pm

IMO Cobb is set up to have a very big year...IF he can stay on the field. He usually draws a very high target rate from #12 and he stands to play a ton of snaps if he remains the primary slot WR. Jimmy Graham might have something to say about that, but 80/1100/8 are more than just doable.

I'll say this though: I wouldn't be surprised if, when the choice came down to Cobb or Nelson when they signed Graham, they chose Cobb because he has a chance to draw a better comp pick in the spring.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackfanNY's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:00 am

It's fun to speculate on acquiring such a game changing talent as Mack is. However, this is just not gonna happen. First, Oakland would have to WANT to trade Mack. Not sure they are there yet. Second, GB would have to satisfy the Raiders. Yeah, sure a couple of 1's and Nick Perry sounds great. Not sure what that does for Raiders. Third, you would need to SIGN Mack BEFORE completing said deal. No way GB gives up all that and has player on 1 year deal. Fourth, he's asking for $20M plus per year. Him and Rodgers ($30M? soon) and that's a lot of cap space.
Great discussion but I don't see this one happening. Way to many dominoes would need to fall.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:07 am

It would be nice to have Mack, but not at the expense of 2-1st rounders!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:14 am

I've made my feelings on dealing 2 1s for Mack, along with a 5 year, 100 m contract very clear.

YES YES YES. You pay for special. Mack would make this team a SB favorite. And you don't have ARod's very often at QB. ARod has 5 years of greatness left in him, or somewhere around there.

Get. It. Done.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:45 am

Agreed. Imagine the reaction, especially the folks in Minnesota! I can hear the whole state saying a collective "ohhh durn it..."

(Then I'd sign Bowman for run/depth at ILB. If Martinez goes down, we are in trouble at ILB, unless CM3 moves there if we get Mack. I'd also sign Ried (if he agrees to not be a distraction). He's WAYYY better than Brice. Adding another experienced, young, pro-bowl talent is a no-brainer and he should be cheap as well.)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

August 13, 2018 at 04:30 pm

Bearmeat, We'll have to agree to disagree here. If Mack was a FA this discussion would be different. To me a trade AND a giant new contract is too big a gamble. You believe otherwise. Maybe you have it right, maybe I do. And maybe there's something in between. That's the fun of discussion on CHTV. I've been enjoying the differing view points on this (although, to be honest, I think it's highly unlikely to actually happen). Should be fun to see where this goes! :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:16 am

Smart teams land under-market players. Bills/Dolphins/Redskins buy big name talent at premium value. Patriots and packers land great FA for late round picks, but usually without giving any draft capital. That I support. Wait, and swoop.

2 first rounders might be ok, IF (and only if) it was an ascending player in rookie or 2nd year, and not imminently a + $20m/yr contract.
3 first rounders, or 2 firsts and a 2nd?
Only for a top prospect that proved it in rookie year, and you get 3 more years of rookie payrate with upside and then have chance for long term build around that piece.
I get that bet: its on that 'build-team around that piece' 'generational' talent and you bet that that is more sure bet than landing equal value with 3 first round draft picks. You're conservative on your evaluation and development hit rate. You're betting on proven vs. a roughly 33% success hit for first rounders. (I wouldn't, but a conservative GM and fanbase might say, we'd rather buy proven, than believe in our evaluation and development).

Alternatively, a +$20m/yr contract with a true FA that costs NO draft capital. Big investment, but ok. I get the value for money of that committment.

Alternatively, a player for player trade, and mid rounder, plus $20m/yr contract. Ok. I get the boldness/all-in part of that committment.

But both; big financial committment of $20-23 million/yr, and the bet against future potential of your evaluation and development of 3 first rounders? That is like cutting half the left nut, and half of the right nut in a trade to tool up a two peckered billgoat.
Not gonna make a potent SB billygoat....

Nice fantasy though :-)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LambeauPlain's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:26 am

It will take both 2019 #1s to get McKenzie's attention and even then it may not get it done.

Even though next year's draft is supposedly good for edge rushers, getting the next "Mack", even with 3 #1s does not guarantee it for the Raiders.

Mack is a proven stud and the best edge rusher in the NFL.

It may take both #1s AND CMIII. Or maybe the highest #1 of the two 2019 picks and Perry...who has more value than CMIII since he has a signed deal for next year.

But I would do any of the above to get Mack. He would change the Packer D the way that fella did in 1993!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
carusotrap's picture

August 13, 2018 at 01:39 pm

2 #1s AND a decent to excellent player? For the privilege of turning around and paying him $20 mil + a year, probably all guaranteed?

This whole discussion is insanity.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 13, 2018 at 02:22 pm

The idea of throwing in Perry or CMIII and expecting the deal to be better is just MLB/FFL type talk.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Christopher Gennaro's picture

August 13, 2018 at 05:33 pm

While you are right, I just can't help seeing Matthews in black and silver, for two reasons one Gruden loves him and two his expiring contract would make Davis happy. I know I'm dreaming, but Matthews and couple of high picks, may just get in done, just because of the egos of both Gruden and Davis.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Doug_In_Sandpoint's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:23 am

Gut is playing with the house’s money on the two first rounders. Parlay that into Mack and let the chips fall. I’d bet our new stacked deck of defensive cards would deal us a Super Bowl.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:41 am

Packers fans: A Packers player is talking about holding out? HE'S A BUM! RUN HIM OUT OF TOWN! GET THE PITCHFORKS!

Also Packers fans: Khalil Mack is holding out? WE NEED TO GET HIM IN THE GREEN AND GOLD NO MATTER THE COST!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:50 am

The two first rounders are incidental when you look at the fact that AR isn't getting any younger and our draft-and-develop time is running out. Make hay while the sun shines. If Gute can work out a 4-5 year contract with Mack then go for it. The future is now!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

August 13, 2018 at 08:58 am

I agree that the protest problem is an easy fix that should have been done two years ago.

Over-saturation is real and a problem. Ratings are cumulative and are based on both the quality and quantity of games. If you cut back the number of games on television (Thursday night games), you also need to cut back the size of the television contract. The networks are not going to pay as much or more for fewer games.

I am having a hard time visualizing a scenario where the television revenue doesn't go flat or down in 2023. I believe NFL GMs are very aware of this which is why expensive deals beyond 2022 may be few and far between.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:20 am

Guam, those are good points to consider. You may be right about GMs being unwilling to commit to long-term-high-dollar contracts. I think there may be issues well beyond the kneeling that are affecting fan interest and the ratings of NFL games. I agree that over-saturation is a problem and also the product on the field just isn't that interesting right now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:12 am

Concussions + CTE = more parents not allowing kids to play = less interest among young people (not to mention, eventually, less talent in the game).

I know quite a few young adults who simply have little interest in football.

We may see a leveling off. I think it will still be wildly popular, but upward growth has its limits.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:58 am

If over exposure and quality of prime time match ups are really a significant factor in dwindling viewership, it's entirely possible that one less prime time game per week (Thursday night) could result in a net positive viewership shift. I'm not an advertising exec, but there must be a sweet spot between total available advertising minutes vs. advertising reach (viewership) and the price point it can be sold at per minute. It may (or may not) be more profitable to sell half as much advertising in prime time (only MNF, no more TNF, increase in MNF viewership, plus potential increase in viewership on sundays due to less 'over exposure' burn out) because those minutes have far greater reach. I don't know the value of time slots per viewership, someone in advertising would need to chime in here.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OldTimer's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:01 am

I don't see Mack sitting much longer. It is going to start costing him real money pretty soon, and this is all about the money. In the long run he is better off playing out his contract and hitting the free agent market next year if they let him. Oakland can also franchise him for a year or two after that before he reaches the financial impact of what he is looking to earn. A lot can change in that amount of time and an injury could cost him his career. He should honor his contract, be a leader in the locker room, and try to get paid the right way. I don't remember the raiders being soft on players under contract. They still have the leverage in all of this.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:33 am

If it was just a matter of money I would be all for signing Mack. But giving up draft picks in addition to all of the cap space is too rich for me. I would like to have Mack but not at the current price being discussed.

Spending both the cap space and draft capital on Mack guarantees nothing. What if the Packers spend the money and the draft and don't make it to the SB. I for winning now as mochas anyone but I don't like giving up our picks especially the #1s.

On another note, listening to Jay Glazer on WFAN in NY last Friday he commented that he did not believe that Oakland wants to trade Mack. That can change at any time but why would they trade him? If I was Oakland I would keep him and tag him. Even if he goes to FA in 2019 they would still receive a compensatory pick if he signed elsewhere.

If I'm Mack I play out this season in Oakland and then go for even bigger money in 2019. He could do the same to the Packers unless the Packers agree with him on an extension. The Packers could lose the #1 picks and Mack after one season if they don't agree on an extension.

I would prefer to wait until 2019 and sign him if he becomes a FA. In any case the rumors will run rampant until this is resolved. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PatrickGB's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:54 am

PackfanNY said it well. And I think that two first rounders and maybe another pick would be fine. It’s the man himself that worries me. As a player he is great but as a person, not so much. Besides a whole lot of players are coming up for contracts next year and may expect GB to pay them like they would have to pay Mack.
But Gutekunst is an unknown GM right now, so who knows what he would actually do?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:55 am

"Spending both the cap space and draft capital on Mack guarantees nothing."

Huh??? What is guaranteed in sports? Are you implying the draft is more of a guarantee? Mack is proven. Widely regarded as a top 3 player at one of the most important positions on defense, maybe THE most important position. Some think he's THE best rusher in the league. He's young, and has ALREADY been to multiple pro-bowls, all-pro, defensive player of the year. In the last 3 years... AND never missed a game!

Not much if anything in the NFL is a guarantee, but a player like this is about as close to a guarantee as you're gonna find.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:48 pm

I didn't say anything is guaranteed in sports. In fact I posted the opposite. I'm not imp!ying that the draft is a guarantee either. If I was I would just say so. I realize that you are new here so you probably have not been reading my posts for the past 8-9 seasons of even over the last week on this rumor.

In any case, I'm trying to remove the emotion from this by looking at it from a business standpoint from 3 perspectives involved. From Oakland's perspective they have no reason to do anything since Mack is under contract and they can franchise him for the next 2 seasons. As for Mack he should play this season, take his money and go FA in 2019, if Oakland doesn't franchise him. He would look like a team player and with another solid season on his resume he could command even more money. 2019 is only 4 months away, what is his rush?

As for the Packers, 2019 is only 4 months away for them as well. If Mack becomes an FA at that time try to sign him then and keep our 2 draft picks. Again, what's the rush? I would love to get Mack on the Packers but let's do it on the best terms for the Packers. Mack is worth the money but he is not worth the money and the picks to me. Ideally we could just trade a few players for him, but Oakland has no reason to do that.

I have watched a few money in the bank players over the years and Mack is close but he isn't there yet. He may be the type of player who gets his deal and then plays not to get hurt. You never know. If he was an FA no problem with signing him, but the $$$ and the picks is too much.
Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:06 am

The drum beat continues. Nothing to see here says inspector Drebbin.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cheesehead1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:13 am

Would love to have Mack, but I really don’t believe the Raiders will move him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:21 am

Wanting and having are lights years apart.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Archie's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:18 am

If the price is our two R1 picks plus $100MM over 5 years - done. Similar move to acquiring Reggie White in terms of impact on defense and desirability of playing defense for GB. Rodgers & Mack! Go for it Gute!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
carusotrap's picture

August 13, 2018 at 01:46 pm

That's nuts. Plus, Rodgers is going to get the keys to the house very, very soon. That's north of $55 mil per year - - ⅓ of the cap in two (admittedly very good) players. Two #1s... OK, I get that... but another pick or another real player? Uh, no.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 02:04 pm

Yeah I'd do the deal for our 2 first rounders. Once we start adding more to the deal, such as another pick or a good player, that's where I hesitate.

But Gute has already proven to be much more aggressive than Ted in building the team's roster and he's surrounded by very smart scouts and evaluators. I'm sure they are calling and working on it. We should see in the next week or so...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

August 13, 2018 at 05:08 pm

Archie - we didn't trade picks for Reggie. He was an FA. Why not wait until 2019 and Sign him as an VS then and keep our picks. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
JerseyAl's picture

August 13, 2018 at 10:45 am

good discussion, folks!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

August 13, 2018 at 11:09 am

I just dont think I am on board, I am on board for his option of $13 mil and change but not an eventual extentsion. He would come here then demand the extention? We then risk him not going hard or being pissed and a locker room cancer? I would rather roll with the 2 1st rounders. There is a reason Gruden and McKenzie don't think he's worth it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 02:06 pm

The Raiders are supposedly broke. Many think they just plain can't afford him. Especially since Gruden wants to rebuild his team (which having 3 first rounders next year could be very attractive to them).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tom Greeley's picture

August 13, 2018 at 11:13 am

I haven’t read all comments, but can’t help thinking Oakland will not let him go. He may not even be at his best yet.
Don’t know what Raider fans are like, but if Mckenzie traded him away, it may be he may as well leave himself.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Community Guy's picture

August 13, 2018 at 12:35 pm

i am not in on trading next years' draft capital for Mack: the price will be too high to land him.

i will agree with virtually everyone reading here that the Packers need improvement on defense and improvement on pass rush. i would also agree with people who would suggest that we didn't see enough (Reggie Gilbert was OK) in Thursday's game to believe that high-level pass rush and EDGE work is already on the roster. i agree that Perry has had too many injuries and CMIII is on the downside and possibly the last year of his Packer career. i also agree that Mack, playing at his potential, would be a significant roster improvement.

plenty has been written about potential draft capital expense, and fans are beginning to understand the likely large financial/salary cap cost of adding Mack.

i will suggest a couple of other less mentioned Packer costs to a potential trade. one potential Packer cost, and it maybe isn't big, is the opportunity cost of not developing someone already on the roster, OR, someone who could be on the roster at a far less price than Mack. it is possible that guys like Vince Biegel, Chris Odom or "unnamed free-agent guy" have not yet shown their potential to the organization and fans. maybe, those guys will not flash enough potential, but, i would let the preseason play out some and learn more about what else may already be available to the organization.

another likely cost to adding Mack via trade is that the Packers would sacrifice significant leverage in next year's draft. this is beyond sacrificing significant draft capital. as of now, most folks are aware that, as the lone holder of two 1st round selections next year, the Packers possess significant leverage in the 2019 draft. assuming the Packers keep both of their number 1s next year, it is assured that Gute and co. will field calls, get offers, and be a significant player in inevitable draft capital trades next year. giving up even one of the 1st rounders for next year will significantly reduce the Packers' leverage in next years draft. nobody knows what offers may be available on the phones next year. and, by the way, those draft picks begin to look a lot more valuable in about March of next year.

finally, there is a great risk few have directly mentioned: for whatever reason, as a Packer, Mack my not play to his potential.

add up all of the costs and risks to a potential Mack-for-2019-draft-capital trade, and one begins to realize that trading for Mack is a losing proposition for the Packers.

[that all said, trading the 2020 number 1 pick for Mack seems much more palatable to me.]

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 13, 2018 at 02:56 pm

So... let's say Gute doesn't make the deal because of said draft capitol (likely 2 lower round first round picks). Mack was drafted 5th overall, just a few years ago in 2014.

Maybe we could package our 2 first rounders and move up into the top 10, maybe top 7. And maybe we can draft the top pass rusher or one of the top rushers if we are in the top 10 (Bosa is a name I keep hearing for as the best pass rusher in the draft).

So if you agree this could happen, then it comes down to do we want to "take a chance" on a top draft pick (ie Bosa) or just get the "sure thing" in Mack. To be "better" than Mack, this top pass rusher draft pick would have to basically have even better numbers than Mack, make pro-bowl each year, All-pro and get at least 1 defensive player of the year. Also not be injury prone since Mack has never missed a game!

To me, why take the chance when you have pretty much a proven game changer available. He's the level of player on defense that Aaron Rodgers is on offense. Mack would make all our other players in the front 7 even better too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

August 13, 2018 at 05:13 pm

Try to remember that as of today, there is no deal to be made. This is all rumor and speculation. And BTW, if the #1 picks are such high risks, why would Oakland want them when they already have a "pretty sure thing" in Mack. It works both ways. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

August 13, 2018 at 01:45 pm

So if the Packers make a trade for Mack, could the Packers tag him for a few years after this year if a deal does not get done? or does a move to a different team void the franchise tag?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
carusotrap's picture

August 13, 2018 at 01:49 pm

Maybe a 1st in 2019 and a 1st in 2020? That seems more like it. Remember, you've got to turn around and sign the guy at $20+ million, probably fully guaranteed. And there's the matter of the $32+ million Rodgers is just about to get.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cartwright's picture

August 13, 2018 at 03:01 pm

We aren't desperate so why make a trade that smells like desperation. We seem fine on defense now that we got a new DC and picked up a few more pieces. Give this group time and they may gel into a fine bunch. With the DL we have now we may not need a player the caliber and expense of a Khalil Mack to "get home". They may do it themsleves enough times or provide more lanes for slammin' the QB that weren't there last year. The addition of Wilkerson, an improvement in Clark and the emergence of Montravius Adams may be all we need.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

August 13, 2018 at 04:49 pm

^^^^ THIS.
"We aren't desperate so why make a trade that smells like desperation."

Le't see what we have under Pettine. Yikes, we've only seen ONE preseason game so far (and you know that is a 'vanilla' defense being shown and not 'French vanilla' ether, lol.) I'd like to see what we've got before we start giving away the farm for a possible golden goose.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

August 13, 2018 at 09:43 pm

TGR: The television contracts all end after the 2022 season. While I agree that the players are likely to negotiate for a greater percentage of merchandise sales, those dollars pale in scope versus television revenue. If the television dollars go, so does the cap.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mjbrogno's picture

August 15, 2018 at 02:10 pm

This is simple, it was worth it when we signed Reggie and look what it got us, no brainer, get Mack!!!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.