Colts Should Trade for Khalil Mack (UPDATE: traded to Chicago)

[Mr.Debonair]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

So we want to trade away the future for a guy who made DPOY in 2016, but didn't fair so well in 2017? Then gamble on if he'll resign with us or have to use the tag to force him to stay. All while we know he wants a rediculous contract in the first place. The same guy who is holding out from camp now because he wants an extension NOW!  

 

Not with the drama crap. Who's to say he won't get his little panties in a bunch and pull some crap if we traded for him? 

Didn't fare well?????? Dude had 10.5 sacks. You sound silly

 

Holding out to get the money you deserve is drama? He hasn't dogged the organization, he hasn't constantly been talking to the media. Where is the drama

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, #12. said:

As far as his age goes, he would be 33 at the end of a 7th season.  Say you get 5 peak seasons and two, still highly-productive seasons.  Seven seasons?  That's a generation in the NFL.  Dungy only coached the Colts for seven years.  

 

 

Those 5 peak seasons won’t guarantee that the Colts will be good. It won’t matter if he gives you 5 peak seasons if we still have a sieve at RT, can’t run the ball, have no quality LBs, etc... And the chances of fixing any of those issues is decreased when you start trading first round picks. The Colts don’t have a roster to support an outside FA of that caliber. Not yet.

[#12.]

9 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Before we traded the #3 pick, EVERYONE wanted us to use it on Chubb. Aside from the fact that we would've had him on a rookie deal for 4 years, I don't see the difference.

Yeah, I've been thinking about all of that.

 

The other thing about the trade out of #3 is this: you got three extra picks and added a few pieces, so perhaps Ballard now feels okay giving back a few picks to land a proven player.

 

 

[csmopar]

10 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Before we traded the #3 pick, EVERYONE wanted us to use it on Chubb. Aside from the fact that we would've had him on a rookie deal for 4 years, I don't see the difference.

not entirely true... I wanted Nelson

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

not entirely true... I wanted Nelson

I wanted Chubb only because we were at 3

[Steamboat_Shaun]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

not entirely true... I wanted Nelson

 

Fair enough, & you weren’t the only one... but still, like 98% of Colts fans wanted Chubb.

[richard pallo]

51 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

 The big concern for me is the draft picks

You know there is no guarantee that any of the picks we trade will pan out.  A couple of unknowns for a sure fire difference maker.  No contest.  Do the deal.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Offer John Simon, a 2019 first and/or second. If the Raiders say no, hang up & move on.

 

You might as well not make the call.

[Shepman]

24 minutes ago, NewEra said:

So we want to trade away the future for a guy who made DPOY in 2016, but didn't fair so well in 2017? Then gamble on if he'll resign with us or have to use the tag to force him to stay. All while we know he wants a rediculous contract in the first place. The same guy who is holding out from camp now because he wants an extension NOW!  

 

Not with the drama crap. Who's to say he won't get his little panties in a bunch and pull some crap if we traded for him? 

Most trades like these are on a condition that the player signs an agreed upon extension as part of the deal.

[Goatface Killah]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, never. 

 

Basically every player in the NFL is available, for a price. You can trade up to the top five in the draft every year, for a price. You can't disregard the cost -- and other variables -- and still build your team responsibly.

 

I definitely agree with the idea that draft picks are overrated and treated like gold. Sometimes it makes sense to try for the kill shot, but only when you're reasonably within range. I'm not dead set against going after a player like Mack if your team is already a contender, or on the brink of contending. The Colts are neither right now.

 

I want our draft picks at this point in time because they will help us build a core of 10-12 really good to great players. Without that core, just adding one "difference maker," even at a premium position, isn't going to make that much of a difference in the end. It might help us get a step or two closer to contention, but it will undermine our ability to build a solid core and become a perennial contender.

 

Draft well, stack good drafts, develop young players, supplement in free agency, and before long we'll have a solid core. Then maybe a deal presents itself that helps us fill a hole and get to the next level. That kind of deal right now would be very premature.

 

We have wemt from the first pick to the playoffs in 1 season. I dont think you are ever too far away from contention to add a foundational piece like Mack.

 

 

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You might as well not make the call.

 

You're probably right, but it's Gruden so who knows. He seems pretty eager to get rid of the guy, so it may not cost as much as we think.

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Before we traded the #3 pick, EVERYONE wanted us to use it on Chubb. Aside from the fact that we would've had him on a rookie deal for 4 years, I don't see the difference.

 

1) The additional pick (likely multiple picks) it would take to acquire Mack. 

 

2) The age difference. We have a barely average roster, and I'm being generous. By the time we have a good roster, Mack will be declining. 

[Superman]

Just now, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

You're probably right, but it's Gruden so who knows. He seems pretty eager to get rid of the guy, so it may not cost as much as we think.

 

I don't get this. Gruden has said very little about Mack because Mack hasn't shown up through the entire offseason and training camp. If Gruden -- who isn't the GM, by the way -- is so eager to get rid of him, why is it late August and nothing has been done?

 

The Raiders are doing the same thing basically every team does when a star player holds out. They are exercising their leverage. There is no deadline for them. Mack will show up eventually. 

[PrincetonTiger]

15 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Fair enough, & you weren’t the only one... but still, like 98% of Colts fans wanted Chubb.

That was because we didn’t need a QB or a RB

 

the majority here  wanted to trade back

[PrincetonTiger]

Fringe MLB contenders can do a trade like this Fringe NFL teams cannot

 

  The Colts are a Fringe NFL contender

[Fisticuffs111]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

1) The additional pick (likely multiple picks) it would take to acquire Mack. 

 

2) The age difference. We have a barely average roster, and I'm being generous. By the time we have a good roster, Mack will be declining. 

2's a big part of my reasoning. I don't think Mack takes us into the stratosphere of being clear contenders, and when we would finally have a roster built (which would take more time without two 1st's) he'd be declining.

Not to mention those two 1st's we'd be giving up, we'd have them throughout their early/mid 20s and hopefully for most of their careers.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

 

We have wemt from the first pick to the playoffs in 1 season. I dont think you are ever too far away from contention to add a foundational piece like Mack.

 

That team wasn't one player away from contending. Put an elite pass rusher on the 2014 team and they still don't beat the Pats. 

 

Build your roster first. You can have virtually any foundational defensive player whenever you want if you're willing to give up a king's ransom. It's always risky, but it's even more problematic when you don't have a good roster around him already. Then by giving up that huge haul, you're making it even harder to build your roster. 

 

If you really want to do a deal like this, wait two years and then offer the Chargers two firsts for Joey Bosa. Or wait until next year and go after Fowler or Beasley. But patience is critical. 

[ztboiler]

It’s really difficult to break even on long term value by trading for a premier player at second contract career stage....let alone exceed value given up

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

  The Colts are a Fringe NFL contender

 

That's a stretch. The Colts are a fringe playoff contender, and that's only because Luck is so good. 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Superman said:

 

That's a stretch. The Colts are a fringe playoff contender, and that's only because Luck is so good. 

Agreed

[jvan1973]

When was the last big time trade in the NFL for an existing player?

[PrincetonTiger]

Eric Dickerson to the Colts?

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

When was the last big time trade in the NFL for an existing player?

 

[Superman]

10 hours ago, #12. said:

Of the teams LaCanfora mentioned:

 

Bears - Nagy saw him up close and personal, twice a year with Chiefs.

 

Colts - Ballard, same story.

 

Also, both witnessed the Von Miller effect in that division.

 

I put zero stock into that report, just like the Bell rumors. The Colts will be tied to every player who wants to be paid because we have a ton of cap space. I have no doubt they've done due diligence; Ballard said a couple weeks ago they have continual conversations with every team. But I don't think the Colts are going to give up a huge package for Mack right now. 

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, Superman said:

 

That team wasn't one player away from contending. Put an elite pass rusher on the 2014 team and they still don't beat the Pats. 

 

Build your roster first. You can have virtually any foundational defensive player whenever you want if you're willing to give up a king's ransom. It's always risky, but it's even more problematic when you don't have a good roster around him already. Then by giving up that huge haul, you're making it even harder to build your roster. 

 

Wait two years and then offer the Chargers two firsts for Joey Bosa. Or wait until next year and go after Fowler or Beasley. But patience is critical. 

You have no way to know that. Did anyone think the Eagles were as close as they were last year? No.

 

 

I dont think the Colts have a poor roster at all. They lack the top level guys. They dont have enough "Ambien" guys as Venturi would say.

 

 

[aaron11]

8 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

When was the last big time trade in the NFL for an existing player?

sam bradford was traded for a first round pick and a conditional pick that could have been anything from a second to a forth, im not sure what it ended up as 

 

maybe not a huge trade, but bradford had only one year on his contract like mack 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't get this. Gruden has said very little about Mack because Mack hasn't shown up through the entire offseason and training camp. If Gruden -- who isn't the GM, by the way -- is so eager to get rid of him, why is it late August and nothing has been done?

 

The Raiders are doing the same thing basically every team does when a star player holds out. They are exercising their leverage. There is no deadline for them. Mack will show up eventually. 

 

Gruden isn't the GM, but he & McKenzie do share roster control, and a lot of articles I've read suggest that Gruden wears the pants in that relationship. If he wants to cut or trade someone, he has the authority to do so. And the the only leverage the Raiders really have over Mack is money, & that doesn't seem to hold much weight, because every day that he doesn't show up to camp, he loses a ton of it. Just for missing the preseason game the other day he lost $800,000.

[chad72]

Man, the Broncos got that UDFA Jeff Holland, who has been doing real well for the Broncos. Shaq Barrett, Jeff Holland, plus Chubb falling in his lap, Elway has things going his way w.r.t pass rushers, that is for sure, even if Shane Ray doesn't work out. 

[Superman]

Just now, GoatBeard said:

You have no way to know that. Did anyone think the Eagles were as close as they were last year? No.

 

 

I dont think the Colts have a poor roster at all. They lack the top level guys. They dont have enough "Ambien" guys as Venturi would say.

 

 

 

So let's just assume we're this year's version of the Eagles and throw caution to the wind right?

 

Come on. Discipline is important. Fans don't want to acknowledge it, but the odds of any team going from 4-12 to SB contender are very, very low. 

 

By the way, the Eagles were clearly further along as a team last year, in basically every way. From front office to coaching staff to roster. 

 

Now if the Colts have a great year and surprise everyone by making some noise in the playoffs, and we discover we have some good young players and not as many holes as it seems right now... then next offseason maybe you try to make a big splash. Maybe we're this year's Rams, held back by an underwhelming coaching staff but able to turn it around right away. But odds are the Colts are not one offseason away from being a true contender. 

[NewEra]

53 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Didn't fare well?????? Dude had 10.5 sacks. You sound silly

 

Holding out to get the money you deserve is drama? He hasn't dogged the organization, he hasn't constantly been talking to the media. Where is the drama

He's under contract.....where's he at? Not with his team...

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

Man, the Broncos got that UDFA Jeff Holland, who has been doing real well for the Broncos. Shaq Barrett, Jeff Holland, plus Chubb falling in his lap, Elway has things going his way w.r.t pass rushers, that is for sure, even if Shane Ray doesn't work out. 

As a KC fan makes me sick

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

He's under contract.....where's he at? Not with his team...

I'm also not giving up multiple 1's and top player money for 10.5 sacks...

[richard pallo]

5 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

You have no way to know that. Did anyone think the Eagles were as close as they were last year? No.

 

 

I dont think the Colts have a poor roster at all. They lack the top level guys. They dont have enough "Ambien" guys as Venturi would say.

 

 

I have to agree.  I also don't think they have a poor roster.  A player like Mack would make them instant contenders.  I think he is the same age as Luck and people are talking about him declining in two years.   Nonsense.  Ballard has his three year plan.  This trade fits in perfectly.  Just a year early but who's counting. 

[Fisticuffs111]

20 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I put zero stock into that report, just like the Bell rumors. The Colts will be tied to every player who wants to be paid because we have a ton of cap space. I have no doubt they've done due diligence; Ballard said a couple weeks ago they have continual conversations with every team. But I don't think the Colts are going to give up a huge package for Mack right now. 

Yeah, this is another thing. Even if Ballard contacted them it was probably just a feeler convo, like it was with probably most GM's who called.

Also, JLC is inconsistent in his reports. Not to mention a reliable Raiders beat reporter said offers were quickly rejected and that he's not on the trade block.

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

man i don't know.  I'm not sold on Mack.  What if we trade that for him, he refuses to extend and then we're forced to Tag him or let him go?  I just don't like the idea of trading for a player in their contract year.

 

Others have already pointed out but just to reiterate, the Colts wouldn't make the deal without an agreed extension in place.  

 

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

1) The additional pick (likely multiple picks) it would take to acquire Mack. 

 

2) The age difference. We have a barely average roster, and I'm being generous. By the time we have a good roster, Mack will be declining. 

 

Just playing Devil's advocate on a couple of counter points...

 

as to the draft picks..what if Oakland knows they have no chance of signing Mack to an extension.  So the very best they can hope for is 2 years of him on the Franchise tag and then they lose him for at best a 3rd round compensatory pick.  Perhaps that drives down their asking price.  Getting a  1st now along with a future later pick would be extraordinarily better than a 3rd round comp pick.  I'd do pretty much any deal that sends them our first round pick and a future 2nd or later.  I would not do 2 first round picks.

 

To his age...Luck and Hilton are both a year and a half to two years older than Mack.  So when Mack starts to decline, Hilton likely will as well and given Luck's play-style, he will probably be on the decline sooner than say Manning/Brady/Brees.  So most likely, Luck and Hilton will be on the decline around the same time as Mack.  

 

I'm definitely not wanting to "mortgage the future" for one player, but I don't think that 1 first round pick and a future later pick does that.  As to our defensive roster, yeah we need more help at LB and CB, but we didn't exactly have elite players in those positions when we won the SB.  A pass rusher like Mack is going to make the jobs of the LBs and CBs much easier, especially with the interior push we've been seeing from guys like Hunt and Ridgeway.  

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

sam bradford was traded for a first round pick and a conditional pick that could have been anything from a second to a forth, im not sure what it ended up as 

 

maybe not a huge trade, but bradford had only one year on his contract like mack 

In a panic after Bridgewater went down.   That was a terrible trade

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

In a panic after Bridgewater went down.   That was a terrible trade

Yes

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Gruden isn't the GM, but he & McKenzie do share roster control, and a lot of articles I've read suggest that Gruden wears the pants in that relationship. If he wants to cut or trade someone, he has the authority to do so. And the the only leverage the Raiders really have over Mack is money, & that doesn't seem to hold much weight, because every day that he doesn't show up to camp, he loses a ton of it. Just for missing the preseason game the other day he lost $800,000.

 

I don't think anyone knows the dynamics of that relationship, but I doubt Gruden can storm into McKenzie's office and demand that their best defensive player be traded just because he doesn't like him, especially when he hasn't interacted with him since being hired.

 

As for leverage, I disagree. The Raiders have a ton of leverage over Mack. First, the money isn't inconsequential. If Mack doesn't show up, he doesn't get paid at all. He's due almost $14m this season, which is only about $5m less than he made over the previous four years, combined. He's not leaving that on the table.

 

Second, if he doesn't show up eventually, he doesn't accrue a season. That means the Raiders retain his fifth year rights in 2019, and he's no closer to free agency.

 

Third, he's realistically three accrued seasons away from truly unrestricted free agency. They have the fifth year option, plus they can tag him two more years at an average of about $19m/year. Include the $14m fifth year option, and you have a three year commitment at an average of  about $17.5m/year, which is significantly less than what Mack is reportedly asking for in average, years and guarantees.

 

Fourth, if Mack plays three option/tag years, he's risking injury. He's not a QB like Kirk Cousins (who only had to play two years before hitting free agency, due to not being a first rounder). His risk of injury is significantly higher.

 

Fifth, three years from now, Mack is 30 years old. Who's breaking the bank on a 30 year old edge rusher who just had his prime milked by another team? And that's assuming he's still healthy and playing at a Pro Bowl level.

 

The system is rigged in favor of the teams. The Raiders have all the control. Same thing is true with the Rams and Aaron Donald, and every other first round pick under this CBA. Teams abuse the option and the tags to control the market value of the best players in the league. Aside from public acrimony, it works out well for the teams, the league, and the fans. Just sucks for the best players trying to get to free agency.

 

All Mack can do is play chicken with the Raiders, and see if they blink. But realistically, he's going to swerve first. That's the way it always works. Either he shows up and plays out the season on the fifth year option, or he shows up and works out a long term deal for less than what he's asking for now. There is no scenario where Mack forces the Raiders to give him what he wants.

[csmopar]

8 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Others have already pointed out but just to reiterate, the Colts wouldn't make the deal without an agreed extension in place.  

 

 

Just playing Devil's advocate on a couple of counter points...

 

as to the draft picks..what if Oakland knows they have no chance of signing Mack to an extension.  So the very best they can hope for is 2 years of him on the Franchise tag and then they lose him for at best a 3rd round compensatory pick.  Perhaps that drives down their asking price.  Getting a  1st now along with a future later pick would be extraordinarily better than a 3rd round comp pick.  I'd do pretty much any deal that sends them our first round pick and a future 2nd or later.  I would not do 2 first round picks.

 

To his age...Luck and Hilton are both a year and a half to two years older than Mack.  So when Mack starts to decline, Hilton likely will as well and given Luck's play-style, he will probably be on the decline sooner than say Manning/Brady/Brees.  So most likely, Luck and Hilton will be on the decline around the same time as Mack.  

 

I'm definitely not wanting to "mortgage the future" for one player, but I don't think that 1 first round pick and a future later pick does that.  As to our defensive roster, yeah we need more help at LB and CB, but we didn't exactly have elite players in those positions when we won the SB.  A pass rusher like Mack is going to make the jobs of the LBs and CBs much easier, especially with the interior push we've been seeing from guys like Hunt and Ridgeway.  

hmmmm he does have a point here

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Yeah, this is another thing. Even if Ballard contacted them it was probably just a feeler convo, like it was with probably most GM's who called.

Also, JLC is inconsistent in his reports. Not to mention a reliable Raiders beat reporter said offers were quickly rejected and that he's not on the trade block.

 

To the bolded, that's what the Raiders have to do. Can't let Mack and his camp think they have a way out.

 

But IF someone made a Godfather offer, I think the Raiders would do it. 

[Superman]

25 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I have to agree.  I also don't think they have a poor roster.  A player like Mack would make them instant contenders.  I think he is the same age as Luck and people are talking about him declining in two years.   Nonsense.  Ballard has his three year plan.  This trade fits in perfectly.  Just a year early but who's counting. 

 

Spoken like a true fan... Where's @COLTS449 when you need him? 

 

WE ALL IN ON MACK YALL!!

 

Fans always think their team is one great player / one offseason away from contending. It's almost never true. 

 

As for Mack being the same age as Luck, look at the shelf life of a defensive lineman versus that of a good QB. You'll find a major discrepancy.

 

And as for "who's counting," well, I'm pretty sure Chris Ballard has enough discipline to stick to his plan. Look at the way he handled free agency this year, much to everyone's chagrin. He doesn't have a twitchy trigger finger, and it's one of his best traits, IMO.