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

[Fisticuffs111]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

Oh for sure. I doubt anybody made a great feeler offer anyways, something like a 1st at most so far. I think if anybody up's it to two 1st's or around that though, then they may take it.

[Fisticuffs111]

Although I do wonder...if Gruden has any say (which it at least seems like he has more than just the usual HC's say) if he would want some immediate satisfaction, like a proven player along with an assumed 1st.

[Superman]

20 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.  

 

Regarding Oakland's chance of signing him to an extension, I just made another post that goes into more detail on that, but to sum up, they can milk him for the next three years for less than he's asking for, then let him walk as a 30 year old free agent in 2021. They're in control.

 

Second, you're operating under the assumption that it would take a first and a future later pick. I'm assuming you don't get more than 30 seconds of Oakland's time unless your first sentence includes the words "two first rounders."

 

So let's recalibrate: Why would Oakland trade away three years of Mack's prime at less than market value for anything less than two firsts? And why would the Colts give up two firsts right now?

 

I also think it's well established that QBs last longer than defensive linemen. The fragile Sam Bradford just signed for one year, $20m, and he's 30. And I think the team is and should be operating under the assumption that Luck will not continue to play a wreckless brand of QB that could shorten his career. At this point, it's a rationalization to say that Luck isn't going to have a very long prime, so we might as well go all in prematurely. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Although I do wonder...if Gruden has any say (which it at least seems like he has more than just the usual HC's say) if he would want some immediate satisfaction, like a proven player along with an assumed 1st.

 

Why does everyone think Jon Gruden is this impetuous, over emotional guy who only wants his way, right now, without regard for anything else? He signed a ten year contract. He's in it for the long haul.

 

And he waited ten years to get back into coaching, because he wanted the right opportunity. He's not a shoot first, ask questions later kind of guy. 

[Cynjin]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Regarding Oakland's chance of signing him to an extension, I just made another post that goes into more detail on that, but to sum up, they can milk him for the next three years for less than he's asking for, then let him walk as a 30 year old free agent in 2021. They're in control.

 

Second, you're operating under the assumption that it would take a first and a future later pick. I'm assuming you don't get more than 30 seconds of Oakland's time unless your first sentence includes the words "two first rounders."

 

So let's recalibrate: Why would Oakland trade away three years of Mack's prime at less than market value for anything less than two firsts? And why would the Colts give up two firsts right now?

 

I also think it's well established that QBs last longer than defensive linemen. And I think the team is and should be operating under the assumption that Luck will not continue to play a wreckless brand of QB that could shorten his career. At this point, it's a rationalization to say that Luck isn't going to have a very long prime, so we might as well go all in prematurely. 

 

Correct me if I am wrong here, but if they are forced to use a franchise tag on him for two years, the first year would be 17 to 18 million and the next year it would be around 22 million.  That seems like a lot of money against the cap for a DE.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Correct me if I am wrong here, but if they are forced to use a franchise tag on him for two years, the first year would be 17 to 18 million and the next year it would be around 22 million.  That seems like a lot of money against the cap for a DE.

 

Joel Corry says $17.5m and $21m. Plus they have him this year at $14m. That averages less than $18m/year. Von Miller got $19m/year two years ago. 

 

Reports say he's asking for up to $22m/year right now. They're better off letting him play out the next three years. 

[chrisfarley]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know if that's how they're treating him. I think they're playing hard ball because they have leverage. We'll see how it plays out.

 

Let's say you're the Raiders GM, your phone rings and it's me, the Colts GM, asking about Khalil Mack. What's your price?

A first round 2019, second round 2020, & third round pick 2020  (not ballards cup of tea), but probably what it would take.

[Fisticuffs111]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Why does everyone think Jon Gruden is this impetuous, over emotional guy who only wants his way, right now, without regard for anything else? He signed a ten year contract. He's in it for the long haul.

 

And he waited ten years to get back into coaching, because he wanted the right opportunity. He's not a shoot first, ask questions later kind of guy. 

Because of their roster moves, mostly. I know it's become more of a meme at this point, but they really are gunning for guys in or past their prime. And since McKenzie didn't operate like this before they hired Gruden, and because it has been said that Gruden has quite a say in the moves they make, I'm led to believe Gruden wants to compete now. And if he can get the best of both worlds, a very good player in his prime and a 1st, I don't think it's so crazy to think he'd want that over two 1st's.

I don't doubt he's in it for the long haul, and I'm not saying he's impetuous or over-emotional btw, just that I do think he wants to win now. He even said he'd walk away from his 10 year contract if they weren't winning soon.

[DaColts85]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

So let's recalibrate: Why would Oakland trade away three years of Mack's prime at less than market value for anything less than two firsts? And why would the Colts give up two firsts right now?

This sums it up very well imo. Building a team does not mean trade away key picks right now.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, chrisfarley said:

A first round 2019, second round 2020, & third round pick 2020  (not ballards cup of tea)

 

First, I think the Colts would say no, this offseason. 

 

Second, I think the Raiders want and can get a better offer from another team this offseason.  

[throwing BBZ]

38 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. 

 

The Blind leading the Blind. Go Colts

[Boiler_Colt]

1 hour 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. 

Not that I'm on the "Get Mack" train, but regarding number 2, you could say the same thing about Luck. By the time this roster is up to snuff, he could be past his prime. Eventually you do have to play for the now before he starts to decline and you think about what could have been.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Because of their roster moves, mostly. I know it's become more of a meme at this point, but they really are gunning for guys in or past their prime. And since McKenzie didn't operate like this before they hired Gruden, and because it has been said that Gruden has quite a say in the moves they make, I'm led to believe Gruden wants to compete now. And if he can get the best of both worlds, a very good player in his prime and a 1st, I don't think it's so crazy to think he'd want that over two 1st's.

 

A meme indeed. I think a closer look at their roster moves reveals a good mix of young guys with potential (Switzer), guys who have some baggage but have star potential (Bryant), and older vets who have been reliable (Nelson). That's just three examples, all at one position, where they already have an established starter with Pro Bowl ability. 

 

He wants to contend now, and he already has a team with a decent foundation that can contend now. I don't think they've undermined their future with their moves. 

 

Maybe he would prefer a starter to another first, but that's still a problem for a team with question marks all over the roster. Giving up a good starter just adds another question mark, and still undermines the Colts ability to build a good core. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Not that I'm on the "Get Mack" train, but regarding number 2, you could say the same thing about Luck. By the time this roster is up to snuff, he could be past his prime. Eventually you do have to play for the now before he starts to decline and you think about what could have been.

 

How many 30 year old QBs play at a difference making level? Now how many 30 year old DEs play at a difference making level? What's the better bet?

[Fisticuffs111]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

A meme indeed. I think a closer look at their roster moves reveals a good mix of young guys with potential (Switzer), guys who have some baggage but have star potential (Bryant), and older vets who have been reliable (Nelson). That's just three examples, all at one position, where they already have an established starter with Pro Bowl ability. 

 

He wants to contend now, and he already has a team with a decent foundation that can contend now. I don't think they've undermined their future with their moves. 

 

Maybe he would prefer a starter to another first, but that's still a problem for a team with question marks all over the roster. Giving up a good starter just adds another question mark, and still undermines the Colts ability to build a good core. 

Yeah and just to be clear, I don't think Gruden's impetuous or over-emotional. Me saying he might want a starter instead of a 1st isn't meant to be a negative, just that hey, maybe that's his desire. A best of both worlds thing, a very good player and a 1st.

And I'm definitely not advocating the Colts to trade for Mack by any means, whether it's a starter and a 1st or two 1st's. Besides, I don't think we have a realistic "very good" player to offer in that regard besides somebody like Hilton, and I'd rather not do that.

[shasta519]

20 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

No, we should not pursue Mack at this time.    He will cost the Colts high draft picks that Ballard is not prepared to trade yet.

 

The Colts are NOT one great player away from being a contender.   We are a number of great players away.

 

Right guy,  wrong time.

 

 

I don't think there is such thing as right guy, wrong time. You get players when they are actually available...not when it's convenient. Sometimes you get both...but players like Mack don't become available very often.

 

So if Ballard thought he was the right guy, he should get him. That being said, I don't think a $20M DE is the right guy...especially after he has already invested cap space and hight draft picks into the DL. Ballard will want to let that play out for at least a season.

[Jason_]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Regarding Oakland's chance of signing him to an extension, I just made another post that goes into more detail on that, but to sum up, they can milk him for the next three years for less than he's asking for, then let him walk as a 30 year old free agent in 2021. They're in control.

Second, you're operating under the assumption that it would take a first and a future later pick. I'm assuming you don't get more than 30 seconds of Oakland's time unless your first sentence includes the words "two first rounders."

 

Just want to correct that point..I'm not operating under any assumption.  As I said at the beginning of my post, I was playing devil's advocate providing a hypothetical "what if it doesn't take the multiple first round picks that many are suggesting?"  

 

[Architects08]

I dont think id be cool with 2 firsts, but this years 1st and one of our 2nds and id pull the trigger. 

[shasta519]

19 hours ago, Superman said:

The conversation starts with two first rounders. It ends with a new contract for more than $20m/year.

 

Like NCF said, right guy, wrong time. Hard pass.

 

I don't know if there is ever a right time to give up two 1st rounders AND hand over a $20M+/year contract to a DE. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 hours ago, NewEra said:

Can't trade away the future for an aging vet that will NOT make us a contender. 

 

Like others have said. Perfect player and piece that we need. Horrible timing and not smart for our currrent roster to do so. 

 

Develope per the talent we have. Or use our picks to draft players to develope. 

Mack is only 27 - that is not aging. I am against normally trading away Draft picks but If we give up a 1 and a 3 and can get him, I am for it because Mack is a 1 anyway. Mack is just entering his prime and is probably the 3rd best Defensive player in the league. Only Von and Donald are better IMO unless I am forgetting someone. People that are against this won't have to worry anyway because I doubt Ballard will trade away more than a couple of Draft picks. Raiders would probably want 3 or so Draft picks or 2 #1's.

[PrincetonTiger]

These trade rumors reminds me of the conference invitations between Princeton Community and Pike Central

 

   Courtesy moves

[Jason_]

47 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Why does everyone think Jon Gruden is this impetuous, over emotional guy who only wants his way, right now,

 

 

Did you ever listen to his MNF commentary? lol     

 

^that comment was roughly 50% toungue-in-cheek

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Just want to correct that point..I'm not operating under any assumption.  As I said at the beginning of my post, I was playing devil's advocate providing a hypothetical "what if it doesn't take the multiple first round picks that many are suggesting?"  

 

 

I should say, that's the scenario you presented.

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Yeah and just to be clear, I don't think Gruden's impetuous or over-emotional. Me saying he might want a starter instead of a 1st isn't meant to be a negative, just that hey, maybe that's his desire. A best of both worlds thing, a very good player and a 1st.

And I'm definitely not advocating the Colts to trade for Mack by any means, whether it's a starter and a 1st or two 1st's. Besides, I don't think we have a realistic "very good" player to offer in that regard besides somebody like Hilton, and I'd rather not do that.

 

Agreed. And given what the Raiders have already done at WR this year, we can assume they aren't very interested in adding Hilton at $11m. They're already pretty well set at OL, so they won't be interested in AC at $8m. What else do we have?

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I should say, that's the scenario you presented.

 

that is definitely a more accurate statement

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Mack is only 27 - that is not aging. I am against normally trading away Draft picks but If we give up a 1 and a 3 and can get him, I am for it because Mack is a 1 anyway. Mack is just entering his prime and is probably the 3rd best Defensive player in the league. Only Von and Donald are better IMO unless I am forgetting someone. People that are against this won't have to worry anyway because I doubt Ballard will trade away more than a couple of Draft picks. Raiders would probably want 3 or so Draft picks or 2 #1's.

 

Technically, everyone is aging. 

 

I don't think we'll ever get a satisfactory answer to this, because I don't think the Raiders will trade Mack, but I think the idea that he can be had for less than two firsts is a pipe dream. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Technically, everyone is aging. 

 

I don't think we'll ever get a satisfactory answer to this, because I don't think the Raiders will trade Mack, but I think the idea that he can be had for less than two firsts is a pipe dream. 

You are probably right. Like you, I wouldn't give up 2 #1's, I would a 1 and 3 (the 3 being in 2020) though. 27 is young for a LB, he probably has at least 3 or 4 more years left of dominance. Can't see him slowing down until he gets into his 30's.

[Boiler_Colt]

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How many 30 year old QBs play at a difference making level? Now how many 30 year old DEs play at a difference making level? What's the better bet?

Luck will be 30 next year. We can all hope he stays healthy enough to play into his late thirties.

[richard pallo]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed. And given what the Raiders have already done at WR this year, we can assume they aren't very interested in adding Hilton at $11m. They're already pretty well set at OL, so they won't be interested in AC at $8m. What else do we have?

Don't forget Malik Hooker.  They just cut a safety. 

[NewColtsFan]

29 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I don't think there is such thing as right guy, wrong time. You get players when they are actually available...not when it's convenient. Sometimes you get both...but players like Mack don't become available very often.

 

So if Ballard thought he was the right guy, he should get him. That being said, I don't think a $20M DE is the right guy...especially after he has already invested cap space and hight draft picks into the DL. Ballard will want to let that play out for at least a season.

 

Im not offering my opinion.   I’m teminding people of Ballard’s opinion.

 

That he wasn’t going to bring in any high priced guys until he had mostly rebuilt the roster and changed the culture.

 

Could he pursue a trade for Mack?  Sure, he might.   I just don’t think it’s very likely.    Apparently,  that isn’t a very popular with with many around here.

 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, richard pallo said:

Don't forget Malik Hooker.  They just cut a safety. 

They signed DRC the day before

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You are probably right. Like you, I wouldn't give up 2 #1's, I would a 1 and 3 (the 3 being in 2020) though. 27 is young for a LB, he probably has at least 3 or 4 more years left of dominance. Can't see him slowing down until he gets into his 30's.

 

Ofds are Nack wouldn’t be a LB for the Colts.    He’d be a DE in our scheme.  He’ll slow down soon enough.

 

[richard pallo]

30 minutes ago, SanDiegoColt8 said:

I dont think id be cool with 2 firsts, but this years 1st and one of our 2nds and id pull the trigger. 

That would be the perfect trade,  I'd throw in a player or our 4th rd. compensatory pick if need be.

. 

[#12.]

1 hour 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. 

 

Well, if you believe he has done due diligence, spoken hypothetically, made hypothetical offers to the Raiders, then you believe the report.  That's what negotiating is.  They're interested.  They're talking. 

 

We in on Mack.  

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

They signed DRC the day before

He's no Malik Hooker.  He was still a FA at this time of year. 

[Cynjin]

56 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Joel Corry says $17.5m and $21m. Plus they have him this year at $14m. That averages less than $18m/year. Von Miller got $19m/year two years ago. 

 

Reports say he's asking for up to $22m/year right now. They're better off letting him play out the next three years. 

 

Are they better off cap wise though?  Doesn't his full salary count against the cap if he is franchised?  Where if he signs a deal, even for 22 million, it can be spread out.  

 

P.S.  I am not advocating for making a deal, just curious about the ramifications for Oakland.  They appear to be strapped for cash based on some of their actions.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Don't forget Malik Hooker.  They just cut a safety. 

 

So the idea is 'let's not undermine our ability to build the roster,' and a potential solution is to give up one of our promising young defensive players? 

 

This is the whole problem. We lack good players. We can't acquire a player like Mack without exacerbating and/or perpetuating that problem. It would be best to fix that problem first.

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, #12. said:

We in on Mack.  

I doubt "We in" for multiple high round picks and a 100 million dollar contract for a defensive end.   

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

He's no Malik Hooker.  He was still a FA at this time of year. 

This is not a Joe Thomas purge

[luv_pony_express]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I have no doubt that Ballard would indeed give up a few picks for Mack.

 

The question becomes....   which picks?

 

Two 1’s?

A 1 and a 2?

 

The devil is in the details.......

 

 

True.

 

And the Raiders are not giving up Khalil Mack for a 1st and 2nd round pick.