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

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

But Hooker is a promising player who is coming off a serious injury.  Mack is one of the star ER's in the league.  Big difference. 

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

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

Oh I bet we are.  

[jvan1973]

Just now, richard pallo said:

Oh I bet we are.  

Ok.  Lol

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Oh I bet we are.  

So you know the brass

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

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.

 

They have cash issues, most likely. They're paying a huge relocation fee of around $350m to move to Vegas, plus $500m for the stadium. They were already tight on cash.

 

Cash is different than cap, but usually the first 2-3 years involved more cash and less cap for the team, so it could be argued that the Raiders would be able to manage their cap more easily with a long term deal. That doesn't mean it would cost them less, because that would still involve a lot of cash. And if Mack is asking for $22m/year, rest assured he wants $60-65m in cash in the first three years, at least. Playing out the three years of option/tags would cost the Raiders about $53m.

 

And the truth is that cash eventually hits the cap, no matter what. So it doesn't help in the long run to backload cap hits if you're frontloading cash. 

 

They can manipulate their cap standing in other ways. They have some older players that will probably be cut over the next couple seasons, and Carr's contract can be restructured if really necessary. 

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Oh I bet we are.  

just like we were all in on Breeland? 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

But Hooker is a promising player who is coming off a serious injury.  Mack is one of the star ER's in the league.  Big difference. 

 

We still lack good players. Moving a good young player for a star player is a marginal improvement. You answer one question, but create another. 

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

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.  

 

The report is being floated as evidence that the Colts are seriously considering trading for Mack. I believe they did a price check, but I doubt it went any further than that. "Talking" is too strong a word. "Negotiating" is far too strong a word. I'll allow "interested."

[PrincetonTiger]

Before throwing Gruden under the bus remember that Mark Davis is the Raider owner

[richard pallo]

According to LaCanfora the Colts were one of three teams to reach out to the Raiders.  The other two being the Bills and Jets.  I have to believe that Ballard had a very strong idea what the asking price might be yet he made the call and reached out.  Why?  To confirm it and walk away.  Or maybe to say.  I understand where you're coming from but let's discuss your situation.  Maybe we can find a way where we can help you with your problem and at the same time you could help us with ours.  My guess is they are talking and it wouldn't take much to call it negotiating.  Ballard has a plan in place.  But the successful executives realize that plans are just that plans.  And sometimes thing change where it pays to be flexible and modify your plan when circumstances call for it.  This could be one of those times. 

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

According to LaCanfora the Colts were one of three teams to reach out to the Raiders.  The other two being the Bills and Jets.  I have to believe that Ballard had a very strong idea what the asking price might be yet he made the call and reached out.  Why?  To confirm it and walk away.  Or maybe to say.  I understand where you're coming from but let's discuss your situation.  Maybe we can find a way where we can help you with your problem and at the same time you could help us with ours.  My guess is they are talking and it wouldn't take much to call it negotiating.  Ballard has a plan in place.  But the successful executives realize that plans are just that plans.  And sometimes thing change where it pays to be flexible and modify your plan when circumstances call for it.  This could be one of those times. 

Until I hear from someone on 56th street,   I don't buy it.   Lacanfora has been wrong many times regarding the colts

[BProland85]

This would be a huge move it if actually happened. Mack would give the Colts a dominant player opposing offenses would have to scheme for, and he would also make everyone else on the DL better, not to mention making life easier for our corners. 

 

If Ballard could rob the Raiders the way he robbed the Jets in the draft, I'd be all for it. I believe Ballard really wants Mack, but at the right cost. He isn't going to give up two 1st round picks. 

[PrincetonTiger]

8 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Until I hear from someone on 56th street,   I don't buy it.   Lacanfora has been wrong many times regarding the colts

Not sure when he said this he can a tweet on it at all

[Goatface Killah]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

We are not your average 4-12 team Supe, we are getting a pro bowl QB back from injury and seem to have drastically improved our OL.

 

And, we were leading most of our games in the 2nd half last year with a horrific pass rush. 

 

I would have no problems giving up two #1s for Mack. He gives you a Pro Bowl level first down MLB and a great pass rusher. He fills two needs on a porous defense.

 

I dont want to wait 2 years and hope we get a guy who isnt for sure to be available, i want the guy that likely is, right now. 

 

Then in the offseason, I would look to trade Brissett for a 1.

 

 

[needanoline63]

We need Mack and a corner

[ProblChld32]

16 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:

Pretty sure GM's make the trades, not coaches.

As for Mack, would I want him in a Colts jersey? Sure.  But not for Top picks & top $$.  You'd probably only get that top tier player for 3-5 years due to him being 27.  (unless he's unusual like Suggs.)

You could spent 2/ 1st round picks and trade to the top spot of next years draft and have the pick of ANY player in that draft if you wanted and only pay rookie salary for the next 5 years. (with the option) I know that draft isn't guaranteed, But neither is getting Mack.  the history of the NFL is littered with trades for top players in their prime, only to see them play horribly on their new team.  For every Reggie White, or Dion Sanders, there is a Nnamdi Asomugha, or Albert Hanesworth.

 

Coaches have input in trades, at the end of the day a coach wouldn’t want to bring in a player who wouldn’t be a good scheme fit and vice versa. So my mentioning of Gruden is solely off the strength that he wouldn’t want his Best defensive guy to move. 

[#12.]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The report is being floated as evidence that the Colts are seriously considering trading for Mack. I believe they did a price check, but I doubt it went any further than that. "Talking" is too strong a word. "Negotiating" is far too strong a word. I'll allow "interested."

 

But you said you didn't believe the report.

 

So you do believe it as long as you can define it?  

 

You will "allow" price check?    

 

So Ballard heard the price and hung up?  There was no further

discussion?  There has been no further discussion.?  And you know this?  And this what you will allow?  

 

Okay.  lol

[Dingus McGirt]

Every time this sort of situation comes up, the Colts are played as chumps in the bidding war.  Move on.

[dw49]

5 hours 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. 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. 

 

 

Agree on what you have above.. it will take 2 first. To me it just doesn't make sense for the Colts to do this. It's one thing to pay a defensive player around a 110 million for 5 years with probably 65 mill guaranteed. But when you add 2 first to that price , it's just too much.

[jvan1973]

Mack isn't coming here.   The end.   Not this year anyway.   

[crazycolt1]

 

I don't worry about the money but trading two future first rounders ? Nah, I would pass.

Getting those 1st round picks for rookie contracts is more appealing to me than one player with max pay. I know he is a great player but we are not close to being a serious title contender right now and he is the type of player you bring in when the whole team is ready. He would not bring a ring to this team at this point. Just my opinion.

[#12.]

Mack isn't coming here.   The end.   Not this year anyway

 

No kidding, jvan? 

 

I would guess 95% of Colt fans were already operating under that assumption.  Under the best of circumstances, you would be challenging 4-6 teams for his services. 

 

That said, it was something different and interesting to talk about for 15-20 minutes.  

 

Back to talking about T.J. Green and Ryan Grant.

 

Thanks.  lol

[Superman]

3 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

We are not your average 4-12 team Supe, we are getting a pro bowl QB back from injury and seem to have drastically improved our OL.

 

And, we were leading most of our games in the 2nd half last year with a horrific pass rush. 

 

I would have no problems giving up two #1s for Mack. He gives you a Pro Bowl level first down MLB and a great pass rusher. He fills two needs on a porous defense.

 

I dont want to wait 2 years and hope we get a guy who isnt for sure to be available, i want the guy that likely is, right now. 

 

Then in the offseason, I would look to trade Brissett for a 1.

 

Good heavens...

 

How does Mack fill the need for MLB? He's a defensive end, not a stack / off ball linebacker.

 

And why does anyone think Brissett is going to bring back a first rounder pick?

 

Come on guys. 

[#12.]

If he hits the the open market in a trade, you have, at best, a 15% chance of landing him.  

 

I do think Ballard is interested, and believe it's possible he will be moved.  To Indy?  Doubtful, but not impossible.  We'll see.

 

 

[Grind Hard]

I hope Mack would be acquired because it would fill a huge need in the pass rushing department as well as helping out the secondary which would extremely speed up the defensive rebuild process. Allowing are young pass rushers to come into there own with Mack requiring plenty of attention. 

 

To run a 4-3 you need good pass rushers ala sacksonville jaguars. And please stop with the nowhere near contending narrative you guys sound like the media this is a Defensive Rebuild nothing else nothing more we have a franchise Qb and a Starter behind him in Brissett give that man his credit with Tolzien we would have went 0-16 with Brissett we we're in every game last year.

 

With Mack we would only maybe be a CB and another receiver away from SB contention!!!

[needanoline63]

The secondary, particularly the corners, are gonna hurt us this year!

[Case]

Pass Rush prospects are never a slam dunk. You know what you get with Mack. He fills a need at arguably the most important position on defense. If you have no pass rush, teams will carve the Tampa defense up every week. Gotta get pressure. 

 

That is all. 

[jskinnz]

I think anyone believing this Mack thing will or even should happen have paid ZERO attention to what Ballard believes or values.  

 

 

[richard pallo]

Gruden is reportedly not happy with his backup QB.  Had a bad outing yesterday.  Told a reporter when asked he said he  "doesn't know" if he has a backup QB.  The report said he will probably start looking for one.  Interesting unexpected development I thought. 

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Gruden is reportedly not happy with his backup QB.  Had a bad outing yesterday.  Told a reporter when asked he said he  "doesn't know" if he has a backup QB.  The report said he will probably start looking for one.  Interesting unexpected development I thought. 

Walker will be available 

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

I think anyone believing this Mack thing will or even should happen have paid ZERO attention to what Ballard believes or values.  

 

 

the raiders would have to get desperate to trade him for a price that we would meet

 

like superman pointed out they are not desperate, the team has the leverage.  this could get more interesting if mack demands a trade though 

[jvan1973]

Obviously,   we would all love to have Mack.  I just don't think it's worth what will needed to be given up.   I certainly won't hate it if he ends up here

[Fluke_33]

29 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Obviously,   we would all love to have Mack.  I just don't think it's worth what will needed to be given up.   I certainly won't hate it if he ends up here

For me it’s similar to drafting. Nelson.  I don’t agree with it but if it happens I’ll be happy with it. 

[Luck is Good]

I’ll just roll with Chris Ballard. I think he knows what he’s doing

[Freenyfan102]

No to old rather try in the draft

[dgambill]

On 8/24/2018 at 7:30 PM, Superman said:

 

Good heavens...

 

How does Mack fill the need for MLB? He's a defensive end, not a stack / off ball linebacker.

 

And why does anyone think Brissett is going to bring back a first rounder pick?

 

Come on guys. 

Agreed I don’t give up my 1st for anything before the season. I know it’s not going to happen but I’d be open to trading both our 2s and say John Simon  or one of our young DEs we drafted if they are interested. At the end of the year or at the trade deadline we can explore JB to replace our lost 2s. We expect to be better but we can easily be 6-10 team and picking at the end of the top 10 again...I don’t risk that. 

[Btown_Colt]

Does anyone think Irsay might have been talking about Mack tonight when he said they have had the opportunities to hurry this along but really want to do it the right way through the draft?

[NewColtsFan]

On 8/24/2018 at 11:36 AM, 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. 

 

Super....

 

You have a good number of high quality posts in this thread.   No one would expect anything different.

 

But in my opinion, this post is not one if them.

 

1.   Gruden has already publicly insulted Mack by saying last year’s defense was poor WITH Mack...    he didn’t finish, but the implication was clear.   Mack didn’t Mack that much if a difference and Gruden is not all that impressed.    

 

As as best I can tell that had Raiders watchers raising red flags immediately.

 

2.   Both the Raiders and Mack’s camp say Gruden has still not reached out to Mack.   They still haven’t talked.    If that has changed in the last few weeks, I haven’t seen it.

 

These are bad signs.   At best, Gruden is carrying water for Mark Davis and covering for his boss.   At worst he’s alienating himself from his best defensive player.   This does not add up.

 

Gruden’s behavior is highly questionable.   Forget the long haul, Gruden thinks he can win now.   His ego thinks that.    But, if anything, his long contract gives him incentive to trade Mack for a boat load of picks.  He’s got time to bring them along.

 

I’m not predicting a trade.   But I don’t know what JG is doing.   But I think his behavior gives people here all the ammunition the need to justify the belief that Gruden might do the unthinkable and indeed trade Gruden.

 

 

[Case]

If you watched the game yesterday and heard Irsay in the booth, it’s pretty obvious we aren’t going to pursue Mack. They are dead set on this building through the draft and signing guys for the right price. I agree you have to hit on the draft but you also need to supplement your roster roster with free agent upgrades when available. 

[MikeCurtis]

The raiders are in for the long run with Gruden, a TEN year contract.

 

If I am a new coach with some runway, I would want to rebuild "my" way

 

Jimmy Johnson traded for a boatload of players and future picks, for one of his few stars (H Walker)

 

The extra picks help drive the Cowboys toward some SB winning teams

 

The Vikings the following season, when they had their "Superstar" needed piece?...............   6-10........The year after that.....  8-8

 

One team "WON" this trade....... One team lost.......

 

This scenario is an option for Gruden. I bet it is one that he is wanting to pull off

 

Much to learn from that trade......  (And many trades similar, where many picks were given)

 

The team that gives up a pile of draft picks, USUALLY wishes that they didnt do that trade

afterwards......  When it doesnt work out (more often than not it seems) the team that gave up the future picks, is hamstrung for 4-5 years.  

 

I dont see CB giving up the farm for Mack.   A single 1st round pick? MAYBE.........  2 first round picks?   NO PLEASE

 

Lets just patiently, (And correctly, IMHO) build this team slowly, and correctly with good drafts

 

We SHOULD have a winner....... for a longer period of time.........  

 

I have seen this team do some boner FA and superstar trades (that weren't).............

 

Im in the lets develop our team camp.....  We will all be happier in the long run......