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

[Dark Superman]

I would trade for Mack in a heartbeat. I'd even give up a first and our second rounder for him and keep our second from the Jets

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 hours ago, Savage21 said:

I would trade for Mack in a heartbeat. I'd even give up a first and our second rounder for him and keep our second from the Jets

 

Raiders will say No. (and likely already have)

 

Many teams have inquired, reports are talks start at two first round draft picks, not a 1 and something else (IE: backup QB, a 2,  or a 3 and a player, etc).  Thus my prediction there is a 95% chance Mack shows up on the Raiders sidelines (no trade gets done), likely within the first 3 or 4 games if not sooner.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000952201/article/raiders-seek-at-least-2-firstround-picks-for-mack

 

Where it goes from there,  ??? (Franchise tags?)

[richard pallo]

46 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Raiders will say No. (and likely already have)

 

Many teams have inquired, reports are talks start at two first round draft picks, not a 1 and something else (IE: backup QB, a 2,  or a 3 and a player, etc).  Thus my prediction there is a 95% chance Mack shows up on the Raiders sidelines (no trade gets done), likely within the first 3 or 4 games if not sooner.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000952201/article/raiders-seek-at-least-2-firstround-picks-for-mack

 

Where it goes from there,  ??? (Franchise tags?)

The seller always asks high.  Because they know they can always go down.  BTW it's very telling that they even put out an asking price.  They now know no one is giving two 1st's.  Now the real negotiations start.   Look at it as if your buying a slightly used Corvette.  My prediction is he's traded in a week or two after Donald's deal. 

[richard pallo]

10 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Sure he can.   Especially when it comes along with 100 million dollar contract

The ROI on his acquisition would be huge.  Money isn't the hangup it's the price. 

[Semicolt]

Money is not the hangup, it's giving up two #1 draft picks for him! 

[ColtsBlueFL]

25 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

The seller always asks high.  Because they know they can always go down.  BTW it's very telling that they even put out an asking price.  They now know no one is giving two 1st's.  Now the real negotiations start.   Look at it as if your buying a slightly used Corvette.  My prediction is he's traded in a week or two after Donald's deal. 

 

Possibly he gets traded once Donald sets the market.  OTOH, maybe the Raiders then begin their own negotiations again with Mack then (were waiting on Donald?) Or they wont budge off the two first rounders + and keep him anyway. They have the leverage, Mack doesn’t. The Raiders can hold him hostage for 4 years if they wish.  2018-2021 seasons.  This year, two exclusive Franchise tag years to follow, then a final Transition tag year.  All the while possibly trying to negotiate?  Raiders are not forced to trade the guy on the cheap, and reports from GM’s calling them get the feeling the Raiders have no real interest in trading him.  We’ll see.  I don’t think he moves for less than 2 first rounders.

[Superman]

5 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Possibly he gets traded once Donald sets the market.  OTOH, maybe the Raiders then begin their own negotiations again with Mack then (were waiting on Donald?) Or they wont budge off the two first rounders + and keep him anyway. They have the leverage, Mack doesn’t. The Raiders can hold him hostage for 4 years if they wish.  2018-2021 seasons.  This year, two exclusive Franchise tag years to follow, then a final Transition tag year.  All the while possibly trying to negotiate?  Raiders are not forced to trade the guy on the cheap, and reports from GM’s calling them get the feeling the Raiders have no real interest in trading him.  We’ll see.  I don’t think he moves for less than 2 first rounders.

 

I just don't get the noise. This isn't even a rare stance for an NFL. Players play out their fifth year option and/or franchise tag all the time. Clowney is in the same situation. The difference is Mack's protracted holdout, but it shouldn't be a surprise that the Raiders aren't rewarding him with a new contract when he hasn't reported to the team. That's another well-established precedent.

 

Mack is a great player, and I assume the Raiders want to keep him. They've said so publicly, and I'm assuming Gruden isn't a complete * who would let go of one of the best players in the league at the second most important position in football (at least, not without significant compensation). 

 

To me, it seems pretty clear. The Raiders have the leverage, due to the option and the tags. It's hard for me to imagine Mack not reporting eventually; that doesn't help his cause, and he would be leaving $14m on the table this year. Unsubstantiated but unrefuted reports state Mack wants $22m/year, and around $65m guaranteed in the first three years. If the Raiders keep Mack on the option, and tag him two more years, they will have paid him less than $54m (based on current projections, which can change once the Donald contract and others come in). Even if Mack would accept the Von Miller contract, the Raiders might decline, since Miller got $60m in the first three years; and that contract is two years old, so Mack wanting more makes sense. 

 

If they hold him hostage, as you say, for three years, he'll be 30 years old, the league will be going into a new CBA (which typically results in a tightened financial climate at first). He won't have any reasonable shot at a big, top of market contract at that point. And the Raiders will have avoided any long term risk, going year to year with a dominant pass rusher and milking his prime. 

 

From a strictly numbers-based standpoint, that approach makes sense. I don't think it's good business, as it alienates your best player and his agents (until/unless you finally pay him), and it has a negative effect on the rest of the team. But it's hardly without precedent, nor is it hard to understand where they're coming from, even if I don't think it's the best approach.

 

Now if the Raiders are willing to trade him for handsome compensation, it's in their best interests to posture like they're willing to force Mack's hand and potentially play this thing out for the next 2-3 seasons. That's the only way to get max value in a trade. You squash any rumors that you're willing to trade, especially for anything that's not Godfather-level, and you talk up how you want to keep him but he has to come to work, and the numbers have to be right, etc. And then you don't budge, no matter how many times the press corps asks you what's going on, no matter how many unflattering articles come out of the blogosphere, etc. 

 

It's cutthroat, hardly endearing, and frustrating for fans. But it makes sense, and there's precedent for it. The Steelers are doing the same thing with LeVeon Bell, and they evidently have no interest in keeping him once he reaches free agency. They might even transition tag him so they can work out a trade.

 

Bigger issue, IMO, which I'll leave for another day, is how teams are abusing the option and tags. This is a prime example of that, but that won't change unless the NFLPA stops talking about commissioner authority and guaranteed contracts, and starts talking about tag/contract reform, roster management changes, bye weeks, etc. 

 

TLDR, sorry

[richard pallo]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I just don't get the noise. This isn't even a rare stance for an NFL. Players play out their fifth year option and/or franchise tag all the time. Clowney is in the same situation. The difference is Mack's protracted holdout, but it shouldn't be a surprise that the Raiders aren't rewarding him with a new contract when he hasn't reported to the team. That's another well-established precedent.

 

Mack is a great player, and I assume the Raiders want to keep him. They've said so publicly, and I'm assuming Gruden isn't a complete * who would let go of one of the best players in the league at the second most important position in football (at least, not without significant compensation). 

 

To me, it seems pretty clear. The Raiders have the leverage, due to the option and the tags. It's hard for me to imagine Mack not reporting eventually; that doesn't help his cause, and he would be leaving $14m on the table this year. Unsubstantiated but unrefuted reports state Mack wants $22m/year, and around $65m guaranteed in the first three years. If the Raiders keep Mack on the option, and tag him two more years, they will have paid him less than $54m (based on current projections, which can change once the Donald contract and others come in). Even if Mack would accept the Von Miller contract, the Raiders might decline, since Miller got $60m in the first three years; and that contract is two years old, so Mack wanting more makes sense. 

 

If they hold him hostage, as you say, for three years, he'll be 30 years old, the league will be going into a new CBA (which typically results in a tightened financial climate at first). He won't have any reasonable shot at a big, top of market contract at that point. And the Raiders will have avoided any long term risk, going year to year with a dominant pass rusher and milking his prime. 

 

From a strictly numbers-based standpoint, that approach makes sense. I don't think it's good business, as it alienates your best player and his agents (until/unless you finally pay him), and it has a negative effect on the rest of the team. But it's hardly without precedent, nor is it hard to understand where they're coming from, even if I don't think it's the best approach.

 

Now if the Raiders are willing to trade him for handsome compensation, it's in their best interests to posture like they're willing to force Mack's hand and potentially play this thing out for the next 2-3 seasons. That's the only way to get max value in a trade. You squash any rumors that you're willing to trade, especially for anything that's not Godfather-level, and you talk up how you want to keep him but he has to come to work, and the numbers have to be right, etc. And then you don't budge, no matter how many times the press corps asks you what's going on, no matter how many unflattering articles come out of the blogosphere, etc. 

 

It's cutthroat, hardly endearing, and frustrating for fans. But it makes sense, and there's precedent for it. The Steelers are doing the same thing with LeVeon Bell, and they evidently have no interest in keeping him once he reaches free agency. They might even transition tag him so they can work out a trade.

 

Bigger issue, IMO, which I'll leave for another day, is how teams are abusing the option and tags. This is a prime example of that, but that won't change unless the NFLPA stops talking about commissioner authority and guaranteed contracts, and starts talking about tag/contract reform, roster management changes, bye weeks, etc. 

 

TLDR, sorry

Gruden is the unpredictable unknown here.  The fly in the ointment.  All reasoning goes out the window.  I think it could be a wild next few weeks. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Gruden is the unpredictable unknown here.  The fly in the ointment.  All reasoning goes out the window.  I think it could be a wild next few weeks. 

 

It will be wild if Mack doesn't report, but that's on Mack, not Gruden. 

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It will be wild if Mack doesn't report, but that's on Mack, not Gruden. 

This has primarily been all on Mack.  He's the one who hasn't reported.  But it takes two to strike a deal.  It looks like Gruden has no interest in talking.  Except asking for two 1st. rd. picks. 

[PrincetonTiger]

6 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

This has primarily been all on Mack.  He's the one who hasn't reported.  But it takes two to strike a deal.  It looks like Gruden has no interest in talking.  Except asking for two 1st. rd. picks. 

Question 

   If JG is such a Patton type why didn’t he and McKay do this when he was traded to TB?

[richard pallo]

9 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Question 

   If JG is such a Patton type why didn’t he and McKay do this when he was traded to TB?

Because he has much more power and security now than he did back then. 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Because he has much more power and security now than he did back then. 

He had the power that is why TB gave up DPs for him

[Bruce MacGillivray]

The question Ballard has to ask is, "Is he better than what you would pick up with 1st rd picks over the next 2 yrs?"  With him on the roster, those picks would be second half at least, and I doubt you would get a pass rusher as good as him. 

I think he's probably worth the risk.

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, Bruce MacGillivray said:

The question Ballard has to ask is, "Is he better than what you would pick up with 1st rd picks over the next 2 yrs?"  With him on the roster, those picks would be second half at least, and I doubt you would get a pass rusher as good as him. 

I think he's probably worth the risk.

Two first round caliber talents on rookie salaries.   There is more to the equation than just the 2 picks

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

Two first round caliber talents on rookie salaries.   There is more to the equation than just the 2 picks

So true

[jvan1973]

30 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

This has primarily been all on Mack.  He's the one who hasn't reported.  But it takes two to strike a deal.  It looks like Gruden has no interest in talking.  Except asking for two 1st. rd. picks. 

Why would he? Mack won't even show up to the complex.  He is under contract.   He will show up there this week or next i promise you

[richard pallo]

14 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Two first round caliber talents on rookie salaries.   There is more to the equation than just the 2 picks

What good is a rookie salary if they flame out?  And current reporting is saying teams are not going to give up two 1st. rd. picks.  Mack for one 1st. rounder and a player or other pick or both.  Easy trade to make for the Colts. 

[PrincetonTiger]

13 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

What good is a rookie salary if they flame out?  And current reporting is saying teams are not going to give up two 1st. rd. picks.  Mack for one 1st. rounder and a player or other pick or both.  Easy trade to make for the Colts. 

Cap Space

[ColtsBlueFL]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It will be wild if Mack doesn't report, but that's on Mack, not Gruden. 

 

Indeed, and a loss of either 800 or 850 thousand dollars for each game he misses.  And if he misses nine, he doesn't get an accrued season!  His 5th year option won't be considered played out!!  And your other post spot on.

 

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Why would he? Mack won't even show up to the complex.  He is under contract.   He will show up there this week or next i promise you

 

You're likely more right than me, because I have said by week 3.  But we all know... money always wins.

[jvan1973]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

What good is a rookie salary if they flame out?  And current reporting is saying teams are not going to give up two 1st. rd. picks.  Mack for one 1st. rounder and a player or other pick or both.  Easy trade to make for the Colts. 

If it's so easy,   why hasn't he been traded?  The raiders own him.   They know it.   

[richard pallo]

9 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

If it's so easy,   why hasn't he been traded?  The raiders own him.   They know it.   

The time is not quite right.  They're still hoping for two 1sts.  When they see Donald's contract they will finally realize they can't afford Mack.   Mack's resolve will stiffen even more.  He will become a major distraction and take attention away from Gruden and his team.   Gruden's ego won't have any of that.  He knows his highest trade value is right now.  It can only go down over time.  He will cut bait and get his best deal and move on.  

[jvan1973]

20 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

The time is not quite right.  They're still hoping for two 1sts.  When they see Donald's contract they will finally realize they can't afford Mack.   Mack's resolve will stiffen even more.  He will become a major distraction and take attention away from Gruden and his team.   Gruden's ego won't have any of that.  He knows his highest trade value is right now.  It can only go down over time.  He will cut bait and get his best deal and move on.  

Can you name one instance of something like this ever happening?

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

The time is not quite right.  They're still hoping for two 1sts.  When they see Donald's contract they will finally realize they can't afford Mack.   

 

What he is asking for? Or what they would have to pay him on Franchise Tags in 2019 and 2020?

 

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Mack's resolve will stiffen even more.  

 

And do what?  Skip games?  Raider swill play on.  Mack loses $800,000 each time his resolve stiffens more... 

 

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

He will become a major distraction and take attention away from Gruden and his team.

 

 

I think  Mack is not in a position to lose tons of money and also jeopardize not getting this season 'accrued'. He will show up, sometime early this season and play.  You'll see. 

 

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

  Gruden's ego won't have any of that.  He knows his highest trade value is right now.  It can only go down over time.  He will cut bait and get his best deal and move on.  

 

They don't even have to trade him, or try to get best value. Just wait him out.  Not the best route to take for improving relations for a future contract but...,  here, the team has the upper hand. There is nothing forcing them to trade Mack except they do have to make room in salary and cap space for a franchise tag on him over the next 2 years.

 

There will be no bait cutting unless a kings ransom is offered first.

[ColtsBlueFL]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

(snip: lots of good popints)

 

Bigger issue, IMO, which I'll leave for another day, is how teams are abusing the option and tags. This is a prime example of that, but that won't change unless the NFLPA stops talking about commissioner authority and guaranteed contracts, and starts talking about tag/contract reform, roster management changes, bye weeks, etc. 

 

TLDR, sorry

 

 

Yup, knew it was coming.  Made room for it at the bottom here- ;-)

 

 

[Four2itus]

This is not surprising on any level. Player signs contract. Becomes one of the best...or the best at his position. Player sees lesser players getting better money...wants a new deal. Team has the rights, and won't budge. Player has one leverage and one only...to skip camp and preseason.

 

He'll play, and he saved wear and tear on his body. Oh...he'll be in shape when he arrives.

[richard pallo]

10 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Can you name one instance of something like this ever happening?

Thinking back, and I am having too many senior moments now,  I can not.  All I can say is every holdout has it's own nuances.  While it all comes down to money at the end other factors also come into play.  How teams deal with a player can be very important.  Players don't like to be taken for granted or feel disrespected.  This is where the Gruden factor comes into play.  Players want to feel wanted and appreciated as well as being paid.  Not ignored as if they don't exist.  A coach with a huge ego and total control versus a superstar player who wants to be paid like one.  As some have pointed out normal holdouts usually see the player reporting.  But I think the circumstances regarding this holdout could make his situation the exception to the rule.  I can see a trade happening and I hope Ballard sees all the value he can bring to the franchise and makes him a Colt. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

^^^ Love the optimistic 'glass is more than half full'  outlook.  ^^^

 

I just hope you don't have too much of a letdown when you find Mack showing up on the sidelines of the Raiders games this year... and going in when the D is called...  with no contract extension in hand.  (yet)

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

^^^ Love the optimistic 'glass is more than half full'  outlook.  ^^^

 

I just hope you don't have too much of a letdown when you find Mack showing up on the sidelines of the Raiders games this year... and going in when the D is called...  with no contract extension in hand.  (yet)

I'll be fine.  After all we have DeLaire and Basham to look forward to.  Ha Ha. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

16 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Can you name one instance of something like this ever happening?

 

Sean Gilbert sat out the '97 after being franchised. The Redskins traded him before the next season to Carolina and Gilbert got a new deal.

 

Emmitt Smith sat out the first 2 games of the '93 season because he wanted a new deal. The Cowboys went 0-2 and Jerry Jones came calling with a new contract.

 

Eric Dickerson held out twice and got new contracts both times. Once with the Rams (2 games) and once with the Colts (5 games).

 

Cornelius Bennett held out on the Colts for over 100 days and was part of the trade that brought Eric Dickerson to Indy.

 

Granted none of these are exactly the same as the Mack/Raiders situation but there are examples of times when holding out has worked for the player.

 

In my opinion, if I am Mack I holdout until the last possible day I can and not lose my accrued season. Then if the Raiders franchised me, I would do the same thing Leveon Bell has done the last 2 years in Pittsburgh. If I were the players, this would be something I would want the NFLPA to fight against in the next collective bargaining agreement.

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

If I were the players, this would be something I would want the NFLPA to fight against in the next collective bargaining agreement.

 

What would the players/NFLPA give up to change that? Go to a 18 games season? Or a 17 game season along with an extra bye week? What?  Owners won't just give stuff away... it's not called CBA for nothing...

[richard pallo]

I guess I am not the only guy who thinks Mack is going to be traded.  Since the Donald deal went down all the major pro football reporting outlets are predicting a Mack trade.  ESPN, NFL Network, Pro Football talk, just to name a few.  And the Colts are always one of the five teams they mention as a landing spot.  All of them are expecting a trade to happen in the very near future.  I'm thinking Ballard is too young and green to do a blockbuster trade.  I hope I'm wrong but we should find out soon. 

[BProland85]

If he could be had for a 1st and 2nd, I think you gotta do it if Ballard thinks he’ll flourish here for many more seasons. We’ll still have an early 2nd from the Jets, and we need impact players, primarily at pass rush. 

[TomDiggs]

Look, I would love to have Mack. Just let the rest of our fan base would.

 

That said, if Mack were on the open market right now (no trade, no picks, etc), I STILL wouldn't make the Colts the favorite.

 

Ballard is too fiscally conservative so far. The team is not one player away from winning and him dropping Andrew Luck money on Mack is just not likely.

 

With Donald getting his $22.5M a year, Mack seems more than justified asking for $22M a year as a starting point and he could try to command upwards of $23-$24M a year.

 

Would the Colts shell out a contract at $22-$24M a year over 5 or so years with $80-$90M guaranteed?

 

My guess is no.

 

Now factor in that this is what it costs to re-sign him. Not even acquire him.

 

Would the Colts give up multiple high draft picks AND that huge money for him?

 

My guess is they would not.

 

The best bet is for a team like the Browns (already rumored to be after him) who have crazy cap space and will have Mayfield and Garrett under rookie deals for a few years to go out and try to get Mack.

 

I would be stoked to have him in Indy, but I just cannot imagine any scenario where that happens.

[richard pallo]

6 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

Look, I would love to have Mack. Just let the rest of our fan base would.

 

That said, if Mack were on the open market right now (no trade, no picks, etc), I STILL wouldn't make the Colts the favorite.

 

Ballard is too fiscally conservative so far. The team is not one player away from winning and him dropping Andrew Luck money on Mack is just not likely.

 

With Donald getting his $22.5M a year, Mack seems more than justified asking for $22M a year as a starting point and he could try to command upwards of $23-$24M a year.

 

Would the Colts shell out a contract at $22-$24M a year over 5 or so years with $80-$90M guaranteed?

 

My guess is no.

 

Now factor in that this is what it costs to re-sign him. Not even acquire him.

 

Would the Colts give up multiple high draft picks AND that huge money for him?

 

My guess is they would not.

 

The best bet is for a team like the Browns (already rumored to be after him) who have crazy cap space and will have Mayfield and Garrett under rookie deals for a few years to go out and try to get Mack.

 

I would be stoked to have him in Indy, but I just cannot imagine any scenario where that happens.

We could easily afford Mack and he would be the foundation of our defense just like Luck is to the offense.  They are both young and premier players. Then you finish the rebuild around your foundation pieces.  That said Ballard is young and inexperienced and I would be surprised if he made such a move.  Dorsey and Polian know how important it is to have those pieces and know you have to take advantage of opportunities when they are presented.  I'm not sure Ballard is ready to make a bold move.  I hope I'm wrong. 

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

We could easily afford Mack and he would be the foundation of our defense just like Luck is to the offense.  They are both young and premier players. Then you finish the rebuild around your foundation pieces.  That said Ballard is young and inexperienced and I would be surprised if he made such a move.  Dorsey and Polian know how important it is to have those pieces and know you have to take advantage of opportunities when they are presented.  I'm not sure Ballard is ready to make a bold move.  I hope I'm wrong. 

How is he young and inexperienced    

    He is 49 and has been in the NFL since 2001

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

We could easily afford Mack and he would be the foundation of our defense just like Luck is to the offense.  They are both young and premier players. Then you finish the rebuild around your foundation pieces.  That said Ballard is young and inexperienced and I would be surprised if he made such a move.  Dorsey and Polian know how important it is to have those pieces and know you have to take advantage of opportunities when they are presented.  I'm not sure Ballard is ready to make a bold move.  I hope I'm wrong. 

What big name big money free agent did Polian bring in.   How about Belichick? How about Pete Carroll?

[richard pallo]

9 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

How is he young and inexperienced    

    He is 49 and has been in the NFL since 2001

He is a sophomore GM and 49 is young.  Lower level experience is a good foundation but now you are being paid to make the big decisions.  He strikes me as being very conservative and will not take a bold move when it presents itself. 

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

He is a sophomore GM and 49 is young.  Lower level experience is a good foundation but now you are being paid to make the big decisions.  He strikes me as being very conservative and will not take a bold move when it presents itself. 

What great Gms have in recent past? 

[PrincetonTiger]

11 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

He is a sophomore GM and 49 is young.  Lower level experience is a good foundation but now you are being paid to make the big decisions.  He strikes me as being very conservative and will not take a bold move when it presents itself. 

49 is not young to many here

 

   He was 14 when the Colts moved to Indy