Mack and Colts mutually agree to seek trade (Merge)

[The Fish]

Just now, Colt.45 said:

 

They said but but they're also not running a charity. If they'd let him go before as you seem to have wanted, then they get zilch. Now, they let the guy rehab (nothing wrong with that kind of class and kindness) AND they potentially get a player/pick for him. How is that bad?

Tell them that? We've seen some of this with the Vinny situation too. 

They also don't get zilch if he's not resigned, they would of had a roster spot and the money they gave him.. 

 

I dunno. I have doubts that he actually gets traded to anyone. A release is more likely.

 

[buccolts]

4 minutes ago, jimmy g said:

Trading Marlon to San Fran, the Jets, or Baltimore would mean facing him yet this year.....

 

Yeah but San Fran would be only once every 4 years.

I'm wondering if TB would consider it also.

[King Colt]

25 & healthy the Colts should have no trouble moving him.

[lollygagger8]

This is a shame, I'm a fan of Mack.

 

Really wish they would use him up the middle instead of trying to do it with Hines. Really just use him more in general. But they barely use JT as it is, so I def get where Mack is coming from. 

 

Knowing the Colts luck with injuries, as soon as they trade him, they'll have a need

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, lollygagger8 said:

This is a shame, I'm a fan of Mack.

 

Really wish they would use him up the middle instead of trying to do it with Hines. Really just use him more in general. But they barely use JT as it is, so I def get where Mack is coming from. 

 

Knowing the Colts luck with injuries, as soon as they trade him, they'll have a need

Well we still have Wilkins and jackson on the practice squad. We really do have a lot of good depth there. 

[Yoshinator]

We currently don't have a 6th round pick next year after the Matt Pryor trade (traded our 6th for Pryor and a 7th), so I wouldn't mind getting a 6th rounder back. I think that is doable honestly for Mack.

[Happy2BeHere]

Package him with another pick for some decent secondary help

[Patrick Miller]

I bet we don't get much if anything.

[IinD]

Not sure why they're doing this, but who knows. Mack didn't seem washed the few times we saw him carry this year.

 

Doesn't even look like we know how to use our RB's right now so whatever...

[Nickster]

20 minutes ago, SchlicterSZN said:

When are you playing Mack though?  

 

I'd play him on at least 40% of 1st and 2nd downs and many 3rd downs because our pass pro is lousy.  

There is nothing Taylor or Hines do that makes me think there isn't room for a guy like Mack.  He has a different skill set.  Lots of teams work in 3 backs.  

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

4 minutes ago, IinD said:

Not sure why they're doing this, but who knows. Mack didn't seem washed the few times we saw him carry this year.

 

Doesn't even look like we know how to use our RB's right now so whatever...

There isn’t enough snaps to go around.

[John Waylon]

16 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Executed poorly? No, this was a win for both parties. The fella got to rehab and got a deal (small but considering how many other FA RBs with bigger profiles have fared, he made out brilliantly). The Colts are going to get a draft pick and/or player for him, that's a W.

 

As for his value, we saw the burst in some preseason, and in week 1. Enough to get teams biting. The report is that there're already interested parties, with the way the media works there is every chance that is nonsense. BUT if there indeed are multiple interested parties then putting this news out will up the stakes and Ballard makes out better than he would have before. I cannot knock anything about this.

 

If he goes to SF, he's going to be a HIT

 

9 minutes ago, Shive said:

He was inactive last week. That's the literal opposite of shoehorning him into games to help his value and facilitate a trade.

 

We re-signed him for cheap, allowed him to rehab and play in preseason/week 1, and could end up getting an extra pick for just that. How is that poorly executed?

We’re trying to trade a guy who has played THIRTEEN SNAPS this season. 
 

He’s gone after this season. Full stop.

 

G

O

N

E

 

Less than a 0% chance he doesn’t hit the free agent market. 
 

He’s coming off an injury that RBs typically don’t come back fully from. 
 

Good luck getting a GM to pony up draft picks on a player fresh off of injury that they have no idea what he can bring to the table that they’ll have a shot to sign on a cheap deal in the spring. 
 

I didn’t say they WERE shoehorning him into games. I said we’re not in a position where we SHOULD (I literally said the word should. Just flat out said it for the whole damn world to see. Why am I having to explain what that means?) be to try and inflate his value. 
 

And don’t you dare think for a minute that Frank wouldn’t give Mack 15+ carries and let Taylor and Hines rot on the bench Sunday trying to inflate some value into Mack. He absolutely would, and he’d get a thrill out of doing it.

 

If the whole point of bringing him back was to try and trade him then they should have done more to feature him and build some actual value in him than they have to this point instead of the * poor throwing him out there after three weeks with 1 healthy scratch like some kind of “all sales final” spare parts at a yard sale. 
 

If you’re comfortable with getting anything less than a 4 out of Mack that’s foolish. He was worth a hell of a lot more than that before the injury, and it’s highly likely he could still be worth more than that if they had actually put any effort into showing where he’s at as a player.

 

They brought him back, and then didn’t do % to raise his tanked value.

[IinD]

8 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

There isn’t enough snaps to go around.

I guess but I'm just honestly 'whatever', guess they put those 'run the ball' hats away for now.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, IinD said:

I guess but I'm just honestly 'whatever', guess they put those 'run the ball' hats away for now.

We have Wilkins still. I don’t think this changes anything. If anything Taylor needs more touches. Same with Hines. This isn’t a surprise after he was a healthy scratch last week. This might of been the plan all along so he could finish his rehab here.

[DougDew]

55 minutes ago, SchlicterSZN said:

They're going to end up releasing him.

Agreed.  It seems like the guy on the PS is pretty good.  

[coltsfeva]

55 minutes ago, SchlicterSZN said:

They're going to end up releasing him.

 You may be right but I doubt it; there’s multiple teams looking for a RB and there may be some competition for him.

[TimetobringDfence!]

Can I entice you with the addition of Campbell and Eason?

[John Waylon]

1 minute ago, coltsfeva said:

 You may be right but I doubt it; there’s multiple teams looking for a RB and there may be some competition for him.

I doubt it as well. If they can’t find anyone to trade for him they’ll keep him around in case Taylor or Hines goes down.
 

A back on the roster is worth two in the bush or something or other. 

[John Waylon]

Just now, TimetobringDfence! said:

Can entice you with the addition of Campbell and Eason?

Campbell maybe. It’s a hard maybe, but a maybe. And I’d be fine with that, I like Pittman, Pascal, and Strachan better already anyways. 
 

The world saw how afraid we are of Eason playing this weekend. No bueno there. Damaged goods. 

[Indeee]

1 hour ago, JediXMan said:

Saw this coming a mile away.

Me too... Posted why this hadn't happened/should happen just yesterday in the Headscratcher thread

[Four2itus]

Trying to do him a solid. He wants to play. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

I doubt it as well. If they can’t find anyone to trade for him they’ll keep him around in case Taylor or Hines goes down.
 

A back on the roster is worth two in the bush or something or other. 

Yeah they won’t release him. I doubt he would out right want to be released anyway.  For one he is in the colts covid protocols and I believe he can go right to a new team. If he was released he would have a waiting period. 
 

Colts won’t get much but they will make sure he goes to the right place and gets the best opportunity/

 

He is healthy now. Got through a full camp with a team he trusts.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the plan along.
 

[Shive]

19 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

We’re trying to trade a guy who has played THIRTEEN SNAPS this season. 
 

He’s gone after this season. Full stop.

 

G

O

N

E

 

Less than a 0% chance he doesn’t hit the free agent market. 
 

He’s coming off an injury that RBs typically don’t come back fully from. 
 

Good luck getting a GM to pony up draft picks on a player fresh off of injury that they have no idea what he can bring to the table that they’ll have a shot to sign on a cheap deal in the spring. 

All of the reports are that both Mack and the Colts have mutually agreed to seek a trade. That means that Mack (or his agent) approached the team about a trade, that the team agreed to. We didn't just put him on the block in hopes we could get something. There's also reports that there's already early interest as well.

 

19 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

I didn’t say they WERE shoehorning him into games. I said we’re not in a position where we SHOULD (I literally said the word should. Just flat out said it for the whole damn world to see. Why am I having to explain what that means?) be to try and inflate his value. 

I saw that you said should and my point still stands. The team's response to him seeking a trade was to make him inactive, not to play him to try to drive his value up. Why would they make him inactive last week due to seeking a trade, then suddenly do a 180 and force him into the gameplan. That's absurd.

 

19 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

And don’t you dare think for a minute that Frank wouldn’t give Mack 15+ carries and let Taylor and Hines rot on the bench Sunday trying to inflate some value into Mack. He absolutely would, and he’d get a thrill out of doing it.

This is purely unfounded conjecture, especially since Frank has literally never done this before. You may be upset with Frank right now and not have a high opinion of him, but there is a zero % chance Frank throws him into the lineup to try to up his trade value. Mack's value is what it is. Teams have seen him rush for 1k yards pre-injury, and saw in preseason/early regular season that Mack is healthy (maybe not 100% back to where is was from the mental aspect of the injury). He has his established value in teams' eyes and playing him only risks injury that would crash his trade value to 0.

 

19 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

If the whole point of bringing him back was to try and trade him then they should have done more to feature him and build some actual value in him than they have to this point instead of the * poor throwing him out there after three weeks with 1 healthy scratch like some kind of “all sales final” spare parts at a yard sale. 
 

If you’re comfortable with getting anything less than a 4 out of Mack that’s foolish. He was worth a hell of a lot more than that before the injury, and it’s highly likely he could still be worth more than that if they had actually put any effort into showing where he’s at as a player.

 

They brought him back, and then didn’t do % to raise his tanked value.

I don't think that was at all what they had planned and until he asked for a trade, I don't think the Colts had any intention of doing so. You're making it sound like this was the plan from day 1, when there's no indication that that's the case. It's very clear the trade talk just occurred between the week 2 and 3 games, hence making him inactive for week 3.

 

You're making a huge assumption that trading him was always the plan, then getting upset that we did a poor job showcasing him to drive up his value, but also getting upset stating that we shouldn't showcase him more to drive up his trade value.

 

You might need to take a step back on this one, because you're contradicting yourself and getting upset over unfounded assumptions.

[Shadow_Creek]

40 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

There isn’t enough snaps to go around.

yea plus we need hines to run up the middle some more to get stuffed for negative yardage smh

[krunk]

Im becoming more and more disinterested in this season.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

1 hour ago, JediXMan said:

Saw this coming a mile away.

 

Good for him. I hope he goes to a good team and has a big season that leads to a good contract next season.  

[TimetobringDfence!]

13 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

Campbell maybe. It’s a hard maybe, but a maybe. And I’d be fine with that, I like Pittman, Pascal, and Strachan better already anyways. 
 

The world saw how afraid we are of Eason playing this weekend. No bueno there. Damaged goods. 

I would trade Mack and Campbell for a decent backup QB that can scramble very well if that kind of deal is out there to be made. Wentz needs time to rehab not reinjure himself every week. Maybe a run stopping MLB.

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, The Fish said:

Colt.45, I thought about it when I made the post, that's what I do.

Charity case ie. no reason to pay to bring him back after that injury unless the brass felt bad for him (they said as much).

 

 Laughable. It's the NFL. He easily could be our #1 right now or anytime soon.  He is healthy and a good RB.

[stitches]

Weird, but... if we get any sort of pick for him, I'm good with it. 

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Weird, but... if we get any sort of pick for him, I'm good with it. 

I'd almost prefer a player if there's a decent MIKE of FS prospect out there.

Anything though if we're not going to use Mack.

[Four2itus]

depth at CB is never a bad idea....

[twfish]

20 minutes ago, krunk said:

Im becoming more and more disinterested in this season.

Regretting getting season tickets this year.........

[twfish]

I guess I'm really kinda disappointed here. I like Mack and feel he has always worked hard and played hard for this organization. Why we have two 1,000 yard running backs in our back field and Reich is refusing to utilize either one to the point where one is asking for a trade is honestly just adding to my frustration of Reich

[The Fish]

46 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Laughable. It's the NFL. He easily could be our #1 right now or anytime soon.  He is healthy and a good RB.

Ok, he can't run (edit: well enough- for the literalist out there) right now. That's why he's had a handful of carries. 

 

Easy ole guy

[buccolts]

31 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I would trade Mack and Campbell for a decent backup QB that can scramble very well if that kind of deal is out there to be made. Wentz needs time to rehab not reinjure himself every week. Maybe a run stopping MLB.

Mack for Trubisky. 

Well, some thought he'd be a good idea. He's not nothing.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, buccolts said:

Mack for Trubisky. 

Well, some thought he'd be a good idea. He's not nothing.

The other day I was thinking Trubisky would of been a good backup option. He was cheap and has a winning record.  

[John Waylon]

22 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I would trade Mack and Campbell for a decent backup QB that can scramble very well if that kind of deal is out there to be made. Wentz needs time to rehab not reinjure himself every week. Maybe a run stopping MLB.

I mean it would be nice, but it’s not gonna happen. There just isn’t the value there. We might be able to get a 3rd out of the pair. Might. The red flags we have with Campbell are red flags for everyone else, too. Coaches and GMs can’t look at him and say “well they’re just not using him right”, his availability is an issue and for a player who hasn’t been able to produce meaningfully when he has been available we’re selling his upside. 
 

Same with Mack. Who knows how well he can still play after the injury. We certainly haven’t seen it. They’re selling the upside that he can still produce. 
 

Problem is most GMs don’t want to make deals for upside and wind up empty handed. That’s a good way to wind up fired. 

[coming on strong]

Terrible move I would of thought with all the injuries Ballard would have learned his lesson .  Taylor or Hines goes down we are screwed wilkins is average . Mack is 25 and a 1000 yard rusher we need a running game to have a chance . 

[Indeee]

3 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

The other day I was thinking Trubisky would of been a good backup option. He was cheap and has a winning record.  

Dude, during the offseason I wanted Trubisky here. I banged that drum within this forum, although it was heard as a clank...Ha!! Could've had him for peanuts, a 1 year prove it probably which Ballard was famous for doing and we would've not had to worry about losing compensation. I wanted him as a starter. Never thought Nagy did him any justice in Chitown. I thought change of scenery and his style of play would've fit here nicely. Oh well...

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, JediXMan said:

Saw this coming a mile away.

Wow