Jay_Fixit Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 18 minutes ago, CaptnCoke11 said: Can we please retire the term ‘draft capital’ for gods sake? Please? ‘Arm Talent’ is significantly worse.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 20 minutes ago, Irv said: Two really good players and a 1st. I'd consider that a fair trade given that Mack is looking at three more years there (1 yr left on contract and two years on the franchise tags) totally underpaid. The point is, you point out we might want to trade these "really good players" because they are "on the other side of the hill" and we might want to trade our 1st because "there is no one in next year's draft better than Mack". Those would appear to be reasons why the Oak GM would NOT want to make the trade - why would he trade a player who is better than anyone he can draft with a 1st, for a 1st and two "other side of the hill" players? Just think it through from the other GM's point of view, that's all I'm saying. 30 minutes ago, zevo said: This thread has become remains delusional....oak is making a move to Vegas and needs star players....Mack is just about as a good as it gets for star power on defense FIFY (that's FIXED it for you, for the guy to whom that's an expletive-laden acronym)
jimmy10 Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 31 minutes ago, zevo said: This thread has become delusional....oak is making a move to Vegas and needs star players....Mack is just about as a good as it gets for star power on defense It may not be likely, but it’s not “delusional.” He’s currently holding out and is on record calling Buffalo “his city.” ”Delusional” is proposing trades for Rodgers, Wilson, Brees, etc. 1
BuffaloRebound Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 Seems to be a lot of delusional reporters as well then.
wppete Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 Here is a new article on NBC Sports titled: ‘Could Khalil Mack be traded? https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/07/could-khalil-mack-be-traded/
26CornerBlitz Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, wppete said: Here is a new article on NBC Sports titled: ‘Could Khalil Mack be traded? https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/07/could-khalil-mack-be-traded/ It's based on conjecture from the ESPN NFL Nation Raiders' beat writer. Edited August 7, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 4 hours ago, transient said: Let’s be honest, here. One of those 2 is a Browns 1st round pick which means he was probably a 3rd-5th round talent. I'm worried about the guy's surgically-repaired hand, and Beane's cryptic comment about "once he semi-passes our physical". Other than that, he managed to put up reasonable NFL numbers without much throwing to him at QB and he's got speed Seems worth the pittance we gave up for him to give him a shot now that Foster has forgotten how to catch a football with his hands.
Fortunesmith Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 I wonder how much Mack will offer Corey Thompson for number 52? 1 1
ColoradoBills Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 39 minutes ago, PIZ said: Mack only wants to sign a long-term contract with 1 team. The Bills!!! Maybe, right? 22 minutes ago, jimmy10 said: It may not be likely, but it’s not “delusional.” He’s currently holding out and is on record calling Buffalo “his city.” ”Delusional” is proposing trades for Rodgers, Wilson, Brees, etc. These reasons are the only way that this trade for Mack could make any sense. If that's true there is no way that Jerry Hughes is not in the conversation. Raiders could get Hughes for about 7 million a year after the Bill's eat his bonuses. The bonuses go to next years dead money and freeing up Hughes contract gives them enough room to sign Mack long term. No way the Bills pay for Mack and Hughes. That's just too much for DE's. So, IF ( and that's a huge IF) there is any legs to this it's Hughes and a pick. Question would be "What is the pick"? 2
blacklabel Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 10 hours ago, JimKellyTryouts said: Not that he'd be a trade chip anyways, but the Raiders passed on Edmunds in the draft to begin with - lots of my Raiders fan friends thought he was a lock there, just like me. Raiders also passed on several trade deals (including an offer from Beane) to stay at 15 for friggin' Kolton Miller. Has a chance to be a decent player but there were better players on the board and most scouting reports I saw on Miller had him ranked as a late first/early second round pick. They must have gotten wind that another team not too far behind them had him targeted.
whatdrought Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 The thing with Mack is (and this is just my 2 pennies) that nobody is going to reach out to inquire about him. At least not seriously. It seems to me that in this situation you let the Raiders make the first move, and when they do, his value is immediately less than market because it means that they're envisioning a scenario where he doesn't report and they don't sign him. If that's the case, they have to project that further into a "we need to move him while we can" type of situation which means they'd be willing to take less. So while the market value for Mack might be 2 first round picks, I doubt they would get that. 1 and 3 seems more likely to me. This is like the OBJ situation except that the Raiders may actually NEED to move Mack thus losing leverage. 1 minute ago, blacklabel said: They must have gotten wind that another team not too far behind them had him targeted. Or, and it seems more likely, John Gruden just does what he wants. 1
ColoradoBills Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: The thing with Mack is (and this is just my 2 pennies) that nobody is going to reach out to inquire about him. At least not seriously. It seems to me that in this situation you let the Raiders make the first move, and when they do, his value is immediately less than market because it means that they're envisioning a scenario where he doesn't report and they don't sign him. If that's the case, they have to project that further into a "we need to move him while we can" type of situation which means they'd be willing to take less. So while the market value for Mack might be 2 first round picks, I doubt they would get that. 1 and 3 seems more likely to me. This is like the OBJ situation except that the Raiders may actually NEED to move Mack thus losing leverage. True, and they need to replace Mack with some sort of DE talent this year. That makes the Hughes involved trade realistic. Hughes Is only 29 with 2 years left on his contract which they get on the cheap.
YoloinOhio Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 27 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said: I wonder how much Mack will offer Corey Thompson for number 52? Preston’s shoes are going to be very tough to fill with that jersey #... Mack may want to consider that 1
Cornette's Commentary Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 14 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: These reasons are the only way that this trade for Mack could make any sense. If that's true there is no way that Jerry Hughes is not in the conversation. Raiders could get Hughes for about 7 million a year after the Bill's eat his bonuses. The bonuses go to next years dead money and freeing up Hughes contract gives them enough room to sign Mack long term. No way the Bills pay for Mack and Hughes. That's just too much for DE's. So, IF ( and that's a huge IF) there is any legs to this it's Hughes and a pick. Question would be "What is the pick"? A 2019 1st and 2nd, a 2020 1st and a conditional 2020 pick. At least, that's what I would be asking for Mack, if I was Gruden.
SCBills Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cornette's Commentary said: A 2019 1st and 2nd, a 2020 1st and a conditional 2020 pick. At least, that's what I would be asking for Mack, if I was Gruden. To which any GM with a brain should laugh at and hang up. 3
Zebrastripes Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, Cornette's Commentary said: A 2019 1st and 2nd, a 2020 1st and a conditional 2020 pick. At least, that's what I would be asking for Mack, if I was Gruden. Why lose Mack for nothing if you're the Raiders? No team is going to pay that price and the way things are looking is Mack is not going to show up anytime soon. So if you're the Raiders it would be better to get something for him than get nothing at all because he is going to walk next year anyways.
Cornette's Commentary Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Zebrastripes said: Why lose Mack for nothing if you're the Raiders? No team is going to pay that price and the way things are looking is Mack is not going to show up anytime soon. So if you're the Raiders it would be better to get something for him than get nothing at all because he is going to walk next year anyways. I hear you and I agree that the Raiders should try and get what they can for him right now. I'm just saying that, if anyone thinks Shaq Lawson (or Hughes) and just one high pick in 2019 will get it done, they're sorely mistaken.
JimKellyTryouts Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 21 minutes ago, blacklabel said: Raiders also passed on several trade deals (including an offer from Beane) to stay at 15 for friggin' Kolton Miller. Has a chance to be a decent player but there were better players on the board and most scouting reports I saw on Miller had him ranked as a late first/early second round pick. They must have gotten wind that another team not too far behind them had him targeted. McGlinchey and Miller were both on the Ravens' radar, apparently
Zebrastripes Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Cornette's Commentary said: I hear you and I agree that the Raiders should try and get what they can for him right now. I'm just saying that, if anyone thinks Shaq Lawson (or Hughes) and just one high pick in 2019 will get it done, they're sorely mistaken. All depends on the Raiders desperation I guess
Recommended Posts