Mack Traded!!!!!!!

[mead107]

Over paid.    

[Big Turk]

Bears hive up 2 firsts, third-round pick in 2020 and sixth-rounder in 2019, for Mack,  second-rounder and conditional fifth-rounder in 2020

Edited September 1, 2018 by matter2003

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

39 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

Adam Schefter‏Verified account @AdamSchefter 54s54 seconds ago

 

 

Khalil Mack and the Bears just reached agreeement on a record-setting 6-year, $141 million extension ($23.5M per year avg) that includes $90M guaranteed and $60M at signing, source tells ESPN. Mack is the new highest-paid defensive player in NFL history.

1 reply 51 retweets 19 likes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...so Mack and Donald just raked in $250 mil or one-quarter BILLION bucks?......crazy...............

[mannc]

11 minutes ago, bobobonators said:

I know Oakland fans must feel sick right now. But long-term the Raiders may have last laugh. Thats a lot of picks, and possibly high 1st rd picks, bc i dont think the Bears will win more than 7 games. 

No similar trade has ever succeeded.  It’s simply no way to build a winning team in the NFL.  Bears should have learned after giving Denver two firsts for Smokin’ Jay a few years back,

[RyanC883]

9 hours ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

I knew a team would do it, I just knew it wouldn’t be us. The Bills almost never draft good players but they act like draft picks are more important then having proven talent.

 

This was a generational talent LB that they could pare with Edmunds.   We totally lack a pass rush.  Giving up 2 1st for him is not bad.  You can get OL help and WR help in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.   We should have made the trade, and beat the Bears by including McCarron.  

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

No similar trade has ever succeeded.  It’s simply no way to build a winning team in the NFL.  Bears should have learned after giving Denver two firsts for Smokin’ Jay a few years back,

 

Smoking Jay is not Mack.   And they are not building the team with Mack, rather filling a hole and putting pressure on Rodgers, etc.  Great trade, IMO.  One we should have made.  

 

This is more akin to giving up two 1st for Bruce Smith, etc.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

This was a generational talent LB that they could pare with Edmunds.   We totally lack a pass rush.  Giving up 2 1st for him is not bad.  You can get OL help and WR help in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.   We should have made the trade, and beat the Bears by including McCarron.  

 

Smoking Jay is not Mack.   And they are not building the team with Mack, rather filling a hole and putting pressure on Rodgers, etc.  Great trade, IMO.  One we should have made.  

 

This is more akin to giving up two 1st for Bruce Smith, etc.  

 

....two 1sts AND $141 mil?........at OBD?..........McBeane?.........

[RyanC883]

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

....two 1sts AND $141 mil?........at OBD?..........McBeane?.........

 

not saying McBeane would do it, only that he should have done it.  We have a rookie QB, rookie MLB, and tons of cap space and the cap goes up every year.  For the best defensive player since Watt in his prime, yeah, you do that.  

 

As great as Edmunds is/will be, Mack is great now.  Having them together would have been fantastic.  And we need OL, WR, etc. help next year.  Something that can easily be found in Round 2 onward.  

 

[mannc]

4 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

  

 

Smoking Jay is not Mack.   And they are not building the team with Mack, rather filling a hole and putting pressure on Rodgers, etc.  Great trade, IMO.  One we should have made.  

 

This is more akin to giving up two 1st for Bruce Smith, etc.  

Somewhere upthread someone listed all of the veteran players traded for at least two first round picks.  Not one of those trades (there are about 10) worked out even remotely well for the team giving up picks.  And I guarantee they all thought they were getting a proven all-pro.  What could go wrong?

[K-9]

7 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Why wasn’t Bennett listed as one of those players traded for multiple ones? Because he hadn’t played in the league yet?

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Why wasn’t Bennett listed as one of those players traded for multiple ones? Because he hadn’t played in the league yet?

Must be.  Dickerson of course was part of the Bennett trade.

 

 But look at that list.  Not a good trade in the bunch.

Edited September 1, 2018 by mannc

[QCity]

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

 And I guarantee they all thought they were getting a proven all-pro.  What could go wrong?

 

A lot of fans only picture the best-case scenario in these trades. It's easy to like the trade if you imagine getting an All-Pro every year for the next 6 years or someone who will get 15 sacks a year for the next 5 years (suggested in this thread). But that's not realistic at all. His production will fade as he ages. If you want to weigh the scenario appropriately, then at least consider the worst-case along with the best-case. What if he blows out his knee or pops an Achilles and never returns to form? Congrats! You just sabotaged your franchise for the next half-decade.

 

Chicago fans will be celebrating Mack this season for sure, but get back to me in 3 years and we'll see how they feel then. These moves typically don't work out in the long run, and they aren't getting any major reinforcements via the draft in the next two years....

[Virgil]

23 mil a year.  Yeah, still would have done it.  Would have the money for an O-Line next offseason and if our draft picks this year pan out, get another WR, we are in solid shape with a young team.

[RocCityRoller]

10 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

love all the people who danced on the Mack threads here for weeks saying he would never be traded, he would be tagged, we were all stupid, etc. 

 

Yup, just had to find a way to get it done. Anything is possible.

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

Just now, Virgil said:

23 mil a year.  Yeah, still would have done it.  Would have the money for an O-Line next offseason and if our draft picks this year pan out, get another WR, we are in solid shape with a young team.

 

Just so glad non AFC east besides Bills (wanted him) tried to get him.

[Scott7975]

10 hours ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

Nobody knows any of this. Haven’t people learned yet to not get wrapped up in preseason? What are we basing this on? The last meaningful games that this team played, was from a playoff season. I also fully expect Peterman to start, to play well and to keep the job. For this year anyway.

 

Telling people not to get wrapped up in preseason yet you expect Peterman to play well.  Based on what?  He picked apart some scrubs in preseason.  Yay.  Changed QB for sure.  I like the kid.  I just don't think he is going to do any better than Fitzpatrick did.

[BillsFan4]

This is going to be a very interesting trade to revisit in 3 years time. It could very well work out well for one or both teams, be a disaster for one/both or land somewhere in the middle. 

 

I am not sure why Ryan Pace seems so sold on this current Bears team. Yeah, he added talent this offseason. But they are still an unproven team in my eyes, with an unproven QB that you hope turns into a franchise guy but definitely isn’t there yet. 

 

But, his record is something like 14-34 as a GM, so he may not be too worried about 2-3 yearsdown the line atm. 

 

[bobobonators]

reading through these posts, the main issue I have is the people that argue that "we should have done it." By all accounts, we definitely talked with Oakland about trading for Mack, but knowing what they got from the Bears lets play this scenario out.

 

The Bears are offering us two 1st round picks and a third round pick, etc.  We have to BEAT that. How do we beat that? Two 1st round picks and a second round pick? THREE 1st round picks?

 

What if the Raiders valued the Bears 1st round picks more than the Bills? What if they anticipate that they're going to have higher draft picks for the next couple of years?

 

Many people keep saying "we should have done it" like we were 100% in control of the situation and there weren't 6 other teams or more involved in trade talks. We were involved and it didn't work out. I would be completely upset if we didn't at least try to trade for him, but that doesn't appear to be the case. So why are people upset?

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by bobobonators

[papazoid]

Mack is a sure thing

 

draft picks are not.....Shaq Lawson, Adolphus Washington, Marcel Dareus, Torell Troup, Alex Carrington, Aaron Maybin

[Virgil]

5 hours ago, bobobonators said:

reading through these posts, the main issue I have is the people that argue that "we should have done it." By all accounts, we definitely talked with Oakland about trading for Mack, but knowing what they got from the Bears lets play this scenario out.

 

The Bears are offering us two 1st round picks and a third round pick, etc.  We have to BEAT that. How do we beat that? Two 1st round picks and a second round pick? THREE 1st round picks?

 

What if the Raiders valued the Bears 1st round picks more than the Bills? What if they anticipate that they're going to have higher draft picks for the next couple of years?

 

Many people keep saying "we should have done it" like we were 100% in control of the situation and there weren't 6 other teams or more involved in trade talks. We were involved and it didn't work out. I would be completely upset if we didn't at least try to trade for him, but that doesn't appear to be the case. So why are people upset?

 

 

That’s where Mack comes into play.  If the offers are the same, Mack pry gets to choose because his agent has to inform the teams he’s willing to sign the extension first 

[aristocrat]

8 hours ago, papazoid said:

Mack is a sure thing

 

draft picks are not.....Shaq Lawson, Adolphus Washington, Marcel Dareus, Torell Troup, Alex Carrington, Aaron Maybin

 

Boom. End thread