Khalil Mack thread

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

I disagree. 2 injury prone, under achieving players coupled with a 1st and a 2nd would be a steal for a DPOY monster off the edge. Do you take issue with the picks, the players or both?

i would like to hear english answer this one. man oh man. i would make that trade in a second. you have a chance to get this guy but some would rather hold onto ward and aa??!!

No one cares about them. The issue is why would the Raiders trade for them?

maybe they see all this amazing potential they allegedly have,. maybe they think a four for one deal is good. maybe they have confidence they can make ward and aa into good football players, for those who do not like the idea floated by forbes, is it cuz you do not want to give up the draft picks or the players. i think you need to swing for the fences,. many feel we have some amazing offense. why not solve the biggest issue on the team in one move. we can also afford him long term as well cuz we have money unlike the raiders

Yeah swing for the fences and mortgage the future for one player. We aren't a complete team yet... I have no problem giving up two firsts to move up the draft for example, because then that player is on a reasonable contract. I have no problem structuring a contract to aquire a premier free agent at a position of need. But to do both on one player is so short sighted as to defy imagination on a team that isn't making a SB run and is short one player to get over the top. That is just nuts.

So a 2019 1st, 2020 2nd, armstead, and Ward is what Forbes sport money says.

I mean I'd do that in a heartbeat...I can't see Oakland taking on ward's contract (we could eat some of it)

Crazy I'd be down with that

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Raiders DE Khalil Mack will not report to team before its second preseason game Saturday, per source, meaning he will be fined another $814,000, bringing his two missed preseason game total to $1.628 million. More important for both sides: there is no end in sight, per source.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) August 16, 2018

But Gruden told me an end was in sight?

Good development for the 49ers. Key is that they haven't come to an agreement with Mack and now comes the other key, can the Raiders F-tag Mack? If not, then 49ers are in a good position. Mack can always nix a trade to somebody *other than* the 49ers by simply saying I'm not going to play for that [fill in the blank] team, I want to be traded to the 49ers, otherwise I'm just going to test free agency and not sign a long term deal with that [fill in the blank] team. As a bay area player for the last 3 years, he doesn't have to uproot himself to go to another team, he's basically already here from a home and family standpoint. If the 49ers are willing to pay fair market value for his services, I think they are in the drivers seat.

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
I disagree. 2 injury prone, under achieving players coupled with a 1st and a 2nd would be a steal for a DPOY monster off the edge. Do you take issue with the picks, the players or both?

i would like to hear english answer this one. man oh man. i would make that trade in a second. you have a chance to get this guy but some would rather hold onto ward and aa??!!

No one cares about them. The issue is why would the Raiders trade for them?

maybe they see all this amazing potential they allegedly have,. maybe they think a four for one deal is good. maybe they have confidence they can make ward and aa into good football players, for those who do not like the idea floated by forbes, is it cuz you do not want to give up the draft picks or the players. i think you need to swing for the fences,. many feel we have some amazing offense. why not solve the biggest issue on the team in one move. we can also afford him long term as well cuz we have money unlike the raiders

Yeah swing for the fences and mortgage the future for one player. We aren't a complete team yet... I have no problem giving up two firsts to move up the draft for example, because then that player is on a reasonable contract. I have no problem structuring a contract to aquire a premier free agent at a position of need. But to do both on one player is so short sighted as to defy imagination on a team that isn't making a SB run and is short one player to get over the top. That is just nuts.

I think the situation in '81 is very similar to ShanaLynch's current situation. In '81 the 49ers were comming off a 6-10 season and basically nobody expected them to go to the super bowl that year either. Add in a couple of good defensive rookies, a pass rusher, and a franchise QB and gee-whillackers - it was the start of a dynasty. All a team needs to do is get into the playoffs to win the Super bowl. Teams that had 10-6 regular season records have won it. That's only 4 more games to win than what the 49ers won last year with pretty much a crap offense and defense.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Good development for the 49ers. Key is that they haven't come to an agreement with Mack and now comes the other key, can the Raiders F-tag Mack? If not, then 49ers are in a good position. Mack can always nix a trade to somebody *other than* the 49ers by simply saying I'm not going to play for that [fill in the blank] team, I want to be traded to the 49ers, otherwise I'm just going to test free agency and not sign a long term deal with that [fill in the blank] team. As a bay area player for the last 3 years, he doesn't have to uproot himself to go to another team, he's basically already here from a home and family standpoint. If the 49ers are willing to pay fair market value for his services, I think they are in the drivers seat.

Good pt as well, key word in that statement "fair market value"

That Forbes article above through out Ward, AA, 1st in 2019, 2nd in 2020 imo would be "fair" SF might have to eat some of Ward's cash but imo make it happen.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Blockbuster Khalil Mack to 49ers trade? Why not? Via @forbessports https://t.co/oK3zu39dVa

— Vincent Frank (@VincentFrankNFL) August 16, 2018

So a 2019 1st, 2020 2nd, armstead, and Ward is what Forbes sport money says.

I mean I'd do that in a heartbeat...I can't see Oakland taking on ward's contract (we could eat some of it)

While I believe the Raiders would be complete idiots for trading one of the top 5 defensive players in the entire game all in the name of a contract dispute (pay that man), which makes this whole thing still seem like more of a pipe dream, but if that was the asking price...you bet your @$$ I'd do that trade.

Originally posted by Willisfn4life:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Blockbuster Khalil Mack to 49ers trade? Why not? Via @forbessports https://t.co/oK3zu39dVa

— Vincent Frank (@VincentFrankNFL) August 16, 2018

So a 2019 1st, 2020 2nd, armstead, and Ward is what Forbes sport money says.

I mean I'd do that in a heartbeat...I can't see Oakland taking on ward's contract (we could eat some of it)

While I believe the Raiders would be complete idiots for trading one of the top 5 defensive players in the entire game all in the name of a contract dispute (pay that man), which makes this whole thing still seem like more of a pipe dream, if that was the asking price...you bet your @$$ I'd do that trade.

Yeah I can't see how they don't pay him...they have nothing for cap space right now (that s**t can be manipulated). It's just mind boggling how they don't have something done or didn't plan to have the money for it.

Can you imagine lynch/Kyle trading for jimmy G and Mack lol?

Raiders have a good amount of space next March, I bet they're waiting till then to get something done. And I'm sure Mack knows this, so part of me thinks he doesn't want to go to Las Vegas.

Until the holdout goes into the regular season, it doesn't mean anything. This is just posturing at this point. I don't take any of the trade talk seriously.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Raiders have a good amount of space next March, I bet they're waiting till then to get something done. And I'm sure Mack knows this, so part of me thinks he doesn't want to go to Las Vegas.

The fact that there hasn't been any dialogue since February is the issue. There might be more to it like you said

Originally posted by Jack49ers84:

Until the holdout goes into the regular season, it doesn't mean anything. This is just posturing at this point. I don't take any of the trade talk seriously.

I agree any talks about trades is just fans hoping....he's already lost out on over a million by not showing up all off season. Oakland can choose to not inforce the fines (if a signing gets done).

Like you said s**t will get serious if he doesn't show up week 1.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Yeah I can't see how they don't pay him...they have nothing for cap space right now (that s**t can be manipulated). It's just mind boggling how they don't have something done or didn't plan to have the money for it.

Can you imagine lynch/Kyle trading for jimmy G and Mack lol?

The Patriots trading us Jimmy G made sense.

This wouldn't.

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:
The Patriots trading us Jimmy G made sense.

This wouldn't.

trading away a young franchise QB never makes sense...in most cases.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:
The Patriots trading us Jimmy G made sense.

This wouldn't.

trading away a young franchise QB never makes sense...in most cases.

It makes sense when you have (in most people's eyes) the greatest QB ever already starting for you.