The Los Angeles Rams gave their star defensive player, Aaron Donald, a massive contract extension Friday. The Raiders are going to have to do likewise with holdout defensive end Khalil Mack or else trade away their top player.
Mack isn’t going to play out the final year of his contract at $13.846 million, according to a league source. That same source said that the prospect of Mack rejoining the Raiders without a new contract is “laughable.”
Mack wouldn’t even return if the Raiders offered to up his current salary, the source said. He wants to be paid what he feels he is worth, period.
That leaves the Raiders with three clear-cut options: One, give Mack a long-term extension that pays him at least as much as the Rams agreed to pay Donald — six years, $135 million, with $87 million guaranteed, according to ESPN’s Adam Schefter; two, trade Mack to one of the league’s 31 other teams; or, three, do nothing and see if Mack gets antsy and returns, or pick up the issue after the season.
Mack, who was spotted at an airport recently, is back in New York, a team source said. He has not commented publicly on his situation at all. Same goes for his agent, Joel Segal.
For the Raiders’ part, general manager Reggie McKenzie and head coach Jon Gruden have said many times how much they want Mack back in a Raiders uniform. But, Mack currently does not have an offer to consider and the two sides haven’t spoken in a long time.
There remains a chasm between the two sides and the words from McKenzie and Gruden are in stark contrast to their actions related to getting Mack back.
Donald is expected to be available for the Rams regular-season opener, against the Raiders, on Sept. 10. That isn’t going to go over well if he plays and Mack still isn’t with the Raiders. It would look even worse if Donald plays a key role in the Rams beating the Raiders or there’s a sense that Mack’s presence might have been the difference.
There’s still time, but it’s running out. At least the Raiders know how much Donald is being paid and that their options are crystal clear.
Thanks Cork – the picture is finally crystal clear and all the posturing and sound bites either prove true or false.
Does coach Gruden really want the Raiders best player back or not?
Coach: this fan wants Mack in Silver & Black – pay the man but if you don’t want to, man up quickly and make sure you get full value from a trade because your time with the Raiders, this time round, will always be judged by reference to “what would have happened if you kept HOF bound Mack#52?”
You’re welcome, Andy. We’re just trying to relate the facts and stay out of the fog of speculation. It really is pretty simple. And this one is wholly on Jon Gruden. Should be interesting. Stay tuned, and thanks for your feedback and continued support. — Cork
It’s painfully obvious to me that the Raiders don’t want Mack back. If they did they would have been negotiating with him. Gruden’s recent comment of “well the defence wasn’t good last year with Mack in it” was a sure sign that he doesn’t think the contract he would have to pay would match the value on the field.
This is going to end in a trade and the Raiders aren’t going to get the return they SHOULD get because they are now dealing at a disadvantage. They should have traded him months ago if they were going this route. As time goes on they will get less and less.
The Raiders are bungling this and doing everything in their power to make this a terrible move for the franchise.
Yeah, it’s not a good look right now. Worst of all is, saying how much they want Mack, yet not communicating that during negotiations that have ceased. They had better get two first-rounders, at least, to save face if they opt to trade Mack.
That price of at least two first round picks seems to have stuck as the bottom line and may be realistic but Gruden really needs to think carefully about trade partner – which could really piss off fans even more than the fact of a trade.
Some of these are really unlikely but even though I don’t want to see Mack in any other uniform, these would only make it all worse: 49ers, Chiefs, Broncos, Chargers, Steelers or, above all, the fucking Patriots. Just don’t go there with Bellichik and that crew.
Gruden is running the show.
RM has put us over the barrel.
Him saying that the Raiders need to get the deal done on prior occasions. If RM wanted this done, he should have just done it. He should have at least had an offer on the table.
There is no looking good in this unless we sign Mack to a mega deal.
If Mack will not play for the $13.8 mil he is scheduled to receive, that’s on him.
The CBA is written so a team can get an, optional, 5th season from a 1st round pick. And its not like he is getting paid the league minimum.
I know many teams “forgive” the fines, they are allowed to place on a players missing camp and games, for the sake of getting a deal done. Gruden may not want to forgive that cash.
If Mack does not return to the team until week 10, his way of getting an accrued season, how much of that $13.8 mil will be left for him to collect? Not much I am guessing.
The team is not better without Mack. But for now we are without him. Like it or not.
Are we going to want our Raiders to lose games just because Mack is not with the team? NOPE!
All those other players who have worked their asses off in camp and preseason want a spot on this team.
Most of those getting cut today or tomorrow would love to have a one year contract paying them $13 mil +.
Ditto that
Does it seem the media jumped to option of trading Mack prematurely, versus other holdouts on other teams in recent memory? When Cam Chancellor held out a few years ago, I don’t remember the incessant talk of trading him? Where is the talk about trading Earl Thomas?
Since it’s the Raiders, the idea of “Raiders don’t have the funds” or “Gruden doesn’t value defensive talent” seem floated out. Or “Raiders don’t want Mack” like I heard today. All these are nonsense. Yet its the Raiders, and anything goes for stupid conjecture.
Mack is under contact making 14 million play the game. The Raiders are a team no one player is bigger than the team . I’m a big fan of Macks for now but he needs to play. His numbers this year will be huge then talk contract
From sfgate.com:
“ESPN and NFL Network are reporting Saturday morning that the Raiders are in the process of trading star edge rusher Khalil Mack to the Chicago Bears.
ESPN’s Adam Schefter first reported the Raiders and Bears had an agreement in place to trade Mack, the 2016 Defensive Player of the Year, to Chicago. NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported the compensation would include at least two first-round picks.”
https://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/Reports-Raiders-dealing-DE-Khalil-Mack-to-Bears-13198745.php
Shouldn’t the Raiders be able to afford Mack’s first year on a new contract? I would bet that if Mack plays this year along with the new talent on the defensive line, he will have an outstanding year. Then, if in the 2019 off-season, Raiders (Gruden) think that they are paying too much to keep both Carr and Mack, then can’t they work out a trade then? At least get him signed and play him now. Yes, Mack can get hurt, but he doesn’t have a history of injury. Even if he did, there are plenty of teams that would still want him. It seems to make sense to get him signed and playing this year rather then trade him and watch him get 18 sacks (potentially) with another team this season. Plus we don’t know how Key, Hurst, PJ, Irvin will all perform this season. Sign him, then deal with the financial issue next year. That seems to be the best scenario. But I might be missing something. 🙂
I think this was about ego as much as money. Gruden wasn’t going to let his first hold out be the model for the future. It was like a slow moving car crash that, in retrospect, everyone could see happening.
I’m upset. I’ve been a Raider’s fan since 1972. There have been a few fandom threatening Raider moves in that time; trading Stabler, freezing out Marcus Allen, trading Gruden, but this is right there. I feel sick.
I never seem to be amazed at my own naïveté when it comes to professional sports. They are corporations and they do what corporations do.