My Khalil Mack trade thoughts

I feel for all the parties to the negotiations. Excruciating pressure cooker all the way around.

One day, in retrospect, Raider management might prove to be terribly wrong. But, unfortunately for them, it will be harder to one day see, in retrospect, that the were kinda, sorta, probably right.

I generally try to support people who make horribly difficult decisions that they have to live or die with, and so it is with this one. I can see the logic. Actually, I can see it pretty clearly. But, it really, really was a gut kick.

I agree with a lot of comments today made by some people I often disagree with, so that might be saying something. LOL.

The cap is a hell of a thing, whether people want to blow it off as irrelevant or not. The cap is absolutely unforgiving and there is no cheap or easy way out – IF you look at the cap over the long haul. Any gimmick or fix now and you pay for it later. This situation came about because, regardless of a lot of whiffs, the Raiders drafted a handful of REALLY good players at about the same time. And, they signed a trio of REALLY good offensive line FA’s … all at about the same time.

In the end, I don’t think there was any other way out, if the medium-long term success of the team is the objective.

Well … maybe there was another alternative: Mack could have played for the amount he agreed to and not hung everyone out to dry by reneging on his contract.

Sure, he played over the top of his contract. But, would he have written a check back to the Raiders if he had played “under” his contract? Was Mack being a bully? He certainly turned out to be a HOF level player. His is a violent occupation when your future could disappear in one hit. But that was a given when he signed up. Why does that give him the right to blow off his contract? How many HOF players were underpaid at some point in their career (and maybe overpaid in other parts), but played out the contracts that they signed? A contract is simply a man’s words written down. Mack is supposed to be a “good guy”. His teammates don’t get to simply ignore THEIR contracts. But, he did.

FWIW, my breakdown of the logic:

(1) I don’t see how a team can believe that paying two players 1/3 of the salary cap and be a perennial top 4 team. It could work for a while, but it would be risky, and would eventually be a salary cap mess … and a losing or marginal team because of it.

(2) The only way I can see how paying that much to a defender could really enhance the probability of team success is if a team has a great QB that is on a cheap rookie contract for several years. Like Chicago. After the QB comes up for a raise, however, they still get into cap hell and have to make a decision like the Raiders just did. I don’t see Chicago launching themselves into the Super Bowl with this trade. TRUBISKY might lead them to a Super Bowl with a big assist from Mack. But, Mack can’t put them in the Super Bowl. The position of QB simply has an impact on the game that dwarfs every other position. Therefore, the QB occupies a slot in the salary cap straight jacket that reflects their impact on the team success. Now, Chicago’s has to maintain excellence from the top to the bottom of their roster, AND prepare a way to either sign or trade Trubisky in a couple years. For those reasons, I don’t think they helped themselves to become a perennial contender. But, they have a little window to be a winner for a couple years. Not unlike the Rams situation with Donald. They don’t have serious QB money tied up … YET.

(3) To sign Mack with the Raiders, it was particularly difficult that both Carr and Mack would be roughly on the same “contract cycle”. In other words, it might have been more tolerable, had the QB’s big dollar contract been on the down side of the time frame and a promising rookie was coming up behind him. That way, maybe you struggle with a big cap burden for a couple years, then it eases off. But, that was not the case.

(4) It’s true, as has been pointed out, that “CARR BETTER PAN OUT, OR THIS WILL BE A DISASTER”. Well, that’s obvious. But that statement by itself is irrelevant. The relevant question is: If you have to put all your money on the table, do you predict that Carr will … or won’t pan out? If someone put a gun to your head and said “Quickly: predict whether Carr will be pretty damned good, or a terrible bust?” … what do you say? No way you pick “bust”. So, you roll with the premise that he’s going to be a good or great QB. No other way to roll.

(5) Logic is similar for “they can’t possibly get another Mack with a couple more draft picks”. Agreed. It would be like getting hit by lightning twice. But, argument doesn’t carry the day because the trade wasn’t made for “positive” reasons – i.e. I doubt seriously that anyone, including Gruden, would literally equate Mack with 2 (or 4) first round draft picks. The trade wasn’t made to swap Mack for draft picks. The trade was made because it was the lesser evil. Because of the salary cap & because Mack reneged on his word and his signature.

(7) The rookie defensive linemen certainly weren’t a big part of an intentional and aggressive trade. But, it probably took some of the sting out of being stuck with a trade.

(8) It’s hard for me to believe that Gruden was playing head games, or was offended, or Mack was offended … etc. At least not enough to affect the big picture. They both want to win too badly. Even if they were pissed at each other, it would have evaporated quickly, had Mack been signed. Maybe they both played the ego game or chess match poorly on a personal basis. After all, phone lines run both way, and nobody ever kept Mack from coming by the locker room. Regardless, that would have evaporated. Gruden loves winners, and Mack is a winner, and Mack would have loved Gruden had he signed.

(9) Did Mark Davis not have $100 million to put in escrow? Wow … who knows? But, it would not surprise me if it were an issue. Could he have come up with the money via selling all or part of the team, or borrowing (even more)? Ok … say he could have. Does that somehow make a $25 million/year, $100 million guarantee sensible … for a non-QB when you already have a franchise QB salary weighing on the cap … for roughly the same time span as Mack’s deal? No … probably not. You still have all the painful logic and reality of long term cap management staring you in the face.

So, I think when you work through the logic, it MIGHT be wrong … the trade MIGHT have been somehow averted … but the reality is that the logic can’t seriously be faulted, even though it hurts like hell.

Mack was the big winner. He was going to get paid by someone. He managed to escape his contractual obligations to play for the Raiders this year, and the next, and the next. So, when the Raiders fans get pissed at the management, remember that the management had Mack signed up for several years and Mack managed to break his word and his contract. Maybe that’s the only valid criticism of the Raider management: maybe they could have made the guy play for what he agreed to play for.

The Raiders – from management to players, to the fans to the groundskeepers got hammered by an excruciatingly difficult decision. Kudos to management for doing the best they could, and pray for the rookie D Linemen and Carr.