Raiders Look Like The Biggest Loser In Khalil Mack Trade

There’s not much to like about the Raiders Jon Gruden’s decision to trade Khalil Mack. Maybe down the road it will pay off big for the Raiders, but for now, it looks like the Bears and Mack were overwhelming winners.

Here’s why the trade made so little sense from the Raiders standpoint…

5 – Jon Gruden was sick of dealing with Mack’s holdout so he laid down the law and sent Mack packing, right? Well, sort of. Mack held out and actually got exactly what he wanted – a new deal before the season started.

What about the way Gruden handled Mack’s holdout is going to keep players from trying his hand in the future? It seemed like more of a reward – especially considering the Raiders controlled Mack’s rights for three more years.

Interestingly, this is the second year in a row a player has benefited by holding out on the Raiders.

4 – The Raiders opened up an additional $13.8 million in cap space by dumping Mack – just six short months after the beginning of the NFL’s free agent period. Larry, Mo, and Curly are the only free agents on the market a week before the season opener.

Ideally, the Raiders won’t sign them.

3 – Why would Gruden dump Mack now when he could have gotten similar compensation after the season (by keeping Mack with the franchise tag)? The Raiders won’t see the first returns on Mack’s trade until next year and the rest will come a year later.

At the very least, Gruden should have done the trade before this year’s draft (he thought about it) and landed Roquan Smith or another impact player that could have helped right away.

2 – What a great storyline it was that Mack and the Raiders needed all these months to figure out what they wanted to spend.

It took the Bears less than 24 hours to come up with a deal from scratch.

1 – How on this green (and now very gray) earth do you trade the best defensive player on the planet and somehow end up including a second round pick?

Even a video game knows better.

twitter: @raidersbeat

Share:

25 thoughts on “Raiders Look Like The Biggest Loser In Khalil Mack Trade

  1. Diude, the Raiders got (2) 1’s for Mack, then gave up a 2nd for a 3rd, and a 5th for a 6th. If we play well and the Raiders record is good, it would be mid 20’s selections , for hopefully, early 3rd and 6th. No matter how “bad” u think this deal is, there’s no way you can justify $60 million up front, and $90 million guaranteed. That is cap suicide

    1. No. You’re wrong. Khalil Mack was going to draw the kind of contract that would make him the highest paid defensive player, and it turned out to be.The Raiders knew this was coming before DC got his big money contract, before Gjax got his extention, before the draft. If they had no intention of paying him “QB money”, they should have traded him BEFORE the draft, and with 2 -1st rd picks, they would have had the draft capital to get a guy like Chubb or Davenport to fill the large void there is now. I love DC, but he’s never been the best player on the team at any point. That was Mack. I love Gjax, he’s a beast, but if his re-signing helped not being able to sign a once in a generation type of talent like Mack, that was the wrong move. The fact is, the Raiders screwed themselves by completely tanking the last 4 years of the draft. You look at the good teams, they have their high priced studs, but they also draft well. They have rookies that contribute at their floor salary. The Raiders didn’t have that luxury. They’ve **** the bed since the ’14 draft. I don’t blame Mack for commanding that salary, he earned it, on and off the field. This was a horrible move by the front office, period. It says that we’ll take you, but no matter how well you play, you can be the best at your position, if you’re not a QB, we’re not going to pay you what you’re worth. Any way you look at it, the Raiders **** the bed.

    2. Totally agree with you, it was obvious with amount of turnover and combo of youth /old heads to teach PG system to the young guys and Bruce Irvin took on the mentor role for the headed rookie monster hall Hurst key and especially for Key who is Mack’s hopeful replacement. With 50% success rate we should prob trade up and grab a Nick Bosa to replace Mack (even if key is a stud) who would only be a 3-5$ mil cap hit let’s say 5$ and then we rollover Mack’s 13.8$ this year to the 7 we have and rollover with 66$ next year and can clear up much more. Edge defenders is probably the deepest next year as it’s has been in a while. PG defense is based off generating inside pressure which looks like they added, tank, calhoun, brown, key should have ample time to get there. 1 of Irvin or key will eventually draw double teams.

  2. Just because it team bankruptcy themselves of one player doesn’t make them the winners. Raiders could turn this into potentially 3 premier pass rushers if they chose. 2 first round picks and the money not spent on Mack they could use in FA next year. Doesn’t look so bad now. Deep linebacker class next year. Watch and learn.

  3. Agreed. Mack was worth trading for the compensation, pics and money saved for future “players” and not just one greedy mother ****** who puts himself before the team and fans that loved him. So who really bought the fools gold on this deal? Bears just bought out of a SB run. Watch what happens now. Big contract signs ruin football teams.

  4. I hope our three rookies and the rest of our front seven can prove Gruden right with his decision. At least we traded Mack to Bears, NFC team with unproven QB and WR, cap strapped by this contract and no 1st rd for two years to improve their mediocre OL. And we’ll play them at home next year.

  5. I’m sorry man, but you’re missing the big picture. Let me give you some perspective, since you and the rest of the Raiders fans, media and beat writers somehow refuse to see.

    Gruden is a new coach, implementing new schemes and demanding a professional locker room. The Raiders have had Mack for 3 years and the defense never improved. The Raiders has Carr, and he flashed promise, but the team has not been consistent.

    Take the above fact, which is a fact – and the recipe for disaster is to pay one $125M ($70M g) and another $141M ($90M g). In order to pay the latter, a massive raise would have had to been implemented in Year 0 (that’s this year, since he’s still under contract). In order to meet this demand, the Raiders would have to chop $15M of in place salary (Penn, Lynch and Irvin).

    So by trading Mack for premium selections, which could be top 10, the Raiders have 4 first round selections in the next two years to package (if necessary) to select Nick Bosa or Ed Oliver – not to mention many other pash rushers in the 2019 draft class. That is just Year 0.

    In Year 1 of the true extension, now you have to let Cooper walk (ps. he shares the same
    Agent as Mack, so I promise you, a 24 year old WR with guesstimated 4,000 career NFL yards will demand a decent contract).

    Summary in case you are not following:
    Year 0 + 1 “Savings” from dealing Mack – Bruce Irvin, Donald Penn, Marshawn Lynch, Amari Cooper, $14M (year 0) cap freedom and $23-28M (year 1) cap freedom.

    Earnings from Mack trade – 2019 1st, 2020 1st and 2020 3rd.

    In conclusion, yes Mack is a perennial player. Yes, Mack may be the best defender in football. But, a defensive edge player is not a Quarterback. And when a defensive edge demands quarterback money, the contract will only work and make sense when the starting QB is under a rookie contract. Aaron Donald’s contract will hamstring the Rams due to other contracts, but the Rams are not currently paying premium QB dollars. What will the Rams do when Goff’s extension comes up? The Bears are not paying anyone premium dollars, and their starting Quarterback is under a rookie contract. The Raiders prioritized QB, which is the easiest decision you could ever make. I’m doing so, the Raiders didn’t have to reset their entire roster for one player, plan for the departure of any further extension and they now have draft capital.

    It’s not that hard to understand the Raiders perspective. Stop eating up what the media feeds you. It’s crystal clear, it’s absolutely gut wrenching to lose a generational talent that you drafted and developed. But football is a business and the hard cap strains teams – $90M guaranteed for 10.5 sacks and hamstring the future while you have a franchise quarterback under a $125M contract already?No, thanks.

    Thank you Mack for what you did for Oakland and the Raiders. Good luck I’m Chicago and enjoy your pay day.

    1. Love the logic…..it is clear and concise. It is tough to get emotional fans to see the business side of things

  6. Raiders were also smart to trade him now. The message to free agents and draft picks is that we will provide a platform to showcase your talents. If you warrant more money than fits our future plans when that contract is close to over, we will either pay you or facilitate your trade to a team that will. The message is the opposite if we hold him to his 5th year and then tag him two more. Mack just became the highest paid non-QB in NFL history and didnt’ lose any money or risk playing in any games and getting injured without a new contract.

  7. It took the bears less than 24 hrs because donald contract had already set the bar for Mack’s contract who had the same agent as donald and had a ball figure for mack,so get the **** out of her with your bull **** and take the whining across the bay

  8. What Raiders really got
    1 first Rounder
    And turned a second and a fifth into a first and a third. Maybe they got a beer also. Mark, McKenzie and Gruden are Larry curly and moe for being less than competent.

  9. U guys are missing the point. Google Gruden’s picks as the coach in Tampa. He doesn’t draft well. If u can’t evaluate talent those picks might as well be 7th rounders. On top of that how do u give up anything when you’re trading Mack.

  10. The Raiders knew this coming two years ago.
    They should have restructured his deal sfter winning the Droy!!!

  11. I was upset at first but the raiders must move on. The raiders or any team for that matter can’t justify paying a defensive player more than the QB. The Bears were able to do so because of a plethora of young players. Let’s wait and see at least until week 8 or 9 to judge this move

  12. For the Bears or anyone else to spend that much money on one player is cap suicide. The Bears need offensive help too, and although I hate to see Mack go, I have to agree that Da Raiders will come out on top in this deal. Remember we have other players who will soon be coming up for new contracts too and they can’t make astounding demands the way that Mack’s agent did. Over $13 million saved and we will need every penny……. I still appreciate Mack’s contribution to the Raiders and wish him well, except when he plays us…..

  13. I agree you can’t give up that much money on one player you just can’t and it showed macks true colors he was all about the money, if he showed up to camp I’m sure they would have worked something out but Mack was done and it showed, now let’s beat the rams and show we are a good team with out mack

  14. I’m still torn about the trade. It definitely does not sit well with me. At the end of the day, the business didn’t want to pony up the $ and the player did not want to budge. I don’t know how much of it is between the organization and the agent, rather than the team and the player but the fans are the ones paying the price for the aftermath.

    I really hope Jon isn’t handling the personnel as much as it is being reported. Or at least he’s discussing things over with Reggie. Though Reggie is not without criticisms, his actions made sense. Recent changes, trades, additions, cuts, etc. etc. just seem confusing. Hopefully it will all work out, it always does… but I can’t shake off feeling like this is another “tuck rule” that may haunt us years to come.

  15. Defensive End DO NOT WIN SUPER BOWLS…….team depth to battle attrition, good to great QB and excellent coaching does. I am not advocating Gruden is a great coach or Carr is a great QB, I am saying you sign that deal and there is ZERO ZIP NADA depth for 3 years, therefore no F**king chance of a super bowl. Especially without a QB on a rookie deal. Debate what you want about the return……..but the deal had to be made.

  16. Jon Gruden is a lunatic. Trades away our best player and a 2nd rounder? Our track record with draft picks have not been stellar. They could have tried asking Carr and maybe Osmele to take a pay cut and used the savings to increase their offer to Mack.

    Just sucks he wouldn’t play under his last year of contract. Would he have really held out for the entire year? I get it tough, if he had gotten hurt, that would have meant no new contract.

    Between this and the blunder with the Martavis Bryant trade, my perception of Gruden is not as good as it was ten years ago

  17. Yep stole word write out of my mouth. Unless we were Superbowl ready and maybe set for 2-3 year run like Rams I can see doing it, but we would have ended up like Miami, now the bears will stay the bears and field a terrible OL with unproven QB and lots of intrigue but that’s it at WR… I been preaching that this literally created 36$mil in cap space for next year (13.8 we didn’t pay Mack now rolls over so we rollover 21mil , and then the 22.3 we won’t pay Mack in year 1) with 50% success rate trade up for Visa/Oliver You pay him 3-5$ replace Mack keep Irvin and still have over 11$ (Earl thomas, lamarcus Joyner) of Mack money! Now Mack was my favorite player and I will still chest for him, but did not want to pay him outrageous fortune. Everyone wants to blame gruden, but he wasn’t hear for draft or development of 15-17 busts.

  18. This trade for the Raiders can’t be graded on what they do with the draft picks alone. You also have to factor in the free agents they acquire or keep with the extra $23.5 mil per season. To put that in perspective, the Rams acquired Talib, Peters, and Suh for a total combined cost of about $27 mil for the 2018 season – net out the salaries of the players they replaced and it’s under the salary it would have taken to replace Mack. Talib and Peters are also under contract for 2019 at a combined salary of $17 mil. Those are the types of deals the Raiders wouldn’t have had the flexibility to make if they were paying Mack and Carr nearly $50 mil combined. Is the team better with three players of that caliber every year for the next six years (different free agents filling those three slots at different times) plus the draft picks, or having Mack for six years?

Comments are closed.