Lacanfora: Bills have reached out to Raiders about Khalil Mack trade

[stuvian]

as much as I like big names, it doesn't seem like a Beane move. If we have money to throw around, I'd like it spent on our OL. This seems glitzy by compare

[LABILLBACKER]

14 hours ago, ThunderGun said:

Hughes or Lawson and a first?  Then if Murphy ever gets healthy, this defense will just be a Biscuit away.

Keep Hughes and give them Shaq + a 1st. In a heartbeat!

[KD in CA]

Just now, stuvian said:

as much as I like big names, it doesn't seem like a Beane move. If we have money to throw around, I'd like it spent on our OL. This seems glitzy by compare

 

I'm usually not in favor of the big names/big splash, but I disagree in this case.  Dude can get to the QB;  that's been a big problem since Mario Williams mentally retired.  Plus he seems to love Buffalo.

 

Assuming they can sign him to a new deal, I'd trade a first and some combo of other picks/players for him.

[BullBuchanan]

Mack is also coming off a disappointing season. I'm worried he may have already played his best ball, and may be a very good, but not top tier elite player on his second contact.

[RochesterRob]

33 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

This said, perhaps Beane is waiting to see if Allen is "the guy" this Sunday and should he perform well enough to show he will be the starter. Then Beane makes a strong move going after Mack.  

  Ideally, Beane would like to wait until a few weeks into the season but teams such as GB will force the issue before then.  Beane probably wants to see the performance of the team overall rather than just the QB position.

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The Raiders are not getting more than 1 first round pick for Mack. No team is giving up 2 firsts for any non-QB player that will require a hefty extension. The Raiders would be extremely fortunate to get a 2019 1st, a 2019 mid-round pick, plus a 2020 2nd or 3rd for Mack. As much as teams covet pass rushers they simply aren't going to give up the kind of draft capital (Two firsts and a second) for a non-QB. That's the type of package you give up for a QB on a rookie contract not the type of trade capital you give up for a pass rusher on his second contract. 

 

I think realisitcally the trade package looks more like this 2019 1st, 2019 4th (Swapped with a 7th from the Raiders), 2020 3rd or 4th (With the Raiders throwing back a 5th or 6th in a pick swap) and a throw-in player. 

Why is the premium for the second most important position on a team so much less today than it was before? The only difference in terms of team dynamic is the salary cap that I can see. Not an insignificant consideration, but for teams with a ton of projected cap room for the next several years, it's not much of a constraint. And with multiple teams in the bidding, somebody is going to have to up their offer. 

 

Polian invested that much for a great potential player in Bennett whereas Mack has already established himself as a premier player in the league. And while I understand that Bennett was a finishing piece to the puzzle, I don't see the wisdom in passing up an opportunity to lock up a premier player at such a critical position, regardless. 

[CommonCents]

Just now, K-9 said:

Why is the premium for the second most important position on a team so much less today than it was before? The only difference in terms of team dynamic is the salary cap that I can see. Not an insignificant consideration, but for teams with a ton of projected cap room for the next several years, it's not much of a constraint. And with multiple teams in the bidding, somebody is going to have to up their offer. 

 

Polian invested that much for a great potential player in Bennett whereas Mack has already established himself as a premier player in the league. And while I understand that Bennett was a finishing piece to the puzzle, I don't see the wisdom in passing up an opportunity to lock up a premier player at such a critical position, regardless. 

Teams value the affordability of the rookie wage scale and 5th year option. An argument could be made that they overvalue it. I think that’s why the Bennett example is a bit misleading. If they do trade him it will be interesting to see what price was paid.

[Nihilarian]

20 minutes ago, K-9 said:

At a minimum. I'm sticking with my Bennett comparison; two 1sts, a 2nd, and a player. 

My take on that cost is ...it's kinda crazy talk! 

 

I would first think that both Beane and McD are thinking that they have a top scouting dept and between the lot of them can find talent on their own without giving away the freaking farm. 

 

I'm also sticking with the thinking that the Bills FO isn't 100% certain they have their franchise QB for the next decade AND it's for certain they don't have a Bruce Smith on the other side to compliment that pass rusher. Plus, they still are lacking in other areas like WR corps and O-line. While Mack might actually be worth 2 firsts, a second and a player I kinda doubt this FO would pay anything close to that. JMHO

[ToGoGo]

If we can do it for Hughes, a 1st, and a mid round pick and sign him to an extension before the trade is finalized, you do it. This is a perfect fit IMO. Not everyday that the best DE in the league, right in the middle of his prime (and maybe even the beginning of his prime), who played college ball in Buffalo and likes it here, is in the middle of a contract dispute with one of the crappiest franchises in the league becomes available. Perfect situation. Allen and Mack. Pull the trigger. 

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Why is the premium for the second most important position on a team so much less today than it was before? The only difference in terms of team dynamic is the salary cap that I can see. Not an insignificant consideration, but for teams with a ton of projected cap room for the next several years, it's not much of a constraint. And with multiple teams in the bidding, somebody is going to have to up their offer. 

 

Polian invested that much for a great potential player in Bennett whereas Mack has already established himself as a premier player in the league. And while I understand that Bennett was a finishing piece to the puzzle, I don't see the wisdom in passing up an opportunity to lock up a premier player at such a critical position, regardless. 

Because I think you're seeing good teams developing strategies to negate the effectiveness and impact of the rush.

 

Pass rush still has a huge impact against bad teams, but I think it's been reduced against the great ones in recent years.

1 minute ago, Nihilarian said:

My take on that cost is ...it's kinda crazy talk! 

 

I would first think that both Beane and McD are thinking that they have a top scouting dept and between the lot of them can find talent on their own without giving away the freaking farm. 

 

I'm also sticking with the thinking that the Bills FO isn't 100% certain they have their franchise QB for the next decade AND it's for certain they don't have a Bruce Smith on the other side to compliment that pass rusher. Plus, they still are lacking in other areas like WR corps and O-line. While Mack might actually be worth 2 firsts, a second and a player I kinda doubt this FO would pay anything close to that. JMHO

Yeah, that trade was pre salary cap. Great players never hit free agency, because you could always pay your cornerstone players. Trades were also extremely rare as a result.

[Beast]

33 minutes ago, K-9 said:

At a minimum. I'm sticking with my Bennett comparison; two 1sts, a 2nd, and a player. 

 

This is 2018, not 1987.

 

Mack will NEVER bring that much compensation back in a salary cap league.

 

The guy has a hair over 20 sacks in the last two years combined.

 

He’s a heckuva player but that package you suggest is silly. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Binghamton Beast

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, musichunch said:

If we can do it for Hughes, a 1st, and a mid round pick and sign him to an extension before the trade is finalized, you do it. This is a perfect fit IMO. Not everyday that the best DE in the league, right in the middle of his prime (and maybe even the beginning of his prime), who played college ball in Buffalo and likes it here, is in the middle of a contract dispute with one of the crappiest franchises in the league becomes available. Perfect situation. Allen and Mack. Pull the trigger. 

 

I think it's highly debatable if he's the best. If he is, there's a half dozen guys on his heels.

[Logic]

On the one hand, I'd love it if Mack were a Bill, and I still believe in the importance of a quality edge rusher.

On the other hand, I can't remember the last time someone paid mega money to a non-QB and it wound up having a huge impact on their team.

Mario Williams, Ndamukong Suh, etc, etc....I just rarely see the impact match the pay grade.

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Logic said:

On the one hand, I'd love it if Mack were a Bill, and I still believe in the importance of a quality edge rusher.

On the other hand, I can't remember the last time someone paid mega money to a non-QB and it wound up having a huge impact on their team.

Mario Williams, Ndamukong Suh, etc, etc....I just rarely see the impact match the pay grade.

 

Well maybe you could say TO.  He did that little escapade in Philly because he said he "out performed his contract".

[bbb]

45 minutes ago, K-9 said:

At a minimum. I'm sticking with my Bennett comparison; two 1sts, a 2nd, and a player. 

 

Definitely.  BTW, have you seen that new movie - Fatal Attraction?  Anyway, Happy Halloween!  ?

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Commonsense said:

Teams value the affordability of the rookie wage scale and 5th year option. An argument could be made that they overvalue it. I think that’s why the Bennett example is a bit misleading. If they do trade him it will be interesting to see what price was paid.

I agree. Teams also value proven, elite players in their prime as well. Especially when those players can pressure the opposing QB with regularity and change games in the process. Like great QBs, those kinds of players simply don't become available for trade very often. Trading for one guarantees his availability; hoping one is there in the draft is a chance proposition. And, ironically, trading up for that kind of player will cost a fair amount of draft capital as well. And even then, that prospect is an unproven player. 

 

The only aspect of the Bennett comparison I find misleading is that Bennett was a finishing piece whereas we have several other holes to fill currently. But talent acquisition is never a linear process and if the opportunity arises to secure an elite player at a critical position, I think you do that every time given the chance. 

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Put another way, if they trade a 1st rounder for Mack, that would make what, 3 first round picks they've effectively given up for Watkins Mack?

I'm sure you meant Mack. 

[K-9]

13 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

This is 2018, not 1987.

 

Mack will NEVER bring that much compensation back in a salary cap league.

 

The guy has a hair over 20 sacks in the last two years combined.

 

He’s a heckuva player but that package you suggest is silly. 

Other than the salary cap, what is different today than 1987 when it comes to acquiring such a player? If anything, pressuring the opposing QB is even more important than it was back then given the proliferation of passing offenses. And if a team has a ton of projected cap room for the next several seasons, the cap constraint issue is negligible. 

 

I'm curious to see just how silly I turn out to be given the number of teams that will be involved in the bidding process to acquire Mack. 

[Nihilarian]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Why is the premium for the second most important position on a team so much less today than it was before? The only difference in terms of team dynamic is the salary cap that I can see. Not an insignificant consideration, but for teams with a ton of projected cap room for the next several years, it's not much of a constraint. And with multiple teams in the bidding, somebody is going to have to up their offer. 

 

Polian invested that much for a great potential player in Bennett whereas Mack has already established himself as a premier player in the league. And while I understand that Bennett was a finishing piece to the puzzle, I don't see the wisdom in passing up an opportunity to lock up a premier player at such a critical position, regardless. 

 

I can recall watching Bennett tearing it up at Alabama and wanting to cry as Indy drafted O'Landa with their first-round pick. I was ecstatic when the Bills traded for him.  

 

I for one don't think the Bills overpaid for Bennett. I realize that lots do think the Bills overpaid.

[WMDman]

lit

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Other than the salary cap, what is different today than 1987 when it comes to acquiring such a player? If anything, pressuring the opposing QB is even more important than it was back then given the proliferation of passing offenses. And if a team has a ton of projected cap room for the next several seasons, the cap constraint issue is negligible. 

 

I'm curious to see just how silly I turn out to be given the number of teams that will be involved in the bidding process to acquire Mack. 

Draft rules have changed significantly, which alters their value. Specifically the wage scale and 5th year option.

[ThunderGun]

18 minutes ago, Logic said:

On the one hand, I'd love it if Mack were a Bill, and I still believe in the importance of a quality edge rusher.

On the other hand, I can't remember the last time someone paid mega money to a non-QB and it wound up having a huge impact on their team.

Mario Williams, Ndamukong Suh, etc, etc....I just rarely see the impact match the pay grade.

Idk how much he signed for, but Demarcus Ware definitely played a key role in getting the Broncos over the hump and winning a Chip.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Nihilarian said:

I can recall watching Bennett tearing it up at Alabama and wanting to cry as Indy drafted O'Landa with their first-round pick. I was ecstatic when the Bills traded for him.  

 

I for one don't think the Bills overpaid for Bennett. I realize that lots do think the Bills overpaid.

Same here. Acquiring Bennett shifted the balance of power in the AFC East over night. And, even though they'll never admit it now, there was no shortage of people screaming how much we overpaid and how much we'd regret it. Like Polian, I would argue that players who can manufacture QB pressure from the edge on their own are the second most important player on the team. 

[BillnutinHouston]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Same here. Acquiring Bennett shifted the balance of power in the AFC East over night. And, even though they'll never admit it now, there was no shortage of people screaming how much we overpaid and how much we'd regret it. Like Polian, I would argue that players who can manufacture QB pressure from the edge on their own are the second most important player on the team. 

 

I recall that John Murphy hated the Bennett trade, he said the Bills "mortgaged the future". 

 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Draft rules have changed significantly, which alters their value. Specifically the wage scale and 5th year option.

I understand and agree with that, but what does that have to do with the question of acquiring an elite talent via trade? The point you make suggests that because of the rookie wage scales and option years in place, we can just select a Khalil Mack in the draft. OK, fine, but I have a few questions about that strategy:

 

Is there another Khalil Mack in the next draft?

Are we guaranteed to be selecting high enough to draft him?

If not, how much draft capital will we have to spend in order to move up and get him?

And just how much less is that draft capital investment on a prospect vs. what we'd spend on an established All Pro in his prime?

[mannc]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Same here. Acquiring Bennett shifted the balance of power in the AFC East over night. And, even though they'll never admit it now, there was no shortage of people screaming how much we overpaid and how much we'd regret it. Like Polian, I would argue that players who can manufacture QB pressure from the edge on their own are the second most important player on the team. 

To give you an idea just how much the league has changed since then, take a look at what the Rams were able to extract in that same trade for a mostly washed up Running Back.  Obscene.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

7 minutes ago, ThunderGun said:

Idk how much he signed for, but Demarcus Ware definitely played a key role in getting the Broncos over the hump and winning a Chip.

 

Wasn't that a stacked top 10 defense before Ware arrived though? We don't have the same kind of top tier defense.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, BillnutinHouston said:

 

I recall that John Murphy hated the Bennett trade, he said the Bills "mortgaged the future". 

 

Murph was not alone. 

 

There was another guy who hated the Bennett trade but for all the right reasons. 

 

Don Shula. 

 

He knew that changed the AFC East immediately and he said as much. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, K-9 said:

I understand and agree with that, but what does that have to do with the question of acquiring an elite talent via trade? The point you make suggests that because of the rookie wage scales and option years in place, we can just select a Khalil Mack in the draft. OK, fine, but I have a few questions about that strategy:

 

Is there another Khalil Mack in the next draft?

Are we guaranteed to be selecting high enough to draft him?

If not, how much draft capital will we have to spend in order to move up and get him?

And just how much less is that draft capital investment on a prospect vs. what we'd spend on an established All Pro in his prime?

No, not the point I was making. The main currency being used to acquire Mack is draft picks and those picks' value has changed to most NFL FO's. It'd be like if the US switched from Gold to Diamonds. Everything with a price would start to be re-evaluated.

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

44 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

I'm usually not in favor of the big names/big splash, but I disagree in this case.  Dude can get to the QB;  that's been a big problem since Mario Williams mentally retired.  Plus he seems to love Buffalo.

 

Assuming they can sign him to a new deal, I'd trade a first and some combo of other picks/players for him.

And you'd have to hope that Mack wouldn't mentally retire.  I don't know if he would or would not, but despite everyone's opinions, NOBODY knows the answer to that question. Now that's the case with almost every player in the league (I can't see KW mentally retiring), but do you want to bet $100 million and some high draft choices on it?

[Domdab99]

Is he really a 1st round draft pick better than what we have right now? No need for this. He's like a Mario Williams...a cool, shiny bauble who won't translate to wins.

[Dablitzkrieg]

1 minute ago, Domdab99 said:

Is he really a 1st round draft pick better than what we have right now? No need for this. He's like a Mario Williams...a cool, shiny bauble who won't translate to wins.

I am assuming/hoping this is sarcasm?

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

To give you an idea just how much the league has changed since then, take a look at what the Rams were able to extract in that same trade for a mostly washed up Running Back.  Obscene.

Running backs may have been devalued, but edge rushers who can manufacture pressure on their own certainly haven't. What LA was able to extract is immaterial to what we obtained. I think it's a good question for Colts fans though. 

 

You raise a good point here in that it would be nice if we can get another team involved in the transaction as it would make it more palatable for Oakland to deal him to us perhaps. 

[Heitz]

Man, did this guy sign here yet, or what!? ??

[North Buffalo]

F5, twitter refresh etc

[mannc]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Running backs may have been devalued, but edge rushers who can manufacture pressure on their own certainly haven't. What LA was able to extract is immaterial to what we obtained. I think it's a good question for Colts fans though. 

 

You raise a good point here in that it would be nice if we can get another team involved in the transaction as it would make it more palatable for Oakland to deal him to us perhaps. 

If you want a good laugh, take a look at the hot garbage the Rams ended up drafting with all those premium picks.

[OrtonHearsaWho]

3 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

Is he really a 1st round draft pick better than what we have right now? No need for this. He's like a Mario Williams...a cool, shiny bauble who won't translate to wins.

 

Um, yes he is.  I don't get the Mario hate either.  He was badly misused when Rex came to town but before that he was a very good player.  Elite pass rushers change the entire defense.

[billsfan89]

46 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Why is the premium for the second most important position on a team so much less today than it was before? The only difference in terms of team dynamic is the salary cap that I can see. Not an insignificant consideration, but for teams with a ton of projected cap room for the next several years, it's not much of a constraint. And with multiple teams in the bidding, somebody is going to have to up their offer. 

 

Polian invested that much for a great potential player in Bennett whereas Mack has already established himself as a premier player in the league. And while I understand that Bennett was a finishing piece to the puzzle, I don't see the wisdom in passing up an opportunity to lock up a premier player at such a critical position, regardless. 

 

Teams Value cheap rookie contracts much more than they did in 1988. Mack's value is also diminished by the fact that you would be paying him a large 20 million dollar or more per year contract with a hefty guarantee. Even in the context of the Bennett trade, you were trading 3 future picks for a rookie. Mack is 27 years old and about to get paid. The Bills didn't even trade up for Bennett they drafted Shane Conlan at pick 8 then traded those 3 future selections plus Greg Bell a running back of value to get the number 2 pick outright. The Bills got the number 2 overall pick for 2 future firsts, a second rounder and a decent running back. 

 

Whereas with Mack they would be trading for a player who is older and taking up a lot of cap space.1st round picks are even more valuable now because it can lock in a player for 5 years fairly affordably. Teams are certainly willing to part with 1 first round pick and cap space for a premium player that isn't a QB but 2 first round picks and a 2nd is insane esp given the cap considerations.

 

Yes Mack is more proven than Bennett was but Bennett once again was younger and there wasn't the same cap considerations. It would just be insane to give up those picks for anything other than a QB or a player with multiple years left on a rookie deal. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by billsfan89

[Domdab99]

Just now, OrtonHearsaWho said:

 

Um, yes he is.  I don't get the Mario hate either.  He was badly misused when Rex came to town but before that he was a very good player.  Elite pass rushers change the entire defense.

 

If we can get him without giving up a first, great...but I don't see that happening...plus, he's going to cost a bundle. The FO seems to be doing a good job with the draft and grabbing the right people off of free agency.

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

No, not the point I was making. The main currency being used to acquire Mack is draft picks and those picks' value has changed to most NFL FO's. It'd be like if the US switched from Gold to Diamonds. Everything with a price would start to be re-evaluated.

I fully understand the concept you raise. I just don't buy that GMs necessarily value future draft picks so much more than proven All Pros in their athletic prime. Besides, it's a dynamic equation. Mack will have more value to some vs. others relative to their current team situations. 

 

Given the amount of teams involved in the bidding, I'll be surprised if he doesn't fetch two firsts at minimum. We are talking GMs who see Mack as their final piece on D perhaps; the guy that can change it all overnight; the immediate cost benefit vs. future value. I just don't think these new formulas are as cut and dried when it comes to acquiring an elite player at a critical position in a league where pressuring the QB is at a premium.