The Blackness » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:52 am
AM Edition:NoThanksSir » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:12 am
victvm » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:27 am
1: Good. Sarkisian is a hack and we don't play them so I only care about my fantasy team there. :)The Blackness wrote Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:52 am:AM Edition:
ATL: OC Steve Sarkisian on the hot seat.
MC Wrap Up: http://silverandblacktoday.com/2018/06/ ... -minicamp/
grosse gurke » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:56 am
Much appreciated!ShizoGenie » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:30 am
Franchising Mack would be financially the best way, but it could be also a big problem in the relationship between Mack and the Raiders that will influence his productivity for us and also sends a a bad message to the rest of the lockerroom.Jeevo » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:46 am
We wouldn't need to make that decision for a year if it comes to that. Of course he could just refuse to play but then we'd still get his 5th year and tag years after so I don't see that happening. I still think they get it done fairly soon.ShizoGenie wrote Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:30 am:Franchising Mack would be financially the best way, but it could be also a big problem in the relationship between Mack and the Raiders that will influence his productivity for us and also sends a a bad message to the rest of the lockerroom.
Not a easy decision.
kinz » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:53 am
Don't understand a couple of things about their take on Mack. Here is my understanding of the facts. Am I mistaken?danchase45 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:16 am
If that was all Mack wanted he would be signed right now. With tier 2 and unproven QB's getting $30 million a year now, Mack's agent is probably wanting $25 million per year. At some point you have to use your leverage and I think this is going to be another Bell situation in Pittsburgh. We control Mack for three years if he likes it or not. After the contracts Reggie gave to Carr and Jackson this is not going to end well IMO. Mack at $20 million per year I could stomach. $25 million per year is QB money and I would allow Mack to wait three years to get to free agency. We basically have Mack under contract for a three year $51 million dollar contract not guaranteed. I think a 6 year $120 million deal is fair.kinz wrote Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:53 am:So if we gave Mack a 6 year deal for 120 mil with about 60-65 mil guaranteed, it would start this year. .
kinz » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:26 am
We see things exactly the same. Offer Mack a fair deal. If he takes it, everyone wins. If not, we play things in an adversarial way. We still get him for 3 years. My price point would be $20 mil a year. It may look cheap down the road, but we also have to figure in that if Mack balls out, he may well hold out for more down the road despite the contract.danchase45 wrote Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:16 am:If that was all Mack wanted he would be signed right now. With tier 2 and unproven QB's getting $30 million a year now, Mack's agent is probably wanting $25 million per year. At some point you have to use your leverage and I think this is going to be another Bell situation in Pittsburgh. We control Mack for three years if he likes it or not. After the contracts Reggie gave to Carr and Jackson this is not going to end well IMO. Mack at $20 million per year I could stomach. $25 million per year is QB money and I would allow Mack to wait three years to get to free agency. We basically have Mack under contract for a three year $51 million dollar contract not guaranteed. I think a 6 year $120 million deal is fair.
Jeevo » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:36 am
Sounds good to me. Then Donald signs for $25 million and playing nice is off the table.kinz wrote Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:26 am:We see things exactly the same. Offer Mack a fair deal. If he takes it, everyone wins. If not, we play things in an adversarial way. We still get him for 3 years. My price point would be $20 mil a year. It may look cheap down the road, but we also have to figure in that if Mack balls out, he may well hold out for more down the road despite the contract.
Sitting out all of camp is a recipe to get hurt. If Mack blows out a knee playing under his rookie deal, I still think we franchise him. But if he doesn't have a great year under the franchise tag in those circumstances, I could see him being a $10 mil a year guy. At that point his 15 sack season will be 3 full years and a major injury in the past. Mack could well cost himself $50 mil or more if he plays it this way and has injury trouble, all to maybe go from 120 mil to 135 mil.
Both sides should play nice.
kinz » Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:08 am
Rams have Donald in his 5th year for about 7 mil, then the franchise value for DT (not DE) is about 14 this year. So giving Donald 25 per year would amount go giving him an extra 18 + 11 + 5 mil over the next 3 years. If the Rams play hardball, Donald might sit this year. So if we are waiting for Donald to go first, might never happen. I can't see the owners too eager to throw away this 5th year option for 1st round picks.Jeevo wrote Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:36 am:Sounds good to me. Then Donald signs for $25 million and playing nice is off the table.
Raiderjuice » Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:20 am
The teams need to make this right and pay these guys PREMIUM money, the franchise tag should have been trashed when they started using the rookie caps. The NFLPA needs to do they're job.HITMAN » Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:35 am
Certainly not an easy decision and I believe the organization wants to avoid the franchise tag, as most players don't want the tag. McKenzie has been upfront that Mack has and will be a priority and they will do what they can to make it a win/win situation, but it's also a two way street here. If Mack's agent wants to play hardball, which I'm guess will be the case this could be a long holdout, then add Donald to the mix it merely clouds the water.ShizoGenie wrote Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:30 am:Franchising Mack would be financially the best way, but it could be also a big problem in the relationship between Mack and the Raiders that will influence his productivity for us and also sends a a bad message to the rest of the lockerroom.
Not a easy decision.