I understand why you would want to move him and load up on picks, I just didn't think you would accept mid first round value for him. Guess I should have inquired.
I do think it was a fair trade for both teams. The Raiders get some more pieces in the form of high draft picks to fill holes... the Packers get a young impact player to add to their defense. It's kind of indicative of where both teams see themselves I suppose. This was not an easy decision for me as it leaves me with just one pick, 2.35 (I think I have a 7th rounder floating around here somewhere) and hopefully I'll get some comp picks back from the FA losses.
See, i dont like that trade. Not because i dont think it's fair, but because I think Mack is a centerpiece for one's defense to be built around. Those 3 #1's might look nice, but you have no idea on the commodities you'll be getting. Very ballsy, though, i commend both of you.
just a reminder not to discuss trades until they are official... that goes for the GM involved in the trade too
i'll explain things to you ding dongs. vikings a deal would've been tough. 11 is nice but i dont see much else that i would've wanted back especially without having another first or even a second so dont see a trade there. i could keep mack on a bad defense again or turn him into a few starters. since this is a 1 year league, im not planning on "building" around anyone unless it is a qb. this will make my team better this year.
Max Unger still available. Really the last significant piece I'd like to move before the draft. Mostly looking for picks. Maybe a MLB.
You didn't turn him into a few starters though. At best you netted one additional starter if you wash the 2nd rounders, and match Mack up with 1.30. I'm not sure if trading down essentially a round and giving up a bonafide player for a pick in the back of RD 1 in a draft that isn't special works. You could trade down from 21 but you're likely not picking up potential starters.
Yea but you didn't net 2 first rounders. You netted approx the #13 pick (21+62) since 30 and 35 are essentially a wash.
The logic being used by some of you is not only mind numbing but baffling. You're completely devaluing draft picks based on it being a one year league without factoring in the salary cap consequences of having no picks or a limited amount. You're also completely short changing yourselves a chance to better your team through another avenue. Raiders did fine and packers got a good player. Nothing wrong with that at all. I tried to get Mack a few times early in the game. He didn't respond to me either. You put all your eggs in one basket IMO
The Jets are looking to move Guard Dakota Dozier for a day 3 pick. Was a 4th rounder last year and could be a reliable backup or inexpensive start pm me some offers.
Need an affordable starting DT who is experienced in 4-3 and 3-4 fronts? One that is in prime of his career (28), has 10.5 sacks the last two years, positive PFF grade each of the past two seasons in different schemes? DM me if interested in Clinton McDonald. Not the sexiest name, but one that brings value to those who appreciate metrics and guys who produce. Could be had for relatively cheap .
That'd be fine if it were picks, plural, but it was one extra pick, and involved trading down like 30 spots in round 2 from a spot where a starter is more easily found compared to the end of the 2nd.
No theres 2 extra picks there buddy. Youre assuming the replacement for mack isnt already on his roster. Plus it may only be a 1 year league, but his team is clearly more built for the future then current. This allows him to go best player available with 3 1's and a 2.
Packers receive: Khalil Mack OLB $4,244,773 $15,281,184 2(35) Raiders receive: 1(21) 1(30) 2(62) Hmm, nope, a net of 1 player. And it's a correct assumption. So let's trade a 1st year stud? Mack isn't some 30 year old dude on his way out. I didn't see 3 1s and a 2 listed, I see 2 mid to late 1sts being the net at the cost of trading down to the end of Rd 2 from the start of Rd 2. He gained a net of a 1st. That's not going to be as much of a factor in turning things around as Mack would.
He has a 1 already + 2 more =???? Ok then. Doesnt matter if theyre late 1'1s. Thats 3 top 32 picks. You assume mack would be more impactful when in fact you have no way of knowing. He looks to be going 4-3. A 43 OLB is just not that impactful. Sorry.
Sure, but I mean with players of that talent you're going to adjust the scheme to fit them and maximize their talent.
Key point being he already had them irrespective of the Mack trade. Mack + 1st + early 2 > 3 1sts + late 2. Mack is worth at least a top 5 pick, so that'd be 3 top 35 picks along with one of them already proving worth. Based on the fact that Mack was a top 5 pick and had a great year, I think we can make a pretty good bet on him being more impactful. I at least have some semblance of data on my side. So Mack didn't make an impact last year? Interesting statement. He did fine working as a down lineman in spot duty last year too.