Okay the fact is Last years 5 and 35 overall would cost more than 2 late firsts and a late 2. Also Mack would actually be worth more than the perceived value of the 5th overall because he is already one of the best LB in the league. Lets go a step further. #5 is worth 1,700 and #35 is 550 is 2,250 on the trade value chart (not even counting how good Mack actually is) For #20 worth 850, #30 worth 620 and #62 worth 284 at total of 1704. So again it is very lopsided trade but whatevs one year league.
Mack was basically traded for a middle first round pick and a late second round pick... I know what side I'll take.
i thought this would've died off by now but i guess everyone has an opinion. could I have gotten a better deal? well i guess i could've now that everyone is coming out of nowhere saying they would've offered so much more when no one ever came to me with anything serious in a month and a half with him being out there. in a world where i cant get future firsts (1sts), the draft value chart was never going to look great. i need more good players because i've been blessed with the raiders and their lack of tradable(that word looks wrong) assets to build with so in this leagues system i would flip mack every time. yeah, i probably lost the trade but i still think it will make my team better so i have no problem doing it. plus i have some other plans involving 4. my defense will be fine Spoiler
That's your opinion. I disagree that Mack, a 1st and an early 2 > 3 1s and a late two. Let's say he goes Wr DL (with a true 43 pass rusher which no matter how hard you try and fit Mack there he's really not that IMO) and Best player available....maybe RB...what is going to help him win more football games? That's what this comes down to and I think you're wrong. Long term and short term he's setting the raiders up for more success. Mack was a top 5 pick but that doesn't means he's one of the five most impactful players. I like Khalil Mack a lot. He has a lot of value. I think he received a fair value for him. I also think he had more value to a 34 team and the scheme fit he appears to have devalued him a big for Oakland. Sure he could have kept him. But 43 LB is just not where it's at for a rebuilding team. That's the final piece or two rather then a building block. Again it's all opinion. Mine isn't perfect and yours isn't either
The trade probably would have been fine if you got a seasoned vet to go with it or at least not give up 35. On the bright side you could make a push for a tagged free agent with those 2 firsts.
Whose looking to make some tradezzzz I have about 6M in cap and less after you factor in picks but if you got some ideas bring em to the table....only the colts and jets seem to be really trying at this point even though we haven't really found common ground. I have depth at certain position I know a few people are looking for.
I really don't think it's that lopsided. Both teams benefit. This is my PM to Skull at the start of the negotiations: I was half expecting him to come back with an offer of 1.21, one of Matthews/Daniels/Datone Jones, and 2.62. But he wanted both firsts, that was his offer along with 2.62/2.35 being swapped. Now, again, I was reluctant to give both firsts as that takes me completely out of the first round. Now if you look at the teams that have multiple first round picks, I doubt any of them would have been willing to move both picks...St. Louis at 10 and 19, doubtful and Mack isn't "needed" given their talent in the front seven. Indy at 14 and 29? Something tells me Todd wouldn't have done it. Arizona has 24 and 32. Maybe? IMO, he got the best draft pick only compensation he could get. I also think the draft value chart is not the end all be all here in the GML.
The Draft Value Chart was designed prior to the renegotiation of the rookie wage scale, which meant that it was a helluva lot more expensive when you missed early as opposed to late, and because you were investing that much up front you'd better hit on your pick. Under the terms of the new CBA the value chart really needs to be adjusted, as missing at the top of round 1 is not nearly as costly as it once was - teams can miss on picks (even QB), and recover without much of a problem.
IMO it's not meant to be the end all be all but rather as a barometer to measure whether a trade is fair or not in adequate compensation. By assigning a numerical value to each pick number you create a simple reference point for those that need it. For purposes of this game it's not a bad tool and like I said, a good reference point
I don't disagree - just pointing out that when it was designed the rookies in the top 5 were making bank, and now that's not the case. I would wager that most teams have moved onto their own version of the chart that isn't as heavily weighted towards the top.
Both teams may have got what they wanted but clearly to the majority of the league it is lopsided. Here is the problem. Teams feel like they have to move a certain guy and what we have here is a classic case of settling on a value because he had to get rid of him which I'm baffled because I don't think getting rid of elite level talent for a chance at 2 starters is really going to improve going forward but that's just me. Honestly I feel like Skull could have got that deal without giving up the 2.35, the deal would have looked reasonable.
I'm just amazed that this is the one trade people are feigning outrage over after some of the non-lube using, used car salesman (not a dig at Todd nor a reference to any of his deals), tactics and deals that were made early on. I could point out at least a dozen worse then this but don't wish to call anyone out. And some of the people doing the criticizing got worked over as badly or worse as they think skull did sooooo yeah there's that....
I don't doubt that. My comment wasn't a dig at you necessarily. Just flatly stating there have been much worse.
Just caught up with this thread. Couple quick statements. -I wouldn't have made that trade and I moved Watt (There's a quote for yah! ;p) -Trade value chart is pretty much from 1988 before players even got expensive. Hence lack of comp pick allowance either. -Yah I honestly didn't notice Mack was up for that kinda value either...guess you get locked into your own opinion of a player and talk yourself out of even making an offer. -This just reminds me I haven't been offered a solid trade in forever....if I hear the words "What do you want for so and so"...grrr. Make an offer, don't make me set parameters for a player I hadn't even considered moving..you want em..your job to chase em.
If I were Skull I would've violated the profanity filter numerous times telling folks to stfu, some wouldn't have done it and that's fine. But, for all we know we could be looking back next year saying he gave up XX and got back XXX and those Xs be Odel Beckham, Jarvis Landry and Joel Bitino. While Mack decided to retire week 8. And this is coming from a guy who thinks draft picks are very overrated in this league.
Clay Matthews plays in a 3-4 defensive scheme which by definition uses three down lineman and four linebackers.
It was his audition for pitch perfect two and they were only taking players from 3-4 systems because that's how many positions are in an acapella group?
Based on what I guess is popular demand, I may be willing to part with SS James Ihedigbo for the right price. Looking for ILB and NCB, and good picks.