Article Rumor: Bears Listening to Trade Offers For Khalil Mack (1 Viewer)

DerrickB

Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Approved Blogger
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
1,757
Offline
Sticky Post
I have heard this through multiple outlets. We cannot afford him unfortunately.

 

Swimmer

Medsamust Saint Fan
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
16,405
Reaction score
23,746
Age
66
Location
Slaughterhouse Five
Offline
But that's not what I was responding to. The poster I quoted in my response suggesting trading Trubisky, not Mack.
FL - I think the #1 for Turbisky was a joke. If not, it needs to be

If Turbisky is worth the #1, I'm worth a 4th - lol
 

No2DC

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
3,363
Offline
Maybe some of the long term posters can correcyt me if I'm wrong but it seems like this offseason is the most uncertain for a number reasons. All logic is going out the window this year but I would love to have Mack on our D.
 

LUX

Ride til I die!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
1,435
Location
Louisiana
Online
Mack is 28. What's a better time to listen to trade offers? I believe it's 28.
At least he isn't 28-3. I guess it could be worse for him, but I guess he could be 28 and play for 3 different teams which would make him 28-3. Falcons could be a perfect fit for him! It's a sign I tell ya!

 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
31,201
Reaction score
51,427
Location
70005
Offline
FL - I think the #1 for Turbisky was a joke. If not, it needs to be

If Turbisky is worth the #1, I'm worth a 4th - lol
I absolutely took it as a joke. If it was in seriousness, dude should never opine on draft trades.
 

Soybomb

All-Pro
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
1,289
Online
Dude was the invisible man against the Black and Gold. I think da Bears have buyers remorse.

I think the Raiders are still using Bears draft picks from that trade.
Why give up on him so soon, especially coming off a meh year to where you won’t get max value?
 

Booker

All-Pro
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
2,721
Reaction score
4,358
Age
45
Location
Littleton, CO
Offline
This is interesting, as the Bears were listed as one of the teams talking with the Bengals. They could be looking to upgrade from Trubisky -- it would normally be a bit of a stunner to draft a QB at 1 just three years after taking one at 2, but I think most people have soured on Mitch -- but if they're really looking to move Mack then it would make some sense that they were targeting Chase Young. This is going to be an interesting offseason around the league.
 

jasonsw

Swimmer is my friend
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
1,549
Reaction score
3,953
Age
39
Location
Bastrop
Offline
Been telling ya'll... Franchise QB outweighs all other positions in the NFL... even an All-World DE is up for grabs if it gives you an opportunity to take a chance on what you believe is a Franchise QB... That's just were thee NFL is now.

You either have a Franchise QB.... or you are terrible / mediocre and are desperately looking for one.
The thing is the Bears haven't had a True Franchise Qb since Sid Luckman. Even if they do get the number 1 pick from the Bengals they will mess up somehow.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
31,201
Reaction score
51,427
Location
70005
Offline
The thing is the Bears haven't had a True Franchise Qb since Sid Luckman. Even if they do get the number 1 pick from the Bengals they will mess up somehow.
If they were to get the #1 pick, it'd have to be by giving Mack to the Bengals, presumably, (with a huge dead cap hit) so they'd likely draft Young to replace Mack and still be stuck with Trubisky.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
31,201
Reaction score
51,427
Location
70005
Offline
@Alan12 you gave me a fleur on my post about the June 1 designation. You know if that's this year that there is no June 1 designation?
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
31,201
Reaction score
51,427
Location
70005
Offline
I believe it's next year because the current CBA is through the 2020 NFL year, which ends early in 2021.
That makes sense. I could have sworn someone said it was this year but I most likely was mistaken. I feel like I remember them saying that there was no June 1 designation because this is the last year of the current CBA though. Oh well. I'm gonna hit the googles.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
6,686
Reaction score
13,991
Location
29° 57′ 3″ N, 90° 4′ 52″ W
Offline
I thought there was no June first designation this year? Or is that next year?
I believe it’s this year since it’s the last year of the current CBA.

Unless a new CBA is agreed upon by the deadline (which I’m not sure when it is, maybe the new league year?) then I think any cap charges from releases/trades have to be entirely taken on this coming season and not spread out across two seasons like a normal year.

If they allow teams to use the June 1st system like a normal season and then there’s a lockout in 2021, then those teams would only be on the hook of having half the dead money count against their cap.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
31,201
Reaction score
51,427
Location
70005
Offline
I believe it's next year because the current CBA is through the 2020 NFL year, which ends early in 2021.
Looks like it's this year:

The post-June 1 designation is a key tool for NFL teams in the offseason. In short: it enables teams to spread out the dead money cap hit that comes with releasing a player and divvies it up across two years, instead of one.

As Joel Corry of CBSSports.com notes, that option won’t be available for teams this offseason, because that provision is not included in this tenth and final year of the current collective bargaining agreement. So, unless the NFL and NFLPA quickly agree to a new CBA, teams won’t be able to kick the can down the road when they release veterans.
https://www.bing.com/aclick?ld=e3qp8G8TQn1DS_XlifWpPnVDVUCUxc8ivW5QglR--BAHE3kbBNpdHjV5fDQ0GhGA7Nl2z6e_OY8ukApfnkEju2Xq8pLZSaqSPHKzEg9JW5Be-PTmYngvJP4mv0pcoYJut3cA7onv6sRDeTXuJmMwQWIHCpyrGQ8D0cmWTukQlIffpQ8HLM&u=aHR0cHMlM2ElMmYlMmZ3d3cuZWx1a3Ryb25pY3MuY29tJTJmc29mdC1nYW1pbmctbW91c2UtcGFkJTJmJTNmbXNjbGtpZCUzZGI4YTA3NzlmODExMTEyZjYzZDU5MjlkYmYzODJiMjNiJTI2dXRtX3NvdXJjZSUzZGJpbmclMjZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtJTNkY3BjJTI2dXRtX2NhbXBhaWduJTNkKipMUCUyNTIwRFNBJTI2dXRtX3Rlcm0lM2Rtb3VzZSUyNTIwZ2FtaW5nJTI1MjBtb3VzZSUyNnV0bV9jb250ZW50JTNkQ2F0ZWdvcmllcw&rlid=b8a0779f811112f63d5929dbf382b23b
The lack of a post-June 1 cut will be felt by every team in the league and could impact the futures of many notable players. Corry points to Eagles wide receiver Alshon Jeffery as a prime example – under the post-June 1 rules, the $26.1M in dead money that would result from a Jeffery release could be split between the 2020 and 2021 cap. Without that luxury, the Eagles would have to eat all of that dead money this year. So, unless the Eagles are extraordinarily desperate to get rid of Jeffery, they’re unlikely to cut him.

At this time, it sounds like the two sides have a long way to go before they can hash out a new CBA. Currently, they’re discussing an expanded 17-game season that would still only include one bye week. That probably won’t sit well with many of the players, even if the owners agree to give a larger share of revenue.
Can't provide the link because the bing search popped up an article on top of the search results with just the search in the address bar.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom