1) I always thought it was a dubious argument to suggest that an NFL team wouldn't/couldn't sign clearly talented players to big money deals due to them being "cash poor." I mean...it's an NFL team, right? But I suspect that this is the very reason why the Raiders ultimately traded Mack.
Oakland essentially offered Mack a "take it or leave it" extension back in February that was likely well below market value. He clearly left it and the Raiders knew they wouldn't be able to sign him. No need for further discussion.
2) There was a lot of talk on this board about playing hardball with a player under contract that could be subject to the franchise tag. Well, as other posters suggested, that's easier said than done. In reading McKenzie's comments, I believe the organization felt that there'd be a negative impact to the locker room by having an ongoing contract dispute with the team's best player. A player, who by all accounts, is the type of player any organization would want to have associated with them.
Knowing they couldn't sign Mack to a fair deal (and fearing a backlash in the locker room), the Raiders did him a solid by trading him.
3) So, right now, the Raiders will have at least 3 #1 picks over the next two drafts. Great. But what are their expectations with respect to these picks? I mean...do they hope that they select good
but not great players? And what happens if they luck up and actually select one or two great players with those pics? If Carr is who they think he is, they'll likely only have them for four seasons before trading them away because they can't afford them? Or maybe a new CBA or stadium is supposed to address that?
