On a probability scale for Green Bay Packers, the signing of a free agent Khalil Mack must be infinitely higher than trade for Myles Garrett – even if both movements make sense and have a precedent with the General Director of Franchise and Packers Brian Gutekunst.
The most critical reason is also the most obvious: Mack will be a free agent, while Garrett has a contract with Cleveland Browns. Performing a modern contract – even a gigantic player who is 34 years aged this month – is much easier than trading in many types of draft and/or players for one of the generational talents at the National Football League.
At this point, we don’t even know if the Brown will play Garrett’s request. Cleveland is in a tough salary, and Garrett’s trade would only complicate – he did not support – the problem. Players have more and more power in the NFL, but it is still tough to imagine Brownów who torpedo their franchise’s financial situation, exchanging one of the best grits from a pass in one generation.
The Mack’s agreement with Los Angeles Chargers expires at the beginning of the modern league year, and he will be an unlimited free agent who can sign a contract with any team without entry costs.
Speaking of costs, trading a team for Garrett will almost certainly have to negotiate a modern offer for a six-time All-Pro. It can be safely assumed that each contract would be on the market in the position of Edge Rusher and perhaps among all defensive players in history.
Signing Mack costs nothing more than a salary space. Trade on Garrett costs draft choices, newborn players and inexpensive contracts related to the selection of a draft AND Salary salary space.
Both players are still perfect-rushers, though to varying degrees. Garrett is in its class – he is contemporary Reggie White. Mack is now the level below, but it still produced 140 pressure in the last two seasons, on PFF. Garrett is perhaps one of the best 4-5 players in football, and Mack fits up to 50 safely.
Mack turns 34 this month. Garrett is not 30 years aged until December.
So what is the precedent here?
In 2018, Packers were sedate bidders in the Mack lottery, but he lost to Chicago Bears. It was the first year of Gutekunsta host of the program. He is not afraid of a huge swing if he decides a player worthy of a trading package. Garrett qualifies. And Gutekunst was an employee when Ted Thompson and Packers pulled the trigger to sign the signing of Julius Peppers, who went to the season at the age of 34, when Green Bay shocked everyone and signed it for a three -year contract in 2014. Signing the older player ISN isn “T Packers” preferences, but the team will do it for unique players. Mack qualifies.
If Packers are seriously approaching the addition of edge veteran this season, trade for Garrett or signing the signing of Mack will be justified discussions in the Lambeau field. Players changing players are not often available, especially in a premium position, such as Edge Rusher, and Packers at Gutekunst turned out to be over and over again that when the space of the hat is available-they put talent to the repair of holes on veterans. So this possibility cannot be rejected.
Despite this, signing Macka for a probably brief -term contract is even more likely than the trade of Garrett, which will cost an amazing combination of design capital, newborn talents and hats space. Packers want to compete for the championships and push urgency in pursuit of the goal, especially by entering the 3rd year of Jordan Love. Trade for Garrett would change a franchise at a level similar to signing White in 1993. But signing Mack is much less tough on many fronts and can be just as influential or more as signing peppers in 2014.
