Good gravy the way some of y'all are carrying on you'd think the team was siphoning money from your kids' college funds to pay these deals.

If it makes the team better, so flippin what if we were generous to sign the guys that got the ball rolling. So long as we aren't cutting guys like TLaw to keep guys like Taven Bryan or J. Taylor, what does it harm you, at the end of the day? Did I miss where the board is going to award a trophy to the most miserable poster?

I'm generally bullish on the class, I just hate what they did @ receiver.  

And the money is CAP SPACE for MY TEAM!  

aa of now we might have to cut down players to sign the draft class.  That's with our starting LT and best pas rusher on short term deals!  Football is a capped sport and it hoes FAST!

so far we've cut a miscast LB and potentially an older C with history of injury. I fail to see how they were going to improve or potentially improve the team by staying in lieu of the other players.

I'd rather we throw the money we did at players like we did this year than at guys like Jenkins, Roy Rob, or those middling guys.

---

I'm guessing Kirk wont take on spot duty returning punts?

---

Good gravy the way some of y'all are carrying on you'd think the team was siphoning money from your kids' college funds to pay these deals.

If it makes the team better, so flippin what if we were generous to sign the guys that got the ball rolling. So long as we aren't cutting guys like TLaw to keep guys like Taven Bryan or J. Taylor, what does it harm you, at the end of the day? Did I miss where the board is going to award a trophy to the most miserable poster?

If there was no salary cap, I would agree with you.  However, there is a salary cap.  It means each team has a limited amount of dollars to spend on players.  The goal is to maximize the benefit of those dollars.  It's an opportunity cost.  If you waste money by over-paying a player, that is money that you can't spend on a better player or a combination of players that might help you win more games.  Down the road, you may be unable to retain a player that you want to retain.  You may have to cut a player that you don't want to cut.  Maximizing those dollars means maximizing your chances of winning.  If you are a fan of the team, you should care deeply whether the team is spending its money wisely or foolishly.

---

Good gravy the way some of y'all are carrying on you'd think the team was siphoning money from your kids' college funds to pay these deals.

If it makes the team better, so flippin what if we were generous to sign the guys that got the ball rolling. So long as we aren't cutting guys like TLaw to keep guys like Taven Bryan or J. Taylor, what does it harm you, at the end of the day? Did I miss where the board is going to award a trophy to the most miserable poster?

If there was no salary cap, I would agree with you.  However, there is a salary cap.  It means each team has a limited amount of dollars to spend on players.  The goal is to maximize the benefit of those dollars.  It's an opportunity cost.  If you waste money by over-paying a player, that is money that you can't spend on a better player or a combination of players that might help you win more games.  Down the road, you may be unable to retain a player that you want to retain.  You may have to cut a player that you don't want to cut.  Maximizing those dollars means maximizing your chances of winning.  If you are a fan of the team, you should care deeply whether the team is spending its money wisely or foolishly.

I am fine with the Christian Kirk contract.  In a vacuum, yes, maybe we overpaid, and maybe we shouldn't do that.  But in the current circumstances, it was a good move.  When you have a young potential franchise QB, you absolutely must put a team around him or else you will stunt his development, perhaps permanently.  We don't have the time to draft and develop WRs.    

Sure, we might need that money down the road, but we probably won't have another shot at a player like Trevor, so it is very urgent that we build this team now.

And I'd also make this point: Today's "record size" deal is tomorrow's average deal.  Guys get signed for huge amounts of money every year, and within a few years, they're no longer the highest paid; they become the 5th highest, and then the 10th highest, and so on.

I'm normally a save-save-save kind of person in my personal life, but I look around me at people I know, who spend money like drunken sailors, and they look like they're having a really great time.  Don't be the richest man in the cemetery!  We can go year after year building our cap space, but the objective isn't to build cap space, it's to build a team!  Let's get this team going!  And if we have to blow a bunch of cap space to get this thing jump-started, I'm all in.

---

Good gravy the way some of y'all are carrying on you'd think the team was siphoning money from your kids' college funds to pay these deals.

If it makes the team better, so flippin what if we were generous to sign the guys that got the ball rolling. So long as we aren't cutting guys like TLaw to keep guys like Taven Bryan or J. Taylor, what does it harm you, at the end of the day? Did I miss where the board is going to award a trophy to the most miserable poster?

If there was no salary cap, I would agree with you.  However, there is a salary cap.  It means each team has a limited amount of dollars to spend on players.  The goal is to maximize the benefit of those dollars.  It's an opportunity cost.  If you waste money by over-paying a player, that is money that you can't spend on a better player or a combination of players that might help you win more games.  Down the road, you may be unable to retain a player that you want to retain.  You may have to cut a player that you don't want to cut.  Maximizing those dollars means maximizing your chances of winning.  If you are a fan of the team, you should care deeply whether the team is spending its money wisely or foolishly.

You fully realize after two years Kirk costs $10M to ship off, right?
In the meantime, we need to put guys on the field that are going to show us whether or not TLaw is worth breaking the bank over.
We spend money each and every year. When was the last time we had to start purging good players in the name of the cap?

Who on our roster, besides TLaw and maybe Allen, do you honestly think are going to strap our cap in the next season or two?

I would much rather they spend and attempt to improve than hoard their cap and we continue to be a JV cupcake for the rest of the league to beat up on. Panicking gains me nothing. I will wait till preseason, watch the games, hopefully enjoy them, and then worry about whether or not we doomed.

---

If there was no salary cap, I would agree with you.  However, there is a salary cap.  It means each team has a limited amount of dollars to spend on players.  The goal is to maximize the benefit of those dollars.  It's an opportunity cost.  If you waste money by over-paying a player, that is money that you can't spend on a better player or a combination of players that might help you win more games.  Down the road, you may be unable to retain a player that you want to retain.  You may have to cut a player that you don't want to cut.  Maximizing those dollars means maximizing your chances of winning.  If you are a fan of the team, you should care deeply whether the team is spending its money wisely or foolishly.

You fully realize after two years Kirk costs $10M to ship off, right?
In the meantime, we need to put guys on the field that are going to show us whether or not TLaw is worth breaking the bank over.
We spend money each and every year. When was the last time we had to start purging good players in the name of the cap?

Who on our roster, besides TLaw and maybe Allen, do you honestly think are going to strap our cap in the next season or two?

I would much rather they spend and attempt to improve than hoard their cap and we continue to be a JV cupcake for the rest of the league to beat up on. Panicking gains me nothing. I will wait till preseason, watch the games, hopefully enjoy them, and then worry about whether or not we doomed.

I actually made no comment on whether I agreed or disagreed with Kirk's contract.  I disagreed with the attitude that it doesn't matter if the team wastes money and that fans shouldn't care about dollars because it isn't their money and won't prevent their kids from going to college.  Wasteful contracts can absolutely hurt a team's success.  As such, it's very appropriate for fans to be concerned if they think a contract is wasteful.

---

This team had to spend some money. The problem is that some people here dont like it if its not their guy that they wanted to be signed. I'm simply glad this team is trying and not just settling. We wont know until we see the final product on the field but at least there is a lot of excitement and anticipation. The draft is next with a lot of good picks.

---

This team had to spend some money. The problem is that some people here dont like it if its not their guy that they wanted to be signed. I'm simply glad this team is trying and not just settling. We wont know until we see the final product on the field but at least there is a lot of excitement and anticipation. The draft is next with a lot of good picks.

I agree with all that.  

But in regards to the bolded sentence above, if everyone had a reasonable amount of self-awareness, we wouldn't have a message board.  All the dumb takes and egotism are what drives this offseason entertainment.

---

So the Raiders gave up 2 picks including a first rounder, plus a contract that averages $28 million a year, for Davante Adams.

That makes the Christian Kirk deal look pretty cheap by comparison.

---

Yeah. Today's $17M is tomorrow's $28M. Not to mention, it's not our money. So, who gives a [BLEEP] really?

I still think Baalke should have nailed that Amari Cooper trade though. Not sure how or why it all fell through but this team had the draft value in their favor in comparison to what Cleveland had to offer. His contract hit wouldn't have been that bad as well when you consider he would be your X at the position. Nothing wrong with having Cooper and Kirk locked up on those types of deals.

You're trying to help Lawrence out as quickly as possible before his cap hit commands too much money per year and then you can't really afford to have him and a guy like Adams on your team, etc.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

You fully realize after two years Kirk costs $10M to ship off, right?
In the meantime, we need to put guys on the field that are going to show us whether or not TLaw is worth breaking the bank over.
We spend money each and every year. When was the last time we had to start purging good players in the name of the cap?

Who on our roster, besides TLaw and maybe Allen, do you honestly think are going to strap our cap in the next season or two?

I would much rather they spend and attempt to improve than hoard their cap and we continue to be a JV cupcake for the rest of the league to beat up on. Panicking gains me nothing. I will wait till preseason, watch the games, hopefully enjoy them, and then worry about whether or not we doomed.

I actually made no comment on whether I agreed or disagreed with Kirk's contract.  I disagreed with the attitude that it doesn't matter if the team wastes money and that fans shouldn't care about dollars because it isn't their money and won't prevent their kids from going to college.  Wasteful contracts can absolutely hurt a team's success.  As such, it's very appropriate for fans to be concerned if they think a contract is wasteful.

I guess if putting clown masks on or bellyaching on a meaningless board make you feel better about things, keep on keepin on. I understand the cap fully well, and how it plays into the decisions we make. Outside of Scherff, everyone we brought in are young, developing players that have potential to exceed past performance. Had they been throwing this money at elder statesmen of the league, I'd be equally upset.

Nothing we can do about the contracts that get negotiated but hope we don't end up fleeced.

---

So the Raiders gave up 2 picks including a first rounder, plus a contract that averages $28 million a year, for Davante Adams. 

That makes the Christian Kirk deal look pretty cheap by comparison.

Well duh........ That makes sense since Christian Kirk isn't even 1/4 the receiver Davante Adams is. Of course his contract would be a bigger bargain. Let's just compare the contracts of Aaron Rodgers to Kirk Cousins while we're at it. Rodgers now averages $50 million per year and Cousins averages $35 million. Same difference in skill level and another big difference in contracts.

---

So the Raiders gave up 2 picks including a first rounder, plus a contract that averages $28 million a year, for Davante Adams. 

That makes the Christian Kirk deal look pretty cheap by comparison.

Well duh........ That makes sense since Christian Kirk isn't even 1/4 the receiver Davante Adams is. Of course his contract would be a bigger bargain. Let's just compare the contracts of Aaron Rodgers to Kirk Cousins while we're at it. Rodgers now averages $50 million per year and Cousins averages $35 million. Same difference in skill level and another big difference in contracts.

Aside from pointing out the obvious hyperbole when you say "Christian Kirk isn't even 1/4 the receiver Davante Adams is," let's compare.  

You can have 

a) Davante Adams ($28 million per year)

or

b) Christian Kirk ($18 million per)
Darious Williams ($10 million per)
a first round pick around #22, maybe Jameson Williams and
a second round pick- pick the one you like.  

I'll take b.

---

Kirk is a broken piece of turd compared to Adams.

It's not even a comparison.

One is legit elite.

The other is the third option.

---

Well duh........ That makes sense since Christian Kirk isn't even 1/4 the receiver Davante Adams is. Of course his contract would be a bigger bargain. Let's just compare the contracts of Aaron Rodgers to Kirk Cousins while we're at it. Rodgers now averages $50 million per year and Cousins averages $35 million. Same difference in skill level and another big difference in contracts.

Aside from pointing out the obvious hyperbole when you say "Christian Kirk isn't even 1/4 the receiver Davante Adams is," let's compare.  

You can have 

a) Davante Adams ($28 million per year)

or

b) Christian Kirk ($18 million per)
Darious Williams ($10 million per)
a first round pick around #22, maybe Jameson Williams and
a second round pick- pick the one you like.  

I'll take b.

Where would we get pick #22?

If we would've traded for Adams, it would've been for the #1 overall pick and possibly a 4th. We're not getting Jameson Williams. That guy is not lasting to pick #33. I watched a video on his re-hab. He is already pushing a weighted sled. He's way ahead of schedule from his injury. I would've definitely given up the #1 overall pick and a later pick for Adams over Kirk and Williams. In a heartbeat.

---

Aside from pointing out the obvious hyperbole when you say "Christian Kirk isn't even 1/4 the receiver Davante Adams is," let's compare.  

You can have 

a) Davante Adams ($28 million per year)

or

b) Christian Kirk ($18 million per)
Darious Williams ($10 million per)
a first round pick around #22, maybe Jameson Williams and
a second round pick- pick the one you like.  

I'll take b.

Where would we get pick #22?

If we would've traded for Adams, it would've been for the #1 overall pick and possibly a 4th. We're not getting Jameson Williams. That guy is not lasting to pick #33. I watched a video on his re-hab. He is already pushing a weighted sled. He's way ahead of schedule from his injury. I would've definitely given up the #1 overall pick and a later pick for Adams over Kirk and Williams. In a heartbeat.

I'm talking about what Oakland traded for him.  

But let's take your hypothetical.   You would give up the #1 overall pick plus $28 million per year.  For a WR.  

That's insane.

---

Where would we get pick #22?

If we would've traded for Adams, it would've been for the #1 overall pick and possibly a 4th. We're not getting Jameson Williams. That guy is not lasting to pick #33. I watched a video on his re-hab. He is already pushing a weighted sled. He's way ahead of schedule from his injury. I would've definitely given up the #1 overall pick and a later pick for Adams over Kirk and Williams. In a heartbeat.

I'm talking about what Oakland traded for him.  

But let's take your hypothetical.   You would give up the #1 overall pick plus $28 million per year.  For a WR.  
 after 
That's insane.

Yes, I would. It's not just for a WR. It's for the best WR in the NFL. After spending a #1 overall pick on the franchise QB we've been coveting for 25 years and having no viable WR's for him to throw to, it would be a wise investment. We certainly have no main target for him to throw to now and with the Packers trading away Adams, that's one more guaranteed premier WR off the board in round 1. I don't see a #1 WR falling to the #33 pick. That would mean another season of Lawrence throwing to a subpar WR group.

---

Where would we get pick #22?

If we would've traded for Adams, it would've been for the #1 overall pick and possibly a 4th. We're not getting Jameson Williams. That guy is not lasting to pick #33. I watched a video on his re-hab. He is already pushing a weighted sled. He's way ahead of schedule from his injury. I would've definitely given up the #1 overall pick and a later pick for Adams over Kirk and Williams. In a heartbeat.

I'm talking about what Oakland traded for him.  

But let's take your hypothetical.   You would give up the #1 overall pick plus $28 million per year.  For a WR.  

That's insane.

don't forget the ginormous cap hit you'll be paying by the time he's 33, too.

---

I'm talking about what Oakland traded for him.  

But let's take your hypothetical.   You would give up the #1 overall pick plus $28 million per year.  For a WR.  
 after 
That's insane.

Yes, I would. It's not just for a WR. It's for the best WR in the NFL. After spending a #1 overall pick on the franchise QB we've been coveting for 25 years and having no viable WR's for him to throw to, it would be a wise investment. We certainly have no main target for him to throw to now and with the Packers trading away Adams, that's one more guaranteed premier WR off the board in round 1. I don't see a #1 WR falling to the #33 pick. That would mean another season of Lawrence throwing to a subpar WR group.

because there's no way we can trade up, right? If you think any of these guys can be that dang good, why hoard picks, get on the phone, make some deals and get the guy you covet.

Perfectly happy with us shopping next year's first and other picks to jump back into day 1.

---

I'm talking about what Oakland traded for him.  

But let's take your hypothetical.   You would give up the #1 overall pick plus $28 million per year.  For a WR.  

That's insane.

don't forget the ginormous cap hit you'll be paying by the time he's 33, too.

---

Yes, I would. It's not just for a WR. It's for the best WR in the NFL. After spending a #1 overall pick on the franchise QB we've been coveting for 25 years and having no viable WR's for him to throw to, it would be a wise investment. We certainly have no main target for him to throw to now and with the Packers trading away Adams, that's one more guaranteed premier WR off the board in round 1. I don't see a #1 WR falling to the #33 pick. That would mean another season of Lawrence throwing to a subpar WR group.

because there's no way we can trade up, right? If you think any of these guys can be that dang good, why hoard picks, get on the phone, make some deals and get the guy you covet.

Perfectly happy with us shopping next year's first and other picks to jump back into day 1.

There is no way I'm parting with next year's first rounder for anything. I'm probably gonna have to use that pick on a long term answer at LT. I'll trade this year's 2nd and 3rd to move up into round 1, but next year's first rounder is untouchable.

---

I'm talking about what Oakland traded for him.  

But let's take your hypothetical.   You would give up the #1 overall pick plus $28 million per year.  For a WR.  
 after 
That's insane.

Yes, I would. It's not just for a WR. It's for the best WR in the NFL. After spending a #1 overall pick on the franchise QB we've been coveting for 25 years and having no viable WR's for him to throw to, it would be a wise investment. We certainly have no main target for him to throw to now and with the Packers trading away Adams, that's one more guaranteed premier WR off the board in round 1. I don't see a #1 WR falling to the #33 pick. That would mean another season of Lawrence throwing to a subpar WR group.

It is insane. He’s legit good, but now we will see if he was seriously inflated by Rodgers.

---

"I am only an average man, but by George, I work harder at it than the average man." - Teddy Roosevelt