Why trading Khalil Mack kind of makes sense for the Raiders

I’m not here to opine on whether I agree or disagree with the Khalil Mack trade from the Raiders’ perspective. Regardless of your stance, Jon Gruden flipping Mack for two first-round picks doesn’t completely lack any rationale. And I’ll play devil’s advocate for those that think it does.

(It’s important to note that we do not know the specific reasons the Raiders traded Mack. This is just one way of looking at the deal and what it means for Oakland).

The main reason being surplus value. Most of these top-of-market contracts are indeed going to outstanding players. But if they’re being compensated at just as outstanding a level, how much value is being provided? The core goal of any contract a team doles out is locking a player in at a dollar amount in which it’s realistic that the player outperforms his deal.

For recent contracts like the ones given to Odell Beckham Jr. and Aaron Donald, as amazingly talented as they are (and are they ever), most likely the best they can do is simply live up to, not exceed, the lofty expectations that their contracts dictate.

To provide an analogy with real estate, would you rather pay $1 million to live in a $1 million home, or would you rather pay $500,000 to live in an $800,000 home? Sure that million dollar home’s a little nicer, but in the real world of dollars and budgets and restrictions and salary caps, value should always remain a focal point of decision-making.

Smart teams let good players walk in free agency all the time because they realize that not having a good player can be better than paying a good player an amount where they don’t foresee reaping any surplus value. And that’s without getting anything in return (or, at most, a compensatory pick down the road). Here, at least the Raiders are getting two very premium picks — that, in the current climate of rookie wage scales, also happen to ooze with potential to provide copious amounts of surplus value.

So if the best-case scenario is more than likely breaking even, i.e. winning defensive player of the year when your mega deal necessarily means it’s essentially disappointing if you don’t, it’s hard to fault someone for not embracing those sorts of contracts with open arms. After all, I know your ass ain’t going to Vegas and sitting down at a table with the goal of just breaking even.