There’s a lot of noise that Poles is making calls. It does appear we’re going to do something before the deadline. Most of the rumors are centered on Mack returning. There is also a fair amount of smoke around DeForest Buckner.

I would take either of those guys. Buckner has 4.0 sacks, Mack has 3.0 (in one fewer game). Mack also just had a bye, so he will have some fresher legs, especially with another bye for the Bears coming up.

Cap hit is going to be the biggest factor. From my own math, Mack would cost $4.89M to the acquiring team. Buckner would cost $7.94M. So both could be had under the Bears current cap. Since they would be taking a spot within the top 51 salaries, they would bump Loving off, reducing the new cap hit to the salary cap by 891K.

The Bears have approximately $9.2M available, so Mack would cost about $4M to that number, leaving just over $5M on the cap. Buckner would cost $7.1M, leaving just over $2M on the cap. I don't know what performance bonuses are out there, and those have to be taken into consideration. So my assumption is Mack is way more realistic than Buckner unless the Bears are able to move a player on their top 51 who has cap savings if traded post-June-1.

A Jaylon trade would be amazing. Save $15.5M on the cap, get Buckner and Mack AND save $4M in cap space.

Braxton is the most logical trade IMO. We don’t need 3 LTs. The IR issue doesn’t help. I think he’s only earning 5m so perhaps frees up 2m.

4 hours ago, AZ54 said:

Braxton is the most logical trade IMO. We don’t need 3 LTs. The IR issue doesn’t help. I think he’s only earning 5m so perhaps frees up 2m.

Yeah with him on IR and in the last year of his contract, there would be little benefit to an acquiring team.

I think Buckner makes the best sense. I don't see Mack providing much more pressure than what we have. Buckner yes, and he's very tall in the middle, causing sight issues and potential batted balls.

Next year, we should draft extremely heavy on D. Getting rid of Sweat, Dayo, Grady and Jaylon will open 65 million in cap space.(Not sure how the dead money would work and really don't care)

I'd mentioned trading Rome earlier last week, but with Cole going down it changes my thoughts...

Whatever they do, they need to come out of it with at least 1 DL and 1 CB, and it better not just be a Joe Tryon-Shoyinka type of move.

Mack is fine, but he needs to be a complimentary piece to a larger acquisition, in my opinion. They should aim as high as possible for someone like Crosby or Jeffery Simmons, and then work your way down the tier ladder. Mack is a rotational piece, not an every down DE/LB anymore. I'd still be excited for nostalgia reasons, but he's going to be more of a tier 3 pass rusher, not a major needle mover.

If Simmons and Crosby aren't getting traded, Chase Young and the other guy from the Chargers, Tuipulotu, would be the next highest upside moves at pass rusher because of their youth and productivity. However, there's a decent chance they also may not be available for that same reason, even though their teams are terrible. Those would be the tier 2 guys.

The most realistic options are your Khalil Macks, your Deforest Buckners, and your Riq Woolen's. I'm leaving out a few guys, but like I said, aim as high as possible, but give me at least two players, and I'll be satisfied.

IDK

Booker, as a rotating player, has 4 sacks and 2 forced fumbles.

Before going on IR, Dayo already had 3 sacks.

Sweat had 2 sacks before missing the last 2 weeks.

Unless the player we target for a trade is far more productive than what we already have, do we want to give up draft capital we can use to retool our defense? Pay big bucks, limiting our FA acquisitions?

IMHO, he needs to be a huge difference-maker, not a complementary piece, to justify the move.

2 hours ago, Pixote said:

IDK

Booker, as a rotating player, has 4 sacks and 2 forced fumbles.

Before going on IR, Dayo already had 3 sacks.

Sweat had 2 sacks before missing the last 2 weeks.

Unless the player we target for a trade is far more productive than what we already have, do we want to give up draft capital we can use to retool our defense? Pay big bucks, limiting our FA acquisitions?

IMHO, he needs to be a huge difference-maker, not a complementary piece, to justify the move.

I am in your camp. Mack doesn’t do much to me - he’s a solid player and makes bears better but it is a marginal improvement and short term. Not doing much there unless we trade a 5th and get Mack and a 6th or something like that.

Now if they want to go all in for Simmons…fine…that is a big time impact player so I get that.

17 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

I think Buckner makes the best sense. I don't see Mack providing much more pressure than what we have. Buckner yes, and he's very tall in the middle, causing sight issues and potential batted balls.

Next year, we should draft extremely heavy on D. Getting rid of Sweat, Dayo, Grady and Jaylon will open 65 million in cap space.(Not sure how the dead money would work and really don't care)

I'd mentioned trading Rome earlier last week, but with Cole going down it changes my thoughts...

Dayo's cap number probably keeps him around another year, but the other 3 would free up over $50M with about $17M in dead cap. At that point, they are worth more off the team than on it.

Johnson $9M Dead / $16M Savings
Sweat $4M Dead / $21M Savings
Jarrett $4M Dead / $13.5M Savings

14 hours ago, Pixote said:

Booker, as a rotating player, has 4 sacks and 2 forced fumbles.

Before going on IR, Dayo already had 3 sacks.

Sweat had 2 sacks before missing the last 2 weeks.

Mack has been playing as a rotational piece and gotten 4(?) sacks so far. I have to wonder if he’s put into the Bears defense would he not help a player like Sweat get less attention? I suppose the same could be applied towards Buckner and Simmons but I’m partial to Mack. 🤷‍♂️