Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount???

BakoSaint · 07-17-2024, 11:51 PM

I just saw these recent interview quotes from Carr regarding his pursuit by the Saints and Jets.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profoo...the-right-time

I found this portion interesting “The thing which was different in that situation was like Aaron is a nine billion-time MVP, right? But you still have to trade for him, whereas I’m free, and you can still keep those picks,” Carr said. “I was not asking for as much money as whatever they say your market is. I was like, ‘I don’t want to do that, because wherever I go, man, I just want to win. So use the money. I don’t care.’”

To me this quote seems to imply that A. Derek Carr gave the Saints a discount because he wanted to win and B. Even at full market value Derek Carr knew his market value was less than 'nine billion-time MVP' Aaron Rodgers.

The thing is, its just not true, Carr got the Saints to pay the same average per year for him that the Jets paid for Rodgers, $37.5 million per year. Carr got 4 years $150 million, Rodgers got 3 years $112.5 million. Guaranteed money was also similar proportional to the lengths of the contracts.

For comparison, Jimmy G got 27.5 million per year from the Raiders in the 2023 offseason. After being replaced by Jared Stiham and cut in very similar manner to Carr, Russell Wilson got $1 million from the Steelers the next year. I think Carr's 'market value' would have been somewhere in the middle of Rodgers and Garappalo, so perhaps 32.5 million per year could be his market value, and surely the Jets would not have been happy to pay Carr as much as they paid Rodgers.

A year later Kirk Cousins got $45 million per year, but that was after the cap went up 13.6%, so adjusting for that its like Cousins got $40 million per year in 2023 dollars. Cousins is generally ranked a step above Carr on all QB rankings and his team didn't cut him, they got outbid, so it makes sense Carr would earn 10-25% less than Cousins, whereas cap adjusted he only got about 5% less.

Looking at comps of free agent, cut, and traded veteran QBs, I can't find any evidence Carr gave the Saints any discount. If anything, his agent worked wonders compared to the agents for Rodgers, Garoppolo, and Cousins.

I think this is interesting. Does Carr really think he gave the Saints a discount? Was he getting mixed up and was willing to give the Jets a discount but not the Saints? Or is Carr just full of BS and willing to lie to all our faces knowing he went to the highest bidder for the max he could get and just likes lie about wanting to win?

Sinner · 07-18-2024, 01:45 AM

Discount: 2.
regard (a possibility, fact, or person, or in our case, a team) as being unworthy of consideration because it lacks credibility.

That’s EXACTLY what he gave us.

mapcow · 07-18-2024, 09:54 AM

another example of Saints organization of paying more for less productivity.

mapcow · 07-18-2024, 03:18 PM

saints need to set their sights on Arch Manning... build a formidable offense prior to his eligibility for the draft, and when he is eligible then do whatever it is necessary to obtain him or draft him; money, trade, or tank.

BakoSaint · 07-18-2024, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by mapcow

saints need to set their sights on Arch Manning... build a formidable offense prior to his eligibility for the draft, and when he is eligible then do whatever it is necessary to obtain him or draft him; money, trade, or tank.

Although I would like for the Saints to get a young QB if we don't see Haener or Rattler make a major breakthrough, I disagree on the means to an end.

I think deliberate tanking risks destroying a franchises culture and sets the player who was tanked for up for failure in the NFL. It may work in the NBA where one or two players can make a team but the in the NFL you need 22 players to hate losing and always fight. I am all for rebuilding, which could mean replacing proven aging veterans with unproven young underdogs, but those unproven underdogs must be encouraged to fight tooth and nail for every win.

I think blockbuster trades up for a QB in the draft usually fail and put the QB under too much pressure without enough help. If Manning goes #1 overall and we have the #1 overall pick, so be it, take him. But if we pick #8 and Manning is going to go #1 and it will take the next two years 1st round picks and more to more up, then no. Take an underdog QB at #8. If that QB has a chip on his shoulder from being picked after Manning and outperforms him, he will outperform him even more the next few years with the extra picks saved. If that QB is no Manning, maybe you have the #1 pick the next year and Tom Brady or Drew Brees has a kid who is great, and you can take him without mortaging the future.

When the Chiefs traded up for Mahomes that was ok because it was not blockbuster level. The Chiefs were already a decent team that could protect a young QB. They only traded one future 1st round pick (likely to be later in the 1st round as they were already a playoff caliber team) and the present 1st round pick they traded was also late 1st round, and beyond that there was only a 3rd rounder. Also, their current QB had trade value, eventually making up for the 3rd round pick. So, it Mahomes was not under instant pressure to be extremely great as he did not cost multiple high 1st rounders, he was not expected to start immediately, etc. The trade up for Mahomes was more equivalent to the Saints trades for Mark Ingram and Marcus Davenport, not a blockbuster top 3 pick QB trade.

mapcow · 07-19-2024, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by BakoSaint

Although I would like for the Saints to get a young QB if we don't see Haener or Rattler make a major breakthrough, I disagree on the means to an end.

I think deliberate tanking risks destroying a franchises culture and sets the player who was tanked for up for failure in the NFL. It may work in the NBA where one or two players can make a team but the in the NFL you need 22 players to hate losing and always fight. I am all for rebuilding, which could mean replacing proven aging veterans with unproven young underdogs, but those unproven underdogs must be encouraged to fight tooth and nail for every win.

I think blockbuster trades up for a QB in the draft usually fail and put the QB under too much pressure without enough help. If Manning goes #1 overall and we have the #1 overall pick, so be it, take him. But if we pick #8 and Manning is going to go #1 and it will take the next two years 1st round picks and more to more up, then no. Take an underdog QB at #8. If that QB has a chip on his shoulder from being picked after Manning and outperforms him, he will outperform him even more the next few years with the extra picks saved. If that QB is no Manning, maybe you have the #1 pick the next year and Tom Brady or Drew Brees has a kid who is great, and you can take him without mortaging the future.

When the Chiefs traded up for Mahomes that was ok because it was not blockbuster level. The Chiefs were already a decent team that could protect a young QB. They only traded one future 1st round pick (likely to be later in the 1st round as they were already a playoff caliber team) and the present 1st round pick they traded was also late 1st round, and beyond that there was only a 3rd rounder. Also, their current QB had trade value, eventually making up for the 3rd round pick. So, it Mahomes was not under instant pressure to be extremely great as he did not cost multiple high 1st rounders, he was not expected to start immediately, etc. The trade up for Mahomes was more equivalent to the Saints trades for Mark Ingram and Marcus Davenport, not a blockbuster top 3 pick QB trade.

okay... then do whatever it takes, to do what Elway did when he was drafted and basically told the NFL to pound sand. disagree... or not... point is to WIN

mapcow · 07-19-2024, 01:05 AM

SOMETIMES.... one thinks the world is fair. HEADLINES.... IT AIN'T

rezburna · 07-19-2024, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by BakoSaint

Although I would like for the Saints to get a young QB if we don't see Haener or Rattler make a major breakthrough, I disagree on the means to an end.

I think deliberate tanking risks destroying a franchises culture and sets the player who was tanked for up for failure in the NFL. It may work in the NBA where one or two players can make a team but the in the NFL you need 22 players to hate losing and always fight. I am all for rebuilding, which could mean replacing proven aging veterans with unproven young underdogs, but those unproven underdogs must be encouraged to fight tooth and nail for every win.

I think blockbuster trades up for a QB in the draft usually fail and put the QB under too much pressure without enough help. If Manning goes #1 overall and we have the #1 overall pick, so be it, take him. But if we pick #8 and Manning is going to go #1 and it will take the next two years 1st round picks and more to more up, then no. Take an underdog QB at #8. If that QB has a chip on his shoulder from being picked after Manning and outperforms him, he will outperform him even more the next few years with the extra picks saved. If that QB is no Manning, maybe you have the #1 pick the next year and Tom Brady or Drew Brees has a kid who is great, and you can take him without mortaging the future.

When the Chiefs traded up for Mahomes that was ok because it was not blockbuster level. The Chiefs were already a decent team that could protect a young QB. They only traded one future 1st round pick (likely to be later in the 1st round as they were already a playoff caliber team) and the present 1st round pick they traded was also late 1st round, and beyond that there was only a 3rd rounder. Also, their current QB had trade value, eventually making up for the 3rd round pick. So, it Mahomes was not under instant pressure to be extremely great as he did not cost multiple high 1st rounders, he was not expected to start immediately, etc. The trade up for Mahomes was more equivalent to the Saints trades for Mark Ingram and Marcus Davenport, not a blockbuster top 3 pick QB trade.

07-17-2024, 11:51 PM	#1
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,173	Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? I just saw these recent interview quotes from Carr regarding his pursuit by the Saints and Jets. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profoo...the-right-time I found this portion interesting “The thing which was different in that situation was like Aaron is a nine billion-time MVP, right? But you still have to trade for him, whereas I’m free, and you can still keep those picks,” Carr said. “I was not asking for as much money as whatever they say your market is. I was like, ‘I don’t want to do that, because wherever I go, man, I just want to win. So use the money. I don’t care.’” To me this quote seems to imply that A. Derek Carr gave the Saints a discount because he wanted to win and B. Even at full market value Derek Carr knew his market value was less than 'nine billion-time MVP' Aaron Rodgers. The thing is, its just not true, Carr got the Saints to pay the same average per year for him that the Jets paid for Rodgers, $37.5 million per year. Carr got 4 years $150 million, Rodgers got 3 years $112.5 million. Guaranteed money was also similar proportional to the lengths of the contracts. For comparison, Jimmy G got 27.5 million per year from the Raiders in the 2023 offseason. After being replaced by Jared Stiham and cut in very similar manner to Carr, Russell Wilson got $1 million from the Steelers the next year. I think Carr's 'market value' would have been somewhere in the middle of Rodgers and Garappalo, so perhaps 32.5 million per year could be his market value, and surely the Jets would not have been happy to pay Carr as much as they paid Rodgers. A year later Kirk Cousins got $45 million per year, but that was after the cap went up 13.6%, so adjusting for that its like Cousins got $40 million per year in 2023 dollars. Cousins is generally ranked a step above Carr on all QB rankings and his team didn't cut him, they got outbid, so it makes sense Carr would earn 10-25% less than Cousins, whereas cap adjusted he only got about 5% less. Looking at comps of free agent, cut, and traded veteran QBs, I can't find any evidence Carr gave the Saints any discount. If anything, his agent worked wonders compared to the agents for Rodgers, Garoppolo, and Cousins. I think this is interesting. Does Carr really think he gave the Saints a discount? Was he getting mixed up and was willing to give the Jets a discount but not the Saints? Or is Carr just full of BS and willing to lie to all our faces knowing he went to the highest bidder for the max he could get and just likes lie about wanting to win?
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,173

07-18-2024, 01:45 AM	#2
Sinner 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 3,952	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? Discount: 2. regard (a possibility, fact, or person, or in our case, a team) as being unworthy of consideration because it lacks credibility. That’s EXACTLY what he gave us.
Sinner 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 3,952	Last edited by Sinner; 07-18-2024 at 10:19 AM..

07-18-2024, 09:54 AM	#3
mapcow Just a Fan Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,793	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? another example of Saints organization of paying more for less productivity. Sinner likes this.
mapcow Just a Fan Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,793

07-18-2024, 03:18 PM	#4
mapcow Just a Fan Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,793	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? saints need to set their sights on Arch Manning... build a formidable offense prior to his eligibility for the draft, and when he is eligible then do whatever it is necessary to obtain him or draft him; money, trade, or tank.
mapcow Just a Fan Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,793

07-18-2024, 05:38 PM	#5
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,173	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? Originally Posted by mapcow saints need to set their sights on Arch Manning... build a formidable offense prior to his eligibility for the draft, and when he is eligible then do whatever it is necessary to obtain him or draft him; money, trade, or tank. Although I would like for the Saints to get a young QB if we don't see Haener or Rattler make a major breakthrough, I disagree on the means to an end. I think deliberate tanking risks destroying a franchises culture and sets the player who was tanked for up for failure in the NFL. It may work in the NBA where one or two players can make a team but the in the NFL you need 22 players to hate losing and always fight. I am all for rebuilding, which could mean replacing proven aging veterans with unproven young underdogs, but those unproven underdogs must be encouraged to fight tooth and nail for every win. I think blockbuster trades up for a QB in the draft usually fail and put the QB under too much pressure without enough help. If Manning goes #1 overall and we have the #1 overall pick, so be it, take him. But if we pick #8 and Manning is going to go #1 and it will take the next two years 1st round picks and more to more up, then no. Take an underdog QB at #8. If that QB has a chip on his shoulder from being picked after Manning and outperforms him, he will outperform him even more the next few years with the extra picks saved. If that QB is no Manning, maybe you have the #1 pick the next year and Tom Brady or Drew Brees has a kid who is great, and you can take him without mortaging the future. When the Chiefs traded up for Mahomes that was ok because it was not blockbuster level. The Chiefs were already a decent team that could protect a young QB. They only traded one future 1st round pick (likely to be later in the 1st round as they were already a playoff caliber team) and the present 1st round pick they traded was also late 1st round, and beyond that there was only a 3rd rounder. Also, their current QB had trade value, eventually making up for the 3rd round pick. So, it Mahomes was not under instant pressure to be extremely great as he did not cost multiple high 1st rounders, he was not expected to start immediately, etc. The trade up for Mahomes was more equivalent to the Saints trades for Mark Ingram and Marcus Davenport, not a blockbuster top 3 pick QB trade. Rugby Saint II and rezburna like this.
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,173

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-19-2024, 01:02 AM	#6
mapcow Just a Fan Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,793	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? Originally Posted by BakoSaint Although I would like for the Saints to get a young QB if we don't see Haener or Rattler make a major breakthrough, I disagree on the means to an end. I think deliberate tanking risks destroying a franchises culture and sets the player who was tanked for up for failure in the NFL. It may work in the NBA where one or two players can make a team but the in the NFL you need 22 players to hate losing and always fight. I am all for rebuilding, which could mean replacing proven aging veterans with unproven young underdogs, but those unproven underdogs must be encouraged to fight tooth and nail for every win. I think blockbuster trades up for a QB in the draft usually fail and put the QB under too much pressure without enough help. If Manning goes #1 overall and we have the #1 overall pick, so be it, take him. But if we pick #8 and Manning is going to go #1 and it will take the next two years 1st round picks and more to more up, then no. Take an underdog QB at #8. If that QB has a chip on his shoulder from being picked after Manning and outperforms him, he will outperform him even more the next few years with the extra picks saved. If that QB is no Manning, maybe you have the #1 pick the next year and Tom Brady or Drew Brees has a kid who is great, and you can take him without mortaging the future. When the Chiefs traded up for Mahomes that was ok because it was not blockbuster level. The Chiefs were already a decent team that could protect a young QB. They only traded one future 1st round pick (likely to be later in the 1st round as they were already a playoff caliber team) and the present 1st round pick they traded was also late 1st round, and beyond that there was only a 3rd rounder. Also, their current QB had trade value, eventually making up for the 3rd round pick. So, it Mahomes was not under instant pressure to be extremely great as he did not cost multiple high 1st rounders, he was not expected to start immediately, etc. The trade up for Mahomes was more equivalent to the Saints trades for Mark Ingram and Marcus Davenport, not a blockbuster top 3 pick QB trade. okay... then do whatever it takes, to do what Elway did when he was drafted and basically told the NFL to pound sand. disagree... or not... point is to WIN
mapcow Just a Fan Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,793

07-19-2024, 01:05 AM	#7
mapcow Just a Fan Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,793	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? SOMETIMES.... one thinks the world is fair. HEADLINES.... IT AIN'T
mapcow Just a Fan Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,793

07-19-2024, 08:53 AM	#8
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 7,935	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? Originally Posted by BakoSaint Although I would like for the Saints to get a young QB if we don't see Haener or Rattler make a major breakthrough, I disagree on the means to an end. I think deliberate tanking risks destroying a franchises culture and sets the player who was tanked for up for failure in the NFL. It may work in the NBA where one or two players can make a team but the in the NFL you need 22 players to hate losing and always fight. I am all for rebuilding, which could mean replacing proven aging veterans with unproven young underdogs, but those unproven underdogs must be encouraged to fight tooth and nail for every win. I think blockbuster trades up for a QB in the draft usually fail and put the QB under too much pressure without enough help. If Manning goes #1 overall and we have the #1 overall pick, so be it, take him. But if we pick #8 and Manning is going to go #1 and it will take the next two years 1st round picks and more to more up, then no. Take an underdog QB at #8. If that QB has a chip on his shoulder from being picked after Manning and outperforms him, he will outperform him even more the next few years with the extra picks saved. If that QB is no Manning, maybe you have the #1 pick the next year and Tom Brady or Drew Brees has a kid who is great, and you can take him without mortaging the future. When the Chiefs traded up for Mahomes that was ok because it was not blockbuster level. The Chiefs were already a decent team that could protect a young QB. They only traded one future 1st round pick (likely to be later in the 1st round as they were already a playoff caliber team) and the present 1st round pick they traded was also late 1st round, and beyond that there was only a 3rd rounder. Also, their current QB had trade value, eventually making up for the 3rd round pick. So, it Mahomes was not under instant pressure to be extremely great as he did not cost multiple high 1st rounders, he was not expected to start immediately, etc. The trade up for Mahomes was more equivalent to the Saints trades for Mark Ingram and Marcus Davenport, not a blockbuster top 3 pick QB trade. Top tier Bako post.

07-19-2024, 09:05 AM	#9
MatthewT 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Mississippi Posts: 2,729	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? Derek Carr comes across to me as very delusional, this just adds to it. If the season plays out as projected by many of the so called experts, the Saints should be drafting around 10, about where Quinn Ewers is projected to land. I don't know enough about Ewers to have an opinion about him, but he could be an option for the Saints if another QB needs to be brought in.

07-19-2024, 09:07 AM	#10
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 7,935	Re: Derek Carr claims he gave Saints a Discount??? Originally Posted by MatthewT Derek Carr comes across to me as very delusional, this just adds to it. If the season plays out as projected by many of the so called experts, the Saints should be drafting around 10, about where Quinn Ewers is projected to land. I don't know enough about Ewers to have an opinion about him, but he could be an option for the Saints if another QB needs to be brought in. I like Ewers, but this year needs to be a breakout season for him. He needs to have 30+ TD’s, less than 7 picks, and be in the Heisman convo. MatthewT likes this.