The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum

iceshack149 · 01-09-2025, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by BakoSaint

Sometimes 75% of what you want is not worth 75% of what you want would cost. If gas is $3 a gallon and the only gas station you can reach on what you have left in the tank is selling a mixture of 75% gas and 25% water for $2.25 a gallon would you fill your tank or wait it out? If you are short on cash for a movie ticket would you offer the theatre almost enough money and agree to miss the ending? If you worked for a corrupt contractor in eastern europe, would you bribe a corrupt manager controlling a contract you are bidding on the 3rd most money in order to come in 3rd place for awarding the contract? If you needed to get from Chicago to your best friends wedding in New York, but only had enough gas money to get to Cleveland, would you go hang out in Cleveland for the weekend and send your best friend photos from a Browns game? If your friend paid $100,000 for a night with a 10 victoria secret model, would you pay $60,000 for a night with a 6 from a metamucil ad? If you ran a NASCAR team but your car was totalled and you did not have the cash to replace it in time for the race, would you spend everything you had to get a stock Camry for the race, or skip that race and save up for a Car that could win.

While it costs money in the short term to get rid of Carr it saves money in the long term. Keeping Carr is the true cost, and he costs more to keep than anyone else. He is not worth it. He is watery gas, a ticket to half a movie, a weekend in cleveland, a night with a metamucil model, a stock camry in NASCAR.

The fact is that if you really want to get to that wedding in New York but you only have the cash to get half way there, getting half way there is not a real option that makes any sense. There are two real options. Skip it and save cash for the next thing you want to do, or go to the casino and put it all on black and you have a 50% chance to get all the way there instead of a 100% chance to get half the way there. That is more of what the 15th highest paid QB is supposed to be, a young up and coming QB or a highly proven QB recovering from injury who could be worthless, but could be great, and you take the gamble. It doesnt make sense to pay #15 money for a #15 QB, with a known commodity, when you are in range of winning it all with the #15 QB and our roster. High risk high reward would make more sense for us, and for most teams. Drew Brees was high risk high reward when we signed him from the Chargers. Maybe his shoulder was done, maybe he was mid, but maybe we get a young QB with more than a decade ahead of him. Carr is a known commodity. There are over 10 years of 'average'. We know what we get, though we may get less as he ages. And where that gets us is nowhere. We are better off to gamble. Rattler could be much worse than Carr, but he is a good gamble, because he could also be similar, with unknown upside, and cost a lot less. Maybe in 2025 some much younger QB like Hebert or Purdy will have an off year and a falling out with the coach, and then they are young and have upside like Brees was. Carr is known mediocrity. Why would a team that needs A LOT of improvement to truly contend hedge its bets on known mediocrity of a player in the latter years of their career with little upside?

I appreciate your thoughtful replies. Most of us just dump a few sentences in our replies.
I'm warming up to what you, saintsfan1976, and K Major are saying. It would make watching football next year absolutely suck (just like this year!) but worth it if the Saints are smart enough to get the best building blocks for the future.

SmashMouth · 01-18-2025, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

'Average deal'...

Did not perform at the level of an average NFL QB.
Barely played 1/2 the games.

His value is 1/4 of his pay somewhere else.

Originally Posted by BakoSaint

Sometimes 75% of what you want is not worth 75% of what you want would cost. If gas is $3 a gallon and the only gas station you can reach on what you have left in the tank is selling a mixture of 75% gas and 25% water for $2.25 a gallon would you fill your tank or wait it out? If you are short on cash for a movie ticket would you offer the theatre almost enough money and agree to miss the ending? If you worked for a corrupt contractor in eastern europe, would you bribe a corrupt manager controlling a contract you are bidding on the 3rd most money in order to come in 3rd place for awarding the contract? If you needed to get from Chicago to your best friends wedding in New York, but only had enough gas money to get to Cleveland, would you go hang out in Cleveland for the weekend and send your best friend photos from a Browns game? If your friend paid $100,000 for a night with a 10 victoria secret model, would you pay $60,000 for a night with a 6 from a metamucil ad? If you ran a NASCAR team but your car was totalled and you did not have the cash to replace it in time for the race, would you spend everything you had to get a stock Camry for the race, or skip that race and save up for a Car that could win.

While it costs money in the short term to get rid of Carr it saves money in the long term. Keeping Carr is the true cost, and he costs more to keep than anyone else. He is not worth it. He is watery gas, a ticket to half a movie, a weekend in cleveland, a night with a metamucil model, a stock camry in NASCAR.

The fact is that if you really want to get to that wedding in New York but you only have the cash to get half way there, getting half way there is not a real option that makes any sense. There are two real options. Skip it and save cash for the next thing you want to do, or go to the casino and put it all on black and you have a 50% chance to get all the way there instead of a 100% chance to get half the way there. That is more of what the 15th highest paid QB is supposed to be, a young up and coming QB or a highly proven QB recovering from injury who could be worthless, but could be great, and you take the gamble. It doesnt make sense to pay #15 money for a #15 QB, with a known commodity, when you are in range of winning it all with the #15 QB and our roster. High risk high reward would make more sense for us, and for most teams. Drew Brees was high risk high reward when we signed him from the Chargers. Maybe his shoulder was done, maybe he was mid, but maybe we get a young QB with more than a decade ahead of him. Carr is a known commodity. There are over 10 years of 'average'. We know what we get, though we may get less as he ages. And where that gets us is nowhere. We are better off to gamble. Rattler could be much worse than Carr, but he is a good gamble, because he could also be similar, with unknown upside, and cost a lot less. Maybe in 2025 some much younger QB like Hebert or Purdy will have an off year and a falling out with the coach, and then they are young and have upside like Brees was. Carr is known mediocrity. Why would a team that needs A LOT of improvement to truly contend hedge its bets on known mediocrity of a player in the latter years of their career with little upside?

Basically my point in the last few years... if the franchise is going to be average or below average, there's no point in overpaying for a QB. The same result can be had with a less cap strangling QB, even a rookie, and even a later round QB. Plenty of examples we've seen. Thank God we didn't win the Watson sweepstakes. What an even worse disaster that would have been.

stickman · 01-18-2025, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by SmashMouth

Thank God we didn't win the Watson sweepstakes. What an even worse disaster that would have been.

I have this thought often. And if we feel lucky, imagine how they feel in Houston.

iceshack149 · 01-19-2025, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by stickman

I have this thought often. And if we feel lucky, imagine how they feel in Houston.

Super lucky.

Deshaun Watson trade, revisited
Browns receive: QB Deshaun Watson, 2024 sixth
Texans receive: 2022 first, 2022 fourth, 2023 first, 2023 third, 2024 first, 2024 fourth
Houston received three first-round picks, a third, and two fourths. The Browns also received a sixth-round pick from the Texans along with Watson.

The Texans wound up trading most of the picks received from the Browns. Here's what became of each pick:

2022 first: traded to Eagles for 2022 first, 2022 fourth, and two 2022 fifths
2022 fourth: RB Dameon Pierce
2023 first: traded to Cardinals with 2023 second, 2024 first, 2024 third for 2023 first and 2023 fourth
2023 third: traded to Rams with 2023 fifth for 2023 third and 2023 sixth
2024 first: traded to Vikings with 2024 seventh for 2024 second, 2024 sixth and 2025 second
2024 fourth: traded to Eagles with 2024 third for 2024 third (later re-acquired)
That's a lot of trades. What about the players? Here's who the Texans ended up with when the dust settled on all those trades:

G Kenyon Green
RB Dameon Pierce
EDGE Will Anderson Jr.
WR Tank Dell
CB Kamari Lassiter
LB Jamal Hill
S Caden Bullock
Additionally, the pick the Texans traded to the Eagles and later re-acquired turned into tight end Cade Stover

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...fb3999ecd07894

BakoSaint · 02-15-2025, 02:25 PM

Some thoughts on Moore's statement that "Derek Carr is a starting QB in this league..."

If and hopefully when we cut Carr, we want him to be starting QB for another team, because he has a guaranteed roster bonus of $10 million for 2025 that is subject to offset, meaning that every dollar another team pays him, up to $10 million, further reduces the Saints dead cap from cutting him. Russell Wilson agreed to play for the Steelers for a vet minimum $1 million but Wilson had a guaranteed salary of about $40 million, so he had no reason to try to get $10 or $20 million in free agency, because unless he exceeded $40 million on his new contract, all the extra money was going to the Broncos via offset not to Wilson's pocket. For Carr its different, as long as he gets more than $10 million, every extra dollar after $10 million that Carr could get in free agency would go to his pocket. I believe that on the free agent market Carr would get $20-25 million per year now, reduced from his current salary because he is older and more banged up and there is a flood of older QBs like Rodgers, Wilson, and Cousins on the market, but still more than $10 million. So Carr could turn down a $25 million offer and sign for $1 million to spite the Saints out of $9 million of offset money, but then he would be costing himself $15 million too.

The reason its key for the Saints that Carr is a 'a starter in this league' is that Carr has to earn more than $10 million for the Saints to get any offset. If Carr decides to say, go to the Eagles or Chiefs as a backup not a starter, hoping to win a ring and possible have a chance at glory if their starter goes down, he is not going to sign for $5 million or $8 million or $10 million, he is going to sign for $1 million, because he does not get to keep the extra money unless the contract exceeds $10 million, and it would only exceed $10 million if he is brought in as a starter.

If the Saints cut Carr and he retires, the Saints save $0 of the $10 million. If the Saints cut Carr and he decides to sign as a backup for a contender, the Saints save $1 million of the $10 million. If the Saints cut Carr and he is signed elsewhere as a starter in the league, the Saints save all $10 million of that $10 million.

The other angle of this is that Carr's contract is guaranteed for injury and he has a mild wrist injury. If Carr is not healthy in March when decision time comes, the Saints theoretically can't cut him (though I guess they could challenge doctor vs doctor and go to arbitration and lawsuits or injury settlement). If the Saints cant cut Carr they owe him $40 million. And if the Saints announce they intend to cut Carr, Carr could always say 'oh my wrist feels a little awkward, hmmm its not quite right' and slow ball his recovery for that $40 million payday.

Thats the other key part about saying Carr is "a starter in this league" but not committing to start him on this team. If Carr plays hardball and forces the Saints to keep him and pay him $40 million instead of the $25 million or so I believe he would get as a free agent, the Saints can play hardball too. By the way, you tell me what team is offering $40 million for Carr, I won't buy it, the Raiders dont want him back and Jets decided to reset and get younger, and younger ain't 34, meanwhile the Steelers had Russ for $1 million this year and ain't bidding against themselves to pay Carr $40 million). Anyway if Carr plays hardball, the Saints version of hardball would be "you are starting QB in this league, but not for our offense and situation, so if you play hardball with us, you sit on the bench and gather rust, and sure you will get your $40 million, but what will be the market for you at 35yo with a year of rust?" If Carr plays hardball the Saints should not just play along and start him, they should bench him as their own hardball, and in benching him force him to agree to a pay cut, waive his no trade clause, accept an injury settlement, or eat that year of rust. Another form of hardball the Saints could play is that if Carr forces the Saints to keep him and won't agree to a trade where another team could eat perhaps $25 million of Carr's $40 million salary, the Saints could play hardball with Carr in 2026 where they have the leverage. If the Saints create enough cap space they could wait until April or May instead of March to cut Carr in 2026, when all the good teams have already made their QB decisions, and Carr is unlikely to get a good starting gig or good salary for 2026.

Ultimately my hope is that 'Carr is a starting QB in this league' means 'Hey Carr, if you want to remain a starting QB in this league its going to be on another team, so please don't play games with the wrist injury and don't play games with minimum salary backup gigs with other teams. Take your cut like a man and go sign with Pittsburgh for $25 million or whatever, and consider it a win win. If you want to play it the other way and force your $40 million payday with the Saints over the wrist, you will be our 3rd string QB and won't touch grass. Maybe we will explore a trade if another team is willing to eat some of your salary, but if that doesnt work out, you will regret not just accepting the cut, because we will hold your rights until May 2026 after the draft, then kick you to the curb as a 35yo QB with a year of rust after all the other teams have spent their free agent money and found their QB, and you will never be a starting QB for a decent team or decent money for the rest of your career, and it will be your fault.'

AsylumGuido · 02-16-2025, 12:19 PM

BakoSaint likes this.

AsylumGuido · 02-16-2025, 12:19 PM

BakoSaint · 02-16-2025, 12:30 PM

It is important to consider that Carr's #11 QB ranking did benefit from playing in one of the weakest divisions in the league and missing 7 games in which the Saints faced 6 playoff teams with 10+ wins. Realistically he is middle of the road, 34yo, with the experience of zero playoff wins.

AsylumGuido · 02-16-2025, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by BakoSaint

It is important to consider that Carr's #11 QB ranking did benefit from playing in one of the weakest divisions in the league and missing 7 games in which the Saints faced 6 playoff teams with 10+ wins. Realistically he is middle of the road, 34yo, with the experience of zero playoff wins.

Yup. Middle of the road. I don't care whether we move on or not, but the chances of finding someone better are not good considering the vast number of QB's coming out of college never even prove to become starters at all and only a few that do even reach the rank of bottom half starters. That's what we need to prepare for with our expectations for the near future.

BakoSaint · 02-16-2025, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

Yup. Middle of the road. I don't care whether we move on or not, but the chances of finding someone better are not good considering the vast number of QB's coming out of college never even prove to become starters at all and only a few that do even reach the rank of bottom half starters. That's what we need to prepare for with our expectations for the near future.

But like, at the same time, Mahomes, Hurts, Allen, Burrow, and Jackson, who are clearly the top 5 QBs now, were all acquired via the draft, with 4 of 5 going in the first round. Of the next tier so were Daniels and Love, and honestly to me Goff is an aging system QB. Like Jordan or Gretzky or whoever said, you miss all the shots you dont take, and the top teams in the league have taken shots on QBs in the draft in early rounds. Carr is getting us half way to nowhere fast. So at some point we have to roll the dice on a Manning or Leaf, a Trubisky or Mahomes. The higher a QB is drafted, the better the odds are, by a little bit, although not necessarily a lot. Yet blockbuster trades where a team gives up 3 first round picks to move up for a QB have a bad history of setting up QBs to fail with high expectations and low resources. So moving on from Carr and accepting one year with a less certain option sets us up to take our shot in the first round if needed without having to make a blockbuster Ricky Williams 2.0 QB trade that is doomed to fail.

I will concede that the NFL is a league of trends and copycats, and the model of bringing in a veteran QB and winning it all had its day in the past. Currently, all the top QBs were drafted by their teams, but in the past there were success stories with Brees, Manning, Brady, and Stafford, while recent attempts with Rodgers, Wilson, Cousins, Watson, and Carr (a much lesser name) have failed. At the same time, these trends can be cyclic, and veteran QBs did not fair that well prior to Brees either, with failed or at least non-championship second acts from the likes of Bledsoe, Montana, Moon, Harbaugh, Everett, Archie Manning, and others, with the main successes being QBs who never really got a chance with their first teams like Favre and Young. I think the best thing is to not go too far with either model. Drafting a QB works best when you are trying to rebuild and get younger, and you have a high pick already where you can select a QB with your pick in the top 10-12 usually or take a shot on an overlooked QB in later rounds and dont need to mortgage the future to make a Rickey Williams 2.0 trade. A veteran QB can work if they are still very young and never had a chance to reach their peak, or if they are a veteran known commodity where you have the roster and salary cap to build around them and win without needing them to have a career year in their mid 30's. Bringing in a veteran QB has been successful too historically but may go out of fashion again because of recent misses. If that creates an opportunity in the future, fine, but only when we have the right roster and cap situation in place, and that QB is a bit more young or elite than Carr.

I really hope we don't keep Carr this year. But if we do, I hope it was a back room agreement between Moore, Loomis, and Gayle that amounted to 'ok Mickey, we disagree but we'll try it your way and give it a year, if it doesn't work we start trying things my way next year, ok Gayle?' In that case Carr would be gone in 2026 and take Loomis with him, or Loomis would become a figurehead with Moore or his confidants making the decisions. The challenge with this could be that rebuilding in year 2 would require giving Moore a long leash and might shake any coaches confidence.

01-09-2025, 11:26 AM	#21
iceshack149 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Fairbanks, AK Posts: 4,324 Blog Entries: 1	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum Originally Posted by BakoSaint Sometimes 75% of what you want is not worth 75% of what you want would cost. If gas is $3 a gallon and the only gas station you can reach on what you have left in the tank is selling a mixture of 75% gas and 25% water for $2.25 a gallon would you fill your tank or wait it out? If you are short on cash for a movie ticket would you offer the theatre almost enough money and agree to miss the ending? If you worked for a corrupt contractor in eastern europe, would you bribe a corrupt manager controlling a contract you are bidding on the 3rd most money in order to come in 3rd place for awarding the contract? If you needed to get from Chicago to your best friends wedding in New York, but only had enough gas money to get to Cleveland, would you go hang out in Cleveland for the weekend and send your best friend photos from a Browns game? If your friend paid $100,000 for a night with a 10 victoria secret model, would you pay $60,000 for a night with a 6 from a metamucil ad? If you ran a NASCAR team but your car was totalled and you did not have the cash to replace it in time for the race, would you spend everything you had to get a stock Camry for the race, or skip that race and save up for a Car that could win. While it costs money in the short term to get rid of Carr it saves money in the long term. Keeping Carr is the true cost, and he costs more to keep than anyone else. He is not worth it. He is watery gas, a ticket to half a movie, a weekend in cleveland, a night with a metamucil model, a stock camry in NASCAR. The fact is that if you really want to get to that wedding in New York but you only have the cash to get half way there, getting half way there is not a real option that makes any sense. There are two real options. Skip it and save cash for the next thing you want to do, or go to the casino and put it all on black and you have a 50% chance to get all the way there instead of a 100% chance to get half the way there. That is more of what the 15th highest paid QB is supposed to be, a young up and coming QB or a highly proven QB recovering from injury who could be worthless, but could be great, and you take the gamble. It doesnt make sense to pay #15 money for a #15 QB, with a known commodity, when you are in range of winning it all with the #15 QB and our roster. High risk high reward would make more sense for us, and for most teams. Drew Brees was high risk high reward when we signed him from the Chargers. Maybe his shoulder was done, maybe he was mid, but maybe we get a young QB with more than a decade ahead of him. Carr is a known commodity. There are over 10 years of 'average'. We know what we get, though we may get less as he ages. And where that gets us is nowhere. We are better off to gamble. Rattler could be much worse than Carr, but he is a good gamble, because he could also be similar, with unknown upside, and cost a lot less. Maybe in 2025 some much younger QB like Hebert or Purdy will have an off year and a falling out with the coach, and then they are young and have upside like Brees was. Carr is known mediocrity. Why would a team that needs A LOT of improvement to truly contend hedge its bets on known mediocrity of a player in the latter years of their career with little upside? I appreciate your thoughtful replies. Most of us just dump a few sentences in our replies. I'm warming up to what you, saintsfan1976, and K Major are saying. It would make watching football next year absolutely suck (just like this year!) but worth it if the Saints are smart enough to get the best building blocks for the future. SmashMouth and Rugby Saint II like this.

01-18-2025, 08:18 AM	#22
SmashMouth I donated, did you? Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Mandeville, LA Posts: 38,437 Blog Entries: 29	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum Originally Posted by TheOak 'Average deal'... Did not perform at the level of an average NFL QB. Barely played 1/2 the games. His value is 1/4 of his pay somewhere else. Originally Posted by BakoSaint Sometimes 75% of what you want is not worth 75% of what you want would cost. If gas is $3 a gallon and the only gas station you can reach on what you have left in the tank is selling a mixture of 75% gas and 25% water for $2.25 a gallon would you fill your tank or wait it out? If you are short on cash for a movie ticket would you offer the theatre almost enough money and agree to miss the ending? If you worked for a corrupt contractor in eastern europe, would you bribe a corrupt manager controlling a contract you are bidding on the 3rd most money in order to come in 3rd place for awarding the contract? If you needed to get from Chicago to your best friends wedding in New York, but only had enough gas money to get to Cleveland, would you go hang out in Cleveland for the weekend and send your best friend photos from a Browns game? If your friend paid $100,000 for a night with a 10 victoria secret model, would you pay $60,000 for a night with a 6 from a metamucil ad? If you ran a NASCAR team but your car was totalled and you did not have the cash to replace it in time for the race, would you spend everything you had to get a stock Camry for the race, or skip that race and save up for a Car that could win. While it costs money in the short term to get rid of Carr it saves money in the long term. Keeping Carr is the true cost, and he costs more to keep than anyone else. He is not worth it. He is watery gas, a ticket to half a movie, a weekend in cleveland, a night with a metamucil model, a stock camry in NASCAR. The fact is that if you really want to get to that wedding in New York but you only have the cash to get half way there, getting half way there is not a real option that makes any sense. There are two real options. Skip it and save cash for the next thing you want to do, or go to the casino and put it all on black and you have a 50% chance to get all the way there instead of a 100% chance to get half the way there. That is more of what the 15th highest paid QB is supposed to be, a young up and coming QB or a highly proven QB recovering from injury who could be worthless, but could be great, and you take the gamble. It doesnt make sense to pay #15 money for a #15 QB, with a known commodity, when you are in range of winning it all with the #15 QB and our roster. High risk high reward would make more sense for us, and for most teams. Drew Brees was high risk high reward when we signed him from the Chargers. Maybe his shoulder was done, maybe he was mid, but maybe we get a young QB with more than a decade ahead of him. Carr is a known commodity. There are over 10 years of 'average'. We know what we get, though we may get less as he ages. And where that gets us is nowhere. We are better off to gamble. Rattler could be much worse than Carr, but he is a good gamble, because he could also be similar, with unknown upside, and cost a lot less. Maybe in 2025 some much younger QB like Hebert or Purdy will have an off year and a falling out with the coach, and then they are young and have upside like Brees was. Carr is known mediocrity. Why would a team that needs A LOT of improvement to truly contend hedge its bets on known mediocrity of a player in the latter years of their career with little upside? Basically my point in the last few years... if the franchise is going to be average or below average, there's no point in overpaying for a QB. The same result can be had with a less cap strangling QB, even a rookie, and even a later round QB. Plenty of examples we've seen. Thank God we didn't win the Watson sweepstakes. What an even worse disaster that would have been. iceshack149 and Rugby Saint II like this.

01-18-2025, 02:14 PM	#23
stickman 1000 Posts + Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Gonzales, LA Posts: 1,752	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum Originally Posted by SmashMouth Thank God we didn't win the Watson sweepstakes. What an even worse disaster that would have been. I have this thought often. And if we feel lucky, imagine how they feel in Houston. SmashMouth likes this.

01-19-2025, 05:18 PM	#24
iceshack149 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Fairbanks, AK Posts: 4,324 Blog Entries: 1	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum Originally Posted by stickman I have this thought often. And if we feel lucky, imagine how they feel in Houston. Super lucky. Deshaun Watson trade, revisited Browns receive: QB Deshaun Watson, 2024 sixth Texans receive: 2022 first, 2022 fourth, 2023 first, 2023 third, 2024 first, 2024 fourth Houston received three first-round picks, a third, and two fourths. The Browns also received a sixth-round pick from the Texans along with Watson. The Texans wound up trading most of the picks received from the Browns. Here's what became of each pick: 2022 first: traded to Eagles for 2022 first, 2022 fourth, and two 2022 fifths 2022 fourth: RB Dameon Pierce 2023 first: traded to Cardinals with 2023 second, 2024 first, 2024 third for 2023 first and 2023 fourth 2023 third: traded to Rams with 2023 fifth for 2023 third and 2023 sixth 2024 first: traded to Vikings with 2024 seventh for 2024 second, 2024 sixth and 2025 second 2024 fourth: traded to Eagles with 2024 third for 2024 third (later re-acquired) That's a lot of trades. What about the players? Here's who the Texans ended up with when the dust settled on all those trades: G Kenyon Green RB Dameon Pierce EDGE Will Anderson Jr. WR Tank Dell CB Kamari Lassiter LB Jamal Hill S Caden Bullock Additionally, the pick the Texans traded to the Eagles and later re-acquired turned into tight end Cade Stover https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...fb3999ecd07894

02-15-2025, 02:25 PM	#25
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,267	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum Some thoughts on Moore's statement that "Derek Carr is a starting QB in this league..." If and hopefully when we cut Carr, we want him to be starting QB for another team, because he has a guaranteed roster bonus of $10 million for 2025 that is subject to offset, meaning that every dollar another team pays him, up to $10 million, further reduces the Saints dead cap from cutting him. Russell Wilson agreed to play for the Steelers for a vet minimum $1 million but Wilson had a guaranteed salary of about $40 million, so he had no reason to try to get $10 or $20 million in free agency, because unless he exceeded $40 million on his new contract, all the extra money was going to the Broncos via offset not to Wilson's pocket. For Carr its different, as long as he gets more than $10 million, every extra dollar after $10 million that Carr could get in free agency would go to his pocket. I believe that on the free agent market Carr would get $20-25 million per year now, reduced from his current salary because he is older and more banged up and there is a flood of older QBs like Rodgers, Wilson, and Cousins on the market, but still more than $10 million. So Carr could turn down a $25 million offer and sign for $1 million to spite the Saints out of $9 million of offset money, but then he would be costing himself $15 million too. The reason its key for the Saints that Carr is a 'a starter in this league' is that Carr has to earn more than $10 million for the Saints to get any offset. If Carr decides to say, go to the Eagles or Chiefs as a backup not a starter, hoping to win a ring and possible have a chance at glory if their starter goes down, he is not going to sign for $5 million or $8 million or $10 million, he is going to sign for $1 million, because he does not get to keep the extra money unless the contract exceeds $10 million, and it would only exceed $10 million if he is brought in as a starter. If the Saints cut Carr and he retires, the Saints save $0 of the $10 million. If the Saints cut Carr and he decides to sign as a backup for a contender, the Saints save $1 million of the $10 million. If the Saints cut Carr and he is signed elsewhere as a starter in the league, the Saints save all $10 million of that $10 million. The other angle of this is that Carr's contract is guaranteed for injury and he has a mild wrist injury. If Carr is not healthy in March when decision time comes, the Saints theoretically can't cut him (though I guess they could challenge doctor vs doctor and go to arbitration and lawsuits or injury settlement). If the Saints cant cut Carr they owe him $40 million. And if the Saints announce they intend to cut Carr, Carr could always say 'oh my wrist feels a little awkward, hmmm its not quite right' and slow ball his recovery for that $40 million payday. Thats the other key part about saying Carr is "a starter in this league" but not committing to start him on this team. If Carr plays hardball and forces the Saints to keep him and pay him $40 million instead of the $25 million or so I believe he would get as a free agent, the Saints can play hardball too. By the way, you tell me what team is offering $40 million for Carr, I won't buy it, the Raiders dont want him back and Jets decided to reset and get younger, and younger ain't 34, meanwhile the Steelers had Russ for $1 million this year and ain't bidding against themselves to pay Carr $40 million). Anyway if Carr plays hardball, the Saints version of hardball would be "you are starting QB in this league, but not for our offense and situation, so if you play hardball with us, you sit on the bench and gather rust, and sure you will get your $40 million, but what will be the market for you at 35yo with a year of rust?" If Carr plays hardball the Saints should not just play along and start him, they should bench him as their own hardball, and in benching him force him to agree to a pay cut, waive his no trade clause, accept an injury settlement, or eat that year of rust. Another form of hardball the Saints could play is that if Carr forces the Saints to keep him and won't agree to a trade where another team could eat perhaps $25 million of Carr's $40 million salary, the Saints could play hardball with Carr in 2026 where they have the leverage. If the Saints create enough cap space they could wait until April or May instead of March to cut Carr in 2026, when all the good teams have already made their QB decisions, and Carr is unlikely to get a good starting gig or good salary for 2026. Ultimately my hope is that 'Carr is a starting QB in this league' means 'Hey Carr, if you want to remain a starting QB in this league its going to be on another team, so please don't play games with the wrist injury and don't play games with minimum salary backup gigs with other teams. Take your cut like a man and go sign with Pittsburgh for $25 million or whatever, and consider it a win win. If you want to play it the other way and force your $40 million payday with the Saints over the wrist, you will be our 3rd string QB and won't touch grass. Maybe we will explore a trade if another team is willing to eat some of your salary, but if that doesnt work out, you will regret not just accepting the cut, because we will hold your rights until May 2026 after the draft, then kick you to the curb as a 35yo QB with a year of rust after all the other teams have spent their free agent money and found their QB, and you will never be a starting QB for a decent team or decent money for the rest of your career, and it will be your fault.' SmashMouth likes this.
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,267

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

02-16-2025, 12:19 PM	#26
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,396	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum Twitter BakoSaint likes this.

02-16-2025, 12:30 PM	#28
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,267	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum It is important to consider that Carr's #11 QB ranking did benefit from playing in one of the weakest divisions in the league and missing 7 games in which the Saints faced 6 playoff teams with 10+ wins. Realistically he is middle of the road, 34yo, with the experience of zero playoff wins.
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,267

02-16-2025, 12:38 PM	#29
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,396	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum Originally Posted by BakoSaint It is important to consider that Carr's #11 QB ranking did benefit from playing in one of the weakest divisions in the league and missing 7 games in which the Saints faced 6 playoff teams with 10+ wins. Realistically he is middle of the road, 34yo, with the experience of zero playoff wins. Yup. Middle of the road. I don't care whether we move on or not, but the chances of finding someone better are not good considering the vast number of QB's coming out of college never even prove to become starters at all and only a few that do even reach the rank of bottom half starters. That's what we need to prepare for with our expectations for the near future.

02-16-2025, 01:10 PM	#30
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,267	Re: The Saints Could Theoretically Give Derek Carr A True Pay Cut Ultimatum Originally Posted by AsylumGuido Yup. Middle of the road. I don't care whether we move on or not, but the chances of finding someone better are not good considering the vast number of QB's coming out of college never even prove to become starters at all and only a few that do even reach the rank of bottom half starters. That's what we need to prepare for with our expectations for the near future. But like, at the same time, Mahomes, Hurts, Allen, Burrow, and Jackson, who are clearly the top 5 QBs now, were all acquired via the draft, with 4 of 5 going in the first round. Of the next tier so were Daniels and Love, and honestly to me Goff is an aging system QB. Like Jordan or Gretzky or whoever said, you miss all the shots you dont take, and the top teams in the league have taken shots on QBs in the draft in early rounds. Carr is getting us half way to nowhere fast. So at some point we have to roll the dice on a Manning or Leaf, a Trubisky or Mahomes. The higher a QB is drafted, the better the odds are, by a little bit, although not necessarily a lot. Yet blockbuster trades where a team gives up 3 first round picks to move up for a QB have a bad history of setting up QBs to fail with high expectations and low resources. So moving on from Carr and accepting one year with a less certain option sets us up to take our shot in the first round if needed without having to make a blockbuster Ricky Williams 2.0 QB trade that is doomed to fail. I will concede that the NFL is a league of trends and copycats, and the model of bringing in a veteran QB and winning it all had its day in the past. Currently, all the top QBs were drafted by their teams, but in the past there were success stories with Brees, Manning, Brady, and Stafford, while recent attempts with Rodgers, Wilson, Cousins, Watson, and Carr (a much lesser name) have failed. At the same time, these trends can be cyclic, and veteran QBs did not fair that well prior to Brees either, with failed or at least non-championship second acts from the likes of Bledsoe, Montana, Moon, Harbaugh, Everett, Archie Manning, and others, with the main successes being QBs who never really got a chance with their first teams like Favre and Young. I think the best thing is to not go too far with either model. Drafting a QB works best when you are trying to rebuild and get younger, and you have a high pick already where you can select a QB with your pick in the top 10-12 usually or take a shot on an overlooked QB in later rounds and dont need to mortgage the future to make a Rickey Williams 2.0 trade. A veteran QB can work if they are still very young and never had a chance to reach their peak, or if they are a veteran known commodity where you have the roster and salary cap to build around them and win without needing them to have a career year in their mid 30's. Bringing in a veteran QB has been successful too historically but may go out of fashion again because of recent misses. If that creates an opportunity in the future, fine, but only when we have the right roster and cap situation in place, and that QB is a bit more young or elite than Carr. I really hope we don't keep Carr this year. But if we do, I hope it was a back room agreement between Moore, Loomis, and Gayle that amounted to 'ok Mickey, we disagree but we'll try it your way and give it a year, if it doesn't work we start trying things my way next year, ok Gayle?' In that case Carr would be gone in 2026 and take Loomis with him, or Loomis would become a figurehead with Moore or his confidants making the decisions. The challenge with this could be that rebuilding in year 2 would require giving Moore a long leash and might shake any coaches confidence.
BakoSaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 2,267