saintsfan1976

If anyone is scared of this approach, Sean Payton just executed it himself.

The Tampa Bay Bucs just executed it AFTER winning a Superbowl.

The Texans. The Bengals. They're not better franchises in terms of ownership or money.

If Mickey can't execute a plan then find someone who will.

K Major

A culture change is necessary.

Every year (at least the last 3), the Saints lead the league in injuries, an OLD roster & cap restrictions.

The only change was firing LD Bell (Dennis Allen) the head coach. A decision that apparently Mickey Loomis didn’t agree with . I mean the man was trying to sign Desean Watson a couple of seasons ago.

The Saints desperately need a fresh perspective on football decisions.

A complete rebuild is required and gonna take some time.

BakoSaint

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

AsylumGuido

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.

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.

BakoSaint

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.

AsylumGuido

I guess on way to look at it is, if we are rebuilding and going to have to absorb Carr's cap hit anyway, why not retain him? If you (not you personally, Bako) think Carr sucks so badly why not let him contribute to our crappy season for a better pick in 2026? Or are y'all afraid that he'll contribute to too many wins?

BakoSaint

I would agree if it was free to keep Carr, but its a falsehood being promoted by dishonest or uninformed members of the media that it is somehow free or actually saves money to keep Carr. The 2025 minimum payments of keeping or cutting Carr are essentially the same (if Carr doesn't sign elsewhere for $10m+), but the total balance owed against future salary caps increases by $30-40 million if we keep Carr. Most likely we would save $40 million long term by cutting Carr because he would sign with another team that would pay him over $10 million, likely $20-25 million I think, and his $10 million guaranteed roster bonus is subject to offset.

The basic thing to understand is that whenever you write a player a new check, you have more money charged against your salary cap, but there are ways to delay some of that money for up to 5 years, but its going to be charged eventually once you write the check. If we keep Carr this year, we have to write him $40 million in new checks.

Here is an approximate breakdown, assuming Carr would sign for over $10 million elsewhere if cut and trigger the offset.

Keep Carr: $51 million cap charge for 2025, $29 million in prorated money against the cap in 2026 and beyond, which is due even if Carr is cut in 2026. Plus another $50 million against the cap 2026 and beyond if he is retained to 'play out his contract.'

Restructure Carr: $20 million cap charge for 2025, $61 million in protated money against the cap in 2026 and beyond, which it due even if Carr is cut in 2026. Plus another $50 million against the cap 2026 and beyond if he is retained to 'play out his contract.'

Cut Carr as an ordinary pre-June-1 cut. $40 million cap charge for 2025. Zero obligations against the cap for Carr in 2026 and beyond.

Cut Carr with a post-June-1 cut tag. $11 million cap charge for 2025 and $29 million cap charge for 2026.

As you can see, when you consider the cap beyond 2025 year, it saves the Saints $30 million salary that nobody pays and $10 million roster bonus that another team offsets if they cut Carr now. If they wait until 2026 they pay that money and that $40 million has to hit against future caps. If they keep him in 2026 they owe another $50 million which can be restructured and spread out but will hit the cap eventually.

If the the Saints restructured everything in 2025 and 2026 and just let Carr play out his contract, they would face $81 million in dead cap in 2027. They currently owe Carr $17 million dead money in 2027 with the contract as is. Restructuring his $40 million in 2025 would spread it out to $8 million a year over 5 years, so $24 million more for dead money in 2027 since $16 million would be paid in the first 2 years, and then another $40 million dead money from a 2026 restructure, where $50 million is spread out to $10m/yr for 5 years, putting money out to 2030. But all that 2027-2030 money hits at once in 2027 if his contract voids, so $81 million dead cap in 2027. As you can see, the problem doesnt get better if we wait, it gets worse. $40 million dead cap now is chump change.