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?