BakoSaint

There have been rumors of potentially trading Derek Carr to the Giants. If he would accept a trade and the Giants would offer, I have found after some thinking that this could be affordable.

Essentially these are the other options for our salary cap:

$30 million savings this year by restructuring Derek Carr, but big costs down the road in future years, future outs for Carr's contract become more expensive if we restructure to take out additional future cap debt on Carr.

$0 savings by retaining Carr but not restructuring him, but a much cap friendlier out next year.

$0 savings by cutting Derek Carr as a regular cut this year. There is a big dead cap hit for cutting Carr, but we also save $30 million salary, and the end effect of cutting Carr for 2025 is about $0, even though the 'dead cap' is about $50 million, because its about $20 million of existing obligations becoming dead cap cap instead and about $30 million of future obligations becoming current dead cap but $30 million less salary offsetting that. So its net zero for cap. Big savings down the road.

$30 million savings this year by designating Carr a Post-June-1 cut. But that money is not available until June 1 and we still have to get under the cap. Big savings down the road.


Normally a trade would act the same as a cut but for Carr's cap situation there are two reasons it wouldn't.

~$20 million savings this year by trading Derek Carr. $10 million immediately, up to ~$10 million more on June 1. Reason is that Carr has a $10 million guaranteed roster bonus due. If he is cut, that hits dead cap immediately, but if he is traded the other team pays it. So in that sense trading Carr saves $10 million compared to a simple cut or retaining him. Secondly, trading Derek Carr rather than utilizing a post-June-1 cut saves us an extra post june 1 cut designation, so for example we could designate both Jordan and Hill as post-June-1 cuts if we decide to rebuild around players who are not in their mid-30's. We could also potentially use the post-june-1 cut on Mathieu, Young (his contract voids days 2 of the league year but I believe we could post-june-1 him the day before and save $6m), or Shepherd for lesser savings if we want to keep Hill and Jordan because they sell jerseys or are exciting in a few games when healthy. Also, having the financial flexibility could save us even more, because we could go to players like Jordan, Hill, and Mathieu and ask them to take pay cuts or incentive laden contracts. The financial flexibility to designate them post-June-1 cuts would increase our leverage to get some of them to agree to true pay cuts, and any who did would help our cap situation more and increase leverage even more.

All in all I think it could be worth offering the Giants a late pick to take Carr off our hands and save us $10 million more than any other option long term. For the Giants it would be a bonus if they get a pick versus signing him after a cut, and they could avoid the possibility of him signing elsewhere. For Carr it could be a guarantee that he goes to a big market and gets his good contract. If Carr was a free agent I am skeptical that he could get a two year $90 million deal with $40 million guaranteed and $50 million on deck for 2026 that could be guaranteed by injury. Then again Carr's $10 million roster bonus is subject to offset provisions, so Carr cannot double dip, and we could make similar gains if we cut him and a team quickly signed him. The late pick would get us those gainst immediately, since we cannot afford to be above the cap even one day into the league year. Basically it all works if Carr and another team both think his current deal is what he is worth, the other team doesn't think they can get him for way less, and Carr doesn't think he can get way more, then the trade may work for everyone.