Pay attention to history and past behavior, because it's the best indicator of future behavior.
Besides, you have to be in the room to read the room and none of us here are in any of the Saints' rooms to be reading them.
I know that's how you see it, but that doesn't mean Loomis or Moore see it the same way. Loomis always does the contracts with a future plan and multiple options in place that no one outside of the room sees coming. It happens every year.
This is how Loomis's flow chart works. 1. What football decision are we making. 2. Let me make the business side of it work for that football decision.
Loomis has never followed the flow you are suggesting. They will make a football decision first regarding keeping or moving on from Carr, then they will make that decision work from a business standpoint.
Since they are in the business of football, all of their business decisions start out as football decisions. It seems to me that some are just trying to set up a false premise that if Carr is kept, it was only for financial reasons and not because they like him as a QB.
It all seems like an attempt to create a preemptive, "I'm still right they Carr is no good and they don't he's good, even though they kept him." That's just how I see it. It's just my opinion. It may not be a preemptive argument. I'm not saying that as a personal shot at you. I'm just explaining what I think see happening from people who have made it clear for 2 years now that they want Carr gone.
That's one of the most bizarre false framing of what someone actually said that I've ever seen.
The previous status quo no longer exists. They are overhauling their coaching staff in a major way. Anything they do now will be to support the new head coach's new vision for the team. Anything that stays the same will not be the old status quo, it will be part of the new status quo under their new coach Moore.
Loomis very clearly said that the reason they chose Moore is because they were really impressed with his plan. If they keep Carr it won't be because Loomis made Moore keep him for "business" reasons, it will be because Carr is part of Moore's plan for however long they would keep him. Carr will not be forced on Moore.
You are assuming that Moore has the same vision and opinion that you do, so you're telling yourself that if the Saints do something you don't agree with, then it has to be Loomis making a "business" decision and not Moore making a football decision.
It's preemptive bias confirmation in my opinion.
They have a whole lot of other tools and options besides just "parking" it in only one of two years, like you suggest are their only two options. They have more options and tools than anyone outside the organization ever sees coming. It happens every year for over ten years now.
If the Saints move on from Carr, it will be a football decision by Moore. If they keep Carr, it will also be a football decision by Moore. I have no idea which one they will do, because we have zero history on how Moore typically runs a team. Just like we had no idea what Payton would do in his first year.
I was hoping that Payton would give working with Brooks a shot, He didn't. I moved on. If the Saints cut Carr, I'll move on knowing they made a more informed football decision than anyone of us outside the team are in any position to make.
And this seems to be what it all boils down to for you.
You can't fathom Moore might like Carr as part of his plan. You think that keeping Carr on his current contract or extending him is out of the question, dumb and unacceptable. You have that opinion even though you aren't in the room, but you think you're reading the room that you're not in. You can't read a room from outside the room.
If the Saints keep or extend Carr, it will be Moore's well informed and calculated football decision to to field the best team he thinks he can field. Not accepting or believing that doesn't change that reality.