Derek Carr won’t take a pay cut for 2025 but willing to restructure to help the cap (1 Viewer)

[Booker]

So I'm not sure how accuate or up to date "Over the Cap" is, but if this is accurate then parting ways wouldn't be as painful as some think.

Carr has $10M guaranteed, with another $30M to be guaranteed in early March. If they cut him before that with a June 1 designation, they'd save $30M in cash and $30M against the cap in 2025, with a little under $29M in dead money in 2026 (where he's currently scheduled to count over $61M).

If this is accurate, the question is, "can you get an equivalent veteran for less than $30M?" And I think they could find a bargain vet for probably half that would not be a very exciting pick up (think Brissette, Minshew, Lock) and would signal to the fanbase that they won't compete in 2025, but also who honestly probably wouldn't make much much difference in the win total at the end of the year that Carr could generate.

 

[Elvis]

Jamal Wiilliams wasn't last year. Lets keep things in context. You, and many people here are saying Loomis needs to go for the type of changes that this organization needs to move forward. I'm presenting you with visible evidence that the pivot you're saying Loomis is incapable of doing, was actually indeed done last year. If I'm not mistaken 9million will be spread right? So that's a 4.5mil cap hit.

Even if not, it doesn't constitute the horrible contract's that we've been known to dole out, but you are squeezing the narrative so it fits. Again, we get a 3rd round pick out of the deal if he leaves. That's not "bad business" sir even if you want to make it that way so it supports your theory.

1. You brought up last year, I didn't. I was talking about Carr as well which obviously wasn't last year. So context was kept. You just tried to narrow it.

2. Young's cap hit will not be split, it's $9 million for 2025 and we are not guaranteed a 3rd round comp pick. Either way they gave $13 million to a guy whose last two teams didn't want.

3. I'm not squeezing any narratives and haven't been a big "fire Loomis" guy like many have been. But he is not doing what I am suggesting either. We don't need to keep signing free agents with a bunch of void years. That hurts the cap further. I'm talking about cheap true one or two year deals for promising players stuck behind entrenched starters on other teams. No void years, not signing bones pushed 5 years out. It's the only way to get the cap right and have the flexibility we need to get the roster set for a new coach.

 

[Elvis]

So I'm not sure how accuate or up to date "Over the Cap" is, but if this is accurate then parting ways wouldn't be as painful as some think.

Carr has $10M guaranteed, with another $30M to be guaranteed in early March. If they cut him before that with a June 1 designation, they'd save $30M in cash and $30M against the cap in 2025, with a little under $29M in dead money in 2026 (where he's currently scheduled to count over $61M).

If this is accurate, the question is, "can you get an equivalent veteran for less than $30M?" And I think they could find a bargain vet for probably half that would not be a very exciting pick up (think Brissette, Minshew, Lock) and would signal to the fanbase that they won't compete in 2025, but also who honestly probably wouldn't make much much difference in the win total at the end of the year that Carr could generate.

You have him as a June 1st cut but we'd have to carry that salary until June 1st and we have a lot of cap to clear. So it's not a matter of just leaving everything else alone and cutting Carr. Other moves would have to be made to get under that cap in March.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

1. You brought up last year, I didn't I was talking about Carr as well which obviously wasn't last year. So context was kept. You just tried to narrow it.

2. Young's cap hit will not be split, it's $9 million for 2025 and we are not guaranteed a 3rd round comp pick. Either way they gave $13 million to a guy whose last two teams didn't want.

3. I'm not squeezing any narratives and haven't been a big "fire Loomis" guy like many have been. But he is not doing what I am suggesting either. We don't need to keep signing free agents with a bunch of void years. That hurts the cap further. I'm talking about cheap true one or two year deals for promising players stuck behind entrenched starters on other teams. No void years, not signing bones pushed 5 years out. It's the only way to get the cap right and have the flexibility we need to get the roster set for a new coach.

1. I brought up last year because that's when the pivot was made to "tighten their belts" and not give out bad contracts. The previous year to Carr strengthens your logic but doesn't apply. We're speaking solely on 2024 because thats when the aformentioned happened. Agreed?

2. 13 million to Bolster a defense for a year that has missed on a few guys isn't a bad contract. I get it, you want to make it one...but I don't think anyone besides you agree that it was a bad contract. However, if you want to stick to that I'll allow it.

3. Fair enough, and yet outside of Youngs contract which again nets us a 3rd pick...what contract did we give out during 2024 FA w/ multiple void years?

 

[St. Widge]

Young had 4 Void years for a total of around $9 million that'll be dead money if he doesn't get extended. I have a problem with that contract because they Commanders traded him away for a 3rd and the 49ers didn't even try to sign him back after giving up that 3rd. They both knew something we ignored.

I didn't know about the 4 void years or the $9 million this year. But, if they take the cap hit this year, it doesn't really hurt us in 2026 which is when we should be back to even with the cap. So while I don't like the 4 void years, it's not the worst deal if they take the hit now instead of kicking the can on it. In the end we were desperate at DE due to misses on Davenport, Turner, and Foskey. So we had to do things that Washington and the 49ers didn't. Frankly, he probably would have been out of our price range but for the neck surgery. I expect now that he has proven healthy and had all those pressures, he's going to get a fairly big multi-year deal on a team with plenty of cap space to burn and a need at DE.

And we could still get a 3rd round pick for him if he gets a big contract elsewhere. That is unless the void years mess with that but I don't think they do. Even if it's a later round pick, we can use all the picks we can get.

So I guess while it wasn't a great move, I don't think it's the kind of deal that hurts us longer term if it's in isolation. But, sure, you don't want to do a bunch of deal like that. Especially if you aren't going to give them a new contract.

But, I do think Loomis was overall surprisingly frugal last year which gives me some hope that he now gets it and is committed to getting things under control. But, I'm not ruling out the possibility of him suddenly shifting back into go for it mode again if the next coach pushes for it.

 

[Elvis]

1. I brought up last year because that's when the pivot was made to "tighten their belts" and not give out bad contracts. The previous year to Carr strengthens your logic but doesn't apply. We're speaking solely on 2024 because thats when the aformentioned happened. Agreed?

2. 13 million to Bolster a defense for a year that has missed on a few guys isn't a bad contract. I get it, you want to make it one...but I don't think anyone besides you agree that it was a bad contract. However, if you want to stick to that I'll allow it.

3. Fair enough, and yet outside of Youngs contract which again nets us a 3rd pick...what contract did we give out last year in 2024 w/ multiple void years?

1. Not agreed. You're trying to put everything in a single year box and that is not what I'm talking about and never was.

2. Allow it? Get over yourself.

3. There is no guarantee that Young leaving nets us a comp 3rd. And Young's contract had 4 void years.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

1. Not agreed. You're trying to put everything in a single year box and that is not what I'm talking about and never was.

2. Allow it? Get over yourself.

3. There is no guarantee that Young leaving nets us a comp 3rd. And Young's contract had 4 void years.

1. Ok where there's nothign to continue to discuss. Just having a cordial conversation that counters some of the thoughts that Loomis is incapable of not dishing out bad contracts and I'm stating that he reversed course last year.

2. I've tried to get over myself, I look in the mirror and my attractiveness makes it hard.

3. I did not realize that, appreciate the correction. I also asked what contract besides Young had void years, I already acknowledged your correctness and asked you for a different one.

Take care

 

[Booker]

1. Not agreed. You're trying to put everything in a single year box and that is not what I'm talking about and never was.

2. Allow it? Get over yourself.

3. There is no guarantee that Young leaving nets us a comp 3rd. And Young's contract had 4 void years.

Are players whose contracts have "void" years even eligible for generating a comp pick? Or is it like when you cut a player?

 

[Elvis]

1. Ok where there's nothign to continue to discuss. Just having a cordial conversation that counters some of the thoughts that Loomis is incapable of not dishing out bad contracts and I'm stating that he reversed course last year.

2. I've tried to get over myself, I look in the mirror and my attractiveness makes it hard.

3. I did not realize that, appreciate the correction. I also asked what contract besides Young had void years, I already acknowledged your correctness and asked you for a different one.

Take care

1. I never said he is incapable of not dishing out bad contracts and even acknowledged that I liked a couple of them. But he is very obviously capable of dishing out bad contracts as well. The contract we're talking about right now, Carr's, is one them. We wouldn't even been talking about any of this without the it being structured to handcuff them.

2. Yikes, I've seen you on Rev's show. Lets not make stuff up now.

3. My mistake on missing the "outside of Young" but they did add a bunch of void years on Demario's contract. Not a new player granted, but more pushing cap into the future on a 35 year old player.

 

[Elvis]

Are players whose contracts have "void" years even eligible for generating a comp pick? Or is it like when you cut a player?

I've been told both ways, but the most compelling evidence is that it is possible.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

1. I never said he is incapable of not dishing out bad contracts and even acknowledged that I liked a couple of them. But he is very obviously capable of dishing out bad contracts as well. The contract we're talking about right now, Carr's, is one them. We wouldn't even been talking about any of this without the it being structured to handcuff them.

2. Yikes, I've seen you on Rev's show. Lets not make stuff up now.

3. My mistake on missing the "outside of Young" but they did add a bunch of void years on Demario's contract. Not a new player granted, but more pushing cap into the future on a 35 year old player.

1. Yes I understand your frustration w/ the Carr contract. I've acknowledged that, what I'm pointing out is that Carr's contract was given under the guise that we were a QB away from competing at a high level. I think based on the way they handled the 2024 off-season, it was a subtle acknowledgement that Carr didn't open any window. Thus they were limited on spending. Some of the moves we made were a signaling of staying competitive in a weak division, not the "one player away" moves that we've made in previous years. That represents a pivot IMHO and is why I keep shrinking the scope to point out that they have indeed reversed course in how they've done things in the past.

2. I mean I'd give myself a solid 6.3, i think that's above average on the beauty scale.

3. Demario's contract is another example, he's also playing up to it so I'm not as mad at the contract. It's cheap in today's market and he also took a paycut.

 

[baarbogast]

What does waiving him with an injury designation do?

 

[SweetT]

Young had 4 Void years for a total of around $9 million that'll be dead money if he doesn't get extended. I have a problem with that contract because they Commanders traded him away for a 3rd and the 49ers didn't even try to sign him back after giving up that 3rd. They both knew something we ignored.

Thank you. The past 3 years of watching this team, has somehow skewed the majority of our fanbase’s perception of reality. Young is not that good of a player. Have people forgot what good play actually looks like? He is literally the type of player that you think will be super great, but he never reaches his destination. I read this week, that someone said that Young was not reaching his potential bc he’s on our bad team.
He has full control of beating his man to a drum and to make plays. I have seen a million guys, play his position on bad teams, and ball out. He just lacks something that no one seems to get out of him. He’s not the type of player to invest heavily in

 

[Elvis]

1. Yes I understand your frustration w/ the Carr contract. I've acknowledged that, what I'm pointing out is that Carr's contract was given under the guise that we were a QB away from competing at a high level. I think based on the way they handled the 2024 off-season, it was a subtle acknowledgement that Carr didn't open any window. Thus they were limited on spending. Some of the moves we made were a signaling of staying competitive in a weak division, not the "one player away" moves that we've made in previous years. That represents a pivot IMHO and is why I keep shrinking the scope to point out that they have indeed reversed course in how they've done things in the past.

2. I mean I'd give myself a solid 6.3, i think that's above average on the beauty scale.

3. Demario's contract is another example, he's also playing up to it so I'm not as mad at the contract. It's cheap in today's market and he also took a paycut.

I know Loomis said that and did a few things in the right direction, but he paired that with doing some bad things to pay for his past bad things. So yes, there was a pivot to some degree. That pivot has a long turn around time though and I believe, and obviously you don't agree, that they need to rip the bandaid off like the Falcons, Bucs and Broncos did for a year and get it cleared out.

I have no issues with Demario as a player, but he took a pay cut in 2024 to get guaranteed money in 2025 and we'll still have him on the books for $8.7 million in 2026 when his contract voids.

 

[SWJJ]

If this is accurate, the question is, "can you get an equivalent veteran for less than $30M?" And I think they could find a bargain vet for probably half that would not be a very exciting pick up (think Brissette, Minshew, Lock) and would signal to the fanbase that they won't compete in 2025, but also who honestly probably wouldn't make much much difference in the win total at the end of the year that Carr could generate.

Carr>Minshew>Brissette>Lock

Cutting Carr, eating money and paying a different (and in my opinion Lower) QB is flat dumb.

You can NOT get an equivalent QB for $30M.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.