Saints could get to $14.61 million under the cap without restructuring Derek Carr, after Saints salary cap potentially increases by $5M (17 Viewers)

[livefromDC]

Those restructures by themselves would be for ushering in a potential post June 1 release of Carr mentioned in the OP.

I’m reading the cap proposal thread and I see it’s the same restructures and goal. The available cap space amounts are stated here. I suppose now doing all of the 13 restructures and 2 cuts ahead of the cap compliance deadline for the HC’s potential clean slate at QB could be explored more by the FO due to the cap increase.

The highest cap hits of players that may not be here in 2026 but likely to restructure in 2025, are Cam, Demario and Taysom. The Saints’ initial projected 2026 available cap space is currently $64 million. Even after it’ll decrease by 15m-25m once the 2026 salaries of 2025 signings and draft picks are accounted for, the 2026 cap can still absorb portions of most of the 2025 restructures’ dead money. I believe Cam and Demario will retire in 2026 which would lead to restructures again in ‘26. Saints 2027 cap space will be able to practically absorb all dead money from previous restructures and still have around 75M-100M in cap space since the Saints won’t have many high cap hit vets by then.

Are you accounting for the free agents the Saints will sign this year and next? If the Saints' goal is to get as far below the salary cap as they can, this sounds accurate, but that's not the Saints' goal is it?

 

[Nolan]

Good solid take. I happen to disagree completely. I think ML influenced KM to come to NOLA because of the way they performed against his Eagles team. The “NFL” stands for, win now or else. So you run it back with Carr for one year. I like your idea better, but it’s not logical business-wise. Cutting Carr now, you’d have to entertain going 0-17 next year. We have no evidence to the contrary. And if any coach, new, old, young, goes 0-17. He’ll be one and done. So you compete next year with Carr, while also working on the long term QB1 situation.

I have a few thoughts here:

Moore will have his own vision for not just quarterback but this roster in general. Loomis even said in his last presser that our new coach would make the decision at QB. They aren't going to support him in cutting ties, knowing that the likelihood of a very bad season is high, only to can him. They're going to give him time to rebuild this thing.

Regarding fans and what sells, I think its obvious that Carrs personality does not vibe with this city and this teams fans whatsoever. I think most will be happy to be rebuilding to something sustainable, and what likely will be a top 3 pick in the draft if it is indeed as bad as you think it will be, as opposed to a likely average season that we would get with Carr.

Last, it'll be Arch Mannings first year of draft eligibility. If simultaneously Arch is balling out at Texas and the Saints are tracking toward pick 1, there will be serious fan hype even with losses. You know who would be good for business? Arch Manning. That's obviously a pipe dream, I'm using him as an extreme example, but even if it's another QB creating waves in CFB, fans will be paying attention and excited about that if we are in fact losing. What's bad for business is a losing season like we faced last few seasons (weak division, but a roster good enough to win it but can't get out of our own way); a losing season when it's evident that we are rebuilding isn't what you're painting it to be, IMO.

 

[Ghost]

So we should restructure everyone else on the team to avoid another year with Carr? I dont like that idea. I’d rather keep Carr who isn’t a problem but understandably not the long term solution, and avoid keeping the old guys around any longer.

“If you’re not part of solution, you’re part of the problem.”

 

[St. Geezy]

Are you accounting for the free agents the Saints will sign this year and next? If the Saints' goal is to get as far below the salary cap as they can, this sounds accurate, but that's not the Saints' goal is it?

This has been my question to the people on that side for awhile now. What exactly is the financial goal that’s trying to be accomplished? Only so much cap space is actually needed. We can operate this year as normal and still have more than adequate space to aim for in 2026-2027.

Now if it’s cosmetics we are worried about, or there is some $120 million goal for a specific year, it makes sense. But I don’t think the team wants that.

You don’t actually NEED $100 million in cap space or some crazy number in a given year to be able to reshape the roster.

You want cap space so you can re-sign players you have drafted with success, not to go on a wild spending spree on other team’s expensive players. We have never really operated that way outside of once every blue moon signing a big ticket guy.

 

[Nolan]

Because we won’t be as choked to death on the cap as a result. We are in much better position to absorb it next year. This year, you’re essentially “Tanking” the off-season, for lack of better word.

What I am saying is, the benefit of the proverbial tanking of an off-season isn’t necessary to accomplish the same goal for 2026-2027.

I don’t think it’s egregious to hold onto Carr for a year to buy you time to find another QB. It’s been done before. If that guy is Rattler, he’ll have plenty of opportunities to show that.

My counterpoints to this would be that we don't need to be spenders this offseason, and it can be argued that playing Carr for a season would get in the way of finding your QB to build around.

Playing him would win us too many games, but wouldn't lose enough to land a top pick, and we wouldn't learn anything about Rattler with the lights on.

If you cut Carr and Rattler plays awesome, that when we would want to be spenders, the next offseason. Because hes 24(?), clearly your guy, and on a rookie contract. If you cut Carr and Rattler shows he just doesn't have it, then you're likely staring at a top 3 pick and you'll have cap freedom when you need it.

 

[Nolan]

This seems very relevant to the conversation.

 

[Taker597]

-2025 Roster Bonus: $10M (fully guarantees 3/15/2024, paid the 5th league day of 2025 injury guaranteed at signing)
-$30M 2025 salary fully guarantees the 3rd league day of 2025 (injury guaranteed at signing)

This probably why Carr is getting cut. It financially makes too much sense to try and save $40 million.

Restructuring Carr doesn't make any sense long term when it seems clear that's he's not Moore's guy.

People really got to get over trying to borrow from 2026 and 2027 to compete for a sub .500 team that won't be good.

 

[St. Geezy]

My counterpoints to this would be that we don't need to be spenders this offseason, and it can be argued that playing Carr for a season would get in the way of finding your QB to build around.

Playing him would win us too many games, but wouldn't lose enough to land a top pick, and we wouldn't learn anything about Rattler with the lights on.

If you cut Carr and Rattler plays awesome, that when we would want to be spenders, the next offseason. Because hes 24(?), clearly your guy, and on a rookie contract. If you cut Carr and Rattler shows he just doesn't have it, then you're likely staring at a top 3 pick and you'll have cap freedom when you need it.

I think “5-12” with one of the most injured rosters of all-time coached by one of the worst coaches of all-time has jaded fans and their outlooks.

I think throwing away or year or not going all out for a year at this stage is “Easy to say as a fan” talk. The people in that building just aren’t built that way, both from a competitive standpoint and from a business standpoint.

I think last year’s roster, even with the incompetent coaching, is a couple of fortunate ball bounces from being a 10-7 type division winner.

Add a good coaching staff headed by a SB winner, along with a handful of key free agent tweaks and a strong draft, and skies the limit.

Sure, will we be competing for a 15-2 year with homefield advantage? Probably not, but not being within reach of that specific threshold barring luck isn’t a damning thing that means it’s not worth going for the division win and a berth into the playoff dance. Virtually every team is always a bit of luck and health from a 10-7/11-6 threshold, and it’s worth going for.

There’s also the early culture-building aspect to consider.

Lastly, if Rattler is the guy, it’ll be shown in the off-season. A baller at that position reveals himself. You don’t have to rid yourself of Carr for that to happen. If Carr somehow prevents that, then that tells me Rattler wasn’t the guy to begin with.

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

It isn't black and white. Regardless of what Kellen Moore said in his press conference about wanting to compete in 2025, this has the makings of a rebuild. No team actually announces a rebuild, the message is always "compete".

If this team were locked and loaded, coming off of a prime season that ended in disappointing fashion, and we now have a head coach who is capable of getting us over the hump? Yes, we absolutely keep Carr because it makes sense.

But the reality is we're coming off of a horrible season and this is a roster, and whether folks want to admit it or not, that needs to be rebuilt.

With or without Carr, this team is at least 2-3 years out from making serious noise. I don't think it makes a ton of sense to run it back with a quarterback who has already peaked, and is likely to be on the downward slope of his career by the team that this team is ready to compete (assuming we draft well.)

I'd much rather avoid the restructure of our very old and underperforming vets (Davis, Jordan, Mathieu) and rip the quarterback band-aid off now instead of later. Even if it restricts what we do in FA this year. I don't see a real need to spenders in year 1 anyway for the reasons mentioned above. At that point it doesn't matter what we do at quarterback. The no brainer would be to see what Kellen thinks Rattler, since he's shown flashes and has the arm talent. If he doesn't show it, we're in a prime position to land a guy next year to hopefully build around.

It doesn't have to look pretty in year 1. Dan Campbell went 3-13 in his first year in Detroit. Even in a down year, there can be a lot of things to build on.

There's a good chance that the people in charge feel differently, but if you're wondering why there's a large portion of people wanting to cut ties with Carr now instead of later, the above is why I'm for it from strictly a football and roster building standpoint.

We're in a weak division. So saying that we can't make any noise is not necessarily true. We can sign someone like Cooper Rush to compete with Rattler, have a strong draft and remain healthy, who knows what can happen. Especially with a new coaching staff that has common sense.

 

[St. Widge]

I think “5-12” with one of the most injured rosters of all-time coached by one of the worst coaches of all-time has jaded fans and their outlooks.

I think throwing away or year or not going all out for a year at this stage is “Easy to say as a fan” talk. The people in that building just aren’t built that way, both from a competitive standpoint and from a business standpoint.

I think last year’s roster, even with the incompetent coaching, is a couple of fortunate ball bounces from being a 10-7 type division winner.

Add a good coaching staff headed by a SB winner, along with a handful of key free agent tweaks and a strong draft, and skies the limit.

Sure, will we be competing for a 15-2 year with homefield advantage? Probably not, but not being within reach of that specific threshold barring luck isn’t a damning thing that means it’s not worth going for the division win and a berth into the playoff dance. Virtually every team is always a bit of luck and health from a 10-7/11-6 threshold, and it’s worth going for.

There’s also the early culture-building aspect to consider.

Lastly, if Rattler is the guy, it’ll be shown in the off-season. A baller at that position reveals himself. You don’t have to rid yourself of Carr for that to happen. If Carr somehow prevents that, then that tells me Rattler wasn’t the guy to begin with.

If you think the 5-12 was just because if injury, then just taking Carr off the roster does not mean you are tanking. Frankly, if the roster really is around a .500 roster, and I think it is, we probably have just as good of a shot of making the playoff with Rattler or a young vet like Jones or Field, as we do with Carr. So I don't understand why you seem to think cutting or trading Carr would be trying to tank. It may end up in a losing season if guys can't stay healthy, but that's going to happen regardless of if Carr is the QB or not. And, as I have said before, Loomis has for the last few years spent very little on free agents outside of Carr. Whatever the final number goal is, it's clear that Loomis wants to get the cap better under control so he isn't likely to spend big this year anyway. And, as you suggest, the cap is really for signing your own good players that you drafted so, why would it matter if we don't have cap space to sign free agents this year?

The advantage of parting with Carr now is that you start the search for your franchise QB in year one for Moore and you create more cap space to sign the few good young players we have to extensions next year, while also having a bit of money to bring in some mid-priced guys to help build the roster the way Moore wants it. We can't do any of that this year without kicking the can on Carr's contract and/or other contracts and for the last few years Loomis has been unwilling to do that more than is necessary to get cap compliant. Gone for now are the days of creating as much cap space as possible by kicking the can. And, I expect they won't be back until we find a franchise QB.

We might as well start that process of finding a franchise QB in year one for the new HC. To do otherwise would not be fair to him because coaches succeed or get fired on their ability to find their QB. No point in not letting Moore get that process started this year rather than in year 2 when he would be another year closer to being fired because he hasn't found his QB.

 

[St. Geezy]

If you think the 5-12 was just because if injury, then just taking Carr off the roster does not mean you are tanking. Frankly, if the roster really is around a .500 roster, and I think it is, we probably have just as good of a shot of making the playoff with Rattler or a young vet like Jones or Field, as we do with Carr. So I don't understand why you seem to think cutting or trading Carr would be trying to tank. It may end up in a losing season if guys can't stay healthy, but that's going to happen regardless of if Carr is the QB or not. And, as I have said before, Loomis has for the last few years spent very little on free agents outside of Carr. Whatever the final number goal is, it's clear that Loomis wants to get the cap better under control so he isn't likely to spend big this year anyway. And, as you suggest, the cap is really for signing your own good players that you drafted so, why would it matter if we don't have cap space to sign free agents this year?

The advantage of parting with Carr now is that you start the search for your franchise QB in year one for Moore and you create more cap space to sign the few good young players we have to extensions next year while also having a bit of money to bring in some mid-priced guys to help build the roster the way Moore wants it. We can't do any of that this year without kicking the can on a bunch of contracts and for the last few years Loomis has been unwilling to do that more than is necessary to get cap compliant. Gone for now are the days of creating as much cap space as possible by kicking the can. And, I expect they won't be back until we find a franchise QB. We might as well start that process in year one for the new HC. To do otherwise would not be fair to him because coaches succeed or get fired on their ability to find their QB. No point in not letting Moore get that process started this year rather than in year 2 when he would be another year closer to being fired because he hasn't found his QB.

It’s tanking in the sense of it is restricting your ability to obtain significant enough cap space to add talent to the team, a key piece or two…

When I say tanking there I mean “tanking the off-season,” not maximizing your available assets. Not tanking as in “Trying to go 3-14.”

And for the record, I think Carr is a much better QB than Rattler and believe people are just enamored with the newness of him. He’s worth seeing if he can develop but isn’t someone to bank on…JMO.

 

[Elvis]

This seems very relevant to the conversation.

I’ve been saying this for a while and have been manually counting the void years in the year beyond 2025 to the best of my ability.

 

[St. Geezy]

People really got to get over trying to borrow from 2026 and 2027 to compete for a sub .500 team that won't be good.

This is your opinion as a jaded fan and it just isn’t the way the club is going to think IMO.

 

[oysters]

What are the savings from cutting Carr? It's blurred out.

I ask because I believe that it's imperative not to restructure the trio of Jordan, Mathieu, and Davis again.

agreed

 

[Covington Saint]

relevant note for all. Creating additional cap space this year and not using it can still transfer to the following year. Pushing cap back in future year does not necessarily mean you are using that additional cap space this year. Allows flexibility.