Florio/PFT on Carr situation

[slats]

This is what Florio is good at, imho. Sometimes he goes down conspiracy theory rabbit holes, but this one makes logical sense. 
 
In a nutshell, the Raiders can’t officially trade Carr before March, so any deal done would force them to take on Carr’s guarantee and then they’d need the other team to follow thru when the league year starts. Josh McDaniels might be afraid of getting Josh McDanieled. Raiders aren’t letting Carr seek a trade because they prefer that he doesn’t undermine what they might be able to get. Sees the Raiders committing to his guarantees and trading him later, possibly after June 1. He doesn’t mention it, but at that point they’d probably give Carr permission being that he has a no trade clause. 
 

 

[heymangold]

so he's getting cut monday after the super bowl.

[Dunnie]

This is what Florio is good at, imho. Sometimes he goes down conspiracy theory rabbit holes, but this one makes logical sense. 
 
In a nutshell, the Raiders can’t officially trade Carr before March, so any deal done would force them to take on Carr’s guarantee and then they’d need the other team to follow thru when the league year starts. Josh McDaniels might be afraid of getting Josh McDanieled. Raiders aren’t letting Carr seek a trade because they prefer that he doesn’t undermine what they might be able to get. Sees the Raiders committing to his guarantees and trading him later, possibly after June 1. He doesn’t mention it, but at that point they’d probably give Carr permission being that he has a no trade clause. 
 

 

Carr has all the leverage.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[k-met57]

he is going to get cut. there is no way raiders risk putting themselves in a position where they have to pay him even though he is already "off the team". and the other GM's are not dumb enough to give them picks for a guy the agent i am sure already told them was going to be available soon.

[bla bla bla]

I thought for sure he'd be cut but I think it's less likely. I'd hold onto Carr and gamble that he lifts his no trade clause to get out.

Idk why they don't let him play this season as their bridge QB.

[slats]

14 minutes ago, heymangold said:

so he's getting cut monday after the super bowl.

 

12 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

Carr has all the leverage.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

 

6 minutes ago, k-met57 said:

he is going to get cut. there is no way raiders risk putting themselves in a position where they have to pay him even though he is already "off the team". and the other GM's are not dumb enough to give them picks for a guy the agent i am sure already told them was going to be available soon.

This has been my position, too, but he makes a compelling case. Raiders only leverage in this situation is thin, no doubt, but they could conceivably agree to pay Carr and then not play him. For his part, Carr wants to play. I think they’d be relying on him not being the prick telling them to go ahead and pay me to sit, I don’t care. 
 
If they cut him, they save the money, but get nothing for him. If they trade him later, they probably have to pick up some of the contract but also get some compensation in return. If they actually waited until June 1, that would mess with their entire offseason and their draft pick comp would come in 2024. No reason they couldn’t trade him when the league year starts, though. All of the openings would (technically) still exist. They save most, if not all, of the money and get something, too. It’s their best play. 

[slats]

7 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

Idk why they don't let him play this season as their bridge QB.

They don’t like him and don’t want to be on the hook for all that money. 

[mrcoops]

I still think he's getting cut.  Too much cap-killing money at stake for the Raiders to squat on him in the hope of finding a trade partner later.

Even if they did that, other teams would know the Raiders are caught between a rock and a hard place.  The offers would be like a conditional 2026 7th round pick type of thing.  It's not worth the risk for the Raiders.

[slats]

1 minute ago, mrcoops said:

I still think he's getting cut.  Too much cap-killing money at stake for the Raiders to squat on him in the hope of finding a trade partner later.

Even if they did that, other teams would know the Raiders are caught between a rock and a hard place.  The offers would be like a conditional 2026 7th round pick type of thing.  It's not worth the risk for the Raiders.

There’s a market. I may not like him, but he’s clearly one of the top three QBs available. 

[heymangold]

if he gets cut on 2/14 - can he be signed immediately?  or do teams have to wait til the new league year?

[PepPep]

12 minutes ago, slats said:

If they cut him, they save the money, but get nothing for him. If they trade him later, they probably have to pick up some of the contract but also get some compensation in return. If they actually waited until June 1, that would mess with their entire offseason and their draft pick comp would come in 2024. No reason they couldn’t trade him when the league year starts, though. All of the openings would (technically) still exist. They save most, if not all, of the money and get something, too. It’s their best play. 

If they cut him, won't they get a comp. pick? Due to his contract and snaps, probably a high one (3rd round?) I would imagine the Raiders don't GAIN more in FA than they lose after cutting Carr- arguably their best player.    

[JustInFudge]

I was once convinced the Jets were getting Rodgers, then I was like ok, maybe they're going after Carr and now I'm convinced w/ the news that Jimmy G isnt returning to San Fran, that the Jets veteran option next year, which means, Zachapono time!  Which is just so grand.

[slats]

2 minutes ago, PepPep said:

If they cut him, won't they get a comp. pick? Due to his contract and snaps, probably a high one (3rd round?) I would imagine the Raiders don't GAIN more in FA than they lose after cutting Carr- arguably their best player.    

No comp pick for cut players. 

[Dunnie]

I was once convinced the Jets were getting Rodgers, then I was like ok, maybe they're going after Carr and now I'm convinced w/ the news that Jimmy G isnt returning to San Fran, that the Jets veteran option next year, which means, Zachapono time!  Which is just so grand.

The snark is palpable ... And I fear the same ... I just think the Jets land on Jimmy G or Tannehill. Leading to five more years of .. just don't lose the game .. offense.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[slats]

2 minutes ago, JiFields said:

I was once convinced the Jets were getting Rodgers, then I was like ok, maybe they're going after Carr and now I'm convinced w/ the news that Jimmy G isnt returning to San Fran, that the Jets veteran option next year, which means, Zachapono time!  Which is just so grand.

It sucks when you want the team to be aggressive but that also means that they’d probably be being stupid. 

[k-met57]

raiders arent going to take that chance

why would another GM give them picks knowing they ****ed themselfs by guaranteeing salary of a player they cant bring back

and that the new team would likely have to give him a new deal anyways?

also.....if u think the raiders are going to do all this for a 5th rounder....i dont see it....and no one is sending them a 2 or a 3 for a player they can just have for free

[slats]

2 minutes ago, k-met57 said:

raiders arent going to take that chance

why would another GM give them picks knowing they ****ed themselfs by guaranteeing salary of a player they cant bring back

and that the new team would likely have to give him a new deal anyways?

also.....if u think the raiders are going to do all this for a 5th rounder....i dont see it....and no one is sending them a 2 or a 3 for a player they can just have for free

I don’t understand why anyone sees this as some impossible scenario. It’s not much different than applying a franchise tag and trading a player, which is pretty common. 

[Lith]

20 minutes ago, heymangold said:

if he gets cut on 2/14 - can he be signed immediately?  or do teams have to wait til the new league year?

If he is cut, I am pretty sure he can be signed immediately.  No need to wait for the start of the league year since he immediately become a FA when cut.

[playtowinthegame]

It will be tough to afford Rodgers if they hold onto Carr.

[heymangold]

Just now, Lith said:

If he is cut, I am pretty sure he can be signed immediately.  No need to wait for the start of the league year since he immediately become a FA when cut.

so typical jets, probably going to get screwed.  can't trade for rodgers for a month after carr gets cut.  carr probably wouldn't be available in a month.  rodgers gets traded elsewhere.  jimmy g it is!

[k-met57]

6 minutes ago, slats said:

I don’t understand why anyone sees this as some impossible scenario. It’s not much different than applying a franchise tag and trading a player, which is pretty common. 

who was the last player who got franchised that was not a candidate to bring back?

[#27TheDominator]

1 minute ago, heymangold said:

so typical jets, probably going to get screwed.  can't trade for rodgers for a month after carr gets cut.  carr probably wouldn't be available in a month.  rodgers gets traded elsewhere.  jimmy g it is!

In the long run, that is probably us not getting screwed.

[heymangold]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

In the long run, that is probably us not getting screwed.

it will be when jimmy g gets injured and zach wilson is starting 6-8 games next year

[Lith]

6 minutes ago, slats said:

I don’t understand why anyone sees this as some impossible scenario. It’s not much different than applying a franchise tag and trading a player, which is pretty common. 

I am with you.  I definitely can see the Raiders keeping him, guaranteeing his salary and then trading him.  It would be different if a large cash bonus were due on 2/15, but it is just a guarantee of his 2023 salary.

The no-trade clause limits their options, but he is a solid, but not spectacular QB.  There will be QB needy teams willing to make offers and I would imagine Carr would agree to a trade somewhere.  

[JustInFudge]

16 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

The snark is palpable ... And I fear the same ... I just think the Jets land on Jimmy G or Tannehill. Leading to five more years of .. just don't lose the game .. offense.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

For one, Dunnie, we agree.

16 minutes ago, slats said:

It sucks when you want the team to be aggressive but that also means that they’d probably be being stupid. 

idk, not sure in the case of getting Rodgers it would be stupid.  I'm fine w/ going all in, better than what we've been getting.  

The Carr situation though, zero percent chance he's coming to New York.  0%

[32EBoozer]

18 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

The snark is palpable ... And I fear the same ... I just think the Jets land on Jimmy G or Tannehill. Leading to five more years of .. just don't lose the game .. offense.
 

At least Tannehill experienced how awesome the atmosphere at MetLife can be when we beat the Titans in ‘21. Our fan base is the most passionate in the league, although Arrowhead & Buffalo are also incredible places to play

[slats]

2 minutes ago, Lith said:

I am with you.  I definitely can see the Raiders keeping him, guaranteeing his salary and then trading him.  It would be different if a large cash bonus were due on 2/15, but it is just a guarantee of his 2023 salary.

The no-trade clause limits their options, but he is a solid, but not spectacular QB.  There will be QB needy teams willing to make offers and I would imagine Carr would agree to a trade somewhere.  

I think so. I’d spell it out for him in advance; at the start of the new league year, we’ll give you permission to work out a deal with the team(s) of your choosing, and then we’ll hammer out the details. It’s not unreasonable. 

[slats]

4 minutes ago, JiFields said:

For one, Dunnie, we agree.

idk, not sure in the case of getting Rodgers it would be stupid.  I'm fine w/ going all in, better than what we've been getting.  

The Carr situation though, zero percent chance he's coming to New York.  0%

All things being equal, I see Rodgers fitting what the team is probably looking for the best. But with a 39 year old, somewhat flakey QB who wants to get back towards California, I see a lot of risk. 

[Lith]

8 minutes ago, heymangold said:

so typical jets, probably going to get screwed.  can't trade for rodgers for a month after carr gets cut.  carr probably wouldn't be available in a month.  rodgers gets traded elsewhere.  jimmy g it is!

Problem is, there are about a dozen teams that could use QBs, but only two league-average or better available, maybe 3 if you add Jimmy G to the mix -- I am assuming Lamar stays in Baltimore.  Technically they can't talk to Carr and his agents yet, but I would hope they have some way to gauge his interest, becuase if he does not want to come here, he won't. 

Most QB needy teams are going to end up with MInshew/Brissett/Tannehill type options.

 

[bla bla bla]

44 minutes ago, slats said:

They don’t like him and don’t want to be on the hook for all that money. 

Yea I guess McDaniels would rather pay his guy in Jimmy G than run it back with Carr. That is kinda concerning haha but then again I think McDaniels is a stooge

[PepPep]

29 minutes ago, playtowinthegame said:

It will be tough to afford Rodgers if they hold onto Carr.

Carr for Rodgers player swap! 

[JustInFudge]

15 minutes ago, slats said:

All things being equal, I see Rodgers fitting what the team is probably looking for the best. But with a 39 year old, somewhat flakey QB who wants to get back towards California, I see a lot of risk. 

I see no risk.  It's not like this is some great franchise w/ a bunch of success, it's a disaster and one of the worst in all of sports.  So what happens if he doesnt work out?  You suck?  Oh, wow, not that.  lol  being silly but in this situation, you know exactly what you're getting and he knows exactly what he's here for trying to get the same results as the Broncos, Bucs and Rams once did when they went all in on the veteran to lead them to glory.

[undertow]

I have no idea why the Raiders wouldn't just work with Carr and get whatever compensation they can...playing hardball at this point makes no sense.

[slats]

3 minutes ago, JiFields said:

I see no risk.  It's not like this is some great franchise w/ a bunch of success, it's a disaster and one of the worst in all of sports.  So what happens if he doesnt work out?  You suck?  Oh, wow, not that.  lol  being silly but in this situation, you know exactly what you're getting and he knows exactly what he's here for trying to get the same results as the Broncos, Bucs and Rams once did when they went all in on the veteran to lead them to glory.

I hear you. I think I’d feel better about it if he was talking about another Super Bowl instead of talking about another MVP, though. I get it, but I also know I’m taking on a selfish prick. 

[bla bla bla]

44 minutes ago, slats said:

I don’t understand why anyone sees this as some impossible scenario. It’s not much different than applying a franchise tag and trading a player, which is pretty common. 

I think this is highly likely. The Raiders would be gambling that a team wants Carr with at least $40m guaranteed (in a new contract) AND that Carr is so done with the Raiders that he would lift his no trade clause with pressure applied.

 

I think both those things are highly likely to happen. I mean, in a worst case scenario they cut Carr and someone claims him on waivers eliminating their need to pay. Someone will like Carr on a 1 year $32m deal with $7m dead cap in 2024