Derek Carr

[Skins212689]

5 hours ago, Woz said:

In a vacuum, would I like to replace Alex Smith with Derek Carr? Sure.

However, a move like that cannot be evaluated solely in a vacuum.

First off, the Redskins would have to deal with Smith's contract. Assuming they cut him in late February/early March (i.e. before the fifth day of the 2019 League Year), that would mean the Redskins would take on $20.4M in dead cap in 2019 along with another $16.2M spread across the next three years. Of course, I'm assuming they would designate Smith a June cut; otherwise, it would be $36.6M all in 2019.

Second, the Redskins 2019 cap situation is currently estimated at $174.3M (if you go on Spotrac, you'll need to divide the number by two because they've double entered all of the Redskins for 2019). Cutting Smith in late February/early March as a June cut would not change that number (his salary and pro-rated portion of the signing bonus are already guaranteed). $174M would put the Redskins somewhere in the realm of $10-12M in cap space ... significantly less than the $19.9M Carr's 2019 salary would handle. Could they make room for him? Sure, with some reworking of contracts. However, that leads the Redskins back to the troubles they had in the 2000s where they were always kicking the can down the road with renegotiations, causing them to keep players longer than they should and let players they should keep go because they couldn't afford to re-sign them.

Then there is the problem of giving up the draft pick. Yes, no pick is guaranteed, and as you pointed to, the Redskins have had some high level misses. Those misses are costly because of losing a quality player on a cheap contract. Giving up the ability to get a cheap, potentially good linebacker for four years (five if you include the 5th year option, though that makes said player significantly less cheap) is a loss of value not only in that player, but also in the cap space that player doesn't take up. That allows you to keep guys like Scherff or Ioannidis. Tossing that the Raiders for Carr causes the team to have less room for the guys they want to sign as well as losing out on that hungry up-and-coming talent.

The Redskins did themselves a substantial disservice first by trading for Alex Smith (giving away young cheap talent they had already developed in Fuller and the ability to get more young cheap talent in the form of a 3rd round pick(*)). At the same time, trading for Derek Carr a year after trading for Alex Smith and sending another high round draft pick would be devastating for the franchise. This would require a lot of contract jiggery-pokery as well as potentially letting guys like Matt Ioannidis walk because they couldn't afford to keep them. That's a bad deal all the way around.

Again, I do not think Alex Smith helps this team get to the Super Bowl. At the same time, the Redskins have made their bed with this deal. Blowing it up a year in would be silly in the extreme.

 

 

(*) Had they kept the pick, they could have gotten both Mason Rudolph (at 74) and Geron Christian or Martinas Rankin (at 78). Of course, that's 20/20 hindsight, but even if you exclude the idea that Rudolph would have been there, they could have gotten another cheap lineman in the third.

Thanks for breaking it down with the contract numbers. What happens if we somehow someway Jay convinced John to take on the order Smith to lead his Raiders and 5 1st round picks. Alex and a 2nd for Carr. Wouldn't Smith salary go to the Radiers giving us more money to resign Matt Ioadannis and Brandon Sheriff? 

[Woz]

Just now, Skins212689 said:

Thanks for breaking it down with the contract numbers. What happens if we somehow someway Jay convinced John to take on the order Smith to lead his Raiders and 5 1st round picks. Alex and a 2nd for Carr. Wouldn't Smith salary go to the Radiers giving us more money to resign Matt Ioadannis and Brandon Sheriff? 

So, one of the things I kind of waved my hands over and didn't address were the guaranteed monies from previous signing bonuses.

For the Raiders, they would eat $7.5M in dead cap if they were to trade Carr to Washington. Meanwhile, Washington would eat $21.6M in dead cap due to the signing bonus they gave Smith. I don't know if you can amortize those cap hits like you can if you designate a player a June cut. I suspect not.

Then there's the fact that Carr's 2019 salary ($19.9M) fully guarantees on the 3rd day of the 2019 league year(*). Smith's 2019 salary ($15M) is already guaranteed, and his 2020 salary guarantees on the 5th day of the 2019 league year (this is why it is said that his contract is a 3y/$71M fully guaranteed). At the same time, that's $4.9M more in salary that the Redskins would be taking on beyond the dead cap issue. So, no, they wouldn't be gaining room by trading Carr for Smith, but losing it.

The one upside of the Carr-for-Smith swap is that if in fact Carr is a bust, the Redskins could get out of the deal after one year. Still, that "benefit" would mean giving up yet another draft pick and completely upending the cap for Washington.

 

 

 

(*) Carr's deal does guarantee him $2.9M in 2020 for injury only, and that fully guarantees on the 5th day of the 2020 league year (out of $18.9M of total salary).

[Skins212689]

2 hours ago, Woz said:

So, one of the things I kind of waved my hands over and didn't address were the guaranteed monies from previous signing bonuses.

For the Raiders, they would eat $7.5M in dead cap if they were to trade Carr to Washington. Meanwhile, Washington would eat $21.6M in dead cap due to the signing bonus they gave Smith. I don't know if you can amortize those cap hits like you can if you designate a player a June cut. I suspect not.

Then there's the fact that Carr's 2019 salary ($19.9M) fully guarantees on the 3rd day of the 2019 league year(*). Smith's 2019 salary ($15M) is already guaranteed, and his 2020 salary guarantees on the 5th day of the 2019 league year (this is why it is said that his contract is a 3y/$71M fully guaranteed). At the same time, that's $4.9M more in salary that the Redskins would be taking on beyond the dead cap issue. So, no, they wouldn't be gaining room by trading Carr for Smith, but losing it.

The one upside of the Carr-for-Smith swap is that if in fact Carr is a bust, the Redskins could get out of the deal after one year. Still, that "benefit" would mean giving up yet another draft pick and completely upending the cap for Washington.

 

 

 

(*) Carr's deal does guarantee him $2.9M in 2020 for injury only, and that fully guarantees on the 5th day of the 2020 league year (out of $18.9M of total salary).

Thanks. Wow, you really crushed my dreams man. 

[turtle28]

@Woz I thought guaranteed money accelerated and couldn’t be amortized over the life of a contract. 

So, trading a Smith’s contract means that the Redskins would take a $21.6 M cap hit next year if they traded Smith or cut him.

[Woz]

On 11/16/2018 at 9:07 PM, Skins212689 said:

Thanks. Wow, you really crushed my dreams man. 

Sorry about that. 

On 11/16/2018 at 9:26 PM, turtle28 said:

@Woz I thought guaranteed money accelerated and couldn’t be amortized over the life of a contract. 

So, trading a Smith’s contract means that the Redskins would take a $21.6 M cap hit next year if they traded Smith or cut him.

If you release a guy via a June cut, then you can still amortize the dead cap. However, I think in the case of a trade, it all comes due at once.

[turtle28]

On 11/19/2018 at 2:08 PM, Woz said:

Sorry about that. 

If you release a guy via a June cut, then you can still amortize the dead cap. However, I think in the case of a trade, it all comes due at once.

Yeah I think so too. This was a thing in years pat I remember, maybe it was when some people wanted to trade guys like Andre Carter and Cooley when Shanahan got here.

I remember it from somewhere.