The New QB Thread: Who will be the Raiders QB next season?

[Dessie]

1 minute ago, jpaulthe1st said:

Exactly what I said. There is a shortage of QB’s in this league and if Carr’s camp isn’t willing to play ball then we will have to be patient. 

The classic example is Carson Palmer and Mike Brown. He flat out refused to give in to Palmer and called his retirement bluff. The end result was two first round draft picks at the trade deadline from the Raiders. 
This is classic negotiation 101 and the Carr camp has to believe that we are willing to stand firm on our side. How long do you think he will be content to be an inactive 3rd string QB while he could be playing on a playoff contender? I promise you he will eventually give in and we will be able to get valuable draft capital for him. 

What do you think we would get for Carr at next years deadline ? Not a hope in hell we get 2 1st round picks. 

I’d rather cut Carr then have to eat his $34m cap hit, it makes no sense to take that contract on when we have decided to move on from him. Use the capital to reinvest in the team makes more sense, 

[jpaulthe1st]

12 minutes ago, Dessie said:

What do you think we would get for Carr at next years deadline ? Not a hope in hell we get 2 1st round picks. 

I’d rather cut Carr then have to eat his $34m cap hit, it makes no sense to take that contract on when we have decided to move on from him. Use the capital to reinvest in the team makes more sense, 

That’s a shortsighted view imo. Ziegler and co. should be looking at things through a 3-5 year lens and we will still have ample cap room even if we have to take the cap hit. 

As far as trade return, I think a 1st and a 3rd is realistic but I would love a 1st and a 2nd. You never know what a desperate team in the playoff hunt will  be willing to part with to try and get over the hump. That year we traded for Palmer we weren’t even in the market for a QB until Campbell got hurt then all of the sudden we were willing to pay a mint for him. If we just cut him then we rob ourselves of the opportunity to potentially get a good return. 
Btw - this is all theoretical and only a last resort if Carr’s camp doesn’t want to play ball. I strongly believe cooler heads will prevail. 

[Dessie]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/01/01/past-comments-notwithstanding-derek-carr-wont-be-retiring/

Thus, if the Raiders line up a trade for Carr before the $40.4 million vests, owner Mark Davis will have to go to bed every night for roughly five weeks worrying that he’ll wake up to news that the other team has done to Josh McDaniels the exact same thing McDaniels did to the Colts five years ago.

Would Davis be comfortable tying $40.4 million to not being screwed by another team? Would he want to deal with five weeks of worrying about getting stuck with Carr when Davis and the Raiders have decided to move on?

Then there’s the reality, as Peter King mentioned on Friday’s PFT Live, that a new team likely won’t want to absorb the current Carr contract without a restructuring or an extension. Beyond the $40.4 million in full guarantees, the deal pays out a total of $116.2 million over three years. That’s an average salary of $38.7 million, with Carr committed only through 2025.

Carr also has plenty of power here. He has the contractual right to veto any trade. He also may have no inclination to help the Raiders get value for him. Whatever a team surrenders by way of players and/or draft picks reduces the money the team would otherwise pay to Carr if he were on the open market.
 

Pretty good article that shows the bind we are in. 

 

[jimkelly02]

7 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

I read that Josh did the same thing to another team. Back out of a tread and ****ed them. So he can't trust anyone because he's actions.

Yeah, I was referring to when he agreed to be Colts HC back in 2018 and I believe even boarded a flight to Indy but at last very second (and after it was announced everywhere) decided to Go back on his word and return to NEP as OC with a pay raise, which I believe was equal to his contract to be Indy’s HC.

[jpaulthe1st]

4 minutes ago, Dessie said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/01/01/past-comments-notwithstanding-derek-carr-wont-be-retiring/

Thus, if the Raiders line up a trade for Carr before the $40.4 million vests, owner Mark Davis will have to go to bed every night for roughly five weeks worrying that he’ll wake up to news that the other team has done to Josh McDaniels the exact same thing McDaniels did to the Colts five years ago.

Would Davis be comfortable tying $40.4 million to not being screwed by another team? Would he want to deal with five weeks of worrying about getting stuck with Carr when Davis and the Raiders have decided to move on?

Then there’s the reality, as Peter King mentioned on Friday’s PFT Live, that a new team likely won’t want to absorb the current Carr contract without a restructuring or an extension. Beyond the $40.4 million in full guarantees, the deal pays out a total of $116.2 million over three years. That’s an average salary of $38.7 million, with Carr committed only through 2025.

Carr also has plenty of power here. He has the contractual right to veto any trade. He also may have no inclination to help the Raiders get value for him. Whatever a team surrenders by way of players and/or draft picks reduces the money the team would otherwise pay to Carr if he were on the open market.
 

Pretty good article that shows the bind we are in. 

 

I listened to the segment. The Stafford trade was agreed to in principle just before the Super Bowl and went off without a hitch. I put it at less than a 1% chance that a team would back out of a trade once agreed upon. 
The biggest issue is whether or not the Carr camp is willing to work together to negotiate a trade. The Raiders have been good to Carr over the course of a decade and paid him lots of money. Once the initial shock wears off they will come to their senses and leave gracefully. 

[HvacRaider]

Honestly I would like to see Stidham play a year in the system with all the weapons, instead of drafting a QB get a Defensive stud in the 1st , draft defense and O line help , try to fill some holes with FA since the QB won’t cost two arms!! If Stidy is t the guy then next draft go after a top QB !!! 

[jimkelly02]

If*** we are able to trade DC I can’t see a way we get fair market value for him, as we are forced to rely on the other team to honor the handshake deal for around 45 days…. But the most important part of that time, and one no one has discussed, is the legal tampering period.  Lots of deals are made in that period and trades are discussed.  If a better deal comes up for the team we agreed to deal DC too, they can just tell us to piss off… and there’s almost an incentive around the league to do that given how hated JMcD is.

Thus, the deal we make must be significantly favoring the other team, IMO.  They could even tell us we have a deal and back out last second and use that as a negotiation tactic to pay less.  Because at that point the other options will be limited to non-existent.

Thus, I think we’d be lucky to get a 2nd and 3rd.

[jimkelly02]

Also, just FYI Stidham is a UFA and is no guarantee to be back himself.  What will he want to resign?  

I could see him wanting more then a 1yr deal and easily could command 5-7M in the first year with a 2nd year option that significantly jumps, as if he stays on the team it’s because he’s the starter.

[jimkelly02]

13 minutes ago, HvacRaider said:

Honestly I would like to see Stidham play a year in the system with all the weapons, instead of drafting a QB get a Defensive stud in the 1st , draft defense and O line help , try to fill some holes with FA since the QB won’t cost two arms!! If Stidy is t the guy then next draft go after a top QB !!! 

Personally, I wouldn’t want to take the risk that Stidham is a starting QB.  Your not chancing just what you pay him, your chancing the entire teams payroll plus it’s one less year we have on every long term contracted player.  That’s a massive investment.

[Darbsk]

29 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

If*** we are able to trade DC I can’t see a way we get fair market value for him, as we are forced to rely on the other team to honor the handshake deal for around 45 days…. But the most important part of that time, and one no one has discussed, is the legal tampering period.  Lots of deals are made in that period and trades are discussed.  If a better deal comes up for the team we agreed to deal DC too, they can just tell us to piss off… and there’s almost an incentive around the league to do that given how hated JMcD is.

Thus, the deal we make must be significantly favoring the other team, IMO.  They could even tell us we have a deal and back out last second and use that as a negotiation tactic to pay less.  Because at that point the other options will be limited to non-existent.

Thus, I think we’d be lucky to get a 2nd and 3rd.

McDaniels backed out of a deal and was in everyone’s bad books for a long time. If a team backed out of an agreement then they would be severely hampering their own chances of trading prior to, during and after the draft as they’d need to instigate trades as well as be trade partners. It’s a different scenario for an individual who might only do one deal every few years and a team who will want to do several trades every year. A team would certainly not want that negative reputation of pulling out of an agreement in those circumstances IMO.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Darbsk

[jimkelly02]

15 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

McDaniels backed out of a deal and was in everyone’s bad books for a long time. If a team backed out of an agreement then they would be severely hampering their own chances of trading prior to, during and after the draft as they’d need to instigate trades as well as be trade partners. It’s a different scenario for an individual who might only do one deal every few years and a team who will want to do several trades every year. A team would certainly not want that negative reputation of pulling out of an agreement in those circumstances IMO.

I believe You’d be correct in every single circumstance other then the one where a team screws over McDaniels.  I don’t think there would be any repercussions from a team backing out of the deal because I believe there are a ton of teams around the league that despise McD.  Teams around the league IMO would have the sentiment “good for team X, McDaniels deserved that, I only wish it was us that got him like that”.  Thus, in this instance I don’t think there’d be any backlash for the team backing out.  Even if there was small to medium negative effect from teams around the league I think it would be outweighed by the gains from backing out of the deal with us and going with another deal they set up.  Your not going to back out unless something significantly better comes up.

That leads me to ask what players or scenarios out there could exist that would be more Beneficial then getting DC?  I can’t think of any outside of Brady signing with that team (which has a small chance of happening) or trading for Lamar Jackson, and I don’t see him being traded as I think he’ll get a new deal before.

The one thing that might prevent a team from backing out, that again I haven’t seen it discussed, is they’d want to have re-negotiate Carr’s deal since it has a 32m salary in ‘23 and little to no dead cap on it after the trade.  The new team might want to restructure it.  I think the new team would be looked at negatively amongst agents for renegotiating Carr’s deal then backing out.

[bucksavage1]

1 hour ago, Darbsk said:

Yep, I just thought Foles or Flacco as they’re very experienced, could help identify issues and both have won a Super Bowl amazingly and could be potential mentors. 

Flacco still has some juice left as a backup he could be useful as a 3rd back up. Foles is awful lol 

 

[bucksavage1]

 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by bucksavage1

[jpaulthe1st]

It’s also worth mentioning that we could potentially take on some of Carr’s salary and cap hit next year to make the deal more attractive to prospective trade partners. There are lots of creative options that could be put on the table to make this an advantageous situation for all parties involved. Carr will be the best available long term QB on the market this offseason outside of the 2% chance that Lamar Jackson is allowed to walk. Even then, some GM’s may prefer Carr’s play style. 

I will stand by my original opinion these next 6 weeks that an outright release is 100% not happening. 

[Jeremy408]

46 minutes ago, bucksavage1 said:

 

 

I'm definitely rooting for him to be the stopgap starter for us next year. Hopefully he can do it again this weekend. Or at least not wet the bed