|
In a completely rational market, a player hitting full unrestricted free agency should make more money than a player over whom a team has leverage (threat of tagging, etc.)
But I wonder if the market for QBs is fully rational. If the Giants front office, say, lets Daniel Jones leave, then that front office is the front office that let Daniel Jones leave. And unless the team keeps winning, that front office is going to get roasted for that and likely fired. So maybe--even though you know that it isn't smart--you pay him $40/year so you aren't the front office that let Daniel Jones leave. And, heck, if he regresses, maybe you even buy yourself a few more years if you convince your owner "we just need to get out from under the Daniel Jones contract."
In contrast, if Jones is in free agency, maybe teams set a price ceiling and stick to it. No one is afraid of losing their QB. They just hope to get a deal. And you can go to your fans and say "Hey, we weren't going above $28/year for Daniel Jones," and I think that your fans are OK with that.
Maybe that's why the market for guys like Carr isn't coming out as robust as I thought. Maybe enough of the Carr/Jimmy G/Wentz guys are hitting free agency that we won't see the Flacco/Cutler extension like Quik noted above.
|