AUGUST 14: Detailing the initial stages of negotiations in this case, Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports noted on the Inside Coverage podcast (video link) Peters and the Commanders were “stunned” by the asking price first submitted by McLaurin’s camp. Talks nearly broke down right away as a result, and as this point it remains to be seen if a compromise can be reached. Concessions on both sides may be needed, with Robinson echoing the notion that a pact averaging $28MM per year (or thereabouts) could be enough for a deal to be struck.
AUGUST 13: It’s been two weeks since Terry McLaurin publicly revealed his trade request, and a resolution doesn’t appear to be in sight. Thanks to ESPN’s John Keim, we’re starting to get more insight into how the Commanders are approaching negotiations…and how they run counter to their star wide receiver’s financial desires.
[RELATED: Commanders’ Terry McLaurin Requests Trade]
As we’ve assumed all along, the Commanders are wary of giving McLaurin a lucrative contract that would extend well into the player’s 30s. As Keim notes, the Commanders “rely heavily on analytics,” and those numbers aren’t particularly kind to receivers on the wrong side of 30. They may be onto something. Per ESPN Research, over the past five years, only three receivers 31 years or older have played at least 10 games and averaged 70-plus receiving yards per game (that number jumps to six players if you adjust for 60-plus receiving yards).
Further, the team can simply point to the NFL landscape, as other teams are also clearly wary of paying aging wideouts. Among the 24 active wide receivers who are attached to the most guaranteed money, only Tyreek Hill was older than 30 when the deal was signed. McLaurin has continually pointed to his lack of mileage despite his age; he barely played during his first two years at Ohio State, meaning he may not have the same wear and tear as similar players his age.
McLaurin is also naturally pointing to the stat sheet, as the receiver has continually produced despite uncertain QB play, uncertain ownership, and a handful of different coaching staffs. Per Keim, the Commanders don’t want to pay McLaurin based on his past performance, with the front office preferring to shape any future contracts based on his projections for age-31-plus seasons. The organization also doesn’t want to set a new precedent by paying McLaurin, as it could convince future veterans to push for lucrative deals in their 30s.
While McLaurin has taken the drastic measure of requesting a trade out of Washington, the organization is still convinced they have leverage in this showdown. After all, the player is still under contract for the 2025 campaign, meaning McLaurin will have to forfeit game checks if he sits out games. The team could even choose to slap him with the franchise tag next offseason (which could come in north of $30MM), meaning they’re in full control of the player’s fate moving forward.
The team is also skeptical that another suitor is going to willingly pay McLaurin the type of money he’s seeking. Per Keim, there’s doubts around the league about whether another team would be willing to meet the receiver’s demands. Even if a clear suitor does emerge, Keim makes it clear that Washington’s front office won’t give the star away without receiving a haul.
We heard recently that McLaurin wasn’t necessarily seeking a deal that matched fellow 2019 draftee D.K. Metcalf‘s deal with the Steelers. However, Keim says Metcalf’s contract has generally served as a guide for McLaurin, although it’s uncertain whether the Commanders wideout is looking to match the AAV ($33MM) or total guarantees ($60MM).
Ultimately, one source believes the Commanders may agree to pay McLaurin a contract that will pay $28MM per year. Of course, it’s uncertain if the player would even accept that offer. If that hypothetical maximum offer doesn’t end in a signing, a divorce may be the logical next step.
He dropped his trade request? So he’s no longer demanding a trade?
Drop as in reveal, but I changed the wording to be more clear.
Good to go.
They traded multiple picks for Lattimore and his contract based on past performance, but won’t just pay the most consistent member of the organization who’s also the best player on the team other than Daniels.
I think that all contracts reflect past performance and are using the past performance to project future production. That is to say, there is no reason to assume that an unproductive player will suddenly become productive if you pay them more. The other factors are the value of past contracts for players of your age at your position, and how easily can that production be replaced in free agency and the draft. This is part of the NFL, and will be, so long as there are “contracts” that are not guaranteed. Teams will cut players they don’t want to pay before their contract is up and players will ask for more money when they feel like they can. I don’t think there is a right or wrong side to this. I hope he stays because Daniels is electric, and it would be better for the NFL if he has weapons that are also electric!
I’d only amend your statement to remove “other than Daniels” from it. All due respect to Jayden Daniels, but one good rookie year pales in comparison to McLaurin’s statistical consistency (in the face of bad offense, at that). That’s my only nitpick with what you said-I think McLaurin is Washington’s best player at the moment, which makes his case better.
And, unlike Lattimore, McLaurin hasn’t been hit or miss with his success. Lattimore has had a few downs, especially if you believe in metrics-McLaurin’s always been at least above average.
And I get Washington not wanting to pay a 29 year old receiver (soon to be 30) for his past accolades, but McLaurin isn’t showing signs of slowing down, isn’t (I think) asking for the most money at his position, and Washington has a young QB. Trade him, or pay him.
Ak… I would say the team and individual success of Daniels in his rookie year was a rarer thing across the history of the NFL than what Terry McLaurin has done at WR, but both are impressive. I feel like you’re being unnecessarily dismissive of one of the best rookie seasons we’ve seen from a QB in history.
Daniels had an absolutely amazing year and seems primed to be a HOF candidate, someday. Now he has to transfer what he did in 2024 into consistency and missing the injury bug. Washington still has him for three seasons on the rookie scale, why take away his most consistent target over money?
Analytics are a great tool. They are also one tool in the toolbox. Other players will be watching how the McLaurin situation plays out.
I didn’t say that Daniels didn’t have a great year. One great year versus many outstanding years is a bit early to call someone the best player on the team. Let’s at least see what he can do for two or three years before announcing him just yet-especially if Washington can’t get him someone to be a bona fide number target to throw to.
One of the biggest reasons Daniels had an “amazing year” was McLaurin. That is undeniable.
Adam Peters has absolutely no clue what he’s doing. People wanna give him credit he doesn’t deserve cuz he worked in SF. Joe Douglas worked under the best GM in the league before going to the Jets and we see how that worked out. Washington is completely wasting JDs rookie contract and it’s hilarious. This team will be lucky to get 8 wins this year
It’s still early, but I’d say that it doesn’t look like the change that was promised. We’ll see what happens. I expect McLaurin to get a deal, but the drama in getting there seems unnecessary.
It seems like an easy win as a new regime to come in and reward your team leader and cog with a new deal, especially with his still looking effective and a young QB. Dress it up if necessary, give a bunch of guarantees in the first few years if you need to, but get it done and build a positive reputation for your organization and in the mind of your team leaders and (apparent) franchise QB.
If McLaurin looked older or slower, I could get the trepidation, but I think that Washington can afford a couple of years of him on an extension right now. If not, though, make the trade and use those picks wisely, because McLaurin’s a big part of what Daniels is looking to do as a passer.
Worse than that, Josh Harris paid Embiid that max extension before he even showed he was healthy after the Olympics. And that was after paying Podcast P for past performance.
Oh, here you are again with your “just pay him” argument, Oof. Like clockwork. To accommodate your just pay him suggestions, the league would have to double the salary cap every year.
Here you go again being triggered by an innocuous comment from me and responding hyperbolically Alec. He’s their best player and franchise pillar. His guaranteed money has almost entirely run out. They’re in rough shape without him. This same team shelled out draft capital to take on big financial commitments to Marshon Lattimore and Laremy Tunsil, as well as giving silly money to Javon Kinlaw. Paying to keep their homegrown star who’s been a model of consistency makes a lot more sense than at least two of those moves. I don’t think every single player who holds out should get the money he’s looking for, nor would the cap have to go up any more than it does go up to accommodate the ones I think should.
I’m an Eagles fan I don’t care if they pay him or not. This holdout only helps us like the Parsons one. I’m simply calling them out as hypocrites and liars when Harris owns the team. A Harris owned team saying they don’t pay for past performance is like Charlie Sheen saying he’s never been a fan of drugs or alcohol.
They didn’t give hima new deal though. If he returns to form, he’s actually underpaid by CB standards now. Plus, it was a huge position of weakness for them last year going into the playoffs.
Lattimore is a 29 year old corner who hasn’t played more than 10 games in a regular season since 2021 and looked like he was missing a couple of steps last year. What kind of return to form are you realistically betting on? I would not want to have $18 million committed to him this year, especially at the additional price of draft picks.
Again, that was their gamble last year, but they still didn’t extend him or pay him more. He’s in the same boat. I’m just giving you what I think is their thought process as management. I don’t think they want to pay McLauren either because of age but will end up compromising because a younger trade isn’t out there right now, and they didn’t draft a replacement.
Last I checked every player in every sport gets paid from pass production u can’t pay for future production
They’ve also already traded away a lot of draft picks, especially for a team with an old roster and a ton of upcoming free agents.
Then trade him. Go see how far you’ll get with declining Deebo Samuel as your number one.
He’s still 29 and had limited use in college and his first season was age 24. He only has 6 years in the league. I can see a 3 year deal.
Well, he’ll be 30 in week 2.
Its all about how it’s structured im sure. If they gave him 3/96 but only 25 guaranteed, he probably doesnt like it. But if they have him 3/90 with 50 guaranteed, he might take it.
Also, is he seeking a 3 year extension, or tearing up his current deal and taking 3 years, starting this year? Giving him guaranteed money at 32 vs 33 could be a deal breaker to the team.
I dont think wear and tear is a big issue for WR’s. At least not compared to RB’s. So i dont think it’s about that. Its just about the body slowing down and speed, quickness, reflexes taking a hit as you age.
Smart, Father Time is undefeated.
Trade him then
It’s rather comical to have the oldest roster in the league and then say you’re concerned about paying veterans 🙂
I’m sure they don’t want to… but that’s how contracts work. What an absolute nonsense position for them to take. You think this organization has turned a corner and then this comes out. 3 or 4 years at market value.
How do you pay someone based on their future performance 😂
That’s how analytics works, project likely outcome and base on that. Fairly simple concept.
Exactly why analytics is dumb.
Yeah but that’s not how contracts in the NFL work. If it’s solely based on future predictions, then rookie contracts would be the highest paid. It’s extremely silly to have this approach if you’re the Commanders. Every veteran non-rookie contract is based on past results. That’s what having a predetermined draft pay scale creates. It’s extremely simple to see through a hollow statement like that.
They caved on their name. Clearly this is a shiz organization. However, following analytics is a hard thing to argue. Truth hurts.
Go back and read. The major apparel makers in the world (Nike, Reebok, Adidas) refused to make apparel with their name and logo and FedEx threatened to pull their name off of the stadium. The only choice they had was to change their name and logo, or else start manufacturing their own uniforms. They could not have picked a dumber name, but changing their name was happening no matter what.
This is exactly why ownership can’t be trusted to play fair. The entire basis of changing the rookie pay structure and locking in lower amount for rookies was premised on wanting to pay established players more, the owners saying they don’t want to pay rookies exorbitant amounts based solely on their potential, and that the big paydays should be reserved for established veterans who have proven their worth.
And now- surprise!- team owners are saying they don’t want to pay established veterans based on their proven performance and, instead, want to pay them based on their potential.
Team owners are such a bunch of b.s. artists. Hell, if Washington was really a proponent of paying based on expected performance, they should’ve charged a whole lot less for game tickets these past years.
That was pretty predictable when they made that horrible deal. So instead of three big paydays if you were drafted high, players only get two if they’re lucky.
Owners don’t want to pay?? Every team utilizes virtually the entire salary cap each year. It’s more about cap management and being smart about it.
If anything he’s been consistent as hell. For three years I’d sign him or five that is front loaded with a team option years four and five. They’d let him go after three anyway if a deal like that was struck.
lol doesn’t want to pay him on past performance absurd
I see Josh is taking the same “winning” formula he’s gone by as Sixers owner and brought it to the NFL.
I guess Washington is perfectly fine with being a one year wonder because they are NOTHING offensively without McLaurin. Period.
Straight out of Jerry’s “The Fart of The Deal” manual
If I’m a player for Washington, this is what I just heard: we hope you’ll produce for us the first 4-5 years while we underpay you, then we won’t pay you after you’ve proven your worth because you might decline.
The real irony being less than half the money will probably be guaranteed. I don’t blame Terry for wanting out.
Pay the man his money.
Thats how sports work. You pay on previous performance
No you don’t. That’s how you build over-the-hill and incapable franchises like the Dallas Cowboys. Winning teams shed dead weight every year. See the Patriot run of Super Bowls. Watch what the Steelers and the Ravens do (accumulate draft picks, let the lightning in a bottle players leave on big contracts, pick up the compensatory draft picks and keep moving).
What the Redskins/Commies should do: offer McLaurin a two year extension at the value of the franchise tag with $45 million guaranteed. This takes the risk off of McLaurin (he’s paid for this year anyway) and doesn’t put too much risk on the franchise. Next year’s franchise tag is almost guaranteed already (what it would take to make him suit up again) and $15 million is acceptable risk for a player who has outplayed his contracts.
For bonus points, tack on a third non-guaranteed year at $30 million. The Redskins/Commies will probably cut him after year two or ask for a salary reduction but that gives a $90 million over all figure with half of it guaranteed. The third year is not necessary though as the Commies will be able to negotiate a lower number for year three on a three year retirement contract at $15-20 million annual value at that point.
McLaurin’s alternative is not to play at all or to play the last year of his contract now with no guarantees. If McLaurin feigns injury or deliberately injures himself, he could see himself at the wrong end of a lawsuit and lose the last of his NFL value (Antonio Brown level stupidity, ruined the incredibly gifted Leveon Bell).
Anyone feeling sorry for Terry McLaurin should check his OTC page first. He will earn $73 million as a Redskin.
Signing a two-year extension with $45 million guaranteed brings that figure up to $118 million.
“What the Redskins/Commies should do: offer McLaurin a two year extension at the value of the franchise tag with $45 million guaranteed.”
lol
Why would McLaurin accept this?
“Anyone feeling sorry for Terry McLaurin should check his OTC page first. He will earn $73 million as a Redskin.”
What does this have to do with anything?
“Anyone feeling sorry for Terry McLaurin should check his OTC page first. He will earn $73 million as a Redskin.”
A) No. He’ll earn it as a Commander. Get over it.
B) Anyone taking the owner’s side on this should look at his net worth and the amount of idiotic massive contracts he’s doled out for the Sixers.
Alec, there are so many problems with this. First, McLaurin isn’t “dead weight”. He may well still be their best player. He has shown nothing to suggest he is going to decline anytime soon. You have to evaluate every player differently.
You cited the Ravens as a model franchise. They are. What did the Ravens just recently do though? They paid Derek Henry, guaranteeing nearly all of the money- a move they made because they evaluated the player, not just his age.
You’re suggesting Washington should offer McLaurin 2yr/45m, essentially, because that’s what you’re guaranteeing. And in the NFL, we all know you can forget what you signed because the money isn’t really yours if it’s not guaranteed. You, yourself, are already talking about salary reductions or cutting him after year two. So, why on Earth would he sign that contract?
He’s better served feigning and injury and forcing them to let him walk or tag him. And no, he cannot -nor will not- find himself on the wrong end of a lawsuit for that unless he tries to pretend he broke his leg. You cannot prove a man’s back isn’t bothering him. Furthermore, if you want to try, you do nothing but send up a giant red flag to other players saying don’t sign here. How does that help you?
There is a gigantic difference between McLaurin and Brown.
Wanting to be paid what you’re worth isn’t some heinous crime. I don’t feel sorry for McLaurin because if Washington won’t pay him, someone well. I do think he’s completely justified here, though.
Told you when this first popped up. They don’t want to pay him because he’s 30 and think they have a good enough QB to cover it up until they can draft his replacement or trade for Aiyuk.
After the “one step forward” they made last season, to think they have leverage over Terry because they traded for Deebo is the signal for “two steps back”
It aint fiction … its a natural fact.
Funny how they expect him to fall off like their analytics say, and they don’t expect teams to meet his asking price, but they want a haul for him in a trade.