The 2026 Free Agency Thread

[Primus Porcus]

So, again… if our speculation is true (and it is important that we keep that in mind)…

What does that say about this front office?

IF this is true, it means we got lucky Pierce didn’t sign here and we were able to spend cash on other players that improve us in a much more impactful way.

I don’t want to minimize how much Pierce could have helped our offense, but at the cost of three-ish other signings that could have been devastating to this offseason…

And again, IF this is all true…

That’s a really bad look on the FO.

Of course, we’ll probably never really know. But it’s a sobering thought.

It's a valid question.

We also heard we offered $30M a year, but we have no idea what guarantees were written into that. Was our front office smart and that guarantee was limited, which was part of the determining factor for him AND for Doubs?

No i'm not defaulting to them being right, just trying to look at it from all angles, because at this point it's all speculation.

If we offered Pierce $84m in guarantees, I'm not ok with that. I'm still not sold on him as a WR1, and doing something like that, in a cash strapped situation, would be risking so much.


BTW, in my above post, I didnt even include Tunsil's extension which added $60M+ in guaranteed money.

 

[KDawg]

It's a valid question.

We also heard we offered $30M a year, but we have no idea what guarantees were written into that. Was our front office smart and that guarantee was limited, which was part of the determining factor for him AND for Doubs?

No i'm not defaulting to them being right, just trying to look at it from all angles, because at this point it's all speculation.

If we offered Pierce $84m in guarantees, I'm not ok with that. I'm still not sold on him as a WR1, and doing something like that, in a cash strapped situation, would be risking so much.


BTW, in my above post, I didnt even include Tunsil's extension which added $60M+ in guaranteed money.

The other part of me says we weren’t ever really ever in on Pierce. We made an offer that was at market but we knew he probably wouldn’t take simply so they could say we made an offer and look better in the eyes of the media / Jayden.

And while part of me really understands that approach for the media/fan relations… that would be a deceit on Jayden, which I don’t love.

And while I do understand they need to save money for Jayden… what happens (and this is worst case scenario and one that I am NOT saying will happen) if Jayden has another injury plagued season? That money we tabbed on his new contract may not need to go there if we go in another direction or can get him for less due to durability concerns.

I just have so many strategy questions and we may not ever know what the thoughts are behind a single one of them. But from the outside in I’m just not sold on this front office’s overall approach to building this team from a sky high bird’s eye view.

I am more than understanding, though, that it’s possible I’d feel differently if I were in the building and understood the behind the scenes stuff.

But I’m not, so I can only judge what I see.

 

[HOF44]

It looks and feels like we are operating just above the cap floor.

 

[Primus Porcus]

If I’m reading the cap rules correctly you can carryover 11% of the cap yearly. You must spend 89%. The cap this year is 301,200,000. So the max carryover would be 33,132,000. Any not spent over that is just gone. But just to add the 89% is calculated over a rolling 4 year period. So not sure how that fits in.

I believe there are ways around this, because the 49ers rolled over $50M last year, so that has to be more than 11% of last years cap.

I want to say I read somewhere, that previously rolled over money does not count toward that 11%, so If a team carries over $15m from 2024 - 2025, then they in theory could carry over $48m (15m + 33m from 2025).

 

[Primus Porcus]

The other part of me says we weren’t ever really ever in on Pierce. We made an offer that was at market but we knew he probably wouldn’t take simply so they could say we made an offer and look better in the eyes of the media / Jayden.

And while part of me really understands that approach for the media/fan relations… that would be a deceit on Jayden, which I don’t love.

And while I do understand they need to save money for Jayden… what happens (and this is worst case scenario and one that I am NOT saying will happen) if Jayden has another injury plagued season? That money we tabbed on his new contract may not need to go there if we go in another direction or can get him for less due to durability concerns.

I just have so many strategy questions and we may not ever know what the thoughts are behind a single one of them. But from the outside in I’m just not sold on this front office’s overall approach to building this team from a sky high bird’s eye view.

I am more than understanding, though, that it’s possible I’d feel differently if I were in the building and understood the behind the scenes stuff.

But I’m not, so I can only judge what I see.

It's a dance, and one that I'm glad I don't have to actually manage. There's a reason you can count the actual 'best' executives in the NFL on 2 hands. It's not as easy as fans want to believe it is, and the vast majority of the time we're all reacting to a decision with a fraction of the information.

Of course... that's what message boards are for

 

[HOF44]

I believe there are ways around this, because the 49ers rolled over $50M last year, so that has to be more than 11% of last years cap.

I want to say I read somewhere, that previously rolled over money does not count toward that 11%, so If a team carries over $15m from 2024 - 2025, then they in theory could carry over $48m (15m + 33m from 2025).

You are correct. It goes toward your 4 year rolling average. The question is what happens to a team at the end of a 4 year period that doesn’t spend 89%.

 

[burgold]

I’m kinda terrified that if we are playing the cash cap game that Pierce was a higher level target than Chig.

If we signed Pierce, we probably don’t have Chig.

Although the other hand is if we signed Pierce maybe that means they aren’t waiting for Aiyuk.

I don’t know. But if we offered Pierce that money on a cash strap what does that mean for our other, less costly, signings?

Kinda scary.

I wonder about where Pierce and Chig stood on their boards? IOW, how highly rated was Pierce relative to the universe of receivers in the NFL not just the ones in free agency and how highly rated was Chig? My guess is that on a relative basis they thought Chig was the superior player. They wanted both, but there was a line for Pierce they would not go beyond. I'm sure the same was true about Chig except we never found out what that was because they came to a contract agreement.

 

[HOF44]

If an NFL team fails to spend 89% (or 90% in current CBA periods) of the salary cap over a designated four-year period, the penalty is not a fine or loss of draft picks, but a requirement to pay the exact cash shortfall directly to their own players by September 15 of that year.

I would bet we are operating a percent or 2 over the minimum

 

[ES1974]

We shouldn’t even be debating cash and cap, or whether getting Pierce would have impacted other FA signings.

The disappointing key point would be the notion that we have ownership that wish to operate within such financial constraints.

 

[ES1974]

If an NFL team fails to spend 89% (or 90% in current CBA periods) of the salary cap over a designated four-year period, the penalty is not a fine or loss of draft picks, but a requirement to pay the exact cash shortfall directly to their own players by September 15 of that year.

I would bet we are operating a percent or 2 over the minimum

Been a while since I looked at this, but I thought the required spend under the CBA was a cash spend % compared to the cap level, which is very different to having to utilise that noted % of cap space.

Could be very wrong on that though.

 

[Primus Porcus]

We shouldn’t even be debating cash and cap, or whether getting Pierce would have impacted other FA signings.

The disappointing key point would be the notion that we have ownership that wish to operate within such financial constraints.

it's kind of easy to make that statement when it's not our money to spend. Spending $275M this off season in 'cash' is not exactly operating within financial constraints. Building a new stadium without public funding is not a financial constraint. Investing in the existing facilities, especially while a new stadium is on the books... He's not operating on the cheap. At some point it's still a business, so financials are going to always have an effect on the decision making.

 

[HOF44]

it's kind of easy to make that statement when it's not our money to spend. Spending $275M this off season in 'cash' is not exactly operating within financial constraints. Building a new stadium without public funding is not a financial constraint. Investing in the existing facilities, especially while a new stadium is on the books... He's not operating on the cheap. At some point it's still a business, so financials are going to always have an effect on the decision making.

Hard to believe, but seems a guy worth almost 10 billion is not liquid enough to run an NFL franchise at the max efficiency it could be ran at. At least in regards to fielding the best team possible every year.

 

[KDawg]

We shouldn’t even be debating cash and cap, or whether getting Pierce would have impacted other FA signings.

The disappointing key point would be the notion that we have ownership that wish to operate within such financial constraints.

I mean, why not both? And if we are operating under a cash cap, then discussing it is valid.

 

[Primus Porcus]

Hard to believe, but seems a guy worth almost 10 billion is not liquid enough to run an NFL franchise at the max efficiency it could be ran at. At least in regards to fielding the best team possible every year.

but that $10B of 'worth' is not exclusive to the NFL. His only expense isn't the Commanders.

I could own 10 Hotels, valued at $1M each, which could inflate my 'worth' to $10M, but they cost $800K per year to maintain, so while the 'worth' is there, the cash that you can draw from isnt.

He's got 2 other franchises he's also got to foot the bill for.


Net Worth does not equate to money. It equates to value.

 

[HOF44]

but that $10B of 'worth' is not exclusive to the NFL. His only expense isn't the Commanders.

I could own 10 Hotels, valued at $1M each, which could inflate my 'worth' to $10M, but they cost $800K per year to maintain, so while the 'worth' is there, the cash that you can draw from isnt.

He's got 2 other franchises he's also got to foot the bill for.


Net Worth does not equate to money. It equates to value.

A Bezos, Musk, Walton would be able to access the cash needed. Sounds like our owner might be overextended at his net worth to operate the franchises he has effectively. Just saying it’s getting to the point that to buy a franchise and have the cash needed it takes like a minimum 50B net worth. Cause like you said all of these guys have wealth tied up in assets. But the higher the net worth generally the higher the access to cash you have.

 

[Primus Porcus]

A Bezos, Musk, Walton would be able to access the cash needed. Sounds like our owner might be overextended at his net worth to operate the franchises he has effectively.

You're talking about people who could buy the NFL tomorrow. Musk's 'value' is 7 TIMES what Harris is 'valued' at.


I also don't think he's been running it 'ineffectively' considering he signed the checks for almost $300M in guarantees this off season.... he aint pullin change from his couch cushions to hold this thing together.

 

[HOF44]

But he is operating at less than peak efficiency due to cash constraints. Or at least I believe that to be the case

 

[ES1974]

I mean, why not both? And if we are operating under a cash cap, then discussing it is valid.

Yep, I was more highlighting the actual importance of the underlying issue.

 

[ES1974]

it's kind of easy to make that statement when it's not our money to spend. Spending $275M this off season in 'cash' is not exactly operating within financial constraints. Building a new stadium without public funding is not a financial constraint. Investing in the existing facilities, especially while a new stadium is on the books... He's not operating on the cheap. At some point it's still a business, so financials are going to always have an effect on the decision making.

Nah, that’s an easy out for Harris. NFL is cash rich, let’s hope we don’t have an overly frugal owner.

 

[Primus Porcus]

Nah, that’s an easy out for Harris. NFL is cash rich, let’s hope we don’t have an overly frugal owner.

We're top 10 in cash spending... why are we acting like he's pinching pennies?

2026 NFL Team Salary Cash Tracker

A real-time look at the 2026 salary cash totals for each NFL team.

www.spotrac.com