What should Washington do about Terry McLaurin?

Posted on by

August 4, 2025

by Steve Thomas

Washington has been embroiled in a controversy regarding Terry McLaurin’s demand for a new contract for several weeks.  It started off innocently enough, with McLaurin making his wishes known, which soon escalated into him missing mandatory minicamp, then becoming a holdout at great cost to his pocketbook.  As it stands today, McLaurin is now a “hold-in”, which is to say that he’s almost certainly faking an injury in order to get out of practice while avoiding the CBA-mandated fines.  The latest news is that McLaurin has demanded a trade, with Washington thusfar refusing to capitulate.

Back in late May, I did an analysis of McLaurin’s contractual worth and came up with 4 years, $130M – $135M, $32.5 – $33.75M in average annual value, with $55 – $60M guaranteed at signing and approximately $100M becoming guaranteed over the life of the contract (click here to read).  I still think that’s a pretty decent estimate for this player.  Whether Washington wants to pay it is, of course, another story.

Before I dive into this matter again, let me say up that I have no respect for his “hold-in”.  To me, faking an injury for the purpose of negotiating next year’s contract is a pretty low thing to do.  It could be that the team has intentionally ignored McLaurin’s (very likely) fake injury in order to build some goodwill by consenting to a way to get him out of the mandatory $50,000 per day holdout fine.  It’s either that, or they can’t prove to a degree of certainty that he isn’t really injured.  I tend to think that it’s the former, because it ought to be easy to conclusively diagnose a non-injury; plus, videos from training camp seem to show McLaurin on friendly terms with his teammates and coaches, which wouldn’t be the case if the front office and/or coaches didn’t in some way consent to the fake injury.

Not how I’d handle it, but that appears to be the situation.  In my opinion, it is a poor choice by McLaurin and shows a lack of character that should perhaps be taken into account in the contract negotiations.

So what should happen from here?  First, we surveyed our “X” followers, and, at least from that limited, no-scientific survey, it is clear that at least the online portion of the fanbase does not want the team to trade McLaurin:

That’s a pretty decisive victory for the “don’t trade” crowd.  Of course, as we’ve learned from recent political elections, social media is in no way a reflection of reality, so I think it’s probably likely that the truth amongst the entire fanbase is more evenly split than this poll indicates.  But since I can’t survey the the non-X group, this is all we have.

I agree that trading him at this juncture is not the answer.  For one thing, immediately capitulating to a demand in a business negotiation isn’t a wise strategy.  There may come a time that the team will need to end things and get rid of him, but we’re nowhere close to that point right now.  Also, I suspect that his trade demand is just a negotiating tactic on his part.  McLaurin would most likely instantly forget about his trade demand if the team gave him the contract that he wants.

My guess is that the real issue between the two parties comes down to age more than dollar amounts.  I still think that my initial guess back in May of an average annual value in the range of $32M – $33M is the proper valuation.  Given that McLaurin will be 30 years old in September, this means that’ll turn 34 at the beginning of the final year a hypothetical 4 year contract extension.  There’s a not insignificant risk in paying a 34 year old to perform at the same level he did when he was 29.  Most players, especially receivers who rely on speed, start to lose ability at or before that time.

I assume that’s more of the issue for the team than an argument over average annual value.  I didn’t go through the headache of actually designing a contract in my previous column, but since the parties are at a stalemate, I’m going to take a stab at it.

To start with, I’m going to keep my basic guesses in play: 4 years, $130M – $135M, $32M – $33M average annual value, $55M – $60M guaranteed at signing, and $100M becoming guaranteed over the life of the contract.  Here’s how a contract with those parameters could look:

Total contract value: $134M

Signing bonus: $25M

Guaranteed at signing: $59.3M

Total guarantees: $99.3M

2026: $9.3M base, guaranteed at signing

2027: $25M base, guaranteed at signing

2028: $35M base, becomes guaranteed on the 5th day of the 2028 league year

2029: $40M base, not guaranteed, but $5M becomes guaranteed on 5th day of 2028 league year

2030: void year

2031: void year

This would put the annual cap hits and annual dead cap hits as follows:

2026: cap hit $12.9M; dead money: $59.3M

2027: cap hit $28.6M; dead money: $50M

2028: cap hit $38.6M; dead money: initially $17.8M, but becoming $61.4M

2029: cap hit $48.3M; dead money: $19.2M

As you can see, this gives the team an out before the 2028 season, when McLaurin would be 32 years old.  2028 would essentially become a team option, and allows the team to cut him in 2029.  This would effectively make this a three year contract in all but name.  For McLaurin, this contract would allow him to say that he got a top of the market, four year deal in numbers that match his net worth.

Now, before everyone freaks out about the huge cap hits in both 2028 and 2029, remember two things: first, Washington could avoid the hit by cutting him before both years; second, the salary cap has been rising by at least $10M per year, sometimes more.  Three years from now, $38.6M won’t seem like the totally outrageous number that it does now.  Odds are good that Washington will be able to afford a hit of that size with some reasonable cap management.  The simple fact of the matter is that it’s essentially impossible to create a huge contract with lots of guaranteed money without some of the cap hits rising to uncomfortable heights.

I think that contract is doable.  Now, for the sake of the argument, I’m going to show you a hypothetically example of a reasonable three year contract that follows the parameters that I discussed above and in my prior column, but then explain why I think it’s unlikely in this circumstance.  This is the contract:

Total contract value: $100M

Signing bonus: $30M

Guaranteed at signing: $45M

Total guarantees: $60M

2026: $15M base, guaranteed at signing

2027: $25M base, becoming guaranteed on 5th day of 2027 league year

2028: $25M base, not guaranteed, but $5M becoming guarantees on 5th day of 2027 league year

2029: void year

2030: void year

This would put the annual cap hits and annual dead cap hits as follows:

2026: cap hit $21M; dead money: $45M

2027: cap hit $31M; dead money: initially $24M, but becoming $54M

2028: cap hit $36M; dead money: $23M

The two major problems here are that McLaurin is only due $45M at signing and can be cut after one year.  If we made his 2027 base salary fully guaranteed at signing, that would help but it would also boost his total guarantees at signing up to 70%, which is quite a bit.  Either way, it allows the team to cut him earlier, but when he’s about to turn either 32 or 33.  Players of those age may not get big, multiyear contracts.  McLaurin wants to get locked with more years now, and the team isn’t going to set a bad precedent with a receiver and fully guarantee a three year deal.

I therefore think that my example of a four year contract is in the neighborhood of where both parties should and will end up.

What are your thoughts?  Let me know in the comment section below.