Before Mike Evans picked his next team, multiple reports suggested that he was being offered $27 million per year, or more. If that’s the case, Evans took a major discount to play for the 49ers.
Yes, it was widely characterized by the usual suspects as a three-year, $60.4 million deal. The truth, as it often does, paints a different picture.
Here are the full deals, per a source with knowledge of the terms:
1. Signing bonus: $12 million.
2. 2026 base salary: $1.3 million, fully guaranteed.
3. 2026 workout bonus: $150,000, fully guaranteed but must be earned.
4. 2026 per-game active roster bonus: $850,000, fully guaranteed but must be earned.
5. 2027 option bonus: $12.5 million.
6. 2027 base salary: $1.5 million, guaranteed for injury at signing.
7. 2027 workout bonus: $150,000.
8. 2027 per-game active roster bonus: $850,000.
9. 2028 option bonus: $10.95 million.
10. 2028 base salary: $1.7 million.
11. 2028 workout bonus: $150,000.
12. 2028 per-game active roster bonus: $850,000.
It works out to a base package of $42.5 million. The APY is $14.167 million. That puts him near the bottom of the top 30 among receivers.
Could he have gotten more elsewhere? Maybe. He seemed to be determined to play for the 49ers, even with the 13.3-percent California tax rate. (In Florida, it’s zero.)
We’re still trying to get the details of the incentive/escalator package that supposedly makes the $42.5 million deal worth “up to” $60.4 million. For now, those details remain as elusive as the basic contract details had been, for more than a week after the agreement was reached.
The Buccaneers are bringing back one of their offensive linemen.
Tampa Bay announced on Monday that Dan Feeney has re-signed with the club.
Terms of the deal were not immediately disclosed.
Feeney, 31, joined the Buccaneers in September when the club signed him off of Buffalo’s practice squad. He appeared in 12 games with 10 starts for the Buccaneers last season, playing 84 percent of offensive snaps in games played.
A third-round pick in 2017, Feeney has appeared in 132 games with 75 starts for the Chargers, Jets, Bears, Vikings, and Buccaneers.
A day before Seahawks G.M. John Schneider addressed the potential impact of Washington’s looming “millionaire tax” on the defending Super Bowl champions, Simms and I stumbled into a conversation about state income taxes during PFT Live.
The spark came from the trade that has sent defensive tackle Osa Odighizuwa from the Cowboys (and Texas) to the 49ers (and California). In his last stop, there was no state income tax. At his new team, he’ll lose 13.3 percent, off the top.
It’s not as clean and simple as every penny of compensation being taxed, or not, by the state where the team plays. For road trips, the game check is taxed by the state in which the game happens. It gets more complicated as to per-game roster bonuses. As we hear it, some states try to tax the visiting player based also on a percentage of the full-year roster bonuses and/or the prorated portion of the signing bonus for the season in which the game is played.
And, yes, the lack of state income tax becomes a selling point in free agency, which explains Schneider’s concerns about Washington’s tax rate for millionaires increasing from 0.0 percent to 9.9. But, as Odighizuwa will learn the hard way, that doesn’t matter if the free-agent contract also doesn’t include a no-trade clause.
Regardless, the variations in state income tax create an imbalance as it relates to the most important aspect of anyone’s pay — how much they take home.
Simms mentioned on Thursday’s PFT Live that he heard something interesting from someone in the league who saw the tax discussion from the day before. (And, yes, plenty of people in the league watch PFT Live — probably because it features no phony debates, no false praise, no reckless hype, no minced words, and no performative antics.) There’s an argument to be made that the salary cap should take state income taxes into account.
It would be complicated, given that taxes depend on where games are played. Still, every team has eight or nine home games per year. That’s roughly half of the compensation, taxed based on where the team is located.
The real question is whether teams should get more to spend, given that more of what is paid will end up being taken off the top by the state government. Some teams may not want to do it, since having a higher cap means having a higher floor means spending more money that otherwise would be siphoned away as pure profit.
And the numbers would be significant. At a 2026 salary cap of $301.2 million, providing the Rams, Chargers, and 49ers with a 13.3-percent bump would push the cap to $341.2 million for those teams.
The deeper question is whether state income taxes make a competitive difference. As noted the other day, most of the teams in the no-tax states haven’t been to a Super Bowl this century. (The Seahawks and Buccaneers are the exception; the Titans, Cowboys, Dolphins, Jaguars, and Texans are not.)
Part of the problem is that most players don’t fret about state income taxes, even if they should. Players focus mainly on annual average, the true locker-room measuring stick that determines the pecking order among the most and least valuable players.
Although it would indeed be difficult to come up with the right way to determine cap credits, since the total tax burden depends on where games are played, that would be doable. The bigger challenge would be to get all teams in states with income tax to agree to a higher cap in order to account for it.
News flash: Not every team is as obsessed with winning as they pretend to be. For many owners, it’s about profit. Having more money to spend means having less to buy giant yachts or that much-needed tenth home. Especially since the owners of the teams in the high-tax states are also paying those increased rates, too.
Just kidding. The ultra-rich have seemingly cracked the code on eating nearly every ounce of what they kill. Which is another reason why the owners of the teams in the high-tax states won’t want to have more to spend — even if they have to say they do.
Buccaneers General Manager Jason Licht broke a bit of free agent news on Friday.
Licht announced on social media that the team has agreed to terms on a new contract with tight end Ko Kieft. Licht also made Kieft a fifth-round pick in 2022.
Kieft only missed one game during his first three seasons in Tampa, but he suffered a leg injury in Week 3 last season and was not able to return to the lineup. He has eight catches for 82 yards and two touchdowns when he has been in the lineup.
The Bucs also re-signed Cade Otton this week. He joins Kieft, Payne Durham and Devin Culp on the roster at tight end.
A strange story emerged out of nowhere earlier this week, when the Buccaneers posted a statement disavowing a blue-checked Emeka Egbuka Twitter account, after the account posed the question of whether CTE is real.
“The below account is neither owned nor operated by Emeka Egbuka. It is in no way affiliated with Emeka or the Tampa Bay Buccaneers,” the gold-checked Buccaneers Communications account posted on Twitter.
The account has since been suspended, but there’s an interesting footnote. Via Ryan Glasspiegel of Front Office Sports, the Buccaneers had previously tagged the account nearly 60 times.
Glasspiegel reports that the Buccaneers’ social-media team had simply been “duped” by the fake account.
The situation highlights one of the biggest problems with Twitter since Elon Musk purchased it. (The folks at Last Week Tonight took a deep dive into the post-Musk existence of the popular platform last month.) In an effort to generate revenue, blue checks are for sale. Which allows anyone to enhance the apparent authenticity of an account by paying the monthly fee.
The PFT account on Twitter somehow received a blue check under new ownership without paying for it.
The gold check is now the only way to be completely certain that an account is legitimate. That costs, as of this posting, $2,000 per year for a “basic” subscription and $10,000 per year for the “full access” level.
Of course, any criticism of Twitter on Twitter activates the bots and incels. Case in point — look at many of the responses to our tweet posting the original story about the manner in which the Buccaneers were duped by a fake Emeka Egbuka account.
