A little late but I hate the Barry Church signing

[diehard2294]

the monies not bad, but who's to say he will amount to anything other then the Jag who was playing next to him...

If they are pinning fixing the safety position with him and Matt Johnson we could be in the same boat for years to come.

I dont know what's been worse trying to fill the safety position or hitting on a 7th round offensive lineman

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

The problem really isn't the Church deal -- it's the general trend of signing guys two years before their contracts are up (Witten, Ratliff), overpaying players way beyond the market dictates (Austin, Scandrick), and overpaying for free agent talent (Carr this year and the Cowboys attempt at Nnamdi last year).

Now this is just a plain lack of understanding of how we structure contracts. In nearly every deal we make, the back end is huge. So much so that realistically the deal is designed to be extended at that point to offset the big later contract salaries.

Take Witten's deal. He was slated to make 8.5 mil in the final two years of his deal. 2011 was the last year that his prorated bonus counted toward the cap, 2012, being the 6th year of his deal had no bonus money charged. What does that mean? It means that his cap charges were getting smaller.

By signing him now, we were able to charge 40% of his new salaries bonus money to two years that we already had him locked up for. In most of our big deals we design them so that once you clear the third year, the cap hit for cutting the guy is about the same as the cap hit for keeping him. After the 4 year, you save on cutting the guy vs. keeping him at his present salary.

Practically what does that all mean? It means a five year extension is really just an additional year of commitment to Witten with him having to justify his salaries for 2014 and beyond with performance to stay on the team.

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

Now this is just a plain lack of understanding of how we structure contracts. In nearly every deal we make, the back end is huge. So much so that realistically the deal is designed to be extended at that point to offset the big later contract salaries.

You right, I guess I don't understand the Cowboys superior approach to handling contracts. The fact that the Cowboys have to operate in the NFL equivalent of one arm tied behind their back because 25% ($30m) of the cap is tied up in dead money for players we extended at far beyond market rate is a good thing.

I admit I have a poor understanding of how these contracts really play out -- I just know it doesn't take a genius to understand that they are doing it wrong.

[Bluestang]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

In and by itself I totally agree that the Church deal is fairly low risk -- we aren't talking a lot of money in the grand scheme of the $121m 2013 salary cap.

The problem really isn't the Church deal -- it's the general trend of signing guys two years before their contracts are up (Witten, Ratliff), overpaying players way beyond the market dictates (Austin, Scandrick), and overpaying for free agent talent (Carr this year and the Cowboys attempt at Nnamdi last year).

Add to that that the team is already carrying $30m of dead money from previous bad contracts where Jerry overpaid (Roy Williams, Marion Barber, etc).

Add to that $5m of cap fines this year and $5m in cap fines next year.

Add it all together and you end up with a non-conservative and IMHO illogical approach to building a success roster under the modern day NFL salary cap structure.

There was no way around having to deal with the dead money. That was part of cleaning house after 2010.

I have news for you though, we will carry only $2M of dead money for next year's salaries.

But by your standards tendering Church as a RFA meant:

- You tender him at the lowest level ($1.23M) you actually just paid 190K over his current deal. You also risk losing him to another club if he signs for more money without any compensation because UDFAs don't warrant draft pick compensation.

- Or you could tender him at a 1st ($2.742M) or 2nd ($1.927M) round tender and you are overpaying much more.

GM school, over.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

You right, I guess I don't understand the Cowboys superior approach to handling contracts. The fact that the Cowboys have to operate in the NFL equivalent of one arm tied behind their back because 25% ($30m) of the cap is tied up in dead money for players we extended at far beyond market rate is a good thing.

I admit I have a poor understanding of how these contracts really play out -- I just know it doesn't take a genius to understand that they are doing it wrong.

And nearly all of that "dead" money is offset by the savings we get for kicking those player to the curb.

Every team in this league has dead money. That dead money didn't keep us for going out and signing a bunch of FA including one of the most expensive DBs on the market. We certainly could have spent more in FA.

Criticize the FA decisions, not the cap space because that is not what kept us from getting whoever your pet UFA was.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by Bluestang

There was no way around having to deal with the dead money. That was part of cleaning house after 2010.

And the piece that people fail to understand is that the "dead money" is greatly offset by the savings of not having to pay Roy Williams 5.1, 6.8, and 8.5 mill in the final years of his contract. Or having to pay Barber, Davis, and others what they were slated to get.

Dead money isn't necessarily bad and every team in the league carries substantial amounts. When that dead money is a fraction of what keeping the players would have cost, then it is a good investment.

[Bluestang]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

And the piece that people fail to understand is that the "dead money" is greatly offset by the savings of not having to pay Roy Williams 5.1, 6.8, and 8.5 mill in the final years of his contract. Or having to pay Barber, Davis, and others what they were slated to get.

Dead money isn't necessarily bad and every team in the league carries substantial amounts. When that dead money is a fraction of what keeping the players would have cost, then it is a good investment.

The Steelers are carrying close to $10M in dead money but surprise, surprise the New England Patriots are carrying $18.8M in dead money.

The Cowboys $12.7M

[hra8700]

Church was a great signing. Young player, has never been paid, scared after injury, sign him long term for peanuts and a few guarantees.

All upside. Great great signing.

On the other hand:

Jay Ratliff Extension: 29 year old tackle already signed for another 2 years for cheap (and unguaranteed), so he can be released after his age 31 year (around the time most premier tackles decline). Solution? Sign him to a 5 year extension!

Uhhhhhhhhhh........

I was surprised when the Eagles started doing the same sort of thing last year...very unlike them. Then they let go of Joe Banner and it was clear their front office was moving in another (much worse) direction.

[Ken]

Originally Posted by CATCH17

Now I liked what Barry Church was doing and I stated last year that I thought he may 1 day be able to develop into a starter but I just can't get over us giving him a multi year deal after suffering an achilles injury.

It may take him 2 years before he's ever back at the level he was this season physically but we're probably going to go into next season with him penciled in as the starter.

Why not just wait and see what's available in free agency or the draft? Nobody was going to give this guy a pay day with that type of injury.


I really like the player and im sorry for bringing up old news but what the heck were we thinking? What is the logic?






Sorry but im already in offseason mode.

Terrell Suggs disagrees with your timetable.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by Bluestang

The Steelers are carrying close to $10M in dead money but surprise, surprise the New England Patriots are carrying $18.8M in dead money.

The Cowboys $12.7M

Nice context. I think it is fair to say dead money is something teams plan for. Those who freak out about having dead money maybe don't realize how most new signings end up cap friendly in the first couple years, meaning that dead $ aren't going to keep you from doing the ufa shopping you want

[CATCH17]

Originally Posted by Ken

Terrell Suggs disagrees with your timetable.

Catch17 thinks Terrell Suggs isn't a defensive back.