Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
We were in great shape before we got Mara'ed. We always said that about the Redskins too.
We can get at least a million dollars in savings by granting the years salary as SB for the following players:
Witten 5.5m with 5 years left = 1.1; savings of 4.4m
Austin 6.7m with 4 years left = 1.675m; savings of 5.025m
Ratliff 5m with 5 years left = 1m; savings of 4m
Romo 11.5m with 5 years left = 2.3m; savings of 9.2m
Carr 14.3m 5 years left = 2.86m; savings of 11.4m
Ware 5.5m 3 years left = 1.83m; savings of 3.6m
Livings 1.7m 4 years left = .425m; savings of 1.275m
Scandrick 2m 4 years left = .5; savings of 3.5m
[View Full Quote]I prob missed some and there are guys that would give a savings of just under a mil. This is just to give an idea of what we are dealing with. There are min salaries and similar accounting considerations but this is just the quick and dirty approximation to give a sense of what is possible. Adam is the precision guy.
I agree with Stephen Jones about the chuckle when people talk about being up against the cap.
I knew they could make room, wasn't really that sure on how much so thanks for the info good stuff.
On Romo though, I'm not sure they can make any room with him by simple restructure. His contract is voidable after this next season. I can't imagine the team would be able to push money onto years that may not exist. If they could do it and he did opt out, that would leave tons of dead money wouldn't it? If they are going to work on his number, they're probably going to have get him a new contract and I can't imagine his cap number will be less than 8M which is where it would be in a situation in which they could restructure.
I agree and disagree with Stephen. Yes you can always make room. Moving money isn't a problem so we agree in that regard.
We disagree in just how wise it is to make pushing money down the road your standard operating procedure. He must think it isn't harmful or else they wouldn't do it. I think it creates the potential for harm down the line. Seems like if other teams do not have to operate in that fashion but have the choice to that you can always be outbid and in a case where you are the highest bidder you've only set yourself up for more money moving down the road.
Also, if you always anticipate moving money from the moment the contract is signed when you have contracts that go sour and are forced to cut an underachiever it seems like you'd be stuck with a larger burden in dead money. If only because you've converted a giant base salary into guaranteed money and spread across the remainder. I'm not sure if that is all that accurate in "real life" but as opposed to not converting that base (in reality it would likely be a smaller base salary if it weren't structured to be converted
) salary and guaranteeing it, it just seems that way.
One last thing area where I think it can create some problems is when you hit on multiple players in multiple drafts.
As of late, Dallas seems to have done that. Tyron, Dez, Murray, Lee, Carter. These are guys I would think the team would have interest in keeping. Dez is probably gonna be a top dollar contract for his position, Tyron possibly the same if develops into the player he can be. I think Lee is a guy who if healthy would be a top dollar contract and if Carter continues to improve he will likely get to a point where he is just below top dollar. Murray is a RB and they are kind of disposable in a sense but I really believe he could be a dominant player at his position behind a good line.
How it pans out remains to be seen but right now these guys are probably going to cost a little bit to retain. In that sense when guys come off those rookie contracts and your SOP is to make room in order to make moves in the first place, I think you could be in a position now where you are making room simply in order to keep what you have or at least keep as much as you possibly can. So maybe now you aren't even able to make room in order to acquire more talent, maybe you're making room to avoid losing talent.
When you combine the two, I think there's the possibility for cap trouble. You have Doug Free on one end who's probably going to be eating space without even being on the roster and you have contracts in the foreseeable future that are likely going to be significant.
What it really comes down to is cap space is the limiting factor in player acquisition after owner willingness. It doesn't appear there are too many penny pinching owners in the league anymore and even for those who are there's going to be a cash floor coming on board in the future isn't there?
All teams have the ability to "make" cap space but some just have it without doing so. If you have to make room in order to operate I think you have less flexibility in negotiating because a team with tons of cap room can give the same signing bonus and then on top of that hand out a fat base salary for the first year that the cap-strapped team can't match. All teams can make the room but those who are sitting with it to start with can still operate more than a team that's working to get compliant.
I don't really care for the "make room" method. I'd rather the team had space without having to restructure players. There certainly doesn't seem to be any advantage to operating the way Dallas has. Certainly not in terms of outcomes for Dallas. I guess the only real plus to having such a mindset is that you can be sure that your elite players never leave and if you are willing to push enough down the road you can take anyone's elite that you'd like.