FWST: Fuzzy math, $10 million penalty won't stop Cowboys

[WoodysGirl]

Posted Monday, Mar. 12, 2012

By Clarence E. Hill Jr.
chill@star-telegram.com

IRVING -- The Dallas Cowboys will head into free agency today $10 million lighter in the wallet.

The crime?

Legally taking advantage of an uncapped year in 2010 when they signed receiver Miles Austin to a six-year, $57 million contract extension that included a $17 million first-year base salary.

Playing off the immortal words of former Cowboys linebacker Darren Hambrick: What do uncapped mean?

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03...#storylink=cpy

[NinePointOh]

I have a feeling it wasn't just Austin's contract. We also cut Hamlin and Flozell in 2010, two years into lucrative multi-year deals.

It's still true that we complied with every rule that was in place, but I don't think the league came out and said frontloading was the only reason for the penalty.

[ravidubey]

Originally Posted by NinePointOh

It's still true that we complied with every rule that was in place, but I don't think the league came out and said frontloading was the only reason for the penalty.

No it was bias, envy, and a commissioner trying to make a name for himself.

Only half of Hamlin and Adams' cap acceleration could be absorbed into 2010, and you're telling us Dallas was the only team to unload or big contracts that year?

Austin's 2010 cap impact has nothing on Julius Peppers' almost 34 million in base salary and bonuses all counting against the cap in 2010 from a contract signed in 2010. That 1 year counted over 40% of the total value of Peppers' 6 year deal.

So explain why no hint of a penalty for Chicago?

[Luckenbach]

Originally Posted by ravidubey

Julius Peppers was paid almost 34 million in base salary and bonuses all counting against the cap in 2010 from a contract signed in 2010. That 1 year counted over 40% of the total value of Peppers' 6 year deal.

So explain why no hint of a penalty for Chicago?

This almost seems personal. Wolves voting to eat the Sheep.

Raiders? Skins? Boys? and the newly added Saints...

The first 3 are the teams that are bigger than the rest of the owners, they hog the market and even an 8-8 season will pull them more cash than a Bengals team that went undefeated. The last one is linked to 'bounties' with the bad PR.

I don't see the connection, Bears is prime example, and even more so what about the flip side? How bout the owners who didn't spend the minimum? How bout we take some of their cap away too?

Not only selective enforcement, but selective 'unwritten' rules enforcement. Quite the joke and a slap in the face to anyone watching the NFL. Heck Wash and Dallas have sucked the last 4 years, at least in the overall scheme of things, competitive advantage my ***, this was the cheap owners trying to drive the market down so they could pay their players less.

Same thing they're doing with this cap removal, the other teams will keep it, they won't spend it, Dallas and Was set the market, and drive up costs, heck Dallas hasn't even done it through FA since like 05' so they're even simply doing it to keep their own.

The biggest slap is the timing though, who waits till the day before to let the team's know this? IMO that's an even bigger penalty than the actual punishment. Not to mention the whole 'actual cheating' that is brushed off, but actually following the rules is apparently frowned upon...