1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Cowboys to restructure Carr's Contract

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by mortboy, Feb 14, 2013.

  1. Erik_H

    Erik_H Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun. Zone Supporter

    2,451 Messages
    79 Likes Received
    Or we just keep pushing it into the future as we have been. In actual economics, it would be a terrible move, but it seems that in Salary-cap-onomics, it might work. Maybe the parallels to real world budgets and such just don't exist.

    We've always looked at the Redskins and thoer BS that they'd have to pay the piper eventually, and now it would look like we'll "be in horrible shape in a couple of seasons" but the truth is, we are in horrible shape right now... and working our way out of it.

    There is a common belief that eventually it will catch up to us, and I'm one that always thought that was the case. I am starting to think that the yearly re-shuffling will just keep going on indefinitely. Some years, we'll have more and some less, but I think I am finally realizing that the Cowboys may be able put cap hell off indefinitely after all.

    Yeah, we'll hit cap purgatory (like this year), but there seem to be ways to avoid an all out apocalypse.
  2. honyock

    honyock Well-Known Member

    1,401 Messages
    533 Likes Received
    The new tv contracts begin in 2014 - and I believe they are staggered, so the increase in revenue rolls in year by year, not a huge increase at once.

    The NFL has projected a pretty flat salary cap through 2015. Starting in 2016, the estimates that keep getting tossed out are that the cap will rise maybe in the 4-5% per year range. So the cap will grow steadily but not dramatically, probably by around $5-6 million or so per year early on.

    The bigger increase in benefits will start earlier - health insurance, pensions, injury protection fees, etc. But the cap increases, according to the league, will be slower and more incremental.
  3. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,596 Messages
    1,013 Likes Received
    That is actually not true in "actual economics."

    If I can pay a debt in the future instead of immediately without incurring any interest, that is a good move. Especially when any increase in the cap makes it proportionally LESS money.
  4. gmoney112

    gmoney112 Well-Known Member

    3,351 Messages
    720 Likes Received
    Right. Future money is worth less than money today. You actually save money in this instance that's equal to the rate of inflation. The salary cap doesn't adjust for it so it's generally smart to push money into future years, to an extent of course.
  5. rocyaice

    rocyaice Well-Known Member

    7,050 Messages
    1,112 Likes Received
    I'm not sure if I would consider a qb of Romo's ability part of that bad cycle of contracts. A lot of those bad contracts came because of players we couldn't afford to give up on that we saw 1 or 2 good consecutive years from. Romo has been better than that. He's not one of these 1 good year and your out guys.
  6. bmf31

    bmf31 Member

    76 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    I don't claim to know a lot about this, but I scratch my head when some people get excited over Stephen taking over...yes I know he has talked about bringing in a "football guy", but he is responsible for the cap and in years passed have even heard "cap genius" tied to his name. I hate to be doom and gloom, but it seems like there is no end in sight with the Jones family!
  7. honyock

    honyock Well-Known Member

    1,401 Messages
    533 Likes Received
    Well, I've always had the impression that Stephen was responsible for the cap, but more in the sense of being told "we want this guy, figure out how to make it happen". That's very different than being the one who decides to extend Ratliff or some of the other questionable extensions. It reminds me of the story of Jerry and Deion...Stephen said when Jerry decided to sign him and what he wanted to pay, that it was the one time that he wanted to hit his dad. He knew Jerry was bidding against himself and knew it was a crazy number. But it was his job to figure out how to make it work.

    That's not to say that Stephen would make a great owner. I dont know if he would or not. But I've never had the impression that he had those traits that have gotten Jerry and the team in cap trouble.
  8. CowboysYanksLakers

    CowboysYanksLakers Well-Known Member

    4,139 Messages
    481 Likes Received
    I believe it will happen sooner than later....
  9. xwalker

    xwalker Well-Known Member

    13,612 Messages
    5,771 Likes Received
    They could release Ware after the 2013 season and the cap hit in 2014 would be 2.75M.

    They could release Witten after the 2013 season and the cap hit in 2014 would be 2.5M.
  10. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,784 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    A lot of that depends on the health benefits and other issues. That is why the Cap has stayed stagnant. There is a fairly good chance that the cap will rise even more slowly starting in 2016. And that is still 3 years off so its going to be hard to push a lot of cap hits into the future.

    The real elephant in the room no one is talking about is all the lawsuits filed as regards the concussion issue. Down the road there is a distinct chance that could have a serious effect on the cap as well.
  11. xwalker

    xwalker Well-Known Member

    13,612 Messages
    5,771 Likes Received
    You're making some very good contributions to the board.

    You make a great point that restructures are like loans against the salary cap without interest. They cost the team more in real dollars due to the time value of money, but in terms of the salary cap (the only thing we're worried about) they are basically free.
  12. Erik_H

    Erik_H Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun. Zone Supporter

    2,451 Messages
    79 Likes Received
    Right. But the ability to pay in the future without incurring interest and having it be proportionally less money doesn't really exist in 'actual economics.'

    That's why I was saying that it works with the cap. The seemingly obvious thing to do would be to draw parallels to national/global economics but they two are not the same, so the models are not the same.

    In an nutshell, I've changed my mind and am now all for continuing to push it foward. If done carefully, I don't think there ever will be a time to "pay the piper"
  13. Erik_H

    Erik_H Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun. Zone Supporter

    2,451 Messages
    79 Likes Received
    I also think that we will still hit years that are worse than others, but I believe that THIS year is one of those years. That means we can't do everything we want. Even after pushing money into future years, we will still be limited.

    So this year, after all the moves we eventually do, will be considered the new definition of CAP HELL. I think we can live with the lean years. Losing Spencer may be the cost, but we'll see.

    I think the idea that pushing money into the future will create a future cap hell is false.
  14. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,596 Messages
    1,013 Likes Received
    You do have to pay the piper -- but so long as you are only doing so for a contract or two each year, it doesn't really hurt or cripple you.

    Pushing things forward only really becomes a problem if you have to cut guys a year or two into their deals. Otherwise you've been able to absorb a good chunk of their cap hit and when you cut them you basically get a wash because their yearly salaries offset the accelerated bonus.

    I expect that we'll make space by pushing Carr forward and extending Romo most prominently.

    We probably also convert some of Austin's 6.7 mill base to bonus and add an option year - we owe very little on Austin's bonus (which is why we have a cap penalty) and can save nearly 5 mill against the cap by moving his salary around ... and we still maintain a situation wherein each year, we can cut him and have his base offset the cap hit.

    Ware's contract also leaves us in a really good place as after this year we "owe" only about 6 mill of his bonus to the cap. We could squeeze 3-4 mill out of that deal if we needed to ... but I think we leave him alone as his contract explodes in 2014. That'll be a big decision year - the way the deal is structured, it is clear the team intends to either extend or cut bait at that point. Amazingly, after 2013, we owe less than 6 mill against the cap on that deal.

    Witten's deal is similarly favorable. After 2013, we only owe 5 mill against the cap. We'll likely restructure him and save 3-4 mill this year.

    So really -- although we have some big deals, I don't see many with huge cap implications for the future.
  15. Rack Bauer

    Rack Bauer Federal Agent

    22,583 Messages
    527 Likes Received
    Ummm... can't tell if serious...
  16. Picksix

    Picksix A Work in Progress

    4,727 Messages
    688 Likes Received

    Yeah, it depends on what Stephen's actual role is in the contract situations. Is he the one offering the amounts/years, or is Jerry doing that, and Stephen's the one trying to make everything work? If it's the latter, then I'd say Stephen is every bit the genius he is made out to be.
  17. bkight13

    bkight13 Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    2,417 Messages
    713 Likes Received
    Teams like the Dallas and Washington use cash to make moves that other franchises can't or won't make. Some teams keep plenty of cap space every year because they don't have the cash to always convert future salaries to signing bonuses. They have to stay under a real budget number. Snyder and JJ make so much money, they always have a "get out of jail" free card.

    It's just a different approach to the cap based on different circumstances. Too much Dead Money is never a good thing and I think Stephen learned his lesson a few years ago when it was over $20M, but having some Dead Money is not a big deal to the Cowboys. And like what others have mentioned, when you push it forward and the cap goes up, it's actually a smaller percentage of the cap.
  18. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,176 Messages
    2,011 Likes Received
    I think he's serious.

    I have the same question. The article does not provide any information as to how Romo's deal would be cut in half but more then that, it doesn't say that there is a deal. It only gives an opinion on what a new deal might do.
  19. AsthmaField

    AsthmaField Outta bounds

    11,189 Messages
    2,787 Likes Received

    That question has been answered several times in this thread. When he signs a new deal, they will give him a signing bonus that will be prorated over the life of the contract, and then they will make sure that his first couple of year's on the new contract are very cap friendly. He will actually get just as much money, but the way it will effect the cap will be vastly different. Probably to the tune of around half of what his 2013 cap hit is now.

    He will do it because he will be getting his money and it will help the team to put more talent around him. It happens a lot in the NFL.
  20. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,176 Messages
    2,011 Likes Received
    How are you going to do that if Romo is not interested in signing a "Cap Friendly" deal? That question has never been answered. There is just a lot of hopeful thinking going on where that question is concerned.

Share This Page