SI, Andrew Brandt: Elite QBs should not take less money to help their team

[gtb1943]

How about we hire a real GM first before we start telling players to take paycuts? How about that GM propose what he would actually do with the money to help win a Superbowl before we start trying to limit player's compensation? Any player that takes a paycut, especially after a team has franchised them and told them to 'prove it' and they did, is not very smart.

If the team didn't completely flounder once Dak got injured, and after he came back from the injury and took the team to a top offense, do you think the team would have tried to keep him around or replace him? All of this one way loyalty stuff is laughable. Players need to make sacrifices for the team, but the team is free to move on from the players at any time... doesn't work like that.

Before we start asking players to take pay cuts we need to operate how winning NFL franchises operate and that's hiring a GM and let the GM propose a plan that actually shows where the 'freed up money' will be allocated.

No way would I take a paycut only for the team to bring on 8 guys who never even make the roster and they just pocket the rest.

I have a little trouble feeling sorry for someone who only makes $200 million instead of $300 million.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

This doesn't apply to Dak since he isn't elite. Just average/slightly above average.

top 15 QBs get paid $30M and above. this isn't just about Elites who are not in the 50M range. its where the market is, knowing that in the next couple of years you add Burrow, Lawrence and a few more to that list.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

A couple of GOAT's, Jordan and Brady took less. Championships and greatness can actually get you even more money in the long run.

Jordan didn't take less....Brady is different. at the time when he was married, his wife made twice as much as he did. none of the others are really in that situation. Also, Brady is an exception. he made his money. he had money. he played 20+ years. he wanted rings. and we see that often with over the hill players, they take less, go to a championship team, just to have a chance for a ring. often they aren't as good as they used to be, but just good enough. again, Brady being an exception.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

this is false, owners have to spend the cap on players they dont profit from it.
It just means more $ to spend on other players.

yes, and a no. there is cap. but there is also a salary floor each team is required to spend. anything above the floor not spent, goes into your pocket.

its also about cash lay out upfront. most like to defer that cash and not many teams are willing to put in the upfront cash.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You're not making sense bro. There is a salary cap in play. Very simple math to understand. Only so much of the pie available every year. How you slice up that pie and distribute it to as many key players is the difference between keeping a playoff team intact or just fielding a team for show.

and yet, every year some team does it and some team wins the superbowl and there are teams that go to playoffs several years in a row. good GMs figure it out and its market driven. the salary cap will force them to manage it and player salaries as a result to put a winning team on the field. its not like you have 31 craapy teams and one good one.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

correct

u pay them as elite qb because they can elevate the enitre offense by themself

that is why they are worth huge money

if u have to surround ur qb with talent at every spot (which u cant do if ur paying them elite money) then ur screwed

ehich is why dak is not worth his contract and cap hit he cant elevate

what!?

the top 15 QB salaries average above 30M.....that's 15 out of 32. and top elite are now in the 50M range. that's with burrows and lawrence and herbert coming up for new contracts.

its the market. at any time there is usually 3 elite QBs, at most 4. the rest are not elite.....

 

[khiladi]

Well this conversation doesn't really apply to our team, as our QB is basically a scrub.

 

[Bagman]

Nobody should take less than their worth. Why would Dak take less when the FO would only pocket the savings? They haven't gone all in in over a decade.

Why do people keep saying this ??? The owners aren't pocketing any savings of the cap. Especially in Dallas. If Player X gets less, Player Y gets a little more. They always pay up to the cap. If you want to argue the cap should be more, then thats something the players union can work better on during negotiations. This is a player/management agreed upon cap.

 

[DandyDon52]

yes, and a no. there is cap. but there is also a salary floor each team is required to spend. anything above the floor not spent, goes into your pocket.

its also about cash lay out upfront. most like to defer that cash and not many teams are willing to put in the upfront cash.

I could be wrong, but I dont think owners can take any $ out of the cap money. I think it can roll over to the next season, but cannot be pocketed by owners.
Any big contract if a team pushes that money to future years , will create a problem for the team in the future.
Just like dak is owed 61 million in 24.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I could be wrong, but I dont think owners can take any $ out of the cap money. I think it can roll over to the next season, but cannot be pocketed by owners.
Any big contract if a team pushes that money to future years , will create a problem for the team in the future.
Just like dak is owed 61 million in 24.

well, the cash up front counts against the over all contract equally devided in the years and with the salary for the year counting against the cap. one of the tricks is for owners, to add years to contract, and payout cash up front, which is of interest to players and it lowers cap hits, and pushed dead money to future. not all owners all willing to put cash out.

so to your point, Dak's current cap hit in 24 is 59, dead cap money is 61 M, his salary is 29 M. so 30M is from previous restructures and bonuses paid out. they can restructure again, perhaps add a year, and push some of 29M to future and spread that 30M into future years. doesn't necessarily mean he is getting a new contract, its spreading the money in additional years and maybe reduce the 29M salary to 10M and give him 19M up front and spread that into future years and depending on number of years added, the cap hit of 59M becomes 30M or something (don't get hung up on the actual numbers, my point was the ...creative salary cap accounting that happens in NFL).

 

[jrumann59]

You basically use void years and push the cap hits down the road. Its basically how Hurts has these miniscule cap hits for the next few years despite being the 2nd highest paid player in the NFL

Which is fine if that QB keeps progressing and there is hope he lives up to another contract further down the road, but if you swing and miss or dribble only an infield single all those restructures and pushes will eventually come due one way or the other.

 

[America's Cowboy]

and yet, every year some team does it and some team wins the superbowl and there are teams that go to playoffs several years in a row. good GMs figure it out and its market driven. the salary cap will force them to manage it and player salaries as a result to put a winning team on the field. its not like you have 31 craapy teams and one good one.

Ok, so how has overpaying and re-overpaying the QB helped the Cowboys?

 

[doomsday9084]

So, you ask, what is the myth? Well, the myth is that a player needs to take less cash—not just cap—to help the team. There are fans, media and, unfortunately, even players who believe this, and it is wrong.

Taking less cash only hurts the player and helps the owner, who is paying less than he should. NFL owners all have assets worth over $2 billion; they do not need players to sacrifice any cash in their contracts. It is quite enough for players to help the team to provide more cap; they certainly do not provide them more cash.

The bolded line says everything about the writer of the article (hint: Idiot).

Virtually every team spends the salary cap. Now, the cash going out each year varies wildly based on when bonuses are paid but the rules of the cap are such that it forces it to be leveled out over the long term. Paying a QB less is no direct benefit to an owner. It just gives more money to other players over the long term.

The way that this "cash" versus "cap" thing works is that teams keep restructuring deals rolling cap hits to future years until the QB or player is let go. In that year, it becomes a massive cap hit for the organization for a player not there. The owner actually wins as his cash payouts that year are far less than the cap. The loser? The fans who are forced to watch and pay for a sub par team hamstrung by an overpaid QB.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers

Example: Green Bay will have a $40m cap hit this year for Aaron Rodgers. The Packers will end up spending far less than the cap and the team will likely struggle.

More likely than not, the Cowboys will kick the can down the road again with Dak before his cap hit is $60m. At some point, likely in the prime of Michah's career, Dallas will be forced to eat that bullet and have a non competitive year.

 

[kskboys]

Why do people keep saying this ??? The owners aren't pocketing any savings of the cap. Especially in Dallas. If Player X gets less, Player Y gets a little more. They always pay up to the cap. If you want to argue the cap should be more, then thats something the players union can work better on during negotiations. This is a player/management agreed upon cap.

I mean, it's so obvious. Saying it just to say it? Not all that bright?

 

[Reid1boys]

Jordan did not take less. One of the problems they had with keeping the team together was he wanted a raise and they could not fit it under the cap. Jordan took every cent he could. The only high level player basically ever to take less was Brady and if you can just find a wife who will make double what you do no matter what then I suspect taking less will not be a big deal.

jordan wa sthe highest paid player in the nba for only 2 seasons of his entire career.... he certainly didnt demand what he was worth.

 

[T-RO]

A QB-friendly deal doesn't mean less money.

It certainly can mean less money. Brady didn't just defer funds; he flat played for 40% less.

If I was Herbert or Dak or Burrow I'd absolutely play for less. You aren't going to be a happier person because you have $300 mil instead of $200 mil. But you definitely could be happier by sharing the wealth with teammates and winning championships.

But that's me.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Ok, so how has overpaying and re-overpaying the QB helped the Cowboys?

what!?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Which is fine if that QB keeps progressing and there is hope he lives up to another contract further down the road, but if you swing and miss or dribble only an infield single all those restructures and pushes will eventually come due one way or the other.

every team wants an elite QB and at some a QB is what they are, so teams build around that QB to compete. some do it better than others. Does an Elite QB make it easier...heck yes. obviously. but doesn't mean you can't compete without one. Eagles did it. Hurts is not elite. he is in that second or third tier of QBs. They surronded him with the right talent and he made it to the superbowl. lost to Mahomes, but then again, we are talking about Mahomes. SF did it with Grapolo (Ironically losing to mahomes in a come back win by him). its harder, in some cases much harder, but just because your QB is not elite, doesn't mean you don't pay him, you build around him. top 15 paid QBs make 30M and above. that's the NFL market.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

It certainly can mean less money. Brady didn't just defer funds; he flat played for 40% less.

If I was Herbert or Dak or Burrow I'd absolutely play for less. You aren't going to be a happier person because you have $300 mil instead of $200 mil. But you definitely could be happier by sharing the wealth with teammates and winning championships.

But that's me.

ok. great. lets get a list of those players that took less. lets start with Brady....ok, let me see. hmmm, who else (tapping my feet, thinking), hmmm, who else.

everyone keeps going to brady. he is an exception. btw, Brady's wife made twice as much money as he did. so his situation was quite different than almost all the other players.

 

[Hadenough]

correct

u pay them as elite qb because they can elevate the enitre offense by themself

that is why they are worth huge money

if u have to surround ur qb with talent at every spot (which u cant do if ur paying them elite money) then ur screwed

ehich is why dak is not worth his contract and cap hit he cant elevate

Your speaking Chinese to all these Dak stains. Most ordinary people understand this and I think given one more season Jerry will finally get it. I can tell you that when Dak craps the bed this season Parsons is going to either demand to be traded it get rid of Dak.