Romo trade vs release implications

[Wood]

Here is break-down of trading or releasing Romo. After you get thru it all its clear a release is much more favorable for Cowboys.


1) If Dallas trades Romo - they absorb 19.6 million in signing bonus in 2017. Romo was set to make 24.7 million in 2017 so Cowboys would save 5.1 million if they trade him. I see nothing more than conditional pick for Romo as Dallas will have little leverage as Tony will only accept trade to few Super-Bowl ready teams.

2) If Dallas releases Romo they can spread 19.6 signing bonus over 2 years. 9.8 million would count against cap in 2017 & 2018. Dallas would save 14.9 million in 2017.

When you look at numbers its clear what Dallas should do. The additional 9.8 million in savings by releasing him instead of trading him (14.9 - 5.1) is much more valuable in resigning players or adding FAs vs getting a conditional pick that would carry high risk with Romo health concerns.

 

[robjay04]

They said the same thing about the Eagles last season with Murray/Maxwell. Cap can be manipulated if we find a team that really wants Romo.

 

[Wood]

They said the same thing about the Eagles last season with Murray/Maxwell. Cap can be manipulated if we find a team that really wants Romo.

impossible. Signing bonus can't be renegotiated or traded. Dallas has to absorb 19.6 million one way or another. You either take it all in 2017 (via trade) or you spread it out over 2 years (via release).

 

[AzorAhai]

Until you actually know what teams are offering, you can't make claims for either being the better direction to go.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Cap money wouldn't be available until June though, correct? And I can't say I agree with your trade value speculation, although I agree the Cowboys leverage is not high. Watching him today with that crew couldn't hurt.

 

[theogt]

Here is break-down of trading or releasing Romo. After you get thru it all its clear a release is much more favorable for Cowboys.


1) If Dallas trades Romo - they absorb 19.6 million in signing bonus in 2017. Romo was set to make 24.7 million in 2017 so Cowboys would save 5.1 million if they trade him. I see nothing more than conditional pick for Romo as Dallas will have little leverage as Tony will only accept trade to few Super-Bowl ready teams.

2) If Dallas releases Romo they can spread 19.6 signing bonus over 2 years. 9.8 million would count against cap in 2017 & 2018. Dallas would save 14.9 million in 2017.

When you look at numbers its clear what Dallas should do. The additional 9.8 million in savings by releasing him instead of trading him (14.9 - 5.1) is much more valuable in resigning players or adding FAs vs getting a conditional pick that would carry high risk with Romo health concerns.

I kept reading the numbers, thinking we would actually save money if he was cut (rather than traded). But if I read this correctly, we're not actually saving money. We would just be pushing money into future years. And losing a draft pick. That just seems......stupid.

I think we'll at least get a 3rd round pick. Probably a 2nd. If this were an alternate universe where Dak didn't exist and Tony was on another team, I would definitely trade a 2nd for him.

 

[btcutter]

Here is break-down of trading or releasing Romo. After you get thru it all its clear a release is much more favorable for Cowboys.


1) If Dallas trades Romo - they absorb 19.6 million in signing bonus in 2017. Romo was set to make 24.7 million in 2017 so Cowboys would save 5.1 million if they trade him. I see nothing more than conditional pick for Romo as Dallas will have little leverage as Tony will only accept trade to few Super-Bowl ready teams.

2) If Dallas releases Romo they can spread 19.6 signing bonus over 2 years. 9.8 million would count against cap in 2017 & 2018. Dallas would save 14.9 million in 2017.

When you look at numbers its clear what Dallas should do. The additional 9.8 million in savings by releasing him instead of trading him (14.9 - 5.1) is much more valuable in resigning players or adding FAs vs getting a conditional pick that would carry high risk with Romo health concerns.

Option #3 keep him as a backup since we already know his contract numbers. He'll be a very expensive but the best back up QB we can have. Furthermore, great insurance to have just in case Dak needs more time to develop (we've seen a few 1st yr QB who regress in the 2nd yrs....just saying).

 

[Daillest88]

Honestly just keep him.

 

[AzorAhai]

Cap money wouldn't be available until June though, correct? And I can't say I agree with your trade value speculation, although I agree the Cowboys leverage is not high. Watching him today with that crew couldn't hurt.

Exactly. They have to be under the cap by the new league year, so that June 1st boon does nothing for them in FA and it doesn't help get under the cap by the new league year. They still have to make other cuts and restructures with his salary being accounted for until that date, whereas a trade frees up 5 million for them at the start of FA, or 5 million less they have to find to be under the cap. It's not nearly as black and white as the OP suggests.

 

[Killerinstinct]

Either trade him or keep him. No release.

 

[Kaiser]

Until you actually know what teams are offering, you can't make claims for either being the better direction to go.

Denver went into the preseason expecting Mark Sanchez to start for them. Houston gave Brock Osweiler a 72 Million dollar contract.

If a four time Pro Bowl QB is on the market teams will give up AT LEAST a 3rd round pick, injury questions or not.

 

[Wood]

Until you actually know what teams are offering, you can't make claims for either being the better direction to go.

we basically know what teams will offer. It will be 2nd - 4th rounder conditional pick that moves to 5-6th rounder if he gets injured. So your choice is:

Resign:
Leary
Wilcox
Church

or get 5th rounder in draft. That's how this is breaking down.

 

[jobberone]

IMO a trade would involve a player(s) not draft picks. If a club wants Romo enough then they MIGHT pay the majority of the cap hit on their traded players while we pay the cap hit on Romo. I don't know how viable that is.

Otherwise you either have to get a R1 and say a R3 or you release and eat that cap hit over two years.

This is the penalty for renegotiating contracts whom some seem to think is an inconsequential deal. It isn't. Sooner or later you have to pay the piper. Better to pay the piper for current services rather than pay it while the player performs elsewhere.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

Here is break-down of trading or releasing Romo. After you get thru it all its clear a release is much more favorable for Cowboys.


1) If Dallas trades Romo - they absorb 19.6 million in signing bonus in 2017. Romo was set to make 24.7 million in 2017 so Cowboys would save 5.1 million if they trade him. I see nothing more than conditional pick for Romo as Dallas will have little leverage as Tony will only accept trade to few Super-Bowl ready teams.

2) If Dallas releases Romo they can spread 19.6 signing bonus over 2 years. 9.8 million would count against cap in 2017 & 2018. Dallas would save 14.9 million in 2017.

When you look at numbers its clear what Dallas should do. The additional 9.8 million in savings by releasing him instead of trading him (14.9 - 5.1) is much more valuable in resigning players or adding FAs vs getting a conditional pick that would carry high risk with Romo health concerns.

The problem with release is he can end up with an NFC rival. Trade him to an AFC team.

 

[AzorAhai]

we basically know what teams will offer. It will be 2nd - 4th rounder conditional pick that moves to 5-6th rounder if he gets injured. So your choice is:

Resign:
Leary
Wilcox
Church

or get 5th rounder in draft. That's how this is breaking down.

No, you're assuming you know what the pick will be when in fact, nobody does. Big difference.

 

[Wood]

I kept reading the numbers, thinking we would actually save money if he was cut (rather than traded). But if I read this correctly, we're not actually saving money. We would just be pushing money into future years. And losing a draft pick. That just seems......stupid.

I think we'll at least get a 3rd round pick. Probably a 2nd. If this were an alternate universe where Dak didn't exist and Tony was on another team, I would definitely trade a 2nd for him.

money valuations are time sensitive. Money that you have to pay in 2017 is more valuable than money you have to pay in 2018. Always defer money if you can without penalty.

 

[robjay04]

impossible. Signing bonus can't be renegotiated or traded. Dallas has to absorb 19.6 million one way or another. You either take it all in 2017 (via trade) or you spread it out over 2 years (via release).

Not impossible. Murray restructured his contract to facilitate a trade. There is nobody that knows if Romo would do the same to facilitate a trade. I do know he respects Jerry Jones and the organization so it could be something to consider.

I'm just saying, if the Eagles can rid Murray and other bad contracts last season and actually save money on the cap, anything is possible but obviously how it stands right now, a release is probably the most obvious decision. I think the trade talk is more manufactured by the media.

 

[Kaiser]

No, you're assuming you know what the pick will be when in fact, nobody does. Big difference.

NFL GMs would be insane to say publicly what they would actually offer, and if they did they would be hit with a fine for tampering. The season isn't even over yet.

 

[ConstantReboot]

My feelings is that Romo can be traded for at least a 3rd. I can see Denver willing to give that for him.

Seondly, depending on the trade negotiations the team he's going to might be willing to absorb some of the cap hit. Thus lowering his contract impact on the team.

They'll probably release him though. Thus we can spread out his cap hit over two years.

 

[Wood]

IMO a trade would involve a player(s) not draft picks. If a club wants Romo enough then they MIGHT pay the majority of the cap hit on their traded players while we pay the cap hit on Romo. I don't know how viable that is.

Otherwise you either have to get a R1 and say a R3 or you release and eat that cap hit over two years.

This is the penalty for renegotiating contracts whom some seem to think is an inconsequential deal. It isn't. Sooner or later you have to pay the piper. Better to pay the piper for current services rather than pay it while the player performs elsewhere.

If tony got traded he absolutely would need to renegotiate his base salary for new team. The problem lies in signing bonus. The 10 million in savings from releasing vs trade probably gets you 3 players.