Romo trade vs release implications

[thisiscowboyscountry]

Agree. I think a high 2nd rounder will get him and it's WELL worth the gamble for a team in need. My gosh the Jets threw away a 2nd rounder on Christian Hackenberg last spring for crying out loud.

For a team that has most pieces except a QB, a second round pick for Romo is very fair. Qb is a premium position and if you dont have one youre not going anywhere. I get the devaluing with the injuries and maybe a conditional pick is the way to go..

 

[lostar2009]

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.

Exactly don't read the bologna saying Romo isn't worth squat!

 

[Oh_Canada]

sorry bud but it doesn't work that way with Jerry. He is loyal to fault and will absolutely protect Romo and not send him to bad team. If Romo were open to any team it would change everything and I would be working phone right now with San Fran. But Tony is special to Jerry and he will handle this with kid gloves.

He will make a trade that benefits the team and Tony. Stephen has proven he wields plenty enough influence in the room to prevent Jerry from doing something not in the team's best interests.

 

[SDCowboy]

im sorry but what? This post is nonsense.

Really, this board needs a spring cleaning.

After Romo is gone, hopefully some of his superfans will be too, on to whatever team he chooses.

Don't take the bait, my friend.

 

[SDCowboy]

This is why Tony has to leave. The team can't go forward with him on it.

I think it's more so some fans can't move on until he's gone, but I agree.

 

[willia451]

I w

wish you would stop filling thw board with nonsense you saw what #9 did this week damn near took dak's job..in 3 min

I did. I also saw him play only 1 series where he was protected well and took no hits. Thank God.

I was holding my breath the whole time.

Don't get me wrong. I loved seeing him out there. But playing a whole game? Against a very good pass rushing defense where he is going to take some hits and maybe a couple of sacks?

Not feeling it.

 

[blumayne38]

If a trade did happen, what do we get?? A 2nd which means we would need a QB "BACKUP" instantly that is proven and has a legitimate shot at winning more then 5 games...who is that? Like no really though because I have no idea all I know is I don't want mark sanchez waiting in the looms every sunday

 

[blumayne38]

When it's all said and done and the postseason is done and things settle down..next year Tony goes back to starring and you have a good and appropriately paid backup in dak until Tony is ready to hang it up which we all know is one wrong hit away or even a 2-3 game losing streak from losing the job again point is everyone gets what they want and dak will get his shot to get paid. If we won 14 games with this defense this year and the defense is still getting better why go out and spend money on old Free Agent defensive players?

 

[wrongway]

Is

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.

Is a romo for jj watt trade doable cap wise?

 

[xwalker]

I believe Jerry would make him pay back the bonus if he pulled the retirement card. Team comes first, not Romo first. And I doubt Romo would give up $26M and his last chance to play in the NFL just because he doesn't want to go to Cleveland for a year or two. If he really wants to play in the NFL, he will go wherever. Heck, every team in the NFL is one or two or three injuries away from 4-12.

Any trade would be conditional on Romo not retiring, I guess, if that is allowable.

Like I said, he wouldn't have to retire. He could just say the word retire to the potential new team and they would back out of the trade.

 

[xwalker]

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.

There is no real pay-the-piper. They gain cap space by releasing him.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

Jerry will not trade Tony to bad team. He sees him as a son. Likely destinations are Denver or Arizona. Dallas has an old QB (will be 37) who has considerable injury history who only wants to go to super bowl contending team. That's not alot of leverage for Cowboys.

I think you're underestimating Jerry. It's quite simple, if Arizona comes calling and wants Romo, and is offering a 5th round pick and Cleveland is there offering a 2nd, Jerry can tell Tony, lets tear up that contract you're on and give you a veterans minimum salary, and we'll trade you to Arizona. Or we'll take that 2nd rounder from Cleveland, or we'll just wait until June 2nd to cut you. It's your choice Tony.....

 

[xwalker]

Is

Is a romo for jj watt trade doable cap wise?

Yes.

I don't know if Watt would really want to play in a 4-3. DE in a 3-4 seems like a better fit for him.

 

[xwalker]

I think you're underestimating Jerry. It's quite simple, if Arizona comes calling and wants Romo, and is offering a 5th round pick and Cleveland is there offering a 2nd, Jerry can tell Tony, lets tear up that contract you're on and give you a veterans minimum salary, and we'll trade you to Arizona. Or we'll take that 2nd rounder from Cleveland, or we'll just wait until June 2nd to cut you. It's your choice Tony.....

What purpose does tearing up the contract serve?

 

[Sydla]

Agree. I think a high 2nd rounder will get him and it's WELL worth the gamble for a team in need. My gosh the Jets threw away a 2nd rounder on Christian Hackenberg last spring for crying out loud.

"High" as in the 30s? Or do you mean at the end of the 2nd round.

Teams likely to take on Romo are teams that are close to competing for a SB which are likely teams picking in the bottom half of each round. So if they get a 2nd rounder, it's probably a late 2nd rounder, not one near the top. The top 10 picks in the 2nd round are the Browns, 49ers, Bears, Jags, Titans, Jets, Chargers, Panthers, Bengals, Bills. Maybe only the Jets might want him but they aren't a QB away from being a SB contender.

 

[wrongway]

Th

Yes.

I don't know if Watt would really want to play in a 4-3. DE in a 3-4 seems like a better fit for him.

thanks

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

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.

Buffalo, Cleveland, Denver and Chicago come to mind, with Denver the leader because it is SB-ready as far as personnel.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

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

Who cares if he ends up in the NFC?
We'll whip his butt anyway. He is on the cusp of geezerhood and is not getting younger fast.
Irving gets ahold of him and *snap! Crackle! Pop!*

 

[jobberone]

There is no real pay-the-piper. They gain cap space by releasing him.

They don't gain anything. They merely don't pay base salary to a player who isn't on the roster. They also avoid an option if they release him.

They are still on the hook for nearly 14M in restructured bonus which accelerates into the year of release which they may elect to spread out over two years. So they are still paying for a player not on the roster which was my point. You seem to always forget these points or present them in what you seem to think is a more palatable package.

When you push these bonuses down the road you often end up paying for a player no longer on the roster. That's a bad thing even if it's not uncommon. Generally it's a better business model not to pay past employees working for your competitors.

 

[xwalker]

They don't gain anything. They merely don't pay base salary to a player who isn't on the roster. They also avoid an option if they release him.

They are still on the hook for nearly 14M in restructured bonus which accelerates into the year of release which they may elect to spread out over two years. So they are still paying for a player not on the roster which was my point. You seem to always forget these points or present them in what you seem to think is a more palatable package.

When you push these bonuses down the road you often end up paying for a player no longer on the roster. That's a bad thing even if it's not uncommon. Generally it's a better business model not to pay past employees working for your competitors.

No, it's not a bad thing.

They push cap hits to future years where the overall cap is bigger and therefore the contracts are a smaller percentage of the total.

The dead money is not a problem at the end because they push other money into futute years again.

You can't compare the salary cap to the real world because it does not work the same way as real money in business.

When people see dead money they think it is bad but they don't understand the complete big picture.

The dead money was just part of money paid in the contract. If the player was worth the contract then it was good regardless of when the money hits the cap. If they sign a bunch of players that don't live up to their contracts then that is a bad thing even if they didn't have dead money remaining.

I don't know what you're referencing in regards to an option.