Cowboys FO on salary cap and contract restructuring

LocimusPrime said:
It already started.
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I know we aren't gonna be big spenders, but I'm just saying we could if we wanted to.
Click to expand...

Yes, Dallas can create room to sign who it wants, and set up those contracts to keep the restructure wheel rolling so it doesn't ever clog the cap. Now, that the team has set this in motion, it no longer wants to sign big-ticket free agents, though, feeling the return is not worth the investment.

My philosophy lies somewhere in between. I don't think you can go bonkers in FA, but I don't believe you limit yourself to staying out of the competitive first week of FA if there are free agents worthy of "overspending."

Dallas wants to bargain shop, but most of what you get when you do that are bit players not difference makers.
 
You get into salary cap hell when you get buttloads of dead money. Not using your salary cap on players that are actually ON your roster.
 
gimmesix said:
Yes, Dallas can create room to sign who it wants, and set up those contracts to keep the restructure wheel rolling so it doesn't ever clog the cap. Now, that the team has set this in motion, it no longer wants to sign big-ticket free agents, though, feeling the return is not worth the investment.

My philosophy lies somewhere in between. I don't think you can go bonkers in FA, but I don't believe you limit yourself to staying out of the competitive first week of FA if there are free agents worthy of "overspending."

Dallas wants to bargain shop, but most of what you get when you do that are bit players not difference makers.
Click to expand...
That's a fair post and Charlize Theron is hot!
 
LocimusPrime said:
That's a fair post and Charlize Theron is hot!
Click to expand...

Right, either get difference makers or do nothing.

We can all agree Theron is hot.
https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsSTgkZyRatYXdDffufAo9CS_p0_AQMv_axunZ1sQjab3CLwgi-Q

charlize15.jpg
 
Killerinstinct said:
Yeah rarely does it come back to haunt you. Like when eating 24 mil on a QB that will be playing for someone else.
Click to expand...

Restructuring contracts isn't what haunts you -- it's the original contract and/or paying players more than what they're worth (or signing older players who don't play as long as expected). If you're going to pay the money, it's always better to have it count against the cap later rather than sooner. Remember, cap years are all connected. They're not independent from each other. Any unused cap room gets pushed ahead to the next year anyway.

With Romo, almost two-thirds of the dead money we'll end up with ($19.6 million, not $24 million) is from his original signing bonus, not restructuring his salaries. The remaining $7.1 million is essentially a wash from previous cap years -- if we hadn't restructured his contract in 2014 or 2015, we would have had less cap room in those seasons, which would have meant pushing OTHER players' cap dollars into this season and beyond and/or carrying over fewer unused cap dollars from last year into this year.

So if you want to blame anything for the Romo dead money we'll have, blame handing a $25 million signing bonus to a 33-year-old quarterback and expecting him to be your quarterback for another five or six years, NOT changing the date when his salary would count against the cap.
 
Plus things have changed with the cap bigly

In 2009 the cap was 123m......in 2013 is was still 123m = 0m change
In 2013 the cap was 123m...... in 2017 it is now 167m = 44m increase

10m in cap space in 2013 is the same as 13.6m today

ABC- Always Be Converting base salaries to signing bonuses
 
AdamJT13 said:
Restructuring contracts isn't what haunts you -- it's the original contract and/or paying players more than what they're worth (or signing older players who don't play as long as expected). If you're going to pay the money, it's always better to have it count against the cap later rather than sooner. Remember, cap years are all connected. They're not independent from each other. Any unused cap room gets pushed ahead to the next year anyway.

With Romo, almost two-thirds of the dead money we'll end up with ($19.6 million, not $24 million) is from his original signing bonus, not restructuring his salaries. The remaining $7.1 million is essentially a wash from previous cap years -- if we hadn't restructured his contract in 2014 or 2015, we would have had less cap room in those seasons, which would have meant pushing OTHER players' cap dollars into this season and beyond and/or carrying over fewer unused cap dollars from last year into this year.

So if you want to blame anything for the Romo dead money we'll have, blame handing a $25 million signing bonus to a 33-year-old quarterback and expecting him to be your quarterback for another five or six years, NOT changing the date when his salary would count against the cap.
Click to expand...

If DAL traded Romo and he retired could the new team try to recover the 12.5m left on his original signing bonus? In cash and against the cap?
 
LocimusPrime said:
It already started.
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I know we aren't gonna be big spenders, but I'm just saying we could if we wanted to.
Click to expand...
Why does this continue to be a battle cry?

Who cares "if" we could? We aren't doing it.

Are we supposed to give out a participation ribbon to the front office so everyone feels comfortable and doesn't need to run to their safe place?
 
Alexander said:
Why does this continue to be a battle cry?

Who cares "if" we could? We aren't doing it.

Are we supposed to give out a participation ribbon to the front office so everyone feels comfortable and doesn't need to run to their safe place?
Click to expand...

1. because many fans still think the cap is the impediment. in reality it is the approach.
2. the more fans and sports writers understand this, the higher everyone's expectations would be and the more the FO would let people down if they fail to meet the expectation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 135 more.
Total: 4,930 (members: 235, guests: 4,695)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,613
Messages
13,822,126
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top