We won't be players in FA again in my opinion

[Sydla]

not sure where you got the trade him in 2013 info from. certainly not from me. after the 2014 season would have been the time to try and get some value for him. he made it clear he wanted big money and we just didn't have it. it was murray or dez. seems we struck out on both.

After the 2014 season he was a free agent. You couldn't trade him. Which is why I asked if you meant after 2013 because that's the only time you could have traded him.

 

[Big_D]

the bottom line, regarding murray, is he left and we got nothing for him. that's what I mean by screwing the pooch. I doubt even you knew we'd draft zeke with the 4th pick in 2016. or tony would be injured in 2015. Nostradamus got it wrong more often than not.

After 2014 his contract was up. You really didn’t have to be Nostradamus to see he wasn’t worth a huge deal moving forward. Couldn’t trade him and wasn’t worth the big contract.

 

[Nightman]

So, franchise Murray to trade him?
How can you trade a guy who has a contract that just ran out?
What team would give up a draft pick when they knew he was going to be an UFA in March?

He isn't making any sense

No one would throw the 1800 yard season back and like you said you can't trade a UDFA

We would have gotten a Comp 3rd for Murray but we signed GHardy

In hindsight it worked out with us getting Zeke

 

[gjkoeppen]

The Cowboys have $18MM in projected cap space per Over the Cap ($20MM on Spotrac). Martin's $9.3MM is INCLUDED in those cap numbers. Take him out and they have $27.3MM in cap space per Over the Cap. If they sign him to a new deal in the next week, let's say, even if he has a first year cap number of $13MM, he's really only lowering our available cap space by $3.7MM based on the Over the Cap and Spotrac numbers.

Here is the link to Over the Cap and our 2018 cap. Our total projected cap number is $18.5MM based on their calculation and if you look at the roster of players they are using in their calculation, Martin's $9.3MM is included already.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/dallas-cowboys/

Oh, and they already exercised the option. They had to do it by May of this year per league rules.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article145173984.html

You are correct about when the 5th year option has to be exercised. I've always been using Over The Cap, I have that bookmarked. Now even if your number are close, but nothing is that easy or they would have done it already, you've still forgotten about the other 3 players the Cowboys have said would be priorities to resign. Lawrence, Irving and Hiotchens. There's still won't be any money available to go play in free agency after they get those signed. Before you start with they will sign team friendly contracts, those days are gone with teams that aren't in cap problems who do have money to spend in free agency who will offer as good or better total dollar deals than the Cowboys but without the contracts being back end loaded where the players won't have to wait to get the bulk of their money. As I've said before 99.99% of the players want to get their money as soon as possible. Some players has special circumstances that make them want to sign team friendly contracts or restructure their contracts like Romo for being undrafted and ended up as a starter or Lee who the Cowboys stuck with even though he was injured every year of his rookie contract, but players say there are two parts of football - the game and the business side and they want their money and as fast as they can get it.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

My point on the 100% bonus contract is, not that it would be done, but that it's worst-case and still only hits the cap for $5m.I believe they'll be able to come together on something with a smaller additional cap hit this year, like maybe $2m. And that's not based on a hometown discount.

The Cowboys have $18.5m of cap space as we sit today. They should be able to sign Martin, D Law, Irving and a quality FA of need. Hitch is the question mark. If another team throws top 5 or even top 10 money at him, we won't be able to match it. Also, I hear "franchise D Law" to make him prove himself again - that would be a $15m - $16m hit and completely blows the cap so that, IMHO, is not an option.

There are also moves they can make that will free up cap space. They could cut Witten, not that they will, but could sign him to a 2-year deal shifting a big chunk of this year's salary into bonus money which would free up maybe $3.5m. It would be at the expense of next year's cap, but they're in better shape next year, and it wouldn't extend beyond next year. Same with Orlando Scandrick, although I think it's more likely he's gone, plus the cap savings aren't as great. And there's the enigma known as Dez Bryant. I'm not in the "get rid of Dez at all cost" corner; I'll believe he'll be here 1 more year. But there is an opportunity to do something that creates some additional cap room without blowing later years.

No team can put or would they ever want to put 100% of a contract in the form of a bonus. First the league wouldn't approve it and second the team would have no protection if after one year the player decides that he's going to retire and since a court has already ruled that a team gave that money knowing there were no guarantees that the contract would run it's course they won't be able to get that back. No team is that dumb. You idea may work in fantasy land but not in the NFL.

 

[gjkoeppen]

You are in the distinct minority on this one...........no agent or player agrees with your idea of playing the last 3 years for very little money........players like cash flow to increase not decrease to almost nothing

But good luck with your theory

This is probably true when they're getting incentive bonus each year. Then they want their salary to rise every year because that's guaranteed and bonuses are not. But in this case when the bonus money is a signing bonus and paid up front ( but is averaged out over the life of the contract for cap purposes) then the player wants the salary paid as much as possible up front in case something happens that would prevent the contract from being fulfilled. Also when contracts are set up like you think those are the type players that we see every year that are "cap casualties" because of huge salary plus the possibility of more money on an incentive bonus. A super star that took big salary the 1st couple of years and then small salary is Brady. He got his money up front and is happy to allow for the team to use money for other players with his small salary. This happens a lot more often but doesn't get the publicity he did because players want their money as fast as they can get it.
.

 

[JustChip]

No team can put or would they ever want to put 100% of a contract in the form of a bonus. First the league wouldn't approve it and second the team would have no protection if after one year the player decides that he's going to retire and since a court has already ruled that a team gave that money knowing there were no guarantees that the contract would run it's course they won't be able to get that back. No team is that dumb. You idea may work in fantasy land but not in the NFL.

You missed the point on this. I’m not saying to do that. I’m not saying they can or should do it even if they could. Simply saying that it is the absolute worst case scenario from a cap hit standpoint and they still have plenty of room under the cap in that case. What they eventually come to agreement on will have a lesser cap impact than that.

 

[AmishCowboy]

I only want one decent player in FA not 4 scrubs again

 

[Hoofbite]

You are in the distinct minority on this one...........no agent or player agrees with your idea of playing the last 3 years for very little money........players like cash flow to increase not decrease to almost nothing

But good luck with your theory

I think players like whatever earns them the most money. Front-loading favors the player, and back-loading favors the team. Too far in either direction and one side is losing out, which is why good contracts are generally pretty level after the first year.

Given a contract of equal value and guarantees, I can't imagine any player would choose to defer money to the later years. Unfortunately for the players, they don't have the option of taking the bulk of the contract value in the first half of the contract. Teams don't offer deals structured like that.

 

[Nightman]

I think players like whatever earns them the most money. Front-loading favors the player, and back-loading favors the team. Too far in either direction and one side is losing out, which is why good contracts are generally pretty level after the first year.

Given a contract of equal value and guarantees, I can't imagine any player would choose to defer money to the later years. Unfortunately for the players, they don't have the option of taking the bulk of the contract value in the first half of the contract. Teams don't offer deals structured like that.

Because they spend it faster than they make it and they also want the status of being "highest paid"

No 8 year All Pro wants a 1m salary four seasons out of getting a huge signing bonus

 

[Hoofbite]

Because they spend it faster than they make it and they also want the status of being "highest paid"

No 8 year All Pro wants a 1m salary four seasons out of getting a huge signing bonus

You really think that players willingly pass on guaranteed upfront money just so they can have larger base salaries in the final years of their contract?

 

[gmoney112]

I have no idea what the hell this conversation dove into.

Teams don't massively frontload contracts because it's stupid, and costs them more money, not less.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just saw our draft picks this year 3-4th's and 3-5th's. No way we do anything in FA IMO. Expect more bottom feeding.

Depends on what happens with Dez. We need to cut him or we are only going to have ~$10-12m to work with.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm also not sure if Leary will only net us a 4th. He was very close to the cutoff for a 3rd and played near 3/4 of Denver's offensive snaps.

 

[LittleD]

I have no idea what the hell this conversation dove into.

Teams don't massively frontload contracts because it's stupid, and costs them more money, not less.

Teams today favor backloading contracts and using incentive clauses. The more you use the credit card the better and
the cap keeps rising every year for some reason.

 

[gjkoeppen]

You missed the point on this. I’m not saying to do that. I’m not saying they can or should do it even if they could. Simply saying that it is the absolute worst case scenario from a cap hit standpoint and they still have plenty of room under the cap in that case. What they eventually come to agreement on will have a lesser cap impact than that.

Or you're clueless on this.
.

 

[JustChip]

Or you're clueless on this.
.

I guess English is a 2nd language for you, huh. See, I can get snarky and condescending too.

You're acting like I'm proposing that. You said, and I quote, "You idea may work in fantasy land but not in the NFL". Go back and read my posts and I've been consistently saying the same thing - not that it would be done, could be done, or made sense to do. I've simply said that, from a strictly mathematical calculation, a 100% guaranteed, bonus contract is the worst-case scenario for a salary cap standpoint. Doesn't matter what the term is.

An $84m, 6 year contract with all paid in the form of a bonus with no salary, hits the cap for $14m in 2018. So, obviously, any actual contract that gets done will have a lesser salary cap impact in 2018. A 6 year, $84m contract ($44m bonus + $40m total non-guaranteed salary) hits the cap for less. Unless, the first year salary is front-loaded to more than the 6 year average of the salary. But the Cowboys wouldn't do that. Why would they? He's going to be on the roster so they would simply move that salary into cap and pro-rate it over the 6 year term.

A case could be made that a 1 yr, $17m contract hits the cap more, but the Cowboys aren't going to do that. Why would they? They have him for $9.3 if they don't do anything. And that wasn't what YOU threw out in one of your posts (1/16 at 12:44 p.m.) - "5 year 75 mil contract with a 35 mil signing bonus" is what YOU threw out that I've been addressing.

 

[Nightman]

You really think that players willingly pass on guaranteed upfront money just so they can have larger base salaries in the final years of their contract?

Considering every single one has agreed to this............YES

 

[LocimusPrime]

You really think that players willingly pass on guaranteed upfront money just so they can have larger base salaries in the final years of their contract?

Excellent point sir

 

[JustChip]

It likely will never get to that point. The Cowboys will probably resign him.

Even in Murray's case, he didn't get some bizarrely outrageous contract offer. The Cowboys just didn't offer him a lot because they were afraid he'd break down and they believed RBs get injured more often. None of that applies to Martin.

If it were to get to a bidding war for Martin, he still wouldn't get an $80MM contract where someone pays him $65MM of that within 3 years.

Right. Zeitler got a $60m contract with “only” $23m guaranteed. The $23m was $12m signing bonus, plus $4m & $5m salary guaranteed in the 1st 2 yrs. respectively. There was also $2m & $5m non-guaranteed salary respectively in yes 1 & 2.