$20.9 in dead money against the cap next year

[jblaze2004]

$20.9 million in dead money...
espn_macmahon: RT @ClaytonESPN: The bad news of releasing Colombo, Davis, R. Williams, K. Brown and M Barber, they have $20.9 m of dead money in 2012 [via Twitter]

wow.

 

[cowboys2233]

So John Clayton is reporting that the Cowboys saved $19.16 million by cutting five players...but then said the bad news is that they have $20.9 million of "dead" money in 2012 because of it.

Would someone explain what dead money is? And if it counts directly against the cap the following year, why is it helpful to "unload" salary by cutting players? Wouldn't that simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul? Are we going to be in the same cluster**** we found ourselves in this year?

 

[JustDezIt]

So John Clayton is reporting that the Cowboys saved $19.16 million by cutting five players...but then said the bad news is that they have $20.9 million of "dead" money in 2012 because of it.

Would someone explain what dead money is? And if it counts directly against the cap the following year, why is it helpful to "unload" salary by cutting players? Wouldn't that simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul? Are we going to be in the same cluster**** we found ourselves in this year?

its money that counts against the cap but isnt actually paid to the player. if we had kept them they would have been like 30 against the cap next year. it had to be done. it is helpful because it clears up room this year and gets them off our books after next. basically we spread their hit out over the life of the contract and when you cut them you still have to take a cap hit for that. we split it i believe due to the june 2nd rule, so we are taking half the hit this year and half next.

 

[Doomsday101]

Pretty much knew that was going to be the case when we made the cuts. I also think that is playing a big part in Dallas not going after big names in FA. Heading into FA I was not expecting the Cowboys to be running after Pro Bowl players my hope is to get some solid players who can hold their own.

 

[Cowboy from New York]

My understanding is that the cap this year stayed at the 2009 figure so next year's cap should jump substantially.

 

[Doomsday101]

its money that counts against the cap but isnt actually paid to the player. if we had kept them they would have been like 30 against the cap. it had to be done.

I agree. It is great to holler cut this guy or that guy but it comes with consequences now days.

 

[speedkilz88]

And as Adam has explained it also frees up money those players were expected to get in base salaries.

 

[Direwolf63]

So John Clayton is reporting that the Cowboys saved $19.16 million by cutting five players...but then said the bad news is that they have $20.9 million of "dead" money in 2012 because of it.

Would someone explain what dead money is? And if it counts directly against the cap the following year, why is it helpful to "unload" salary by cutting players? Wouldn't that simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul? Are we going to be in the same cluster**** we found ourselves in this year?

"Dead" money is simply non-accrued, signing bonus money accelerated to next year as per the CBA.

Is it stealing from Peter to pay Paul? In a manner of speaking. It is a way of making cap room this year at the cost of cap room next year. It's what happens when you overpay underachievers.

Will be be in the same situation next year? Probably.

 

[zrinkill]

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214150

 

[casmith07]

Adam already explained this. MacMahon is wrong, I believe.

 

[Stash]

Adam already explained this. MacMahon is wrong, I believe.

Agreed.

He's forgetting about the salaries also coming off the books.

And we have a huge amount of space available for 2013 that can factor into any deal signed this year.

 

[Cowboys22]

You have to get rid of these bloated contracts to underperforming players. Next year will be another tight year against the cap, but after that, all the bad contracts will be off the books and Dallas can be serious players again. It was always going to take two years to flush the books.

 

[Hoofbite]

Adam already explained this. MacMahon is wrong, I believe.

He may be correct. But the other side of the story is that Dallas would be spending that 20M + Adams projected savings if they had kept them.

So lets say next years savings is like 15 million just or illustration's sake.

If Dallas had kept them they count for 35 million against the cap, plust they are on the team being wastes of roster spaces and such.

But, since Dallas cut them they only count for 20 against the cap.

So, in essence you've saved yourself 15M of cap space and 4 roster spots by releasing players who wouldn't be contributing in a big way and would have been backups.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

Edit:

Actually, it wouldn't be the 20M figure plus projected savings because I think the cap hit would be spread out over the contract, where as now it's just accelerated to next year. I don't know what the exact figure would be but suffice to say it's better to ditch dead weight now, take a little hit if you have to and move forward.

 

[CoCo]

Pretty much knew that was going to be the case when we made the cuts. I also think that is playing a big part in Dallas not going after big names in FA. Heading into FA I was not expecting the Cowboys to be running after Pro Bowl players my hope is to get some solid players who can hold their own.

I don't think we know for certain yet what we will ultimately do in free agency.

1. Free - check
2. Kosier - check
3. Bowen - was it more than his perceived value? what other choices are available with those $ ?

The above is all we know right now along with stories of interest or no-interest in various FA's.

RW11 aside, & despite their big-spender reputation, I think Dallas is generally very discriminating about who they want, think is good value etc. They will go hard after who they're sold on. But they don't spend for spending sake like maybe the Skins are apt to do.

I tend to think Adam was right when he said our cap COULD be managed to allow us to secure whoever we targeted. But that doesn't mean we'd necessarily spend just because we had need and bodies were available. They have to be the right fit and right value.

We shall see.

 

[speedkilz88]

It's not exactly wrong (unless his numbers are off), it's that those players were going to count against the cap anyway, but by cutting them you will free up their base pay.

 

[PAINFROMUKRAINE]

I guess Dan Snyder is the All Time Cap Guru. Free Agent Signings every year and he totally avoids Dead Money in future Years (Rumor is he was over 30 Million Under the Cap before his 2011 Shopping Spree). There must be a "Very" Soft Cap in the CBA Agreement Cap or Snyder is the Poster Child for Salary Cap Management.

 

[dargonking999]

So how many threads need to be created to point out the same thing. Jeez do you people bit know how to look at even the first page?

 

[speedkilz88]

I guess Dan Snyder is the All Time Cap Guru. Free Agent Signings every year and he totally avoids Dead Money in future Years (Rumor is he was over 30 Million Under the Cap before his 2011 Shopping Spree). There must be a "Very" Soft Cap in the CBA Agreement Cap or Snyder is the Poster Child for Salary Cap Management.

The nfl allowed that any players cut before the lockout were part of the uncapped year and that their dead money would not count into 2011 or 2012. It's too bad Jerry didn't release these guys then, but I guess he didn't know that was an option.

 

[jblaze2004]

So how many threads need to be created to point out the same thing. Jeez do you people bit know how to look at even the first page?

mine was already up. Mr. thread monitor. You know you had the option of not clicking.

 

[dargonking999]

mine was already up. Mr. thread monitor. You know you had the option of not clicking.

And you have the option in reading the many other threads that have been made on this subject since tuesday instead of creating another. I also have the right to voice my opinion on you topic whether you like it or not.