Adam - Cap Wise Jerry Said He Couldn't Cut TO & Sign Ware - True?

[TellerMorrow34]

It's not just 700k in dead money. This is where I dont think people are grasping this. It's 9 million in dead money because you're giving 9 million to the cap for someone who isn't here.

Now you're putting the 8.5 you would have anyway, and gotten him on the field, along with 700k more to not have him here.

That's 9 million against your cap for a player who isn't here, isn't producing you any results, AND then you have to go out and replace him as well.

It's just plain stupid. Only a complete idiot would do this when they don't have to. I mean if the guy was retiring cause of injury or something I could understand having to do it cause that's out of your control but just intentionally taking a 9 million dollar dead money hit just to have someone gone...wow.

No.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Almost every team has some dead money. I feel pretty good that it would only be $780k or whatever the number is.

And guess what, we better get used to it, because Flozell and some of the other guys we gave big money to are going to represent dead money in the next few years, too.

But it doesn't mean you have to keep the guy if he's a bad apple.

which is why sticking with the status quo at the top is kind of disturbing

 

[Air Force One]

That's 9 million against your cap for a player who isn't here, isn't producing you any results, AND then you have to go out and replace him as well.
.

>>Devil's Advocate<<

He also isn't here causing problems. It all comes down to how much you think team chemistry is worth. If cutting TO improved team chemistry, again, 9 million against the cap is money WELL spent.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

>>Devil's Advocate<<

He also isn't here causing problems. It all comes down to how much you think team chemistry is worth. If cutting TO improved team chemistry, again, 9 million against the cap is money WELL spent.

Can you assure me 100% that cutting Owens will vastly improve this team chemistry and there for significantly offset what you're losing on the field from getting rid of him?

Unless you can 100% assure me that cutting Owens VASTLY improves this team chemistry then sorry but, no, it's not worth 9 million dollars.

 

[Air Force One]

Can you assure me 100% that cutting Owens will vastly improve this team chemistry and there for significantly offset what you're losing on the field from getting rid of him?

Unless you can 100% assure me that cutting Owens VASTLY improves this team chemistry then sorry but, no, it's not worth 9 million dollars.

Nope, I can't, and therein lies ALL of our problem.

We should be able to trust Jerry and Wade and Jason to know the right call here but we can't. It's a critical decision to be made and it feels there is nobody to trust in making it.

 

[legolas]

Yes, I realise it's only 700k more than if he's here. But the difference is, and this is what makes it important, is that it's 9 million against your cap for A PLAYER WHO ISN"T ON YOUR ROSTER.

That's dead money and that's STUPID.

It's one thing to give the guy 8.3 million next year and have him catch 65-80 balls for 1,000-1300 yards and 10-12 TDs and totally another situation when you're cap is hit for 9 million dollars and you get nothing in return for that nine million.

That's like if you went out and gave someone 100 thousand dollars for a new car (This is just an example I dont expect anyone here would give 100k for a car) but then told the dealer..."But I don't actually want to own the car. Just let it sit here on the lot and take my 100k anyway."


It's an incredibly stupid thought process that it takes to think it's a good idea to have 9 million dollars of dead money on your cap.

Then you have the added fact that now you're having to sign another guy, or drafting another guy, at the WR position and you have to pay them now as well so you're paying, basically, for the same spot twice and only getting the use of one player out of the pay.

That, people, is ********. Only a fool would look at that situation and say, "Sure I'll just throw nine million dollars of my money away, that i can't use on anyone else, to get rid of this guy."

I don't necessarily agree with your argument. It's not like were playing with one less wide receiver on the field if T.O. is cut. The argument is that option

1. Roy Williams, Austin, Crayton, and Witten might compliment each other better than

2. T.O., Roy Williams, Austin, Crayton, Witten


because Romo won't have to force the ball to receivers who complain about not getting enough. Not to mention all the drop balls. These two things have cost us as many games as T.O. has won us.

If the production and chemistry are the same, the dead money is not an issue.

IF cutting T.O. costed millions more that keeping him, I would defintately agree with you. But it's basically a wash.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Nope, I can't, and therein lies ALL of our problem.

We should be able to trust Jerry and Wade and Jason to know the right call here but we can't. It's a critical decision to be made and it feels there is nobody to trust in making it.

I can understand that feeling. No doubt.

I just don't think it's smart for people to want to wreck their cap on the whim that it might improve team chemistry when they have zero way of knowing that.

I mean if this were like in Philly or San Fran where you had players making it clear they didn't like TO, or TO was causing them issues, that would be different.

Here he doesn't seem to be causing anyone but Ed Werder and the fans issues and he's doing that by not blowing up and causing enormous issues that he did in other places.

He does cause some drama, cause he likes to speak his mind, but I don't think it warrants taking huge cap hits to get rid of him.

 

[RainMan]

Nope, I can't, and therein lies ALL of our problem.

We should be able to trust Jerry and Wade and Jason to know the right call here but we can't. It's a critical decision to be made and it feels there is nobody to trust in making it.

Bingo.

And if there's a problem with T.O., it's just this. He seems capable of splitting a locker room, whether he's doing it intentionally or not. Sure, maybe cutting him "cuts off the cancer" and we become a better team. But it's clear he has a lot of people on his side. Cutting him might only serve to further divide this team, with the players who support T.O. wondering why the organization essentially sided with the "mole."

Sigh. How I yearn for the days when we could just talk about whether or not we were good enough to win. Why do we have to have all this drama?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

.....

For those curious about the salary cap, Terrell Owens
3:22 PM Mon, Dec 29, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Todd Archer E-mail News tips

Whether it happens or not, let's look at the salary-cap ramifications of cutting Terrell Owens.

He was paid a $12.9 million signing bonus last June and has three years left on the deal, so the proration that would come forward is $9.675 million. He's scheduled to count $8.995 million against the cap.

Quick math says the move would cost the Cowboys $680,000.

What should the Cowboys do?

In case you're wondering, the Cowboys would save $2 million if the cut Brad Johnson, $2 million if they cut Montrae Holland, $2.2 million if they cut Roy Williams (the safety).

Should T.O. stay or should he go?
12:57 PM Tue, Dec 30, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Tim MacMahon E-mail News tips

That is the stickiest decision the Cowboys brass will make this off-season.

T.O. signed a three-year, $27 million extension with a big, ol' signing bonus last summer, but getting rid of him wouldn't do much damage to the salary cap. Per Todd Archer's calculations, the Cowboys would take a hit of only $680,000 on next season's cap if they cut T.O.

There are plenty of folks who think that removing T.O. from the Valley Ranch locker room would have a magical effect on the Cowboys' chemistry. NFL Network's Terrell Davis and ESPN's Cris Carter advised the Cowboys to let T.O. go yesterday for those reasons. Based on the pattern of T.O.'s career, it's difficult to see his relationships with Jason Garrett and Tony Romo improving after he took public shots at them this season, although Wade Phillips assured us that he believes everything will be just fine with those guys.

And there's also the matter of T.O.'s declining production. While he might not have lost a step at 35, he is coming off his worst non-suspended season since he became a household name.

Nevertheless, it'll be awfully tough to talk Jerry Jones into getting rid of T.O, although Garrett, Romo and Jason Witten might try.

Jerry loves media attention more than anybody, and nobody gets as much national airtime as T.O., in good times and bad. Plus, even after trading for Roy Williams and giving him a megacontract, the Cowboys don't have another receiver on the roster who has shown he can fill T.O.'s shoes as a playmaker.

 

[CoCo]

It's not just 700k in dead money. This is where I dont think people are grasping this. It's 9 million in dead money because you're giving 9 million to the cap for someone who isn't here.

Now you're putting the 8.5 you would have anyway, and gotten him on the field, along with 700k more to not have him here.

That's 9 million against your cap for a player who isn't here, isn't producing you any results, AND then you have to go out and replace him as well.

It's just plain stupid. Only a complete idiot would do this when they don't have to. I mean if the guy was retiring cause of injury or something I could understand having to do it cause that's out of your control but just intentionally taking a 9 million dollar dead money hit just to have someone gone...wow.

No.

BHF,

With all due respect you are overstating your point. There absolutely are situations where enduring dead money is the right choice for your team. Its not idiotic.

IF, IF, IF Dallas has a player who is truly a cancer and destroyer of locker room chemistry, he would be a prime candidate.

There comes a time when the pain of keeping someone is greater than the pain of letting them go. That's why Aikman was cut, its why Deion was cut. We endured a ton of dead money as a result. Was that painful? Absolutely! Was it idiotic? No!

Now do I think many (okay, most) on this site would bankrupt the team in short order with their ideas to make this or that move? Yes! But saying that Dallas absolutely cannot consider eliminating some big salaries for next year because it would create dead money is dead wrong.

It can and should be considered, carefully, if that player is dragging down the team.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I don't necessarily agree with your argument. It's not like were playing with one less wide receiver on the field if T.O. is cut. The argument is that option

1. Roy Williams, Austin, Crayton, and Witten might compliment each other better than

2. T.O., Roy Williams, Austin, Crayton, Witten


because Romo won't have to force the ball to receivers who complain about not getting enough. Not to mention all the drop balls. These two things have cost us as many games as T.O. has won us.

If the production and chemistry are the same, the dead money is not an issue.

IF cutting T.O. costed millions more that keeping him, I would defintately agree with you. But it's basically a wash.

Don't agree.

#1: No you wont be playing with one less reciever, you'll have someone else here for that spot but whatever you're paying them for that spot, no matter how much or how little, is ON TOP OF the 9 million you've already paid for that spot by cutting Owens.

So Owens spot is already costing you 9 million. Now you have to add on whatever the next guy is getting paid, to that, and you're paying htat much for that spot.

#2: What WR are you realistically getting that is going to give you the numbers that Owens has produced? Cause now that you're getting rid of him someone better be producing at at least the same level, or better, otherwise you're paying all that money for less production.

That to me is also a horrible idea.

#3: Could Roy, Crayton, Austin, and Witten function better with Romo without TO? Maybe, it's possible.

Are you certain they will? Can you assure yourself, for that 9 million in dead money, that they'll do much better without Owens? Cause unless your answer is that you know 110% that this offense will function better, and produce more, without Owens here then you're paying 9 million dollars to have him gone and for your offense to produce less results just so you could have him gone.

Sorry I'd rather pay him the 8.5, put up with a few tantrums and headaches, and go by the proven track record that he's going to produce results that I can live with for that money as opposed to getting rid of him and hoping, and praying, that some things will just fall right for me and someone else will get it done for me.


I am definately willing to concede it's entirely possible they'd be better without him but I wouldn't bet 9 million dollars on it.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

BHF,

With all due respect you are overstating your point. There absolutely are situations where enduring dead money is the right choice for your team. Its not idiotic.

IF, IF, IF Dallas has a player who is truly a cancer and destroyer of locker room chemistry, he would be a prime candidate.

There comes a time when the pain of keeping someone is greater than the pain of letting them go. That's why Aikman was cut, its why Deion was cut. We endured a ton of dead money as a result. Was that painful? Absolutely! Was it idiotic? No!

Now do I think many (okay, most) on this site would bankrupt the team in short order with their ideas to make this or that move? Yes! But saying that Dallas absolutely cannot consider eliminating some big salaries for next year because it would create dead money is dead wrong.

It can and should be considered, carefully, if that player is dragging down the team.

I see the Deion point but your Aikman one is WAY off. Aikman was going to have to retire due to concussions and thats why we had to cut him. If Aikman had been healthy then, no, we don't cut him and he'd have still played.

They didn't cut him to the betterment of the team, despite the cap implications, they cut him cause they had no choice.

HUGE difference.

 

[THUMPER]

So for the sake of $700K we will have yet another season like the one we just had. Great.

Cut him and be done with it Jerry. He should never have been brought in here in the first place! :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[CoCo]

.....

CL,

Thanks for those excerpts. The media cap calculations are often suspect. But if Adam confirms these numbers or close to it...

Things could get very interesting.

As a side note, I truly cannot believe taht Jerry came out and said he couldn't afford to both cut TO and re-sign Ware. What in the world would ever possess him to say that publicly - true or not?

The VR plan at this point is to play all things cool but I think the odds of Dallas only making minor cosmetic changes to players & staff are remote. I think this thing is gonna bust open in some manner in the next 30 days.

And after the blow-up I think there are going to be plenty of good character guys left to put humpty back together again.

 

[Doomsay]

What is certain, is that if you as a GM, want to keep, or will be forced to keep, TO on your roster, then talking about not cutting him because you can't afford to cap-wise is kind of a stupid way of handling it, especially if that player is a volatile nuisance to begin with.

Best GM ever!

 

[CoCo]

I see the Deion point but your Aikman one is WAY off. Aikman was going to have to retire due to concussions and thats why we had to cut him. If Aikman had been healthy then, no, we don't cut him and he'd have still played.

They didn't cut him to the betterment of the team, despite the cap implications, they cut him cause they had no choice.

HUGE difference.

Fine. I could debate Aikman, but if you agree on Deion then you agree there are circumstances under which the best choice is to take a dead money cap hit.

Therefore its not all idiotic.

Now it becomes a debate of whether its best in this situation. And IF, IF, IF TO is a significant source of disharmony, I for one am ready to take the cap hit.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

So for the sake of $700K we will have yet another season like the one we just had. Great.

Cut him and be done with it Jerry. He should never have been brought in here in the first place! :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

It's not just to save 700k.

Do people not understand this? Even if you could cut him and have the cap hit only be the 8.5 million you'd pay for him to be here you're still NOT GOING TO CUT HIM.

It's still 8.5 million in dead money. Rather you have him on the roster or not that money is going to hit the cap. Meaning you're essentially paying him to play for someone else.

That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

CL,

Thanks for those excerpts. The media cap calculations are often suspect. But if Adam confirms these numbers or close to it...

Things could get very interesting.

As a side note, I truly cannot believe taht Jerry came out and said he couldn't afford to both cut TO and re-sign Ware. What in the world would ever possess him to say that publicly - true or not?

The VR plan at this point is to play all things cool but I think the odds of Dallas only making minor cosmetic changes to players & staff are remote. I think this thing is gonna bust open in some manner in the next 30 days.

And after the blow-up I think there are going to be plenty of good character guys left to put humpty back together again.

BHF is only counting the cap hit to cut him. He's forgetting to subtract the 2009 salary and roster bonus we wouldn't have to pay the player. And we wouldn't have to spend a fortune for a replacement for TO -- we already have that guy in Roy Williams.

Not to mention that someone on the radio today -- I think Mosley? Or Irvin? -- said Garrett told them in camp that Garrett loved Miles Austin and wanted to make him the next Alvin Harper.

Anyway... I sure hope you're right about a big shakeup coming. I definitely could see them playing it cool now for appearances sake, and just because it's only been a couple of days since the season ended.

I'm just afraid Jerry is too prideful and stubborn to admit a mistake. Pacman gave him every opportunity this year, and he still wouldn't do it.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Fine. I could debate Aikman, but if you agree on Deion then you agree there are circumstances under which the best choice is to take a dead money cap hit.

Therefore its not all idiotic.

Now it becomes a debate of whether its best in this situation. And IF, IF, IF TO is a significant source of disharmony, I for one am ready to take the cap hit.

If it can be proven that he's certainly a significant source of disharmony and that cutting him would significantly improve team chemistry i would be to. Without hesitation.

The problem is, as others already admited, you can not 100% say that it would so you're betting that money for the off chance that it might.

What happens when you take that hit, you don't get his production, and team chemistry doesn't significantly improve?

That's not such a great move then I don't imagine. Way to much hope, speculation, and no substance behind the idea of just getting rid of him for the sake of getting rid of him.


As for Aikman and the debate you mean to tell me you honestly think that Jerry would have cut him anyway had he not gotten that concussion and told he needed to retire?

You're telling me you think that Jerry would have let him go had Aikman been healthy and cleared to return?

Not a chance.

 

[legolas]

Don't agree.

#1: No you wont be playing with one less reciever, you'll have someone else here for that spot but whatever you're paying them for that spot, no matter how much or how little, is ON TOP OF the 9 million you've already paid for that spot by cutting Owens.


If Austin is already under contract, no you won't. I wouldn't want to go outside the team to replace him. We already have plenty of playmakers on this squad distribute the ball too. Owens maybe the most talented and dynamic, but with him you have to consider all the drop balls, and stupid throws that Romo forces to him as well.