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

[TellerMorrow34]

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.

Ok so then what you're saying is that if we cut him the 8.5 he'd be paid if he was here now doesn't hit the cap? That only 700k hits the cap cause you cut him?

IF that's the case then I'll completely concede and say I agree that it would be worth it to cut him.

However since I dont believe that's the case, that the 8.5 you'd have to pay anyway, plus another 700k, comes off your cap if you cut him then I am not forgetting anything on that.

But if I'm wrong and that 8.5 doesn't actually come off the cap and it's only 700k coming off the cap then I'll totally change my tune.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

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.

I'm not sure but I believe Austin is at least a RFA this year.

And I understand where people are coming from. You're just moving Austin to the two and thats how your replacing him. It means the roster spot is essentially being filled at the bottom of the WR roster.

But that means you're paying the 5-6 recievers you have on your roster, who are actually contributing, against your cap and you're taking a 9 million dollar hit on your cap for another reciever whose no longer here, and therefor giving you nothing in return for that 9 million, other than him not being here.

 

[JordanTaber]

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.

Yep. Because there's no dropoff from Terrell Owens to Roy Williams. Heck, Roy is already CLEARLY the best receiver on the roster, right?

Roy sure looked great this year.

 

[TNCowboy]

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."

No, ******** was giving the cancerous moron a $34M contract in the first place.

The $9M has already been spent. It's a sunk cost; no decision the Cowboys make can recoup that $. When a good business makes a bad investment, it cuts its losses. Spending another $6 or $8M on TO just makes a bad decision worse.

 

[CoCo]

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.

Is there gamble in cutting him? Of course. You can never be 100% sure on the front end. There will be risk. But the downside risk IMO is larger.

I don't know if TO is the Team Obliterator or not. My suspicion is yes and my suspicion is that he is well on his way to dividing this team unfortunately and I'll even say innocently. Watching his on the field body language over the last 6-8 weeks strongly suggests it to me. Say nothing about the Werder incident.

But I will say that if there is a player on our team that was a significant source of the disharmony that disrupted this team over the last several weeks - I am in favor of cutting him.

 

[legolas]

I'm not sure but I believe Austin is at least a RFA this year.

And I understand where people are coming from. You're just moving Austin to the two and thats how your replacing him. It means the roster spot is essentially being filled at the bottom of the WR roster.

But that means you're paying the 5-6 recievers you have on your roster, who are actually contributing, against your cap and you're taking a 9 million dollar hit on your cap for another reciever whose no longer here, and therefor giving you nothing in return for that 9 million, other than him not being here.

I supported your point of view until the second half of this season when T.O. started complaining about not getting the ball. Garrett and Romo wanted to keep T.O. happy and I happen to think it cost us games.

Nobody saw a year like this coming...so I don't blame Jerry for signing Owens to his extention. However, sometimes you have to cut your losses. The way this season ended, Jerry would be crazy not to shake up this roster. Sorry but Pacman, T.O., are the dead weight. Roy11 may have been a big mistake, but there's nothing we can do about that now. Plus, Austin would rarely get on the field with our current Roster.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

No, ******** was giving the cancerous moron a $34M contract in the first place.

The $9M has already been spent. It's a sunk cost; no decision the Cowboys make can recoup that $. When a good business makes a bad investment, it cuts its losses. Spending another $6 or $8M on TO just makes a bad decision worse.

I can understand where people may not like that he got the deal in the first place. I can understand that. I don't agree with it but I can at least understand it.

But you're not spending another 6 to 8 million on him. You're spending it anyway. IF you get rid of him you still have to pay it on your cap only now you dont get the benefit of the plays he makes as well.

IMO it's much better to get the benefit of the plays he's going to make for that 8 million rather than just have that 8 million in your cap just to have it in your cap.

Is there gamble in cutting him? Of course. You can never be 100% sure on the front end. There will be risk. But the downside risk IMO is larger.

I don't know if TO is the Team Obliterator or not. My suspicion is yes and my suspicion is that he is well on his way to dividing this team unfortunately and I'll even say innocently. Watching his on the field body language over the last 6-8 weeks strongly suggests it to me. Say nothing about the Werder incident.

But I will say that if there is a player on our team that was a significant source of the disharmony that disrupted this team over the last several weeks - I am in favor of cutting him.

That might be. I really don't know. He could be the problem. I've said before I'd concede that it's possible that he is and that getting rid of him would possibly benefit the team.

I just know if it was my money I'm not betting 9 million dollars on the idea that not having him here would make chemistry significantly better without some concrete evidence presented to me that it's worth the risk.

 

[CoCo]

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.

Of course Aikman would have been kept on if he'd been 27 years old and at the top of his game physically. No question.

Now Aikman wanted to play on if you'll recall and was offended whenever Jerry treated it as a retirement. Aikman felt he WAS well enough to play or would be by the next season. And you of course know he flirted seriously with a couple teams on comebacks.

But Jerry retired him from Dallas because he knew adding more future cost to the cap (Aikman had a bonus due just like TO does now) was adding more risk to the future cap that his likely production just didn't warrant.

And if you consider TO a source of team disharmony, you look at his production this year, and you have to consider that he very well may not be worth it.

The situations have their differences. But there are also VERY strong similarities.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Regardless of where you come down on the Owens issue, can someone explain to me how the $700k or so difference would affect your ability to give Ware a new contract?

 

[noletime95]

If these numbers are correct, Jerry is basically full of it. While you take a hit initially in 09 for $700K or so, you gain $9MM or so of cap room in 2010 and 2011. Those are dollars that could go towards Ware's contract. Jerry could pay Ware a decent bonus now and guarantee another bonus in a year. He could get creative and cutting TO could actually help the cause. Ware's cap hit won't significantly increase in 2009 if his contract is redone because his salary will be the league min with his bonus pro-rated over the life of the contract.

Heck, Jerry could just NOT re-sign Ware now at all. The $9 Mil he saves in 2010 probably provides adequate room to franchise Ware if need be instead of letting him go.

 

[CoCo]

That might be. I really don't know. He could be the problem. I've said before I'd concede that it's possible that he is and that getting rid of him would possibly benefit the team.

I just know if it was my money I'm not betting 9 million dollars on the idea that not having him here would make chemistry significantly better without some concrete evidence presented to me that it's worth the risk.

Fron our vantage point its a gamble because we see it all through the media's tainted lense. But I suspect that those inside the organization are very much aware of his true impact on chemistry if they are willing to see clearly.

For them, I doubt its much of a gamble. That's not to suggest I know he's good or bad, just that it shouldn't be guesswork for Jerry.

 

[legolas]

Regardless of where you come down on the Owens issue, can someone explain to me how the $700k or so difference would affect your ability to give Ware a new contract?

Jerry was using that as a cop out. He must think Cowboy fans are ******** and can't figure out the cap ramifications.

It would take a man to admit making a mistake and not listening to Parcells.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Of course Aikman would have been kept on if he'd been 27 years old and at the top of his game physically. No question.

Now Aikman wanted to play on if you'll recall and was offended whenever Jerry treated it as a retirement. Aikman felt he WAS well enough to play or would be by the next season. And you of course know he flirted seriously with a couple teams on comebacks.

But Jerry retired him from Dallas because he knew adding more future cost to the cap (Aikman had a bonus due just like TO does now) was adding more risk to the future cap that his likely production just didn't warrant.

And if you consider TO a source of team disharmony, you look at his production this year, and you have to consider that he very well may not be worth it.

The situations have their differences. But there are also VERY strong similarities.

If Aikman had honestly believed he was healthy enough to play and could have played he would have went elsewhere the moment he was cut. He wouldn't have just flirted with the idea he'd have done it.

The guy knew he wasn't physically able to continue and that's why he had to be cut. If he'd been able to return the next season and play he'd have been back. I have no doubt about this at all.

 

[TNCowboy]

But you're not spending another 6 to 8 million on him. You're spending it anyway. IF you get rid of him you still have to pay it on your cap only now you dont get the benefit of the plays he makes as well.

You are spending additional $ on him. According to this article, he has $8M due this year, including a $3M bonus.

Basically, cut him, and your cap situation is the same for this year, except now no TO. Keep him, and you're hitting this year's cap for this year's salary, plus the current year amortization of the bonus, plus you'll have to account for the rest of his bonus against future caps by keeping him.

Long story short, you've already sunk the $13M he's already received, and you're just eating up more $ and cap space by giving him the $8M or whatever he's due for '08. From a cap perspective, the only way it makes no sense is if you truly think there'll be no cap in 2010. From a team perspective, I'd gladly "waste" what amounts to about 7% of our cap room to get rid of this virus.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Fron our vantage point its a gamble because we see it all through the media's tainted lense. But I suspect that those inside the organization are very much aware of his true impact on chemistry if they are willing to see clearly.

For them, I doubt its much of a gamble. That's not to suggest I know he's good or bad, just that it shouldn't be guesswork for Jerry.

Without a doubt. They probably do know for sure. And he's certain that he's keeping him so unless you think he knows Owens is a team cancer, is causing this team to not win like it should, and is keeping him anyway...I don't know man. I can't see him keeping him just because he wants to keep him even though he knows the team would be better without him.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Fron our vantage point its a gamble because we see it all through the media's tainted lense. But I suspect that those inside the organization are very much aware of his true impact on chemistry if they are willing to see clearly.

For them, I doubt its much of a gamble. That's not to suggest I know he's good or bad, just that it shouldn't be guesswork for Jerry.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Randy White]

it's very simple. Look at it this way:

Cowboys already spent 9 million dollars of next year's cap, no matter what. Now, the choice is they can either keep the player or release him.

The logical move is to KEEP the player. He's still a Pro Bowl type player, he still in outstanding shape, he's still the best wide receiver on the team and the team has something to show for the 9 million dollars it's spent.


It's a no brainer.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Yep. Because there's no dropoff from Terrell Owens to Roy Williams. Heck, Roy is already CLEARLY the best receiver on the roster, right?

Roy sure looked great this year.

How in the world are the best teams in football getting by without him?

And most of them, except for Carolina, don't even have "star" wide receivers. How can that possibly be?

What I don't understand is why you'd even care if he got cut. You'd just follow him to the next team that picks him up and continue your crusade there.

 

[bysbox1]

How in the world are the best teams in football getting by without him?

And most of them, except for Carolina, don't even have "star" wide receivers. How can that possibly be?

What I don't understand is why you'd even care if he got cut. You'd just follow him to the next team that picks him up and continue your crusade there.

The fact of the matter is, like it or not, Jerry is going to keep him. He is not going to eat 9 million dollars in dead cap money and not get value for a player not on the roster.

That's business 101. So let's just let it go.

 

[JordanTaber]

How in the world are the best teams in football getting by without him?

And most of them, except for Carolina, don't even have "star" wide receivers. How can that possibly be?

What I don't understand is why you'd even care if he got cut. You'd just follow him to the next team that picks him up and continue your crusade there.

Maybe because those teams all have better players at every other position. Ever think of that one?

Let's compare the Dallas defense to that of the Titans, Steelers, Ravens, and Giants.

I feel dirty for even thinking of it.

The latter four defenses are consistently excellent and keep their team in games, regardless of how their offense is performing.

The first defense gives up back-to-back 77+ yard touchdown runs late in the 4th quarter when they're within 2 points.

Getting rid of the best receiver on the football team (not counting ROY WILLIAMS, of course..........) isn't going to make the defense championship-caliber. It isn't going to stop Tony Romo from throwing boneheaded interceptions. It isn't going to make the line pick up the blitz better, or block for the run more consistently.