Andrew Brandt on Cowboys, Romo deal

[WoodysGirl]

That's exactly the point and the problem. I dont like that deal at all. And its getting worse as longer as i think about it.

Please someone give me a good argument pro this deal and some hope.

FWIW
Dan Graziano ‏@espn_nfceast 19m
Considerably more. RT @JamesNanks: @espn_nfceast If Dallas had allowed Romo to hit open market, would he have attracted that sort of money?

 

[Hoofbite]

$5 million.

Correct.

Looks as though the previous $5.3M that has been restructured to this year will still count.

$4M for the signing bonus, $1.5M for the base salary.

 

[Echo9]

FWIW
Dan Graziano ‏@espn_nfceast 19m
Considerably more. RT @JamesNanks: @espn_nfceast If Dallas had allowed Romo to hit open market, would he have attracted that sort of money?

But Risen insists that no other team would have given him that much. How can that be?

 

[gimmesix]

FWIW
Dan Graziano ‏@espn_nfceast 19m
Considerably more. RT @JamesNanks: @espn_nfceast If Dallas had allowed Romo to hit open market, would he have attracted that sort of money?

Not sure if he would have gotten more, but it might have been structured differently to where he cost more up front (base salarywise) and received less guaranteed money.

For instance, add $10 million to his first-year base and take $10 million off his bonus.

 

[Echo9]

Not sure if he would have gotten more, but it might have been structured differently to where he cost more up front (base salarywise) and received less guaranteed money.

For instance, add $10 million to his first-year base and take $10 million off his bonus.

It's very possible a contract with another team would have had a larger 1st year salary, but how is that not considered guaranteed anyway? Romo's guarantees come in different forms. 25mil is in signing bonus which leaves the other 30 as something else, including salary. Unless I'm reading this wrong, wouldn't your example still have that 10mil guaranteed, since its a salary in the first year? It's not like he'd get cut in training camp.

IMO, he would have gotten more simply because more than one team would have been bidding for him.

 

[TwentyOne]

FWIW
Dan Graziano ‏@espn_nfceast 19m
Considerably more. RT @JamesNanks: @espn_nfceast If Dallas had allowed Romo to hit open market, would he have attracted that sort of money?

I figure you want to remind me that we had to give Romo that kind of deal because on the open market he would have gotten even more (or the risk for that was present).

That makes me even more sad and mad. Let me try to explain:

A) That post implies that we had to sign Romo. That there were no other options.

But that's just not true. As a franchise or being employed in the FO you just can't have a thinking that you are dependent on someone or something. IN FACT your job is to bring yourself in a position to make unindependent decissions. Otherwise your decissions will be bad by default.

So figuring that we have a FO that isn't able to put us in situations where we really can chose (especially cap wise but also draft pick wise) makes me sad. Sad because i don't see changes coming at the postitions that really matter most.

B) Even if we needed Romo the way A) states the fact is we can't afford him if his market value were that high. You can't afford things you don't have money for. Even if you need them.

You have to manage your cap way better if you don't want to be in this kind of situation. Not do sign a player anyway and ignoring facts. That's not good management, in fact thats a good way into bankrupt (BTW: I still can't figure why the US still hasn't learned about their mistakes and does not show a bit more responsibility towards the rest of the world. Guess Europe should not have helped them purge their depts. But then again Europe was and still is way too dependent on the US. Anyways, thats another story ...). Good managers evaluate the decissions from the past. Did they get us were we want to be ? If not they think about new ways.

Our FO clearly made bad decissions in the past. But this contract shows they haven't learned anything.

And still people on this board think of S.Jones as a cap guru.

This is the point were i go from sad to mad.

 

[TwentyOne]

Not sure if he would have gotten more, but it might have been structured differently to where he cost more up front (base salarywise) and received less guaranteed money.

For instance, add $10 million to his first-year base and take $10 million off his bonus.

All this contract had in mind is lowering his cap figure in 2013. Everything else was forgotten.

We save $5 mills in 2013 with his new contract. If we had given him $10mills and a lower signing bonus we could have kept his old contract.

 

[gimmesix]

All this contract had in mind is lowering his cap figure in 2013. Everything else was forgotten.

We save $5 mills in 2013 with his new contract. If we had given him $10mills and a lower signing bonus we could have kept his old contract.

If you think that, it's the beginning of your problems with understanding this contract.

There is an immediate cap savings, but the contract is set up to establish cap savings the next two years through restructures (if needed).

Yes, Dallas has to pay him to keep him (the guaranteed money is the key), but the base salary numbers are just "silly" money, there so that they can be converted to bonus and prorated to lower his cap figure each of the next two or three years.

Those moves will allow Dallas to stay under the cap, absorb dead money if it cuts any vets with big contracts and/or have money to use in free agency. So essentially Romo "pays" for other players' dead money and eventually other players will "pay" for Romo's dead money to keep Dallas out of cap hell. It's a cycle that will let Dallas continue to push dead money never-endingly down the road, unless the NFL changes cap rules.

 

[DFWJC]

That's exactly the point and the problem. I dont like that deal at all. And its getting worse as longer as i think about it.

Please someone give me a good argument pro this deal and some hope.

He meant too much dead money to cut before the deal. Pay attention

 

[gimmesix]

It's very possible a contract with another team would have had a larger 1st year salary, but how is that not considered guaranteed anyway? Romo's guarantees come in different forms. 25mil is in signing bonus which leaves the other 30 as something else, including salary. Unless I'm reading this wrong, wouldn't your example still have that 10mil guaranteed, since its a salary in the first year? It's not like he'd get cut in training camp.

Probably should have said bonus money instead of guaranteed. More up front simply would allow for less cap creativity to be needed in the contract.

IMO, he would have gotten more simply because more than one team would have been bidding for him.

That's true.