AP to Dallas?

Derinyar

Derinyar

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
959
I'm guessing the Vikings can't afford to trade him for cap reasons, and we can't afford to sign him for cap reasons.
 
Tabascocat

Tabascocat

Dexternjack
Messages
27,786
Reaction score
38,835
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
logo-When-Pigs-Fly.jpg
 
Galian Beast

Galian Beast

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
7,457
I've explored this before. A lot of people still don't understand how the salary cap works. Is the trade financially feasible? Absolutely it is.

There is currently only 4.8 million in dead money on Peterson's contract with the Vikings. They actually SAVE money by trading him. To the tune of about 10 million dollars in free space.

So the question becomes, can we afford him?

The answer would also be yes.

His base salary for the year is 11.75 million, which could be converted into a prorated restructure bonus.

His base salary for the year would be 855k dollars plus the prorated portion of his bonus money (10,895,000). Which is 2,179,000. Or in other words he would cost us 3,030,400 dollars this year.

Now the cost to cut him the next year would be 8.716 million, and it would become difficult to afford him and his nearly 13 million dollar contract + the 2 million in proration, bringing the total to a little over 15 million.

That said it would come down to, does Peterson bring you to a championship with what would be the best offense in NFL history, and what would you have to give Minnesota to get him. Our salary cap is a bit tight in 2015, but 2016 and on, we could probably afford him. The question also becomes what is he worth in advanced age in 2015 and 2016 and so on.
 
Galian Beast

Galian Beast

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
7,457
Cowboy_Ace said:
http://m.sportsworldreport.com/arti...ed-oakland-raiders-miami-dolphins-options.htm
Click to expand...

The writer of this speculation sparks a pretty good point.

If you're the front office, do you really want to re-sign DeMarco Murray? The answer is probably no. Even if he has a great year. I'd be more interested in franchising him and trading him if possible.

The ability for us to afford Adrian Peterson next year as opposed to this year is much higher. The problem with the theory is that Peterson will also be a year older. That being said it would be a 3 year deal worth 43.25 million per year. And you could always try to lower that base as he deteriorates. The first year would be cheap, and you could always cut ties in year 2, especially since we would have a better shot at absorbing that money in 2016.
 
iceberg

iceberg

rock music matters
Messages
34,404
Reaction score
7,932
Galian Beast said:
The writer of this speculation sparks a pretty good point.

If you're the front office, do you really want to re-sign DeMarco Murray? The answer is probably no. Even if he has a great year. I'd be more interested in franchising him and trading him if possible.

The ability for us to afford Adrian Peterson next year as opposed to this year is much higher. The problem with the theory is that Peterson will also be a year older. That being said it would be a 3 year deal worth 43.25 million per year. And you could always try to lower that base as he deteriorates. The first year would be cheap, and you could always cut ties in year 2, especially since we would have a better shot at absorbing that money in 2016.
Click to expand...

We run 8 times a game. Why get a yesterdays hero?
 

Cowboy_Ace

Active Member
Messages
151
Reaction score
25
I'm sorry just thought it was thread worthy & took me by surprise...I'm not sayin it will or won't (99.33% sure it won't) if it needs to be deleted, delete it mods...but in all honesty I've seen some real crap posted on here....why do we gotta crap on someone's pretend parade lolololol...I love all of you... Bc yall cheer the cowboys on in all of Ur optimism, pessimism, obtuse arguments, agenda base snarky replies & all & all y'all make this forum unboring(?) Hahahahahaha, I thought my post was atleast entertaining at most...m
 
RoyTheHammer

RoyTheHammer

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,801
Reaction score
1,850
Galian Beast said:
The writer of this speculation sparks a pretty good point.

If you're the front office, do you really want to re-sign DeMarco Murray? The answer is probably no. Even if he has a great year. I'd be more interested in franchising him and trading him if possible.

The ability for us to afford Adrian Peterson next year as opposed to this year is much higher. The problem with the theory is that Peterson will also be a year older. That being said it would be a 3 year deal worth 43.25 million per year. And you could always try to lower that base as he deteriorates. The first year would be cheap, and you could always cut ties in year 2, especially since we would have a better shot at absorbing that money in 2016.
Click to expand...

Can we back up to the part where you explain why the front office guys wouldn't want to re-sign Murray? Especially if you are contending that they'd rather then go out and sign a much older AD to a much more lucrative deal?

Thanks in advance..
 
Galian Beast

Galian Beast

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
7,457
RoyTheHammer said:
Can we back up to the part where you explain why the front office guys wouldn't want to re-sign Murray? Especially if you are contending that they'd rather then go out and sign a much older AD to a much more lucrative deal?

Thanks in advance..
Click to expand...


You'd be getting Peterson for a short time period and for better value than you would get for resigning Murray long term.

Even older, AP has shown that he is a much better and more durable running back than Murray.

The only way we re-sign Murray is if the bottom drops out on running back compensation, but even then, it'll be difficult if there is a team willing to pay him to be a more featured player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top