Bill Parcells get a pass if...

[AbeBeta]

agreed so better to spend on a 5-8 year vet than a 10+ year vet even if you have to spend a bit more for the younger guy...and as long as they are similiar value

in retrospect yes. Of course, we wanted a leader for the line -- and Rivera is certainly more of that than is Wahle. I just don't think we had any shot at Wahle -- and folks would be going nuts even more if we did nothing.

 

[Trip]

Dead cap space is still cap space -- and the base contract does make a huge difference. Perhaps you hear "dead space" and think that is important -- but that is like looking at your bank account and only focusing on the withdrawls rather than the withdrawls and deposits.

You have to talk about "dead space" in relation to what it costs to keep the player. For example, you say if we cut him in 2009 we have 1.8 million in dead space -- well so freaking what? That's 1.8 million of a cap hit compared to 4.8 million if we keep him. Cutting him there produces a net 3 million GAIN in cap space. I can't see how the 1.8 million of dead space there is a problem. Same with all those other #'s you have to chop the base salary off there b/c we aren't paying that amount.

It's a problem because you just wasted $1.8 million on a player that isn't even on your team, or in the scenario you suggested, $3.6 million.

You think it's okay to waste $3.6 million in cap space, just to release a player because of a terrible signing?

But you're right, it's better than wasting $4.8 million on a player that isn't contributing.

The base salaries mean nothing, in terms of getting out of a contract. And we'll be paying a lot for Rivera if he doesn't pan out.

 

[wileedog]

agreed so better to spend on a 5-8 year vet than a 10+ year vet even if you have to spend a bit more for the younger guy...and as long as they are similiar value

But it's not a 'bit' more, its a heck of a lot more.

What happens if we gave Wahle that huge bonus you are talking about (which is probably the only way he chooses Dallas over Carolina) and *he* hurts his back on a treadmill and is no longer as effective.

The cap hit on cutting Rivera sucks. The hit on cutting Wahle with that bonus would be excrutiating.

 

[Zaxor]

Overpay, sure. Everybody overpays for free agents, its the nature of the market. We overpaid for Rivera, even if he didn't hurt his back.

But just writing blank checks to good not great offensive guards is a quick road to salary cap hell. The rest of the league would have laughed their collective arses off if we gave Wahle a $15M signing bonus.

Carolina has struggled running the ball and protecting Delhomme all year. Wahle has played well but just handing out a ton of cash to him would not fix all the problems we have, nor has it fixed all of Carolina's.

again I agree but with a roster so poor in talent...it either has to be replenshed through the draft or FA's... and if you go the FA route than you have to be judicious and spend wisely even if that is over spending...

my contention is and was that the team has wasted 9 mill on Rivera...

when for maybe 5 Mill more I got atleast a guy who is able to give me more quality starts and fixes the problem...

so 15Mil spent problem solved
9Mil spent could have played Gurode and got better results and I thought that before the injury and still do...

that is what I mean by judicious spending... you can pretty much count on wahle playing 5 years at a pretty high level...nobody that I knew of thought the same about Rivera... the guy had bad knees and was getting pushed around his last year in GB

 

[Zaxor]

But it's not a 'bit' more, its a heck of a lot more.

What happens if we gave Wahle that huge bonus you are talking about (which is probably the only way he chooses Dallas over Carolina) and *he* hurts his back on a treadmill and is no longer as effective.

The cap hit on cutting Rivera sucks. The hit on cutting Wahle with that bonus would be excrutiating.

then it was just bad luck but nothing that could have been seen before hand... I am not asking for the Cowboys to have hind sight but I do expect them to have a bit of fore sight

 

[wileedog]

again I agree but with a roster so poor in talent...it either has to be replenshed through the draft or FA's... and if you go the FA route than you have to be judicious and spend wisely even if that is over spending...

my contention is and was that the team has wasted 9 mill on Rivera...

when for maybe 5 Mill more I got atleast a guy who is able to give me more quality starts and fixes the problem...

so 15Mil spent problem solved
9Mil spent could have played Gurode and got better results and I thought that before the injury and still do...

that is what I mean by judicious spending... you can pretty much count on wahle playing 5 years at a pretty high level...nobody that I knew of thought the same about Rivera... the guy had bad knees and was getting pushed around his last year in GB

Look, I agree I was never a big fan of the Rivera signing.

But paying THAT much over market value for a player like Wahle doesn't strike me as the real solution. I think in the contract you are talking about he would be making more than Flozell Adams, a *cough*Pro Bowl*cough* left tackle.

If it comes to that I would rather make do with what I have for a year and see what shakes out next season rather than agree to a contract I know is waaaay over-priced.

 

[AbeBeta]

It's a problem because you just wasted $1.8 million on a player that isn't even on your team, or in the scenario you suggested, $3.6 million.

You think it's okay to waste $3.6 million in cap space, just to release a player because of a terrible signing?

But you're right, it's better than wasting $4.8 million on a player that isn't contributing.

The base salaries mean nothing, in terms of getting out of a contract. And we'll be paying a lot for Rivera if he doesn't pan out.

I'm sorry. You just aren't making sense. Let's review this. I'll just take the last year. You note that if we cut Rivera then it is a 1.8 million cap hit. That is correct. But if we kept him that year it would be a 4.8 million cap hit. That's a net of 3 million coming back to our cap for the cut. That a GAIN for us not a loss. The more likely scenario is that he is cut after year 3, which would be about a 250k net cap hit.

I think what you are missing here is that this contract is not designed as a 5 year deal -- it is effectively a 3 year deal -- and that's how you write a deal. You make it so when you can cut a guy with little impact on the cap -- after year 3 it is basically a wash to cut him.

You've got to get over this "dead space" issue -- dead space is part of cap management. Any time a guy doesn't complete his contract you get dead space -- and most contracts are not written with the intention of having the player complete them.

 

[Trip]

I'm sorry. You just aren't making sense. Let's review this. I'll just take the last year. You note that if we cut Rivera then it is a 1.8 million cap hit. That is correct. But if we kept him that year it would be a 4.8 million cap hit. That's a net of 3 million coming back to our cap for the cut. That a GAIN for us not a loss. The more likely scenario is that he is cut after year 3, which would be about a 250k net cap hit.

I think what you are missing here is that this contract is not designed as a 5 year deal -- it is effectively a 3 year deal -- and that's how you write a deal. You make it so when you can cut a guy with little impact on the cap -- after year 3 it is basically a wash to cut him.

You've got to get over this "dead space" issue -- dead space is part of cap management. Any time a guy doesn't complete his contract you get dead space -- and most contracts are not written with the intention of having the player complete them.

If I give you 10 dollars, and you later give me 3 back, that's not a gain for me. I'm still down 7 bucks.

Same with the Cowboys and Marco Rivera.

Will he cost more to keep in year four? Yes, he costs you $4.8 million if you keep him in year four and he costs you $3.6 million if you cut him.

You've still lost $3.6 million, and you have nothing to show for it.

I can't make it any simpler for you.

 

[AbeBeta]

If I give you 10 dollars, and you later give me 3 back, that's not a gain for me. I'm still down 7 bucks.

Same with the Cowboys and Marco Rivera.

Will he cost more to keep in year four? Yes, he costs you $4.8 million if you keep him in year four and he costs you $3.6 million if you cut him.

You've still lost $3.6 million, and you have nothing to show for it.

I can't make it any simpler for you.

Actually if you cut him (using your #s which are wrong) you save 1.2 million in cap space. And that's a net gain for us. (the real #s are about a 250k cap hit for that year to cut him -- basically a wash).

Your $10 analogy demonstrates where your thinking is wrong. You are focusing on the raw $$ instad of the impact on our salary cap.

You are assuming that the Rivera deal is designed to go 5 years -- it is not -- it is designed to give Rivera about 4.5 million a year over 3 years -- then say good bye. The salary #s over the final 2 years are in place to allow us to cut him with no impact (or a positive impact) on our cap.

You fail to understand that the 3.6 million you "lose" is designed to be lost -- because it is offset by the base salary for the 4th year. That's a good contract -- one that lets you cut someone with no cap impact.

You can persist in thinking that any "dead" money is bad but it will only highlight your lack of understanding of the salary cap.

 

[Trip]

Actually if you cut him (using your #s which are wrong) you save 1.2 million in cap space. And that's a net gain for us. (the real #s are about a 250k cap hit for that year to cut him -- basically a wash).

Your $10 analogy demonstrates where your thinking is wrong. You are focusing on the raw $$ instad of the impact on our salary cap.

You are assuming that the Rivera deal is designed to go 5 years -- it is not -- it is designed to give Rivera about 4.5 million a year over 3 years -- then say good bye. The salary #s over the final 2 years are in place to allow us to cut him with no impact (or a positive impact) on our cap.

You fail to understand that the 3.6 million you "lose" is designed to be lost -- because it is offset by the base salary for the 4th year. That's a good contract -- one that lets you cut someone with no cap impact.

You can persist in thinking that any "dead" money is bad but it will only highlight your lack of understanding of the salary cap.

You're confused.

If the NFL salary cap in 2008 is $102 million

And the Cowboys cut Marco Rivera that same year

The Cowboys will only be able to spend $98.4 million because $3.6 million of the allotted amount counts towards Marco Rivera.

No confusing elements about what is designed and not designed... no 3 year deals and 5 year deals... those are the facts.

You apparently think using $3.6 million of the money that is allocated to you on a player that will no longer be on your team is okay. I don't.

 

[AbeBeta]

You're confused.

If the NFL salary cap in 2008 is $102 million

And the Cowboys cut Marco Rivera that same year

The Cowboys will only be able to spend $98.4 million because $3.6 million of the allotted amount counts towards Marco Rivera.

No confusing elements about what is designed and not designed... no 3 year deals and 5 year deals... those are the facts.

You apparently think using $3.6 million of the money that is allocated to you on a player that will no longer be on your team is okay. I don't.

And if they keep him it costs 4.8 million (using your incorrect #s). That means we would have only $97.2 million to spend because you wanted to keep Rivera.

The deal is designed to be cut or re-done after 3 years. That's a fact.

I will give you points for your hard-headed persistence in pursuing an obviously flawed interpretation. Also, you used the correct form of you're (not your) -- so that's a plus too.

 

[Trip]

And if they keep him it costs 4.8 million (using your incorrect #s). That means we would have only $97.2 million to spend because you wanted to keep Rivera.

The deal is designed to be cut or re-done after 3 years. That's a fact.

I will give you points for your hard-headed persistence in pursuing an obviously flawed interpretation. Also, you used the correct form of you're (not your) -- so that's a plus too.

I don't want to keep Rivera. I didn't want him in the first place. I don't want to pay $4.8 million for a worthless player, or $3.6 million for one that's not around. To me neither of those are good options.

Although I don't have the cap in front me and I'm going off of memory, the numbers are correct.

He has a base salary of $3 million in 2008, plus an amortized bonus of $1.8 million which equals a total salary of $4.8 million. If released after 2007, which is what you suggest, the Cowboys pay the amortized bonus amounts of $1.8 million for both 2008 and 2009, which equals $3.6 million.

Persistence is a nice way to phrase it, usually it's called something different...

 

[Fletch]

Does that mean that we are not allowed to question THe GREAT AND ALL KNOWING BILL PARCELLS?!! for god sakes BP has been wrong from time to time, however fans like you resist any thing but worship for him. I for one will continue to speak about what he does wrong and occasionally give him his props when he does well!

And there you have it. Your agenda is loud and clear. Let's recap what stands out the most.

"I for one will continue to speak about what he does wrong and "occasionally" give him his props when he does well!"

 

[AbeBeta]

I don't want to keep Rivera. I didn't want him in the first place. I don't want to pay $4.8 million for a worthless player, or $3.6 million for one that's not around. To me neither of those are good options.

Although I don't have the cap in front me and I'm going off of memory, the numbers are correct.

He has a base salary of $3 million in 2008, plus an amortized bonus of $1.8 million which equals a total salary of $4.8 million. If released after 2007, which is what you suggest, the Cowboys pay the amortized bonus amounts of $1.8 million for both 2008 and 2009, which equals $3.6 million.

Persistence is a nice way to phrase it, usually it's called something different...

You've got the bonus a little off -- you are using 9 million -- it was 8.125 with a 300k roster bonus this year.

But again, we save 1.2 million by not having him around. And that sort of think happens whenever you cut a guy before the end of his deal (if there was an SB). And you cannot realisitically believe that guys will always play out their deals.

Stephen did a good job with this contract -- he built it so that we actually save $$ when we cut Rivera after the 3rd year. Would it be better to have no dead money? Sure -- but that is not realistic nor is it how NFL deals are written. Nor will it ever be -- you have to give SBs the best you can hope for in a deal is exactly what the Rivera deal gives us in year 4, the option to cut and save against the cap.

 

[koolaid]

as long as parcells keeps drafting solid players and keeps us competitive, he can stay as long as he wants IMO

 

[jterrell]

A few notes.

Trip, its easy math: Wahle cost more than Rivera. In any form.

Almost all free agents you sign cost you when you release them.
Many cost even more to release than they would have to keep.

Rivera wont.

His deal was a 3 year deal worth about 13.5 million which is the going rate of 2005.
We lowered the yearly rate by signing him to a 5 year deal where he doesnt see years 4 and 5 in all likelihood.

Wahle got another 25% upfront which means even more risk and a long committment Cutting him in 3 years will still cost Carolina 25% on the cap in dead money. Wonder how they feel about that Stephen Davis contract about now?

All you are doing is talking in circles.
You either wanna sign folks or you don't. Believe me GB would have loved ot have Rivera back most of this season. I am sure Favre woulda paid part of the contract just to have him there. All we hear form Rob is that Rivera is teaching him things. Same stuff we heard when they interviewed Rogers.

Beyond that is will be quite hilarious to watch all the backflips if the Eags or Falcons do win. Now all of a sudden we are in the playoffs then win a game or two and Parcells is Lombardi reborn.

Parcells again going back to the original post doesn't need any passes. He has been offered a contract extension by the one guy who matters. Jones recognized the obvious. The team is better and the drafting has been better. The team would be well-served getting BP to stick around a bit longer and continue building the team.

 

[jterrell]

I don't want to keep Rivera. I didn't want him in the first place. I don't want to pay $4.8 million for a worthless player, or $3.6 million for one that's not around. To me neither of those are good options.

Although I don't have the cap in front me and I'm going off of memory, the numbers are correct.

He has a base salary of $3 million in 2008, plus an amortized bonus of $1.8 million which equals a total salary of $4.8 million. If released after 2007, which is what you suggest, the Cowboys pay the amortized bonus amounts of $1.8 million for both 2008 and 2009, which equals $3.6 million.

Persistence is a nice way to phrase it, usually it's called something different...

The problem with this post is you think people care whether you want Rivera here or ever did. No one does.

The Cowboys BrainTrust did and do want him here and that IS what matters.

Cough up 350 million and you can also make those decisions. But right now you are just an amateur second guesser like all others here. Intelligent discussion about it has zero to do with personal likes or dislikes.

 

[Trip]

The problem with this post is you think people care whether you want Rivera here or ever did. No one does.

The Cowboys BrainTrust did and do want him here and that IS what matters.

Cough up 350 million and you can also make those decisions. But right now you are just an amateur second guesser like all others here. Intelligent discussion about it has zero to do with personal likes or dislikes.

JTerrell: A few things for you.

I don't have a "personal like or dislike." I don't know him.

I don't think it was an intelligent investment and that is up for "intelligent discussion."

Whether I invest $350 million dollars in a team or not, I can still debate the merits of the moves those teams make.

Talk about "talking in circles".

Whether you personally care or not about my opinion means little to me.

 

[Trip]

You've got the bonus a little off -- you are using 9 million -- it was 8.125 with a 300k roster bonus this year.

But again, we save 1.2 million by not having him around. And that sort of think happens whenever you cut a guy before the end of his deal (if there was an SB). And you cannot realisitically believe that guys will always play out their deals.

Stephen did a good job with this contract -- he built it so that we actually save $$ when we cut Rivera after the 3rd year. Would it be better to have no dead money? Sure -- but that is not realistic nor is it how NFL deals are written. Nor will it ever be -- you have to give SBs the best you can hope for in a deal is exactly what the Rivera deal gives us in year 4, the option to cut and save against the cap.

Okay. I'll take your word for it on the roster bonus. Makes sense. But I'll check when I get home.