Bob Sturm: Still mad that Cowboys didn’t pay DeMarco? A look back at ‘insane’ deals Dallas did hand

[jobberone]

You've been reading too many news reports and not following the actual cap.

We always get these reports about having no cap space because of how we structure deals. A player on a relatively new deal may have a high cap # in year two but that's something we convert to bonus to cleat space if needed. We pretty much plan to do that, so it is already managed space. It looks bad when you read reports about our cap space but it isn't cap hell by any means.

The only year we recently had an issue was when Romo's deal exploded and we were slow to settle on a new one.

No, I go to sites that report the contracts thru the entire contract years with all the trimmings and they are accurate. I've posted a number of these before but people don't let facts get in their way. I don't use the media to get those numbers.

 

[AbeBeta]

If there is no dead money after the guaranteed years then fine but most of the time that money is amortized over several years and there is dead money.

Dead money is not automatically a bad thing. If I can pay a big deal for three years but can spread the cap hit over 4, that isn't a bad trade off as that dead money reflects space we used for other deals. As I've pointed out to dead ears over and over if you can shove cap hits down the road, with a quickly rising cap you spend proportionally less cap space

 

[AbeBeta]

No, I go to sites that report the contracts thru the entire contract years with all the trimmings and they are accurate. I've posted a number of these before but people don't let facts get in their way. I don't use the media to get those numbers.

Those are "accurate" but ignore the reality if the deal. For example when Dez's deal is done he'll likely have some ugly cap charge in year 2 - "oh we are in cap hell!" The press and posters will scream. The all of a sudden, we do as had been planned and convert guaranteed salary to bonus and blammo, not in cap hell and we've got maybe 10 mill more in space.

All because of the structure of the deal in terms of aspects that will NEVER be reflected by whatever sites you frequent

 

[jobberone]

Dead money is not automatically a bad thing. If I can pay a big deal for three years but can spread the cap hit over 4, that isn't a bad trade off as that dead money reflects space we used for other deals. As I've pointed out to dead ears over and over if you can shove cap hits down the road, with a quickly rising cap you spend proportionally less cap space

How can paying for a player who is not here anything but not a bad thing? It might be unavoidable at times.

 

[jobberone]

Those are "accurate" but ignore the reality if the deal. For example when Dez's deal is done he'll likely have some ugly cap charge in year 2 - "oh we are in cap hell!" The press and posters will scream. The all of a sudden, we do as had been planned and convert guaranteed salary to bonus and blammo, not in cap hell and we've got maybe 10 mill more in space.

All because of the structure of the deal in terms of aspects that will NEVER be reflected by whatever sites you frequent

If you don't think we were unable to do normal player acquisition because we were cap compromised then I'm not going to go back over the history and explain it. It's well documented. Retention of players and FA acquisitions were very problematic. We are finally on a sound basis. Most of the football world is aware of it.

 

[AbeBeta]

How can paying for a player who is not here anything but not a bad thing? It might be unavoidable at times.

By allowing you to pay less for them (in terms of cap space) while they are here. You are using the same amount of cap space - it is simply spread differently than the pay as you go model. And again because folks don't seem to get this - if I kick 5 mill down the road and it becomes "dead" money and the intervening years you are spending less of your cap proportionally.

For example - in 2011 the cap was 120 mill. In 2015 the cap is 143 mill. Pay as you go? 5 mill is 4.2% of your cap. Kick that down the road to 2015 and its only 3.5%.

You gotta get over the whole "paying for a guy who isn't here" notion. It simply ignores the numerical realities of the flexibility that so called dead money creates

 

[AbeBeta]

If you don't think we were unable to do normal player acquisition because we were cap compromised then I'm not going to go back over the history and explain it. It's well documented. Retention of players and FA acquisitions were very problematic. We are finally on a sound basis. Most of the football world is aware of it.

Who honestly have we lost that we wanted to keep. Most of the guys I can think of were players who got really big money offers that were beyond what we wanted to spend on them like Bowen or Canty. FA acquisitions? So you are claiming because of cap problems we didn't pursue FA? That's pure speculation. Gee, we would have been interested but you know, the cap thing.

As I've noted all your sources throw out #s that don't reflect the flexibility we do have. Come FA, we always have posters - Xwalker being one of the primary ones - who detail just how much space we could have if we were to make various moves. Those are the important numbers as they reflect what we could potentially have in cap space. Often those #s reflect several simple guaranteed salary to bonus restructures that were written as automatics in a guy's deal.

So again, the numbers you cite fail in terms of their context.

 

[cowboyvic]

One person's "cheap" is another person's "The Cowboys are finally managing the cap smartly".

And they are losing their play makers. this team just let the NFL offensive player walk away for nothing. now they are messing around with Dez. they are playing with fire. and if they keep playing with fire, they are going to get burned. be careful what you wish far.

 

[jobberone]

By allowing you to pay less for them (in terms of cap space) while they are here. You are using the same amount of cap space - it is simply spread differently than the pay as you go model. And again because folks don't seem to get this - if I kick 5 mill down the road and it becomes "dead" money and the intervening years you are spending less of your cap proportionally.

For example - in 2011 the cap was 120 mill. In 2015 the cap is 143 mill. Pay as you go? 5 mill is 4.2% of your cap. Kick that down the road to 2015 and its only 3.5%.

You gotta get over the whole "paying for a guy who isn't here" notion. It simply ignores the numerical realities of the flexibility that so called dead money creates

There is no inevitability of having dead money. It does not have to be a part of the calculation of player acquisition or retention. There is no advantage in it. The best way to acquire and keep players is to have their contract expire with no dead money at the time you no longer want the player or you desire to begin a new contract.

Using the fixture of spreading bonus money (which is not the same as salary) is essential in being able to compete. But you want to structure that so that you aren't inevitably paying dead money for every player you sign.

You are conflating signing bonuses, restructured bonuses, and salary.

 

[jobberone]

And they are losing their play makers. this team just let the NFL offensive player walk away for nothing. now they are messing around with Dez. they are playing with fire. and if they keep playing with fire, they are going to get burned. be careful what you wish far.

They tried to retain him for what they were willing to pay. I want a Tesla S but I don't want to pay for it. I can buy 3 low mileage Porsche 911s for the same amount of money. They are just as good as the Tesla; just not the same.

There is a lesson in there somewhere.

 

[cowboyvic]

They tried to retain him for what they were willing to pay. I want a Tesla S but I don't want to pay for it. I can buy 3 low mileage Porsche 911s for the same amount of money. They are just as good as the Tesla; just not the same.

There is a lesson in there somewhere.

That all sounds great. but letting Murray go and playing around with Dez is not the way to go. they already let Murray go. now if nothing happens and Dez plays under the franchise tag this year. he's going to be pissed off and they may not get the same Dez. they are playing with fire. and they are going to get burned. this is not smart no matter what the Lap Dog DFW media tells you.

 

[AbeBeta]

There is no inevitability of having dead money. It does not have to be a part of the calculation of player acquisition or retention. There is no advantage in it. The best way to acquire and keep players is to have their contract expire with no dead money at the time you no longer want the player or you desire to begin a new contract.

Using the fixture of spreading bonus money (which is not the same as salary) is essential in being able to compete. But you want to structure that so that you aren't inevitably paying dead money for every player you sign.

You are conflating signing bonuses, restructured bonuses, and salary.

You aren't inevitably paying dead money. You are putting yourself inns situation where you can get rid of a player who has underperformed - you only get dead money if you terminate a deal early.

For years we have structured deals so that there is always a net savings that offsets the dead money completely after the first few years. People look at dead money but fail to see it actually represents a net savings in most cases

 

[xwalker]

How can paying for a player who is not here anything but not a bad thing? It might be unavoidable at times.

Looking at the dead money for a specific player does not indicate if it was a good or bad contract for that specific player.

The Cowboys signed Free to a contract that would end up as a 1 year, 6M deal if he was cut after 1 year. They only took a 3M cap hit in 2015; therefore, there would be 3M in dead money if he was cut; however, the total cost was 1 year, 6M. It would still have been 1 year, 6M even if they took the entire hit in 2015 and there was no dead money. He was either worth 6M or he wasn't, but the dead money amount was not a factor in whether or not he was worth the 6M paid out.

Another example:
Suh turns down the 19M per that he received from Dolphins and signs with the Cowboys for 5M per year.

The Cowboy are tight on cap space and create dummy years at the end of his contact and push as much money forward as possible.

They take a 1M cap hit for his contract in each of the 1st four years and then cut him which results in 16M in dead money. They had Suh for 4 years at 5M per year and he was All-Pro every year yet they had 16M in dead money when he was gone. That contract was a terrific bargain, yet there was massive dead money at the end.

 

[jobberone]

That all sounds great. but letting Murray go and playing around with Dez is not the way to go. they already let Murray go. now if nothing happens and Dez plays under the franchise tag this year. he's going to be pissed off and they may not get the same Dez. they are playing with fire. and they are going to get burned. this is not smart no matter what the Lap Dog DFW media tells you.

Again I read the media but I go to reliable sources for contract details including bonuses, restructures, incentives, and dead money. And once again, Dez is franchised but can sign a contract up to a certain date. So he isn't going anywhere this year and likely next. If he wants to stay here then the FO and Dez will have to compromise otherwise he'll go somewhere else. We aren't screwing around but being responsible. If we disagree about that then that's ok, too.

 

[jobberone]

You aren't inevitably paying dead money. You are putting yourself inns situation where you can get rid of a player who has underperformed - you only get dead money if you terminate a deal early.

I think that is what I said.

For years we have structured deals so that there is always a net savings that offsets the dead money completely after the first few years. People look at dead money but fail to see it actually represents a net savings in most cases

Well, we disagree there are net savings with dead money. Dead money is just that. You're paying for a player not here which is a poor idea. Again you are conflating spreading out bonus money with salary and cap.

 

[jobberone]

Looking at the dead money for a specific player does not indicate if it was a good or bad contract for that specific player.

The Cowboys signed Free to a contract that would end up as a 1 year, 6M deal if he was cut after 1 year. They only took a 3M cap hit in 2015; therefore, there would be 3M in dead money if he was cut; however, the total cost was 1 year, 6M. It would still have been 1 year, 6M even if they took the entire hit in 2015 and there was no dead money. He was either worth 6M or he wasn't, but the dead money amount was not a factor in whether or not he was worth the 6M paid out.

Another example:
Suh turns down the 19M per that he received from Dolphins and signs with the Cowboys for 5M per year.

The Cowboy are tight on cap space and create dummy years at the end of his contact and push as much money forward as possible.

They take a 1M cap hit for his contract in each of the 1st four years and then cut him which results in 16M in dead money. They had Suh for 4 years at 5M per year and he was All-Pro every year yet they had 16M in dead money when he was gone. That contract was a terrific bargain, yet there was massive dead money at the end.

You try to sign players to contracts that are either structured in a way to avoid dead money at the end of their useful playing lives be it 1-3 years or whatever even if you give a player a longer contract. You do that with signing bonuses that get you to the end of their useful career (in the FO's opinion) and have little to no dead space salary money to pay out once they are gone. You keep their yearly salary to a minimum. As I said at times some dead money contracts are inevitable as you end up compromising either for a player who doesn't have a backup or who for whatever reason can no longer perform as you expected. You have to fill certain holes.

The above is just front loading the contract. You aren't going to win on all of them but you always plan on no dead money.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The deals sucked because they were long? That make no sense.

Those end years are non-guaranteed. All you get there is a chance to keep a guy for a rate that will surely seem cheap if he keeps playing at the level that got him the deal. If not, cut and move on.

The last thing you want is to do short deals that necessitate another UFA round with the player.

But generally speaking any guy getting a long contract is getting big $, i.e. Barber for 7 years.

The Cowboys are being much more judicious when it comes to awarding long contracts (beyond 5 years).

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And they are losing their play makers. this team just let the NFL offensive player walk away for nothing. now they are messing around with Dez. they are playing with fire. and if they keep playing with fire, they are going to get burned. be careful what you wish far.

And if they again end up in the playoffs what will you say?

How about you're wrong.

 

[jobberone]

And if they again end up in the playoffs what will you say?

How about you're wrong.

That's the ultimate test and appears to be a major influence for him. But using fiscally sound policy is its own reward in the long run.

And the latter....

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

For those that keep score, here's what Winicki said at the time in at least one of the threads re: a Barber extension:





I think both of those positions are fairly reasonable. Thought even the $5M number was high in retrospect. The actual contract he signed was for ~$6.5M AAV and had $16M guaranteed.

The real problem with the Barber and Austin deals was that we got ourselves into positions where we didn't really know exactly what we had with either player because they started relatively late in their rookie contracts. So we had to take bigger risks on them than we otherwise should have. But I don't believe the Barber deal had all that much bearing on the Murray negotiation. We decided to not pay age and mileage at RB because that's a bad move most of the time when teams do it. Marion was one piece of data in that equation, but there's no reason for him to have been the deciding factor.

http://i18.***BLOCKED***/albums/b133/BrAinPaiNt/escalated_zpsa9a2e5f0.gif