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

[xwalker]

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.

Not really.

If a player is bargain, then he's a bargain even if there is dead money at the end.

Example:

Two players each sign contracts that end up paying them 40M total over 4 years.

Scenario 1:
Player A: Team takes a 10M cap hit each year. The player underachieves.

Player B: Team pushes money forward resulting in 16M cap hit at the end. The player overachieves.

Scenario 2:
Player A: Team takes a 10M cap hit each year. The player overachieves.

Player B: Team pushes money forward resulting in 16M cap hit at the end. The player underachieves.

In these scenarios, player B always has the dead money associated with his contract; however, in scenario 1 he overachieved and in scenario 2 he underachieved.

Both players ended up getting paid 40M total.

The overachieving player was always a good signing and the underachieving player was always a bad signing regardless of where the dead money ended up.

If the team could see into the future, they would always sign the overachieving player even if it was going to result in dead money at the end.

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

What you continue to miss is the reason the player isn't here.

Player X is owed 6 mill in 2015 and 6.5 mill 2016. Let's say his cap charge, based on proration of SB is 8.5 and 9.0 respectively. If we cut him, we take 5 mill in "dead" money as a hit for 2016 - take away that salary and we have gained 1 million in cap space in 2015 and 6.5 mill in 2016.

Or, we could do it so there is no dead money. That would mean keeping him for the two remaining years and 17.5 mill in space overall.

5 mill in space vs 17.5 mill in space. Oh, but dead money is bad.

 

[AbeBeta]

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).

No, I think it really comes down to the player's age. A team will always prefer to give a longer deal because it means that you aren't dealing with another round of UFA with the guy. He'll just be too old to command a big deal anymore and of course, the back end of the deal is non-guaranteed, so you've got all the power.

 

[jobberone]

Not really.

If a player is bargain, then he's a bargain even if there is dead money at the end.

Example:

Two players each sign contracts that end up paying them 40M total over 4 years.

Scenario 1:
Player A: Team takes a 10M cap hit each year. The player underachieves.

Player B: Team pushes money forward resulting in 16M cap hit at the end. The player overachieves.

Scenario 2:
Player A: Team takes a 10M cap hit each year. The player overachieves.

Player B: Team pushes money forward resulting in 16M cap hit at the end. The player underachieves.

In these scenarios, player B always has the dead money associated with his contract; however, in scenario 1 he overachieved and in scenario 2 he underachieved.

Both players ended up getting paid 40M total.

The overachieving player was always a good signing and the underachieving player was always a bad signing regardless of where the dead money ended up.

If the team could see into the future, they would always sign the overachieving player even if it was going to result in dead money at the end.

We're not talking (at least we weren't) about the cost efficiency of the product but dead money.

Wouldn't it be better to have a cost efficient product AND no dead money?

There are no instances where dead money is good for the team. Who wants to make mortgage payments on a house that burned down with no insurance on it?

If you could see into the future you'd, once again, structure the contract to attract and keep the player until you no longer wanted him and have no dead money. And it is possible to pay a player without having dead money.

Again, I don't see you being able to never have any dead money anymore than I expect every draft pick to stick or become a star. But those are your goals.

There was conflation of bonus money and salary vs dead money and now we're throwing in the performance vs costs into the equation.

 

[DandyDon52]

So let me get this right. because Jerry and his son had some bad past misevaluations on players they overrated. they should be cheap and keep letting their play makers go? that is dumb and stupid. and in the long run it will not work. you don't let your play making keep leaving.once again these reporters in the local DRW media, are serving as Lap Dogs for Jerry Jones and his son. you don't pay Murray and he walks. and now they seem to have a problem with paying Dez. this is not the way to win games.

That is what it looks like is happening now.
The other thing is they younger rookies and 2nd.3rd year players are going to look at Murray and Dez and see that they earned a payday, but did not get one with dallas, and this will affect them and how they play for dallas.

They know they have look good enough so when contract is up they can sign with another team.
But not go all out and risk getting hurt or wore out playing for cowboys.
Any players that have the same star potential as Dez and M. will know they wont get a good payday from dallas.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

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....

You're absolutely right.

I've posted before that I'm not interested in a 4 season spurt of success and then 4 years of bleugh.

With a strong offensive and defensive line this team can be competitive for the next decade, but any extra money is probably going to have to be fed into those two units.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

No, I think it really comes down to the player's age. A team will always prefer to give a longer deal because it means that you aren't dealing with another round of UFA with the guy. He'll just be too old to command a big deal anymore and of course, the back end of the deal is non-guaranteed, so you've got all the power.

Of course age is going to factor into it.

But also how good the player is also.

Turn back the clock 5 years and the Cowboys would not have let Murray walk. They would have signed him to that 5-yr, $40 mil deal.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

We're not talking (at least we weren't) about the cost efficiency of the product but dead money.

Wouldn't it be better to have a cost efficient product AND no dead money?

There are no instances where dead money is good for the team. Who wants to make mortgage payments on a house that burned down with no insurance on it?

If you could see into the future you'd, once again, structure the contract to attract and keep the player until you no longer wanted him and have no dead money. And it is possible to pay a player without having dead money.

Again, I don't see you being able to never have any dead money anymore than I expect every draft pick to stick or become a star. But those are your goals.

There was conflation of bonus money and salary vs dead money and now we're throwing in the performance vs costs into the equation.

I agree with your take in that a "bargain" player is going to be one who doesn't leave a lot of dead cap space behind.

 

[AbeBeta]

Of course age is going to factor into it.

But also how good the player is also.

Turn back the clock 5 years and the Cowboys would not have let Murray walk. They would have signed him to that 5-yr, $40 mil deal.

If you look at the deal with the Eagles, it is in no way a 5 year commitment.

He got a bonuses of about 8 mill with a guarantee of 18 mill (all but 2 mill eaten up in the first two years).

If he is in decline the eagles can cut him and even with the dead money end up about 500k ahead in cap space. in 2017.

What Murray signed amounts to a 2 year 18 mill deal.

I do believe 5 years ago we would have signed him. But I also believe we may end up kicking ourselves over this one.

 

[jobberone]

What you continue to miss is the reason the player isn't here.

Player X is owed 6 mill in 2015 and 6.5 mill 2016. Let's say his cap charge, based on proration of SB is 8.5 and 9.0 respectively. If we cut him, we take 5 mill in "dead" money as a hit for 2016 - take away that salary and we have gained 1 million in cap space in 2015 and 6.5 mill in 2016.

Or, we could do it so there is no dead money. That would mean keeping him for the two remaining years and 17.5 mill in space overall.

5 mill in space vs 17.5 mill in space. Oh, but dead money is bad.

When was the contract signed, what is the base salary and the signing bonus? How many years was it spread out over? Were there incentives? Any restructured bonus money? Without that you can't figure out cap hit and dead cap.

You appear to continue to conflate signing bonus money with base salary, cap hit and dead space. You can spread bonus money out but it accelerates into the year you cut the player unless you've already paid it out.

Here's Doug Free's current contract:

http://i471.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr75/jobberone/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-22%20at%203.17.14%20PM_zpsmivzr2yp.png
His base salary is 1.5M. His signing bonus of 4.5M is spread out over the life of the contract or three years. His dead cap money is the 1.5M and the 4.5M in signing bonus all accelerated into 2015 because it is guaranteed. The cap hit is the 1.5M each in base salary and signing bonus.

If you keep him next year his cap cost is the 4M in base and the 1.5M in signing bonus. If you cut him then the dead cap money is the signing bonus of 1.5 plus the remaining 1.5 for 3M although the cap hit is again the 5.5M.

If he plays thru his contract which ends in 2017 then notice there is no dead cap money. If you cut him then the dead cap is the last of the signing bonus or 1.5M. However the cap hit for 2016 is the base plus the signing bonus.

You owe the player whatever the guaranteed money is. Your cap hit is the base plus signing bonus, restructured signing bonus plus makeable incentives basically. The dead cap money is any remaining signing bonuses etc accelerated into that year.

One has to know how to calculate cap hit, money paid to the player and dead cap. It is confusing.

 

[AbeBeta]

When was the contract signed, what is the base salary and the signing bonus? How many years was it spread out over? Were there incentives? Any restructured bonus money? Without that you can't figure out cap hit and dead cap.

You appear to continue to conflate signing bonus money with base salary, cap hit and dead space. You can spread bonus money out but it accelerates into the year you cut the player unless you've already paid it out.

Here's Doug Free's current contract:

http://i471.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr75/jobberone/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-22%20at%203.17.14%20PM_zpsmivzr2yp.png
His base salary is 1.5M. His signing bonus of 4.5M is spread out over the life of the contract or three years. His dead cap money is the 1.5M and the 4.5M in signing bonus all accelerated into 2015 because it is guaranteed. The cap hit is the 1.5M each in base salary and signing bonus.

If you keep him next year his cap cost is the 4M in base and the 1.5M in signing bonus. If you cut him then the dead cap money is the signing bonus of 1.5 plus the remaining 1.5 for 3M although the cap hit is again the 5.5M.

If he plays thru his contract which ends in 2017 then notice there is no dead cap money. If you cut him then the dead cap is the last of the signing bonus or 1.5M. However the cap hit for 2016 is the base plus the signing bonus.

You owe the player whatever the guaranteed money is. Your cap hit is the base plus signing bonus, restructured signing bonus plus makeable incentives basically. The dead cap money is any remaining signing bonuses etc accelerated into that year.

One has to know how to calculate cap hit, money paid to the player and dead cap. It is confusing.

Dude - you don't need to explain this to me. I fully understand the structure and what counts toward what. What exactly is the point you are trying to make again? That you know the web address for Spotrac?

Man , some of the stuff you are posting here ... Obviously there is no dead money when a guy plays out his deal (if that deal has no fake option years) - what a huge duh statement. The bonus accelerates! Wow, only like small children don't know that.

Taking Free's deal and assuming he gets cut in 2016, please explain to me how it is a problem to have 3 mill in dead money when you clear his base out of the equation, you've saved 1 mill in cap space.

BTW - with Murray's deal, it was actually 4 mill in savings.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

If you look at the deal with the Eagles, it is in no way a 5 year commitment.

He got a bonuses of about 8 mill with a guarantee of 18 mill (all but 2 mill eaten up in the first two years).

If he is in decline the eagles can cut him and even with the dead money end up about 500k ahead in cap space. in 2017.

What Murray signed amounts to a 2 year 18 mill deal.

I do believe 5 years ago we would have signed him. But I also believe we may end up kicking ourselves over this one.

That's the difference with the Cowboys now... they wouldn't have signed him for a deal with fake years at the end.

And regardless $9 mi per year for the next two years for Murray is way too much.

Finally if they had signed Murray then Hardy probably would not have been signed for this season and I think ultimately Hardy is a more important component.

 

[T-RO]

You type all this as if I was for paying the bum named Murray.

I'm just saying he should have gotten a contract vs some of the bums we decided to lock up in the past. Like Ken Hamlin, Carr, Barber(Dude was not all that), Sensy, Free, ect ect

All certified bums.

This forum was probably even more enthusiastic back in 2008 about Barber than it's been about Murray. He was "Marion the Barbarian" and ran harder than anyone. When he got his check Carr was a well-regarded cornerback. When Free cashed in he was viewed as the team's best lineman.

Nobody was calling Barber or Carr or Free a bum until after they got the big check...

Within 3 years Philly fans will be booing Murray. Mark it down.

 

[jobberone]

Dude - you don't need to explain this to me. I fully understand the structure and what counts toward what. What exactly is the point you are trying to make again? That you know the web address for Spotrac?

Man , some of the stuff you are posting here ... Obviously there is no dead money when a guy plays out his deal (if that deal has no fake option years) - what a huge duh statement. The bonus accelerates! Wow, only like small children don't know that.

Taking Free's deal and assuming he gets cut in 2016, please explain to me how it is a problem to have 3 mill in dead money when you clear his base out of the equation, you've saved 1 mill in cap space.

BTW - with Murray's deal, it was actually 4 mill in savings.

I've already said some player's contracts will result in dead cap. It's inevitable. 3M is not a horrible amount but it is not optimal either.

I put it up there because it appeared you were conflating cap hit and dead cap. And don't deflect as I'm not assuming anything. I merely said what the numbers would be and WHY if it did happen.

I merely used Free as an example.

 

[dallasdave]

When was the contract signed, what is the base salary and the signing bonus? How many years was it spread out over? Were there incentives? Any restructured bonus money? Without that you can't figure out cap hit and dead cap.

You appear to continue to conflate signing bonus money with base salary, cap hit and dead space. You can spread bonus money out but it accelerates into the year you cut the player unless you've already paid it out.

Here's Doug Free's current contract:

http://i471.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr75/jobberone/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-22%20at%203.17.14%20PM_zpsmivzr2yp.png
His base salary is 1.5M. His signing bonus of 4.5M is spread out over the life of the contract or three years. His dead cap money is the 1.5M and the 4.5M in signing bonus all accelerated into 2015 because it is guaranteed. The cap hit is the 1.5M each in base salary and signing bonus.

If you keep him next year his cap cost is the 4M in base and the 1.5M in signing bonus. If you cut him then the dead cap money is the signing bonus of 1.5 plus the remaining 1.5 for 3M although the cap hit is again the 5.5M.

If he plays thru his contract which ends in 2017 then notice there is no dead cap money. If you cut him then the dead cap is the last of the signing bonus or 1.5M. However the cap hit for 2016 is the base plus the signing bonus.

You owe the player whatever the guaranteed money is. Your cap hit is the base plus signing bonus, restructured signing bonus plus makeable incentives basically. The dead cap money is any remaining signing bonuses etc accelerated into that year.

One has to know how to calculate cap hit, money paid to the player and dead cap. It is confusing.

Hey Jobber let me make sure I got this, if we cut Free next year, then the total cap hit for 2016 will be 3 million.

 

[AbeBeta]

I've already said some player's contracts will result in dead cap. It's inevitable. 3M is not a horrible amount but it is not optimal either.

I put it up there because it appeared you were conflating cap hit and dead cap. And don't deflect as I'm not assuming anything. I merely said what the numbers would be and WHY if it did happen.

I merely used Free as an example.

Deflect?

Huh? You assumed I didn't understand the cap. Believe me - I do. It is really pretty simple which is why I always laugh when people talk about how Stephen is some sort of cap genius.

But really, you are the one deflecting - you still don't have any argument for why dead money is a bad thing. You seem to be responding to the name "dead money" rather than seeing a larger picture.

 

[Frozen700]

This forum was probably even more enthusiastic back in 2008 about Barber than it's been about Murray. He was "Marion the Barbarian" and ran harder than anyone. When he got his check Carr was a well-regarded cornerback. When Free cashed in he was viewed as the team's best lineman.

Nobody was calling Barber or Carr or Free a bum until after they got the big check...

Within 3 years Philly fans will be booing Murray. Mark it down.

Within 3 seasons? Try within 6 -8 games

 

[AbeBeta]

That's the difference with the Cowboys now... they wouldn't have signed him for a deal with fake years at the end.

And regardless $9 mi per year for the next two years for Murray is way too much.

Finally if they had signed Murray then Hardy probably would not have been signed for this season and I think ultimately Hardy is a more important component.

If Murray performs as he did last year in 2015 and 2016 then 9 mill per is definitely worth it.

But really, I don't think you've got any real evidence that we aren't signing long term deals anymore. We didn't re-sign Murray. All reports are that we offered 4 years. Those last two years would have been just as fake as the last 3 in the Eagles' deal.

Hardy is a bit of a special case as he wanted a one-year deal so he could be back on the market as his unsettled situation and POS status made him radioactive for this round of UFA. Had we signed Murray to the dumb sort of pay as you go deal that you seem to be pushing then yes, we wouldn't have had money for Hardy because it is really hard to have two big 1 year deals (Hardy and Dez) that provide the least cap-friendly structure possible if you also insist on making other deals totally non-cap friendly.

 

[dallasdave]

Deflect?

Huh? You assumed I didn't understand the cap. Believe me - I do. It is really pretty simple which is why I always laugh when people talk about how Stephen is some sort of cap genius.

Ok, I wlll ask you the same question, if we cut Free next year, then the total cap hit for 2016 will be 3 million, is this correct ? ,

 

[MichaelWinicki]

If Murray performs as he did last year in 2015 and 2016 then 9 mill per is definitely worth it.

But really, I don't think you've got any real evidence that we aren't signing long term deals anymore. We didn't re-sign Murray. All reports are that we offered 4 years. Those last two years would have been just as fake as the last 3 in the Eagles' deal.

Hardy is a bit of a special case as he wanted a one-year deal so he could be back on the market as his unsettled situation and POS status made him radioactive for this round of UFA. Had we signed Murray to the dumb sort of pay as you go deal that you seem to be pushing then yes, we wouldn't have had money for Hardy because it is really hard to have two big 1 year deals (Hardy and Dez) that provide the least cap-friendly structure possible if you also insist on making other deals totally non-cap friendly.

I don't base my analysis on "reports". Only on what does happen.

I never posted that zero long-term deals would be done. They did what a 10=year with Tyron?

It's just more of a pick & choose for the Cowboys than what it use to be.