I'm not confusing the two. I know It generally doesn't impact dead money because players play beyond those years but it's still a commitment to the cap regardless of what happens.
And now Dallas is in a position where they'll prorate 2014 and as a consequence of not being able to take a $27M cap hit in 2015 for Romo they'll prorate that year as well.
As a result they'll finish 2016 and be looking at a 37 years old QB (who's taken countless more hits after 2 surgeries) to start the season who's cap charge will be $25M but who's dead money would be $20M if he were cut.
When you prorate as part of an extension you aren't saving anything because you're also going to have to hand out signing bonus money to get that extension done. So now you're taking cap hits for base salaries, signing bonus, and money paid during the previous contract. Romo currently has over $13M in cap charges from his previous deal spread out across the first 4 years of his current deal.
Yet you have more dollars in 2017 precisely because the cost of all contracts generally increases and the cost of signing new contracts always increases. You won't be able to sign a player in 2017 for the same price as you would have in 2013 but you don't need to because you have more cap space to work with so your relative ability to acquire players is much the same.
I think backloading has less to do with the relative worth of a dollar and more to do with not having to pay at all, which is why players don't go for those DeAngelo Hall/Oakland Raider contracts anymore that slot money into years that will never be seen.
As far as signing players earlier, it's all cyclical so relative to some other team you're always in a position of signing your guy either a year earlier or a year later depending on which team you want to compare to. Signing someone sooner just means you have to sign that player (or his replacement) sooner down the road.
That's irrelevant. You can't accept bad deals moving forward based on past performance because there's no guarantee that you're going to make up that lost value by another player who is currently playing at a level that is exceeding his pay. What Jay Ratliff did in 2008 doesn't mean anything for 2014.
Money is money. Whether you pay a big free agent from another team or pay a player of your own who would be a big free agent.
Sean Lee's contract is one of the few that I actually like, provided they do not restructure it. That said, given the choices of spending money on a young guy who's arrow is pointing up or spending money on a 33 year old Sean Lee, which one would actually represent the best use of $7M?
You specifically brought up dead money, and there really isn't a significant effect on dead money, you don't normally pay these guys and cut them a year later.
When Dallas made the commitment to Romo they planned on having him for more than 3 years. Going into 2017, we'll be more than able to afford Romo. His base salary actually dives in 2016. And in 2017 all he has left is signing bonus (outside of new restructuring). The reality is that his cap figures are more than manageable going forward.
You confused things again. Players contracts become more expensive, which is a reason to sign them earlier rather than later. Check. Money is cheaper later than earlier. Check. These are all reasons to sign a player now and backload their contract. Which still allows you to spend more money in the future.
Imagine two players
Player A makes 70 million in 10 years and Player B makes 70 million in 10 years.
Player As contract looks like this
10,10,10,10,10,10,10
Player Bs contract looks like this
7,8,9,10,11,12,13
In the case of Player B, he allows you to manage the cap a lot more in years 1,2,3 than player A's contract does.
Year 4 is equal, however in years 5,6,7,8 the salary cap has increased, so as an overall percentage of the salary cap this contract has actually decreased. And by paying the player more in those years to a closer level to his peers, there is less chance that he will holdout.
The going rate for this position in years 5-8, might be 14-16 million per year.
By backloading, you give yourself a lot more flexibility in the earlier years of the cap, you also can cut ties will a player who isn't performing. It's why every team backloads.
You've come to your own conclusion on my statement about Ratliff. I didn't say his contract extension was a good one, rather that is the risk you pay when you extend a player (especially an older one), but the principle of extending players and backpaying them is sound, and had Ratliff continued to play well like Witten for example, it would have worked itself out to our benefit.
Generally when you sign a free agent from another team you're going to pay the current market price for them, whereas if you have signed your own player long term you'll come underneath the going market value, even if it is backloaded.
