Twitter: Broaddus says "I have thought all along that Carr stays"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Only a bad team would be held hostage by Brandon Carr. Sad and funny at the same time

Time is on our side. The longer this goes on the worse it is for Carr. If they cut him in May, he's going to be screwed.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

He doesn't mean it seriously. He's fishing for attention.

That anyone would trade looking like a fool for some attention is quite sad.

 

[gmoney112]

What makes everybody think Carr's holding the Cowboys hostage? He has zero leverage. He's demonstrably overpaid. There are veteran options available for what probably amounts to what we'd want him to cut his salary to, and we've still got the draft sitting in front of us. The longer we hold onto him, the worse his position gets. And we just cleared the money to bring in a replacement whether he agrees to negotiate or not.

If he's not careful, we're going to hold onto him until after the draft and then cut him loose to try to find a home once the FA money has largely dried up.

And, no, we weren't in a position to cut him last season. With Mo's performance a question mark and his status for this season uncertain, and the team poised to make a run, it'd have been redonkulous to create a hole at CB after working so hard to improve the DL. That was never going to happen. We approached him re: an extension, and he rolled the dice. As he should have. *Last* year, he had leverage. The one with the most leverage wins.

So, out of curiousity, I believe your opinion was basically mediocre players are getting overpaid, especially in the recent FA periods?

I'm just curious what your definition of leverage is. The fact he's still here on that albatross of a contract shows he has more leverage than some want to admit.

And what makes you think Carr isn't going to get a modest contract, even if we decide to release him after the draft? IF that's really a mindset and tactic they're actually attempting to use, that'd be disappointing. That means we just wasted all of our opportunity costs on a CB no one was willing to pay anyway.

The problem here, is that timing right now is critical, unless of course we never decided to pursue anyone in FA, which given the precedent is believable, is actually giving Carr significant leverage.

Here's where the problem exists. I think we all know that playing on that contract this year is absurd. I never saw that happening. Brandon knows it, the Cowboys know it, his agent sure knows it.

Regardless, our refusal to outright cut him is telling. It means we want to negotiate. Okay. Whats his agents job? Make him the most amount of money. And if he wants to play hardball because we won't bring anyone in, then what? I'm not talking about 12 mill or whatever his salary is, what if he wants 8? What if Carroll and these other mid tier CB's get picked up while we're negotiating, for what exactly? Brandon Carr?

This is all depending on who we bring in. If any more of these mid tier guys are picked up, Carr gets more leverage. The names are dwindling by the day, and the less supply in the market the more leverage Carr gains.

I'm not talking about leverage as in paying him his full salary. I'm talking about leverage as in, where we pride ourselves in not spending money in this FA period, we'd still end up making a pretty unwise decision and overpaying significantly simply because we sat on our hands too long.

Off topic, but if it were me? Before the season was over, I'd tell Carrs agent that its not personal, but if he doesn't renegotiate to around 5 a year in the first few days of FA, he'd be released. Wilcox would have been released the first day with that stupid escalator raise he got. I know some of you like Church but he'd be gone unless he renegotiated as well.

 

[Alexander]

Rightly or wrongly this team came into last year with superbowl aspirations. In that situation you don't cut a starting vet corner with those hopes over 4m a year (about what Carr is overpaid).

That is a big part of the problem. We had Super Bowl aspirations and we thought we could make another run at it.

New England allowed Darrelle Revis and Brandon Browner to both depart after winning it all. So I guess they just figured what? They were not going to compete?

Teams can and should evaluate rosters every year. Meticulously. With finances in mind. And there are times you admit mistakes and quit trying to convince yourself that you did not make a huge mistake.

That does not appear to be our strong suit. We are usually a year late. Or in the case of Carr, going on two years.

 

[Alexander]

That anyone would trade looking like a fool for some attention is quite sad.

So is being a clueless homer contrarian, which is role I have to say you have perfected.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That is a big part of the problem. We had Super Bowl aspirations and we thought we could make another run at it.

New England allowed Darrelle Revis and Brandon Browner to both depart after winning it all. So I guess they just figured what? They were not going to compete?

Teams can and should evaluate rosters every year. Meticulously. With finances in mind. And there are times you admit mistakes and quit trying to convince yourself that you did not make a huge mistake.

That does not appear to be our strong suit. We are usually a year late. Or in the case of Carr, going on two years.

Revis wanted to return home and took a massive deal.

Sometimes you pass.

Revis deal with the Pats was always short term and team friendly for the Pats. Team friendly doesn't mean small. For instance Greg Hardy's deal was team friendly but it wasn't small.

When the deal was no longer team oriented the Pats passed. It's how you effectively manage a cap.

But you knew that. Right?

Also what does Revis as a free agent have to do with Carr under contract?

Hint: Nothing.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

So is being a clueless homer contrarian, which is role I have to say you have perfected.

When in doubt insult?

 

[Alexander]

When in doubt insult?

And that is different from what you did? If you can't take it back, deal with it.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And that is different from what you did? If you can't take it back, deal with it.

Yeah I didn't insult you. I disagreed with what you said and provided sound reasoning for my disagreement.

I was then told you were just in this for attention.

Yikes.

 

[KingintheNorth]

So is being a clueless homer contrarian, which is role I have to say you have perfected.

If you say it while holding pom-pom's, it's automatically right.

 

[Alexander]

When the deal was no longer team oriented the Pats passed. It's how you effectively manage a cap.

Funny you bring that up, and apparently that is something Dallas can't do. Effectively manage a cap.

We say we can. We get all kinds of quotes from Stephen about it and how he thinks it is amusing, but at the end of the day, we don't effectively manage the cap well because we don't effectively self-evaluate the roster and their value to it.

It is not just about cooking the books every year. Practically every team does that now.

So yes, they hold themselves hostage by the very dumb deals they negotiate. Themselves.

Can't blame Carr for taking the deal he did. And he is not willing to acquiesce for the team. And they took it. Right up the shaft and look to be ready to do it again.

Like they have taken it for other players who played them for big money contracts well beyond the value of the product delivered.

It is part of our culture. And the players know it.

I do notice you left Browner out too. If Revis was impossible to retain, they let him go too.

Why? Because they are confident enough in themselves and their program to cope.

And judging by results, they were right.

Meanwhile, we kept the status quo. As we seem oh so content to do.

Also what does Revis as a free agent have to do with Carr under contract?

Hint: Nothing.

It is called making decisions. You honestly can sit there and say Carr has been worth what he has been paid? In any year of his contract?

Or will you admit it at least was a bad contract that they continue to pay because they are too spineless to end it?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Funny you bring that up, and apparently that is something Dallas can't do. Effectively manage a cap.

We say we can. We get all kinds of quotes from Stephen about it and how he thinks it is amusing, but at the end of the day, we don't effectively manage the cap well because we don't effectively self-evaluate the roster and their value to it.

It is not just about cooking the books every year. Practically every team does that now.

So yes, they hold themselves hostage by the very dumb deals they negotiate. Themselves.

Can't blame Carr for taking the deal he did. And he is not willing to acquiesce for the team. And they took it. Right up the shaft and look to be ready to do it again.

Like they have taken it for other players who played them for big money contracts well beyond the value of the product delivered.

It is part of our culture. And the players know it.

I do notice you left Browner out too. If Revis was impossible to retain, they let him go too.

Why? Because they are confident enough in themselves and their program to cope.

And judging by results, they were right.

Meanwhile, we kept the status quo. As we seem oh so content to do.



It is called making decisions. You honestly can sit there and say Carr has been worth what he has been paid? In any year of his contract?

Or will you admit it at least was a bad contract that they continue to pay because they are too spineless to end it?

There is a lot here. And most of it is about things I haven't commented on.

But I find it strange you call the organization that just let Ware and Murray walk because we didn't want to pay their market rate "spineless."

What you say doesn't really match with reality.

Does that bother you?

It would bother me.

 

[Alexander]

There is a lot here. And most of it is about things I haven't commented on.

But I find it strange you call the organization that just let Ware and Murray walk because we didn't want to pay their market rate "spineless."

What you say doesn't really match with reality.

Does that bother you?

It would bother me.

And everything I replied to, you deflect instead of taking head on.

Good politics.

 

[KJJ]

To put in perspective how bad Claiborne and Carr have been their combined 9 INT's with the Cowboys is 3 fewer than Sean Lee has who's missed more games than he's played. Think about that for a second.

 

[casmith07]

There is a lot here. And most of it is about things I haven't commented on.

But I find it strange you call the organization that just let Ware and Murray walk because we didn't want to pay their market rate "spineless."

What you say doesn't really match with reality.

Does that bother you?

It would bother me.

Consider the source, man. It's par for the disaster of a course he's playing on.

 

[Idgit]

So, out of curiousity, I believe your opinion was basically mediocre players are getting overpaid, especially in the recent FA periods?

I'm just curious what your definition of leverage is. The fact he's still here on that albatross of a contract shows he has more leverage than some want to admit.

And what makes you think Carr isn't going to get a modest contract, even if we decide to release him after the draft? IF that's really a mindset and tactic they're actually attempting to use, that'd be disappointing. That means we just wasted all of our opportunity costs on a CB no one was willing to pay anyway.

The problem here, is that timing right now is critical, unless of course we never decided to pursue anyone in FA, which given the precedent is believable, is actually giving Carr significant leverage.

Here's where the problem exists. I think we all know that playing on that contract this year is absurd. I never saw that happening. Brandon knows it, the Cowboys know it, his agent sure knows it.

Regardless, our refusal to outright cut him is telling. It means we want to negotiate. Okay. Whats his agents job? Make him the most amount of money. And if he wants to play hardball because we won't bring anyone in, then what? I'm not talking about 12 mill or whatever his salary is, what if he wants 8? What if Carroll and these other mid tier CB's get picked up while we're negotiating, for what exactly? Brandon Carr?

This is all depending on who we bring in. If any more of these mid tier guys are picked up, Carr gets more leverage. The names are dwindling by the day, and the less supply in the market the more leverage Carr gains.

I'm not talking about leverage as in paying him his full salary. I'm talking about leverage as in, where we pride ourselves in not spending money in this FA period, we'd still end up making a pretty unwise decision and overpaying significantly simply because we sat on our hands too long.

Off topic, but if it were me? Before the season was over, I'd tell Carrs agent that its not personal, but if he doesn't renegotiate to around 5 a year in the first few days of FA, he'd be released. Wilcox would have been released the first day with that stupid escalator raise he got. I know some of you like Church but he'd be gone unless he renegotiated as well.

We weren't in a position to cut him until this week's extension of Claiborne. Replacing one guy in VFA was realistic. Finding two, at a value, was probably not going to happen. So we were always going to lean on Carr. He's the vet. He's got the untenable number on his deal this year. But once we got Claiborne done, we put ourselves in a position where cutting him is a legitimate possibility. Now, we bring in a guy like Carroll for probably what we'd ask Carr to adjust his deal to and we can go into the draft without hands tied at the position.

I happen to think Carr's a mediocre player. Not bad, not very good. He's been good in spurts, and he's been burned badly at times. The problem is, I don't want to afford a better player in FA, since that's where the premiums really come in. The good players are in short supply. Vets of Carr's ability are available a week or two into the agency period.

So I'm pretty much with you on Carr. I'd be finding his replacement now, and the first one to agree to the terms gets the spot. That's probably what's going on right now, anyway, though we're obviously not going to hear about it.

Incidentally, I'm with you on Wilcox, too. I like Church more than you do, but Wilcox has regressed and was not very good to start with.

 

[iceberg]

The more FA CBs that sign elsewhere and are off the market, the less negotiating leverage Carr's agent has after he gets cut and the more leverage Dallas has in telling Carr to take a pay cut if he wants to stay.

The issue is that Carr would need to take too big of a pay cut for it to make sense to the Cowboys, so he very likely goes elsewhere.

so the more that are taken off the market can ONLY mean that the cowboys have less options as well. so telling someone PAY CUT OR ELSE when you yourself said all the good options are gone ....

nevermind. you must be right.

 

[silver]

We went 4-12 and he had 0 INTs.

We could have played literally anyone and saved 9m.

We didnt know that in September. Once he's on the roster for game one his salary is guaranteed or correct me if I'm wrong. Once he played in the opener we were married to him for the whole season. Now this season I doubt he plays here for his current deal.

 

[Kaiser]

so the more that are taken off the market can ONLY mean that the cowboys have less options as well. so telling someone PAY CUT OR ELSE when you yourself said all the good options are gone ....

nevermind. you must be right.

No, the Cowboy options are Scandrick returning from injury, Claiborne resigning, draft picks and until this morning, Nolan Carroll.

The Cowboys can add players at any time and already have. If you missed that, its on you.

 

[gmoney112]

Why is he a "slot only" CB? He's not a 5'9 DB. I don't really know much about him.

I really like his teammate Nelson at safety, who'd actually thrive in a SS type role here.

Leon and Nelson are two of the only DB's left that are actually any good so maybe we'll snare one.

Gotta accept vet min though boys.