BTB on Livings cap hit

[RS12]

So, to summarize:

• Dallas' 2013 Cap Hit for Livings: Still $2.4m
• Dallas' 2014 Cap Hit for Livings: $2.1m of "dead money"
• Dallas owed Livings $1.7m in guaranteed base salary for 2013
• Dallas has paid Livings for the first three weeks of the season, per the injury settlement: $300,000
• Dallas still owes Livings $1.4m for the remaining base salary for 2013
• Another team can sign Livings after Week 3
• Should another team sign him, the Cowboys would only pay Livings the difference between the remaining $1.4m and his new salary
• Should that scenario happen, Livings 2013 Cap Hit for Dallas would decrease the amount of his new deal
• The Cowboys will have to wait until after Nov 3rd for an unsigned Livings to return to the team, if they choose.In an attempt to get some savings, Cowboys make an interesting move.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013/9/5/4698420/dallas-cowboys-release-nate-livings-from-ir

 

[FLCowboyFan]

That is a lot of money for a guy who was JAG

 

[Nightman]

That's why you never guarantee salaries for average players. Injuries happen too often. I don't see anyone signing him for more than the pro-rated minimum.

 

[Corso]

I guess it's making lemonade out of lemons, in a way.

 

[davey999]

Great pickup...

 

[AbeBeta]

That's why you never guarantee salaries for average players. Injuries happen too often. I don't see anyone signing him for more than the pro-rated minimum.

You will never sign a free agent with that approach

 

[AbeBeta]

That is a lot of money for a guy who was JAG

Not really. People freak about dead money. But we aren't paying his 2014 salary so we actually have a net increase in cap space

 

[big dog cowboy]

I understand the philosophy of no risk and no reward but Livings did nothing to justify that contract.

 

[tantrix1969]

maybe Jerry will learn just because you pay a career backup more it doesn't mean he play better

 

[Cowboy from New York]

maybe Jerry will learn just because you pay a career backup more it doesn't mean he play better

I think Livings was s starter in cincy. Bernardeau was a back up in Carolina.

 

[tantrix1969]

I think Livings was s starter in cincy. Bernardeau was a back up in Carolina.

my bad then coulda sworn he was the one who was the backup

 

[Hoofbite]

my bad then coulda sworn he was the one who was the backup

No. Livings was the one who the Bengals couldn't get rid of quickly enough.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

I don't really know how to feel about Livings and his time here with Dallas. Was it a bad signing? Probably. Was he completely useless? Not really. He did rate out as our best O-lineman last year, and he was healthy for the entire regular season. In hindsight it's easy to say that he was a waste. We went 8-8 last year, and we might've been better off being 4-12 so we could've gotten a top tackle in the draft. It's easy to say in hindsight. He was a starter for his entire career in Cincy, so he was kinda proven. I guess you can kinda have the mentality that it's useless to sign free agents if they're not going to make a superior impact. So, your entire roster can be made of 1) draft picks, 2) big money superstar free agents, and 3) minimum contract street free agents and undrafted rookies to fill out all the other roster spots. But, if you go that route, you really have to nail on your draft picks. Also, you have to hope that every superstar free agent stays healthy and plays to their full potential. Look at Ben Grubbs. Proven elite guard who hasn't been healthy his entire 2 years with Tampa. Look at Namdi Asomghua. Proven elite corner who didn't play nearly at the level he did in Oakland. All in all, it's hard to totally knock Dallas for the Livings and Bernadeau signings. Livings was a starter his entire career, and he did rate out as our best O-lineman his one season with the team. And Bernadeau was a career backup who was young and athletic, and lots of people thought he had the ability to be a starter in the NFL. He's still probably good enough to be a low-end starter, and he's definitely good enough to be a top-rate backup swing guard/center. Were they worth it? Probably not. Were they useless? Not really.

 

[Nightman]

You will never sign a free agent with that approach

What are you talking about? Most salaries in the NFL aren't guaranteed and you definitely don't guarantee average FAs. You can give them a signing bonus equal to their first year's salary, but you don't guarantee after Year one unless you know you are going to start them(like Lee). Guarantees are for stars, not guys that couldn't start for Cincy.

 

[AbeBeta]

What are you talking about? Most salaries in the NFL aren't guaranteed and you definitely don't guarantee average FAs. You can give them a signing bonus equal to their first year's salary, but you don't guarantee after Year one unless you know you are going to start them(like Lee). Guarantees are for stars, not guys that couldn't start for Cincy.

You are incorrect. A common approach is to guarantee salary over the first few years of a deal . You'll see that on tons of fa contracts

 

[Sarge]

No. Livings was the one who the Bengals couldn't get rid of quickly enough.

Exactly....

 

[jterrell]

No. Livings was the one who the Bengals couldn't get rid of quickly enough.

Yes, the Bengals couldn't wait to jettison Livings and Evan Mathis even though they had one of the top rushing attacks in football....

Livings was not a bad signing nor an overly paid one.
He was a guy who was our top rated OL the first half of last season.
Then his knee issue flared up and he went downhill every week.

If 2m in dead money is an issue you won't sign any decent free agent ever.

Signing Carl Nicks would have been the tragedy.
Give a 50m and he can't stay healthy and it derails your team.
Livings may well end up back here as a back up in mid-season.
If not here he'll be somewhere.
For Dallas it is basically a free player later in the year and you know someone will get hurt opening up a roster spot.

 

[jterrell]

What are you talking about? Most salaries in the NFL aren't guaranteed and you definitely don't guarantee average FAs. You can give them a signing bonus equal to their first year's salary, but you don't guarantee after Year one unless you know you are going to start them(like Lee). Guarantees are for stars, not guys that couldn't start for Cincy.

Since the last CBA guaranteeing the first two years is pretty standard.

 

[TheCount]

Not really. People freak about dead money. But we aren't paying his 2014 salary so we actually have a net increase in cap space

I think the argument is that he shouldn't have been paid the way he was being paid to begin with.

Eitherway, the cap may increase but that's still 2mil we can't use to extend or add a guy in what is going to be another tight cap situation. I'm not sure how anyone can justify paying Nate Livings over 5mil for one year of sub-par service, it was clearly a bad decision.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yes, the Bengals couldn't wait to jettison Livings and Evan Mathis even though they had one of the top rushing attacks in football....

Livings was not a bad signing nor an overly paid one.
He was a guy who was our top rated OL the first half of last season.
Then his knee issue flared up and he went downhill every week.

If 2m in dead money is an issue you won't sign any decent free agent ever.

Signing Carl Nicks would have been the tragedy.
Give a 50m and he can't stay healthy and it derails your team.
Livings may well end up back here as a back up in mid-season.
If not here he'll be somewhere.
For Dallas it is basically a free player later in the year and you know someone will get hurt opening up a roster spot.

Well said.