Consistency in CZ Position

[DeaconBlues]

This is so frustrating.

Why do people not understand the cap but speak with such authority?

Understand the 14m? I'm perfectly able to point out how that's a bogus number.

The 5.1m? There are various sites that will confirm the number. For example:

"This means Romo has $19.6 million remaining of unamortized signing bonus. If he is traded or retires, that would accelerate onto the 2017 ledger, meaning the Cowboys would save $5.1 million of space on next year’s cap from what they are “expected” to carry currently."

http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/201...pact-if-cowboys-trade-tony-romo-in-offseason/

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DandyDon52]

No. Philly wanted to play Bradford for one year, then replace him with Wentz. It was happenstance that Minny lost their QB right before the season. If Bridgewater is hurt the beginning of the preseason, Minnesota had options. If it happened after the season started, neither team would have time to prepare the QBs; trade likely doesn't happen.

To your point, it wasn't opportunity of holding Bradford. It was the opportunity of Minnesota panicked two weeks before the season.

Here were Minnesota's options. They weren't pretty for a team expecting to make the playoffs.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ngs-qb-options-after-teddy-bridgewater-injury

Well dallas planned on playing romo and dak was to be # 3.
I looked at the article, and I think Austin davis or shaun hill would have been the smarter move by vikings.

 

[DeaconBlues]

Well dallas planned on playing romo and dak was to be # 3.
I looked at the article, and I think Austin davis or shaun hill would have been the smarter move by vikings.

There wasn't a single name on that list, including Davis or Hill, that was a starting NFL QB for 2016. Philly had a starter they made available. It was pure chance.

 

[JoeKing]

My position is we should let the best player play at every position. Sounds simple enough to me but it will be translated to mean different things to different "well-known" posters on this forum.

 

[Verdict]

Ok. 14M minus what you pay the backup. Thanks for stating the obvious. How much do you think we'll pay a backup?

It depends on who we sign. You also can't forget the benefit keeping him on the roster another year with respect to dead money. Keeping him on the roster would cut his dead money in half if he has two years left on his current contract.

 

[Verdict]

Understand the 14m? I'm perfectly able to point out how that's a bogus number.

The 5.1m? There are various sites that will confirm the number. For example:

"This means Romo has $19.6 million remaining of unamortized signing bonus. If he is traded or retires, that would accelerate onto the 2017 ledger, meaning the Cowboys would save $5.1 million of space on next year’s cap from what they are “expected” to carry currently."

http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/201...pact-if-cowboys-trade-tony-romo-in-offseason/

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Thats correct. They forget that part. We would only save about $5 million or so minus whatever we pay his replacement. It's really not that much difference plus we have a much better QB in Romo than if we bring someone else in and it's not even close.

In order to trade him we need to rape, pillage and burn the team that eventually gets him if at all possible or keep him for one more year.

 

[Verdict]

My position is we should let the best player play at every position. Sounds simple enough to me but it will be translated to mean different things to different "well-known" posters on this forum.

Every player should have competition and be worried about someone taking his spot. It pushes players to get better at every position.

 

[CWR]

The only upside, and it is minimal is that you move on. You close the book. This is Prescott's team and you move on. There is no ghost of 8-8 seasons past to wish you could replicate. Prescott needs to be allowed to lead the team. Can't do that looking over your shoulder at the Owner's adopted child.

In theory, yes, you keep him on the roster and create competition. But in real life that rarely works out.

This is one of those situations where theory makes sense until you actually compare it to the reality. We don't have a strong enough team and there is so much scrutiny around this team, you have a big problem the first time Prescott struggles.



Belichick got rid of Bledsoe. Problem we have isn't Romo. It is our owner/GM who is in charge of the decision making and is directly accountable for the fact he cannot be adequately marketed and sold as he should be. The Patriots would never try to think they could trade a player that was mortgaged several times over. That is the problem.

Completely agree with the first part. Although I do expect Romo is traded and Im not sure why Romos trade value is depreciated because of Jerry.

 

[rynochop]

Completely agree with the first part. Although I do expect Romo is traded and Im not sure why Romos trade value is depreciated because of Jerry.

Because Jerry isn't properly marketing a 10 year starting QB for the Dallas Cowboys for a trade...Because all these other teams have no idea about Tony Romos history. Lol, asinine

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It depends on who we sign. You also can't forget the benefit keeping him on the roster another year with respect to dead money. Keeping him on the roster would cut his dead money in half if he has two years left on his current contract.

You add to the total amount of Salary cap space Romo uses by a factor of 8 digits by keeping him on the roster and hoping he never plays. That's not smart. I don't care about what his dead money situation is St this point. That's all accounting for prior money paid to Romo.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Understand the 14m? I'm perfectly able to point out how that's a bogus number.

The 5.1m? There are various sites that will confirm the number. For example:

"This means Romo has $19.6 million remaining of unamortized signing bonus. If he is traded or retires, that would accelerate onto the 2017 ledger, meaning the Cowboys would save $5.1 million of space on next year’s cap from what they are “expected” to carry currently."

http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/201...pact-if-cowboys-trade-tony-romo-in-offseason/

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Keeping Romo on the roster adds 14mm minus what we pay a new backup in additional cap charges. Dead money is what accelerates onto today's cap that you'd pushed into the future for yesterday's cost. You can use the luxuries within the collective bargaining agreement to shift money around but those charges come due.

What I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to add an additional 14mm in charges related to Romo (his currently non guaranteed 14mm base salary) as a backup qb who you won't let compete for the job.

So you're wrong in thinking about releasing Romo as only saving 5.1m in salary cap space. You should look at the decision around whether you want to pay him 14mm to be a backup and subtract that money from future space you could use to upgrade the roster elsewhere.

 

[Verdict]

You add to the total amount of Salary cap space Romo uses by a factor of 8 digits by keeping him on the roster and hoping he never plays. That's not smart. I don't care about what his dead money situation is St this point. That's all accounting for prior money paid to Romo.

I understand your point. I care about the cap. Probably more than most as evidenced by my prior posts. But in this case it is a better use of the cap than cutting him is. When you cut him you get nothing in trade for Romo and nothing from Romo for the position and you have to pay someone who is not going to be as good as Romo and lastly if Dak gets hurt you can most likely kiss the season goodbye. I'm not down with that.

 

[Verdict]

Keeping Romo on the roster adds 14mm minus what we pay a new backup in additional cap charges. Dead money is what accelerates onto today's cap that you'd pushed into the future for yesterday's cost. You can use the luxuries within the collective bargaining agreement to shift money around but those charges come due.

What I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to add an additional 14mm in charges related to Romo (his currently non guaranteed 14mm base salary) as a backup qb who you won't let compete for the job.

So you're wrong in thinking about releasing Romo as only saving 5.1m in salary cap space. You should look at the decision around whether you want to pay him 14mm to be a backup and subtract that money from future space you could use to upgrade the roster elsewhere.

The dead money gets prorated over two seasons so if Romo stays you cut his dead money in half.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I understand your point. I care about the cap. Probably more than most as evidenced by my prior posts. But in this case it is a better use of the cap than cutting him is. When you cut him you get nothing in trade for Romo and nothing from Romo for the position and you have to pay someone who is not going to be as good as Romo and lastly if Dak gets hurt you can most likely kiss the season goodbye. I'm not down with that.

Well I don't want to cut him. I want to trade him.

The dead money gets prorated over two seasons so if Romo stays you cut his dead money in half.

What of it? We would have spent roughly 14mm we wouldn't have otherwise to keep an unwilling backup for 1 year? I don't care about taking the dead money hit this year because it won't impact our free agency or willingness or ability to keep our own players. I'm focused on that 14mm as are GMs.

 

[Verdict]

Well I don't want to cut him. I want to trade him.


What of it? We would have spent roughly 14mm we wouldn't have otherwise to keep an unwilling backup for 1 year? I don't care about taking the dead money hit this year because it won't impact our free agency or willingness or ability to keep our own players. I'm focused on that 14mm as are GMs.

You probably have to be willing to take on his salary for this year. If teams do not believe that you are willing to do that they will wait you out and you will probably get nothing for him. The only caveat to that is a team would want to integrate him into their system as soon as possible.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

You probably have to be willing to take on his salary for this year. If teams do not believe that you are willing to do that they will wait you out and you will probably get nothing for him. The only caveat to that is a team would want to integrate him into their system as soon as possible.

Well a team has to believe that you'll take on the salary and if not that they can easily sign Romo in free agency.

Given there are at least two very realistic destinations in Houston and Denver...the hope is one of them blink and don't risk free agency bidding process.

 

[Nightman]

Well I don't want to cut him. I want to trade him.


What of it? We would have spent roughly 14mm we wouldn't have otherwise to keep an unwilling backup for 1 year? I don't care about taking the dead money hit this year because it won't impact our free agency or willingness or ability to keep our own players. I'm focused on that 14mm as are GMs.

You are 100.....it is only the NEW money that mattes......the 19.6m is a sunk cost.....they pay it if he stays or goes.........if he goes they absolutely save 14m in cash in 2017 and cap space over 2-3 years

his 3yr cap hit with Romo..... 73.6m
his 3yr cap hit if cut/traded... 19.6m

so if they are going to stubbornly insist on saying only 5.1m is saved then they have to admit 54m is saved over 3 years

cap hit if he stays 2017 and is then cut ...........33.6m
that is somehow 14m more than a release/trade

 

[Yakuza Rich]

The Patriots would have found a way to have gotten rid of Romo years ago. They live by the philosophy it's better to get rid of a player too early than it is to get rid of him too late. Belichick did this years ago with Bernie Kosar, who was an icon in Cleveland and could still play. They may have missed out on Romo's 2014 season, but in the end they would not have dealt so severely with the cap hit (assuming they would have structured Romo's contract differently).

The benefit of releasing Romo is that it frees up a lot of cap room over the next two years. The same room will be freed up if we trade him, we just get an extra player or two for him as an added benefit.

Our best bet is to wait until a good offer comes along. Sooner or later, a team tends to panic in the end, much like Minnesota did in getting Sam Bradford. They thought they were a serious SB contender and their starting QB went down.

But keeping him around makes little sense if we can take that money and lock up players like Martin, Leary, Byron, Irving, etc. As worthless as it may seem to be to not get anything in return for Romo...it's really worthless to have a player making as much as he does and never playing.



YR

 

[Kaiser]

You missed the entire point as well. Don't jump into a conversation without knowing all the details, thank you

I jumped into the conversation to quote your post that jumped into someone else's conversation. If conversation jumping is forbidden here, set the example and stop doing it.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

I jumped into the conversation to quote your post that jumped into someone else's conversation. If conversation jumping is forbidden here, set the example and stop doing it.

You have no idea what you are even talking about