Cowboys can save $148 million cumulatively off payroll through 2021 by going cheap on Free Agency

[waldoputty]

By the end of the 2021 season, the Cowboys would have left $148 million of meat off the bone if we keep going the cheap FA approach. The question is how much are they hurting their super bowl chances by being 'value conscientious'?

Cap table shown in: http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2017...lion-cumulatively-off-payroll-through-2021-by

Here are the surplus for 2017-2021 - of course, various tricks can be readily used to access money earlier by more aggressive restructuring.

2017: $13.7 million

2018: $51.08 million including 2017 surplus.

2019: $93.28 million including 2017 and 2018 surplus.

2020: $129.63 million including 2017-2019 surplus.

2021: $148.31 million including 2017-2020 surplus.

Theses numbers include rolling previous year surplus as well as continuing our annual restructuring (~$20 million per year).

This includes resigning Martin and Collins as foundation pieces:

2017: Wilcox, Carr, Cooper, Moore, McFadden and Irving as well as a cheaper FA WR ($4M AAV).

2018: Martin, Collins, Wilson

2019: Jones (no one else worth resigning)

2020: Beasley and all 2016 draft picks other than Frazier and Jackson. All to large contracts assuming they are good starters or probowlers.

2021: Most 2017 draft picks assuming they perform at reasonable level.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

If you think the Cowboys will leave that much cap space on the sideline.... Well... To be kind you're using statistics to lie.

This team has almost always spent up to the cap.

Nevermind that with the 89 percent cap cash spend floor this wouldn't even be permissible under the current collectively bargained agreement.

I applaud you taking time to look into this... But the effect has been you spewing misinformation.

 

[waldoputty]

If you think the Cowboys will leave that much cap space on the sideline.... Well... To be kind you're using statistics to lie.

This team has almost always spent up to the cap.

Nevermind that with the 89 percent cap cash spend floor this wouldn't even be permissible under the current collectively bargained agreement.

I applaud you taking time to look into this... But the effect has been you spewing misinformation.

i said it is cumulative.
and it is $ spent that is controlled by the floor, not the cap impact itself- am i right?

the next thing i will check is do a roster count.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Looks nice, but Jerry wants a ring......he's 239.

He wants a ring before he sees Elvis.

 

[waldoputty]

Looks nice, but Jerry wants a ring......he's 239.

He wants a ring before he sees Elvis.

lets hope so.
if jerry is in control, then i am sure we spent up to the cap and more.
if stephen is in control, i dont know...

 

[Toruk_Makto]

i said it is cumulative.
and it is $ spent that is controlled by the floor, not the cap impact itself- am i right?

the next thing i will check is do a roster count.

Yes it's cash spend. As you know there is some correlation to the cap. You can't get to your 150mm number and be in compliance.

Many people on this board have talked about next offseason likely being one of a lot of activity. Thinking we'll never sign a guy again when we were willing to give Hardy a 13mm salary just a few years ago means you don't actually understand this team's philosophy.

We generally belive that free agency is a fool's errand and instead prefer to spend big to retain our own guys who we know. But we aren't afraid to get involved in the NFL's silly season when it makes sense.

Prudence does not mean abstinence. The team enjoys getting laid they just prefer to use a condom.

 

[Beast_from_East]

We could just field a team of rookies if saving money is our main concern

Just saying

 

[jrumann59]

considering FA is a gamble, you have guys on down side of their career and you are hoping that if you sign them to a 5 year deal when they are 30 that they will play and perform to that level for 3 years maybe 4 depending on the position and in most cases it is more like 2 years and they fall off a cliff. Or the FA is in a contract year performs like a HOF and gets paid and never sniffs those numbers again

 

[Nightman]

If you think the Cowboys will leave that much cap space on the sideline.... Well... To be kind you're using statistics to lie.

This team has almost always spent up to the cap.

Nevermind that with the 89 percent cap cash spend floor this wouldn't even be permissible under the current collectively bargained agreement.
o
I applaud you taking time to look into this... But the effect has been you spewing misinformation.

He isn't trying to accumulate cap space........he is trying to illustrate that we need to spend a lot more money now to win a Super Bowl......which I always thought was the goal

Too many bean counters want it all..........they want to win every year with Draft picks and magic dust alone while always staying cap conservative

waldo and I want to blow it up for a few seasons and get number 6.............after that we can try the austerity dynasty approach....but we have to get that first one first

 

[Nightman]

By the end of the 2021 season, the Cowboys would have left $148 million of meat off the bone if we keep going the cheap FA approach. The question is how much are they hurting their super bowl chances by being 'value conscientious'?

Cap table shown in: http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2017...lion-cumulatively-off-payroll-through-2021-by

Here are the surplus for 2017-2021 - of course, various tricks can be readily used to access money earlier by more aggressive restructuring.

2017: $13.7 million

2018: $51.08 million including 2017 surplus.

2019: $93.28 million including 2017 and 2018 surplus.

2020: $129.63 million including 2017-2019 surplus.

2021: $148.31 million including 2017-2020 surplus.

Theses numbers include rolling previous year surplus as well as continuing our annual restructuring (~$20 million per year).

This includes resigning Martin and Collins as foundation pieces:

2017: Wilcox, Carr, Cooper, Moore, McFadden and Irving as well as a cheaper FA WR ($4M AAV).

2018: Martin, Collins, Wilson

2019: Jones (no one else worth resigning)

2020: Beasley and all 2016 draft picks other than Frazier and Jackson. All to large contracts assuming they are good starters or probowlers.

2021: Most 2017 draft picks assuming they perform at reasonable level.

I told you that rollovers and continued restructures would make your earlier charts look like Depression era spending.....SPEND SPEND SPEND

 

[Toruk_Makto]

He isn't trying to accumulate cap space........he is trying to illustrate that we need to spend a lot more money now to win a Super Bowl......which I always thought was the goal

Too many bean counters want it all..........they want to win every year with Draft picks and magic dust alone while always staying cap conservative

waldo and I want to blow it up for a few seasons and get number 6.............after that we can try the austerity dynasty approach....but we have to get that first one first

You're the type of GMs that don't last very long.

We're finally building depth and teams that can routinely contend and you want to try the win at all costs strategy that creates Philly super teams and sees Minnesota trade a 1st and 4th for Bradford.

No thanks.

 

[Nightman]

You're the type of GMs that don't last very long.

We're finally building depth and teams that can routinely contend and you want to try the win at all costs strategy that creates Philly super teams and sees Minnesota trade a 1st and 4th for Bradford.

No thanks.

that hasn't worked for 23 years....we were one and done last year again and left 20m on the vine

the Pats are getting APeterson and have 60m in cap space
we have DMC and Wilcox and want to give Romo away for nostalgia's sake

you don't always have to be the company man

 

[Yakuza Rich]

He isn't trying to accumulate cap space........he is trying to illustrate that we need to spend a lot more money now to win a Super Bowl......which I always thought was the goal

Too many bean counters want it all..........they want to win every year with Draft picks and magic dust alone while always staying cap conservative

waldo and I want to blow it up for a few seasons and get number 6.............after that we can try the austerity dynasty approach....but we have to get that first one first

Spending money doesn't win you a Super Bowl. Getting good value for the money you spend does.

If spending big in FA was the way to the Super Bowl, the Skins would have dominated during the Snyder era and the Patriots and Steelers would be cellar dwellers.

We need more Terry Glenn type of pickups and less Anthony Henry pickups.

And trying to build the defense thru FA is a tall, optimistic task given that defensive players have been more than twice than likely to get injured than offensive players. And with FA, you're looking at older players who are even more likely to get injured than a young drafted player.

Trying to 'win now' rarely works. And the teams that appear to make the mistake of not trying to win now keep winning Super Bowls.




YR

 

[waldoputty]

Yes it's cash spend. As you know there is some correlation to the cap. You can't get to your 150mm number and be in compliance.

Many people on this board have talked about next offseason likely being one of a lot of activity. Thinking we'll never sign a guy again when we were willing to give Hardy a 13mm salary just a few years ago means you don't actually understand this team's philosophy.

We generally belive that free agency is a fool's errand and instead prefer to spend big to retain our own guys who we know. But we aren't afraid to get involved in the NFL's silly season when it makes sense.

Prudence does not mean abstinence. The team enjoys getting laid they just prefer to use a condom.

as discussed, to simulate business as usual, there was a $20 million restructuring every year. so i would highly doubt that the floor is not met. in 2017, 2018, 2020 and 2021, there are many large signing bonus' paid, so they should easily make the floor. 2019 may be a little closer but one player (Jones) is resigned with a $10M bonus. so that should meet the floor also.

i have mentioned the hardy contract as an example there is hope for signing better free agents. those are the type of FAs needed but if you dont act, top FAs would be signed in the environment of easy cap $.

you need difference makers that require double team, not more rotation players in the DL.

if stephen is in charge, we may wait for the bargains and be stuck with these $4M AAV FAs that do not get you over the top.

 

[waldoputty]

Spending money doesn't win you a Super Bowl. Getting good value for the money you spend does.

If spending big in FA was the way to the Super Bowl, the Skins would have dominated during the Snyder era and the Patriots and Steelers would be cellar dwellers.

We need more Terry Glenn type of pickups and less Anthony Henry pickups.

And trying to build the defense thru FA is a tall, optimistic task given that defensive players have been more than twice than likely to get injured than offensive players. And with FA, you're looking at older players who are even more likely to get injured than a young drafted player.

Trying to 'win now' rarely works. And the teams that appear to make the mistake of not trying to win now keep winning Super Bowls.

YR

The Skins did not operate in the environment of easy cap $ and could not do it like it can be done now.

 

[waldoputty]

You're the type of GMs that don't last very long.

We're finally building depth and teams that can routinely contend and you want to try the win at all costs strategy that creates Philly super teams and sees Minnesota trade a 1st and 4th for Bradford.

No thanks.

The funny thing is getting a couple top FAs is not even 'win at all cost'
I already showed in a different model that 2 top FA and a RT can be added while the cap situation is IMPROVED.
That is simply because there is so much cap opening up.

 

[waldoputty]

considering FA is a gamble, you have guys on down side of their career and you are hoping that if you sign them to a 5 year deal when they are 30 that they will play and perform to that level for 3 years maybe 4 depending on the position and in most cases it is more like 2 years and they fall off a cliff. Or the FA is in a contract year performs like a HOF and gets paid and never sniffs those numbers again

Who is talking about signing 30 or older players? Not me.

 

[waldoputty]

I told you that rollovers and continued restructures would make your earlier charts look like Depression era spending.....SPEND SPEND SPEND

yes, i took the model to its logical conclusion

 

[LatinMind]

If you think the Cowboys will leave that much cap space on the sideline.... Well... To be kind you're using statistics to lie.

This team has almost always spent up to the cap.

Nevermind that with the 89 percent cap cash spend floor this wouldn't even be permissible under the current collectively bargained agreement.

I applaud you taking time to look into this... But the effect has been you spewing misinformation.

lol dont question it. his extensive "analysis" is facts and his explainations are without question.

I dont know if they even know that dallas only has 16 players under contracts. So all that cap room is going to get eaten up pretty quickly by contracts of guy like Beasley, Martin, Mayowa, Green, Wilson, and then use more cap to fill out about 50 other contracts. But what the hell do we know.

then 2020 with guys like Byron Jones Jeff Heath, Maliek Collins, Anthony Brown, Dak, Tapper, Jaylon,

 

[waldoputty]

We could just field a team of rookies if saving money is our main concern

Just saying

if you read the spreadsheet, you will see big spending on resigning our own.