Cowboys have $147M in 2014 cap commitments. At least $20M over projected cap already.

[TheRomoSexual]

The great work of Stephen Jones.

When we're 15-20 mil under the cap next season, I'm going to laugh at these kind of posts.

 

[AbeBeta]

When we're 15-20 mil under the cap next season, I'm going to laugh at these kind of posts.

Seriously. This board should institute a "salary cap IQ" test for account approval. How many times do we have to explain how some contracts include years of planned restructure to allow maximum cap flexibility?

 

[dallasdave]

The article it references at overthecap.com is moronic. It lists the top six Dallas salaries starting with Witten, DWare and Romo and follows it with this sentence:
"The 6 players listed directly above account for 48.3% of all potential dead money on the Cowboys cap in 2014."

In other words, actually paying future Hall of Famers like DeMarcus Ware is "potential dead money". The article starts with this:

"Dead money refers to how much money a player will cost a team on the salary cap if the team cuts ties with that player (or in some cases, trades that player)."

Shortly before saying this:

"Safe to say these players aren’t going anywhere this year, so their dead money totals as of right now are an afterthought."

In other words, they have an axe to grind and are hoping other ax-grinders link to their web site without paying a lot of attention to the numbers.

I think Ratliff is dead, yes this is what I said.

 

[NorthTexan95]

Yawn. Wake me when getting under the cap is an actual problem.

Every year we get the report that the Cowboys are already $X amount over the cap and the doomsayers come out. Every year the Cowboys get under the cap relative easily. Rinse, repeat.

 

[Plankton]

Seriously. This board should institute a "salary cap IQ" test for account approval. How many times do we have to explain how some contracts include years of planned restructure to allow maximum cap flexibility?

It's also called extending your obligation.

These "planned restructures" not only create space now, but they increase the tab being paid in the future.

In other words, the same mistakes that were made in the late 90's. The Cowboys better pray for a run of good health, or there is an asteroid in their future. This is not a sound way of doing business, no matter how many people want to claim otherwise.

 

[Maxmadden]

Seriously. This board should institute a "salary cap IQ" test for account approval. How many times do we have to explain how some contracts include years of planned restructure to allow maximum cap flexibility?

Well, they still need something to make them believe the sky is falling TODAY. They can't even wait a few hours for the game.

 

[Maxmadden]

The cap is like a budget. If you are going to maximize your budget you have to be pretty close to the cap. If you have 20 or 30 million dollars of cap space then you are not spending wisely either. . Sure you can roll it over but at some point you have to spend it or it does absolutely no good to have cap space. You can't take it with you when you go

 

[dallasdave]

Yawn. Wake me when getting under the cap is an actual problem.

Every year we get the report that the Cowboys are already $X amount over the cap and the doomsayers come out. Every year the Cowboys get under the cap relative easily. Rinse, repeat.

You are right, every year the world is falling, then like a contract is redone and all is well in the land of OZ for 1 more year.

 

[Risen Star]

It's also called extending your obligation.

These "planned restructures" not only create space now, but they increase the tab being paid in the future.

In other words, the same mistakes that were made in the late 90's. The Cowboys better pray for a run of good health, or there is an asteroid in their future. This is not a sound way of doing business, no matter how many people want to claim otherwise.

Exactly right. All teams can restructure and shift money to be cap compliant. That's not some shrewd cap management. They have to. It's not an option.

The bottom line is the Cowboys have been a bad to mediocre team for nearly 20 years now and rarely have cap space to make major changes. That's just bad management. Which is why little Stevey gets so testy when you question him on it.

 

[Eddie]

My question is why keep restructuring and pushing back money on a 8-8 team that has not won anything... that's throwing good money on bad.

Because we've been doing it for the past 20 years and JJ believes it works.

It's like using your credit card to buy a house.

 

[dallasdave]

Little Stevey needs to quit giving out stupid contracts to backup offensive linemen(Livings and Bernie), and extending people when not needed(Ratliff).

 

[dallasdave]

Exactly right. All teams can restructure and shift money to be cap compliant. That's not some shrewd cap management. They have to. It's not an option.

The bottom line is the Cowboys have been a bad to mediocre team for nearly 20 years now and rarely have cap space to make major changes. That's just bad management. Which is why little Stevey gets so testy when you question him on it.

Well said

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I can see both sides of it.

On one hand would this team be better without Romo, Ware and Witten?

On the other the extension for Ratliff was a big miss.

 

[Picksix]

Who are these players were stuck with?

A bunch of big name players, some good, some great, one chronically injured, but all getting old, and who've never really won anything. I mean, it's not like they're bums, and I'm not one to promote change just for the sake of change, but football (for he most part) is a young man's game. Sure, we could cut them and take the hit, but either way, we're stuck.

 

[Plankton]

Exactly right. All teams can restructure and shift money to be cap compliant. That's not some shrewd cap management. They have to. It's not an option.

The bottom line is the Cowboys have been a bad to mediocre team for nearly 20 years now and rarely have cap space to make major changes. That's just bad management. Which is why little Stevey gets so testy when you question him on it.

Your MO on a year to year basis should not be to borrow today against tomorrow. Unfortunately, this has been the Cowboys MO. Sure, you can keep extending guys out, and create space as you need it, but the bill has to be paid at some point.

Once you have guys either unable to play anymore due to age or skill, or unable to play because of injury, that is when you are screwed. And, when you flush entire draft classes as was done in 2008 and 2009, you don't have the cheap labor available to offset en expiring vet contract. This forces them to overpay to find replacements, and makes the situation worse.

 

[MartinRamone]

Cap is a joke, players will restructure their contracts and it will be fine.

 

[AbeBeta]

It's also called extending your obligation.

These "planned restructures" not only create space now, but they increase the tab being paid in the future.

In other words, the same mistakes that were made in the late 90's. The Cowboys better pray for a run of good health, or there is an asteroid in their future. This is not a sound way of doing business, no matter how many people want to claim otherwise.

You are fabulously incorrect about planned restructuring. Romeo's money for example in 2014. Guaranteed. Instead of doing it as a signing bonus as other teams might, we leave the option to absorb the entire cap hit in 2014.

That gives us far more flexibility than you understand. If it becomes clear this year that Romo is not going to be the answer for us, we are out of the financial pain of his deal MUCH sooner than if we did a straight bonus.

You completely miss the point on planned restructures and what it means for the 2014 cap.

 

[JakeCamp12]

Well when you are JJ and looking at the team through Jack Daniels glasses, we are always one off season away from winning a Super Bowl, so you keep spending like a drunken sailor on leave. Unfortunately, every January we wake up from the stupor and start running around looking for the next quick fix and trying to shed the anchors that we signed in previous years. Should be interesting to see what happens this year and how the team finishes.

 

[Plankton]

You are fabulously incorrect about planned restructuring. Romeo's money for example in 2014. Guaranteed. Instead of doing it as a signing bonus as other teams might, we leave the option to absorb the entire cap hit in 2014.

That gives us far more flexibility than you understand. If it becomes clear this year that Romo is not going to be the answer for us, we are out of the financial pain of his deal MUCH sooner than if we did a straight bonus.

You completely miss the point on planned restructures and what it means for the 2014 cap.

Right.

Except, they can't absorb the whole cap hit in 2014. Why? Because they are over the projected cap. This "planned restructure" is setting up a huge fall later on.

Hypothetically, If Romo ends up with a career ending injury, what happens with that money? Is it suddenly not an issue? Or, does that guaranteed aspect of the money cause the cap to be crippled with dead money?

All this serves to do is to push the obligation ahead. But, hey, as long as Romo plays until he's 100, they'll be OK.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't really care to do it right now but when this same story was told this offseason I wnet through all of the players that could released like Bernadeau, Livings, Ratliff, etc as well as restructures on Carr, Witten, Romo, etc that would allow us to get under that easily. Lee was a concern but he has been resigned to a deal favorable to the club.

Now granted we will not be able to be big players on free agency and will have to build through the draft but this notion that we are going to have to blow up the club and still be screwed is just wrong. Look at the remaining years on guys deals, their salaries, and then divide. Take that number and subtract it from the current salary and that is your savings. It's not difficult to figure out but it doesn't appear basic division and critical thinking are high on ESPN's list.