News: Cowboys restructure Fredrick's and Tyron's contracts

[Nightman]

Will be interesting to see what they do with that. I think you could restructure Bryant one time this year and be done with it. His cap hit for 2018 and 2019 would be $20MM but you'd like to think he'd still be in his prime. But I might prefer to look elsewhere first for cap savings.

I don't understand caps like bknight but it seems you might be able to save $8MM or so this year on the cap if you convert his $13MM salary to a signing bonus. But as I said, then you are left with two big cap numbers the next two seasons.

Dez' 13m salary is guaranteed this year and his cap hit is 17m

They didn't restructure him last year but they almost have to this year.... every guaranteed deal should be restructured ...... I would add a couple voidable years to his deal to further stretch out his deal since he is a most likely a lifer anyways

The idea of picking and choosing which contracts to restructure is kind of silly ........... if they are going to be on your team this year they should be restructured....that is the rule.........it all goes to the same pool anyways and the money not spent is rolled over.....taking the bigger hit under the smaller cap is just bad accounting

Dead money should never be a factor in whether to cut a guy or not........it is a sunk cost...so not restructuring TCrwford just handcuffs us this year for no reason.... his contract is guaranteed in early March so use his contract to sign a WR/KR and or CB that can help this year

 

[Sydla]

Dez' 13m salary is guaranteed this year and his cap hit is 17m

They didn't restructure him last year but they almost have to this year.... every guaranteed deal should be restructured ...... I would add a couple voidable years to his deal to further stretch out his deal since he is a most likely a lifer anyways

The idea of picking and choosing which contracts to restructure is kind of silly ........... if they are going to be on your team this year they should be restructured....that is the rule.........it all goes to the same pool anyways and the money not spent is rolled over.....taking the bigger hit under the smaller cap is just bad accounting

Dead money should never be a factor in whether to cut a guy or not........it is a sunk cost...so not restructuring TCrwford just handcuffs us this year for no reason.... his contract is guaranteed in early March so use his contract to sign a WR/KR and or CB that can help this year

How much of his $13MM base can you restructure? I am not sure you can make it all a bonus but for poops and giggles, let's say you could? With three years left on his deal, then essentially if you turn his $13MM into a bonus, you can then spread that $13MM over three years, right? It would reduce this year's cap hit by over $8MM and only increase the next 2 years by roughly $4MM right?

 

[Nightman]

How much of his $13MM base can you restructure? I am not sure you can make it all a bonus but for poops and giggles, let's say you could? With three years left on his deal, then essentially if you turn his $13MM into a bonus, you can then spread that $13MM over three years, right? It would reduce this year's cap hit by over $8MM and only increase the next 2 years by roughly $4MM right?

Exactly........you have to leave the veteran minimum as the base like GoP said......say 1m for Dez

You would turn 12m into a signing bonus and spread it over the 3 years left at 4m each..so his new cap hit would be 1m base + 4m sb + 4old sb = 9m or 8m savings like you said

If they could add 2 voidable years for 2020 and 2021 they could save more this year...... 12m/5= 2.4m

His cap hit would be down to 1m + 2.4m + 4m = 7.4m
His new cap hit of 18.9m for next year would also be restructured and then he would probably be extended in 2019 at a lower AAV turning his 12.5m salary into a new signing bonus

 

[Stash]

Will be interesting to see what they do with that. I think you could restructure Bryant one time this year and be done with it. His cap hit for 2018 and 2019 would be $20MM but you'd like to think he'd still be in his prime. But I might prefer to look elsewhere first for cap savings.

I don't understand caps like bknight but it seems you might be able to save $8MM or so this year on the cap if you convert his $13MM salary to a signing bonus. But as I said, then you are left with two big cap numbers the next two seasons.

I don't think his play is worthy of his level of pay right now. Hopefully that improves, but I'd prefer to have the ability to get out of the deal if I wanted to.

 

[Sydla]

I don't think his play is worthy of his level of pay right now. Hopefully that improves, but I'd prefer to have the ability to get out of the deal if I wanted to.

He's still one of the better WRs in the league and #1s don't grow on trees. So even if you feel he's overpaid, cutting him while he still would be productive might be shooting yourself in the foot unless you have a #1a to take over for him.

Even with the injury and the fact he and Prescott clearly weren't on the same page, he had 8 TDs and averaged the most yards per catch in his career. I suspect next year, he'll be back to putting up bigger numbers.

My issue with him isn't production going forward. It's that he's been nicked up the last two years and missed games.

 

[Sydla]

Exactly........you have to leave the veteran minimum as the base like GoP said......say 1m for Dez

You would turn 12m into a signing bonus and spread it over the 3 years left at 4m each..so his new cap hit would be 1m base + 4m sb + 4old sb = 9m or 8m savings like you said

If they could add 2 voidable years for 2020 and 2021 they could save more this year...... 12m/5= 2.4m

His cap hit would be down to 1m + 2.4m + 4m = 7.4m
His new cap hit of 18.9m for next year would also be restructured and then he would probably be extended in 2019 at a lower AAV turning his 12.5m salary into a new signing bonus

What's the downside of creating voidable years? That you have to take some dead money hits if you want out? But if done right, those voidable years shouldn't carry too much pain, right?

 

[Stash]

He's still one of the better WRs in the league and #1s don't grow on trees. So even if you feel he's overpaid, cutting him while he still would be productive might be shooting yourself in the foot unless you have a #1a to take over for him.

Even with the injury and the fact he and Prescott clearly weren't on the same page, he had 8 TDs and averaged the most yards per catch in his career. I suspect next year, he'll be back to putting up bigger numbers.

My issue with him isn't production going forward. It's that he's been nicked up the last two years and missed games.

Whatever the reasons people have, keeping that 'out' if things go bad is nice to have and shouldn't be given up as easily as some of the crazy 'cap experts' would recklessly advocate.

 

[JoeKing]

Cowboys FO just doing what they do.... smart business.

 

[AdamJT13]

I don't think his play is worthy of his level of pay right now. Hopefully that improves, but I'd prefer to have the ability to get out of the deal if I wanted to.

He's making $13 million this season no matter what, so restructuring his deal wouldn't have any effect on "getting out" of it later on unless it involves guaranteeing money in the future that is not guaranteed now -- which doesn't have to be part of the deal and almost never is.

 

[BAZ]

FIFY.

That's not fixed for me. Want no part of him.

 

[Sydla]

He's making $13 million this season no matter what, so restructuring his deal wouldn't have any effect on "getting out" of it later on unless it involves guaranteeing money in the future that is not guaranteed now -- which doesn't have to be part of the deal and almost never is.

The only downside here, correct, is that you just run the risk of having a player eating up a larger portion of your cap in a given year if you keep pushing the can down the road. But I think in this case and others, the Cowboys have been prudent and the guys they are restructuring are guys that are young and at the ends of their deals, they still should be productive players.

 

[Nightman]

What's the downside of creating voidable years? That you have to take some dead money hits if you want out? But if done right, those voidable years shouldn't carry too much pain, right?

Not much downside.....they do put a large number in the players head when his value is usually going down by then....using Dez for example, they would add 2 years at 12.5m base to his deal.......they would want to extend him in the future and this might set a bad salary floor......DAL would want to pay a lot less at that point.......kind of in the same boat with Romo....his last 2 years at 20m are just placeholders to make the deal look bigger and to absorb the pro-rations

Carr just had his voidable year expire last week........now DAL has a 2.7m dead money hit and Carr is a FA........not a big deal

I guess they could just extend him instead, but at some point you have to take some big cap hits for a 14m player

 

[Stash]

He's making $13 million this season no matter what, so restructuring his deal wouldn't have any effect on "getting out" of it later on unless it involves guaranteeing money in the future that is not guaranteed now -- which doesn't have to be part of the deal and almost never is.

It puts the Cowboys in a tough position regarding getting out of the deal in the future if the player isn't playing up to it. Just like they're stuck in the Crawford deal, where the acceleration forces you to keep paying a player a salary you wouldn't pay them otherwise.

 

[AdamJT13]

It puts the Cowboys in a tough position regarding getting out of the deal in the future if the player isn't playing up to it. Just like they're stuck in the Crawford deal, where the acceleration forces you to keep paying a player a salary you wouldn't pay them otherwise.

No, restructuring a contract does not force the team to keep anyone.

 

[Stash]

No, restructuring a contract does not force the team to keep anyone.

Ok.I'm sure they're more than happy to be overpaying Tyron Crawford right now. Has nothing to do with his dead money hit. This is the part that the 'numbers guys' either can't see or can't admit.

 

[AdamJT13]

Ok.I'm sure they're more than happy to be overpaying Tyron Crawford right now. Has nothing to do with his dead money hit. This is the part that the 'numbers guys' either can't see or can't admit.

You're assuming that the team wants to cut Crawford and can't do it because of the cap implications -- two HUGE assumptions. The first is almost certainly incorrect, and the second is definitely incorrect. Cutting Crawford today would have almost no effect on our cap, and making him a June 2 cut would save cap room.

(You're also forgetting that we'd have $3.3 million LESS cap room right now than if we hadn't restructured Crawford's contract last year.)

 

[Stash]

You're assuming that the team wants to cut Crawford and can't do it because of the cap implications -- two HUGE assumptions. The first is almost certainly incorrect, and the second is definitely incorrect. Cutting Crawford today would have almost no effect on our cap, and making him a June 2 cut would save cap room.

(You're also forgetting that we'd have $3.3 million LESS cap room right now than if we hadn't restructured Crawford's contract last year.)

If you want to make the case that Crawford is worth $7.25 million in salary and the Cowboys would pay it if they didn't have to, the floor is yours.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Dez' 13m salary is guaranteed this year and his cap hit is 17m

They didn't restructure him last year but they almost have to this year.... every guaranteed deal should be restructured ...... I would add a couple voidable years to his deal to further stretch out his deal since he is a most likely a lifer anyways

The idea of picking and choosing which contracts to restructure is kind of silly ........... if they are going to be on your team this year they should be restructured....that is the rule.........it all goes to the same pool anyways and the money not spent is rolled over.....taking the bigger hit under the smaller cap is just bad accounting

Dead money should never be a factor in whether to cut a guy or not........it is a sunk cost...so not restructuring TCrwford just handcuffs us this year for no reason.... his contract is guaranteed in early March so use his contract to sign a WR/KR and or CB that can help this year

No you shouldn't blindly restructure a deal just because it's guaranteed. If you don't have anyone you plan to sign or extend then it's best to leave a deal as is. The Cowboys won't let Dez get in the way of any free agent deal they want to pursue.

 

[AdamJT13]

If you want to make the case that Crawford is worth $7.25 million in salary and the Cowboys would pay it if they didn't have to, the floor is yours.

I didn't say he's not overpaid. But I highly doubt the team wants to cut him. And we obviously could cut him today if we wanted to. Just like we could have cut Carr last year if we wanted to. Sometimes a team would rather pay a player "too much" than get rid of them, depending on how much they're overpaid by and what you'd have to do to replace them. You know, just because the team doesn't do what YOU want it to do, that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Besides that, the implications of cutting Crawford have almost nothing to do with restructuring his contract last year. Had we not restructured his contract last year, we would have had $4.4 million less cap room last year, which means other money that counted against last year's cap would have had to count in future seasons (such as this year), and we wouldn't have been able to carry over $2.4 million in cap room (without also pushing other dollars into the future). The net effect of cutting Crawford today is the same whether we restructured his contract last year (more cap room now, higher cap hit for cutting him) or hadn't restructured it (less cap room now, lower cap hit for cutting him), with the ONLY difference being any money in other players' contracts that would have been pushed into 2018 and beyond because we wouldn't have had as much cap room last year. If you think cutting Crawford is prohibitive (it's not), then blame signing him to the original contract, not restructuring the deal last year instead of paying the same money in salary.

 

[Stash]

I didn't say he's not overpaid. But I highly doubt the team wants to cut him. And we obviously could cut him today if we wanted to. Just like we could have cut Carr last year if we wanted to. Sometimes a team would rather pay a player "too much" than get rid of them, depending on how much they're overpaid by and what you'd have to do to replace them. You know, just because the team doesn't do what YOU want it to do, that doesn't mean it's impossible.

I know, it clouds to me whenever you or anyone of the other cal guys says "the Cowboys can do whatever they want" - and then they don't.

Besides that, the implications of cutting Crawford have almost nothing to do with restructuring his contract last year. Had we not restructured his contract last year, we would have had $4.4 million less cap room last year, which means other money that counted against last year's cap would have had to count in future seasons (such as this year), and we wouldn't have been able to carry over $2.4 million in cap room (without also pushing other dollars into the future). The net effect of cutting Crawford today is the same whether we restructured his contract last year (more cap room now, higher cap hit for cutting him) or hadn't restructured it (less cap room now, lower cap hit for cutting him), with the ONLY difference being any money in other players' contracts that would have been pushed into 2018 and beyond because we wouldn't have had as much cap room last year. If you think cutting Crawford is prohibitive (it's not), then blame signing him to the original contract, not restructuring the deal last year instead of paying the same money in salary.

The team doesn't have a Crawford fund, where money for him is kept separate from everyone else. Money they saved on Crawford last year or other restructures in the past were used elsewhere at that time. When they 'suddenly' made the money available to sign Greg Hardy two years ago, it had to come from somewhere else. And making moves like that requires juggling and 'borrowing' from other contracts. None of these player contracts are isolated from one another.

And I'll ask again, if you want to make the case that Crawford is worth his cost and that the Cowboys would keep him if there wasn't a $10 million hit to do so, have at it.

This is the backlash of these restructures that some people can't acknowledge or admit to.