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

[Nightman]

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.

Actually you should blindly restructure all guaranteed contracts

Leaving them as is just overpaying for no reason......don't act like a super high cap hit is a good thing

I have never heard you advocating adding money to someone's cap hit because it was too low....DAL starts all their contracts at a high level just so they can restructure them

Carry over means that you keep unused space and you never know when you might need the space

Injuries, trades and opportunities come unexpectedly.....be prepared

 

[Nightman]

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.

We left 12m in the drawer last year by not re-doing Romo and Dez..... I think we could have spent that money on improving the team.......a DE, a MLB, a blocking TE

We already have a 2.4m rollover at least, so what is another 12m gonna do?????

 

[Toruk_Makto]

We left 12m in the drawer last year by not re-doing Romo and Dez..... I think we could have spent that money on improving the team.......a DE, a MLB, a blocking TE

We already have a 2.4m rollover at least, so what is another 12m gonna do?????

As I said. Look at the contracts that were given out last offseason. The Cowboys were not interested in those deals Dez restructure or no Dez restructure.

But a blanket restructure policy silly. That's taking a good practice and applying it blindly.

 

[Nightman]

As I said. Look at the contracts that were given out last offseason. The Cowboys were not interested in those deals Dez restructure or no Dez restructure.

But a blanket restructure policy silly. That's taking a good practice and applying it blindly.

It isn't a blind policy.....I said all guaranteed contracts should be restructured.......there aren't that many of them every year but the ones that exist should be spread out

Too many people still think of the salary cap as a mortgage or credit card........paying down debt is not a good thing.......it hurts the team to waste cap space on less players ....the cap resets each year, if cap space isn't activated it dies on the vine and can't be carried over

The 12m for Romo and Dez should have been carried over if there were no players to spend on as you suggest........which is beyond ridiculous....DAL would have an extra 12m in cap space right now...even if Romo is traded the new 6m in dead money would be offset by the 12m in cap space and his net cap hit would be 13m instead of the projected 19.6m

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It isn't a blind policy.....I said all guaranteed contracts should be restructured.......there aren't that many of them every year but the ones that exist should be spread out

Too many people still think of the salary cap as a mortgage or credit card........paying down debt is not a good thing.......it hurts the team to waste cap space on less players ....the cap resets each year, if cap space isn't activated it dies on the vine and can't be carried over

The 12m for Romo and Dez should have been carried over if there were no players to spend on as you suggest........which is beyond ridiculous....DAL would have an extra 12m in cap space right now...even if Romo is traded the new 6m in dead money would be offset by the 12m in cap space and his net cap hit would be 13m instead of the projected 19.6m

Why would you restructure a guaranteed contract if you don't need the space?

Answer this simple question.

 

[Nightman]

Why would you restructure a guaranteed contract if you don't need the space?

Answer this simple question.

Why wouldn't you?

You always need the space.... you are going to spend the money anyways, it is better to spread the cap hit out over several years.....the math is simple........pay less when the cap lower and more when the cap is higher

If you don't spend the cap space then roll it over ....taking larger caps hits is good for a mortgage but not a football team trying to win every year

You cannot say with a straight face that there is no one to spend extra money on

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Why wouldn't you?

You always need the space.... you are going to spend the money anyways, it is better to spread the cap hit out over several years.....the math is simple........pay less when the cap lower and more when the cap is higher

If you don't spend the cap space then roll it over ....taking larger caps hits is good for a mortgage but not a football team trying to win every year

You cannot say with a straight face that there is no one to spend extra money on

That only matters (paying less when the cap is lower) if you plan to use that space.

That's what you're forgetting. OK so we restructure Dez and Or Romo when we have no intention of using that cap space. In that case pushing money into the future just for the sake of it is stupid. It more closely ties you to players in the future. It's unnecessary risk.

Restructures should always be used to get you under the cap and facilitate all the free agency deals you want to make. But doing it when you have no moves to make and just so you can carry space forward is dumb. Because every year you can almost always create all the space you want/need.

And yes I can say with a straight face that there is no one the Cowboys want to spend money on. They view free agency (smartly) as largely a fool's errand. So with that backdrop the Cowboys are smart to restructure intelligently to facilitate moves and not restructure players they might look to move on from before the end of a contract. Most contracts do not make it to the end. That's what you're ignoring.

 

[Nightman]

That only matters (paying less when the cap is lower) if you plan to use that space

And yes I can say with a straight face that there is no one the Cowboys want to spend money on. They view free agency (smartly) as largely a fool's errand. So with that backdrop the Cowboys are smart to restructure intelligently to facilitate moves and not restructure players they might look to move on from before the end of a contract. Most contracts do not make it to the end. That's what you're ignoring.

That is a pretty radical stance

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That is a pretty radical stance

More accurately they have not been willing to engage in big money free agent deals and that has nothing to do with a Dez restructure or lack thereof.

I suspect next year they'll be the most active in a number of years.

But again restructures are great but it's not as simple as saying always do it for all guaranteed contracts. That ties you more to players than you think their useful life may warrant. You give the 5 year deal for proration but often expect the deal to be 3 years for instance. Restructuring every year would destroy that plan.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why would you restructure a guaranteed contract if you don't need the space?

Answer this simple question.

Now that you can xfer cap room from year to year it really does not matter. Before you ran the risk of losing it if you didn't use space but the Cowboys pioneered the LTBE incentives to bypass it.

It's all about the carpe diem and seizing opportunities that present themselves. Given the inflation in the cap earlier dollars are worth more and that allows you to more efficiently sieze an opportunity.

The key is making good efficient deals that help the team win over their competitors. If those do not pan out then just roll the space over. We rolled a decent sum this year. Of course that is not even considered as a mitigating factor when complaining about Crawford's cap hit.

 

[Nightman]

More accurately they have not been willing to engage in big money free agent deals and that has nothing to do with a Dez restructure or lack thereof.

I suspect next year they'll be the most active in a number of years.

But again restructures are great but it's not as simple as saying always do it for all guaranteed contracts. That ties you more to players than you think their useful life may warrant. You give the 5 year deal for proration but often expect the deal to be 3 years for instance. Restructuring every year would destroy that plan.

This is where we will always differ..........Dead Money doesn't tie you to a player in the future....at all

Whether his dead money is 30m or 5m you only keep him if he is worth his salary going forward

If you are constantly cutting guys 1 and 2 years into their contracts you are signing the wrong guys but the hurt isn't lessened or worsened by the Dead Money............Dead money is just the IOU for real salary cap savings in the past......it isn't some new bill

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Now that you can xfer cap room from year to year it really does not matter. Before you ran the risk of losing it if you didn't use space but the Cowboys pioneered the LTBE incentives to bypass it.

It's all about the carpe diem and seizing opportunities that present themselves. Given the inflation in the cap earlier dollars are worth more and that allows you to more efficiently sieze an opportunity.

The key is making good efficient deals that help the team win over their competitors. If those do not pan out then just roll the space over. We rolled a decent sum this year. Of course that is not even considered as a mitigating factor when complaining about Crawford's cap hit.

Again unless there is a player you want to go out and sign restruxting just to restructure does nothing but tie you to a player perhaps longer than you would like. It's that simple.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

This is where we will always differ..........Dead Money doesn't tie you to a player in the future....at all

Whether his dead money is 30m or 5m you only keep him if he is worth his salary going forward

If you are constantly cutting guys 1 and 2 years into their contracts you are signing the wrong guys but the hurt isn't lessened or worsened by the Dead Money............Dead money is just the IOU for real salary cap savings in the past......it isn't some new bill

That's simply not true.

While we are in good cap position there have been times where we were not and times teams have lost significant talent simply because they couldn't pay a player. To assume that a team could infinitely be big spenders and just push deals into the future forever is just not reality.

And I'd you've never seen a player with a big cap number hold a team hostage for more money... Guaranteed money at that.... Then you're just not paying attention.

What you're suggesting no team in the NFL does. So either you're smarter than every GM and owner for every team in the national football league.... Or you're over simplifying when you should or shouldn't restructure a contract. I'll let the zone decide which is accurate.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again unless there is a player you want to go out and sign restruxting just to restructure does nothing but tie you to a player perhaps longer than you would like. It's that simple.

No, it doesn't. If you don't use the space then it transfers to the following year which would offset the extra dead money.

People don't consider the money that we rolled over this year when complain about player X's cap hit but it counts just the same.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

No, it doesn't. If you don't use the space then it transfers to the following year which would offset the extra dead money.

People don't consider the money that we rolled over this year when complain about player X's cap hit but it counts just the same.

If you're not going to use the space though why do the restructure?

Teams usually do the restructure to then go out and use the space. Hence you just tied yourself to the player longer than you want to because that carry forward is gone.

Again yo udon't see teams just restructure for the fun of it. It doesn't serve a purpose. And since you can restructure a contract whenever you want there is no rush.

 

[Nightman]

If you're not going to use the space though why do the restructure?

Teams usually do the restructure to then go out and use the space. Hence you just tied yourself to the player longer than you want to because that carry forward is gone.

Again yo udon't see teams just restructure for the fun of it. It doesn't serve a purpose. And since you can restructure a contract whenever you want there is no rush.

The savings come all at once and the restructure is spread over 4 more years and you can't just get it at any time once the season starts

So if DAL restructures 10m in 2016 just to roll it over the cap only goes up 2.5m in 2017
That is a net gain of 7.5m in cap space......if they do it again its 2.5m more in 2018
That is still a net gain of 5m in space......in those 2 years the cap went up 20m so if they spent it they are still ahead....they just borrowed from the future at negative interest

 

[Toruk_Makto]

The savings come all at once and the restructure is spread over 4 more years and you can't just get it at any time once the season starts

So if DAL restructures 10m in 2016 just to roll it over the cap only goes up 2.5m in 2017
That is a net gain of 7.5m in cap space......if they do it again its 2.5m more in 2018
That is still a net gain of 5m in space......in those 2 years the cap went up 20m so if they spent it they are still ahead....they just borrowed from the future at negative interest

The restructure only spreads the contract over 4 years if the deal is for that long.

Again in 2017 or 2018 we don't need a pointless restructure in 2016 to be able to sign anyone. You'd just restructure someone that year.

Restructuring without need is silly, ties you to players longer than you might like and doesn't actually gain you additional players.

 

[Nightman]

The restructure only spreads the contract over 4 years if the deal is for that long.

Again in 2017 or 2018 we don't need a pointless restructure in 2016 to be able to sign anyone. You'd just restructure someone that year.

Restructuring without need is silly, ties you to players longer than you might like and doesn't actually gain you additional players.

you keep adding the line about not signing anyone......the whole point is to sign more players that will help...... if he had a better DE, MLB or TE2 we might have beat GB last year..... it was that close

If we had signed Peppers in 2014 instead of GB we might have won that game

 

[Nightman]

The restructure only spreads the contract over 4 years if the deal is for that long.

Again in 2017 or 2018 we don't need a pointless restructure in 2016 to be able to sign anyone. You'd just restructure someone that year.t

Restructuring without need is silly, ties you to players longer than you might like and doesn't actually gain you additional players.

The Present Day Value of money alone makes it smart bookkeeping regardless of players signed or not signed......it is taking on debt to expand with an interest free loan......smart use of resources

 

[big dog cowboy]

I suspect next year they'll be the most active in a number of years.

You mean we can start tracking Jerry's plane again?