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

[Toruk_Makto]

As I said in the beginning, it's about the ability to seize the day if opportunity arises. Timing can be a factor in any negotiated deal. Of course you should not spend more than your budget and projections allow.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to say that you are talking about using the space while I clearly was not and just move on. Last night you seemed to struggle with what that distinction was so don't talk to me of stupid notions.

LOL. "Seize the day."

YOu can restructure a contract at a moment's notice and every player agrees because it's a lump sum payment rather than paychecks throughout the season.

I can't believe your argument is now we should restructure all these contracts so that we can "seize the day." You're embarrassing yourself now.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL. "Seize the day."

YOu can restructure a contract at a moment's notice and every player agrees because it's a lump sum payment rather than paychecks throughout the season.

I can't believe your argument is now we should restructure all these contracts so that we can "seize the day." You're embarrassing yourself now.

That was my argument from the beginning. You should review the thread. The issue was that you failed to pick up on it.

Now you are trying to beat around the bush calling everything you can stupid and generally being exasperated.

You do like speaking for NFL clubs and the availability of players and their agents from a position of ignorance.

Whether or not you like it it is possible that by the time it takes to contact an agent and get the player to agree and fill out and submit the paperwork, an opportunity can be missed. That is even if it only takes an hour particularly in the first week of FA where things move lightning fast..

 

[Stash]

You're left with that. It was boring to me the day you started insisting on it.

It's all I need to prove my point.

It can be "boring" to you all day long. The fact is that it's all true, and it shoots the "just restructure baby!" way of thinking all to hell. And that's why some people can't or refuse to deal with it, choosing instead the failed task of trying to defend it and his level of play and return on investment. And that "bores" me, because it's a waste of time case that's lost before the first word is typed.

Tyrone Crawford is a mistake and a lousy contract the team can't get out of because of restructuring. It's the one glaring mistake in the team's line of thinking, as well as anyone advocating reworking every contract every chance you get. The fly in the ointment. The one that blows up in your face.

I'll keep pointing it out as long as somebody wants to preach reworking deals while trying to ignore the obvious downside.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's all I need to prove my point.

It can be "boring" to you all day long. The fact is that it's all true, and it shoots the "just restructure baby!" way of thinking all to hell. And that's why some people can't or refuse to deal with it, choosing instead the failed task of trying to defend it and his level of play and return on investment. And that "bores" me, because it's a waste of time case that's lost before the first word is typed.

Tyrone Crawford is a mistake and a lousy contract the team can't get out of because of restructuring. It's the one glaring mistake in the team's line of thinking, as well as anyone advocating reworking every contract every chance you get. The fly in the ointment. The one that blows up in your face.

I'll keep pointing it out as long as somebody wants to preach reworking deals while trying to ignore the obvious downside.

Your point has no significance. Crawford should make a couple $m less yet even though he doesn't it makes no difference whatsoever.

When Romo leaves we are going to have an average of $20m off the cap the next two years and shifting money to this year has no bearing on our ability to resign Martin or anyone else.

I know you are trying to make it about a choice between Leary and Crawford for drama but there is no evidence that the club is actually using that rationale and you have been shown how now and moving forward we could resign him, still extend Martin to a market deal, and still have lots of space left over to add FA for the defense and WR.

Basically at this point you are reduced to repeating ad nauseum that it is a "fly in the ointment" and similar aspersions while I am reduced to repeating the above argument again and again and again.

 

[Nightman]

That was my argument from the beginning. You should review the thread. The issue was that you failed to pick up on it.

Now you are trying to beat around the bush calling everything you can stupid and generally being exasperated.

You do like speaking for NFL clubs and the availability of players and their agents from a position of ignorance.

Whether or not you like it it is possible that by the time it takes to contact an agent and get the player to agree and fill out and submit the paperwork, an opportunity can be missed. That is even if it only takes an hour particularly in the first week of FA where things move lightning fast..

And once the season starts and injuries start occurring you will have less and less space every week

If you restructured Dez and Romo in March the money will be sitting there....if you don't and need it Oct because of injuries or trades then it will only be 1/2 as much

TM is just being obtuse on the point of restructuring players with guaranteed contracts
He knows everything else we are saying is correct....he flips between saying there is no one to possibly spend any cap space and saying that it can be activated at any time so why bother?

He doesn't like absolutes yet he locks himself in an absolute the other way.....'Only restructure when you need the space'.........if you or I were advocating that he would say it was stupid and we are limiting our flexibility

Restructuring all guaranteed contracts is the right move......by definition that means they are players you signed with great confidence and it is year one or two of their deal... letting Dez' cap space die on the vine last year helped no one........he still has a crap ton of dead money if that is what scares you .......8m rolled over from last year only costs 2m this year

 

[Nightman]

Your point has no significance. Crawford should make a couple $m less yet even though he doesn't it makes no difference whatsoever.

When Romo leaves we are going to have an average of $20m off the cap the next two years and shifting money to this year has no bearing on our ability to resign Martin or anyone else.

I know you are trying to make it about a choice between Leary and Crawford for drama but there is no evidence that the club is actually using that rationale and you have been shown how now and moving forward we could resign him, still extend Martin to a market deal, and still have lots of space left over to add FA for the defense and WR.

Basically at this point you are reduced to repeating ad nauseum that it is a "fly in the ointment" and similar aspersions while I am reduced to repeating the above argument again and again and again.

And TCrawford's cap hit can go from 10.3m to 5.6m with the stroke of a pen.....5.6m is a bargain for a guy like TCrawford if you want to look at thru a myopic year by year lens

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That was my argument from the beginning. You should review the thread. The issue was that you failed to pick up on it.

Now you are trying to beat around the bush calling everything you can stupid and generally being exasperated.

You do like speaking for NFL clubs and the availability of players and their agents from a position of ignorance.

Whether or not you like it it is possible that by the time it takes to contact an agent and get the player to agree and fill out and submit the paperwork, an opportunity can be missed. That is even if it only takes an hour particularly in the first week of FA where things move lightning fast..

IF that was your point all along it's even more embarrassing. We don't have to restructure a contract and have that cap space waiting in the wings in case something comes along. At any time..ANY TIME...we can create cap space through a restructure. There is no reason to prefund that.

What a silly argument to have had all along...and been unable to articulate.

 

[Stash]

Your point has no significance. Crawford should make a couple $m less yet even though he doesn't it makes no difference whatsoever.

"No difference whatsoever", yeah, let's just grossly overpay everybody. Do you realize how truly bad you sound trying to say that?

Yeah, and they're overpaying him because they want to, right? Please. Stop wasting everyone's time.

When Romo leaves we are going to have an average of $20m off the cap the next two years and shifting money to this year has no bearing on our ability to resign Martin or anyone else.

I know you are trying to make it about a choice between Leary and Crawford for drama but there is no evidence that the club is actually using that rationale and you have been shown how now and moving forward we could resign him, still extend Martin to a market deal, and still have lots of space left over to add FA for the defense and WR.

It has nothing to do with Leary or Romo. It's about Crawford's contract, nothing else. But your attempted point goes back to the same rob from Peter to pay Paul thinking that's got them stuck paying a player with no true starting position over $7 million dollars.

Basically at this point you are reduced to repeating ad nauseum that it is a "fly in the ointment" and similar aspersions while I am reduced to repeating the above argument again and again and again.

I'll be here each and every time anybody needs me. Because, apparently, they still do.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

IF that was your point all along it's even more embarrassing. We don't have to restructure a contract and have that cap space waiting in the wings in case something comes along. At any time..ANY TIME...we can create cap space through a restructure. There is no reason to prefund that.

What a silly argument to have had all along...and been unable to articulate.

I articulated it just fine. You are the only one who had issues picking it up. bk had it right from the start for example.

You are appealing to emotion and are not even arguing merit any more. Fact is taht having the money ready beforehand can provide a benefit and it can be done so with cap projections in mind so it is done intelligently.

You're just being ideological.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"No difference whatsoever", yeah, let's just grossly overpay everybody. Do you realize how truly bad you sound trying to say that?

Yeah, and they're overpaying him because they want to, right? Please. Stop wasting everyone's time.



It has nothing to do with Leary or Romo. It's about Crawford's contract, nothing else. But your attempted point goes back to the same rob from Peter to pay Paul thinking that's got them stuck paying a player with no true starting position over $7 million dollars.



I'll be here each and every time anybody needs me. Because, apparently, they still do.

On the one hand you say it is only about Crawford and with that same brain you accuse me of wanting to overpay everyone.

I have admitted that Crawford should make less but I don't feel like going through the league's SDE again and pointing out how he is not as overpaid as you like to act like he is.

You did not even address my point about how it has no impact on what the club might want to do and your lack of significance.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And once the season starts and injuries start occurring you will have less and less space every week

If you restructured Dez and Romo in March the money will be sitting there....if you don't and need it Oct because of injuries or trades then it will only be 1/2 as much

TM is just being obtuse on the point of restructuring players with guaranteed contracts
He knows everything else we are saying is correct....he flips between saying there is no one to possibly spend any cap space and saying that it can be activated at any time so why bother?

He doesn't like absolutes yet he locks himself in an absolute the other way.....'Only restructure when you need the space'.........if you or I were advocating that he would say it was stupid and we are limiting our flexibility

Restructuring all guaranteed contracts is the right move......by definition that means they are players you signed with great confidence and it is year one or two of their deal... letting Dez' cap space die on the vine last year helped no one........he still has a crap ton of dead money if that is what scares you .......8m rolled over from last year only costs 2m this year

I agree with most of what you say but I think they should just clear in any year as much as you are willing to spend so that over the years cash outlays even out relative to the cap.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I articulated it just fine. You are the only one who had issues picking it up. bk had it right from the start for example.

You are appealing to emotion and are not even arguing merit any more. Fact is taht having the money ready beforehand can provide a benefit and it can be done so with cap projections in mind so it is done intelligently.

You're just being ideological.

What is the benefit? When with a stroke of a pen you can create the space. And if you don't need the space it's best not to increase your ties to players you might otherwise wish you hadn't. It's literally giving up flexibility sot hat when you look at your cap number you get warm and fuzzy because it's in the 10s of millions rather than in single digits.

This is the type of decision making that bad organizations employ.

 

[Stash]

On the one hand you say it is only about Crawford and with that same brain you accuse me of wanting to overpay everyone.

I most certainly will when you try to make the ridiculous claim that it "makes no difference whatsoever". I'm not about to let that attempt at dismissiveness fly without calling it out.

I have admitted that Crawford should make less but I don't feel like going through the league's SDE again and pointing out how he is not as overpaid as you like to act like he is.

Determining his level of overpaid is an exercise in futility, its subjective opinion and we can argue back and forth how much all day long. That we can both acknowledge that he is, is what is important. And that being the case, the Cowboys don't want to continue to overpay him. No team willingly does that. And that's because they're stuck. The downside of reworking his contract. They can't walk away from a bad deal they got themselves into.

You did not even address my point about how it has no impact on what the club might want to do and your lack of significance.

I did. They're stuck in a bad contract. With a player who's a round peg in a square hole. That obviously has an impact.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is the benefit? When with a stroke of a pen you can create the space. And if you don't need the space it's best not to increase your ties to players you might otherwise wish you hadn't. It's literally giving up flexibility sot hat when you look at your cap number you get warm and fuzzy because it's in the 10s of millions rather than in single digits.

This is the type of decision making that bad organizations employ.

Again, it takes contacting the agent, showing the paperwork and if the agent is worth a damn reviewing it, having the player sign off on it, faxing the paperwork back to team, reviewing it, and then submitting it to the league who once again has to review it and approve it.

That could easily take an hour and if you cannot see how that might hurt your chances at completing a deal then I don't know what to tell you. It is always better to go in already prepared. I take it you were not a Boy Scout.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I most certainly will when you try to make the ridiculous claim that it "makes no difference whatsoever". I'm not about to let that attempt at dismissiveness fly without calling it out.



Determining his level of overpaid is an exercise in futility, its subjective opinion and we can argue back and forth how much all day long. That we can both acknowledge that he is, is what is important. And that being the case, the Cowboys don't want to continue to overpay him. No team willingly does that. And that's because they're stuck. The downside of reworking his contract. They can't walk away from a bad deal they got themselves into.



I did. They're stuck in a bad contract. With a player who's a round peg in a square hole. That obviously has an impact.

How much he is overpaid is very much so germane. He provides value with his play. If you cut him he needs to be replaced. I know you like to wave your hands at Irving and insist that he is better but Marinelli started who exactly? Time to get over what you want and deal with reality.

Right now we have an excellent 3 man rotation for SDE and 3T. Marinelli does rotate each position on the line. You cut Crawford and you have a big hole to fill in addition to the gaping need at RDE.

Frankly, as far as asset allocation is concerned I am much more concerned about the two second rounders that we spent on DE that seem to do little more than miss time as opposed to a top 4 or 5 4-3 SDE that is 30% overpaid but gives you 16 games year after year.

The face that he is the only such contract on the whole roster demonstrates how you miss the point in my view. Crawford is just the guy who everyone is worried about his wallet now that Carr is not longer making $10m.

You used to complain about not signing Leary now you have moved onto the notion that it is some sort of existential crisis. It is much ado over nothing of impact.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Again, it takes contacting the agent, showing the paperwork and if the agent is worth a damn reviewing it, having the player sign off on it, faxing the paperwork back to team, reviewing it, and then submitting it to the league who once again has to review it and approve it.

That could easily take an hour and if you cannot see how that might hurt your chances at completing a deal then I don't know what to tell you. It is always better to go in already prepared. I take it you were not a Boy Scout.

So while you're negotiating with a player's agent or a team's GM....somehow you forget to start the simple process of a contract restructure which nets the player and agent money upfront rather than over the course of a season (i.e. motivated parties)? .

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Stash]

How much he is overpaid is very much so germane. He provides value with his play. If you cut him he needs to be replaced. I know you like to wave your hands at Irving and insist that he is better but Marinelli started who exactly? Time to get over what you want and deal with reality.

The "reality" that the guy has no true position? The "reality" that he's neither a starting option at 3T any longer and the "reality" that Irving is a more dynamic and impactful player at either the LDE or 3T position?

Right now we have an excellent 3 man rotation for SDE and 3T.

You don't pay $7 million for a "rotation" guy. Rotation guys can be found off the street, just like Selvie and Mincey were, and for peanuts.

Marinelli does rotate each position on the line. You cut Crawford and you have a big hole to fill in addition to the gaping need at RDE.

You have a hole to fill, one that can be filled for a whole lot lesss than $7 million. And the more true pass rushers this team acquires, the further down the list Crawford goes. Not to mention, more Irving and less Crawford yielded better results, like the Tampa Bay game.

Frankly, as far as asset allocation is concerned I am much more concerned about the two second rounders that we spent on DE that seem to do little more than miss time as opposed to a top 4 or 5 4-3 SDE that is 30% overpaid but gives you 16 games year after year.

We can discuss that if you want elsewhere, it's a separate issue.

The face that he is the only such contract on the whole roster demonstrates how you miss the point in my view. Crawford is just the guy who everyone is worried about his wallet now that Carr is not longer making $10m.

He's the worst current return on investment. And the best example for being cautious with reworking deals.

You used to complain about not signing Leary now you have moved onto the notion that it is some sort of existential crisis. It is much ado over nothing of impact.

It does impact Leary. Paying him $7 million a year would be much more palatable without the Crawford deal on the books, and much better bang for the buck too.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So while you're negotiating with a player's agent or a team's GM....somehow you forget to start the simple process of a contract restructure which nets the player and agent money upfront rather than over the course of a season (i.e. motivated parties)? .

You're embarrassing yourself.

Seriously man, quit trying to shame me because I have a different opinion. Your arguments boil down to "you should be ashamed" or "you're being stupid" 90% of the time. Try and act with some class.

If you cannot see the benefit of being prepared beforehand going into a negotiation then we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The "reality" that the guy has no true position? The "reality" that he's neither a starting option at 3T any longer and the "reality" that Irving is a more dynamic and impactful player at either the LDE or 3T position?



You don't pay $7 million for a "rotation" guy. Rotation guys can be found off the street, just like Selvie and Mincey were, and for peanuts.



You have a hole to fill, one that can be filled for a whole lot lesss than $7 million. And the more true pass rushers this team acquires, the further down the list Crawford goes. Not to mention, more Irving and less Crawford yielded better results, like the Tampa Bay game.



We can discuss that if you want elsewhere, it's a separate issue.



He's the worst current return on investment. And the best example for being cautious with reworking deals.



It does impact Leary. Paying him $7 million a year would be much more palatable without the Crawford deal on the books, and much better bang for the buck too.

Who did Marinelli start at LDE? He started both Crawfords over Irving all year long. Irving did most of his damage at 3T plus he doesn't have many moves and struggles to counter when working outside.

The Tampa Bay game was against a hurt, Haydenesque starter in Cherilus and his UDFA journeyman backup who they rotated because the starter was so bad. I like you cherry picking though.

In a 3 man rotation where Collins and Crawford starts playing 2/3 of the snaps and Irving moves around filling in sees them all get the same number of snaps. They would all be frontline players regardless of who plays the first snap.

Reworking Crawford's deal has no impact on us keeping him or not. He has value which you completely ignored. He is on par with Paul and Graham in terms of 4-3 LDE production. He is going to cost a lot less than it would be to obtain JPP.

They can keep Leary but they like Collins better and they are not going to pay the backup starter money. They chose to start Collins when healthy for two years in a row.

I know you have your dreams of Collins moving to RT and keeping Leary but the club has chosen not to do that. It is what it is and it has nothing to do with 98's deal.

 

[Nightman]

Seriously man, quit trying to shame me because I have a different opinion. Your arguments boil down to "you should be ashamed" or "you're being stupid" 90% of the time. Try and act with some class.

If you cannot see the benefit of being prepared beforehand going into a negotiation then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Player A- where we going to visit for FA...I like Dallas
Agent- they got no cap space...pass
Player A- dang ....let's go to TB, CAR, NE, OAK, TENN