Cowboys restructured Sean Lee's contract ***MERGED ***

[Toruk_Makto]

Except that it doesn't. If you're "tied" to a player longer than you'd like, then the problem was with the original contract, not anything to do with restructuring it.

You assume that every 5 year contract is expected to make it to the terminal year. I can assure that's not the case.

Why do you think players and agents focus so much on 3 year compensation and guaranteed money which coincidentally usually also runs out after year 3.

In The Not For Long league 5 years is an eternity.

Every time you restructure a player you change the calculus on their keep or cut and replace equation. You just do.

 

[rkell87]

Ware, Ratliff and Austin were not the reason we didn't sign Murray.

Not having Murray was not the reason we won 4 games.

So what I'm saying is that I agree with everything you said only the exact opposite.

Lmao ok dude

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

The Cowboys have restructured the contract of All-Pro linebacker Sean Lee, creating a little more than $5 million in room with the free-agent market set to open Thursday, according to sources. The move bumps the Cowboys' cap space up to close to $9 million. It is the third restructure the Cowboys have done in the last few weeks, joining Tyron Smith and Travis Frederick. -Todd Archer

At last, some benefit from Lee!
He has been a continual China doll. Sooooo overrated!!
But, healthy, he shined in 2016!!!!!!
Thx, Sean!!!

 

[AdamJT13]

Every time you restructure a player you change the calculus on their keep or cut and replace equation. You just do.

Any GM who decides whether to cut a player based on any sort of an equation that would change because of a restructure is completely stupid and shouldn't be managing a teenager's checkbook, let alone a $167 million salary cap.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Any GM who decides whether to cut a player based on any sort of an equation that would change because of a restructure is completely stupid and shouldn't be managing a teenager's checkbook, let alone a $167 million salary cap.

Of all I wrote you're going to snap that sentence and reply in absolutes.

You're better than that.

And pretending that restructures don't impact how you feel about a player and how closely you're tied to a player is just silly.

Don't be silly.

I like you. Don't do this. Don't @xwalker me.

 

[Verdict]

We basically structure the deals to fin inside the parameters the rest of the league uses. Then we look at the deals that are performing well and convert them as we need cap space, eating the underperforming deals as we go. If we're snug against the cap, it's because we've been fairly careful about not converting some deals that don't look good for us right now.

Our biggest hits in recent years have been the Carr/Witten/Dez/Romo deals. You can't blame the Cowboys for having a big number on their franchise QB in his 30's. Other than that, though, they have been leaving the Carr and Dez deals alone. Our dead money numbers aren't bad these days. Basically, we're signing our own, absorbing the deals that look less promising, restructuring the ones that look promising as we go in order to free up space to sign more of our own players. We'll get a bump when Romo's off the roster for a year or two until we have to extend Dak. This means there have been a couple expensive deals we've had to absorb, along with having a huge piece of our cap on the sideline the last two years due to injury/Dak's performance. Other than that, though, we've been pretty responsible.

The only real beef I've got with our cap allocation is that we spend $2 on offense for every $1 of defense and expect to be able to stop Aron Rodgers that way.

We are overpaying players which is why we are having to restructure contracts in the first place. That is going to happen sometimes. It is unavoidable.

It is one thing to overpay your franchise QB and have him get hurt. That's notforseeable. We didn't really overpay Romo. It was a reasonable contract for a QB and he played very well, barring injury.

We way overpaid with respect to Dez and Witten. They are both good players but we have way overpaid both based largely on loyalty and sentiment. That's not a good idea.

 

[Verdict]

You assume that every 5 year contract is expected to make it to the terminal year. I can assure that's not the case.

Why do you think players and agents focus so much on 3 year compensation and guaranteed money which coincidentally usually also runs out after year 3.

In The Not For Long league 5 years is an eternity.

Every time you restructure a player you change the calculus on their keep or cut and replace equation. You just do.

Adam is great with numbers. Probably the best but he's not as strong considering variables.

 

[gmoney112]

Of all I wrote you're going to snap that sentence and reply in absolutes.

You're better than that.

And pretending that restructures don't impact how you feel about a player and how closely you're tied to a player is just silly.

Don't be silly.

I like you. Don't do this. Don't @xwalker me.

He's right though. Restructures have absolutely nothing to do with any real change in compensation. 0. It's simply an accounting mechanism in manipulating the cap.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

He's right though. Restructures have absolutely nothing to do with any real change in compensation. 0. It's simply an accounting mechanism in manipulating the cap.

I am well aware what a restructure does. I'd you're not aware why all players are not restructured.... Then... Well study some more.

 

[Hoofbite]

Except that it doesn't. If you're "tied" to a player longer than you'd like, then the problem was with the original contract, not anything to do with restructuring it.

It might emphasize the horridness of the original contract, but that's about it.

Bad contracts happen to all teams. Not all teams compound the problem by being put in a position where they have to wait until year 4 (or later) of an initial 5-year deal to break even by cutting a guy. See Brandon Carr, Tony Romo, DeMarcus Ware.

Make no mistake, restructuring pressures teams into, and often results in, hanging on to a player longer than they would have otherwise. Does Carr see year 3 of his contract if the team has a net gain of $6M in cap space by cutting him? Hell no, but if it costs an additional $4M in cap space to cut the guy then it really doesn't make any sense to do so because you have to replace him and even a small contract for a CB with experience is going to cost something.

You might say that the problem lies in the original contract. I say, if there was a team that could avoid these problems (to be read as, "never signing a bad contract"), such a team wouldn't restructure because they'd be so far ahead of the game that they would have all the cap space any team would ever need. Never make a bad free agent signing? That's a fairy tale.

Try convincing anyone to do anything under the assumption that they will never make a bad decision. No risk, and all reward? I'm in! If it was an investment strategy, people would go to jail for running a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[gmoney112]

I am well aware what a restructure does. I'd you're not aware why all players are not restructured.... Then... Well study some more.

And if you think that it plays into any decision making of any well run FO, well... stick to message boards.

 

[gmoney112]

It might emphasize the horridness of the original contract, but that's about it.

Bad contracts happen to all teams. Not all teams compound the problem by being put in a position where they have to wait until year 4 (or later) of an initial 5-year deal to break even by cutting a guy. See Brandon Carr, Tony Romo, DeMarcus Ware.

Make no mistake, restructuring pressures teams into, and often results in, hanging on to a player longer than they would have otherwise. Does Carr see year 3 of his contract if the team has a net gain of $6M in cap space by cutting him? Hell no, but if it costs an additional $4M in cap space to cut the guy then it really doesn't make any sense to do so because you have to replace him and even a small contract for a CB with experience is going to cost something.

You might say that the problem lies in the original contract. I say, if there was a team that could avoid these problems (to be read as, "never signing a bad contract"), such a team wouldn't restructure because they'd be so far ahead of the game that they would have all the cap space any team would ever need. Never make a bad free agent signing? That's a fairy tale.

Try convincing anyone to do anything under the assumption that they will never make a bad decision. No risk, and all reward? I'm in! If it was an investment strategy, people would go to jail for running a Ponzi Scheme.

What? As soon as they consider a restructure, they know that iteration is a sunk cost, and purely a figure for salary cap purposes. In future decisions, they look at salary. The cap figure is just a formality.

 

[CCBoy]

It might emphasize the horridness of the original contract, but that's about it.

Bad contracts happen to all teams. Not all teams compound the problem by being put in a position where they have to wait until year 4 (or later) of an initial 5-year deal to break even by cutting a guy. See Brandon Carr, Tony Romo, DeMarcus Ware.

Make no mistake, restructuring pressures teams into, and often results in, hanging on to a player longer than they would have otherwise. Does Carr see year 3 of his contract if the team has a net gain of $6M in cap space by cutting him? Hell no, but if it costs an additional $4M in cap space to cut the guy then it really doesn't make any sense to do so because you have to replace him and even a small contract for a CB with experience is going to cost something.

You might say that the problem lies in the original contract. I say, if there was a team that could avoid these problems (to be read as, "never signing a bad contract"), such a team wouldn't restructure because they'd be so far ahead of the game that they would have all the cap space any team would ever need. Never make a bad free agent signing? That's a fairy tale.

Try convincing anyone to do anything under the assumption that they will never make a bad decision. No risk, and all reward? I'm in! If it was an investment strategy, people would go to jail for running a Ponzi Scheme.

Yea, Brandon Carr, Tony Romo, and DeMarcus Ware were pretty devoid of product and probably will remain as such...

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And if you think that it plays into any decision making of any well run FO, well... stick to message boards.

I mean I know it does. That's self evident. If it didn't no team would ever be in a cap crunch as they'd simply restructure every single contract.

Hint: They don't.

 

[gmoney112]

I mean I know it does. That's self evident. If it didn't no team would ever be in a cap crunch as they'd simply restructure every single contract.

Hint: They don't.

What? You're really stretching here.

You restructure players you assume will be on the roster. As far as future employment, the "cap hit" outside of salary plays no basis in determining whether to keep a player.

You wouldn't restructure "every contract", because there's little to no reason when you have sufficient cap space in the fiscal year OR it's minimal and the player is not guaranteed to be with the team in subsequent years.

It's a fun thought on a message board for those who like to assume their unreasonable conclusion that the "omg cap figure" somehow MUST play a substantial role in decisions, just because they think it should.

It's salary cap manipulation, that's it. The only thing that matters is the salary they're due . No one cares, about individual cap hits (outside of the obvious), besides the general public.

 

[CCBoy]

I mean I know it does. That's self evident. If it didn't no team would ever be in a cap crunch as they'd simply restructure every single contract.

Hint: They don't.

Contracts would then all be negotiated in bad faith. Not a good principal for contract law...

 

[Hoofbite]

What? As soon as they consider a restructure, they know that iteration is a sunk cost, and purely a figure for salary cap purposes. In future decisions, they look at salary. The cap figure is just a formality.

The cap figure is what determines whether or not you can add talent. You think it's because of a lack of cash that the most profitable franchise in the NFL is playing the role of spectator in free agency for the 5th consecutive year?

Yes, the cap can be manipulated. That doesn't change the fact that the salary cap is the limiting factor in player acquisition. If it wasn't, Dallas would simply outspend every other team. Why don't they?

 

[Hoofbite]

I mean I know it does. That's self evident. If it didn't no team would ever be in a cap crunch as they'd simply restructure every single contract.

Hint: They don't.

Exactly. Nobody does, and it pretty much says all that needs to be said.

You have 32 teams and Dallas is pretty much the only team that restructures annually, and they do it strictly out of necessity. They do it to get under the cap, and they barely have any space to bring in top talent. The book is out at this point. How many years do people need?

 

[Hoofbite]

Yea, Brandon Carr, Tony Romo, and DeMarcus Ware were pretty devoid of product and probably will remain as such...

Nobody said that. Simply pointed out that after years and years of being on the team, Dallas somehow found a way to have a significant amount of dead money when these players left.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

What? As soon as they consider a restructure, they know that iteration is a sunk cost, and purely a figure for salary cap purposes. In future decisions, they look at salary. The cap figure is just a formality.

You can keep saying this. But it's not true.