Dallas is NOT in Salary Cap trouble in 2014

[Nightman]

Right now Dallas has 142m committed to salaries in 2014. The cap should increase by at least 2m(prob more) and if they roll over 5m from this year(8.9m under right now after signing all the draftees) that puts the number at 130m. The Cowboys can get from 142m to 130m just by re-doing Romo's deal. They can get another 20m by adjusting Ware, Witten, Claiborne, Austin and Ratliff. Add another 10m by waiving Livings, Bern, Orton and Scandrick and that's around 30m UNDER the cap. It's not an issue. They can extend Lee and Bryant and actually save even more.

 

[JBS]

The definition of being in salary cap trouble is having to re-structure deals to create space.

 

[Nightman]

The restructuring is planned and built into many of the larger contracts. Some teams choose to do it differently, but that doesn't make it better.

 

[Nation]

I believe the new CBA prevents rookie contracts from being renegotiated until three of the mandatory four years have been completed so Claiborne isn't a candidate, and they really shouldn't be extending more years onto Austin given the chunk of change he's currently being paid.

 

[Nightman]

I believe the new CBA prevents rookie contracts from being renegotiated until three of the mandatory four years have been completed so Claiborne isn't a candidate, and they really shouldn't be extending more years onto Austin given the chunk of change he's currently being paid.

I meant Carr, good catch.

 

[Idgit]

The definition of being in salary cap trouble is having to re-structure deals to create space.

When the restructures are unilateral and the club's option, that's a bad definition.

All the salary cap data I've seen is reported on a total dollars/season basis. None of it also tells you how many players are covered for those periods, much less how much can be restructured without requiring a negotiation with the player. Given how much variety there can be amongst 32 different organizations when it comes to handling such things, it's hard to get too worked up about a cap number until, pretty much literally, the week before VFA starts.

This year was the perfect storm in that regard for Dallas, with a franchise number on Spencer, the cap penalty, the restrictions placed by the newly negotiated CBA, and Tony Romo up for renewal...and I still don't know if we missed out on any players we'd have liked to have signed. Maybe we'd have been in the market for Clabo (probably) or a veteran Safety. But that's about it, as far as I can tell. Anybody else think of someone we might have wanted this offseason that we didn't go after? A backup RB, maybe?

 

[superpunk]

the sooner people realize that any team can get to any number just by doing X, Y, Z and poo and stop writing/worrying or even thinking about the cap the better.

It's a non-issue, always.

 

[smoovb]

Good point and good post. However, I still do not understand why some teams choose a different way to pay their players as opposed to the way Dallas does. Usually there is benefits one way or another. I just do not understand or know what they are. Anyone have more information on that?

 

[superpunk]

Good point and good post. However, I still do not understand why some teams choose a different way to pay their players as opposed to the way Dallas does. Usually there is benefits one way or another. I just do not understand or know what they are. Anyone have more information on that?

Alot of it is just the way you have to do business when you have a good QB.

As long as you've got that guy, you have to try and compete every year. So you pay your stars and try to fill in around them, while you've got a QB eating 15-20% of your cap. It's the reason the Patriots and Steelers do business the same way.

 

[Idgit]

Good point and good post. However, I still do not understand why some teams choose a different way to pay their players as opposed to the way Dallas does. Usually there is benefits one way or another. I just do not understand or know what they are. Anyone have more information on that?

Assuming this is directed at me, since superpunk doesn't make good points. I think it's probably just a case of what happens when you have 32 different organizations allocate resources independently under convoluted circumstances like any CBA requires. Some guys will default to having longer term contracts so the club has more control, knowing they can have x% of the cap eaten up in dead money if they need to cancel them. Some guys will prefer to not have so much dead money and are more comfortable having good players theoretically exposed in future years knowing they'll have plenty of unallocated resources available to sign those guys if they still want to. Maybe they end up paying a premium for some of them, but then they also won't be getting penalized if a guy on a long term deal gets hurt.

Or, for example, some team might decide to do two year deals for street VFAs, so the club has an option on them in year two if they play really well. Like we didn't do with Robinson two years ago and then did do with Dan Connor last year. That $3M or whatever it was that we didn't want to pay this year would show up on our books, but there's really no downside to the team for having that bit of insurance hanging out in our future cap dollars. Had Connor blown up, it would have come in handy. So, just that policy alone spread across two-three VFAs would be a $6-9M difference on the coming year's cap. Ie, there's naturally going to be variation in how teams envision and model for their caps, and it's difficult to account for it if you're just reporting total dollars/season.

 

[superpunk]

Assuming this is directed at me, since superpunk doesn't make good points. I think it's probably just a case of what happens when you have 32 different organizations allocate resources independently under convoluted circumstances like any CBA requires. Some guys will default to having longer term contracts so the club has more control, knowing they can have x% of the cap eaten up in dead money if they need to cancel them. Some guys will prefer to not have so much dead money and are more comfortable having good players theoretically exposed in future years knowing they'll have plenty of unallocated resources available to sign those guys if they still want to. Maybe they end up paying a premium for some of them, but then they also won't be getting penalized if a guy on a long term deal gets hurt.

Or, for example, some team might decide to do two year deals for street VFAs, so the club has an option on them in year two if they play really well. Like we didn't do with Robinson two years ago and then did do with Dan Connor last year. That $3M or whatever it was that we didn't want to pay this year would show up on our books, but there's really no downside to the team for having that bit of insurance hanging out in our future cap dollars. Had Connor blown up, it would have come in handy. So, just that policy alone spread across two-three VFAs would be a $6-9M difference on the coming year's cap. Ie, there's naturally going to be variation in how teams envision and model for their caps, and it's difficult to account for it if you're just reporting total dollars/season.

FYI this is all completely incorrect.

 

[Nightman]

Good point and good post. However, I still do not understand why some teams choose a different way to pay their players as opposed to the way Dallas does. Usually there is benefits one way or another. I just do not understand or know what they are. Anyone have more information on that?

Teams that try to compete for the playoffs every year have to get creative with the cap, unless they happen to have a young QB with a small cap number. If teams like Clev, Cinn, Jax, KC for example know they are a couple years away, it's easy to fix your cap and create a ton of space. The Eagles like to dump their mid level players and replace them with rookies. The Commanders like to sign pricey FAs and waive other vets after a couple seasons, but they haven't had to worry about competing until last year. If Dallas wanted to tank a season or two, they would've let Romo walk, try for a high draft pick and eat a lot of dead money to get rid of some vets. The fanbase wouldn't be to happy about a straight up rebuild, so they are kind of in limbo. They push the cap to the limit, but remain committed to putting a playoff caliber team on the field.

 

[smoovb]

Teams that try to compete for the playoffs every year have to get creative with the cap, unless they happen to have a young QB with a small cap number. If teams like Clev, Cinn, Jax, KC for example know they are a couple years away, it's easy to fix your cap and create a ton of space. The Eagles like to dump their mid level players and replace them with rookies. The Commanders like to sign pricey FAs and waive other vets after a couple seasons, but they haven't had to worry about competing until last year. If Dallas wanted to tank a season or two, they would've let Romo walk, try for a high draft pick and eat a lot of dead money to get rid of some vets. The fanbase wouldn't be to happy about a straight up rebuild, so they are kind of in limbo. They push the cap to the limit, but remain committed to putting a playoff caliber team on the field.

Thanks for the reply. This was easy to understand. It also substantiates the reason I am on the fence regarding my feelings on recent player transactions other than the rookies.

 

[Idgit]

FYI this is all completely incorrect.

Like, 20k posts in, I'm suddenly preoccupied with being correct about anything.

I aim for close-enough. If that's not achievable, well, what are you going to do?

 

[xwalker]

The definition of being in salary cap trouble is having to re-structure deals to create space.

No, the definition of salary cap trouble is losing a player that they would prefer to keep due to the cap.

 

[Echo9]

The definition of being in salary cap trouble is having to re-structure deals to create space.

Not true at all. The process of re-structuring deals is a part of successfully managing the cap year to year. In fact, some of these re-structures are built into the original contract so that they can be done quickly.

 

[perrykemp]

The definition of being in salary cap trouble is having to re-structure deals to create space.

This.

The restructuring is planned and built into many of the larger contracts. Some teams choose to do it differently, but that doesn't make it better.

Problem is when you restructure the contracts of your 30+ year old superstar players with mega contracts (think Romo and Ware) and one of them either has a career ending injury and/or they play just declines precipitously, the music chairs stop and the club is left holding the the bag... ie a huge salary cap hit for someone they can no longer extend.

 

[superpunk]

This.



Problem is when you restructure the contracts of your 30+ year old superstar players with mega contracts (think Romo and Ware) and one of them either has a career ending injury and/or they play just declines precipitously, the music chairs stop and the club is left holding the the bag... ie a huge salary cap hit for someone they can no longer extend.

See also: the risk inherent in any contract ever. Might as well worry about getting hit by a magic truck that turns you into an eggplant on the way to work.

 

[jterrell]

The Cowboys are in salary cap trouble next year but they can always climb out of it.
They were definitely in salary cap trouble this year thus didn't pursue free agents they might have otherwise.

Not at all a fan of the "scheduled restructure". Locks the team into doing silly things like continuing to pay Miles a very high yearly bonus.

The Cowboys have been at best mediocre with cap mgmt but that isn't going to cost them stars like Sean Lee or Dez Bryant.
It may cost them second tier guys like Spencer or Carter down the road.

 

[jterrell]

See also: the risk inherent in any contract ever. Might as well worry about getting hit by a magic truck that turns you into an eggplant on the way to work.

One of the more off-base responses I've seen on here.

The risk inherent in contracts in the NFL is actually VERY LOW because teams don't pay out a lot of guaranteed money.
This new Stephen Jones way is absolutely more risky.
Huge guaranteed money leaves players cheaper on the cap to keep them then cut them and a large cap charge either way.
That's poor roster mgmt because it takes it out of the Coaches hand.
Your 53 is then being decided by salary and cap hit not performance.