DMN: Cowboys' offseason: Cap woes make draft, bargain hunting critical

[21Savage]

Duh, not enough salary cap room. Jeez, did you even read the thread? Some people here are really clueless.

You're the one being clueless. He answered your question but you fail to follow the simple logic.

When it comes to posters' expertise at different genres, Adam (with the salary cap) is likely the single most adept person you'll find on any Cowboy forum. So clueless? That's funny.

 

[21Savage]

Is that against forum guidelines?

I agree. You're having an intelligent conversation with Adam and it makes learning the cap better for all of us from the back and forth. While, I believe he likely will be right at the end (as not just Dallas does this, like you kinda claimed), it's more informative than simply taking his word for gospel.

On the other hand, burmfard (sp?) claimed at the start of this thread that people with Adam's opinion were quiet. And now this discussion is dominating the threat he's no where to be found with any intelligent input. Is there a more opinionated, less valuable poster in all of this board? And by value I mean someone who adds something akin to what you are adding to this thread instead of just name calling and speaking in unfounded absolutes.

 

[Nightman]

So you're just throwing random stuff out there for the sake of it?

No, it's how Philly structured Ashoumga. There were no signing bonuses, but 25m was guaranteed. They were to pay him 10m, 11m, 15m, 12m, 12m. They only had him for 2 seasons and cut him before the third. 4m of his third year 15m salary was guaranteed. So they paid 25m for 2 seasons and spread the cap hits over 3 years(10m, 11m, 4m). If Dallas were to cut Carr after 2 seasons it would be for a similar amount, but different structure(3.2m, 5,4m, 4.7m and 12.1m)

Philly chooses to pay as they go and generally try to stay 10-20m under the cap. Dallas has been forced to spend to cap, so they are forced to take the smaller hits early and the dead money later. It's just a different way to account for the money. Jerry chooses to throw big cash restructures at players and FAs to keep them happy with lump sum payments. Many teams don't want to outlay their cash in this manner.

 

[xwalker]

Everyone who has given it any thought should agree with the above statement and also realize that the Dallas situation isn't an either/or scenario. It's both simultaneously. The real question here should be, "What do you do once you realize you have a bad contract (or multiple bad contracts) on your hands?" Do you keep restructuring, like bailing water from a boat, or do you cut ties as soon as it is economically feasible? (I think all of the debate over the Ware contract is a perfect example -- do you cut him and take the $7.5 million in cap space or do you restructure and pray for the best?)

The Brandon Carr example that hoof and Adam were debating is where it really gets good, though. What do you do with a contract that doesn't look "bad" until the player stops living up to expectations?

Let's all say that restructuring contracts is good as long as they aren't bad contracts. How do you know what is going to end up being a good contract and a bad contract? Can an NFL franchise effectively manage a roster without being able to cut dead weight when it needs to? It's less about salary cap economics than it is about roster management philosophy.

Evaluating players is about probabilities.

Brandon Carr
Played well in 2012.
Had some good games in 2013 and struggled in others.
Does not appear to have any physical problems.
Is 27 years old.
Has succeeded in the past with size and technique. Not overly reliant on speed.
Was difficult to truly evaluate in 2013 due to being surrounded by chaos and inexperienced players. Minimal pass rush in front of him. New scheme.
Only injury issue was having flu-like symptoms 1 week.

DeMarcus Ware
Play declined in the latter part of 2012.
Injured in 2012 with corresponding off-season surgery.
Multiple injuries in 2013. Shoulder/neck, back, both elbows, thigh.
Neck/should/stinger issues date back to 2011.
A speed based player that will be 32 next season.
New scheme in 2013, but the scheme is actually much less complicated at his position than the previous scheme.
Was not required to set the edge against the run in most games in 2013 (Philly was the primary exception).
Reduced requirements in run contain and pass coverage should have resulted in more QB pressure/sacks than in previous seasons.
Not difficult to evaluate in 2013. Could not beat 1-on-1 blocking. Even failed to beat TEs on some occasions.

The probability is high that Carr will return to form.

The probability is low that Ware will remain healthy and return to form.

This can be debated without any reference to the salary cap.

 

[Nightman]

Evaluating players is about probabilities.

Brandon Carr
Played well in 2012.
Had some good games in 2013 and struggled in others.
Does not appear to have any physical problems.
Is 27 years old.
Has succeeded in the past with size and technique. Not overly reliant on speed.
Was difficult to truly evaluate in 2013 due to being surrounded by chaos and inexperienced players. Minimal pass rush in front of him. New scheme.
Only injury issue was having flu-like symptoms 1 week.

DeMarcus Ware
Play declined in the latter part of 2012.
Injured in 2012 with corresponding off-season surgery.
Multiple injuries in 2013. Shoulder/neck, back, both elbows, thigh.
Neck/should/stinger issues date back to 2011.
A speed based player that will be 32 next season.
New scheme in 2013, but the scheme is actually much less complicated at his position than the previous scheme.
Was not required to set the edge against the run in most games in 2013 (Philly was the primary exception).
Reduced requirements in run contain and pass coverage should have resulted in more QB pressure/sacks than in previous seasons.
Not difficult to evaluate in 2013. Could not beat 1-on-1 blocking. Even failed to beat TEs on some occasions.

The probability is high that Carr will return to form.

The probability is low that Ware will remain healthy and return to form.

This can be debated without any reference to the salary cap.

Spot on. But in keeping with the cap, now is this best time to part with Ware. He has been paid well and most of it has been accounted for. To keep paying 12m for his declining years is risky and involves continued restructures, making it less beneficial to cut him in the next couple years. They have a few options and it will interesting to see what they do.

Keep him with a full restructure at a 7.5m cap hit and add 9m in new dead money
Keep him with a 6m pay cut for a cap hit of 10m
Trade him or release him with a cap hit of 8.5m with ZERO dead money
June 1st cut him with a cap hit of 3.2m this year and 5.3m next, but they can't use the money saved until June

 

[Little Jr]

Good stuff, Hoof. Pay no mind to the hero worship of dead money doesn't matter.

Lol call it what you want but people look silly when they debat cap with adam

 

[Risen Star]

Lol call it what you want but people look silly when they debat cap with adam

Well that would depend on whether you take it as the absolute truth all the time.

I don't. Never did.

 

[Little Jr]

Well that would depend on whether you take it as the absolute truth all the time.

I don't. Never did.

Never seen him wrong.

 

[Risen Star]

Never seen him wrong.

Never proven him right either.

 

[Offsides]

I hope we don't franchise tag spencer again for 11 mil?

 

[Little Jr]

Never proven him right either.

When has cap #s ever been wrong? I've seen many times people freaking out about the cap after seein or hearin our cap situation and he show how they are wrong. There's a reason he has a cap thread and updates.

 

[Risen Star]

When has cap #s ever been wrong? I've seen many times people freaking out about the cap after seein or hearin our cap situation and he show how they are wrong. There's a reason he has a cap thread and updates.

When have they ever been proven right?

You assume they're right. I'm asking you when they've been proven to be right.

To think another fan of this team can't question him on the salary cap is nonsense to me and I don't care who it is, if you tell me dead money doesn't matter, maybe it's time to put down the calculator and get some sleep.

 

[Little Jr]

When have they ever been proven right?

You assume they're right. I'm asking you when they've been proven to be right.

To think another fan of this team can't question him on the salary cap is nonsense to me and I don't care who it is, if you tell me dead money doesn't matter, maybe it's time to put down the calculator and get some sleep.

They've been prove right. Keep up and don't be mad bro. You can still play the wannabe gm on the forum. Just let him handle the cap. Lol and I never said you can't question him. You just look silly when you do.

 

[Risen Star]

They've been prove right. Keep up and don't be mad bro. You can still play the wannabe gm on the forum. Just let him handle the cap. Lol and I never said you can't question him. You just look silly when you do.

They have been proven right?

When? What specifically? Because unlike you, I don't take anyone's word for anything.

 

[AdamJT13]

Actually they're very much related in that you may be forced to keep a restructured player who has aged because the cost of cutting him is now too high.

As it currently stands Dallas can't cut Brandon Carr even if they wanted to. $16.6M in dead money pretty much means you aren't cutting him. It's cap neutral for next year. Cutting costs the same as keeping. In 2016 Dallas would avoid $6M in charges to release him but they'd still have $7M in dead money. If they restructure him again, they're pretty much committing the 2016 season to him because it would be around $10M in dead money to cut him in 2016. He'll be 30 that year and Dallas will be faced with keeping a 30 year old CB for a cap hit of $15M or cutting an aging player to avoid $5M in charges, only to leave $10M in dead money on the books. Had Dallas never restructured him they could cut him right now and only have $6M in dead money. They essentially guaranteed 2 additional years of him being on the roster by restructuring the first time. They guaranteed 2014 (dead money of $16M if cut) and 2015 (dead money of $12M if cut)

You delay the point at which you can GET OUT of the contract without major cap consequences. I'm not saying that any amount of dead space is the point at which you can ditch but it's just a fact that you limit your ability to rid yourself of a player who goes south by restructuring. Another fact is that players do go south. All teams have that. So willingly delaying the point at which you can escape from a bad contract while knowing that there will be bad contracts is nothing short of salary cap sadomasochism.

If hanging on to old players is dumb, how smart is it to structure contracts in a manner that pretty much ensures that you do just that because you can't cut them before it happens?

The act of restructuring does not prevent you from cutting a player (as if that's ever actually true). As I've been saying, any money you pay a player will be charged against the cap, it's just a question of when. Had we not restructured Carr last year, his cap number for 2013 would have been $16.3 million -- almost $11 million more than what it was after restructuring. And had we'd still have $6 million in dead money for 2014 by cutting him now. So our total charges for 2013-2014 would be $22.3 million. Instead, we restructured him and took a hit of $5.432 million last year and would have $16.868 million in dead money if we cut him right now. That's a total of $22.3 million -- the same amount, with the only difference being when it gets charged against the cap.

So the question is, would you rather have cap room sooner or later (in this case, 2013 or 2014)? I'd always rather have it sooner because then I can use it if I need it, and it represents a larger percentage of the cap (for example, Carr's $22.3 million in total charges for 2013-14 if cut now would represent an average of 9 percent of the cap with no restructuring but only 8.89 percent of the cap with restructuring). If I don't end up using that cap room, I can push it forward.

Never mind that we blew most of the $11 million we saved on Carr by signing Anthony Spencer. That's another topic entirely.

 

[Nightman]

The act of restructuring does not prevent you from cutting a player (as if that's ever actually true). As I've been saying, any money you pay a player will be charged against the cap, it's just a question of when. Had we not restructured Carr last year, his cap number for 2013 would have been $16.3 million -- almost $11 million more than what it was after restructuring. And had we'd still have $6 million in dead money for 2014 by cutting him now. So our total charges for 2013-2014 would be $22.3 million. Instead, we restructured him and took a hit of $5.432 million last year and would have $16.868 million in dead money if we cut him right now. That's a total of $22.3 million -- the same amount, with the only difference being when it gets charged against the cap.

So the question is, would you rather have cap room sooner or later (in this case, 2013 or 2014)? I'd always rather have it sooner because then I can use it if I need it, and it represents a larger percentage of the cap (for example, Carr's $22.3 million in total charges for 2013-14 if cut now would represent an average of 9 percent of the cap with no restructuring but only 8.89 percent of the cap with restructuring). If I don't end up using that cap room, I can push it forward.

Never mind that we blew most of the $11 million we saved on Carr by signing Anthony Spencer. That's another topic entirely.

That's the thing that people against restructuring always ignore. Carr's cap number for the first 3 years are well below were they would be with a straight pay as you go. Not just lower, but WAYYYYY lower.

2012 cap hit 3.2m
2013 cap hit 5.4m
2104 cap hit 7.1m

vs

2012 cap hit 10m
2013 cap hit 10m
2014 cap hit 10m

When his big cap hits come due, there will be other guys with new contracts and small cap hits. The key is to draft better and keep big money Free Agents to a minimum. In a couple years Witten, Ware, Austin and Free will be gone and Romo, Carr and Lee will be the big hits. Then hopefully Dez, TSmith, Melton and Claiborne.

 

[AdamJT13]

Is it really necessary to say that we're talking about restructuring in Dallas, not just about how teams can restructure in general? If the team was simply accumulating free space and rolling it over there'd be no discussion. However, they've done nothing but cover their past blunders and restructured to get compliant. I don't know why anyone would ever broaden the discussion beyond the Cowboys by mentioning that teams can roll over cap space when Dallas first has to clear enough cap space just to be under the limit.

Using your strategy you'd still only be able to sign the guys that are available, which is probably the biggest reason why pushing cap space to the extent that Dallas does is far from the norm. There's just not enough talent in the free agent pool to justify freeing up all that additional cap space.

That argument makes no sense. People complain that we don't have any cap space, and your argument is that we'd have too much cap space? What difference does it make if you have too much, given that you can carry it forward?

You likely wouldn't have dead space if the player lived up to the contract. If he continued to meet the expectations of those cap figures that are artificially inflated by prorations, he'd be a monster and you wouldn't even consider cutting the guy.

You certainly could have dead money if a player lived up to the contract as expected, if you're trying to maximize your cap room (you know, so you can sign all of those free agents that don't exist). It's easy to add contract seasons you don't expect a player to play in order to lower the cap hits. And you don't have to cut a guy to have dead money. He could void his contract or retire, and you'd still have dead money.

Aside from that, living up to the contract is far from guaranteed. You're building more risk into the contract than is already present on the hopes and prayers that the player will live up to the expectations of it?

No, I've never said anything like that.

Not exactly a great example. It doesn't apply to the NFL because there's a limit to how far you can actually push the costs and as soon as the contract ends, the balance is due. So, if you're only planning on having the car for 8 years and you choose the 16 year plan you'd have to pay off the balance of the loan by the end of year 9.

Which means you'd pay $16,000 in the 9th year. I'm sure Jerry would love to spread signing bonuses and prorated bonuses over a couple decades as well.

A more appropriate example would be spending $40,000 on a car and only paying $500 per month for 4 years. Then, after the car has depreciated in value (player has aged), you start paying off the remaining loan (remaining guaranteed money) of $16,000 in year 5 of a 5 year loan. Now you're paying $1,250 per month for a car that is probably only worth $14,000.

Although your example is not good, either (you're paying 75 percent of what would otherwise be $667 per month for the five years, so you're not exactly maximizing your "cap room"), it still would be wiser than paying the flat rate for all five years. You save $167 per month, which adds up to $8,451 in savings over the first four years at a mere 2.68 percent interest rate (the estimated cap increase from 2013 to 2014). If you wanted to, you could use $8,000 of that savings to make a payment at the start of year five. You now owe $8,000 on the car -- just as you would if you had been paying $667 all along -- but you would have an extra $451 in your pocket, and you would have had much more "cash on hand" in case of emergencies during those first four years. And the more you can reduce your monthly payment, the more you have left in your pocket after paying off the difference between the loans, and the more cash you'd have on hand during those first four years.

Try to find a single businessman or investor who would ever turn down a loan, for any reason, that is not only interest-free but whose total payoff amount actually decreases over time. I doubt you could.

 

[junk]

I think they're going to restructure everyone (except maybe Austin) and bring them all back again. Coaches, players, everyone.

I think the new TV deal in 2016 is what they are targeting for shedding some of these bigger contracts.

If the do max restructures of everyone, I think they can get like 18-19 million in cap room. Problem is that they'll be $7 million over in 2015 without Dez, Tyron, Carter or Murray under contract. Cap numbers for Romo ($27 million), Ware ($20 million), and Carr ($14 million) are pretty high though.

 

[Kaiser]

That's the thing that people against restructuring always ignore. Carr's cap number for the first 3 years are well below were they would be with a straight pay as you go. Not just lower, but WAYYYYY lower.

Exactly - and it works out better for both sides. Carr got a 10MM signing bonus so his family is set for life, even if he has a major injury. The team gets to push the cap hit to out years exactly like Adam describes. Its better all the way around.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]