Don't let Jerry tell you he spends money

[gimmesix]

It’s false.

Cowboys are typically at the bottom of actual cash spending year after year.

Jerry is Cheap

I have trouble considering an ownership that pays record contracts to its players cheap. I consider its cheap free agent philosophy stupid, but that's really the only area where they are cheap.

 

[Bullflop]

Where the Cowboys get lost in the shuffle is because they overpay too many of their average players with overly generous contracts. The C'boys' FO tends to overestimate the talents of their players. Both Jerry and Stephen are reluctant to admit they're poor judges of talent and prefer to think they're far better at it than they really are. Declaring that most of their players are gifts from God gets 'em in trouble when contracts come due. It appears to feed their overblown egos to define them as exceptional, whether they really are or not. Of course, some actually are, and some aren't.

 

[cowboyjoe]

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/202...hen-jones-family-cash-spend-prorate-contracts

 

[Sydla]

That "article" is silly.

Cap Hit and Cash Spent on a player eventually add up to the exact same number.

Example Romo:

Cap Hit Total
While on the team: 107.820 Million

Dead Money after departure: 19.600 Million

107.82M + 19.6M = 127.42M

Total Cash Spent on Romo:
127.42 Million

It's the same number!

You missed the point of the article.

And the article is based on real data from sources like the NFLPA.

The Cowboys have spent near the bottom of the league in terms of cash spent over the last decade. That's simply a fact.

 

[shabazz]

false again

the cheap one is Stephen

Stephen is a GM like McCarthy is the head coach.....both do everything only with Chairman Jerry's approval

 

[Ranching]

You are starting a thread that is way over these people’s heads.

In before

“Ugh salary cap derrr”

Lol! The guys that gave you likes don't realize you're talking about them! Duhh...

 

[Sydla]

I have trouble considering an ownership that pays record contracts to its players cheap. I consider its cheap free agent philosophy stupid, but that's really the only area where they are cheap.

The article literally lays out the data. In terms of actual cash spent over the last decade, the Cowboys rank near the bottom. They have literally spent less cash on players over the last 10 years or so than most teams in the NFL.

That's simply a fact. To me, that's cheap.

 

[Ranching]

You missed the point of the article.

And the article is based on real data from sources like the NFLPA.

The Cowboys have spent near the bottom of the league in terms of cash spent over the last decade. That's simply a fact.

Jerry is cheap and doesn't care, because fans keep coming back? He's won his SBs, now he's stashing billions for his old age...lol

 

[Sydla]

And here is a quick example of how this can happen.

Cowboys resign their DE for 3 years. Contract is for $50MM with a $20MM signing bonus with a base salary of $10MM each year. Cowboys keep the DE all three years, having spent the $50MM in cash.

The Eagles resign their starting DE for 3 years. Offer him the same contract. But they cut him after 2 years. They paid him $40MM in cash over the 2 years. They sign a new starting DE in Year 3 for 3 years, $60MM with a $25MM signing bonus with base salaries of $5M in Year 1, $15MM in Yr 2 and $15MM in Yr 3.

After three years, the Eagles would have spent in terms of actual cash on their starting DE $70MM ($40MM spent on DE #1 in 2 years, $30MM cash spent on DE #2 in Year 3).

The fact the Cowboys often hold onto players too long and don't use FA is a big reason why they are low in cash spent. Now you can call that smart if you want but the reality is the Cowboys literally are near the bottom of the league in terms of actual cash spent on their roster over the periods discussed in that BtB article.

 

[gimmesix]

The article literally lays out the data. In terms of actual cash spent over the last decade, the Cowboys rank near the bottom. They have literally spent less cash on players over the last 10 years or so than most teams in the NFL.

That's simply a fact. To me, that's cheap.

I don't think looking at it the way that it is being looked at in this article gives a complete picture. The Cowboys gave a running back a $90 million extension in 2021, making Ezekiel Elliott the top paid running back in the league at the time. Cheap ownership doesn't do that. The fact that his play fell off and they cut him, saving much of that cash spent, doesn't negate the fact that they gave him that deal.

The whys are important in understanding the numbers.

 

[Doomsday]

Dallas has been at the bottom of the league in actual dollars spent in recent years and that trend will continue again this year.

 

[DandyDon52]

They could spend more money on the facilities, scouting department, etc but choose not to do so

true, but as stated by others, jones boys are cheap tightwad scrooges, with their own money.

 

[gimmesix]

And here is a quick example of how this can happen.

Cowboys resign their DE for 3 years. Contract is for $50MM with a $20MM signing bonus with a base salary of $10MM each year. Cowboys keep the DE all three years, having spent the $50MM in cash.

The Eagles resign their starting DE for 3 years. Offer him the same contract. But they cut him after 2 years. They paid him $40MM in cash over the 2 years. They sign a new starting DE in Year 3 for 3 years, $60MM with a $25MM signing bonus with base salaries of $5M in Year 1, $15MM in Yr 2 and $15MM in Yr 3.

After three years, the Eagles would have spent in terms of actual cash on their starting DE $70MM ($40MM spent on DE #1 in 2 years, $30MM cash spent on DE #2 in Year 3).

The fact the Cowboys often hold onto players too long and don't use FA is a big reason why they are low in cash spent. Now you can call that smart if you want but the reality is the Cowboys literally are near the bottom of the league in terms of actual cash spent on their roster over the periods discussed in that BtB article.

Now, this is a good explanation. Again, I don't think this is necessarily Jerry being cheap. I think it's just the result of the team's philosophy concerning keeping its own players and not paying much for outside players. Not saying they don't like not spending as much, but I don't think they view it as they are being cheap. They will probably give Lamb one of the top WR contracts in the league; same with Micah. If they do extend Dak, his contract will be back up there among the top QBs.

 

[DandyDon52]

I don't think looking at it the way that it is being looked at in this article gives a complete picture. The Cowboys gave a running back a $90 million extension in 2021, making Ezekiel Elliott the top paid running back in the league at the time. Cheap ownership doesn't do that. The fact that his play fell off and they cut him, saving much of that cash spent, doesn't negate the fact that they gave him that deal.

The whys are important in understanding the numbers.

they overpay their favorites, and low ball all the others.

 

[Sydla]

I don't think looking at it the way that it is being looked at in this article gives a complete picture. The Cowboys gave a running back a $90 million extension in 2021, making Ezekiel Elliott the top paid running back in the league at the time. Cheap ownership doesn't do that. The fact that his play fell off and they cut him, saving much of that cash spent, doesn't negate the fact that they gave him that deal.

The whys are important in understanding the numbers.

See you are falling for the parlor trick. There is no other way to look at it. Cash spent is cash spent. It's the actual dollars you put in the various players' hands that you had on your roster over the periods discussed in the article. Yeah, Jerry tends to spend cash on his own players but he has largely eschewed spending money to get better. But see other teams also sign their big players AND then go out and spend in FA. Philly signed Hurts. And AJ Brown. And still has been active in the offseasons.

Cash spent on actual players is the most accurate measure of how "all in" a team is. The fact the Cowboys lag behind most teams in the NFL in what they actually spent on building the roster is pretty much "cheap" when talking about NFL franchises.

 

[gimmesix]

they overpay their favorites, and low ball all the others.

I do not disagree with you on this.

 

[Sydla]

Now, this is a good explanation. Again, I don't think this is necessarily Jerry being cheap. I think it's just the result of the team's philosophy concerning keeping its own players and not paying much for outside players. Not saying they don't like not spending as much, but I don't think they view it as they are being cheap. They will probably give Lamb one of the top WR contracts in the league; same with Micah. If they do extend Dak, his contract will be back up there among the top QBs.

How is Jerry spending less money on the roster than 85% of the teams him not being "cheap", relatively speaking? This from the most valuable and largest cash flowing franchise in the NFL.

I mean use whatever word you want, cheap, frugal, whatever, but the reality is that Jerry Jones spends less money on his roster construction than other teams. These are simply facts.

 

[CWR]

That "article" is silly.

Cap Hit and Cash Spent on a player eventually add up to the exact same number.

Example Romo:

Cap Hit Total
While on the team: 107.820 Million

Dead Money after departure: 19.600 Million

107.82M + 19.6M = 127.42M

Total Cash Spent on Romo:
127.42 Million

It's the same number!

That's why I can't figure out why actual cash would be lower in comparison, if we're always up against the cap.

 

[gimmesix]

See you are falling for the parlor trick. There is no other way to look at it. Cash spent is cash spent. It's the actual dollars you put in the various players' hands that you had on your roster over the periods discussed in the article. Yeah, Jerry tends to spend cash on his own players but he has largely eschewed spending money to get better. But see other teams also sign their big players AND then go out and spend in FA. Philly signed Hurts. And AJ Brown. And still has been active in the offseasons.

Cash spent on actual players is the most accurate measure of how "all in" a team is. The fact the Cowboys lag behind most teams in the NFL in what they actually spent on building the roster is pretty much "cheap" when talking about NFL franchises.

The Joneses decided after the Brandon Carr signing that signing outside free agents to big-dollar deals wasn't the way to build a team, so they have eschewed it. As usual with this ownership, they are overreactionary. They believe in paying their own and building through the draft, and using value free agents to fill in the gaps. This is a philosophical choice that they believe is the right one ... or at least used to believe, but who knows, maybe now they just do it because they see how much money it has saved them.

 

[gimmesix]

How is Jerry spending less money on the roster than 85% of the teams him not being "cheap", relatively speaking? This from the most valuable and largest cash flowing franchise in the NFL.

I mean use whatever word you want, cheap, frugal, whatever, but the reality is that Jerry Jones spends less money on his roster construction than other teams. These are simply facts.

It's being cheap in an area of team building based on a philosophical choice. Again, I can't call someone cheap who gives a $90 million contract to a running back. But that doesn't mean that just because he's extravagant with his own that he's extravagant everywhere. I've panned his FA philosophy for years for not using one of the forms of roster building.

I think you have to look at the whole picture. The Joneses will spend big on their own free agents (not cheap). The Joneses will make trades for players despite the value of their contracts (sometimes cheap and sometimes not cheap). The Joneses will not spend more than a few million on outside free agents (cheap).

I want them to change their outside FA philosophy, where they are cheap, but I don't think they refuse to do it because they are cheap because their willingness to pay their own says different than that.