Don't let Jerry tell you he spends money

[Brax]

Not after they were released.

Wrong dead cap is pushing money down the road usually paid as a bonus. And yes Zeke cost 6 million in cap $ this year
From OTC
Ezekiel Elliott
$6,040,000
Tyron Smith
$6,005,000
Dorance Armstrong Jr.
$1,500,000
Leighton Vander Esch
$1,250,000
Kelvin Joseph
$754,757
Jabril Cox
$192,812TOTAL$16,021,496

 

[Sydla]

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.

Yes we know what they did post Carr.

But what they did was become a "cheap" franchise when compared to most of its peers.

 

[Sydla]

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.

Exactly.

And that's why they are being criticized. By design and decision, they spent less money on their roster than other teams.

Now maybe you have a different word to describe that but to me, when looking across the NFL landscape, a team that spends less on its roster construction compared to pretty much most of the other NFL teams is being "cheap". Again, "cheap" isn't saying they spend no money at all. "Cheap" describes them relative to most other NFL teams.

In other words, they do not spend as much money to make themselves better, to build a roster like most other NFL teams. So relatively speaking (against the comparison to all the other NFL teams), the Cowboys are cheap.

Further, and this kind of cuts your "hey they sign their own guys to big contracts so they can't be cheap" theory. Every NFL team is required, by the CBA, to meet an expense floor measured over a 4 year period. In other words, they are required to spend a certain level of cash over the period measured. So Jerry likely isn't throwing around a $150 million contract to Dak or $90 million to Elliott because he's generous. If he spends barely anything in FA each year, he's basically forced to be paying his own guys to meet the CBA requirement. And it should be noted that in many of these years, the Cowboys were typically near that floor compared to most other NFL teams. Jerry basically does enough in signing his own to meet the floor.

 

[CWR]

They do. Someone was saying, and I could be wrong with the numbers, but I think I heard that the Cowboys still owed or still do, Zeke 6mil still and that he should come back to the Cowboys for the vet minimum and earn it.

I know the money stays on the books as a cap hit. I wasn't sure they actually paid it though. I'm looking for a gap between cap and actual money spent.

That would explain how we were spending so little. Otherwise all teams spend almost up to the cap so I'd think we'd all be similar.

This isn't the first time I've heard how cheap we are. I just don't understand the intricacies of the cap vs money spent and how they can differ so much. I understand not all cap is guaranteed but when you cut a player early you're only on the hook for guaranteed money and you save on both cap and real money. That said it would make sense we'd have a healthier cap being so cheap.

 

[Sydla]

I know the money stays on the books as a cap hit. I wasn't sure they actually paid it though. I'm looking for a gap between cap and actual money spent.

That would explain how we were spending so little. Otherwise all teams spend almost up to the cap so I'd think we'd all be similar.

This isn't the first time I've heard how cheap we are. I just don't understand the intricacies of the cap vs money spent and how they can differ so much. I understand not all cap is guaranteed but when you cut a player early you're only on the hook for guaranteed money and you save on both cap and real money. That said it would make sense we'd have a healthier cap being so cheap.

Yes, it's on the cap but the cash was already paid. So while Elliott would affect the cap, in terms of cash spent this year, they owe Elliott nothing.

 

[CWR]

Yes, it's on the cap but the cash was already paid. So while Elliott would affect the cap, in terms of cash spent this year, they owe Elliott nothing.

Ah, of course, there's the gap.

Do we consistently carry that much dead money that we'd remain flush on the cap without actually spending each year?

Plus I think cap savings roll over, further complicating the numbers.

 

[Cowboys5217]

false again

the cheap one is Stephen

Nope, Jerry runs everything from jocks to socks.

 

[gimmesix]

Exactly.

And that's why they are being criticized. By design and decision, they spent less money on their roster than other teams.

Now maybe you have a different word to describe that but to me, when looking across the NFL landscape, a team that spends less on its roster construction compared to pretty much most of the other NFL teams is being "cheap". Again, "cheap" isn't saying they spend no money at all. "Cheap" describes them relative to most other NFL teams.

In other words, they do not spend as much money to make themselves better, to build a roster like most other NFL teams. So relatively speaking (against the comparison to all the other NFL teams), the Cowboys are cheap.

Further, and this kind of cuts your "hey they sign their own guys to big contracts so they can't be cheap" theory. Every NFL team is required, by the CBA, to meet an expense floor measured over a 4 year period. In other words, they are required to spend a certain level of cash over the period measured. So Jerry likely isn't throwing around a $150 million contract to Dak or $90 million to Elliott because he's generous. If he spends barely anything in FA each year, he's basically forced to be paying his own guys to meet the CBA requirement. And it should be noted that in many of these years, the Cowboys were typically near that floor compared to most other NFL teams. Jerry basically does enough in signing his own to meet the floor.

It's not worth arguing over semantics. Our front office sucks and we all know it. We have nearly 30 years of evidence that they don't know how to get a team over the hump no matter what method we try. We had Jerry's days of outspending everyone in the league, but we disregarded the draft. And we have now when we see the value of the draft but not of free agency.

 

[Sydla]

It's not worth arguing over semantics. Our front office sucks and we all know it. We have nearly 30 years of evidence that they don't know how to get a team over the hump no matter what method we try. We had Jerry's days of outspending everyone in the league, but we disregarded the draft. And we have now when we see the value of the draft but not of free agency.

True but what we are finding out is that Jerry and Stephen simply lag behind the league in terms of actual money spent on roster building. It was argued that they were just arrogant and stubborn in how they roster built and that they would rather pour all their money into their hand picked guys than bring in outsiders.

What this data shows us is the Cowboys don't spend anywhere close to what other teams do and that in fact their roster failures isn't because of just poor decision making or a poor FA strategy but rather it's because they literally are cheaper than most NFL teams when it comes to spending money to build a roster.

So when Jerry comes out or Stephen comes out and tries to justify their inaction in FA (and sometimes some of our own guys) because, "woe is us, the cap is hurting us..........." we now know they are full of crap. They don't manipulate the cap to get better. They manipulate the cap to shovel more cash into the family's coffers.

Frauds. Both of them.

 

[Ring6]

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.

Yep just like they do with coaches. Instead of firing, let ‘em play out the contract

 

[VaqueroTD]

It’s false.

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

Jerry is Cheap

He spends it all right. A yacht. A private jet. Overseas businesses.

 

[gimmesix]

True but what we are finding out is that Jerry and Stephen simply lag behind the league in terms of actual money spent on roster building. It was argued that they were just arrogant and stubborn in how they roster built and that they would rather pour all their money into their hand picked guys than bring in outsiders.

What this data shows us is the Cowboys don't spend anywhere close to what other teams do and that in fact their roster failures isn't because of just poor decision making or a poor FA strategy but rather it's because they literally are cheaper than most NFL teams when it comes to spending money to build a roster.

So when Jerry comes out or Stephen comes out and tries to justify their inaction in FA (and sometimes some of our own guys) because, "woe is us, the cap is hurting us..........." we now know they are full of crap. They don't manipulate the cap to get better. They manipulate the cap to shovel more cash into the family's coffers.

Frauds. Both of them.

Fair enough.

 

[Brax]

Yes, it's on the cap but the cash was already paid. So while Elliott would affect the cap, in terms of cash spent this year, they owe Elliott nothing.

The article is very deceptive, teams must spend the cap one way or another what you see is the kick the can down the road spread of bonus $. They unfortunately pay their own players and mortgage the future with dead money. Look at the dead $ numbers it’s not a case of not spending it’s a case of mismanagement of total $.you can’t spend dead money you already have that’s how teams end up in cap hell. Take a look at Dak and Martin next year look at the dead $ if you cut them, it’s not cheap it’s mismanagement

 

[Flamma]

I know the money stays on the books as a cap hit. I wasn't sure they actually paid it though. I'm looking for a gap between cap and actual money spent.

That would explain how we were spending so little. Otherwise all teams spend almost up to the cap so I'd think we'd all be similar.

This isn't the first time I've heard how cheap we are. I just don't understand the intricacies of the cap vs money spent and how they can differ so much. I understand not all cap is guaranteed but when you cut a player early you're only on the hook for guaranteed money and you save on both cap and real money. That said it would make sense we'd have a healthier cap being so cheap.

Let me explain. We do have a healthy cap. Any team can make it look like they have no space just by allocating more money to the current year. For example, Dak at 60M this year. They could have extended him and opened up 40-50 million if they wanted to. Or if they choose to extend him, make his first year cap hit 35M instead of 15-20 million, giving them less cap space, but spending the same. This saves them from putting more money aside for the future. All guaranteed money has to be put aside in a specific account. Any guarantees a team gives a player, the team immediately has no access to that amount.

Right now the Cowboys are outwardly showing very little cap space because that is what they want you to see. If we were back in the late 90s, Jerry would have opened up 50M in cap space and signed star players from FA. But he made some bad decisions in the past and no longer chooses to go that route. He's done a complete 180. But going the route he used to do makes the future more difficult to manage and can get you into bad situations. It's probably the reason we had those three straight 5-11 seasons. But for me, I liked it better when they were trying. As opposed to this lukewarm approach that never gets us anywhere. Even if it means bad seasons.

 

[CWR]

Let me explain. We do have a healthy cap. Any team can make it look like they have no space just by allocating more money to the current year. For example, Dak at 60M this year. They could have extended him and opened up 40-50 million if they wanted to. Or if they choose to extend him, make his first year cap hit 35M instead of 15-20 million, giving them less cap space, but spending the same. This saves them from putting more money aside for the future. All guaranteed money has to be put aside in a specific account. Any guarantees a team gives a player, the team immediately has no access to that amount.

Right now the Cowboys are outwardly showing very little cap space because that is what they want you to see. If we were back in the late 90s, Jerry would have opened up 50M in cap space and signed star players from FA. But he made some bad decisions in the past and no longer chooses to go that route. He's done a complete 180. But going the route he used to do makes the future more difficult to manage and can get you into bad situations. It's probably the reason we had those three straight 5-11 seasons. But for me, I liked it better when they were trying. As opposed to this lukewarm approach that never gets us anywhere. Even if it means bad seasons.

I never doubted our cap. It's simply to malleable to believe we are in "cap hell."

Eventually though, since we sign no outside FAs I'd expect it to reach a point in which our real cap numbers couldn't be inflated.

We're talking about being the least spending team for a decade. I'd expect to see that reflected in the cap, regardless of their intent to appear cap strapped.

Of course the big contracts they are about to hand out will go a long ways towards demonstrating what big spenders we are.

 

[Flamma]

I never doubted our cap. It's simply to malleable to believe we are in "cap hell."

Eventually though, since we sign no outside FAs I'd expect it to reach a point in which our real cap numbers couldn't be inflated.

We're talking about being the least spending team for a decade. I'd expect to see that reflected in the cap, regardless of their intent to appear cap strapped.

Of course the big contracts they are about to hand out will go a long ways towards demonstrating what big spenders we are.

It's easy, just push less money forward. They're very conservative with how they approach the cap. They never have years where it becomes apocalyptic and have to start over due to trying to win it all in a 2-3 year window. This is a good approach if you want to prevent lean years. But at the same time, it prevents great years. You're constantly stuck in that mediocre to good area. Never great, never terrible.

 

[rnr_honeybadger]

I mean if you are going to be a loser year after year what is the point in spending money? Might as well spend less to achieve mediocrity.

 

[Sydla]

The article is very deceptive, teams must spend the cap one way or another what you see is the kick the can down the road spread of bonus $. They unfortunately pay their own players and mortgage the future with dead money. Look at the dead $ numbers it’s not a case of not spending it’s a case of mismanagement of total $.you can’t spend dead money you already have that’s how teams end up in cap hell. Take a look at Dak and Martin next year look at the dead $ if you cut them, it’s not cheap it’s mismanagement

It's not deceptive at all. It's very clear in what it tells. The Cowboys DO NOT SPEND AS MUCH CASH on their roster as most other NFL teams. You are falling for the trick the Cowboys are playing. Cry poor. Cry dead cap. Cry no cap space.

Cowboys operate under the same rules as everyone else and somehow, someway, a 90% of the other NFL teams have found ways to spend way more cash on their roster than the Cowboys and do so while still staying under the cap.

There's no correlation that signing your guys somehow results in more dead money/mortgaged future. Dead money is dead money whether it comes from your guy or a FA you signed that you eventually cut. The Cowboys simply don't manipulate the cap the way other teams do and as a result, they don't spend cash like most other teams do.

 

[KingintheNorth]

Does dead cap not get paid? I always thought the players got that money.

Yes and no.

Dead money is prorated bonus (salary bonus divided by years remaining on contract). It can also be guaranteed money remaining on a deal, which is relatively new since NFL teams were reluctant to guarantee base salaries beyond the initial year. It's also rare since NFL teams will typically keep players until all guaranteed base salaries are paid out.

So, yes, they already got that money since it was a signing or roster bonus, but also no, the team is no longer paying that out.

For example, the Cowboys have a dead money 2025 hit for Michael Gallup of $8,700,000, which is his prorated bonus of $4,350,000 times 2 years left on his deal. Gallup already received that money in signing bonuses when he signed the five-year, $62.5 million deal in 2022. The Cowboys are not still paying him $8.7M in 2025, it's a fictional number to account for the signing bonus he received, spread out over the length of the deal.

This is common practice for NFL teams. However, Stephen and the (literal) restaurant worker from Arkansas he hired to "run" the cap are particularly bad at this, and do not seem to learn from their many mistakes, consistently taking huge dead money cap hits for players with backloaded contracts that make it almost impossible to keep, thus necessitating an early release, and the accelerated bonus hit.

Tyron Smith will still count on next year's cap, Gallup in 2025. Dak, if he leaves next off-season, will also count a lot towards the 2025 cap. It's something Stephen does to "limit" their ability to sign free agents since he has proven to be bad at it.

 

[Sydla]

This is common practice for NFL teams. However, Stephen and the (literal) restaurant worker from Arkansas he hired to "run" the cap are particularly bad at this, and do not seem to learn from their many mistakes, consistently taking huge dead money cap hits for players with backloaded contracts that make it almost impossible to keep, thus necessitating an early release, and the accelerated bonus hit.

Wait, what? LOL.

And they might not be "bad" at this. In fact, it's quite possible they work the cap precisely how they want it to work. By always claiming cap poor, they end up shoving millions more in cash into the family's pockets.