It isn't your money

[America's Cowboy]

NFL teams (and other leagues) have proven over and over again they can manipulate the salary CAP in multiple ways to build the teams with the players they want. So any excuse that involves insufficient funds is just an excuse. Having said that, every team makes different strategic choices when it comes to managing the salary CAP.

As for player salaries, even the lowest paid players make salaries that are mere fantasies to 99.9% of fans. So, I’ve never understood why fans take sides when it comes to disputes between millionaires and billionaires. I’ve worked for 36 years as an engineer, and haven’t made as much as Dak Prescott will make in 2 games. I’ve supported my family, sent 3 children to college, and am paying for a 2nd wedding this year. And it’s been enough.

Bottom line: it’s not my money. It isn’t your money either. Arguing over salary CAP dollars and player salaries is really among the most useless things a fan can do. We cannot relate to wealth at that level.

Does CeeDee, or Dak, or Micah “deserve” the money they’ll get? Is it fair that they make so much more these days than players like Larry Allen or Emmitt Smith made back in the day. WHO CARES? It’s not my money.

And it isn’t yours either. Pretending it matters to fans is just another psychological fantasy to engage fans. I won’t be sucked into those arguments anymore. I prefer to discuss football, not finances.

Well, Jumbo, buddy...this team isn't ours either, yet here we are every day and every year talking Cowboys, how they should be run and what we expect them to do, etc.

 

[irishline]

But trust me they not mortgaging the stadium to pay players

Of course they're not because the majority of stadiums are paid for using "our money" too, in form of taxes raised and public funds used to build them (not all of them, but a super majority - very few owners own their stadium).

 

[Hardline]

There is no salary cap on what the owners can make. There is a salary cap on what players make.

 

[Pola_pe_a]

It is also way more than most of todays nfl players.
If jerry paid dak and cd and micah what they want, market +, 60+35+35=130 mil ! how much of the current cap is that? % wise.
I think cap is around 275-280 mil So they will take up over 1/3 of the cap. Is that fair to the other players on the team? I dont think so.

It has nothing to do with fair, it has to do with having a competent front office that knows how to manipulate the cap,

 

[big dog cowboy]

Post of the night!!!!!!

 

[KingCorcoran]

To add another layer to the it’s not your money point. It’s not the owners money either it’s a collectively bargained percentage of revenue.. it’s the players money. Sure owners have to have cash to dole out signing bonuses ect. But trust me they not mortgaging the stadium to pay players

No ownership group used money provided by fans to purchase an NFL franchise. Make no mistake, it’s the owner’s money invested and hence at stake. The fans are along for the ride and can get off whenever the spirit moves them. Except for maybe an overpriced jersey, a logo key chain, and a fading in the Texas sun license plate frame, fans have invested nothing but emotion.

 

[JW82]

They get a lot from TV revenue contracts as well and sponsored companies.
And yes from fans buying merchandise. So I wonder what the percentages are compared to the other contracts.

They get tv money because of fans watching.

 

[birdwells1]

Not our money? Really? Without fans and the outrageous ticket, parking, and concession prices WE pay, greedy fools like Dak, Micah, and CeeDee aren't having conversations about setting all time high markets at their positions. No, it isn't fair that those three stand to make so much more than past players. The issue some of us fans have is that these greedy players want to get paid without earning it. They demand top dollar just for showing up, and then they thank the fans by giving up in playoff games.

Those names from the past you mentioned had the passion and desire to win. The current group doesn't give a damn about anything but their bank account balances.

You are the standard uniformed fan, the players are greedy but the owner ****** out the stadium for any event possible and is making millions upon millions is not? Give me a break. If I'm Dak I'm not taking any discount because of people like you, YOU WOULD STILL CRY ABOUT HIS CONTRACT IF HE SIGNED FOR 30 MILLION SO IF YOU GONNA CRY ANYWAYS MIGHT AS WELL GET 55 MILLION.

 

[birdwells1]

You miss the point of cap arguments. Its not a jealousy thing. Nobody cares if CD makes 50M or 5M. As you said, it is not our money. It makes no difference to fans. The cap arguments are about how can we use the cap money available in way that builds a better team. Is making Dak and CD the highest paid players at their positions a smart use of cap dollars? Who is sacrificed to make those contracts work? Can we improve the team making those contracts b/c this isn't KC or SF where we just need to hold a nucleus of players together who have proven they can get to the big game. We aren't even close. So, we need to have these salary cap discussions bc the contracts affect the ability of the team to improve.

How can they improve when the last "first day" free agent they signed was Brandon Carr in 2012. 2012.

 

[kskboys]

Jumbo just doesn’t like the negative narratives which surround the discussions on players contracts and the impacts to Salary Cap.

It's just part of being on a fan board.

 

[KingCorcoran]

There is no salary cap on what the owners can make. There is a salary cap on what players make.

The players have all the talent. Start a new league or play for the one that already exists. Players invest sweat, owners invest money they could use on other enterprises. That makes them the owners of NFL football. Since the whole damned league belongs to them, shouldn’t they reap the greatest benefit from it? Fans can check out any time the spirit moves them.

 

[kskboys]

I don’t understand posts like this. As a fan what is acceptable to discuss and what is unacceptable to discuss and who gets to make that distinction?

As a fan you’re saying it’s a psychological fantasy that it matters what the guy gets paid because it’s not our money. But there’s a salary cap that affects the team and we’re fans of the team.

So is it wrong to discuss who we draft? It’s not our draft picks and the draft can be manipulated.

Is it wrong to discuss wins and losses, it’s not us winning or losing.

Is it wrong to discuss the colors of the uniform or the logo? It’s not our colors or logo.

IMO discussing contracts and FA is the same as discussing the draft, starting lineups, coaches, etc. It’s all about the team and contracts/salary cap/FA all impacts the team.

CD making 35 million APY as opposed to 28 million APY affects the team structure as much as drafting Mazi Smith. It’s apart of the team and should be open to discussion.

Ouch. Very well done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FanofJerry]

Yet another thread where you confuse "reality" with "opinion".

I can see why you think the Cowboys should continue doing things just like they have for the last 29 years of avoiding Super Bowls because that does seem to be the goal.

At some point, when you stick your hand in the boiling water, you have to realize it's probably a bad decision to do it. Of course you can keep doing it because that's what everyone else does if you prefer it.

As I have said every time you come to defend the players, I have no issues with players making whatever the money they can in their short careers, and if the Cowboys had won a couple of Super Bowls this century then I would be all for rinsing-and-repeating the winning formulas.

The truth is the Cowboys have not won a Super Bowl or even sniffed the Super Bowl in the last 29 years, so it is past time to stop making the same mistakes by paying a few players so much money they cannot field a winning team around them.

It has nothing to do with "are they worth it". They are worth it, but not to a team with 29 years of failed seasons. Let some other team that is one or two players away from a Super Bowl run sign them to whatever large contract they can get with them.

It's time to stop being lemmings and start trying new tactics.

By all means though, continue doing things the same way. Maybe we will all still be alive in 21 years to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the last Cowboys Super Bowl.

But the moneyball trailblazer lovers favortie team just set the market at RB.

No one is doing what you are suggesting.

You want to decrease important position play pay to rookie contracts. Or divvy up non-important player contracts with important player contracts...like the market works like that. Or you just want to not talk about market prices within a ecosystem. You just want to say..."players shouldnt be paid unti winning a Super Bowl" when thats not how the system works at all. Then you want to hint at rookie contracts. Yet another poster on this site pro-rookie contracts...but claims hes all for players making as much as possible. Yet...the undertones are there...in the name of "trying something new"

Nothing you propose is how this thing works. Nothing. Assuming its all real. No GM is following any of these arm chair suggestions. Maybe things are changing a little....but not NEAR at the speed of years of suggesting otherwise.

I suspect you are leaving out many variables that real Owners and GMs have to deal with. Maybe Owners that care about winning do more of what you say...but players care about their pay more than winning and you should deal with that. No trophy or Legacy is going to fake out the current generation of player...deal with it..

I am interested in the winning percentages of long time owners/FO's vs newer owners/FO's in the league. Seems odd to me that long time owning franchises, teams that should have industry leading information, dont win as often but are similar to Dallas. No owner is doing what any of the trailblazers want on a consistent basis. I could be wrong...but contracts point to owners not moneyballing key positions like all these board posts suggest.

 

[Reality]

But the moneyball trailblazer lovers favortie team just set the market at RB.

No one is doing what you are suggesting.

You want to decrease important position play pay to rookie contracts. Or divvy up non-important player contracts with important player contracts...like the market works like that. Or you just want to not talk about market prices within a ecosystem. You just want to say..."players shouldnt be paid unti winning a Super Bowl" when thats not how the system works at all. Then you want to hint at rookie contracts. Yet another poster on this site pro-rookie contracts...but claims hes all for players making as much as possible. Yet...the undertones are there...in the name of "trying something new"

Nothing you propose is how this thing works. Nothing. Assuming its all real. No GM is following any of these arm chair suggestions. Maybe things are changing a little....but not NEAR at the speed of years of suggesting otherwise.

I suspect you are leaving out many variables that real Owners and GMs have to deal with. Maybe Owners that care about winning do more of what you say...but players care about their pay more than winning and you should deal with that. No trophy or Legacy is going to fake out the current generation of player...deal with it..

I am interested in the winning percentages of long time owners/FO's vs newer owners/FO's in the league. Seems odd to me that long time owning franchises, teams that should have industry leading information, dont win as often but are similar to Dallas. No owner is doing what any of the trailblazers want on a consistent basis. I could be wrong...but contracts point to owners not moneyballing key positions like all these board posts suggest.

To me it's not about "what real GM's would do" but rather what the Cowboys have done for 29 years and what they have not done.

You can argue to maintain the status quo as strongly as you want and the odds are good you will get your wish.

After 29 years, it is past time to throw out the off-season playbook and try something new.

Maybe it will work or maybe it will end in disaster, but at least it's something new.

The Jones family and the Cowboys are more focused on making money so I fully expect them to keep doing the same thing that makes the team valuation increase year after year.

They will pay huge contracts to players who have proven nothing other than regular season stats and the players get an extra month off every year by avoiding the playoffs.

I am not a GM, and maybe that's a good thing for people who are satisfied with 29 years of failures.

At least you know how the story will end every year.

 

[Cowboys5217]

They get tv money because of fans watching.

Yep. Without fans watching there is no TV and no league.

Also, the OP is repeating a common fallacy. Players getting paid and the concern by fans has nothing to do with the fact that players are making profit. It has everything to do with game theory. It is mathematically driven.

Since there is a salary cap, and it effects how well the team can perform, then it is yet another factor that has to be handled in the best way possible. Just like free agency, the draft, trades, etc, salaries are a valid areas of concern, agreement, or criticism by fans of the team.

 

[Roadtrip635]

OUR team is constructed with their money. And sorry but the cap is real and helps keep parity in the league. It does have consequences. See the Eagles losing 6-7 defensive starters last year (they didn't repeat as NFC east winners).

So, yeah I want them to spend their money as intelligently and as savvy as possible for the betterment of OUR collective team.

It's not our team, it's Jerry's team, it's a product, a brand and we're consumers of that brand and product. It's like Ford or Chevy, fans will argue one side versus the other or what the company should do, but fans don't have any say on how they handle their business and do with that money. As long as we keep consuming and we do keep consuming the Cowboys and NFL, the owner doesn't have much reason to change their business practices.

Of course, we'd all like them to spend that cap intelligently, but fans see it as sport, and Jerry sees it as business and how that investment is made may not always be the same..

 

[FanofJerry]

To me it's not about "what real GM's would do" but rather what the Cowboys have done for 29 years and what they have not done.

You can argue to maintain the status quo as strongly as you want and the odds are good you will get your wish.

After 29 years, it is past time to throw out the off-season playbook and try something new.

Maybe it will work or maybe it will end in disaster, but at least it's something new.

The Jones family and the Cowboys are more focused on making money so I fully expect them to keep doing the same thing that makes the team valuation increase year after year.

They will pay huge contracts to players who have proven nothing other than regular season stats and the players get an extra month off every year by avoiding the playoffs.

I am not a GM, and maybe that's a good thing for people who are satisfied with 29 years of failures.

At least you know how the story will end every year.

I'm not a scientist, I'm not looking over tons of data and not getting paid for it...

I may have bad information here, I'm guilty of falling for a youtubers information....

I don't think Dallas' problem is paying their main contributors compared with other
teams....I think the problem is paying too many positions top dollar.

So, imo, Dak's pay isn't the issue unless coaches, scouts, consultants are telling the jones' he isn't worth it...yet they do so anyway.

It's paying too many other non-qb positions highly.

The youtuber I am basing this off of laid out the dallas contracts and suggested dallas was paying 5 top position guys top money while other teams were paying 4 top position players top money.

If this is anywhere near accurate...paying Dak or another 2 or 3 guys isn't the problem.

But the constant, "try something new"...and all those try something new suggestions lead to taking advantage of rookie play...is disgusting.

Dallas should look at high paid positions and see if there are too many top dollar guys on the roster that don't fit impact.

I'm not for not paying guys at all...especially impact positions. I think the cap allows teams to pay a few top impact players near top money on each team. It's determining who those impact players are outside of qb, how many, and how you pat them.


Constantly blaming qb and ownership over top impact performers salary is overblown. Pivot to other salaries causing issues.

 

[Hardline]

The players have all the talent. Start a new league or play for the one that already exists. Players invest sweat, owners invest money they could use on other enterprises. That makes them the owners of NFL football. Since the whole damned league belongs to them, shouldn’t they reap the greatest benefit from it? Fans can check out any time the spirit moves them.

I am pro owner over the players.

 

[Reality]

I'm not a scientist, I'm not looking over tons of data and not getting paid for it...

I may have bad information here, I'm guilty of falling for a youtubers information....

I don't think Dallas' problem is paying their main contributors compared with other
teams....I think the problem is paying too many positions top dollar.

So, imo, Dak's pay isn't the issue unless coaches, scouts, consultants are telling the jones' he isn't worth it...yet they do so anyway.

It's paying too many other non-qb positions highly.

The youtuber I am basing this off of laid out the dallas contracts and suggested dallas was paying 5 top position guys top money while other teams were paying 4 top position players top money.

If this is anywhere near accurate...paying Dak or another 2 or 3 guys isn't the problem.

But the constant, "try something new"...and all those try something new suggestions lead to taking advantage of rookie play...is disgusting.

Dallas should look at high paid positions and see if there are too many top dollar guys on the roster that don't fit impact.

I'm not for not paying guys at all...especially impact positions. I think the cap allows teams to pay a few top impact players near top money on each team. It's determining who those impact players are outside of qb, how many, and how you pat them.


Constantly blaming qb and ownership over top impact performers salary is overblown. Pivot to other salaries causing issues.

I am not blaming any players or really anyone for anything. This is not about blame.

I don't care who did what or whose fault it is, was or might have been. None of that matters.

What matter is what the Cowboys do going forward and after 29 years of failed seasons, it is time to try something new.

It's great that you will likely get your wish and the Cowboys will repeat the same tactics they have been doing for 29 years and we will be talking about it next year during the 30th anniversary since the last Cowboys Super Bowl.

For me, I am going to hold out hope they try something new and not allocate a huge chunk of the salary cap to 2-3 players who have not helped this team get anywhere near a Super Bowl.

Again, I am not blaming the star players for causing those failures, but they simply have not helped this team get to a Super Bowl so to this team (not saying all teams .. THIS team) they are not worth tying up 30-40% of the salary cap to keep 2 to 3 of those players.

As I said, it may end in disaster or surprise everyone, but either way, at least it would be something new.

Worst case scenario, you have a bad season, get a high draft pick and go after free agent star players next year who helped their teams win Super Bowls.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Not our money, but our money pays their bills, and allows them to miss camp to make a point!

Then stop buying merchandise. Stop going to games. Stop watching.

All of those activities contribute.