Jason Hatcher "On air" interview

[kevm3]

I like Hatcher, but it's better that we don't resign him in the long-run. I don't trust contract year performances, especially when someone is in their 30s. Hatcher had a nice year last year, but as I said, it's nearing contract time. We have too much of the 'old guard' that are getting these bloated contracts that we regret. It'll be better for both Hatcher and Spencer to go and to keep on building through the draft.

 

[Jerryrage]

They better start drafting defense next year in all rounds and I want to see players worried about a roster spot. Thanks for the years Hatcher, however we don't need you next year due to cap problems.

 

[Idgit]

“Yeah, I can understand the Cowboys not signing me to an extension before this season started,” Hatcher said. “But at the same time, I know for a fact that I have outplayed my contract, and for those guys not to acknowledge it, it’s just one of those things I’m starting to lean on, starting to think about more and more. I’ve talked to my family about the worst-case scenario, playing somewhere else.
“The longer I play without a deal, the more my value goes up. I don’t want to hear about I’m 31 years old, either. I’m one of the best in the league at my position. So, yeah, it’s hard not to think about. You can’t put a gun to those guys’ heads and make them step up to the plate and do something. Maybe I’m not that guy for them, but thank God there are 31 other teams out there. I guarantee there’s a lot that love me as a player.
“I would love to retire here, that’s always been the dream, but it’s just one of those things. Every game that goes on, it’s kind of disrespectful. You start feeling a little disrespected

Yeah, see ya, Hatch.

I can't stand this sort of stuff. Had he delivered more at an age where a big extension made any sense, none of this would have been an issue. Now, it's an issue. I don't care how good he's playing, if he's not playing on a value contract, you have to invest resources to replace him with a younger player. And he should shut up about the status of his contract *next* year during *this* season. Nobody cares if you are trying to convince yourself you're disrespected by your current large paycheck. Just do your job and shut up about it. And quit making pay-me signs with your fingers after big plays while you're at it, please. Our defensive coaches weren't making play-better signs when you came in off the bench during your first four years here, Hatcher.

 

[Frozen700]

Ware is a guy we overpaid big time. He def needs to be released, or take a pay cut. We still have Dez who will command top dollars

 

[85Cowboy85]

I'm not that concerned about the age. People will freak out because of the base salary in the fifth year of a long term contract. But really the important number is the guaranteed because that represents your cap hit if he declines too much.

What you do is design a contract with a limited signing bonus and appropriate incentives. The years don't matter that much. Actually the Ratliff contract was well designed in this regard. Even though we released him incredibly early the cap hit is relatively minimal compared to the size of the contract.

They don't have the same leverage with Hatch because he is in a FA year rather then having two years left. But if you can get something like that done by all means do it.

 

[Zordon]

you saw what life what would be like without Hatcher this past weekend. absolutely ZERO pressure on Brees, the entire game. i've never seen such an atrocious performance from our dline. at this point it is obvious to me that Hatcher is more valuable to this team on and off the field than Ware. the problem with Hatcher is he has no PC in him. he hasn't been trained by a gang of publicists like our company man Ware. i prefer Hatcher's style b/c he speaks what he really feels and like WG said the guy is a good dude who gives 100% on Sundays so I don't get sensitive about any of his quotes. the lack of filter is something this franchise needs more of IMO, they are way too many cookie cutter personalities on this team, too many who walk on egg shells all the time, scared to speak up and hurt anyone's feelings.

 

[AbeBeta]

You preached to this board about understanding the cap when Mario Williams became a free agent. For a month, you said that the Texans would never let Williams walk and that the cap was not a factor. That went on until he signed with the Bills after the Texans could not afford him because of the cap. Signed, Someone who has heard this BS before

Right -- and last year when everyone was flipping out about the cap and how we didn't have enough space we still managed a massive extension for Romo and Lee. We also were able to bring in a veteran G.

The Texans made a decision to let Williams go. The idea that they did so because of the salary cap is just some garbage they toss out to placate ignorant fans. They made a decision not to pay a premium for someone who cracked the 10 sack mark only twice in his 6 years on the team. They decided they wouldn't pay what he was asking. They certainly could have paid that.

Oh yeah -- Hatcher ain't costing what Williams did either

 

[AbeBeta]

Since you understand it and all can you expain it to jerry? He obviously needs some help with it.

Jerry and Stephen are pretty outstanding in managing the cap. The way they do it allows maximum flexibility that promotes reports like "Cowboys 20 mill over 2014 cap!" which makes sports radio and barstool GMs go nuts. The idea that they don't know what they are doing is just plain ludicrous

 

[Nirvana]

As much as I love his play I just can't see signing him to a contract at his age. History is bound to repeat itself.

 

[DCBoysfan]

He isn't going to cost very much -- also new deals are always very cap friendly in the first year. We'd have little issue re-signing him.

Signed,

Someone who actually understand the salary cap

Understanding or not 31 million over is 31 million over, money can be manipulated but it will be a hindrance and hopefully Jerry and Stephen start to correct it, by not giving a new contract to a 31 yr. old DT.

 

[AbeBeta]

Understanding or not 31 million over is 31 million over, money can be manipulated but it will be a hindrance and hopefully Jerry and Stephen start to correct it, by not giving a new contract to a 31 yr. old DT.

Again you fail to understand that a huge chunk of that being over is either PLANNED (e.g., Romo, Lee, Carr, and Ware's giant base salary #s) for restructuring at the outset of the contract OR big base salary numbers that either are going to drop or result in the player getting cut (e.g. Austin).

Many of these deals are very smartly structured -- look at Ware's contract. It is genius. He's due 12.25 mill in 2014 - his cap hit is about 16 mill. However, this year we are clear of his signing bonus. In other bonuses we owe about 8.5 mill (i.e., if we cut him we'd save about 4 mill in total). He's a perfect candidate for conversion of salary to bonus as converting about 11 mill puts us in the same favorable place with his contract the next year -- we'd save about 4 mill if he's cut. You run that sort of restructure over and over and you are winning the cap game. Anytime you have a contract where you can cut a guy and get a net cap savings, you are doing things right.

 

[Carolina Cowboy]

Why we get so caught up on players we love amazes me. The Patriots don't give a rat's *** about anyone other than Brady and they keep winning. Why? Because they manage their staff, roster, money, strategy, identity and discipline the way an NFL team should in the salary cap era.

 

[jnday]

Why we get so caught up on players we love amazes me. The Patriots don't give a rat's *** about anyone other than Brady and they keep winning. Why? Because they manage their staff, roster, money, strategy, identity and discipline the way an NFL team should in the salary cap era.

Yep, they do just the opposite of Jerry and Stephen who give 90% of the money to 10% of the players, but at least Jerry gets to watch that 10% decline while he is paying out his rear end.

 

[Common Sense]

Right -- and last year when everyone was flipping out about the cap and how we didn't have enough space we still managed a massive extension for Romo and Lee.

They had to extend Romo to get his cap figure DOWN this year. They aren't under the cap in spite of it -- they're under the cap BECAUSE of it. You're either deluding yourself or trying to deceive others.

 

[CyberB0b]

You can justify signing Hatcher but I'm under no illusions it is going to be cheap. 5 years 35 million at least if not 40 or 50.

DE's weren't getting big contracts last year. A 43 DT is less valueable than a pass rushing DE, so I would expect his value to be a lot lower than that. Something like 3-4 years for 4-5 million a year.

 

[cowboysooner]

Hatcher can probably get a pretty good 2 year deal. If he gets a 4-5 year deal it will be pure agent window dressing.

His demand will be from 4-3 team and when you go down the list it is pretty limited.
Giants Maybe
Tampa no
Carolina no
Atlanta yes but they won't have much space
Chicago doubt it
Detroit no
Vikings doubt it
St. Louis doubt it
Seattle no
Miami perhaps
Pats doubt it
Cincy no
Jags yes
Broncos yes

 

[jnday]

They had to extend Romo to get his cap figure DOWN this year. They aren't under the cap in spite of it -- they're under the cap BECAUSE of it. You're either deluding yourself or trying to deceive others.

Exactly, but you are wasting your time with him.

 

[AbeBeta]

Your arr

Your arrogant answer doesn't make right. If you can't do the math on the Williams deal when you were proven wrong, it is no need to explain salary cap problems in Dallas. You know more than any GM in the league. Maybe you could give classes to all of the teams in your spare time.

Yes -- no team ever makes bad deals. We are the only ones. You don't seem able to hold down your side of this argument about the cap.

 

[AbeBeta]

They had to extend Romo to get his cap figure DOWN this year. They aren't under the cap in spite of it -- they're under the cap BECAUSE of it. You're either deluding yourself or trying to deceive others.

Yes, they "had" to extend Romo -- why did that happen? Because that is how the team structures big, long term deals. They make the final year one that forces a decision. Both sides agreed that 2013 would be the $#%$ or get off the pot year on the deal. You will see this in many of our current deals. If we didn't want to commit to Romo, we would have saved a ton by cutting him. Anyone with any basic knowledge of the structure of most of our bigger deals would see that pattern over and over. It is why we rarely see vets hit the final year of their deals (and why it is uncommon on many teams).

 

[Common Sense]

Yes, they "had" to extend Romo -- why did that happen? Because that is how the team structures big, long term deals. They make the final year one that forces a decision. Both sides agreed that 2013 would be the $#%$ or get off the pot year on the deal. You will see this in many of our current deals. If we didn't want to commit to Romo, we would have saved a ton by cutting him. Anyone with any basic knowledge of the structure of most of our bigger deals would see that pattern over and over. It is why we rarely see vets hit the final year of their deals (and why it is uncommon on many teams).

Would have saved a ton by cutting him? I'm done with this argument. You're being ridiculous.