Lawrence 2018

[Stash]

It's not really all that complicated. You don't over pay players. You don't pay for past performance. You don't let sentiment get in the way of doing what needs to be done.

You either pay him or let him walk.

But what you don't get to do is have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Stash]

Depth. It is the difference in competing every year or being mired in 20 plus years of mediocrity. The team is finally seeing the light. There's a new sheriff in town.

"Depth" is just that. And you pay "depth" accordingly. And you get "depth" from the draft and cheap free agent deals. Like they have this year.

But there's little value in drafting well if you're just going to watch that talented player walk out the door after four years.

 

[Verdict]

You either pay him or let him walk.

But what you don't get to do is have your cake and eat it too.

Actually that's not really accurate. The Cowboys are currently going to make Lawrence play under the franchise tag. That puts all the risk of injury on the player. Obviously the risk/reward shifts in the player's favor if he 1. Has a great year and 2. avoids significant injury.

The Cowboys are having their cake (keeping the player) and eating it too (avoiding long term risk and putting risk of injury all on Lawrence). It doesn't really matter if you like it or not, that's what the Cowboys are doing.

About the only risk the Cowboys are really taking on is the risk that Lawrence will cost more next year to resign than he does now. But if the team is willing to part with Lawrence if he is too expensive they don't risk a lot when it comes to that either because they can probably get more out of him in a trade next year if he blows up and has a great year.

 

[TwentyOne]

Lawrence is playing under his franchise tag for this year (at least that is what it looks like right now). The Cowboys seem to be concerned that 2017 may be the exception rather than the rule. If you look at past history they may be right.

Up until last year Lawrence was a good but not great player. In 2017he looked unstoppable at times. But which one is the real Lawrence?

I would not be surprised if Lawrence regresses back to his pre 2017 form. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Lawrence pick up where he left off last year.

The important part is this: If the Cowboys were to sign Lawrence now they have to pay him as if the 2017 Lawrence is the real Lawrence. All the risk is on the Cowboys.

If they wait, if Lawrence regresses they have saved themselves a TON of money. If Lawrence does it again the Cowboys can either give him a long term contract or trade him as a proven, established pass rusher.

I won't be shocked either way. The Cowboys have continued to add DEs to the roster for a reason.

I wouldnt say lawrence looked good until 2017. He looked medicore and more of a borderline bust with all the injuries he had to deal with.

2017 was a good year for him. But it wasnt like he teared all walls down. He was great in the beginning but when teams took notices he vanished quickly. If you dont believe me just have a look at his sack/game rate for the first 8 games and then the last 8.

If he has a 8-10 sack year and wont be bothered by his back i will have a better feeling about him.

I think his potential is being a good lde. The main part for him will be if he can get through the season without back problems. Then we will consider him for a longterm deal. Otherwise i see him hit the open market.

In the end i agree with most of what you wrote. I just dont see that there is any preassure on the cowboys making a longterm commitement.

 

[Verdict]

"Depth" is just that. And you pay "depth" accordingly. And you get "depth" from the draft and cheap free agent deals. Like they have this year.

But there's little value in drafting well if you're just going to watch that talented player walk out the door after four years.

You can't keep quality depth if you don't have the money to pay for it. The salary cap is a finite resource.

 

[Verdict]

I wouldnt say lawrence looked good until 2017. He looked medicore and more of a borderline bust with all the injuries he had to deal with.

2017 was a good year for him. But it wasnt like he teared all walls down. He was great in the beginning but when teams took notices he vanished quickly. If he has a 8-10 sack year and wont be bothered by his back i will have a better feeling about him.

I think his potential is being a good lde. The main part for him will be if he can get through the season without back problems. Then we will co sider gim for a longterm deal.

I think the Cowboys want him on the team but believe he is somewhere between the player he was in 2017 and the player he was in prior years and they aren't going to pay 2017 plus prices for uneven production. That's why he doesn't have a new contract.

 

[Stash]

Actually that's not really accurate. The Cowboys are currently going to make Lawrence play under the franchise tag. That puts all the risk of injury on the player. Obviously the risk/reward shifts in the player's favor if he 1. Has a great year and 2. avoids significant injury.

The Cowboys are having their cake (keeping the player) and eating it too (avoiding long term risk and putting risk of injury all on Lawrence). It doesn't really matter if you like it or not, that's what the Cowboys are doing.

About the only risk the Cowboys are really taking on is the risk that Lawrence will cost more next year to resign than he does now. But if the team is willing to part with Lawrence if he is too expensive they don't risk a lot when it comes to that either because they can probably get more out of him in a trade next year if he blows up and has a great year.

So there is in fact "risk", whether you "like it or not." If he has another great season, he costs much much more to keep next year.

 

[Stash]

You can't keep quality depth if you don't have the money to pay for it. The salary cap is a finite resource.

And you still have never answered the question of who else they'd have to pay or risk losing if they did pay Lawrence?

Sounds like a Boogeyman argument.

 

[Verdict]

And you still have never answered the question of who else they'd have to pay or risk losing if they did pay Lawrence?

Sounds like a Boogeyman argument.

I think you must be just having a rough day because I know you aren't that stupid. You are a smart guy. You can't spend the same cap dollar twice. It's a pretty simple premise.

Every cap dollar spent is a decision. Once it is spent it is gone. Every dollar spent affects the available cap. It means you can't spend it on the next guy.

It doesn't matter who the name is because it appplies to every player on the roster.

 

[conner01]

Contract demands ALWAYS matter. That's why Tank hasn't already been signed. It's all about the CAP and the risk vs reward vs the cap.

If he getting double digit sacks and you pay him top 5 money then that’s market value
The key is protecting yourself against him not being on the field
That’s what I was talking about. Structure like lee’s Deal. If he’s on the field he gets paid, if he’s in the training room that pay is much less
The biggest risk with him is availability and the idea is to protect yourself if he’s not availible

 

[conner01]

It's not really all that complicated. You don't over pay players. You don't pay for past performance. You don't let sentiment get in the way of doing what needs to be done.

You always pay for past performance since you don’t what the future holds
Don’t pay them when they get old and likely will see a drop but any 5th year player is gonna get paid based on what he did those first 4 yrsrs

 

[Hawkeye0202]

What amazes me .....how Cowboys fan wants a team of all pros being paid like rookies. There absolutely no reasons to think Dlaw will regress IMO.

 

[Stash]

I think you must be just having a rough day because I know you aren't that stupid. You are a smart guy. You can't spend the same cap dollar twice. It's a pretty simple premise.

Every cap dollar spent is a decision. Once it is spent it is gone. Every dollar spent affects the available cap. It means you can't spend it on the next guy.

It doesn't matter who the name is because it appplies to every player on the roster.

Why all the bold font? You seem annoyed?

And I think you're "smart" enough to realize that some of this team's players are going to get paid. Unless your plan is to simply let everyone walk.

Again, it seems like you're trying to justify not paying Lawrence while not being able to give a good reason why.

 

[Verdict]

If he getting double digit sacks and you pay him top 5 money then that’s market value
The key is protecting yourself against him not being on the field
That’s what I was talking about. Structure like lee’s Deal. If he’s on the field he gets paid, if he’s in the training room that pay is much less
The biggest risk with him is availability and the idea is to protect yourself if he’s not availible

The "market value" of a player is subjective, but let's say the market value of a "top 5 player" is $20,000,000 per year. For the sake of our exercise here let's say that number is not disputed, either by the player, or the team. Both agree that a fair market value for the hypothetical player is that amount. That's not really the end of your analysis.

The composition of every team is different and they may be in different stages of rebuilding. That should be taken into account. Moreover what makes sense for one team may not make sense for another. Also you have to decide what would be the dropoff if you let that player walk. You also have to consider readily available substitutes.

If you have a top 5 RB you could pay him, or draft his replacement in the first couple of rounds in the draft for a LOT less than that second contract will cost you and maybe just have a slight dropoff in talent, with a lot less mileage on the tires.

I'm not suggesting a team should go one way or the other on Lawrence or any other player, but smart teams weigh all their options and make good, sound decisions.

 

[Verdict]

Why all the bold font? You seem annoyed?

And I think you're "smart" enough to realize that some of this team's players are going to get paid. Unless your plan is to simply let everyone walk.

Again, it seems like you're trying to justify not paying Lawrence while not being able to give a good reason why.

Bold font is easier to read. Like I said before, I'm TEAM>Player regardless of the player. I'm not telling you what your priorities should be I'm just stating how I view things.

You want to see Lawrence paid. I want to see the risk put more on Lawrence than the team. But that's just me.

 

[Verdict]

What amazes me .....how Cowboys fan wants a team of all pros being paid like rookies. There absolutely no reasons to think Dlaw will regress IMO.

Well, in fairness, he hasn't really done anything special prior to last year. Lol.

 

[Verdict]

You always pay for past performance since you don’t what the future holds
Don’t pay them when they get old and likely will see a drop but any 5th year player is gonna get paid based on what he did those first 4 yrsrs

No. You project what you think they are and what they will be and stir it into your analysis of what they are worth. We have been paying Dez and a Witten for past performance for several years. Thank goodness this days are gone.

 

[conner01]

What amazes me .....how Cowboys fan wants a team of all pros being paid like rookies. There absolutely no reasons to think Dlaw will regress IMO.

We want all the stars
But we don’t want to pay them lol

 

[Verdict]

We want all the stars
But we don’t want to pay them lol

Yeah. Who doesn't. Lol. I can't imagine a Cowboys fan saying anything different. Lol

 

[conner01]

No. You project what you think they are and what they will be and stir it into your analysis of what they are worth. We have been paying Dez and a Witten for past performance for several years. Thank goodness this days are gone.

Wouldn’t your projection of what you think they are be based on what they’ve done?
The key is stay away from big cap numbers at the end of their career so moving on costs little