Lions announce Suh won't be tagged

[Nightman]

Sure but is that the best plan? If you extend Romo and Witten, who are much closer to the end then the beginning, there is a good chance you are paying for players who are no longer on the field.

Lather, rinse, repeat

That is the beauty of it. There is always someone to restructure.

If you have 15m in Dead Money, but created 30m in cap space you are still way ahead. Add in a cap that has gone up 20m in 2 years and there are no worries.

 

[Texas_Pete]

Suh would play Warren Sapp's role in Marinelli's scheme. Pair him with an ever improving T Crawford and watch our defense take the next step towards dominance. Do it Jerry!

 

[big dog cowboy]

We could spend if we want to. We are 34m under the cap if we restructure Romo, TSmith and Witten and that includes Dez' 13m cap hit.

Yeah we could do all that I suppose. But I don't think the Executive Of The Year of a 12-4 team sees that in the Cowboys future.

 

[Nightman]

Yeah we could do all that I suppose. But I don't think the Executive Of The Year of a 12-4 team sees that in the Cowboys future.

If he wants Murray-6, Hardy-10 and 5-6 of our own FAs like McClain-2, Durant-1.5, Carter-3, Free/Parnell-3, Moore-1.5 and Beasley-1.5 he should clean his glasses so he can see things clearer.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If he wants Murray-6, Hardy-10 and 5-6 of our own FAs like McClain-2, Durant-1.5, Carter-3, Free/Parnell-3, Moore-1.5 and Beasley-1.5

We don't know that is true. Some of it is. But all of it? I doubt it.

 

[Nightman]

We don't know that is true. Some of it is. But all of it? I doubt it.

Some I will take. I don't want them to use the cap as the reason to be frugal.

Suh seems to be off the table, but they should look into it.

 

[waving monkey]

We could spend if we want to. We are 34m under the cap if we restructure Romo, TSmith and Witten and that includes Dez' 13m cap hit.

Ya, I could go take loan on a bigger home and credit up the furniture to fill the rooms.

 

[Nightman]

Ya, I could go take loan on a bigger home and credit up the furniture to fill the rooms.

Except it was not only an interest free loan but it paid you cash back and your job gave you an 8% raise every year

 

[waving monkey]

thats pretty glib and have read it before

the inflationary contracts eat up this increases
to the cap. You can only have so many Cadillacs
in the garage

 

[Nightman]

thats pretty glib and have read it before

the inflationary contracts eat up this increases
to the cap. You can only have so many Cadillacs
in the garage

You don't win any points for being way under the cap. That shouldn't be the goal.

It's a bit of a balancing act but teams should spend over the cap every year if they want an advantage over teams that refuse to spend.

 

[waving monkey]

said nothing about being way under the cap bknight
ask the smart winning teams that keep their cap straight
I gotta go will return

 

[AzorAhai]

quote="DoctorChicken, post: 5996490, member: 37855"]I don't know if you know what Garrett means when he sings his "RKG" song.[/quote]

Dallas does not need more low end free agents. They already had a good team last year and have plenty of developmental players of which a few will likely step up this year.

They need a couple of impact players.

In regards to RKG, the top requirement is a guy that loves football. Bobbie Carpenter was NOT an RKG despite never being in trouble.

I thought it a RKG was a boy scout, someone you wouldnt mind dating your daughter

 

[Nightman]

said nothing about being way under the cap bknight
ask the smart winning teams that keep their cap straight
I gotta go will return

It's not that complicated. You can and should restructure most of your large contracts if you need to fill holes. If you are going to keep them that year anyways it's just paying them earlier in a lump sum. It allows maximum flexibility and adds very little risk. The problem is making bad personnel decisions, not the accounting method used to manipulate the cap rules.

If you consistently restructure contracts and prorate signing bonuses the bill will never come due, especially when the cap goes up dramatically. There are always contracts to rework and old large contracts are replaced with new medium sized ones. Just keep drafting well and get rid of guys a year early instead of a year late.

 

[big dog cowboy]

You don't win any points for being way under the cap. That shouldn't be the goal.

It's a bit of a balancing act but teams should spend over the cap every year if they want an advantage over teams that refuse to spend.

But each team has a cap minimum they have to spend and I believe it is 89% but could be wrong. That figures out to about $127.5M so to say teams refuse to spend is an exageration.

 

[ConstantReboot]

He's going to wind up in Seattle unfortunately.

Why would he want to play in Seattle? He mentioned he wanted to play for a team with great media exposure such as New York, Chicago or Dallas. I can see him playing for the Giants first before going to Seattle.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Yep, we are and will definitely look for bargains down at the "Goodwill Center" just like last year. Suh will not
even visit Dallas and Hardy won't either because he's not a JG "RKOG" candidate. If he was in the draft, he
would be placed in the box. Can you imagine the field day Dallas mediots would have with Hardy's reputation
being in our locker room. We don't need those kinds of distractions. Look elsewhere for DL grasshopper.

Distraction? Hardy was great lockerroom guy. I don't know where you got that idea that he stirred up trouble in the lockerroom.

 

[waving monkey]

It's not that complicated. You can and should restructure most of your large contracts if you need to fill holes. If you are going to keep them that year anyways it's just paying them earlier in a lump sum. It allows maximum flexibility and adds very little risk. The problem is making bad personnel decisions, not the accounting method used to manipulate the cap rules.

If you consistently restructure contracts and prorate signing bonuses the bill will never come due, especially when the cap goes up dramatically. There are always contracts to rework and old large contracts are replaced with new medium sized ones. Just keep drafting well and get rid of guys a year early instead of a year late.

You can and should restructure. we just disagree on this point
but that's fine and if they do I'll be happy

 

[ConstantReboot]

I'm guessing he ends up in Oakland....right coach, right team, plenty of money.

Correction. Plenty of cap space. Not plenty of money.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Why would he want to play in Seattle? He mentioned he wanted to play for a team with great media exposure such as New York, Chicago or Dallas. I can see him playing for the Giants first before going to Seattle.

i read somewhere not too long ago where he has said he'd love to play for Seattle in that defense.

I just wouldn't be surprised if that's where he winds up.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lather, rinse, repeat

That is the beauty of it. There is always someone to restructure.

If you have 15m in Dead Money, but created 30m in cap space you are still way ahead. Add in a cap that has gone up 20m in 2 years and there are no worries.

No. That's not necessarily true IMO. Cap has to be managed. The Commanders did that for years. Look where they are now. We had to get rid of Ware and Hatcher last year because of cap implications. How much difference would either one of those players made last season in Green Bay? I don't agree with that.