McCray tendered

[Proximo]

It's about both. is thats so hard to get? if the Cowboys Danny McCray today. it would not make a dime worth difference between winning and losing next year.they need to stop overvaluing average players like this.

So if it's about both then where are the examples? Who are the other "Danny McCrays" on the team that are preventing the 'Boys from signing players that have "real" value.

You think he's overvalued at a price tag of 1.3M that's not even guaranteed? Get real dude. Your stance is laughable. Like someone else just said they could cut him and it would have no cap hit.

 

[jnday]

HA This is seriously your response? That's the best you have to justify your ridiculous stance that:

"resources spent on a special teams player that offers little production on the defense side of the ball, could effect the signing of players that could offer more value. It is a legit concern. Not a negative concern."

PLEASE. So let me ask you, if they would've tendered McCray for 500,000 dollars would you be in here complaining and taking the same stance?

Now you are trying to lay some anti-McCray agenda on me? I prefer a player that can be productive on the offensive or defensive side of the ball while playing on special teams. They offer more value. I don't believe that McCray is a special teams ace like some posters do. Bates was, but he also was a very productive player on defense. McCray is not. You think this is a vendetta against McCray, but it is simply a matter of value.

 

[cowboyvic]

So if it's about both then where are the examples? Who are the other "Danny McCrays" on the team that are preventing the 'Boys from signing players that have "real" value.

You think he's overvalued at a price tag of 1.3M that's not even guaranteed? Get real dude. Your stance is laughable. Like someone else just said they could cut him and it would have no cap hit.

here we go. take that 1.3 million. and then cut Spears , who makes a little more than 2 million. that might get you a guy like Eric Winston or someone else to play RT for you. this team is 6 million dollars over the cap as i type this. we are in cap hell. and every dollar counts. it's really not that hard to understand.

 

[Proximo]

Now you are trying to lay some anti-McCray agenda on me? I prefer a player that can be productive on the offensive or defensive side of the ball while playing on special teams. They offer more value. I don't believe that McCray is a special teams ace like some posters do. Bates was, but he also was a very productive player on defense. McCray is not. You think this is a vendetta against McCray, but it is simply a matter of value.

HAHAHA, I'm not laying any agenda on anybody. In an earlier post you stated, and I quote:

"The resources spent on a special teams player that offers little production on the defense side of the ball, could effect the signing of players that could offer more value. It is a legit concern. Not a negative concern"

Do you realize how ridiculous this is? Giving McCray a 1.3mil tender that's not even guaranteed is absolutely 100% not going to affect the signing of anybody else. If it was going to they could just cut him.

Nobody is claiming this team doesn't have bad contracts on the books. But this McCray tendering is absolutely not one of them. So using this thread as a springboard to dive into your spiel about how "enough of these McCray decisions, they add up. A couple of more, and it could cost a decent player somewhere down the line" is completely unfounded (and those are your words by the way, from an earlier post). This McCray deal isn't going to prevent the team from doing anything. And a million more deals like them won't either, because they can cut him at no cost.

 

[Proximo]

here we go. take that 1.3 million. and then cut Spears , who makes a little more than 2 million. that might get you a guy like Eric Winston or someone else to play RT for you. this team is 6 million dollars over the cap as i type this. we are in cap hell. and every dollar counts. it's really not that hard to understand.

What's hard to understand about McCray's deal not being guaranteed? If they absolutely need that 1.3mil to sign somebody else then they can just cut McCray at no cost and move on. So what are you complaining about?

 

[TheRomoSexual]

HAHAHA, I'm not laying any agenda on anybody. In an earlier post you stated, and I quote:

"The resources spent on a special teams player that offers little production on the defense side of the ball, could effect the signing of players that could offer more value. It is a legit concern. Not a negative concern"

Do you realize how ridiculous this is? Giving McCray a 1.3mil tender that's not even guaranteed is absolutely 100% not going to affect the signing of anybody else. If it was going to they could just cut him.

Nobody is claiming this team doesn't have bad contracts on the books. But this McCray tendering is absolutely not one of them. So using this thread as a springboard to dive into your spiel about how "enough of these McCray decisions, they add up. A couple of more, and it could cost a decent player somewhere down the line" is completely unfounded (and those are your words by the way, from an earlier post). This McCray deal isn't going to prevent the team from doing anything. And a million more deals like them won't either, because they can cut him at no cost.

Exactly. Why is this concept so difficult for some to grasp?

 

[Avery]

McCray is depth and this a depth deal.

 

[jnday]

HAHAHA, I'm not laying any agenda on anybody. In an earlier post you stated, and I quote:

"The resources spent on a special teams player that offers little production on the defense side of the ball, could effect the signing of players that could offer more value. It is a legit concern. Not a negative concern"

Do you realize how ridiculous this is? Giving McCray a 1.3mil tender that's not even guaranteed is absolutely 100% not going to affect the signing of anybody else. If it was going to they could just cut him.

Nobody is claiming this team doesn't have bad contracts on the books. But this McCray tendering is absolutely not one of them. So using this thread as a springboard to dive into your spiel about how "enough of these McCray decisions, they add up. A couple of more, and it could cost a decent player somewhere down the line" is completely unfounded (and those are your words by the way, from an earlier post). This McCray deal isn't going to prevent the team from doing anything. And a million more deals like them won't either, because they can cut him at no cost.

I stand by my words. You don't have to remind me what I said in an earlier post. The "cutting them at no cost has no bearing on my point. This one deal is a small example of severel problems on many levels. You will blindly support the decision and overlook any point that you don't agree with, if you understand the point to begin with.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

I stand by my words. You don't have to remind me what I said in an earlier post. The "cutting them at no cost has no bearing on my point. This one deal is a small example of severel problems on many levels. You will blindly support the decision and overlook any point that you don't agree with, if you understand the point to begin with.

Dude, just because someone isn't jumping off a bridge because of a tender designation does not mean that person is 'blindly supporting" the move. It's just that the move, when considering the money is not guaranteed, is nearly trivial. So, continue to jump at every chance you get, while others will rationally analyze the impact of a decision before coming to a conclusion either way.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

His salary is not guaranteed!

They can cut him in training camp with no cap hit.

Please don't dazzle us with facts.

 

[burmafrd]

the only good thing about this deal is that it is not guaranteed.

 

[jobberone]

I suspect this means that they are fine with McCray being the potential starting Safety next year if Johnson can't stay healthy and they don't find a draftee who is capable of starting in his first year.

I don't think they are tendering him because he is a good ST player. It is because he is the contingency plan at Safety.

We rarely disagree but I do think this signing is for STs and CYA for safety. I don't think they want to put him out there as a starting safety at all but I suspect there is so much unknown about the ability of Church to play without a recurrence of his injury and just what do they have with Johnson.

I will be a tad surprised if we don't try to sign a vet FA S and we'll be looking to draft one as well. I doubt cutting him would create much cap consequences either.

 

[DoomsDayD]

I think it's a good deal. He's a great special teams player and we need as many great players we can get.

GREAT PLAYER?????? You are kidding right!! This is how low we have sunk in cowboy world.

 

[Proximo]

I stand by my words. You don't have to remind me what I said in an earlier post. The "cutting them at no cost has no bearing on my point. This one deal is a small example of severel problems on many levels. You will blindly support the decision and overlook any point that you don't agree with, if you understand the point to begin with.

HA, this is great.

Now that it's painfully obvious that you have no legs to stand on in this thread you say you're going to "stand by your words". That's awesome. It's obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that this McCray deal is NOT a "small example of several problems on many levels", as you say. This is actually a smart deal for the team. It's not guaranteed, it's a low salary, and they can cut him if they want at no expense (whether it's to sign someone else, or because he simply underperforms). If anything it's an example of the Cowboys making a good deal, and they should probably make more of them.

You just wanted to stroll in here and use this thread and the McCray deal as a soapbox for you to complain about this teams problems. Didn't work out so well for you.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

GREAT PLAYER?????? You are kidding right!! This is how low we have sunk in cowboy world.

Perhaps you should learn the subtle, yet significant, distinction between saying someone is a great player, and saying someone is a great SPECIAL TEAMS players. Seriously, it's not that difficult.

 

[gimmesix]

His salary is not guaranteed!

They can cut him in training camp with no cap hit.

No matter how many times this is said, some are going to still complain.

 

[gimmesix]

Perhaps you should learn the subtle, yet significant, distinction between saying someone is a great player, and saying someone is a great SPECIAL TEAMS players. Seriously, it's not that difficult.

I didn't think McCray was a great special teams player last year, but that's beside the point to me.

Dallas gave him a tender that will allow the Cowboys to bring him back to camp to compete for one of the final spot on their roster. Ideally, those are guys you are trying to upgrade in camp, BUT sometimes you can't. If Dallas can, then McCray will be cut and it costs Dallas nothing. And he's not the only one.

 

[jnday]

HA, this is great.

Now that it's painfully obvious that you have no legs to stand on in this thread you say you're going to "stand by your words". That's awesome. It's obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that this McCray deal is NOT a "small example of several problems on many levels", as you say. This is actually a smart deal for the team. It's not guaranteed, it's a low salary, and they can cut him if they want at no expense (whether it's to sign someone else, or because he simply underperforms). If anything it's an example of the Cowboys making a good deal, and they should probably make more of them.

You just wanted to stroll in here and use this thread and the McCray deal as a soapbox for you to complain about this teams problems. Didn't work out so well for you.

Yeah, it is a good deal to to keep a safety that makes you miss Alan Ball. A good, not great special teams player that shouldn't be on the field with the defense. McCray is taking up a locker that an actual safety could be using. They should sign more of these bargains that has no other ability than to play special teams. There is no need to say that they need a chance to evaluate him in training camp. He is not a rookie. They know he has no business being on a NFL defense. That is the point that you and your buddies are missing. He is not a good football player. I would rather see Ball back on the team than waste another second on McCray. You are saying that the team needs to sign several more of these deals. For what? Don't give me the excuse because of special teams. A roster should not consist of special team only players.
I guess you think your two bits made me regret my position. You have not proven any point other than you support subpar talent on the roster and want to add more of it. Exactly how didn't this work out so well?

 

[big dog cowboy]

His salary is not guaranteed!

They can cut him in training camp with no cap hit.

:fact:

 

[Proximo]

Yeah, it is a good deal to to keep a safety that makes you miss Alan Ball. A good, not great special teams player that shouldn't be on the field with the defense. McCray is taking up a locker that an actual safety could be using. They should sign more of these bargains that has no other ability than to play special teams. There is no need to say that they need a chance to evaluate him in training camp. He is not a rookie. They know he has no business being on a NFL defense. That is the point that you and your buddies are missing. He is not a good football player. I would rather see Ball back on the team than waste another second on McCray. You are saying that the team needs to sign several more of these deals. For what? Don't give me the excuse because of special teams. A roster should not consist of special team only players.
I guess you think your two bits made me regret my position. You have not proven any point other than you support subpar talent on the roster and want to add more of it. Exactly how didn't this work out so well?

Dude just give it up already. There is nothing wrong with the McCray deal. It's an unguaranteed tender whereby they can basically just bring him in to compete in camp and cut him if 1) he doesn't play well enough to make the cut, or 2) they need the cap space to sign someone else. THAT IS WHY IT'S A GOOD DEAL. They can cut him if needed and it won't result in dead money.

He's a proven asset to the special teams. If he can make the cut, fine. I'm not saying he's great in any capacity. If you think my point is that I "support subpar talent on the roster" then your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. My point is, and was, that this is a smart deal for the team because they have nothing to lose and it won't result in dead weight. Not only that, but you fail to acknowledge the fact that the team is installing a completely new defensive scheme this year. Has it occurred to you that perhaps Monte has watched the tape and has a more suitable role for him on the actual defense than what Rob Ryan did?