Not the same old salary cap

[ElGatoGrande]

I've read that with cuts and resigning key players the team is just 5mil under the projected cap. It will take major restructuring of several contracts to get anything near 50 mil of cap space. The recent mantra of cap responsibiliy was forced upon the team because of poor management, I'm not sure they want to repeat those mistakes. On the other hand, they've got a tiny window with Romo and they may want to find some middle ground between getting the financial house in order and going for broke, literally.

 

[Beast_from_East]

pushing money to the future to win in a window that we can right now is the best we can hope for...

you people need to realize once romo is done he are in full blown rebuild mode so screw the cap 5years from now cause we will be building from the floor up again

That is a point many fans are not realizing..............once Romo is done, we are going to suck so it doesn't matter what shape the cap is in at that point. What good does it do to be $50 million under the cap if your QB is Brandon Weeden or Dustin Vaughn?

Max that cap out right now while we have Romo for the next 2-3 years because its not going to matter after that point. We went through 17 starting QBs between Aikman and Romo, so don't start thinking we are just going to draft a guy and he turns into a stud overnight. Who knows how many QBs we will have to go through to find our next franchise guy.

The Colts are an anomaly, you don't go from one franchise QB to the next....................if it was so easy, teams like the Titans and Browns would not suck year in and year out looking for a franchise QB.

 

[starfrombirth]

..............once Romo is done, we are going to suck so it doesn't matter what shape the cap is in at that point...

I really don't like this line of thinking and it is a fallacy. To say that we sucked after Aikman so we are going to suck after Romo retires is tantamount to saying Green bay sucked after Favre and New England sucked after Bledsoe... which we all know DIDN'T actually happen. You can't build a team now, so loaded with a financial burden that you have no financial ability/flexibility in a few years. That's irresponsible because you never know what will happen in the future and whether or not breaks are going to fall your way. We have every chance into stumbling (or finding) the next great quarterback the same way Green Bay or New England did and it would be nice to know we didn't blow any financial chance we had to be competitive.

Also, the way Jerry is running the team, the way they look to acquire and keep / get rid of talent has changed. I think we can all agree it has changed for the better over the last few years and as long as Jerry keeps current management in place, there is no reason to believe it won't continue. This means we have caught back up with the upper tier teams in talent evaluation and acquisition.

Therefore, the idea that we need to spend now because we are going to suck once Romo retires is both irresponsible and ludicrous.

 

[daveferr33]

I can't get my head around thinking that the Salary Cap is not a real thing.

Dallas had over 27 million in dead money in 2014. That is 27 million worth of money not spent upgrading the roster. Dallas had a pretty good team in 2014. In fact, many (including myself) think it was good enough to compete for a SB. Could some of that money been spent getting this team over the hump?

Simply put, having that much dead money put this team at a competitive disadvantage this year. We mortgaged the future to get to a string of 8-8 seasons. Then when we actually had a good team, we didn't have the money to get better because we mortgaged that future. Some of you are prepared to repeat that process. I disagree with that approach.

The Salary Cap is a real thing.

 

[birdwells1]

Being smart and frugal doesn't help win games by itself. At some point it's about diminishing returns. I haven't heard anything about not restructuring Romo, that sounds like a team that is more worried about the bottom line than winning.

Mercedes costs more than Chevys for a reason. Sometimes you have to pay for quality and consistency and not just hope to get lucky at the swap meet.

This right here, someone mentioned that we could get 2 player for what we could sign Suh for but at some point you have to get talent. If not Suh then the next player needs to be an accomplished pass rusher and that will cost money.

 

[CyberB0b]

I can't get my head around thinking that the Salary Cap is not a real thing.

Dallas had over 27 million in dead money in 2014. That is 27 million worth of money not spent upgrading the roster. Dallas had a pretty good team in 2014. In fact, many (including myself) think it was good enough to compete for a SB. Could some of that money been spent getting this team over the hump?

Simply put, having that much dead money put this team at a competitive disadvantage this year. We mortgaged the future to get to a string of 8-8 seasons. Then when we actually had a good team, we didn't have the money to get better because we mortgaged that future. Some of you are prepared to repeat that process. I disagree with that approach.

The Salary Cap is a real thing.

I don't buy the "Jerry doesn't let a guy walk when he really wants him" mantra, either. If that were the case, Ware would still be here.

 

[Galian Beast]

I don't buy the "Jerry doesn't let a guy walk when he really wants him" mantra, either. If that were the case, Ware would still be here.

Wrong, because Jerry didn't really want Ware. His production was down, and his cost was high.

If Ware was the same guy he was back in the day, Jones would have had no problem paying him, but he wasn't that guy.

 

[Galian Beast]

I can't get my head around thinking that the Salary Cap is not a real thing.

Dallas had over 27 million in dead money in 2014. That is 27 million worth of money not spent upgrading the roster. Dallas had a pretty good team in 2014. In fact, many (including myself) think it was good enough to compete for a SB. Could some of that money been spent getting this team over the hump?

Simply put, having that much dead money put this team at a competitive disadvantage this year. We mortgaged the future to get to a string of 8-8 seasons. Then when we actually had a good team, we didn't have the money to get better because we mortgaged that future. Some of you are prepared to repeat that process. I disagree with that approach.

The Salary Cap is a real thing.

I think your read on this was pretty poor. We didn't mortgage the future to get 8-8 seasons, we've been slowly rebuilding, and shedding bad contracts. You could probably make the argument that had they done an extreme rebuild here back in 2010, that we would have gotten over the hump faster, but all of those teams were able to compete and were in the hunt for the playoffs.

 

[Galian Beast]

I understand not wanting to spend top dollar on Suh, I disagree, but I get it

What I can't stand is acting like we can't afford the contract or the media acting like Dallas is always up against the cap. What happened 5 years ago is irrelevant to today's team. SJones has the team on solid ground and we can spend money just like every other team.

One thing we should avoid is tying up so much of the cap in a small number of players. That is how you get yourself into trouble. Especially with a guy like Suh. You've got to spread the cap around, which mitigates the risk of bad contracts, injury, poor performance, e.t.c.

 

[CyberB0b]

Wrong, because Jerry didn't really want Ware. His production was down, and his cost was high.

If Ware was the same guy he was back in the day, Jones would have had no problem paying him, but he wasn't that guy.

You just proved my point, and you don't even realize it.

 

[Galian Beast]

You just proved my point, and you don't even realize it.

No... I didn't... You got that entirely backwards....

 

[daveferr33]

we've been slowly rebuilding, and shedding bad contracts

This is where we disagree.

Here’s the problem with the claim the Cowboy have been slowly rebuilding. If that is the case, then current administration is really bad at rebuilding. It simply does not take five years to rebuild in todays NFL.

If you are rebuilding, you don’t do what the Cowboys did in 2013—restructure several players to get under the salary cap:

Miles Austin

Brandon Carr

Ryan Cook

DeMarcus Ware

Jason Witten

Jay Ratliff

Nate Livings

If you are rebuilding, you seriously consider whether a star player can be used as trade bait to get younger. This is what Johnson did with Walker. Cowboys could have done the same with Ware at some point. They never considered it. Why? Because they never were in rebuilding mode.

If you are rebuilding, then you don’t repeatedly and consistently waste draft picks to move up and get your guy. Instead, you move back and acquire as many picks as possible.

If you are rebuilding, you don’t go out and buy the most expensive cornerback on the free agent market, especially when you have to restructure contracts in order to do so.

A team that is rebuilding does not end up with 27 million dollars in dead money in year 5 of the rebuild.

 

[perrykemp]

A team that is rebuilding does not end up with 27 million dollars in dead money in year 5 of the rebuild.

Nice post and good points.

Anybody who doesn't think the Cowboys dead money in 2014 didn't hurt them competitively is fooling themselves.

 

[Galian Beast]

This is where we disagree.

Here’s the problem with the claim the Cowboy have been slowly rebuilding. If that is the case, then current administration is really bad at rebuilding. It simply does not take five years to rebuild in todays NFL.

If you are rebuilding, you don’t do what the Cowboys did in 2013—restructure several players to get under the salary cap:

Miles Austin

Brandon Carr

Ryan Cook

DeMarcus Ware

Jason Witten

Jay Ratliff

Nate Livings

If you are rebuilding, you seriously consider whether a star player can be used as trade bait to get younger. This is what Johnson did with Walker. Cowboys could have done the same with Ware at some point. They never considered it. Why? Because they never were in rebuilding mode.

If you are rebuilding, then you don’t repeatedly and consistently waste draft picks to move up and get your guy. Instead, you move back and acquire as many picks as possible.

If you are rebuilding, you don’t go out and buy the most expensive cornerback on the free agent market, especially when you have to restructure contracts in order to do so.

A team that is rebuilding does not end up with 27 million dollars in dead money in year 5 of the rebuild.

Not all rebuilds look the same. That's your first mistake. We were rebuilding but we still had core players on the team and were trying to compete and win.

It's true, most rebuilds don't take 5 years, but it is also true that most rebuilds are a lot uglier than ours was.

When you have a QB like Tony Romo who is getting older, you don't completely dismantle the team. You try and keep it competitive. Unfortunately, they felt short four years in a row.

Also in the process of rebuilding the front office lost faith in Rob Ryan and the 3-4. Which created a rebuilding process within a rebuilding process.

With the contracts a lot of these players had, they weren't trade bait.

The salary cap penalty also slowed down the rebuilding process.

You look at every position group since 2010 and you can see that we rebuilt.

 

[Galian Beast]

We got the most expensive corner back on the market as part of a plan to rebuild the defense.

Brandon Carr was 26 when Dallas signed him. We also got the top rated corner in the draft.

This was so that we could play a man pressure defense that Rob Ryan wanted. The front office lost patience with Rob's defense and injuries played a large part.

That cost us two years, but for a while it was looking like that defense could have been really good.

 

[xwalker]

I've been reading a ton of comments this past week saying the team can't afford Murray or Suh. This just isn't the truth. Dallas is 13m under the cap right now and with a few cuts(Carr, Melton, Free) and restructures(Romo, TSmith) they can get to 50m under the cap.

As fans we have become fooled into thinking the salary cap is some sort of monster and we should always be in fear of waking it up. But it's never been the problem it has been made out to be and will not be a problem in the near future. It's just numbers and accounting that can manipulated to serve any purpose the team wants. If it wants to look like they are tight against the cap they won't restructure Romo or TSmith.

They have a bunch of FAs to resign with Dez, Murray and the LBers being the most important. But they will have plenty of money to sign anyone that they want. JJones was playing coy last week when he said it would be difficult to resign Dez and Murray. That's just negotiating in the press because it would be simple to sign them both.

The team has drafted a lot better recently and that is the main reason for the 13-5 record. But the team doesn't have to sacrifice talent to stay under the salary cap. They can spend freely just like every other team. Just because they have been burned in the past by FAs that is a terrible reason not to sign one in the future. Bad draft classes have been just as much a reason for lack of playoff appearances over the years as bad FAs and extensions. People like to use the salary cap as the boogeyman, but it was a few bad trades and signings that did the damage.

My main point is that it would be to the teams advantage to spend up to the cap as much possible. Using restructures with large signing bonuses that can be spread out and amortized over 5 years is a way to spend OVER the cap every year. Other teams are too cheap to do this, so that creates a big opportunity to sign players they won't. The cap is going up every year with all the TV deals that are signed, so now is the time to act. Romo isn't getting younger.

I've been someone who has said almost every year that the Cowboys cap is not as big of an issue as fans/media were saying; however, there are reasonable limits to this years cap. Yes, they could go all out with restructures and pushing a huge amount forward, but it's not really a good idea to take that to the extreme.

While they can free up a lot of space, keep in mind that the current cap figures don't account for any of the current free agents and will only count the top 51 players is off-season. Once the season starts they have to account for the 2 extra players over 51, all players on PUP or IR and the practices squad.

Around June they will need extra space to sign the draft picks.

If they Franchise Dez, that all hits the cap this year (about 13M) and can't be spread out over following years.

I do think they can re-sign any and all of their own free agents AND sign a top outside free agent; however, they need to stay away from stupid contracts like they gave out in the past.

Murray is not as much about this years cap as it is future years and his probability of declining. The history of RBs that were overused like he was this season is not good in following seasons.

They have to re-sign the majority of these players:

Unrestricted
Dez Bryant, wide receiver
Bruce Carter, linebacker
Tyler Clutts, fullback
Justin Durant, linebacker
Doug Free, tackle
Dwayne Harris, wide receiver
Nick Hayden, defensive tackle
Rolando McClain, linebacker
Henry Melton, defensive tackle
DeMarco Murray, running back
Jermey Parnell, tackle
George Selvie, defensive end
Anthony Spencer, defensive end
C.J. Spillman, safety
Tony Hills, tackle

Restricted free agents
Sterling Moore, cornerback
Cole Beasley, wide receiver
Lance Dunbar, running back
Chris Jones, punter

 

[xwalker]

At those numbers it makes sense (IMO) to do a Doug Free type of restructure. Restructure his contract down to 8MM guaranteed over the next two years so that you keep the player for the same cap hit as cutting him. Considering guys like Aqib Talib have a cap hit of 8MM this year after signing as a FA you may have to go higher than that however, assuming you want to keep him.

If I had the choice between an 7MM cap hit for cutting him or a cap hit of 8 to 10 million for keeping him over the next two years - I would chose the latter.

Flowers and A. Cromartie signed for 1-year 3M in 2014.

When I look at it I don't worry about dead-money. That amount stays regardless of whether the player is cut or remains, it just hits the cap at a different time.

For Carr they can free up 8M making him a June 1st cut. They question is how much of a pay cut will he take compared to how much will it cost to replace him. If he agrees to take a pay cut to 4M per season, then how do the available free agent CBs compare at that salary. It seems like they could free up the 8M by making him a June 1st cut and sign a better player for less than the 8M, but I'm just speculating on the market.

Flowers was a better player than Carr in 2014 and got paid 3M. How much would Flowers cost this year?

There are some guys that don't have big names like Buster Skrine that I think would be better than Carr. My guess is that a guy like Skrine will get a deal worth about 4M per season or max 6M per.

On the flip side, Carr does know Marinelli's system and would likely be better than another CB with similar or slightly better physical ability.

I definitely wouldn't guarantee Carr anything past this season if he agrees to a pay cut. IIRC, with Doug Free they didn't guarantee the 2nd season, but there was a clause that if he was on the roster after the 3rd day of the next NFL season (March), then that years salary would become guaranteed. He and his agent wanted to avoid having the Cowboys hold him out of free agency until June and then push him for a pay cut which is what they did when he originally took the pay cut.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

'Cap Hell' only occurs when you have to get rid of players and you do not have anybody that can replace that player and perform anywhere nearly as well as that player did. Or a player leaves at a moderate price and we can't replace that player's performance.

I mentioned this before this season and many scoffed at the notion and we see where their idea of 'cap hell' got us...12-4 and winning the division.

This past season we were hearing we are in 'cap hell' because Miles Austin was released, Ware was released and Hatcher left town.

Austin was already replaced by Terrence Williams. Hatcher was overpaid by the Skins (they gave him 3x what Dallas and the Titans were offering) and we replaced him with Tyrone Crawford. And Ware was a shell of his former self and was unreliable due to injuries.

I would put Murray possibly in the Hatcher category...a very productive player that may end up getting too much because he won't likely produce at the same level again. And we have a younger player that could possibly be very productive in his place the next season.

I would put Carr in the Ware category...a player paid too much for their level of production and we might be looking at a draft pick to replace him.

As far as Suh goes, I don't see a reason to try and take him. I don't hate the guy, but he's going to be pricey and we need more help in the secondary and DE. If you look at the Seahawks defense versus our defense, the largest difference is the secondary. I think Scandrick is the only one that could start in their secondary right now. I'm not even sure Moore and Church would make their 53-man roster. We also need a 1-tech DT. You can put Crawford and Suh in the same lineup, but I think given Kiffin and Marinelli's past, they have been able to find suitable 1-tech DT's in the middle rounds of the draft.





YR

 

[TwentyOne]

I've been reading a ton of comments this past week saying the team can't afford Murray or Suh. This just isn't the truth. Dallas is 13m under the cap right now and with a few cuts(Carr, Melton, Free) and restructures(Romo, TSmith) they can get to 50m under the cap.

As fans we have become fooled into thinking the salary cap is some sort of monster and we should always be in fear of waking it up. But it's never been the problem it has been made out to be and will not be a problem in the near future. It's just numbers and accounting that can manipulated to serve any purpose the team wants. If it wants to look like they are tight against the cap they won't restructure Romo or TSmith.

They have a bunch of FAs to resign with Dez, Murray and the LBers being the most important. But they will have plenty of money to sign anyone that they want. JJones was playing coy last week when he said it would be difficult to resign Dez and Murray. That's just negotiating in the press because it would be simple to sign them both.

The team has drafted a lot better recently and that is the main reason for the 13-5 record. But the team doesn't have to sacrifice talent to stay under the salary cap. They can spend freely just like every other team. Just because they have been burned in the past by FAs that is a terrible reason not to sign one in the future. Bad draft classes have been just as much a reason for lack of playoff appearances over the years as bad FAs and extensions. People like to use the salary cap as the boogeyman, but it was a few bad trades and signings that did the damage.

My main point is that it would be to the teams advantage to spend up to the cap as much possible. Using restructures with large signing bonuses that can be spread out and amortized over 5 years is a way to spend OVER the cap every year. Other teams are too cheap to do this, so that creates a big opportunity to sign players they won't. The cap is going up every year with all the TV deals that are signed, so now is the time to act. Romo isn't getting younger.

What people dont understand is that getting under the cap is not and will never be the problem. But most point exactly that out as an argument that we have no cap problems (including JJs stupid son).

But we had problems in the past and really big ones.

Why ?

Because the cap is not implementent to get teams in problems by getting under the cap. It is implemented to make teams competitive again.

And you are not competitive when you are 10 millions under the cap but all others teams are 50 mills under. You still cant afford the important players because others have more money to spend.

And we werent competitive for the last decade because most of the others teams had much more money to spend when the new season started.

Sure we had good cap numbers in June, but at this point nobody cares anymore. All the important deals are already made.

AGAIN:

The cap is implemented to make teams competitive again. And competitivness shows in comparision to others teams and how much they can spend. Not in being able to get under the cap.

 

[TwentyOne]

'Cap Hell' only occurs when you have to get rid of players and you do not have anybody that can replace that player and perform anywhere nearly as well as that player did. Or a player leaves at a moderate price and we can't replace that player's performance.

I wouldnt say "only". Without that word i think you defined cap hell really well.

I for myself would even go a step further: If you are not able (because of monetary reasons) to make the necessesary moves to make your team better you are in cap hell.