Not the same old salary cap

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bringing up 2013 and not discussing Mara's penalty on us makes the entire discussion moot.

 

[Nightman]

And for you to assume I said anything about the quality of the Ware contract shows how little reading comprehension you have in general. Seriously, knock it off with the pretentious chest beating.

Then try to be a little less sarcastic with your response and people will be able to properly comprehend your messsage

 

[starfrombirth]

Finance major here buddy... it's actually the dumbest thing to consistently do.

I actually agree with you but I'd be interested in hearing why (without having read the rest of the posts after this one ).

 

[xwalker]

Finance major here buddy... it's actually the dumbest thing to consistently do.

The logic of managing the salary cap is completely different than the logic of managing finances in the real world.

Real world finances are based on the time value of money. That concept goes out he window with the salary cap because pushing money forward under the cap is basically a Zero interest loan. You can't get a true Zero interest loan in the real world.

 

[Sydla]

Finance major here buddy... it's actually the dumbest thing to consistently do.

Finance major with a masters as well here............. and you are wrong. As said, the principles of finance in the real world don't necessarily apply to the cap world.

Sure, the Cowboy shouldn't restructure everyone at once but it absolutely makes sense to restructure a few key guys here and there.

 

[Galian Beast]

The NFL salary cap actually represents a negative interest rate.

The value of the dollar in the NFL is constantly deflated and obvious there is no interest charged. When inflation is lower than the interest rate, you have a negative interest rate.

If you looked at a player's salary as a percentage of the salary cap as opposed to a specific dollar amount, that would change things, but that isn't how things are done.

A lot of people here confusing causality and correlation.

Signing free agents isn't what got us into cap trouble, overpaying our aging players who under performed and got injured is what got us into trouble. Signing over the hill free agents to long term contracts is what got us into trouble.

There is a level of risk involved in every transaction you make. Generally though you want low risk high reward. Moves like McClain speak to that. The cowboys have been pretty good at these low risk high reward signings, but to suggest that they're enough to get us over the hump? I doubt that they are.

 

[Galian Beast]

Another thing a lot of people don't understand is that restructuring is planned as part of contracts that extend beyond 5 years as you can only prorate signing bonus over 5 years. Usually these contracts have baked in the idea that years 2 and 3 will be restructured.

 

[Common Sense]

Another thing a lot of people don't understand is that restructuring is planned as part of contracts that extend beyond 5 years as you can only prorate signing bonus over 5 years. Usually these contracts have baked in the idea that years 2 and 3 will be restructured.

The team has a done a smart job of restructuring guaranteed salary in the second or third year to spread out over a longer window. That shouldn't be confused with converting non-guaranteed money to signing bonuses, though, which is what a lot of people are clamoring for right now. Jerry seems to be over that, however:

"If anything this year showed me that with the numbers [it works]," Jones said. "Now anytime you go too far in excess of theory, then you're going to get out of bounds. Everything has its moderation. But in general, loading up big-time on a player in an area that really requires just to some degree good solid intense consistent play, that might be not the way to go."

 

[TwoDeep3]

The window is now, not three years from now.

 

[Galian Beast]

The team has a done a smart job of restructuring guaranteed salary in the second or third year to spread out over a longer window. That shouldn't be confused with converting non-guaranteed money to signing bonuses, though, which is what a lot of people are clamoring for right now. Jerry seems to be over that, however:

"If anything this year showed me that with the numbers [it works]," Jones said. "Now anytime you go too far in excess of theory, then you're going to get out of bounds. Everything has its moderation. But in general, loading up big-time on a player in an area that really requires just to some degree good solid intense consistent play, that might be not the way to go."

Incorrect, any of these players who are on the roster as of the first day of the season will have their contracts guaranteed... To it is guaranteed money already.

 

[Common Sense]

Incorrect, any of these players who are on the roster as of the first day of the season will have their contracts guaranteed... To it is guaranteed money already.

That didn't work out so well with Jay Ratliff.

 

[Stryker44]

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.

The cap can still bite when you sign high-priced older FAs with alot of guaranteed money and they subsequently either suffer a career-ending injury or become a discontent and have to cut them.

 

[Nightman]

That didn't work out so well with Jay Ratliff.

Even with Ratliff, Austin, Ware and the 10m cap penalty, the Cowboys were able to Franchise Spencer in back to back years(20m), sign Romo to a 100m contract, give 50m to Carr, extend Sean Lee and OScan and still finish 4m under the cap.

 

[burmafrd]

Even with Ratliff, Austin, Ware and the 10m cap penalty, the Cowboys were able to Franchise Spencer in back to back years(20m), sign Romo to a 100m contract, give 50m to Carr, extend Sean Lee and OScan and still finish 4m under the cap.

and not do much of anything else that needed to be done.

 

[Nightman]

and not do much of anything else that needed to be done.

Like what??? We weren't one player away, so who did we miss on or let go that was such a mistake? TNew, Jenkins, Flozell, Gurode, MBIII, Hamlin, Hatcher???

 

[Longboysfan]

Can someone please tell us how we can get to $50M under the cap with cuts and restructures? I think I've only heard it 50,000 times.

And then in 2 years not be stuck like we were before.....

Please Stephen think this through. Not a 1 or 2 year get it all.

 

[Nightman]

And then in 2 years not be stuck like we were before.....

Please Stephen think this through. Not a 1 or 2 year get it all.

Just exactly how were we stuck and how hard was it to get unstuck????

 

[Brooksey]

Ndamukong Suh would be the starting UT.

Tyrone Crawford would be his back-up.

Even if both play on passing downs, you are still limiting the development of the best young DL on the roster at this time.

I don't see any reason to go that route.

And the money some fans want to pay to sign Suh, should Detroit let him leave, should have Dez Bryant's name on it.

Such is a penetrating 1-tech who can also line up as the 3-tech. So if we signed him, I don't see that changing. He will command the double teams and open Crawford up, those two could play next to each other very easily.

 

[waving monkey]

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 not buy it otherwise I don't believe we'd have felt complied to let players like Ware walk.
Dead money can eventually strangle you.

 

[waving monkey]

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

we have been full blown rebuild with Romo.
there can be justification for credit card shopping but the
dead money can hurt