Not the same old salary cap

[burmafrd]

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.

letting ware walk was the best example of the cap hindering us. Jerruh really wanted to keep him but could not.

 

[Nightman]

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

Letting Ware go had nothing to do with Dead Money. It was getting rid a player a year early instead of year late.

He was no longer producing at the level he was getting paid.

He got 10 sacks for 10m(almost zero in the second half and playoffs), Mincey got 6 sacks for 1m and we drafted DLaw to replace them both

Restructuring Ware's contract thru the years freed up 10s of millions in cap space so a little dead money is not a big deal and just a different way to account for salaries under the cap

 

[daveferr33]

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

Getting "unstuck" cost this team plenty, perhaps a SB.

This team operated with $27 million in dead money on the books this season. That is 27 million dollars that could have been spent upgrading the pass rush, or the secondary. That is a real-world, 22 million dollar disadvantage to a team like GB, who had only about 5 million in dead money.

Despite the financial mismanagement, this team went 12-4 and made the divisional round.

Do you think some of that dead money could have been used to get this team to the SB?

 

[Nightman]

Getting "unstuck" cost this team plenty, perhaps a SB.

This team operated with $27 million in dead money on the books this season. That is 27 million dollars that could have been spent upgrading the pass rush, or the secondary. That is a real-world, 22 million dollar disadvantage to a team like GB, who had only about 5 million in dead money.

Despite the financial mismanagement, this team went 12-4 and made the divisional round.

Do you think some of that dead money could have been used to get this team to the SB?

Dallas was around 6m under the cap going into the season even with the 27m in dead money and finished 3.2m in the black

They didn't spend to the cap and didn't restructure Carr or Witten which would have saved another 15m.

Who did they miss out on that could not have been signed? That is a real stretch to say it cost them this year when they didn't even come close to spending the money available already.

Dead money from restructures is just a fraction of the savings that have already been accrued for years. It is just a smarter accounting method that takes a lot of cash upfront and a GM that isn't worried about his job year to year.

 

[waving monkey]

Getting "unstuck" cost this team plenty, perhaps a SB.

This team operated with $27 million in dead money on the books this season. That is 27 million dollars that could have been spent upgrading the pass rush, or the secondary. That is a real-world, 22 million dollar disadvantage to a team like GB, who had only about 5 million in dead money.

Despite the financial mismanagement, this team went 12-4 and made the divisional round.

Do you think some of that dead money could have been used to get this team to the SB?

 

[AdamJT13]

Do you think some of that dead money could have been used to get this team to the SB?

Unfortunately, the front office had no intention of trying to get to the Super Bowl this season at all costs. As bkight13 mentioned, we didn't even spend all of the cap room we had and didn't do some things that would have given us even more cap room. We didn't try to maximize the talent we had on the roster. We sacrificed a better chance at the Super Bowl for a better cap situation in the future. Hopefully it pays off down the road, but it definitely hurt us this season.

 

[perrykemp]

Who did they miss out on that could not have been signed? That is a real stretch to say it cost them this year when they didn't even come close to spending the money available already.
.

Julius Peppers would have been a nice addition to the defense. Might have actually one them another game somewhere along the way which would have gave them home field all the way.

Having said that, he look like he was done last year in Chicago and there wasn't a whole lot of interest across the league.

I do recall some folks here on CZ indicating they favored Peppers over the other guy DE that was available -- Jared Allen.

Obviously all hindsight.

 

[Nightman]

Julius Peppers would have been a nice addition to the defense. Might have actually one them another game somewhere along the way which would have gave them home field all the way.

Having said that, he look like he was done last year in Chicago and there wasn't a whole lot of interest across the league.

I do recall some folks here on CZ indicating they favored Peppers over the other guy DE that was available -- Jared Allen.

Obviously all hindsight.

They could have easily signed Peppers if they wanted to and he wanted to come here

He had a cap hit of 3.5m last year on a 3yr/26m deal with only 7.5m guaranteed

 

[daveferr33]

That is a real stretch to say it cost them this year when they didn't even come close to spending the money available already.

Good points.

It is very possible that they chose not to spend up against the cap because they thought they might need the additional space down the road, or as AdamJT13 pointed out:

We sacrificed a better chance at the Super Bowl for a better cap situation in the future.

But to your point, I don't believe it is a stretch at all to think that wisely spending the 27 million would have gotten a team that was very close over the hump.

At any rate, I am glad that the front office appears to have figured out that their previous way of doing business--pushing dead money into the future by restructuring contracts--is not the best way to do business.

I think that people have defended that approach for so long (simply because that was how their favorite team operated) that they fail to see the wisdom in the pay as you go approach.

 

[Nightman]

Good points.

It is very possible that they chose not to spend up against the cap because they thought they might need the additional space down the road, or as AdamJT13 pointed out:



But to your point, I don't believe it is a stretch at all to think that wisely spending the 27 million would have gotten a team that was very close over the hump.

At any rate, I am glad that the front office appears to have figured out that their previous way of doing business--pushing dead money into the future by restructuring contracts--is not the best way to do business.

I think that people have defended that approach for so long (simply because that was how their favorite team operated) that they fail to see the wisdom in the pay as you go approach.

i don't think they have come to that conclusion at all and definitely don't agree that it is not a wise approach to the cap. If you can consistently spend 150% of the cap that is a clear advantage. As long as you create more space than you add in dead money, you will always be ahead. It's simple math.

 

[Nightman]

The salary cap and dead money get reset every year. You can go 10 years of being in cap hell, but that has no effect on Year 11. Once you get under the cap and in sound shape financially it doesn't matter what happened in the past. The salary cap has no memory.

Dallas fans and sports writers have seriously over blown the cap troubles over the years and wrongly attribute them to the act of restructuring and pushing money into the future. Bad contracts are bad contracts no matter what accounting method you use. Bad drafts have been the biggest problem in the past and forced Dallas to overspend on guys like Carr, RWilliams and Hamlin. Extensions to MBIII, Ratliff and Austin didn't work out, but that was bad luck, injuries and bad foresight, not the salary cap.

SJones seems to have a real good grasp on the cap and how to manipulate it. I hope he doesn't listen to the Chicken Littles out there and gets conservative right when the cap is rising drastically and Dallas has the best chance at Championship in ages. Now is not the time to be prudent. Extra cap space doesn't do a team any good in the playoffs.

 

[JohnsKey19]

The salary cap and dead money get reset every year. You can go 10 years of being in cap hell, but that has no effect on Year 11. Once you get under the cap and in sound shape financially it doesn't matter what happened in the past. The salary cap has no memory.

Dallas fans and sports writers have seriously over blown the cap troubles over the years and wrongly attribute them to the act of restructuring and pushing money into the future. Bad contracts are bad contracts no matter what accounting method you use. Bad drafts have been the biggest problem in the past and forced Dallas to overspend on guys like Carr, RWilliams and Hamlin.

Agreed. The best way to offset any future cap issues is adding 4+ good players in each draft class. Coming up empty or getting only 1-2 players out of draft class is what kills a team.

 

[Bluefin]

SJones seems to have a real good grasp on the cap and how to manipulate it. I hope he doesn't listen to the Chicken Littles out there and gets conservative right when the cap is rising drastically and Dallas has the best chance at Championship in ages. Now is not the time to be prudent. Extra cap space doesn't do a team any good in the playoffs.

$15M of Tony Romo's $17M 2015 base salary will be guaranteed if he's on the roster the first week of the league year in March.

There's no reason not to restructure how the money will count against the salary cap.

The team needs as much cap room as possible in order to handle using the franchise tag on Dez Bryant, should it be necessary, and to carry out the rest of their business in free agency.

Even with a restructure this year, Romo can be released with the June tag in 2016, should something awful happen and force the issue.

There'd be a huge dead money hit taking away cap space in 2017, but the cap will be $160M to $170M by that time, so it wouldn't really matter.

The problem would be losing Romo.

 

[john van brocklin]

Yes we can be $50M under the salary cap if we want to. That doesn't make it the smartest thing to do either. Pushing big dollars into the future only delays the pain.

Big Dog, we only got Romo for a few more years, go all IN now !!!

 

[big dog cowboy]

Big Dog, we only got Romo for a few more years, go all IN now !!!

How is that fair to the Cowboys players remaining after he leaves or to Romo's replacement?

 

[windward]

How is that fair to the Cowboys players remaining after he leaves or to Romo's replacement?

I don't see what pain will occur. At worst it might mean one bad season.

 

[xwalker]

letting ware walk was the best example of the cap hindering us. Jerruh really wanted to keep him but could not.

That's not really a good example. The 2014 cap didn't prevent them from keeping him. They didn't expect to be contender in the 2014 and decided that they would like to have more cap space in future years than to have Ware for 2014.

The Cowboys were not even concerned enough about the 2014 cap to make Ware a June 1st cut. They just cut him outright and took the entire hit of the dead money in 2014. If the cap was a big problem in 2014 then would not have done that.

 

[xwalker]

How is that fair to the Cowboys players remaining after he leaves or to Romo's replacement?

His replacement will likely be an inexpensive draft pick. The dead money plus the cost of Romo's replacement will likely be about equal to Romo's cap hit(s) while he is playing and that's only for the 1st year that he is gone.

Don't forget that not having a players base salary often offsets any dead money. The Cowboys gained cap space when they cut Ware despite having to absorb some dead money.

 

[Nightman]

$15M of Tony Romo's $17M 2015 base salary will be guaranteed if he's on the roster the first week of the league year in March.

There's no reason not to restructure how the money will count against the salary cap.

The team needs as much cap room as possible in order to handle using the franchise tag on Dez Bryant, should it be necessary, and to carry out the rest of their business in free agency.

Even with a restructure this year, Romo can be released with the June tag in 2016, should something awful happen and force the issue.

There'd be a huge dead money hit taking away cap space in 2017, but the cap will be $160M to $170M by that time, so it wouldn't really matter.

The problem would be losing Romo.

I agree, not having a franchise QB is a much bigger problem than the salary cap.

But when fans complain about dead money they never talk about all the salary cap space that was created. That space is real and is used to keep our own guys and sign new players. Worrying about dead money in the future is about hypothetical problems. Since the cap rises, the supposed pain is usually never even realized at all.

If they re-do Romo that is 12m in cap space this year that can be used to sign Dez AND Murray. To me that is worth adding 3m in dead money to 2017 that can be split with 2018.