Opportunity Cost

[Galian Beast]

In 2014 the Dallas Cowboys are spending 53 million dollars on offense (which doesn't really touch on the restructured contract of Tony Romo, though mitigated somewhat in comparison to defensive spending by the restructures of Lee and Scandrick, but not significantly).

This ranks us 9th in the NFL. Generally I would say that the ROI is pretty good. I think we'll be much better than 9th in the NFL. The problem we run into is that we're only at 53 million because we restructured Romo, haven't paid Dez yet, and drafted a bunch of players on offense in the last few years.

How do we look on defense? Well only 3 teams in the NFL spend less money on defense than we do... We're at 43 million dollars on defense this year. This is where I'm going to start to get to my point about why we're going to have issues on defense. Out of that 43 million, 12.2 million dollars is going to Brandon Carr.... That's 28.3 percent of our defensive active budget... Morris Claiborne then comes in at 4.435 million dollars... when you add him and Carr together that brings us to 16.635 million dollars.

Nearly 40 percent of our entire defensive budget allocated to these two underperforming players, one of which can't even stay healthy...

It get's worse....

You add in Sean Lee (IR) and Orlando Scandrick (suspended 4 games)... and the total comes to 55 percent of our defensive budget.... 55% percent of our budget going to what will at best be 2 players on the field...

When you add our offensive and defensive active budgets together you get 96 million. A 50-50 split between offense and defense would give you 48 million. Let's say we spent 80% of our defensive budget on our 11 starters on defense. That would be 38.4 million dollars... divided by 11 players, the average cap hit would be about 3.5 million dollars.

Paying Brandon Carr 12.2 million dollars (cap not salary) is completely ridiculous. Especially when you consider how much less we're spending on defense than we are on offense.

I think it's important to realize when a player is paid in a position group you're either taking money out of that position group, that side of the football, or the entire team... Currently Brandon Carr is taking up the role of about 4 legit starters on defense, and certainly hasn't performed as such so far, and isn't likely to do so in whatever condition he is in.

So again, this is what I meant when I said I was given up on the defense. Not that I was giving up on the team or the season, but that the defense at its core is rotten. And it generally starts with our overpriced secondary, which makes it more difficult to afford suitable players on the defensive line.

Note to the reader: A lot of contracts are backloaded so you have to look at multiple years and contracts to see how things really stack up, but for the sake of argument I wanted to look at this year in a snapshot.

 

[Bluestang]

You forgot the dead money that they are being charged for that also takes away from the total salary cap of $133M.

 

[Bluestang]

I'd also add that the $99.5M in cap spending is the second lowest amount in the league.

 

[Galian Beast]

You forgot the dead money that they are being charged for that also takes away from the total salary cap of $133M.

You're right dead money is a factor, but there really isn't anything you can do about dead money at this point, so the it's kind of moot.

The reality on dead money though is that you shouldn't overpay players who are unlikely to perform to what they are being paid.

This is the question that comes to play when you think about paying a guy like Dez Bryant. In my view you have on one side:

A perennial pro bowl receiver whose impact on the game is significant but still limited in the role of a wide receiver.

On the other side you have:
Probably 3-5 legitimate starters say on defense from his salary alone. Potentially two stud players from draft picks you could get for trading him if you got two first round draft picks. So Does Dez Bryant equal 5-7 players? I don't think he does. And I think it's worth mentioning that and considering that before you pay him 12+ million a year.

Could our offense exist without Dez Bryant and be more successful with a significantly better defense? Just ask the Patriots when they let Randy Moss go.

 

[Hoofbite]

Jerry and Stephen used slight of hand with the salary cap for far too long, and they did it to basically just keep an average team intact.

While it looks as though they've finally figured out the obvious after about 6 or 7 seasons of futility, I'm still concerned their recent actions are little more than move out of necessity.

It's nice to see the different approach. I'm hesitant to believe it's entirely by choice.

 

[Galian Beast]

Jerry and Stephen used slight of hand with the salary cap for far too long, and they did it to basically just keep an average team intact.

While it looks as though they've finally figured out the obvious after about 6 or 7 seasons of futility, I'm still concerned their recent actions are little more than move out of necessity.

It's nice to see the different approach. I'm hesitant to believe it's entirely by choice.

Perhaps not by choice, but have they still learned the lesson? I think that is the bigger question. When they get more freedom will they continue to mortgage the future? I'd hope not.

We'll find out a lot about how they see things by how much they pay Dez.

 

[Bluestang]

Jerry and Stephen used slight of hand with the salary cap for far too long, and they did it to basically just keep an average team intact.

While it looks as though they've finally figured out the obvious after about 6 or 7 seasons of futility, I'm still concerned their recent actions are little more than move out of necessity.

It's nice to see the different approach. I'm hesitant to believe it's entirely by choice.

If they keep restructuring contracts, then they haven't learned anything.

It already appears like they have to go that route next year...

 

[Galian Beast]

If they keep restructuring contracts, then they haven't learned anything.

It already appears like they have to go that route next year...

Planned restructures are all apart of accounting practices, which are not necessarily unacceptable.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Opportunity cost typically lists actual opportunities.

I remember when going through the accounting last year we determined that we would have no issue signing Dez, Tyron, or anyone else.

The year to year thing is really ignorant to how accounting actually works if quite gratuitous to the 'realist' cause.

 

[Picksix]

If they keep restructuring contracts, then they haven't learned anything.

It already appears like they have to go that route next year...

They could have restructured Carr but didn't, so that's hopeful. I know they'll most likely have to restructure Romo again, but hopefully he's the only one.

 

[Bluestang]

Planned restructures are all apart of accounting practices, which are not necessarily unacceptable.

This is a common misconception.

Restructuring is a bad practice, because the cap charges for future years keep inflating. This only adds to the amount of money that player will cost you if you cut them or keep them.

For example DeMarcus Ware would have counted nothing against us, if he had not been restructured 3 times since his 2008 extension. Now he takes $8.75M of that $133M cap this year.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Perhaps not by choice, but have they still learned the lesson? I think that is the bigger question. When they get more freedom will they continue to mortgage the future? I'd hope not.

We'll find out a lot about how they see things by how much they pay Dez.

I don't think the Dez contract will tell us much. They'll sign him and they'll sign him at market for WRs of his caliber. When you have a young player of that quality (and with that desire/work ethic), you pay him. The Tyron Smith contract is insanely good for the team, for instance. And that's why I liked when they signed Carr but passed on the older offensive linemen who were available: Carr was about as young as a free agent can be. It hasn't worked out as well as anyone hoped, but I'm on board with the philosophy.

Where you'll see if they've learned anything is how they handle older players (Jay Ratliff) and players with one good season under their belts (Miles Austin). When long-term contracts and extensions get handed out to guys like that, there's a problem. There's always risk, and there will always be contracts (and draft picks) that don't work out. But you've got to work to minimize those risks, while still being willing to lock up your young stars.

Cutting Ware and letting Hatcher walk were good signs. As much as people hated the franchise payments to Spencer, they resisted the urge to give him a long-term contract (meaning there's no dead Spencer money sitting out there). We'll see where they go from here.

 

[Galian Beast]

Opportunity cost typically lists actual opportunities.

I remember when going through the accounting last year we determined that we would have no issue signing Dez, Tyron, or anyone else.

The year to year thing is really ignorant to how accounting actually works if quite gratuitous to the 'realist' cause.

Looks like you didn't read my post, but thanks for the response.

 

[Galian Beast]

This is a common misconception.

Restructuring is a bad practice, because the cap charges for future years keep inflating. This only adds to the amount of money that player will cost you if you cut them or keep them.

For example DeMarcus Ware would have counted nothing against us, if he had not been restructured 3 times since his 2008 extension. Now he takes $8.75M of that $133M cap this year.

That ignores that the player still has to be paid in the first place. And that you can only prorate 5 years of contract. You can plan to restructure a player 3 times on a 7 year deal, and it is no different from simply backloading that money in the first place. The percentage of that dead money in future years is also less, which shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Galian Beast]

I don't think the Dez contract will tell us much. They'll sign him and they'll sign him at market for WRs of his caliber. When you have a young player of that quality (and with that desire/work ethic), you pay him. The Tyron Smith contract is insanely good for the team, for instance. And that's why I liked when they signed Carr but passed on the older offensive linemen who were available: Carr was about as young as a free agent can be. It hasn't worked out as well as anyone hoped, but I'm on board with the philosophy.

Where you'll see if they've learned anything is how they handle older players (Jay Ratliff) and players with one good season under their belts (Miles Austin). When long-term contracts and extensions get handed out to guys like that, there's a problem. There's always risk, and there will always be contracts (and draft picks) that don't work out. But you've got to work to minimize those risks, while still being willing to lock up your young stars.

Cutting Ware and letting Hatcher walk were good signs. As much as people hated the franchise payments to Spencer, they resisted the urge to give him a long-term contract (meaning there's no dead Spencer money sitting out there). We'll see where they go from here.

First which WRs do you think are in Dez's caliber? Second which of these WRs have taken their teams to super bowls?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Looks like you didn't read my post, but thanks for the response.

I read your posts but saying in your posts that you understand that there is more doesn't 'poison the well.' All it does is give your reader clues early.

There is no lost opportunity that you laid out.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is a common misconception.

Restructuring is a bad practice, because the cap charges for future years keep inflating. This only adds to the amount of money that player will cost you if you cut them or keep them.

For example DeMarcus Ware would have counted nothing against us, if he had not been restructured 3 times since his 2008 extension. Now he takes $8.75M of that $133M cap this year.

He would have cost us $8.75 the previous year which is a higher percentage of the cap. It's a free loan in a market with inflation. If you think it's 'mortgaging the future, I am interested in the loan where you pay less of your income by percent year by year.

 

[Bluestang]

That ignores that the player still has to be paid in the first place. And that you can only prorate 5 years of contract. You can plan to restructure a player 3 times on a 7 year deal, and it is no different from simply backloading that money in the first place. The percentage of that dead money in future years is also less, which shouldn't be ignored.

But that's the problem isn't it...the Cowboys had to restructure to get under the cap in the first place.

Ware would be costing $12.25M instead of $16.15M if we didn't do the 3 restructures.

So it inflated just shy of $4M.

Not that much huh? Well the cap only went up about about 8% from last year to this year.

So what is the percentage of $4M in relation to that cap charge if was still here? It sure isn't 8%.

 

[Bluestang]

He would have cost us $8.75 the previous year which is a higher percentage of the cap. It's a free loan in a market with inflation. If you think it's 'mortgaging the future, I am interested in the loan where you pay less of your income by percent year by year.

See post 18, the inflation of the cap charge is not the same as the inflation of the cap from year to year.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But that's the problem isn't it...the Cowboys had to restructure to get under the cap in the first place.

Ware would be costing $12.25M instead of $16.15M if we didn't do the 3 restructures.

So it inflated just shy of $4M.

Not that much huh? Well the cap only went up about about 8% from last year to this year.

So what is the percentage of $4M in relation to that cap charge if was still here? It sure isn't 8%.

The cap was artificually controlled as certain deductions were grandfathered from NFL income up until this past year for the CBA. The also delayed the TV money. Either way, fact is its still inflation and there its still dollar for dollar year to year on restructures.

How about the $10m Mara stole from us for following the written rules? Why is this not included in the analysis?