Orton a "No Show" at Minicamp Practice today **Contract Details Post #36**

[WoodysGirl]

The thing that isn't clear is when the voidable years were added. Originally it was a 3yr/10.5m deal, with a 5m signing bonus. Without the voidable years, his signing bonus would count for 1.66m for 3 years(2012,2013,2014). He would only "owe" for 2014, or 1.66m if he retired.

If the voidable years were there the whole time, his original signing bonus would count for 1m per year from 2012-2016 and he would owe the full 3m if he retired. But they wouldn't get it back until 2015 at the earliest and it would come in 3 yearly installments.

Either way the Cowboys shouldn't be too pressed about getting any of the signing bonus back. The signing bonus served as his salary the last 2 years and 7m for 2 years of a top backup QB is high, but not outrageous.

If he doesn't want to play at all, they should just cut him, save the 3.25m in salary and move on. If he just doesn't want to play for us, they should play hardball and fine him everything they can.

They restructured Orton's contract last year in order to sign Justin Durant. That is probably when they added the voidable years.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/a...B-Durant/ddefba69-e62c-4f4b-854d-a4f82e1dd156

 

[AbeBeta]

They restructured Orton's contract last year in order to sign Justin Durant. That is probably when they added the voidable years.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/a...B-Durant/ddefba69-e62c-4f4b-854d-a4f82e1dd156

But again -- a player does something to allow a the team more flexibility. How is it now that this player is penalized more in terms of what he would owe for retiring? Pre-restructure, he owes 1.33 mill. Now, because he did something to free cap space he owes, 3.2ish? Doesn't make sense.

 

[WoodysGirl]

But again -- a player does something to allow a the team more flexibility. How is it now that this player is penalized more in terms of what he would owe for retiring? Pre-restructure, he owes 1.33 mill. Now, because he did something to free cap space he owes, 3.2ish? Doesn't make sense.

Per that article, basically, his agent dropped the ball. When Favre went to the Jets, he closed that loophole in his contract, so it was definitely doable had his agent known Orton was contemplating retirement.

 

[AbeBeta]

Per that article, basically, his agent dropped the ball. When Favre went to the Jets, he closed that loophole in his contract, so it was definitely doable had his agent known Orton was contemplating retirement.

Sure. But I can't see the team wanting to hold his feet to the fire over that. Cut a deal, get the 1.33 back and everyone is happy. I can't see that the team would willingly try to screw him on that in the restructure.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Sure. But I can't see the team wanting to hold his feet to the fire over that. Cut a deal, get the 1.33 back and everyone is happy. I can't see that the team would willingly try to screw him on that in the restructure.

Why not? He's technically screwing them by withholding his services. Sure they can work out a deal, but so far only one party's at the table willing to talk.

While I know we've equated this situation to Ratliff, because of how things ended last year. But the more I think about it, this is a Jake Plummer situation. I don't know the contractual details behind his departure, but I know he had to repay $3mil + to retire.

 

[AbeBeta]

Why not? He's technically screwing them by withholding his services. Sure they can work out a deal, but so far only one party's at the table willing to talk.

You know he isn't talking?

 

[WoodysGirl]

You know he isn't talking?

Articles, tweets, all say Orton hasn't spoken with team officials. Jerry stated today that he has spoken to his agent. The extent of those convos are unknown.

 

[WoodysGirl]

 

[AbeBeta]

Articles, tweets, all say Orton hasn't spoken with team officials. Jerry stated today that he has spoken to his agent. The extent of those convos are unknown.

I would expect issues like this would always be handled through the agent. This is contractual, so that is the correct way to handle it. So suggesting he isn't talking really is overblown.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Eh. I think this should have been pretty obvious that this was going to be the case for quite a while now.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I would expect issues like this would always be handled through the agent. This is contractual, so that is the correct way to handle it. So suggesting he isn't talking really is overblown.

I disagree to a point. Addressing the contract is one thing and should be handled by the agent. But to not communicate with your position coach, HC, or the Owner? That's not overly professional in the NFL world and indicates that the matter is not going to end amicably.

 

[AbeBeta]

I disagree to a point. Addressing the contract is one thing and should be handled by the agent. But to not communicate with your position coach, HC, or the Owner? That's not overly professional in the NFL world and indicates that the matter is not going to end amicably.

Players discussing contracts with the head coach? Position coach?

Right.

Owner/GM - Agent. That is where these conversations happen.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Players discussing contracts with the head coach? Position coach?

Right.

Owner/GM - Agent. That is where these conversations happen.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about his contract. He hasn't spoken to his coaches or any team official the entire offseason. Hasn't returned their calls, at all to discuss anything football-related or even to personally state, "I'm thinking of retiring, Coach." Unprofessional, IMO. You would think that over the course of three years, a certain level of respect would've warranted at least that.

 

[big dog cowboy]

So much consternation over a backup QB.

smh

 

[dstovall5]

So much consternation over a backup QB.

smh

To be fair, Romo just came off a serious back injury. I'd rather ride with Weeden though.

 

[Frozen700]

Who really cares though?

 

[xwalker]

Sure -- but that makes zero common sense. Why on earth would a guy be penalized for doing something that the team wanted to do to create cap space. He could have simply said no to last year's conversion of salary to bonus. The advantage to Orton in taking the money up front (i.e., earning interest on the 1/4 of a mill or so he actually pocketed) far outweighs the penalty he would receive if retiring. Before that extension, we would have owed 1.33 mill. Now he owes 3.35 ish?

That just doesn't make any sense. I can see penalizing teams for using the fake option year approach but penalizing the player doesn't seem correct. Are you sure that is the correct information? Or are you going off the article which could actually be wrong as many journalists don't understand the CBA very well? (I'm not saying you don't have the right info, just clarifying the source).

I used the wrong number. The 1.27M is the combined number with 1M as the prorated part of the original bonus and 0.127M as the restructure part of it.

The fake years were part of the original contract with 1M prorated per year.

He will only owe the 3 x 1M and not the 3 x 0.127M from the restructure.

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

Who really cares though?

Jack....




Daniels...

 

[Beast_from_East]

Orton is being a dick about this, either announce your retirement or show up.

Orton either wants more money, wants to play for another team, or he wants to retire without having to payback the $3 million.

 

[xwalker]

The problem I have is that anytime someone states what a bad idea it is to restructure contracts with guaranteed money, especially for aging guys, you chime in with the whole - "well you can do it and save money on the cap" shpeel. Then your retort is, well, I'm not saying its a good idea or not. Kinda talking out both sides of your mouth in my opinion.

I can see where where you might see my comment that way.

I should have worded it differently. What I intended to say is that I didn't want to get into the pro and cons of the issue because I've discussed that in depth in the past. I just want to show the poster how it works because it's not obvious.

I wondered myself for years how teams like the Cowboys and Skins seemed to push money forward year after year and it never really "came due". It turns out that there should be another term defined when discussing the cap. I would call it the active cap number. It is the amount that the current year contributes to the cap number.
Total cap = active + push forward from previous years + dead

The active number must average out to below the NFL cap limit; however, the Total Cap prior to restructuring can be over every year. The Total Cap can be restructured every year without the bill coming due.

The key to the bill never coming due is to keep the average active cap amount below the NFL cap limit.