Per Archer - Romo restructures today...Saves $10 mil

[BigD5]

You must have Stevie Wonder eye sight then. Answer the question son. Did Antonio Romo hit several receivers between the numbers on plays that would have led to 1st downs and TDs in that game that YOU brought up?

I will agree he played terribly on defense right after he took the team on a 20 play drive to take the lead right before half time only to let Eli drive right back down and erase that lead in mere seconds

 

[gimmesix]

Dallas does it this way because they still think it's 1994 and they don't know how to manage the Cap circa 2014. It's call bad management . . . .

No. In 1994, Dallas didn't know how to manage the cap. That's how the team ran into cap problems that it couldn't negotiate around. Since that time, it has learned you still can pay what it takes to retain your key players and set it up to rework those contracts so that you are constantly paying tomorrow for today, which also allows you to take advantage of an ever-growing cap.
.

It's actually good management when you can figure out how to hold on to the players you want to hold on to while having a plan for getting under the cap each year while also being set up to further restructure to add free agents if needed. The hope would be that you'd get to the point where you don't need to add FAs, just retain your own or replace them through the draft, but Dallas has to do a better job at player acquisition to get to that point.

 

[BigD5]

Despite the Jones boys epic failures at MANY things, one thing they do well is manage the salary cap.

The cowboys problem is very poor coaching and staffing, terrible culture/losing environment and Jerry as GM being too involved.

Jerry steps down and focuses strictly on owner roles. Hires the best GM available. Let him hire his head coach. Who in turn hires his own assts that he wants. Along with the Jones boys cap management and Dallas would be back on top easily.

Just one huge problem. Jerry's ego will NEVER let this scenario happen

 

[Hoofbite]

That % absolutely is a benefit. Particularly if you are talking pay as you go vs. 40 mill or so of money pushed back. Pay as you go and you've used 31% of your yearly cap. Push back and it is 29%. You might call that chump change -- but it amounts to nearly 3 mill of extra money in cap space to spend.

People call this "paying on the credit card" but it is actually the opposite. The expense goes DOWN proportionally when you push money back

It looks like you're simply just taking $40M/$130 (and $40M/$140M) to come to a difference of $3M overall, based on the percentage difference multiplied by this year's cap? Just trying to get on the same page before I go on.

If you were relieving yourself of $40M in cap space, you'd be restructuring $50M overall to cover the 1/5th of the money that is moved from base salaries to prorated dollars for the current year. I'm sure you're aware but just went with $40M all at once to simplify the scenario.

So it would look like this:

2014: Cap Total - $40M
2015: Cap Total + $10M
2016: Cap Total + $10M
2017: Cap Total + $10M
2018: Cap Total + $10M

If you convert the $10M for each year into current dollars based based on what amount $10M is out of the cap total, you'd get:

2014: ($140M/$130M) x $10M = $10.76M

Basically, $10M on a $130M cap is equal to to $10.76M on a $140M cap so you come out $760K up when it's said and done.

$150M cap = $11.53M
$160M cap = $12.30M
$170M cap = $13.07M

That covers the proration time so the sum of the differences between the 4 future years and the amount prorated to each years is your "extra".

For 2014 to 2017, that would equal $47.69M, which is $7.69M in "extra" cap money. Average of $1.9M per year "extra" money to spend. Over the 4 year span, that $7.69M works out to just about 1.24% "extra" cap space on the cap total of $620M from 2014 to 2017.

Miles Austin's cap numbers over the 2014 to 2015 combine to about $40.6M. You cut him right now and take the full cap hit and you're still opening up $32M in cap space to spend over the 4 year span. If the team cuts Parnell, Costa and Durant and replaces them with rookies they'll have made half as much spending space by not having them on the roster for just this year. If you're going for extra spending space, it seems like solid roster management would be a much better route to go. I doubt there's a team in the league that couldn't free up more cap dollars by cutting a guy who barely even plays and replacing him with a rookie without a hit in production. You couldn't even meet half of Nate Livings contract with that "extra" cap space.

Also, isn't that extra only there for the single year? Beyond year 1 in which you created the initial room, any sort of bonus based on percentage of cap space would seem to be partially making up for a larger reduction in cap space in those future years? Even if you could get a similar amount of "extra" in year 2, you've added $10M in cap charges to that year so the net for future years would be a reduced cap total relative to the league ceiling, wouldn't it?

It's just doesn't seem significant enough to be a real plus for restructuring. It's especially doesn't seem significant enough when you don't even get the added benefit of signing players to improve your team, which is where Dallas has been for the past few years because their restructuring is out of necessity, not choice. Honestly, other than Carr has Dallas made a signing that anyone thought would really make a significant difference over the past few years? Waters maybe, for a single season?

 

[Hoofbite]

Doesn't it just mean that there isn't a full roster under contract for 2015?

Correct. 38 players right now including soon to be cuts Miles Austin and Kyle Orton, and a whole bunch of guys you may not have known were even on the roster, and many of whom may not even make this year's roster.

Lance Lewis
Jamar Newson
Frank Kearse
Chris DeGeare
Quinton Spears
Tim Benford
Jabara Williams
Tristan Okpalaugo
Tim Benford
Jonathan Stewart
Ceasar Rayford

Good news is. Cutting Austin and Orton straight up puts the team at $17M under.

So that's 24 (including the awesome safety trio of Heath, Wilcox, and Johnson) players you would expect to be on the roster (none of whom are named Dez Bryant, Tyron Smith, DeMarco Murray, Bruce Carter, Dwayne Harris, or George Selvie) and a dozen or so warm bodies.

Should be interesting to see how the team rounds out the bottom 25 or so roster spots next year after signing Dez and Tyron.

 

[Aikmaniac]

Why all the doom and gloom? Have a little faith that this was done to bolster the defense and maybe give our QB some help.

 

[Alexander]

Correct. 38 players right now including soon to be cuts Miles Austin and Kyle Orton, and a whole bunch of guys you may not have known were even on the roster, and many of whom may not even make this year's roster.

Lance Lewis
Jamar Newson
Frank Kearse
Chris DeGeare
Quinton Spears
Tim Benford
Jabara Williams
Tristan Okpalaugo
Tim Benford
Jonathan Stewart
Ceasar Rayford

Good news is. Cutting Austin and Orton straight up puts the team at $17M under.

Tim Benford must be good. You listed him twice.

 

[Hoofbite]

Tim Benford must be good. You listed him twice.

Believe it.

 

[hornitosmonster]

Manziel to Dallas just became almost guaranteed not to happen.

Good because he sucks. Tebow in a smaller frame

 

[AbeBeta]

It looks like you're simply just taking $40M/$130 (and $40M/$140M) to come to a difference of $3M overall, based on the percentage difference multiplied by this year's cap? Just trying to get on the same page before I go on.

If you were relieving yourself of $40M in cap space, you'd be restructuring $50M overall to cover the 1/5th of the money that is moved from base salaries to prorated dollars for the current year. I'm sure you're aware but just went with $40M all at once to simplify the scenario.

So it would look like this:

2014: Cap Total - $40M
2015: Cap Total + $10M
2016: Cap Total + $10M
2017: Cap Total + $10M
2018: Cap Total + $10M

If you convert the $10M for each year into current dollars based based on what amount $10M is out of the cap total, you'd get:

2014: ($140M/$130M) x $10M = $10.76M

Basically, $10M on a $130M cap is equal to to $10.76M on a $140M cap so you come out $760K up when it's said and done.

$150M cap = $11.53M
$160M cap = $12.30M
$170M cap = $13.07M

That covers the proration time so the sum of the differences between the 4 future years and the amount prorated to each years is your "extra".

For 2014 to 2017, that would equal $47.69M, which is $7.69M in "extra" cap money. Average of $1.9M per year "extra" money to spend. Over the 4 year span, that $7.69M works out to just about 1.24% "extra" cap space on the cap total of $620M from 2014 to 2017.

Miles Austin's cap numbers over the 2014 to 2015 combine to about $40.6M. You cut him right now and take the full cap hit and you're still opening up $32M in cap space to spend over the 4 year span. If the team cuts Parnell, Costa and Durant and replaces them with rookies they'll have made half as much spending space by not having them on the roster for just this year. If you're going for extra spending space, it seems like solid roster management would be a much better route to go. I doubt there's a team in the league that couldn't free up more cap dollars by cutting a guy who barely even plays and replacing him with a rookie without a hit in production. You couldn't even meet half of Nate Livings contract with that "extra" cap space.

Also, isn't that extra only there for the single year? Beyond year 1 in which you created the initial room, any sort of bonus based on percentage of cap space would seem to be partially making up for a larger reduction in cap space in those future years? Even if you could get a similar amount of "extra" in year 2, you've added $10M in cap charges to that year so the net for future years would be a reduced cap total relative to the league ceiling, wouldn't it?

It's just doesn't seem significant enough to be a real plus for restructuring. It's especially doesn't seem significant enough when you don't even get the added benefit of signing players to improve your team, which is where Dallas has been for the past few years because their restructuring is out of necessity, not choice. Honestly, other than Carr has Dallas made a signing that anyone thought would really make a significant difference over the past few years? Waters maybe, for a single season?

Dude -- you did all that to get where -- exactly where I was. Push 40 mill and you get a net gain of 3 mill.

Seriously, why do all the work here to simply make the same point that I did.

Where you are wrong though is that you are claiming there is no real plus for restructuring -- any increase in available cap space is a plus

 

[Hoofbite]

Dude -- you did all that to get where -- exactly where I was. Push 40 mill and you get a net gain of 3 mill.

Seriously, why do all the work here to simply make the same point that I did.

Where you are wrong though is that you are claiming there is no real plus for restructuring -- any increase in available cap space is a plus

I guess I did all that because:

A) I believed your amount to be incorrect. My increase was $7.69M, not $3M.

B) To demonstrate how insignificant even double your value is over the span of 4 years.

C) To raise the question about whether or not this is a one time benefit as future extras pay down the amount moved to create past extras.

I said the plus is insignificant. Sure it exists, it's just not big enough to be a selling point by itself.

In a league where a number of teams don't even use all the cap space they have, if you're banking on an extra $8M over 4 years to get a boost you've likely got larger underlying issues that you should work on. The amount is insignificant in the grand scheme of things when taken over the probation period.

 

[boyzjunkie]

4 regular season games in 10 years? That's all you got?

Let's play a game. Every time you name a time Romo didn't come through with the game on the line (whatever that means), you get 3 points. Every time I name a game he did, I get 1. Whoever has the least amount of points leaves the board forever. What do you say?

I would say you are missing the point. Tony's detractors are not saying he isn't a good qb. Even an exceptional one. They are not saying he doesn't win lots of games when games are on the line. I think THEIR point is that Tony has a history of mishaps late in the season when everything, in particular the season itself, so to say, is on the line.

 

[bysbox1]

Miles Austin's cap numbers over the 2014 to 2015 combine to about $40.6M. You cut him right now and take the full cap hit and you're still opening up $32M in cap space to spend over the 4 year span. If the team cuts Parnell, Costa and Durant and replaces them with rookies they'll have made half as much spending space by not having them on the roster for just this year. If you're going for extra spending space, it seems like solid roster management would be a much better route to go. I doubt there's a team in the league that couldn't free up more cap dollars by cutting a guy who barely even plays and replacing him with a rookie without a hit in production. You couldn't even meet half of Nate Livings contract with that "extra" cap space.

Also, isn't that extra only there for the single year? Beyond year 1 in which you created the initial room, any sort of bonus based on percentage of cap space would seem to be partially making up for a larger reduction in cap space in those future years? Even if you could get a similar amount of "extra" in year 2, you've added $10M in cap charges to that year so the net for future years would be a reduced cap total relative to the league ceiling, wouldn't it?

It's just doesn't seem significant enough to be a real plus for restructuring. It's especially doesn't seem significant enough when you don't even get the added benefit of signing players to improve your team, which is where Dallas has been for the past few years because their restructuring is out of necessity, not choice. Honestly, other than Carr has Dallas made a signing that anyone thought would really make a significant difference over the past few years? Waters maybe, for a single season?

That's why I think it's bad management. It's one thing if you are restructuring to add a player to benefit the team. But to restructure just to get under the cap only to restructure again next year just to keep players that may not make sense keeping and not add any seems a bit counterproductive to me anyway. But that's just me.

Again, this is just my opinion.