Proof - Cap Space and Romo Trade not a problem

noletime95

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,067
Reaction score
2,002
It's about his 14MM salary, either the Cowboys pay it or they don't. From there everything else can be manipulated accordingly.

A trade is the way to go, save the 14 Mill AND get compensation.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
It's about his 14MM salary, either the Cowboys pay it or they don't. From there everything else can be manipulated accordingly.

A trade is the way to go, save the 14 Mill AND get compensation.
They can be patient too.........the savings don't come until June 1st so they can wait if they don't get a great offer in March..... wait until the Draft and if no one gets desperate then wait until Training Camp
 

noletime95

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,067
Reaction score
2,002
They can be patient too.........the savings don't come until June 1st so they can wait if they don't get a great offer in March..... wait until the Draft and if no one gets desperate then wait until Training Camp
Interesting, I thought the salary would be an immediate savings against the cap with the dead money all hitting the books this year? Net gain of 5 million.

But if they designated Romo a 6/1 cut the savings wouldn't be realized until next year. I know it's all semantics but I'm curious.
 

Toruk_Makto

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,242
Reaction score
17,336
Here is how it would look if the Cowboys cut or traded Romo before June 1st, restructured the top 10 contracts and cut Doug Free. The number is $48.8 million in 2017.

This is how much space they would have to re-sign their own free agents and to sign outside free agents.

Note that new contracts often have very reasonable cap hits in the 1st year. For instance, a new contract for Zack Martin would not create a huge hit in 2017.

Obviously they won't use all of this space because future years also have to be considered.

The main thing to take from this is that worrying about making Romo a June 1st cut is a complete waste of time.

Making Romo a June 1st cut pushes money into future years which is also what happens when they restructure other contracts. It's the same concept either way in regards to the cap.

If they can get anything for Romo in a trade, then they should do it. There is no significant downside in regards to the cap.

Obviously they should trade Romo for anything over cutting him. And obviously they can do anything they want in terms to free agency.

But all else equal it's better to push money into the future with a rising cap.
 

willia451

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,288
Reaction score
3,528
At least we're not talking about how Randle will be a fine replacement for Murray and how Murray is JAG without this OL.

So its already starting off better.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,971
Reaction score
26,617
I respect you guys who really understand the cap. One thing I've learned is signing players can almost always be worked out cap wise. That's the easy part. Finding a pass rusher who performs to the level they cost is the hard part
As for Tony, trading obviously is the best thing for the team. Cap aside adding a pick or player is better than getting nothing
The key is finding a team who is willing to give a pick or a player for him and be a team he is willing to go to
I think Jerry wouldn't trade him to a team he didn't want to play for
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,202
Reaction score
64,711
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Different circumstances.

Favre was coming off a 13-3 season where he had a great season and he was an iron man that never got hurt. Romo has hardly played football in two complete years because of injuries and not even the most optimistic analyst will say that you can count on him for 16 games.

Bradford is a product of a desperate team. If we want to wait it out till preseason with Romo and see if a playoff caliber team loses their starting QB, we could get a kings random for him. Fact is, teams have an entire offseason now to get who they want.
Teams can't always get who they want at QB even with a full offseason.

A Romo for Clowney trade would make sense.
Both players are injury risks.

Clowney's value is also limited due to being in the last year of his contract.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,202
Reaction score
64,711
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan

Doomsay

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,542
Reaction score
6,160
The Eagles got a first for Bradford - but that's not at all relevant - they were desperate. We aren't going to wait for a team to have a catastrophic pre-season injury to move Romo.

.
Why not?
 

Doomsay

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,542
Reaction score
6,160
They can be patient too.........the savings don't come until June 1st so they can wait if they don't get a great offer in March..... wait until the Draft and if no one gets desperate then wait until Training Camp
This is our play.
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
Here is how it would look if the Cowboys cut or traded Romo before June 1st, restructured the top 10 contracts and cut Doug Free. The number is $48.8 million in 2017.

This is how much space they would have to re-sign their own free agents and to sign outside free agents.

Note that new contracts often have very reasonable cap hits in the 1st year. For instance, a new contract for Zack Martin would not create a huge hit in 2017.

Obviously they won't use all of this space because future years also have to be considered.

The main thing to take from this is that worrying about making Romo a June 1st cut is a complete waste of time.

Making Romo a June 1st cut pushes money into future years which is also what happens when they restructure other contracts. It's the same concept either way in regards to the cap.

If they can get anything for Romo in a trade, then they should do it. There is no significant downside in regards to the cap.


Glad you posted this.
I dont know how many times this concept has to be posted before people will consider this approach.

The other thing many have trouble accepting is that Dez probably needs to be replaced by 2020 given his age and wear. It is also quite possible the life of a NFL RB may be 5 years or less - so Zeke's prime may be only during his rookie contract.
If these are correct, it is actually strangely in our advantage if our cap blows up ~2020 and we have a down year or two then to get the high draft choices to reload RB/WR1 and a couple other positions.
I guess people may just have trouble with the concept of tanking.

I actually thought @bkight13 mentioned extending Romo's contract so that his cap hit is reduced in 2017.
This would make it easier to trade him or keep him as backup.

Is it easier for your to extend your analysis for 3 years so that we know the consequences for restructuring until 2020?
I tried doing it by hand, but it seems you have an automated accurate method.
 

Doomsay

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,542
Reaction score
6,160
Because we respect Romo and won't leave him hanging?

Because this isn't some fantasy football scenario?

Because how you treat players reflects strongly on your team?
Hollow. Your current players respect your efforts to put them in the best position to win every year, especially all those guys who are playing for the league minimum. Tony's been paid $10's of millions to play or not play and will again in 2017 regardless of where he starts. He needs to be traded for the maximum value possible for the current team's benefit, even if it's to the Jets, full stop. He's still an asset and a huge cap hit under any scenario and needs to return value to the team, anything else is unfair and stupid, actually.
 

SoBlue128

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,120
Reaction score
5,943
Teams can't always get who they want at QB even with a full offseason.

A Romo for Clowney trade would make sense.
Both players are injury risks.

Clowney's value is also limited due to being in the last year of his contract.



No way Houston gives up Clowney for Romo unless there are some picks from the Cowboys. If Houston is gonna move on from him which I don't think they are they wont take anything less than a 2nd round pick in 17 and a later pick In 18.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
12,394
Hollow. Your current players respect your efforts to put them in the best position to win every year, especially all those guys who are playing for the league minimum. Tony's been paid $10's of millions to play or not play and will again in 2017 regardless of where he starts. He needs to be traded for the maximum value possible for the current team's benefit, even if it's to the Jets, full stop. He's still an asset and a huge cap hit under any scenario and needs to return value to the team, anything else is unfair and stupid, actually.

Wow, still pushing the "huge cap hit" angle. How can anyone take you seriously?

It's 5 mill saved with him gone. If anything, a release would allow us to spread that over two years (which we have no need to do).

Forgo a mid round pick and bad feelings? You can be damn sure if you trade Romo where he don't want to go, that his teammates will be upset. Plus, he'd likely just retire and you'd get nothing.

This is a simple principle. In football and in life. Don't be an &$#+0!#.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Wow, still pushing the "huge cap hit" angle. How can anyone take you seriously?

It's 5 mill saved with him gone. If anything, a release would allow us to spread that over two years (which we have no need to do).

Forgo a mid round pick and bad feelings? You can be damn sure if you trade Romo where he don't want to go, that his teammates will be upset. Plus, he'd likely just retire and you'd get nothing.

This is a simple principle. In football and in life. Don't be an &$#+0!#.
They were upset with Murray and got over it real quick .....this is a business and a football team..... not a charity

Releasing Romo is like tearing up a 1st round pick or just telling the Broncos..... "No thanks.....you keep the pick, it'll help you get Romo to the SB where you might beat us".....but Romo will sure be happy with Jerry
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
12,394
They were upset with Murray and got over it real quick .....this is a business and a football team..... not a charity

Releasing Romo is like tearing up a 1st round pick or just telling the Broncos..... "No thanks.....you keep the pick, it'll help you get Romo to the SB where you might beat us".....but Romo will sure be happy with Jerry

Upset with Murray leaving as a free agent.

Yeah, that's the same as sending the face of your franchise to a team he doesn't want to play for.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Interesting, I thought the salary would be an immediate savings against the cap with the dead money all hitting the books this year? Net gain of 5 million.

But if they designated Romo a 6/1 cut the savings wouldn't be realized until next year. I know it's all semantics but I'm curious.
No you have it right........I didn't want to get bogged down....... I don't really consider a 5m saving on a 24.7m cap hit a significant savings.........but if they do trade him in March that would be the deal...19.6m dead money on 2017 and nothing after that
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Upset with Murray leaving as a free agent.

Yeah, that's the same as sending the face of your franchise to a team he doesn't want to play for.
Not the face anymore......if he wants to go somewhere to beat us in the SB then screw him

If he wants to stay as a bak up for 5m forever then I am all for loyalty
 
Top