Restructuring breakdown and the cap

[TheDude]

Restructuring is irrelevant. They either pay a player too much or they don't. If they pay Ware 12.25M for 2014, it is too much regardless of the structure.

Dead-money should not be a factor in a decision to cut or not cut a player. The dead-money still gets applied to the cap over the long run regardless of whether they keep the player or cut him. They would have about 8.5M in dead-money if Ware is cut. That 8.5M + his 2014 salary still counts against the cumulative multiple year cap even if he stays.

The number that is important is how much does it add to the cap to keep a player. If they keep Ware without a pay cut, it adds 12.25M regardless of how it is structured to the long term cumulative cap. The 8.5M is already a done deal. They can't get it back.

But was it wise to accrue the $8.5M in the first place? They did that out of necessity to optimize his cap number due to similar contracts (Ratliff, etc.) The original contract gave a clean out in 2014. In 2012 when 2 more years were added and bonuses were moved there, it was a doubling down on current cap optimization vs future flexibility.

If Ware cut's his salary to $5M. Dallas will undoubtedly use the majority of that as sigining bonus. That will lower 2014 cap but ramp the 2015.

 

[Corso]

But was it wise to accrue the $8.5M in the first place? They did that out of necessity to optimize his cap number due to similar contracts (Ratliff, etc.) The original contract gave a clean out in 2014. In 2012 when 2 more years were added and bonuses were moved there, it was a doubling down on current cap optimization vs future flexibility.

If Ware cut's his salary to $5M. Dallas will undoubtedly use the majority of that as sigining bonus. That will lower 2014 cap but ramp the 2015.

Couldn't help myself...

 

[xwalker]

But was it wise to accrue the $8.5M in the first place? They did that out of necessity to optimize his cap number due to similar contracts (Ratliff, etc.) The original contract gave a clean out in 2014. In 2012 when 2 more years were added and bonuses were moved there, it was a doubling down on current cap optimization vs future flexibility.

If Ware cut's his salary to $5M. Dallas will undoubtedly use the majority of that as sigining bonus. That will lower 2014 cap but ramp the 2015.

If they wanted to keep Ware in 2012, they had to pay him what he was scheduled to make. The total amount added to the multiple year cumulative cap is the same regardless of whether they restructured his contract or not.

Ware's original salary for 2012 was 4.515M. They restructured it to 840K + 3.675M restructure bonus. Either way, keeping him added 4.515 to the multiple year cumulative cap total.

 

[TheDude]

If they wanted to keep Ware in 2012, they had to pay him what he was scheduled to make. The total amount added to the multiple year cumulative cap is the same regardless of whether they restructured his contract or not.

Ware's original salary for 2012 was 4.515M. They restructured it to 840K + 3.675M restructure bonus. Either way, keeping him added 4.515 to the multiple year cumulative cap total.

Keeping as 4.515 Base salary would have been the cap hit that year versus 3.675 split over the 5 years (added 2017, 2018), which in 2012 was rinse and repeat with $5.15M of base salary to bonus in 2013.

The question is should cap usage in general match the contribution/usage of a player. Dead money is not generated from base salary, which is why most contracts have backends that are not likely to be paid. The guarantees are what players care about, it happens that base salaries increase with age and continued piggybacks of bonus prorations is a double down.

You're point is spot on that $8.5M is the 2014 (not getting into 6/1 cuts since it is a kick the can) charge for Ware. If Ware wants to reduce his salary to 7M (inline with Cliff Avril), His cap hit is still over $10M. There is a strong likelihood Dallas $6.16M to a signing bonus and extends the contract to 2019. Had no restructures ever happened, Ware would have been either paid $12.25M base (no bonus), restructure to a lower salary and convert to base/salary, or be cut with no cap hit.

If Ware is cut, The dallas cowboy cap will have to make up productivity for 9% cap utilization as no asset will be there. This number will likely not decrease as long as restructures continue.

 

[CoCo]

Wow, I am interested in the cap, but this is entirely too much verbage for me to wade through.

I think xwalker has it right in regard to the interest free loan. That's a nice analogy. That said I'd oversimplify it this way. Managing the cap effectively is about making sure you have the room to do what you need to do at the right time.

I chuckle over the term "cap guru" as if some have unlocked hidden mysteries that others just can't figure out. The numbers part of the cap is quite basic. Reading the market, evaluating talent and its future payout, and projecting future caps are the real keys IMO. Just how good do you think Dallas is at those latter parts?

 

[TheDude]

Wow, I am interested in the cap, but this is entirely too much verbage for me to wade through.

I think xwalker has it right in regard to the interest free loan. That's a nice analogy. That said I'd oversimplify it this way. Managing the cap effectively is about making sure you have the room to do what you need to do at the right time.

I chuckle over the term "cap guru" as if some have unlocked hidden mysteries that others just can't figure out. The numbers part of the cap is quite basic. Reading the market, evaluating talent and its future payout, and projecting future caps are the real keys IMO. Just how good do you think Dallas is at those latter parts?

The interest free loan analogy really isn't true. Certainly not with only the lender option. Its a callable bond at best, it can be called by the player at retirement or by earlier than expected performance decline. There in essence is a market risk if you will. The asset value (performance) is certain to decline and expire.

Restructuring by themselves are not an evil...just like option arm mortgage in the right instances. Restructures are always done on second or third contracts - which IS an age /performance relationship. Therein is the risk to be noteworthy and multiple bets are all on wrong-way risk.

 

[junk]

That's a lot of effort to come to the wrong conclusion.

If a team pays a player too much, it does not matter if that pay came as a huge base salary or as a restructure. If you look at a running total of the next 5 years of the teams salary cap, then they have to account for what that player got paid regardless of how it was structured.

If they pay Ware 12M as a base salary in 2014 or give him a base of 1M with an 11M restructure bonus, it is still 12M against the cumulative multiple year cap total.

The fact that they might spend more on other players if Ware is restructured vs not restructured is a different issue. Any money that they gain under the 2014 cap by restructuring his contract can be rolled into the future if they don't spend it.

The bottom line is that if a team never restructured contracts and always "paid as they go", then they are operating at a disadvantage to other teams that do restructure contracts. It is a myth that the bill is going to come due someday. They can push a certain amount into the future indefinitely. It will come due for specific players, but they can always push multiple other players cap hits into the future to more than offset the players that "come due" because they are off the roster.

Restructuring is a Zero interest loan.

Well, that is part of the problem. Restructuring might be a valid option IF you can roll over the saving to the next year. Unfortunately, the game that Dallas is playing means that they are using that saving just to be cap compliant. The restructure then pushes more bonus money into future years which means a bigger bill (dead money) comes due when you do have to move on from that player.

Dallas certainly isn't in "cap hell", but they are definitely cap constrained. If it wasn't obvious looking at the numbers, just read anything Stephen Jones has said the last two years.
2016 will bring new TV money and should be an opportunity to get healthier cap wise.

 

[NJ22]

got a wife

Well don't tell her about the girlfriend! But get one soon!

 

[Doomsay]

Restructuring is a Zero interest loan.

It's not an interest free loan, It's an increase in caring cost of a previous contract and a displacement of said costs into future periods. If that player could play out his perpetually renegotiated inflated, slide-under-the-salary cap contract, to a sufficient degree, it make some sense, but on this team and most others, it rarely does.

We are in cap hell because of your and Little Stevie's rationale. How many quality free agents did we sign last year, and how many will we sign this year? ....


Could it be because those interest free loans came due?

 

[TheDude]

It's not an interest free loan, It's an increase in caring cost of a previous contract and a displacement of said costs into future periods. If that player could play out his perpetually renegotiated inflated, slide-under-the-salary cap contract, to a sufficient degree, it make some sense, but on this team and most others, it rarely does.

We are in cap hell because of your and Little Stevie's rationale. How many quality free agents did we sign last year, and how many will we sign this year? ....


Could it be because those interest free loans came due?

Correct. Your "loan" isn't just about interest, its about cash flow or budget allocation (cap). When the principal comes due or is called early, which is far more of a budget (real world CF) hit, it is applied to the cap. The initial Ware contract was pretty darn accurate, the first restructure was ok as well. Adding 2 years was hoping to extend the principal on th loan from 2015 to 2017.

I think teams are starting to look at this more as a moneyball situation and match the current cap hit to level of expected productivity. Restructuring begins to put that out of equilibrium. If the whole team is performing well, it makes sense to milk assets longer, if not - it bites you.

There was no way Jerry or Stephen expected Ratliff and possible Ware and Miles to all be gone in the same year - likewise that the Spencer, and Carr would all be the 2012 issue.

I am giving the Jones' the benefit of the doubt, but the cap position limited the ability to pick up some quality DL depth last year and Oline depth the year before.

It was stated earlier that restructuring allows Jones to be 8-8 vs 4-12. I don't see that as a good byproduct of this cap mgmt. The 4-12 "restart" year should likely have already happened....since it didn't its tying the franchise to certain players a little longer than it should - especially coupled with Jerry's style of loyalty signings. It allows it and feeds his weakness

 

[BigStar]

Couldn't help myself...

Those two cops made that movie for me...and if you know cool cops in real life they are much more like this than you would imagine (in a good way).

 

[Corso]

Those two cops made that movie for me...and if you know cool cops in real life they are much more like this than you would imagine (in a good way).

I knew one or two like that. More often than not me and and men in blue were not meant to be in the same place for any extended period of time, but that was easily alleviated with some proper party planning...
And you're absolutely right- those two made that movie.

 

[Nightman]

Correct. Your "loan" isn't just about interest, its about cash flow or budget allocation (cap). When the principal comes due or is called early, which is far more of a budget (real world CF) hit, it is applied to the cap. The initial Ware contract was pretty darn accurate, the first restructure was ok as well. Adding 2 years was hoping to extend the principal on th loan from 2015 to 2017.

I think teams are starting to look at this more as a moneyball situation and match the current cap hit to level of expected productivity. Restructuring begins to put that out of equilibrium. If the whole team is performing well, it makes sense to milk assets longer, if not - it bites you.

There was no way Jerry or Stephen expected Ratliff and possible Ware and Miles to all be gone in the same year - likewise that the Spencer, and Carr would all be the 2012 issue.

I am giving the Jones' the benefit of the doubt, but the cap position limited the ability to pick up some quality DL depth last year and Oline depth the year before.

It was stated earlier that restructuring allows Jones to be 8-8 vs 4-12. I don't see that as a good byproduct of this cap mgmt. The 4-12 "restart" year should likely have already happened....since it didn't its tying the franchise to certain players a little longer than it should - especially coupled with Jerry's style of loyalty signings. It allows it and feeds his weakness

Gotta agree with XWalker on this one. You are completely missing the fact that all those restructured contracts lead to cap hits that are way below where they would be on a straight line accounting. Restructuring never hurts, it only helps, especially since you can roll-over any unused cap space. The personnel decisions can be criticized, but if the player is going to play for the team that season, there is no reason to resist the restructure. It's better to have the space and not need it, than to need it and not have it. It's too late once the season starts to restructure, so you can only create space by extending existing deals with new money and guarantees. Dallas isn't forced each year to do this to get compliant, they plan for it. It looks bad in the offseason and the media screams about it, but it's not the reality.

For example, Carr's first 3 yrs counted for 16m instead of 30m. If they cut him after this year, they still have to account for that extra 14m, but they can spread it out over 2 years. It's 30m over 3yrs vs 30m over 5years. The dead money is not a big deal, because it's less than what they are saving by restructuring. Even with Ratliff quitting on the team Dallas has 11m in dead money for 2014. They can create over 35m in cap space with several restructures.

And the cap will start going up again every year. The lockout was an anomaly. The cap was 128m in 2009 before the lockout and didn't get back to that level until this year. The owners took the players to the woodshed, but they could only keep the cap down for so long. The TV deals are signed and locked in. Any cap troubles were attributed more to the new CBA, the 10m penalty and Spencer not working out.

But even with all the so-called constraints last year, Dallas franchised Spencer-10.6m, signed Durant, Allen, Sims and Waters, extended Romo, Lee and Scandrick, paid the 5m penalty, signed their draft class, survived the injuries/trades of Ratliff, Arkin, Livings, Cook, Lissemore, Crawford, Bass, Johnson and others and still had 1.3m to carry over to 2014.

 

[BigStar]

I knew one or two like that. More often than not me and and men in blue were not meant to be in the same place for any extended period of time, but that was easily alleviated with some proper party planning...
And you're absolutely right- those two made that movie.

Oh I hear ya, I'm a defiant prick who knows his rights too and um, some other reasons too I also know some kids I grew up with that have no business being police

 

[Corso]

Gotta agree with XWalker on this one. You are completely missing the fact that all those restructured contracts lead to cap hits that are way below where they would be on a straight line accounting. Restructuring never hurts, it only helps, especially since you can roll-over any unused cap space. The personnel decisions can be criticized, but if the player is going to play for the team that season, there is no reason to resist the restructure. It's better to have the space and not need it, than to need it and not have it. It's too late once the season starts to restructure, so you can only create space by extending existing deals with new money and guarantees. Dallas isn't forced each year to do this to get compliant, they plan for it. It looks bad in the offseason and the media screams about it, but it's not the reality.

For example, Carr's first 3 yrs counted for 16m instead of 30m. If they cut him after this year, they still have to account for that extra 14m, but they can spread it out over 2 years. It's 30m over 3yrs vs 30m over 5years. The dead money is not a big deal, because it's less than what they are saving by restructuring. Even with Ratliff quitting on the team Dallas has 11m in dead money for 2014. They can create over 35m in cap space with several restructures.

And the cap will start going up again every year. The lockout was an anomaly. The cap was 128m in 2009 before the lockout and didn't get back to that level until this year. The owners took the players to the woodshed, but they could only keep the cap down for so long. The TV deals are signed and locked in. Any cap troubles were attributed more to the new CBA, the 10m penalty and Spencer not working out.

But even with all the so-called constraints last year, Dallas franchised Spencer-10.6m, signed Durant, Allen, Sims and Waters, extended Romo, Lee and Scandrick, paid the 5m penalty, signed their draft class, survived the injuries/trades of Ratliff, Arkin, Livings, Cook, Lissemore, Crawford, Bass, Johnson and others and still had 1.3m to carry over to 2014.

This is a darn good thread... Thank you for the contributions.

 

[Corso]

Oh I hear ya, I'm a defiant prick who knows his rights too and um, some other reasons too I also know some kids I grew up that have no business being police

We are sown from the same cloth, it seems.
Kudos.

 

[TheDude]

Gotta agree with XWalker on this one. You are completely missing the fact that all those restructured contracts lead to cap hits that are way below where they would be on a straight line accounting. Restructuring never hurts, it only helps, especially since you can roll-over any unused cap space. The personnel decisions can be criticized, but if the player is going to play for the team that season, there is no reason to resist the restructure. It's better to have the space and not need it, than to need it and not have it. It's too late once the season starts to restructure, so you can only create space by extending existing deals with new money and guarantees. Dallas isn't forced each year to do this to get compliant, they plan for it. It looks bad in the offseason and the media screams about it, but it's not the reality.

For example, Carr's first 3 yrs counted for 16m instead of 30m. If they cut him after this year, they still have to account for that extra 14m, but they can spread it out over 2 years. It's 30m over 3yrs vs 30m over 5years. The dead money is not a big deal, because it's less than what they are saving by restructuring. Even with Ratliff quitting on the team Dallas has 11m in dead money for 2014. They can create over 35m in cap space with several restructures.

And the cap will start going up again every year. The lockout was an anomaly. The cap was 128m in 2009 before the lockout and didn't get back to that level until this year. The owners took the players to the woodshed, but they could only keep the cap down for so long. The TV deals are signed and locked in. Any cap troubles were attributed more to the new CBA, the 10m penalty and Spencer not working out.

But even with all the so-called constraints last year, Dallas franchised Spencer-10.6m, signed Durant, Allen, Sims and Waters, extended Romo, Lee and Scandrick, paid the 5m penalty, signed their draft class, survived the injuries/trades of Ratliff, Arkin, Livings, Cook, Lissemore, Crawford, Bass, Johnson and others and still had 1.3m to carry over to 2014.

I don't think this is always the case. The quicker a player is cut or retires after an extension, its more punitive.

Questions in order of Bold
1) When do we roll-over significant cap room?
2) So do you think restructuring Ware and rolling his $12.25M (or $7M from a hypothetical $5m paycut) scheduled Base salary into 5 years (2019 one year longer than current and 3 longer than original) is the best move? Or just take the $9M hit for Ware. If restructures are always good, than the former is your position?
3) Do you think the cap had any issue with them not being a player in FA last year or this year? Do you think there was no high profile player either DLine or O line they wanted but couldn't get?
4) Carr - Even if we wanted to move on from Carr, we likely would wait until 2015. Then Finnegan deal was initially similar and he has $0 cap hit now.
5) This may or may not come true. TV money is sure to come into play, but there is a spending minimum for every team now. THat is going to force some teams to bid up FAs, and that will drive up prices for current 1st contract guys (Dez, T Smith). Many teams are not going to be able to meet a $150M payroll (Jax, Buff, Oak) there may be another lockout before you know it.
6)The signing of Durant, Allen and Sims were less than $1M in dead money deals. These were JAG signings. Waters cost $1.5M. Romo, Lee, Ware and Scandrick helped create that marginal room. These were never cornerstone guys - stop gaps. We weren't going to be players for Bennett or Avril.

This is a complex issue, choosing Spencer was at the cost of Avril or Bennett. Spencer's higher tag forced some restructurings (maybe Ware?). Those guys signed cheaper deals and were more productive. So, again, its hard for me to see why a players cap hit should not be roughly equal to their cap/production efficiency ratio. If it does, you have more flexibility when the player declines. Having less flexibility when a few cornerstones decline at once just isn't good.

With a Franchise QB, some level of restructures will always be needed. But multiple restructures on aging players is not prudent. Baltimore took their pain this year versus being overly creative. Look at Pittsburgh options to get under the cap versus Dallas. They have a vet club with many restructures, but they have won. If you don't win, can't see the value

 

[BigStar]

Dallas undoubtedly utilizes restructures more than a great deal of other teams, largely because they have to just to get compliant.

So where's the advantage over the other teams that don't utilize it to the same extent? The team isn't stocked with talent, in fact they have very little on the defensive side of the ball. Not really a legitimate contender and only because of a horrible division have they even had a chance to get to the playoffs in week 17 for the last 3 years.

Looking at the big picture it's really hard to spot where the advantage is coming into play.

Spending money doesn't guarantee anything, much less give any sort of advantage. If you suck at identifying talent you could spend as much as you want and never create any sort of advantage at all.

Creating space would be awesome if you could correctly identify whether or not the money you are spending is going to pay off over the next 5 years. Of course, anyone with that sort of omnipotence wouldn't need to create money in the first place because they'd be snatching up all the Richard Shermans, Russell Wilsons, Cam Chancellors, and Kiko Alonsos in every draft. Their team would be so stacked they'd never have to go to free agency to acquire players. Even if you could correctly identify players, it's not like that is what Dallas has been doing. They're just restructuring so they can get complaint, not so they can actually improve the team.

Restructuring doesn't create any sort of advantage by itself. For Dallas, it's basically a crutch that allows them to continue to operate while not having to actually feel the effects of their stupid moves all at once. It lets Jerry make up for spending multiple 2nd round picks on a TE while a HoF TE is on the roster. It allows Jerry to go to free agency to get a couple of players because Jerry's wasted multiple picks on a slow WR from Detroit. It allows the team to try and fill some roster spots that should have been filled over the last 4-5 years with mid round picks but didn't because of all the projects and no-names the team has drafted.

Restructuring basically lets Jerry be Jerry without having the entire team be completely worthless. The team can still make all the stupid moves they shouldn't but restructuring allows them to buy a little talent here and there.

Great Post! We are restructuring to maintain mediocrity, not to improve the team in any manner. Sometimes, it is justified to pay homegrown talent but this same talent hasn't won anything. This, however, shouldn't stop the team from signing actual All Pro talents like Smith/Bryant or restructuring Romo (what's done is done is done there). If Ware's dead money is countered with his paycut than giving him a year to help with DL rebuild wouldn't be terrible either but otherwise we should cut ties.

 

[Nightman]

I don't think this is always the case. The quicker a player is cut or retires after an extension, its more punitive.

Questions in order of Bold
1) When do we roll-over significant cap room?
2) So do you think restructuring Ware and rolling his $12.25M (or $7M from a hypothetical $5m paycut) scheduled Base salary into 5 years (2019 one year longer than current and 3 longer than original) is the best move? Or just take the $9M hit for Ware. If restructures are always good, than the former is your position?
3) Do you think the cap had any issue with them not being a player in FA last year or this year? Do you think there was no high profile player either DLine or O line they wanted but couldn't get?
4) Carr - Even if we wanted to move on from Carr, we likely would wait until 2015. Then Finnegan deal was initially similar and he has $0 cap hit now.
5) This may or may not come true. TV money is sure to come into play, but there is a spending minimum for every team now. THat is going to force some teams to bid up FAs, and that will drive up prices for current 1st contract guys (Dez, T Smith). Many teams are not going to be able to meet a $150M payroll (Jax, Buff, Oak) there may be another lockout before you know it.
6)The signing of Durant, Allen and Sims were less than $1M in dead money deals. These were JAG signings. Waters cost $1.5M. Romo, Lee, Ware and Scandrick helped create that marginal room. These were never cornerstone guys - stop gaps. We weren't going to be players for Bennett or Avril.

This is a complex issue, choosing Spencer was at the cost of Avril or Bennett. Spencer's higher tag forced some restructurings (maybe Ware?). Those guys signed cheaper deals and were more productive. So, again, its hard for me to see why a players cap hit should not be roughly equal to their cap/production efficiency ratio. If it does, you have more flexibility when the player declines. Having less flexibility when a few cornerstones decline at once just isn't good.

With a Franchise QB, some level of restructures will always be needed. But multiple restructures on aging players is not prudent. Baltimore took their pain this year versus being overly creative. Look at Pittsburgh options to get under the cap versus Dallas. They have a vet club with many restructures, but they have won. If you don't win, can't see the value

Just want to say that I appreciate the work and if someone points out where I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. I just disagree with the main conclusion you reached about restructures.

1- The Lockout hurt Dallas bad. The cap went from 128m to 120m in 2011. Add the 5m penalty the next 2 years and there goes your rollover.
2- Restructures are only good if you plan to keep the player at that salary. So no, it's a terrible idea to restructure Ware's 12.75m. I would pay him 16m over 2 years though, with a 10m signing bonus. That would reduce his 2014 cap hit to 7.5m, but add 8m in new money. He would have to play thru 2015 to make it worthwhile, but that is a gamble I would take.
3-I think they banked on Spencer being their big signing. They also decided to wait on Waters after drafting Fred and re-doing Free. Ware-Ratliff-Hatcher-Spencer is a pretty good DL, with Crawford, Bass, Wilber as back-ups. The market for DEs wasn't as strong as expected, but they had to tag Spencer in Feb, way before anything was known.
3a- I would've never tagged Spencer back to back years for 20.4m. I would've resigned him to a 5 yr/30-35m deal after 2011. If he balked, I would've let him walk and maybe get a comp pick.
4- I don't want to move on from Carr at all. He is our starting CB for the next 2 years at least. If I buy a 50k car and try to trade it in after 2 years, I'm going to take a big loss. I bought that car for a reason and I trust it to perform as expected.
5- There will be some inflation, but Dallas is not looking to build through FA. A few guys yes, but not as a philosophy. I would go for one or 2 of the bigger fish like Melton, Joseph, Woodyard and/or Byrd. But more vets are being cut due to the rookie scale and bargains can be had.
5a- The cap floor is very misleading. It is a 4 yr average of cash spent, so teams will find ways around it. The cheap owners can extend a few key vets already under contract and give big cash bonuses in lieu of guarantees, but spending will be lower than expected and collusion talks will start again. Again, the rookie scale is biggest thing to come out of the new CBA, even more than the 47% players take.
6- I was just pointing out that if add everything up, Dallas was close to 20m under the cap without any major cuts(Sensabaugh maybe).
The Romo, Lee and Scandrick extensions initially created room but Romo was going to be restructured anyways and those types of contracts impact future years as well. It is part of the master plan.

I don't judge the plan based on the results only. That leads to rash decisions based on small sample sizes. If the decision is sound the results are often left to chance. That's what sports are all about. Just because Dallas hasn't won that doesn't mean everything they have done is wrong. Hindsight makes experts out of everyone.

 

[TheDude]

Just want to say that I appreciate the work and if someone points out where I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. I just disagree with the main conclusion you reached about restructures.

1- The Lockout hurt Dallas bad. The cap went from 128m to 120m in 2011. Add the 5m penalty the next 2 years and there goes your rollover.
2- Restructures are only good if you plan to keep the player at that salary. So no, it's a terrible idea to restructure Ware's 12.75m. I would pay him 16m over 2 years though, with a 10m signing bonus. That would reduce his 2014 cap hit to 7.5m, but add 8m in new money. He would have to play thru 2015 to make it worthwhile, but that is a gamble I would take.
3-I think they banked on Spencer being their big signing. They also decided to wait on Waters after drafting Fred and re-doing Free. Ware-Ratliff-Hatcher-Spencer is a pretty good DL, with Crawford, Bass, Wilber as back-ups. The market for DEs wasn't as strong as expected, but they had to tag Spencer in Feb, way before anything was known.
3a- I would've never tagged Spencer back to back years for 20.4m. I would've resigned him to a 5 yr/30-35m deal after 2011. If he balked, I would've let him walk and maybe get a comp pick.
4- I don't want to move on from Carr at all. He is our starting CB for the next 2 years at least. If I buy a 50k car and try to trade it in after 2 years, I'm going to take a big loss. I bought that car for a reason and I trust it to perform as expected.
5- There will be some inflation, but Dallas is not looking to build through FA. A few guys yes, but not as a philosophy. I would go for one or 2 of the bigger fish like Melton, Joseph, Woodyard and/or Byrd. But more vets are being cut due to the rookie scale and bargains can be had.
5a- The cap floor is very misleading. It is a 4 yr average of cash spent, so teams will find ways around it. The cheap owners can extend a few key vets already under contract and give big cash bonuses in lieu of guarantees, but spending will be lower than expected and collusion talks will start again. Again, the rookie scale is biggest thing to come out of the new CBA, even more than the 47% players take.
6- I was just pointing out that if add everything up, Dallas was close to 20m under the cap without any major cuts(Sensabaugh maybe).
The Romo, Lee and Scandrick extensions initially created room but Romo was going to be restructured anyways and those types of contracts impact future years as well. It is part of the master plan.

I don't judge the plan based on the results only. That leads to rash decisions based on small sample sizes. If the decision is sound the results are often left to chance. That's what sports are all about. Just because Dallas hasn't won that doesn't mean everything they have done is wrong. Hindsight makes experts out of everyone.

Thanks for the reply. Good stuff
1) The cap could theoretically go down from pension, lawsuits etc. in a given year. Maybe not next year, but straddling the line with a middling team is hard to pull the band-aid off with no pain
2) I think you are seeing that the unexpected Rat, Ware, Miles cap/production hit or dead money has delayed the re-signings of Dez and Tyron. Philly doe an excellent job of re-signing their core young guys early and typically take early cap hits right after those restructures. Dallas will get them signed, but I cannot see how they do it with out ensuring they hold onto Carr, Romo, Witten, Ware, maybe a yar or so longer than they initially thought. Again that initial Ware contract was almost perfect. He would have no cap hit and $12.25M would come right off the top. Sign him for 2yrs at a lower at that point and its a much easier evaluation process driven by market vs performance instead of market vs performance vs cap
3)Fair Point on Spencer. Ultimately though, I am glad to take a fresh look at him this year with no cap ramifications hanging. Last year's resigning sucked though. With you there.
4) Personally, I don't dislike Carr. I think he is solid enough. I do have a problem with $10M per year. I think the Finnegan contract and the RAMS NOT HAVING to restructure last year allow a truer evaluation of his skills from here out. At some point Dallas may want to move on from Carr but may not want the cap hit if they want to make a bigger move or maybe Romo or Ware retires.
5) Hope you are right on this...Love Melton. Good stuff on the minimum, I did look up that 4year average thing after the last post..good post
6) Free "freed" up some space with a cut also. Have to give them credit there. Franchise QB contracts are going to be primary drivers, but Romo has $41M in dead money this year, he has $20M next year. The cap number is $21M currently, though he can restructure and create $10M in room. But that puts $10M more in dead money. If he retires next year from injury, we are screwed. Granted the contract was given before the injury, but now that injury and realization that there is a higher probability that he may not play 3-5 more years, restructuring from need hurts the future - diminishing over time you can milk Romo. If they had room, they should began accruing that down faster. Currently he can provide positive cap relief if cut in 2015, if restructured that moves to at least 2016.

Results really are the only thing that matter. Baltimore sold out for a run and it paid off. They took their pain. Dallas always prolongs pain. Restructures aren't the reason they are here, but it allows them to cover up mistakes longer. But to say restructures have ZERO risk I don't think can be sold. The principal on the loan can be called sooner than the Cowboys would like and 3-4 of those on the same time creates a problem