Restructuring breakdown and the cap

[kevinhickey]

Could Jerry just rip up the contract and sign Ware to a more cap friendly deal. I was thinking so Suggs situation in Baltimore.

 

[casmith07]

It always amuses me to see fans and the media ***** about the Cowboys salary cap only to see the Cowboys figure it out without any angst at all every single year, year after year.

 

[theSHOW]

It always amuses me to see fans and the media ***** about the Cowboys salary cap only to see the Cowboys figure it out without any angst at all every single year, year after year.

amused? with having less money to be competitive in free agency? for me I am horrified at how we handle the cap.

 

[Bluefin]

Could Jerry just rip up the contract and sign Ware to a more cap friendly deal. I was thinking so Suggs situation in Baltimore.

The Baltimore Ravens gave Terrell Suggs an extension, which included $16M in new guaranteed money.

Suggs was entering the final year of his contract and needed a new deal if the team wanted to keep him.

Demarcus Ware has two years remaining on his current contract.

There's no need to extend Ware since he's coming off two injury marred seasons and under contract through 2015.

Ware needs to accept a pay cut, which will drop his cap numbers while still paying him fairly.

Ware has averaged $6.375M over the past four seasons.

Reducing Ware's 2014 base salary ($12.25M) by $6M and his 2015 base salary ($13.75) by $7M seems perfectly reasonable.

Ware would make $6.25M this year and $6.75M next year ($13M total) while Dallas would save $13M over the two seasons.

Ware's agent will check around to see what his client can expect as a free agent if released. I don't think there's any chance of another team offering Ware more than he can make with the Cowboys the next two years.

Ware's contract is currently set to void following the 2015 season.

 

[Alexander]

It always amuses me to see fans and the media ***** about the Cowboys salary cap only to see the Cowboys figure it out without any angst at all every single year, year after year.

They have to get under the cap, so yes the idea of "cap jail" is wrong. They will get under like they do every year by using the credit card mentality.

But they don't "figure it out". If they "figured it out" they would be around the middle of the pack each year, primed to be able to spend in free agency immediately and prior to the draft to make sure there are no holes and they could approach the draft with an open mind.

For example, would you not find it preferable to go into free agency knowing right now you could target Melton easily and be able to sign him quickly if you wanted to without realizing that you would have to extend deals you do not want to keep paying for three or four years down the line, making the same kind of painful decisions we are doing with Ware?

I can tell you one thing, Jones would love to not be in this position.

 

[theSHOW]

They have to get under the cap, so yes the idea of "cap jail" is wrong. They will get under like they do every year by using the credit card mentality.

But they don't "figure it out". If they "figured it out" they would be around the middle of the pack each year, primed to be able to spend in free agency immediately and prior to the draft to make sure there are no holes and they could approach the draft with an open mind.

For example, would you not find it preferable to go into free agency knowing right now you could target Melton easily and be able to sign him quickly if you wanted to without realizing that you would have to extend deals you do not want to keep paying for three or four years down the line, making the same kind of painful decisions we are doing with Ware?

I can tell you one thing, Jones would love to not be in this position.

Reverse Cow g i r l?

 

[xwalker]

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

I never said that restructuring is always good as compared to cutting a player. Restructuring is always ok if you are keeping that player anyway. Paying Ware 12.25M for 2014 is not a good idea regardless of whether it is done with or without a restructure.

Last year was the only time that they really maxed out against the cap and that was due to the franchise tag for Spencer. All other years they didn't restructure all contracts.

If they paid Carr more than his production deserves, that was not the fault of restructuring. It was a mistake when they signed the contract. All contracts now have significant guaranteed money. Teams can't get away from giving out guaranteed money even if they didn't want to push any money into the future. A signing bonus is always going to be pushed into the future.

Interesting point about teams like Jacksonville possibly not being able to meet payroll. I have not studied the minimum spending requirement of the CBA. I would assume that if the 2016 cap is 30M over the 2013 cap, that each team is getting an extra 30M in real dollars to spend.

With regards to the signing of Allen, Durant and Sims, I'm not sure that the Cowboys would have done much more than that in free agency regardless of the cap. They thought they were set on DL, the SLB is a part time player and they probably thought that one of the young Safeties would step up and take that job. They didn't think they needed anything on offense. They ended up short on depth at Guard, but in the Spring they thought the Livings would be on the team.

 

[Bluefin]

It always amuses me to see fans and the media ***** about the Cowboys salary cap only to see the Cowboys figure it out without any angst at all every single year, year after year.

It's just that the cap stuff always gets blown out of proportion.

Some media and fans see a huge projected cap number for the next season ($151M) and they walk off a cliff.

But you can't look at such a number in a vacuum because some player contracts are purposefully written to be restructured.

Tony Romo ($21.773M), Sean Lee ($7.5M) and Orlando Scandrick ($6.601M) are three such cases this year.

Once all three get restructured and count against the 2014 cap as intended, it shaves $16.868M off the top.

That drops the team's cap number down to $134.857M.

The 2014 NFL unadjusted team cap is $133M.

Dallas' 2014 adjusted team cap is $134.280694M.

Even if the cap had come in lower, at $126.3M or $128.3 or $130M, the the Cowboys were never as bad off as some portrayed because some contracts were meant to be re-worked all along.

And the team never had any intention of paying Demarcus Ware $12.25M this coming season, either.

That was never going to happen, it's just phantom money at the back end of a contract to make the deal look larger on paper.

Ware will agree to a pay cut, which will still pay him in line with what he's been making, or he will get released.

Other players will also be asked to take pay cuts if they wish to return and some unplanned contract restructures will also take place.

Brandon Carr ($12.217M cap hit) is one such player.

The team can create $5.0775M (4yrs) or $5.416M (5yrs) with a restructure.

Will that prevent Dallas from cutting Carr in the future as some fear?

Right now, Carr could be a June release in 2015, which would create $8M in room that month while saving $6.383M in 2016 and $12.717M in 2017.

Following a restructure this year, the Cowboys could still release Carr as a June cut in 2015 to create $8M in cap space, while saving $4.6905M (4yrs) or $3.675M (5yrs) in 2016 and $14.4095M (4yrs) or $14.071M (5yrs) in 2017.

So a restructure this year won't prevent the team from releasing Carr as soon as next year, should it be necessary.

The same is true if Jason Witten gets restructured.

The potential dead money does go up, but the amounts aren't big enough to limit Dallas in any way in future years.

 

[Bluefin]

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

That's true, if the player gets released or traded.

Any player who retires can be forced to repay his team all remaining pro-rated signing bonus money in the remaining years of his contract.

 

[TheDude]

The Baltimore Ravens gave Terrell Suggs an extension, which included $16M in new guaranteed money.

Suggs was entering the final year of his contract and needed a new deal if the team wanted to keep him.

Demarcus Ware has two years remaining on his current contract.

There's no need to extend Ware since he's coming off two injury marred seasons and under contract through 2015.

Ware needs to accept a pay cut, which will drop his cap numbers while still paying him fairly.

Ware has averaged $6.375M over the past four seasons.

Reducing Ware's 2014 base salary ($12.25M) by $6M and his 2015 base salary ($13.75) by $7M seems perfectly reasonable.

Ware would make $6.25M this year and $6.75M next year ($13M total) while Dallas would save $13M over the two seasons.

Ware's agent will check around to see what his client can expect as a free agent if released. I don't think there's any chance of another team offering Ware more than he can make with the Cowboys the next two years.

Ware's contract is currently set to void following the 2015 season.

Ware is technically under contract until 2017. There were 2 voidable years added (similar to suggs) in the 2012 extension so to maximize the cap. The base salaries in those year s are $13M each. To maximize/optimize the cap number another year would need to be added - 2018 and the $6M salary would be split as $840K+5.16M/5 - adding $4M of dead money at the end of the year. It essentially puts them mathematically at the same $8-9M dead money figure for next year.

Had he never been restructured, then the cutting scenario you laid out is as simple as that. On the excel sheet, his current cap number is $15M (It's $15M because we tried to lower his cap ratio in the more productive years and push it). Current dead money is $9M (hit if cut). If he gets the max restructure he gets a $6,3M cap number, but up to $19M in dead money in 2015. If he cuts salary to $7M/yr (Avril/Bennet range) and there is a max restructure (2018), he has a $5M cap hit this year, $11M next year with $8M dead money.

Any paycut will help, but adding years and maxing/optimizing the cap charge for a player at all costs has risks

 

[TheDude]

I never said that restructuring is always good as compared to cutting a player. Restructuring is always ok if you are keeping that player anyway. Paying Ware 12.25M for 2014 is not a good idea regardless of whether it is done with or without a restructure.

Last year was the only time that they really maxed out against the cap and that was due to the franchise tag for Spencer. All other years they didn't restructure all contracts.

If they paid Carr more than his production deserves, that was not the fault of restructuring. It was a mistake when they signed the contract. All contracts now have significant guaranteed money. Teams can't get away from giving out guaranteed money even if they didn't want to push any money into the future. A signing bonus is always going to be pushed into the future.

Interesting point about teams like Jacksonville possibly not being able to meet payroll. I have not studied the minimum spending requirement of the CBA. I would assume that if the 2016 cap is 30M over the 2013 cap, that each team is getting an extra 30M in real dollars to spend.

With regards to the signing of Allen, Durant and Sims, I'm not sure that the Cowboys would have done much more than that in free agency regardless of the cap. They thought they were set on DL, the SLB is a part time player and they probably thought that one of the young Safeties would step up and take that job. They didn't think they needed anything on offense. They ended up short on depth at Guard, but in the Spring they thought the Livings would be on the team.

So assume Ware takes a 4-5M pay cut, do you think it is wise to add a 2018 year to Ware's deal and pay $840K base + prorate the rest just to optimize the 2014 cap?

I had a Carr and Finnegan example. Both signed 5yr/$50M deals, The Rams have more flexibility with the Finnegan contract. Finnegan has zero negotiating power on that deal. The $50M was market rate, but the strategy Dallas employs makes evaluation less clean. If new coaches or GMs came into both Dallas or Pitt today and wanted to gut many players, There is built in limit on the Dallas side because of the contract structures.

Agree that last year Spencer was the FA splash, But since we kept him for 2 years at $10M per, restructuring could have added to more dead money this year. This way (we over payed) but hands are washed. Spencer is a whole other debate.

Maybe another comparison - Look at the Roddy White and Miles Austin. Both signed 6-year deals around $8.5M -$9M per. Roddy's was more pay as you go and Miles was restructured twice. Perhaps Dallas would like to keep Miles for a couple of years at a reduced salary - however, I can't see how adding another voidable year and moving $3M (vs $5M) to a bonus is benefitting the team. Atlanta can do anything they want with Roddy. If he is flat cut - cap benefit, extended benefit, salary reduced, benefit. I would think that Dimitroff is seen as a prudent GM. Atlanta surely has had more success in recent years (on the whole) than Dallas. They don't employ the same strategy as Dallas. Same with Philly, Same with GB, etc.

Again, all restructures aren't bad, but repeated max/optimized restructures (vet minimum each year + 5 year prorated bonus with extensions) can snowball.

Of course, I am a financial market and credit risk guy, so any time I see anything purported as ZERO risk / only upside I get ancy.

Appreciate the Good dialogue.

 

[Bluefin]

Ware is technically under contract until 2017. There were 2 voidable years added (similar to suggs) in the 2012 extension so to maximize the cap.

The base salaries in those year s are $13M each.

The two voidable seasons were added as part of the restructure last season in order to allow for the maximum signing bonus proration of five years.

Those years exist for the sole purpose of salary cap manipulation.

The base salaries are irrelevant because Demarcus Ware will either be off the team by then or return at a greatly reduced salary.

To maximize/optimize the cap number another year would need to be added - 2018 and the $6M salary would be split as $840K+5.16M/5 - adding $4M of dead money at the end of the year. It essentially puts them mathematically at the same $8-9M dead money figure for next year.

Any paycut will help, but adding years and maxing/optimizing the cap charge for a player at all costs has risks

There's no need to do another maximum restructure (5yrs) or restructure (4yrs) with Ware.

All the team needs to do is get Ware to agree to lower his base salaries this year ($12.25M) and next ($13.75M).

It's completely unnecessary to alter Ware's new 2014 base salary by giving him a new signing bonus if he agrees to take a pay cut.

If Ware's play doesn't improve in 2014, he will likely be released in 2015, so why give him another bonus now and increase your dead money if that happens?

There's no reason to restructure Ware's salary following a pay cut.

The savings generated by the pay cut will suffice in this case.

 

[TheDude]

There's no need to do another maximum restructure (5yrs) or restructure (4yrs) with Ware.

All the team needs to do is get Ware to agree to lower his base salaries this year ($12.25M) and next ($13.75M).

It's completely unnecessary to alter Ware's new 2014 base salary by giving him a new signing bonus if he agrees to take a pay cut.

If Ware's play doesn't improve in 2014, he will likely be released in 2015, so why give him another bonus now and increase your dead money if that happens?

There's no reason to restructure Ware's salary following a pay cut.

The savings generated by the pay cut will suffice in this case.

Not a signing bonus but restructure base salary (current) into min salary + restructure bonus. If Ware takes a $5M/yr pay cut, Dallas will not keep the $7M as base as there is already a $3M prorated past Bonus assigned. That puts his cap hit at $10M. Dallas will likely put $840K as base and spread the $6.16M out to lower the cap hit.

If they do the former, I am all for it, but then that shows that restructuring a contract for max cap relief on a player you keep - even after pay cut - is not always the best move...which is the original point

 

[xwalker]

So assume Ware takes a 4-5M pay cut, do you think it is wise to add a 2018 year to Ware's deal and pay $840K base + prorate the rest just to optimize the 2014 cap?

I had a Carr and Finnegan example. Both signed 5yr/$50M deals, The Rams have more flexibility with the Finnegan contract. Finnegan has zero negotiating power on that deal. The $50M was market rate, but the strategy Dallas employs makes evaluation less clean. If new coaches or GMs came into both Dallas or Pitt today and wanted to gut many players, There is built in limit on the Dallas side because of the contract structures.

Agree that last year Spencer was the FA splash, But since we kept him for 2 years at $10M per, restructuring could have added to more dead money this year. This way (we over payed) but hands are washed. Spencer is a whole other debate.

Maybe another comparison - Look at the Roddy White and Miles Austin. Both signed 6-year deals around $8.5M -$9M per. Roddy's was more pay as you go and Miles was restructured twice. Perhaps Dallas would like to keep Miles for a couple of years at a reduced salary - however, I can't see how adding another voidable year and moving $3M (vs $5M) to a bonus is benefitting the team. Atlanta can do anything they want with Roddy. If he is flat cut - cap benefit, extended benefit, salary reduced, benefit. I would think that Dimitroff is seen as a prudent GM. Atlanta surely has had more success in recent years (on the whole) than Dallas. They don't employ the same strategy as Dallas. Same with Philly, Same with GB, etc.

Again, all restructures aren't bad, but repeated max/optimized restructures (vet minimum each year + 5 year prorated bonus with extensions) can snowball.

Of course, I am a financial market and credit risk guy, so any time I see anything purported as ZERO risk / only upside I get ancy.

Appreciate the Good dialogue.

The big picture of the salary cap is counter intuitive to someone with a financial background. Many things that are ingrained in the thought process of financial analysis don't hold true with the salary cap.

There are 2 parts to a given years cap costs. The current expenditures and the costs that were pushed forward from previous years. A team can operate continuously with the total cap costs that exceed the NFL salary cap as long as the current expenditures, on average, do not exceed the NFL cap limit.


Simplistic Example:
The cap is 100M.
CCE = Current year cap expenditure
Carryover = the amount that was pushed into the current year from previous years.
Push Forward = The amount that is being pushed forward into future years.

Year 1: The team has 150M cap commitment in February and must get under the cap in March. They restructure contracts to push 50M into year 2.
Year 2: The current year expenditure is 100M but there is 50M that carried over from year 1. They push 50M into year 3.
Year 3: CCE = 100M, Carryover=50M, Push Foward=50M
Year 4: CCE = 100M, Carryover=50M, Push Foward=50M
Year 5: CCE = 100M, Carryover=50M, Push Foward=50M

In the example, it appears that the team cap commitment is 150M; however, in reality they are just spending 100M that year and pushing the previous 50M forward every year. They never have to pay off the 50M. It would be like getting a person getting a zero interest 1 year, 50M loan with the ability to get a new 50M loan each year to pay off the previous loan. Because there is no interest, you could do this forever.

In reality, the "loan" does come due when players are no longer on the team; however, they will be "borrowing" against the contracts of other players to offset it. It averages out similar to the example.

The Cowboys cap commitment for 2014 appears to be about 151M, broken down as follows for the top 51 contracts + dead money:
Current players cap hits: 139.9M
Dead money from players like Ratliff: 11.8M
Total: 151M
However, the total for all base salaries for 2014 is 95.8M; therefore their CCE=95.8M and the Carryover= 151M - 95.8M = 55.2M.

With the NFL cap limit at around 130M, the Cowboys are well below the breaking point because their commitment in base salaries prior to any restructuring is only 95.8M.

They can operate indefinitely with a CCE=95.8M and Carryover=55.2M; however, they would not be able to operate continuously with a CCE of 145.8M and a Carryover of 5.2M even though it adds up to 151M in both scenarios.

Example of operating over the breaking point (cap limit = 100M):
Year 1: The team has 150M cap commitment in February and must get under the cap in March. They restructure contracts to push 50M into year 2.
Year 2: The current year expenditure is 110M but there is 50M that carried over from year 1. They push 60M into year 3.
Year 3: CCE = 110M, Carryover=60M, Push Foward=70M
Year 4: CCE = 110M, Carryover=70M, Push Foward=80M
Year 5: CCE = 110M, Carryover=80M, Push Foward=90M

As you can see, the Carryover continues to increase and at some point they can't restructure enough to overcome the Carryover.

 

[Bluefin]

Not a signing bonus but restructure base salary (current) into min salary + restructure bonus.

It's the same thing.

Bonus money is bonus money, whether it's referred to as a signing bonus or a restructure bonus, it pro-rates over the life of the contract up to five years.

Dallas doesn't need to do give Demarcus Ware any more bonus money.

Ware needs to take a pay cut this year and next if he wants to remain with the team.

As long as Ware agrees to this, nothing else needs to be done with his contract.

 

[TheDude]

The big picture of the salary cap is counter intuitive to someone with a financial background. Many things that are ingrained in the thought process of financial analysis don't hold true with the salary cap.

There are 2 parts to a given years cap costs. The current expenditures and the costs that were pushed forward from previous years. A team can operate continuously with the total cap costs that exceed the NFL salary cap as long as the current expenditures, on average, do not exceed the NFL cap limit.


Simplistic Example:
The cap is 100M.
CCE = Current year cap expenditure
Carryover = the amount that was pushed into the current year from previous years.
Push Forward = The amount that is being pushed forward into future years.

Year 1: The team has 150M cap commitment in February and must get under the cap in March. They restructure contracts to push 50M into year 2.
Year 2: The current year expenditure is 100M but there is 50M that carried over from year 1. They push 50M into year 3.
Year 3: CCE = 100M, Carryover=50M, Push Foward=50M
Year 4: CCE = 100M, Carryover=50M, Push Foward=50M
Year 5: CCE = 100M, Carryover=50M, Push Foward=50M

In the example, it appears that the team cap commitment is 150M; however, in reality they are just spending 100M that year and pushing the previous 50M forward every year. They never have to pay off the 50M. It would be like getting a person getting a zero interest 1 year, 50M loan with the ability to get a new 50M loan each year to pay off the previous loan. Because there is no interest, you could do this forever.

In reality, the "loan" does come due when players are no longer on the team; however, they will be "borrowing" against the contracts of other players to offset it. It averages out similar to the example.

The Cowboys cap commitment for 2014 appears to be about 151M, broken down as follows for the top 51 contracts + dead money:
Current players cap hits: 139.9M
Dead money from players like Ratliff: 11.8M
Total: 151M
However, the total for all base salaries for 2014 is 95.8M; therefore their CCE=95.8M and the Carryover= 151M - 95.8M = 55.2M.

With the NFL cap limit at around 130M, the Cowboys are well below the breaking point because their commitment in base salaries prior to any restructuring is only 95.8M.

They can operate indefinitely with a CCE=95.8M and Carryover=55.2M; however, they would not be able to operate continuously with a CCE of 145.8M and a Carryover of 5.2M even though it adds up to 151M in both scenarios.

Example of operating over the breaking point (cap limit = 100M):
Year 1: The team has 150M cap commitment in February and must get under the cap in March. They restructure contracts to push 50M into year 2.
Year 2: The current year expenditure is 110M but there is 50M that carried over from year 1. They push 60M into year 3.
Year 3: CCE = 110M, Carryover=60M, Push Foward=70M
Year 4: CCE = 110M, Carryover=70M, Push Foward=80M
Year 5: CCE = 110M, Carryover=80M, Push Foward=90M

As you can see, the Carryover continues to increase and at some point they can't restructure enough to overcome the Carryover.

Great write-up appreciate the effort, though the risk that is being marginalized is that the pushforward loan is only called optimally by the lender (Dallas mgmt) while the player production would force it to be called earlier than projected. The loan can be called unexpectedly or accelerated by poor performance, injury, retirement, age. Do you think that it was planned during the last contract that Ware would decline by 2014? along with Ratliff not being on the roster, along with Miles issues, along with Romo starting to get banged up seriously, along with Carr underperforming? All in 2014? Granted, some of these are just bad contracts, but the restructures masked that. The initial Ware contract was dead on, know it requires manipulation.

Again if all restructures are blanket good, shouldn't every player in the league receive the vet minimum and structure the rest of the salay/bonus over the 5 year amortization? This is not the practice carte blanche across Dallas (Spencer, even Carr and MIles last year) and especially the league.

Part of the issue is that restructures are more necessary for teams that want tons of high-priced contracts. Jax, Oak, Buff, Az, are never going to spend the flat cash to worry about it. Dallas does. But high-prced contracts are inherently coming with a 4-5yr or older vet. This puts the average age around 27. 5-7yr deals expect base to increasing performance until 32-33. There is some inherent risk in that assumption alone.

The cap isn't that hard calc, I just think there are risk with every strategy. And when people don't acknowledge them, that's when they blow up.

Ultimately, you are right in another post. It has allowed Dallas to operate as an 8-8 team and if it was more conservative it's likely the team may have been a 4-12 team. I think there is some value being forced to re-start. This strategies allows prolonging and masking that and don't think that is deniable

 

[Nightman]

Ultimately, you are right in another post. It has allowed Dallas to operate as an 8-8 team and if it was more conservative it's likely the team may have been a 4-12 team. I think there is some value being forced to re-start. This strategies allows prolonging and masking that and don't think that is deniable

That is the key point to me. Jerry wants to compete for the division every year and they have every year except for 2010 since Romo took over. I don't think he could sell a couple 4-12 seasons with the new stadium.

 

[TheDude]

It's the same thing.

Bonus money is bonus money, whether it's referred to as a signing bonus or a restructure bonus, it pro-rates over the life of the contract up to five years.

Dallas doesn't need to do give Demarcus Ware any more bonus money.

Ware needs to take a pay cut this year and next if he wants to remain with the team.

As long as Ware agrees to this, nothing else needs to be done with his contract.

Ware can agree to a $7M vs a $12M salary. Do you think Dallas will keep the $7M as base and count 100% to 2014 cap or structure it as a vet minimum (840k) + Bonus (1.4M - 20% per year). Are you agnostic to either? Strategy 1 leaves $3M dead money in 2015, strategy 2 is at least $8M (higher if a year isn't added to prorate).

 

[Nightman]

It's the same thing.

Bonus money is bonus money, whether it's referred to as a signing bonus or a restructure bonus, it pro-rates over the life of the contract up to five years.

Dallas doesn't need to do give Demarcus Ware any more bonus money.

Ware needs to take a pay cut this year and next if he wants to remain with the team.

As long as Ware agrees to this, nothing else needs to be done with his contract.

I would still do a pay cut and restructure to get the maximum savings. That would make it a 2 year commitment, but I could live with that for Ware.

 

[TheDude]

Ultimately, you are right in another post. It has allowed Dallas to operate as an 8-8 team and if it was more conservative it's likely the team may have been a 4-12 team. I think there is some value being forced to re-start. This strategies allows prolonging and masking that and don't think that is deniable

That is the key point to me. Jerry wants to compete for the division every year and they have every year except for 2010 since Romo took over. I don't think he could sell a couple 4-12 seasons with the new stadium.

But what if one year you end up 4-12 with this strategy?. You could be forced with new coaches, gm, etc and little comparative flexibility to jettison all players and pull in some new ones vs a different franchise who has much less tied up older players with large dead money allocations from multiple restructuring