Restructuring breakdown and the cap

[xwalker]

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

The point of my latest post was that it is indeed possible to operate at a level that is above the cap continuously. Yes, the "loan" on some individual players come due, but they get new "loans" against other players such that on average, it works out like my example. The key is the Current Year Expenditures and not the total report Cap number with includes both the Current Expenditures and the Carryover.

The Cowboys are much improved in the area of dead-money. It was about 30M in 2012 and is currently 11M for 2014. It could be down to about 5.5M in 2015 if Austin is a June 1st cut in 2014 and Ware is cut in March.

Their overall cap and roster situation is actually much better than it has been since Garrett become the Head Coach. The dead money is trending down and the average age of the roster is significantly down. Romo, Ware, Witten and the long snapper are the only players under contract that are over 30.

 

[TheDude]

The point of my latest post was that it is indeed possible to operate at a level that is above the cap continuously. Yes, the "loan" on some individual players come due, but they get new "loans" against other players such that on average, it works out like my example. The key is the Current Year Expenditures and not the total report Cap number with includes both the Current Expenditures and the Carryover.

The Cowboys are much improved in the area of dead-money. It was about 30M in 2012 and is currently 11M for 2014. It could be down to about 5.5M in 2015 if Austin is a June 1st cut in 2014 and Ware is cut in March.

Their overall cap and roster situation is actually much better than it has been since Garrett become the Head Coach. The dead money is trending down and the average age of the roster is significantly down. Romo, Ware, Witten and the long snapper are the only players under contract that are over 30.

Again,
if all restructures are blanket good, shouldn't every player in the league on a second contract 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.

 

[xwalker]

Again,
if all restructures are blanket good, shouldn't every player in the league on a second contract 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.

I'm not following this statement. Carr and Austin were restructured in 2013. Spencer was Franchised and couldn't be restructured.

 

[TheDude]

I'm not following this statement. Carr and Austin were restructured in 2013. Spencer was Franchised and couldn't be restructured.

I think (though I paraphrase) "that if you are going to keep a player, the best move is to restructure to max the cap." That connotes that all deals should be a vet min base with the reast as prorated bonus over 5 years....if 4 years are left in the deal...add a voidable year. Max/optimize the current year cap.

When you look at Finnegan vs Carr ( and the started out remarkable the same) and Roddy White vs Austin. Other teams seem to place more of the cap hit in the current year. Not all contracts guarantee a base salary and usually not over the first 2 years when they do. So the signing bonus and maybe first year salary are the only true cap hit deals. Converting base salary or W/O bonus to a prorated restructured bonus guarantees more of the contract.

This is just not as common across the league - en masse - everyone does it occasionally.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Most teams do not give SB because they cannot afford to outlay an additional $30m in a month. It's one thing to pay people in the middle of the season when your revenue streams are live but quite another in the Spring when your gates have been closed for three or more months.

The discussion on whether or not other teams do it is besides the point. Inflation being what it is I am glad that they pushed the cap penalty forward.

 

[Bluefin]

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.

That can certainly be done.

If Demarcus Ware takes a $6M cut in pay this year along with the restructures (Romo, Carr, Witten, Lee, Scandrick) that have been discussed, it would put Dallas under the cap by just over $14M.

Mile Austin will add over $5.5M in June if released or a lesser amount immediately if offered and agreeing to a pay cut.

Mackenzy Bernadeau could create another $1.616M if restructured with some new years added to the contract.

Restructuring Ware after the $6M pay cut would create an additional $4.04625M (4yrs) or $4.316M (5yrs) and see the team $18M or more under the cap.

I'd rather just reduce Ware's base salaries the next two seasons and revisit his status next year without adding any potential dead money to the equation.

If Ware rebounds this year, I keep him at the reduced salary in 2015 and see how he does that year before looking at possibly changing the voidable final two years of the deal.

 

[xwalker]

I think (though I paraphrase) "that if you are going to keep a player, the best move is to restructure to max the cap." That connotes that all deals should be a vet min base with the reast as prorated bonus over 5 years....if 4 years are left in the deal...add a voidable year. Max/optimize the current year cap.

When you look at Finnegan vs Carr ( and the started out remarkable the same) and Roddy White vs Austin. Other teams seem to place more of the cap hit in the current year. Not all contracts guarantee a base salary and usually not over the first 2 years when they do. So the signing bonus and maybe first year salary are the only true cap hit deals. Converting base salary or W/O bonus to a prorated restructured bonus guarantees more of the contract.

This is just not as common across the league - en masse - everyone does it occasionally.

You're ignoring the big picture example that I gave you. The fact is that a team can operate at more than 100% of the salary cap continuously if the sum of all base salaries prior to restructuring is below the cap. For the Cowboys, the sum of all non-restructured base salaries is about 35M under the cap.

Don't try to paraphrase something and then say that it is what I said. Either quote what I said or don't.

Obviously, for teams with significant cap space, there is no reason to restructure all contracts. There is no downside to it, but it's not necessary. The Rams QB is on his rookie contract. It's fairly big, but it does not compare to team with top paid veterans on their 2nd or 3rd contract. You can't compare the cap situation of teams with a QB on his rookie contract or teams with a low paid QB to teams with a top paid veteran QB.

 

[TheDude]

You're ignoring the big picture example that I gave you. The fact is that a team can operate at more than 100% of the salary cap continuously if the sum of all base salaries prior to restructuring is below the cap. For the Cowboys, the sum of all non-restructured base salaries is about 35M under the cap.

I still scenarios where it limits. What if Romo retired after the back injury last year? Regardless, I don't want to get off into too improbable of events. But given the opportunity to max the cap only vs matching cap performance to cap utilization, Dallas falls to the former and most other teams move to the latter. There is no competitive advantage, We can't go sign, Melton, Michael Johnson, Byrd, TJ Ward, sign Dez and Tyron Smith. THe eagles did something similar with the "Dream Team" but used more availbale cap in that year and got out of that trade quick. Dallas has the cash and means to sign anyone they want, the cap is a restriction and having to account for dead money tightens that restriction. The cap going up helps, but still doesn't make the strategy the best.

Don't try to paraphrase something and then say that it is what I said. Either quote what I said or don't.

My paraphrase was pretty damn accurate. Sorry if I don't want to try to sift through a multiple pages of multiple quotes on a cell phone. You knew the gist of what I was saying - you said it. Glad to know the internet tough guy routine is rearing its head

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.

 

[xwalker]

I still scenarios where it limits. What if Romo retired after the back injury last year? Regardless, I don't want to get off into too improbable of events. But given the opportunity to max the cap only vs matching cap performance to cap utilization, Dallas falls to the former and most other teams move to the latter. There is no competitive advantage, We can't go sign, Melton, Michael Johnson, Byrd, TJ Ward, sign Dez and Tyron Smith. THe eagles did something similar with the "Dream Team" but used more availbale cap in that year and got out of that trade quick. Dallas has the cash and means to sign anyone they want, the cap is a restriction and having to account for dead money tightens that restriction. The cap going up helps, but still doesn't make the strategy the best.

My paraphrase was pretty damn accurate. Sorry if I don't want to try to sift through a multiple pages of multiple quotes on a cell phone. You knew the gist of what I was saying - you said it. Glad to know the internet tough guy routine is rearing its head

You still fail to acknowledge a team can operate at greater than 100% of the salary cap continuously as I explained in my examples. If you take the same management team and in 1 scenario they have a 100M cap limit and in the other scenario they have a 150M cap limit, they inevitably have an advantage in he 2nd scenario.

I'm not trying to be a tough guy, but it's misleading to paraphrase something and then analyze the paraphrase.

You seem to be inferring that the Cowboys problems are related to how they have managed the cap; however, most of their issues have been poor decisions in other areas and the salary cap has not been their downfall. For example, they thought they were set on DL at this time last year and wouldn't have signed free agent DLinemen regardless of the cap situation. There are only so many starting spots and only so many roster spots for the DL. By the time the injuries occurred, there were no quality free agents available. They have made many bad decisions that were not forced on them by the salary cap.

The 2014 salary cap does not prevent the Cowboys from signing some top free agents and re-signing Tyron and Dez. The fact that the cap is increasing just makes it easier. They can free up about 19.5M by cutting Ware, making Austin a June 1st cut and restructuring Romo, Carr, Witten and Lee. As a reference, the 1st year cap hit of Carr's 50M contract was 3.2M. Six times 3.2M is 19.2M which translates to 6 x 50M or 300M of additional contracts that they could fit under the 2014 cap. That's more than enough to sign Johnson and Melton with new contracts for Dez and Tyron.

The following is not good logic:
1. The Cowboys have failed to meet expectations.
2. The Cowboys spend more and restructure more than most other teams.
Conclusion: The Salary Cap must be the reason that the Cowboys fail to meet expectations.