Romo isn't untradable

[Galian Beast]

There is no one here who is a bigger backer of Tony Romo than me, but the idea that he is untradable doesn't carry water.

If you found a team that would take his contract (which I think you would be able to), and you got the compensation you wanted it would be financially feasible.

#1 It would mean a complete philosophical reboot of the team.
#2 It would require cutting DeMarcus Ware.
#3 It would require restructuring essentially every major contract on the team for a year.
#4 We wouldn't be able to do anything in free agency this year (including extending Smith and Bryant)

On the other hand without Ware and Romo in 2015, your salary cap would completely open up. You would be about 47 million under the cap in 2015 and 72 million under the cap in 2016. So the reset would definitely take effect.

Personally I feel as though cutting Ware accomplishes enough of a reset on the defense (Assuming we don't resign hatcher or spencer), and it isn't necessary to give up on Romo, but ultimately it is well within financial reasoning.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

There is no one here who is a bigger backer of Tony Romo than me, but the idea that he is untradable doesn't carry water.

If you found a team that would take his contract (which I think you would be able to), and you got the compensation you wanted it would be financially feasible.

#1 It would mean a complete philosophical reboot of the team.
#2 It would require cutting DeMarcus Ware.
#3 It would require restructuring essentially every major contract on the team for a year.
#4 We wouldn't be able to do anything in free agency this year (including extending Smith and Bryant)

On the other hand without Ware and Romo in 2015, your salary cap would completely open up. You would be about 47 million under the cap in 2015 and 72 million under the cap in 2016. So the reset would definitely take effect.

Personally I feel as though cutting Ware accomplishes enough of a reset on the defense (Assuming we don't resign hatcher or spencer), and it isn't necessary to give up on Romo, but ultimately it is well within financial reasoning.

and what will that get us? will be better in the short and long term? tell me how.....

 

[Beast_from_East]

There is no one here who is a bigger backer of Tony Romo than me, but the idea that he is untradable doesn't carry water.

If you found a team that would take his contract (which I think you would be able to), and you got the compensation you wanted it would be financially feasible.

#1 It would mean a complete philosophical reboot of the team.
#2 It would require cutting DeMarcus Ware.
#3 It would require restructuring essentially every major contract on the team for a year.
#4 We wouldn't be able to do anything in free agency this year (including extending Smith and Bryant)

On the other hand without Ware and Romo in 2015, your salary cap would completely open up. You would be about 47 million under the cap in 2015 and 72 million under the cap in 2016. So the reset would definitely take effect.

Personally I feel as though cutting Ware accomplishes enough of a reset on the defense (Assuming we don't resign hatcher or spencer), and it isn't necessary to give up on Romo, but ultimately it is well within financial reasoning.

You realize we take about a $40 million dollar cap hit if we trade Romo, so we basically gut the roster and field an expansion level team this season.

Is that what you are advocating?

 

[Beats_By_Zeke]

I

You realize we take about a $40 million dollar cap hit if we trade Romo, so we basically gut the roster and field an expansion level team this season.

Is that what you are advocating?

I'm guessing the op wants a complete rebuild

 

[DandyDon1722]

That's fine but any other QB coming in gets the same defense meaning you better get a guy who can put up a lot of points and keep the offense in the top ten or we have zero chance.

 

[Verdict]

There is no one here who is a bigger backer of Tony Romo than me, but the idea that he is untradable doesn't carry water.

If you found a team that would take his contract (which I think you would be able to), and you got the compensation you wanted it would be financially feasible.

#1 It would mean a complete philosophical reboot of the team.
#2 It would require cutting DeMarcus Ware.
#3 It would require restructuring essentially every major contract on the team for a year.
#4 We wouldn't be able to do anything in free agency this year (including extending Smith and Bryant)

On the other hand without Ware and Romo in 2015, your salary cap would completely open up. You would be about 47 million under the cap in 2015 and 72 million under the cap in 2016. So the reset would definitely take effect.

Personally I feel as though cutting Ware accomplishes enough of a reset on the defense (Assuming we don't resign hatcher or spencer), and it isn't necessary to give up on Romo, but ultimately it is well within financial reasoning.

For all practical purposes, it would be pretty stupid to trade or cut Romo this early on into his contract. If we were going to cut or trade Romo now, we wouldn't have given him the contract we gave him in the first place. With each passing year the prorated signing bonus is reduced and the cap hit to cut or replace him drops off, but I don't see any chance that happens for at least two more years under the current contract.

 

[Clove]

That's fine but any other QB coming in gets the same defense meaning you better get a guy who can put up a lot of points and keep the offense in the top ten or we have zero chance.

Sometimes it's all about a philosophical change. You ditch the grandpa scheme, and implement something that fits the talent you have here. And add a couple pieces in the draft. Either way, we act as if being 8-8 year after year is priceless.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I

I'm guessing the op wants a complete rebuild

Apparently so.................I just looked it up...............it would be officially a $41 million dollar cap hit as of today, if Romo restructures his contract than it would be closer to $50 million as more base salary would be converted to bonus money in the restructure.

We seriously would have to release almost every veteran player on the roster to absorb that kind of a cap penalty.

 

[Section446]

He's absolutely untradeable. That contract completely screws us.

 

[tm1119]

There is no team that would take on that contract of a 33 year old coming off of a significant back surgery. Not even worth discussing

 

[Risen Star]

I think he is. When you factor in that he's over 30 with back issues, a huge contract, and what the Cowboys would want in return for him, it's highly unlikely that a trade could happen.

 

[Doomsday101]

He's absolutely untradeable. That contract completely screws us.

Yet his contract is in line with guys like Jay Cutler.

 

[bark]

The only gm that would make that trade already has him under contract.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think he is. When you factor in that he's over 30 with back issues, a huge contract, and what the Cowboys would want in return for him, it's highly unlikely that a trade could happen.

But not untradeable.

Just 99.99% unlikely to be tradeable.

 

[theSHOW]

the trade talk stopped when the ink hit the paper on his deal for 120 million. I would have traded my favorite player after 2012. But Jerry doesn't listen to me. Romo is a fine QB and just needs to get rid of the high priced stars that are on the downside.

 

[dbonham]

What team would he make a contender? The Vikings?

 

[The Natural]

He's absolutely untradeable. That contract completely screws us.

Some of us were advocates of trading Romo and taking on an Alex Smith type of QB on a 1 year deal. Some of us, including myself were advocates of trading a 2nd rd. pick for young back up QB's around the league to groom for a year and start. We saw the light, Jerry didnt. How many more late game blunders will we as fans be forced to endure because this monkey thought it was a bright idea to sign a 33 year old QB who has won you 1 playoff game to a 6 year 100+ million dollar deal?

 

[jnday]

and what will that get us? will be better in the short and long term? tell me how.....

Long term would be great. There is not going to be a Super Bowl with this team as it is.

 

[Section446]

Some of us were advocates of trading Romo and taking on an Alex Smith type of QB on a 1 year deal. Some of us, including myself were advocates of trading a 2nd rd. pick for young back up QB's around the league to groom for a year and start. We saw the light, Jerry didnt. How many more late game blunders will we as fans be forced to endure because this monkey thought it was a bright idea to sign a 33 year old QB who has won you 1 playoff game to a 6 year 100+ million dollar deal?

"Some of us" includes me, my friend.

 

[Section446]

Yet his contract is in line with guys like Jay Cutler.

What does Jay Cutler have to do with anything?