Romo isn't untradable

[Section446]

Its also a true one.

That Hardline, he's a funny guy.

 

[Nightman]

in 2014 Romo is untradeable. 41 mil against the cap say he's untradeable

I might have made a mistake earlier about the 41m in dead money that would accelerate if traded. 13.5m of that is his guaranteed salary for 2014. If the other team is liable for that amount and the 15m in future guarantees, then his cap hit for trading him would only be 28m. That is actually do-able by restructuring everyone and cutting Costa, Durant, Parnell. It would leave them 6m under the cap. They could still June 1st cut Miles and get another 5.5m in room for the rookies and insurance.

 

[ufcrules1]

Until Romo is officially off this team I am hitching my wagon to him because he gives us the best chance to win. He is not going anywhere as much as the Romo haters want to believe it. We are not getting a franchise QB in this draft nor are we picking one up in free agency. Its Romo or bust and when his time is officially over here,I will hope we will be in a position to get the next franchise QB to lead this team for 10 years and win 5 super bowls. But right now we have a QB that is capable of winning it all barring injury. He is not declining skill wise at all. In fact every year he has out preformed his previous year.

No, it's not Romo or bust. It's bust with Romo. Where have you been the last 8 years? Romo is part of the problem here. Even his biggest supporters on this forum are starting to see the light for themselves. Romo isn't much more than an acme anchor at this point. Massive contract that he can't even remotely play up to.

Wish we would have signed Smith for a year or 2 and traded Romo.. But Jerry is the biggest Romo homer out there.

 

[ufcrules1]

I might have made a mistake earlier about the 41m in dead money that would accelerate if traded. 13.5m of that is his guaranteed salary for 2014. If the other team is liable for that amount and the 15m in future guarantees, then his cap hit for trading him would only be 28m. That is actually do-able by restructuring everyone and cutting Costa, Durant, Parnell. It would leave them 6m under the cap. They could still June 1st cut Miles and get another 5.5m in room for the rookies and insurance.

None of that matters. Jerry would NEVER do it.

 

[jobberone]

Here we go again....he's back in town again.....***my best county singing voice.(which ain't half bad)***

 

[Nightman]

Yes... but more than that, he instantly makes Houston a contender and he doesn't have to move his family.

Would Houston trade the rights to Manziel for Romo straight up?? Would it make Jerry think twice??

 

[NJ22]

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.

No one else would pay him what we are paying him. Especially coming off surgery.

 

[dstovall5]

Over/Under 15 pages? I'm guessing Under with a SOLID 13 pages on this thread.

 

[Blackspider214]

I

I'm guessing the op wants a complete rebuild

I'm not completely against this. Seattle and SF went through dark periods before they got to where they are now. I'd rather rebuild and have some sort of direction to get rid of these toxic contracts than spinning our wheels in mediocrity. It's not like we will be able to beat the likes of Seattle or SF this season anyways.

Although it is not certain you can rebuild and ever actually get good again. It's really risky and no one really truly rebuilds anymore in the NFL.

But I don't think we ever win anything with Romo under center and his contract is a complete waste of money. But the cap hit would be devastating.

 

[DandyDon1722]

No, it's not Romo or bust. It's bust with Romo. Where have you been the last 8 years? Romo is part of the problem here. Even his biggest supporters on this forum are starting to see the light for themselves. Romo isn't much more than an acme anchor at this point. Massive contract that he can't even remotely play up to.

Wish we would have signed Smith for a year or 2 and traded Romo.. But Jerry is the biggest Romo homer out there.

C'mon don't try and talk yourself into allies that aren't there. His numbers speak for themselves and he is saddled with the worst defense in football. You guys treat him like Chad Hutchinson

You're in the minority for a reason, most of us believe we can win with him with just a decent defense and reliable running game much like Seattle and San Francisco...wait...what! They went to the NFC Championship game?

It's simply amazing how that works. Don't worry though the next Chad isn't far off unless we get really lucky.

 

[Animosity]

I want to know who in the world would trade for a 34 year old QB who has won one playoff win in 10 years? Especially with that dumb contract of his. We are so screwed.

 

[Galian Beast]

Reading comprehension has seriously taken a dive as of late. As I said in the beginning, I wouldn't trade Romo, this topic wasn't a suggestion of trading him, rather it was establishing the fact that he is very much tradeable, if the organization wanted to go that direction.

So all of the people asking what that would get us, I said exactly what it would get us, a reboot. That isn't to say that is what I want, the fact that I made that clear yet people still couldn't comprehend makes me extremely worried about our education system.

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?

Already answered please see OP.

I

I'm guessing the op wants a complete rebuild

Please quote where I said this.

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.

People who want a reset would obviously want to see the resources going to Romo shifted towards the defense.

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.

I agree, as I said, I was merely establishing that it is feasible, not that it would be a good idea.

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

Do the math.

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

Yeah, because Peyton Manning did get a huge pay day when he went to the Broncos coming off a neck injury, at a much older age than Romo. There are actually quite a few teams that would pay Romo. His contract was market value whether people here liked it or not. Look at the money Cutler got, and Romo is much better than Cutler.

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.

See above. Cutler and Manning's contracts suggest otherwise.

 

[mmohican29]

I might have made a mistake earlier about the 41m in dead money that would accelerate if traded. 13.5m of that is his guaranteed salary for 2014. If the other team is liable for that amount and the 15m in future guarantees, then his cap hit for trading him would only be 28m. That is actually do-able by restructuring everyone and cutting Costa, Durant, Parnell. It would leave them 6m under the cap. They could still June 1st cut Miles and get another 5.5m in room for the rookies and insurance.

it's cool bro... yesterday I was mocked for proposing a Romo for Bradford deal that would involve us getting their #2 and them adding our #16. Bradford would be a bridge QB for whichever QB we drafted at #2. I don't know the ins and outs of salary cap, but it seemed like a fair deal for both parties who both have heavy cap QB's.

I don't think Romo is untradeable but I know we need to find the right partner who can absorb some of his cost. I think long term we should bite the bullet and be prepared to move on from Tony- I just don't think it's going to happen for him here.

 

[Nightman]

I want to know who in the world would trade for a 34 year old QB who has won one playoff win in 10 years? Especially with that dumb contract of his. We are so screwed.

It'd basically be a 4 yr/53m contract, with 28m guaranteed. Not that bad.

 

[jobberone]

I want to know who in the world would trade for a 34 year old QB who has won one playoff win in 10 years? Especially with that dumb contract of his. We are so screwed.

Well, it's crying time again, she's going leave him......***My best Ray Charles voice***

 

[BigStar]

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.

I hear you on the complete rebuild (agree) outside of ridding core players like Dez/Smith/Fred/Scan and first contracts like TW/Mo/Carter/Wilcox but what QB do you have in mind? The 40 million in dead money needs to be adjusted/accomodated with a cheaper 1st round QB. I Like Romo if his back is 100% but the hypothetical you presented is an interesting perspective on how to rebuild the team. Good post for discussion!

 

[Galian Beast]

in 2014 Romo is untradeable. 41 mil against the cap say he's untradeable

Do the math.

I don't think the op is advocating a trade, sounds like he is just putting an alternate scenario out for those saying he is now untradeable; he also gives a solution on how it could happen. I wouldn't care if it did happen as I don't see us winning in that time frame anyways but id rather keep Romo and either Ware take a pay cut or he is cut outright.

Please thank your teachers for me. I'm glad someone learned how to read properly.

It's against nfl rules to be 47 mill under the cap.

The 2016 season doesn't start today. That is based on current liabilities.

I don't get it, if a team is willing to take on a players contract and give up draft picks to get him, why should that contract stay on the books of the team that traded him. I think that is stupid in the part of the NFL, that's why there are no trades anymore.

The contract doesn't stay on the books, the dead money does. The money that we paid him up front and spread over the course of his career. That still needs to be accounted for.

Romo's contract is actually extremely cap friendly for a team that would want him.

He is owed 13.5 million for his base salary in 2014. A new team would restructure that, basically getting romo free for a year. 13.5 million would be spread over the course of 5 years. Which is basically all the years of his contract minus 1. That is a 2.7 million dollar proration per year. They would pay him the veteran minimum in 2014 which would be 955k for a player with 9+ years. So his total cap hit would be about 3.655 million for 2014.

His cap hit for 2015 would be 17 million in base salary + 2.7 million in prorated signing bonus. Again you could restructure his contract. 17 million over the remaining 5 years. 3.4 million per year.

His 2015 cap hit would be 3.4 million + 2.7 million + base salary of 970k which is 7.07 million.

Very cheap so far. So ultimately it boils down to his play and health, let's say you wanted to cut him in 2016. Well he would have 21.7 million in dead money. You make him a June 1st hit and that is going to be 6.1 million in 2016 and 15.6 in 2017. A percentage of the cap that would be significantly smaller.

That being said, if I traded for Romo, I'd try to keep him at least through 2016.

 

[Galian Beast]

I hear you on the complete rebuild (agree) outside of ridding core players like Dez/Smith/Fred/Scan and first contracts like TW/Mo/Carter/Wilcox but what QB do you have in mind? The 40 million in dead money needs to be adjusted/accomodated with a cheaper 1st round QB.

I'm not proposing this, merely saying that it is in fact plausible.

 

[BigStar]

I'm not proposing this, merely saying that it is in fact plausible.

I like the outside of the box thinking, was just taking it one step further if the trade went down? Great research and interesting/thought provokin OP.

 

[Galian Beast]

I like the outside of the box thinking, was just taking it one step further if the trade went down?

Well, if you do this, you'd obviously want to put the franchise back on track with a rookie qb. I'm not sure if that guy is Johnny Football or not, but he seems like a popular choice.

2014 would essentially be forfeit but there is a lot of merit to the fact that we would be able to do huge things on defense with a rookie qb instead of a veteran qb's contract, which is largely why you see teams like Seattle and San Francisco do so well. Same with Baltimore.

As much as I like Romo, I think our resource allocation is probably a bit out of wack. I think cutting Ware and Austin will do the job of rebalancing that, but obviously trading Romo would let you do more things.