Romo open to reworking contract in a trade

[visionary]

Keep in mind that a contender will have picks late in any given round

2nd Rd pick 2017 + 3rd Rd pick 2018 that accelerates to a 2nd Rd if they make playoffs and a 1st Rd if they make the SB

 

[ghst187]

Just come back home Tony.

"Multiple NFL Execs prefer McCarron and Garrapolo over Romo"? Is that real?
Clearly "multiple NFL Execs" are seriously ********. They must be like that one dentist that doesn't like Trident or Crest or something. I'm certainly no Romo homer but Romo is easily still in the top 12 of all NFL QBs which makes him better than over half the starters in the league. I get that some teams want to rebuild with a young guy and whatnot but there are at least 10 or more teams out there that are just plain stupid to not be salivating at the thought of trying to get Romo esp for the likely relatively cheap asking price they would have to pay him. Even some place like San Fran, Romo instantly makes the team watchable if you're a Satan, er i mean San Fran fan. Even just getting two decent years out of him buys you time for a youngster to either draft or develop. And honestly, Romo's injury stuff is way overblown. Its not like he's missing games for pinky toe injuries or anything, he's getting pegged as missing two recent seasons but he actually would've been back as the starter mid-season this past one had Dak not taken over and taken off. Another part of Romo's injury problems has to do with him NEVER getting any referee love/protection. Everyone is allowed to tee off on him with no threat of getting flagged.
Seems like people are talking about him like he's made of glass and that's not the case. Either folks are dumb or they are purposely trying to keep from having to give up draft picks to get him but if I'm Denver or Houston (or Cleve, Jax, San Fran, KC, NYJ, Chicago, Minny, and maybe another team or two) I'd break the picket line and start calling Jerry. Sure everyone likes to keep their draft picks but if you got a top 12 QB even for just 2-3 years for a second or third round pick then you are getting a great deal. There's a decent chance that if you keep that pick you pick a bust anyway and in Romo's case you are talking about the games BY FAR most important position....getting a proven guy that makes your team significantly better overnight. If there's no market for Romo then people are ignorant.
Peyton Manning was WAY more washed up and broken than Romo was when Denver got him and that turned out pretty well for Denver.

 

[waldoputty]

At the expense of filling other holes?

No thanks.

not at the expense of other holes.
there is plenty of salary cap maneuverability
and we are $60M under cap without even restructuring Romo's contract, assuming he is willing to stay

 

[waldoputty]

Ummmm no.

Time to cut the cord. It stinks, but it is what it is. Take the 3rd round pick and maybe another pick in 2018 and continue to build for the future. Romo is the past, unforuntaely.

there is no financial need to do that.
we could get all the fa's we want - say 3 top ones and still not even have to restructure Romo
why not have the best backup qb also

 

[Sydla]

Keep in mind that a contender will have picks late in any given round

2nd Rd pick 2017 + 3rd Rd pick 2018 that accelerates to a 2nd Rd if they make playoffs and a 1st Rd if they make the SB

I'd like to get a 2nd rounder in 2017 but I doubt that's likely, even from a contender.

I'll take another late third rounder in 2017 and then a conditional pick in 2018. More than fair IMO.

 

[Sydla]

not at the expense of other holes.
there is plenty of salary cap maneuverability
and we are $60M under cap without even restructuring Romo's contract, assuming he is willing to stay

Stop. Just stop.

It's over. Just accept it.

 

[Sydla]

there is no financial need to do that.
we could get all the fa's we want - say 3 top ones and still not even have to restructure Romo
why not have the best backup qb also

You cannot sign three top FA this year. With restructures and not touching Romo, we can create $35MM or so in space. Three top FAs will eat that up in a heartbeat and you still have positions to fill.

Your understanding of the cap is bizarre.

 

[TheHerd]

We also have to face the fact that as long as the team keeps drafting superb players (O-Line, Zeke, Dak, Brown, Collins), we'll need big $$$ to resign our own.

That's the plan.

 

[waldoputty]

Stop. Just stop.

It's over. Just accept it.

I am actually not emotionally tied to Romo as QB.
Just want the best team money can buy...

 

[waldoputty]

You cannot sign three top FA this year. With restructures and not touching Romo, we can create $35MM or so in space. Three top FAs will eat that up in a heartbeat and you still have positions to fill.

Your understanding of the cap is bizarre.

Wrong.
for example, let's say we sign Melvin Ingram for $15M/year with 5 year contract and a $25million signing bonus and $1M first year salary, his year 1 cap hit is $6M.
3 of such FA = $18M in 2017.
we are $60M under cap in 2018 without touching Romo.
so not much restructuring needed in 2018 even after Martin.
this game can continue at least until 2021.

 

[Sydla]

Wrong.
for example, let's say we sign Melvin Ingram for $15M/year with 5 year contract and a $25million signing bonus and $1M first year salary, his year 1 cap hit is $6M.
3 of such FA = $18M in 2017.
we are $60M under cap in 2018 without touching Romo.
so not much restructuring needed in 2018 even after Martin.
this game can continue at least until 2021.

You can't just make up a contract that fits your narrative. Ingram isn't going to be a $6MM cap hit in 2017. Look at his comps in recent years - Vernon, Miller, Wilkerson - all fairly large cap hits initially.

You need to stop this fantasy world. Romo is gone. And we aren't spending big bucks on three top level FAs.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

if he is willing, why not - we have the cap $...

He doesn't want to. And it would be silly not to take advantage of Daks low salary.

 

[Nightman]

Romo's deal is not all that big for a QB of his stature. And it's not got any guaranteed money. Of course he'd be willing to re-work it in favor of some guarantees. That's sort of a no-brainer, isn't it? I think it's far from a given that we wouldn't be able to trade it as-is, though.

Somebody's going to get him and they're going to look like geniuses. While other teams are going to overpay for lesser players who happen to be younger but can't play. This league is bizarre sometimes.

The two Team Options for 2018 and 2019 are not attractive to prospective teams at 20m per

If Tony re-does his deal to add guaranteed money but lowers his 2018 and 2019 salaries more teams would jump

Romo could take a new 3/36m deal with 18m in guarantees including a 12m signing bonus(paid 9/1)

Year One base salary of 2m means a cap hit of 6m
Year Two base salary of 11m (4m of that guarantees 5 days after SB) with 200k per games started
Year Three base salary of 11m with 200k per games started

 

[jordan4vols]

We need KC and Denver to get in a bit of a bidding war over him not wanting the other to have him and having to face him twice a year. That is where we get the best deal possible like swapping 1s with Denver and Denver gets Romo

 

[Idgit]

The two Team Options for 2018 and 2019 are not attractive to prospective teams at 20m per

If Tony re-does his deal to add guaranteed money but lowers his 2018 and 2019 salaries more teams would jump

Romo could take a new 3/36m deal with 18m in guarantees including a 12m signing bonus(paid 9/1)

Year One base salary of 2m means a cap hit of 6m
Year Two base salary of 11m (4m of that guarantees 5 days after SB) with 200k per games started
Year Three base salary of 11m with 200k per games started

What's unattractive about them? The expense? They're not guaranteed. A team can trade for the guy, get him in for year one at a reasonable rate, and still have the option, at least, of not losing him next year to the free market. Yes, the number's high, but in that situation, you want to keep him because he panned out for you in the trial year in the first place.

And because the deal has no guaranteed money, Tony's side will have incentive to extend or convert the structure of the deal.

If you get him for the 'rental' year and he does not play really well but you still want to keep him, you've got the option on him and a track record you can point to as the basis for your renegotiation, since the rest of the league just saw him not play well, too. If he plays great, you've got a cap on him and you hold the option on his rights and he'll have to work with you on an extension.

If he plays well and gets hurt, you've got the same protections.

All it costs you is the space against the cap for each season. Yes, that's a lot after year one, but then he's a premier veteran QB. Don't trade for a guy like that if you don't expect to be able to pay for him. But for year one, he's a pretty good deal. You know he can play, you know you've got the option on him for effectively the rest of his career. You have no guaranteed money committed if he doesn't work out, and all it costs you is a 2nd or 3rd round pick and the cap space. If you're a contender with a hole at QB, that's nothing. Teams risk multiple first and second round picks to get into position to draft guys who they then have to spend 2-3 years developing to get to the level Tony played at last. And then those guys don't hit all that often.

It's kind of a no-brainer. The only issue is finding more than one team capable of contending who agrees. Denver is the front runner right now, with no incentive to offer a pick if nobody else steps forward. HOU has to figure out how to work around the gaffe the had last season with Osweiler. KC actually makes the most sense as a destination to me, but they have to bite. BUF has incentive to make it work, but they're really not a good enough team right now unfortunately. I can't see Jerry letting Tony finish up in BUF when better teams want him, too.

 

[Nightman]

We need KC and Denver to get in a bit of a bidding war over him not wanting the other to have him and having to face him twice a year. That is where we get the best deal possible like swapping 1s with Denver and Denver gets Romo

Swapping 1sts is terrible value.... we need players not slots....... I want to trade back from 28

If you get even a 2nd for Romo that could be 3 picks instead of one trade up

 

[Nightman]

What's unattractive about them? The expense? They're not guaranteed. A team can trade for the guy, get him in for year one at a reasonable rate, and still have the option, at least, of not losing him next year to the free market. Yes, the number's high, but in that situation, you want to keep him because he panned out for you in the trial year in the first place.

And because the deal has no guaranteed money, Tony's side will have incentive to extend or convert the structure of the deal.

If you get him for the 'rental' year and he does not play really well but you still want to keep him, you've got the option on him and a track record you can point to as the basis for your renegotiation, since the rest of the league just saw him not play well, too. If he plays great, you've got a cap on him and you hold the option on his rights and he'll have to work with you on an extension.

If he plays well and gets hurt, you've got the same protections.

All it costs you is the space against the cap for each season. Yes, that's a lot after year one, but then he's a premier veteran QB. Don't trade for a guy like that if you don't expect to be able to pay for him. But for year one, he's a pretty good deal. You know he can play, you know you've got the option on him for effectively the rest of his career. You have no guaranteed money committed if he doesn't work out, and all it costs you is a 2nd or 3rd round pick and the cap space. If you're a contender with a hole at QB, that's nothing. Teams risk multiple first and second round picks to get into position to draft guys who they then have to spend 2-3 years developing to get to the level Tony played at last. And then those guys don't hit all that often.

It's kind of a no-brainer. The only issue is finding more than one team capable of contending who agrees. Denver is the front runner right now, with no incentive to offer a pick if nobody else steps forward. HOU has to figure out how to work around the gaffe the had last season with Osweiler. KC actually makes the most sense as a destination to me, but they have to bite. BUF has incentive to make it work, but they're really not a good enough team right now unfortunately. I can't see Jerry letting Tony finish up in BUF when better teams want him, too.

Even Peyton gave 5m back to DEN...........20m is way too high and DAL was never going to pay him that much

A team that trades for him loses all leverage if they are forced to keep him at 20m....all he has to do is show up and they are on the hook....or they have to cut him

A team will invest a lot more and a lot more willingly if they have better terms.....Romo gets the guarantees he wants and the starting job he craves.....DAL gets a better pick

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can't just make up a contract that fits your narrative. Ingram isn't going to be a $6MM cap hit in 2017. Look at his comps in recent years - Vernon, Miller, Wilkerson - all fairly large cap hits initially.

You need to stop this fantasy world. Romo is gone. And we aren't spending big bucks on three top level FAs.

5 year $75m $15m AAV $30m SB
2017 min ~$650k
2018-21 $11.2m a piece

2017 cap hit $6.65m

 

[waldoputty]

You can't just make up a contract that fits your narrative. Ingram isn't going to be a $6MM cap hit in 2017. Look at his comps in recent years - Vernon, Miller, Wilkerson - all fairly large cap hits initially.

You need to stop this fantasy world. Romo is gone. And we aren't spending big bucks on three top level FAs.

The contract I proposed is pretty reasonable.
If more bonus is needed, just guarantee some of the later money.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The contract I proposed is pretty reasonable.
If more bonus is needed, just guarantee some of the later money.

Your problem is that with Stephen Jones negotiating contracts now, we don't sign back loaded deals any more.