News: Romo restructured according to the FAN

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
37,949
Reaction score
34,966
This will come back to bite us a few years from now. Say he has a career ending injury this year, in 2016 or say 2017?

No, it won't. More restructures then, plus spreading the hit, plus most likely paying a rookie QB to replace him will keep it from biting. A player leaving before the team plans does make it to tougher, but it's never as bad as what some seem to expect.
 

windward

NFL Historian
Messages
18,333
Reaction score
4,217
This will come back to bite us a few years from now. Say he has a career ending injury this year, in 2016 or say 2017?

No worst case scenario is he's a June 1st cut next year, which would be a cap savings of 8 million. We'd save 6 million the next year.
 

windward

NFL Historian
Messages
18,333
Reaction score
4,217
Scary thought, huh? I was really hoping the FO would avoid feeling the need to restructure Romo's contract. Nevertheless, I refuse to believe it was for the sole purpose of obtaining AP until I've seen it in print. There are a variety of other things that might easily have led them in that direction. No doubt, we'll know what in due time.

Except it isn't true.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
No worst case scenario is he's a June 1st cut next year, which would be alcap savings of 8 million. We'd save 6 million the next year.

People also never mention the fact that Romo hasn't had a cap hit above 11.8m. Those saving over the last few years have allowed us to sign a lot of needed players.
 

CowboyStar88

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
24,110
I can't wait until all this AP 30 year old RB talk is dead and he is on another team. I swear this fanbase as forgotten all its *****ing about big contracts to 30 year old players. I don't care if he's Emmitt Smith stop paying for age and past performances. Hasn't played since what 2013? People think he will be 27-28 year old AP? It's pretty obvious the plan is to get one of the top backs in the draft.
 

DandyDon1722

It's been a good 'un, ain't it?
Messages
6,288
Reaction score
6,897
Seems odd to push Romo's money into the future at such a late hour. They did Tyron right away.

Seems like they wanted to not do Romo and get his mess square but they changed their mind. Why not do Romo and leave Tyron along or do both but keep Murray?

Good point and I think the reason is the Cowboys got caught with their pants down. It started with being unable to sign Dez last year and has snowballed from there ever since.

Every single move from the Eagles trading McCoy to Frank Gore not going to Philly to them pursuing Demarco, thus raising his price, to the unbelievable money Durant, Carter, Moore and Harris got changed every off season plan the Cowboys had. It put a lot of pressure on them to make a move and they signed Hardy to probably more than they wanted to and the nail in the coffin was the visit by McClain to New England. No way could they stomach losing McClain with the linebacker position as tenuous as it is now.

They were cost conscious almost to a fault, but at the end simply could not continue to take the hits and had to restructure Tony.

Tell you what else, it is very revealing that even after Romo volunteered a pay cut and now after he gets restructured, to look back and realize there was never even a thought to giving Demarco one penny over the number they had in mind He was as good as gone and they knew it.

Finally, I will never understand why the team did not take Romo up on his offer to take a pay cut. It's 5 million dollars and the only thing I can think of is how bad it would've looked to have him take the pay cut, yet still not move on Demarco's number. I think Michael Irvin is right when he says Jason will have a hard time selling a "fight" theme to the locker room when the team did not put up even the slightest fight for a player who did not want to leave and was cherished by his teammates.
 

windward

NFL Historian
Messages
18,333
Reaction score
4,217
People also never mention the fact that Romo hasn't had a cap hit above 11.8m. Those saving over the last few years have allowed us to sign a lot of needed players.

The idea that Romo's contract has "crippled" our this franchise is one of the biggest myths out there among Cowboys fans.
 

TheStar

Member
Messages
141
Reaction score
4
Well, kinda. What you're really getting is Fishspeak. That's what's known as not knowing what the hell you're talking about but having a running narrative in which you throw **** against a wall, back track, throw it back against a wall, backtrack again, act like you know what you're talking about, charge a premium for even more baseless bull**** and when the whole situation comes to it's end, you then cherry pick the sticking points in your previous week's worth of babble to indicate that you, indeed, had it correct when the reality was that you had no ******* clue of what you were talking about but it got some poor ******* to subscribe to you premium content to learn, literally, nothing. That's Fishspeak (in a nutshell).

Boooooom! So true.
 

Wood

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,447
Reaction score
5,697
The idea that Romo's contract has "crippled" our this franchise is one of the biggest myths out there among Cowboys fans.

how so? they couldn't sign their own FAs because they didn't have enough money this year. You can also make case that Murray isn't here because of Romo contract. Jerry basically has been saying this. He words it differently of course.
 

windward

NFL Historian
Messages
18,333
Reaction score
4,217
how so? they couldn't sign their own FAs because they didn't have enough money this year. You can also make case that Murray isn't here because of Romo contract. Jerry basically has been saying this. He words it differently of course.

We could have signed them if we chose to. We decided not to overpay and replaced them with players of similar quality. You can make the case that Murray isn't here because of Romo's comtract even though every indication shows that wasn't the case either.

And Jerry never said we couldn't sign Murray because of the Romo contract.
 

Wood

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,447
Reaction score
5,697
We could have signed them if we chose to. We decided not to overpay and replaced them with players of similar quality. You can make the case that Murray isn't here because of Romo's comtract even though every indication shows that wasn't the case either.

And Jerry never said we couldn't sign Murray because of the Romo contract.

I dont know. Even Murray personally went to Romo to take pay cut so he could stay. As for Jerry he says that if the "economics" of cowboys situation were different Murray would still be cowboy. That basically means, if Jerry and Stephen didn't fold like cheap stack of cards and offered Romo more guaranteed money than Tom Brady that Dallas might actually have had more room to retain key FA players. So this idea that Dallas is unscathed by Romo contract is ridiculous.
 

windward

NFL Historian
Messages
18,333
Reaction score
4,217
I dont know. Even Murray personally went to Romo to take pay cut so he could stay. As for Jerry he says that if the "economics" of cowboys situation were different Murray would still be cowboy. That basically means, if Jerry and Stephen didn't fold like cheap stack of cards and offered Romo more guaranteed money than Tom Brady that Dallas might actually have had more room to retain key FA players. So this idea that Dallas is unscathed by Romo contract is ridiculous.

You are reaching with that statement imo. " the economics" of our situation could refer to any number of things not related to Romo's salary.
 

Wood

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,447
Reaction score
5,697
You are reaching with that statement imo. " the economics" of our situation could refer to any number of things not related to Romo's salary.

give me a break. He was going to count 27 million against cap this year. That is a staggering number for salary cap league.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
how so? they couldn't sign their own FAs because they didn't have enough money this year. You can also make case that Murray isn't here because of Romo contract. Jerry basically has been saying this. He words it differently of course.

That is nowhere near accurate. They kept who they wanted and could get on value deals. Most of the players they lost were considered overpaid.

They have signed: Bold re-signed Cowboys
Dez 1/13m
Hardy 1/11-13m
Free 3/15m
Beasley 4/13.6m

Brinkley 2/6.5m
McClain 1/3-4m
Gachkar 2/5.2m
McFadden 2/3m
White 1/1.5m
Dunbar 1/1.5m
CJones 1/1.5m
Hayden 1/750k

Collins 1/750k
Leary 1/585k
Weems 1/585k


They lost:
Murray 5/40m
Parnell 5/32m
Carter 4/17m
Harris 5/17m
Melton 1/3.5m
Durant 3/10.5m
Moore 1/1.5m
 

windward

NFL Historian
Messages
18,333
Reaction score
4,217
give me a break. He was going to count 27 million against cap this year. That is a staggering number for salary cap league.

So? That's not a bad cap number for a Qb of Romo's caliber given the level of importance of QB play in this league. I don't care what his cap charge was before today. It was not what prevented us from retaining Murray. If it was we would have restructured him 3 weeks ago.
 

Wood

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,447
Reaction score
5,697
That is nowhere near accurate. They kept who they wanted and could get on value deals. Most of the players they lost were considered overpaid.

They have signed: Bold re-signed Cowboys
Dez 1/13m

Hardy 1/11-13m
Free 3/15m
Beasley 4/13.6m

Brinkley 2/6.5m
McClain 1/3-4m
Gachkar 2/5.2m
McFadden 2/3m
White 1/1.5m
Dunbar 1/1.5m
CJones 1/1.5m
Hayden 1/750k

Collins 1/750k
Leary 1/585k
Weems 1/585k


They lost:
Murray 5/40m
Parnell 5/32m
Carter 4/17m
Harris 5/17m
Melton 1/3.5m
Durant 3/10.5m
Moore 1/1.5m

your out of touch if you think they didn't want to retain: Murray, Harris and Durant. Reality is if Dallas had more cap space they would have retained those three.
 

risco

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,787
Reaction score
1,475
give me a break. He was going to count 27 million against cap this year. That is a staggering number for salary cap league.

True that!!! I did not know he would count that much this year.
 

windward

NFL Historian
Messages
18,333
Reaction score
4,217
That is nowhere near accurate. They kept who they wanted and could get on value deals. Most of the players they lost were considered overpaid.

They have signed: Bold re-signed Cowboys
Dez 1/13m

Hardy 1/11-13m
Free 3/15m
Beasley 4/13.6m

Brinkley 2/6.5m
McClain 1/3-4m
Gachkar 2/5.2m
McFadden 2/3m
White 1/1.5m
Dunbar 1/1.5m
CJones 1/1.5m
Hayden 1/750k

Collins 1/750k
Leary 1/585k
Weems 1/585k


They lost:
Murray 5/40m
Parnell 5/32m
Carter 4/17m
Harris 5/17m
Melton 1/3.5m
Durant 3/10.5m
Moore 1/1.5m

Well now, that lays it out pretty clear.
 

risco

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,787
Reaction score
1,475
your out of touch if you think they didn't want to retain: Murray, Harris and Durant. Reality is if Dallas had more cap space they would have retained those three.

Well, why not restructure Romo's contract earlier in order to keep them?
 
Top