Romo trade vs release implications

[btcutter]

Your talking about holding onto a 24mill backup? Hmmm

I am not capologist. According to the initial post trading Romo would only save $5 million in 2017 and we still need to get a decent backup QB (Not Sanchez). Decent backup QB will cost the same $5 million you save by cutting Romo yet far inferior.

 

[Doomsday101]

Here is break-down of trading or releasing Romo. After you get thru it all its clear a release is much more favorable for Cowboys.


1) If Dallas trades Romo - they absorb 19.6 million in signing bonus in 2017. Romo was set to make 24.7 million in 2017 so Cowboys would save 5.1 million if they trade him. I see nothing more than conditional pick for Romo as Dallas will have little leverage as Tony will only accept trade to few Super-Bowl ready teams.

2) If Dallas releases Romo they can spread 19.6 signing bonus over 2 years. 9.8 million would count against cap in 2017 & 2018. Dallas would save 14.9 million in 2017.

When you look at numbers its clear what Dallas should do. The additional 9.8 million in savings by releasing him instead of trading him (14.9 - 5.1) is much more valuable in resigning players or adding FAs vs getting a conditional pick that would carry high risk with Romo health concerns.

I agree and the other thing it gives Romo a better chance to catching on with a team of his liking. As a FA he can talk to teams he would have an interest in more so than in a trade. I don't see a team like Denver giving Dallas much at all for Romo given his recent issues with his back and of course his age. I would think any place Romo goes to will be a 2 to 3 year deal.

 

[jobberone]

No, it's not a bad thing.

They push cap hits to future years where the overall cap is bigger and therefore the contracts are a smaller percentage of the total.

The dead money is not a problem at the end because they push other money into futute years again.

You can't compare the salary cap to the real world because it does not work the same way as real money in business.

When people see dead money they think it is bad but they don't understand the complete big picture.

The dead money was just part of money paid in the contract. If the player was worth the contract then it was good regardless of when the money hits the cap. If they sign a bunch of players that don't live up to their contracts then that is a bad thing even if they didn't have dead money remaining.

I don't know what you're referencing in regards to an option.

It's his 5M option this year (2017). Yes, you get some relief when the cap goes up but that's spread over all current and past contracts. You're still paying almost 14M for a player who won't be here. That's a bad thing no matter how you sugar coat it. That 14M could be spent for a premium player.

 

[gmoney112]

I don't see any reason to release/trade him this year unless some team gives you an offer you can't refuse.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

As others have said, "savings" this year would be a whopping 5 mill, and we'd still be responsible for another 12 mill over 2018/2019 which i'm not sure how it works, accelerates? Yeah you can designate the hit June 1, but you're still paying that regardless if you release him this offseason or next.

Opposed to just releasing/trading him in 2018, I don't really see a net benefit, considering our cap space is pretty good in 2018. I guess some want to push half his dead money into 2018? So now you mortgaged even more dead money a year into the future where we were sitting pretty good, and we'd still have to find a backup who'd be a downgrade.

Unless some team offers me a great deal, I don't see the point in releasing him in 2017. If we keep him this year, and release/trade him in 2018 we have our backup/possible starter, and we only have to deal with 12 mill dead money over 18/19 years, which is still a net cap gain of like 35 million. Why would I not do that? I guess if Tony really wanted to leave, but 1) I'd tell him camp is a straight up competition unless Dak just dominates the path to the Super Bowl, 2) He's made like 100 mill, the team can't afford to just release him and eat more than 1/10 of the cap. He's still under contract. Those were the rules of the deal when he signed a 100$ million dollar contract.

The only reason I can really see is just maximizing the return on his value, but losing a top notch QB and flushing that cap space is going to require probably nothing less than a 1st.

 

[Hawkeye19]

If you notice JJ's posturing so far-- he has basically said he's willing to pay Romo his current salary to remain with the team. This can ONLY mean one of two things:

1. He is serious about paying the 24 mil for the security of having Romo as a backup for Dak next year

2. He is bluffing but consolidating as much possible leverage in case of a trade

JJ's position is brilliant. He is a very smart business man and knows how to get value.

"Basically, I don't "have" to trade or cut Romo. I have the best backup in the NFL and love him so much I am willing to pay 24 mil to keep him where he belongs. Now if you REALLY want him-- well I'll listen to ya...~salesman wink~ "

 

[Gator88]

I didn't know you could take a job from a guy who went 13-2, and would have gone 14-2 had he had the entire game. Learn something everyday.

Tell that to Marty Schottenheimer. I don't know if Dak would have won the game either, the 3 points he put up in an entire quarter doesn't exactly indicate him putting up 27 over 4.

 

[phildadon86]

Option #3 keep him as a backup since we already know his contract numbers. He'll be a very expensive but the best back up QB we can have. Furthermore, great insurance to have just in case Dak needs more time to develop (we've seen a few 1st yr QB who regress in the 2nd yrs....just saying).

No way he will stay and be a backup. Not to mention then we'd have to listen to Jerry drumming up competition scenarios and that's no way to treat dak either. Romo actually needs to go to save jerry from himself and us a bunch of headaches.

 

[Clove]

Tell that to Marty Schottenheimer. I don't know if Dak would have won the game either, the 3 points he put up in an entire quarter doesn't exactly indicate him putting up 27 over 4.

This is 2017 if you haven't noticed.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I am not capologist. According to the initial post trading Romo would only save $5 million in 2017 and we still need to get a decent backup QB (Not Sanchez). Decent backup QB will cost the same $5 million you save by cutting Romo yet far inferior.

yeah I ain't either, and I agree that Sanchez is not the guy for backup. Think this argument is moot though because I am sure Romo will not want to be backup and not sure we would do that to him.

But I would like to hear someone who knows the real cap implications etc,...

 

[Kaiser]

This is 2017 if you haven't noticed.

Its 2017 but I'm still writing "Brandon Weeden sucks" on my checks.

 

[KingintheNorth]

I'm not sure why people aren't getting this.

If you trade or release him in the off-season, or he decides to retire before June 1st, this is how it works:

*The remaining prorated bonuses immediately accelerates. That's $19,600,00 (2017 - $10.7M, 2018 - $5.7M, 2019 - $3.2M).
*His 2017 salary cap hit is scheduled to be $24,700,00, the combined total of his 2017 prorated bonus of $10.7M and his 2017 base salary of $14,000,000. So $24.7M minus $19.6M equals $5.1M in additional cap room (slightly less since the 52nd highest salaried player now counts against the cap).
*Romo' s contract is completely off the books when the 2018 season officially begins.

If he is released or decides to retire AND is designated a June 1st cut, this is how it works:

*His 2017 prorated bonus of $10.7M immediately hits the cap, freeing up $14M (his base salary) in cap room, BUT not until June 1st, 2017. Most players have signed new contracts well before June 1st.
* The 2 remaining years of prorated bonuses (2018 - $5.7M, 2019 - $3.2M) hit the 2018 salary cap, meaning $8.9M of dead money from Romo will be on the cap, even though Romo will have been gone for over a year by that time.

 

[Beast_from_East]

This is why Tony has to leave. The team can't go forward with him on it.

Not trying to be argumentative, but why cant the team move forward with Romo?

Like others have said, we are only saving about 5 million on the cap so its not like its a windfall to jettison his contract. Additionally, the team could create over 40 million in cap space by just redoing some contracts and they wrote those contracts in a way that makes redoing them very easy.

So the idea that the team MUST get rid of Romo is just a fallacy. We could very easily carry his salary on the books next year with no problem at all.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I'm not sure why people aren't getting this.

If you trade or release him in the off-season, or he decides to retire before June 1st, this is how it works:

*The remaining prorated bonuses immediately accelerates. That's $19,600,00 (2017 - $10.7M, 2018 - $5.7M, 2019 - $3.2M).
*His 2017 salary cap hit is scheduled to be $24,700,00, the combined total of his 2017 prorated bonus of $10.7M and his 2017 base salary of $14,000,000. So $24.7M minus $19.6M equals $5.1M in additional cap room (slightly less since the 52nd highest salaried player now counts against the cap).
*Romo' s contract is completely off the books when the 2018 season officially begins.

If he is released or decides to retire AND is designated a June 1st cut, this is how it works:

*His 2017 prorated bonus of $10.7M immediately hits the cap, freeing up $14M (his base salary) in cap room, BUT not until June 1st, 2017. Most players have signed new contracts well before June 1st.
* The 2 remaining years of prorated bonuses (2018 - $5.7M, 2019 - $3.2M) hit the 2018 salary cap, meaning $8.9M of dead money from Romo will be on the cap, even though Romo will have been gone for over a year by that time.

Kinda pointless to do a June 1 cut because all the free agents will have signed by then and you cant use the money until June 2nd.

I think we either talk him into staying, trade him to a contender that just needs a QB like Denver or Houston, or just release him when the new league year starts.

 

[vaturkey]

I think what happens in the playoffs will determine what happens with Romo. Anything other talk is just that. Talk.

 

[jobberone]

Not trying to be argumentative, but why cant the team move forward with Romo?

Like others have said, we are only saving about 5 million on the cap so its not like its a windfall to jettison his contract. Additionally, the team could create over 40 million in cap space by just redoing some contracts and they wrote those contracts in a way that makes redoing them very easy.

So the idea that the team MUST get rid of Romo is just a fallacy. We could very easily carry his salary on the books next year with no problem at all.

They are using his bonuses and not any salary anticipating him being released etc. If he stays you have to pay him a salary and that's in the contract already. You'd have to get him to take a huge pay cut. Why would he renegotiate to do that?

His best bet is, God forbid, an injury to Dak and he wins a SB or performs at a very high level forcing the team to consider keeping him as the starter next year.

OR....he gets released and signs with the team of his choice for big bucks and the starter's position there.

 

[xwalker]

Not trying to be argumentative, but why cant the team move forward with Romo?

Like others have said, we are only saving about 5 million on the cap so its not like its a windfall to jettison his contract. Additionally, the team could create over 40 million in cap space by just redoing some contracts and they wrote those contracts in a way that makes redoing them very easy.

So the idea that the team MUST get rid of Romo is just a fallacy. We could very easily carry his salary on the books next year with no problem at all.

For him to stay in 2017 and then depart, it would add 5M to the 2017 cap and 9M to the 2018 cap for a total of 14M.

If he stays for 2 years, then it is 14M + 19.5M (33.5M Total) added to the cap when all years are considered.

The concept of creating cap space (40M as you mentioned) is done by pushing cap dollars into future years. In order to keep that from being a problem in those future years, you can't be adding 9M + 19.5M for a backup player in those future years.

 

[Sydla]

Kinda pointless to do a June 1 cut because all the free agents will have signed by then and you cant use the money until June 2nd.

I think we either talk him into staying, trade him to a contender that just needs a QB like Denver or Houston, or just release him when the new league year starts.

Couldn't you then use the cap space after June 1 to lock up some players to longer term deals without then having to restructure guys to make them fit? Zach Martin, for example, is due a big pay raise soon.

 

[xwalker]

Couldn't you then use the cap space after June 1 to lock up some players to longer term deals without then having to restructure guys to make them fit? Zach Martin, for example, is due a big pay raise soon.

They can use the cap space regardless of when they get it. If they get 10M in 2017 after June 1st with a June 1st cut then the alternative would be to get the 10M in 2018 with a non-June 1st cut. They get the cap space either way, it's just a matter of when.

They are not maxed out in terms of other contracts that can be restructured to make any needed space in 2017; therefore, it does not matter if they get space in 2017 after June 1st or wait until 2018.

Often new contracts for players that are already under contract like Martin, don't have a significantly increased cap hit in the 1st year.

 

[zrinkill]

I w

wish you would stop filling thw board with nonsense you saw what #9 did this week damn near took dak's job..in 3 min

Goodlord you are posting nonsense.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

Schefter is guessing that Garappola's trade value is a 1st and a 4th, what NE would probably want or a place to start negotiations. Dilfer disagreed and said no one is giving up a 1st and a 4th for Garappola. I think Schefter is closer to the truth than Dilfer.