Salary Cap Question...

[Verdict]

I have seen Adam's posts that we are not "in trouble" regarding the salary cap, because we can cut some players and restructure others to free up cap room. So far, Adam's comments seem to be accurate (I assumed that they would be). We have already cut certain players and appear to be in the process of restructuring other players as Adam predicted.

I also get that we could sign whoever we want (per Adam's comments) if we really wanted to do that although those signings would come at a cost (present and future cap room to be exact). However, even Stephen Jones has said that we are somewhat tight against the cap which somewhat limits what we can do.

With all of the above being said, it looks like the cowboys did a pretty good job of dumping some salary into the uncapped year (Miles Austin comes to mind), however, it appears that we missed the boat by not dumping the salaries of Barber, Roy Williams, et. al. last year instead of this year.

I guess my question, for Adam and anyone else is why is it that we missed the boat so badly by failing to dump those salaries last year? That doesn't seem very prudent to have missed that once in ten year opportunity. I'm thinking that there had to be a practical reason we didn't take advantage of that loop hole. Granted no one KNEW for sure how the CBA was going to affect the cap, etc, but we didn't have that info when we loaded Miles Austins contract to pay him a boatload of money in the uncapped year either.

Thoughts?

 

[AdamJT13]

The old CBA was designed so that teams could not "dump" cap charges into the uncapped year by cutting players. Teams could pay players more in the uncapped year so that other years in their contract would count less against the cap, but the CBA even limited how much that could be done.

When the new CBA was negotiated, however, it retroactively forgave all "dead money" from roster moves made before the lockout began. I don't think that any teams anticipated that happening.

 

[bedlamvr]

Some teams did - the Commanders shifted a lot of money into the beginning of the pre lockout season, dumping players early (e.g. Portis, Dockerty) and shunted big chunks of change of the Haynesworth deal and DeAngelo Hall into the uncapped seasons - Some teams took advantage ... though I am not sure that is what you are talking about ...

 

[AdamJT13]

Some teams did - the Commanders shifted a lot of money into the beginning of the pre lockout season, dumping players early (e.g. Portis, Dockerty) and shunted big chunks of change of the Haynesworth deal and DeAngelo Hall into the uncapped seasons - Some teams took advantage ... though I am not sure that is what you are talking about ...

Lots of teams took big hits in the uncapped season by paying players more (like the Commanders did with Haynesworth, Hall and McNabb), and we did, too. Some teams also cut players before the lockout (like the Skins did with Portis and Dockery), but I don't think they anticipated not having any dead money at all -- even with the dead money, they still would have saved cap room.

 

[fivetwos]

The old CBA was designed so that teams could not "dump" cap charges into the uncapped year by cutting players. Teams could pay players more in the uncapped year so that other years in their contract would count less against the cap, but the CBA even limited how much that could be done.

When the new CBA was negotiated, however, it retroactively forgave all "dead money" from roster moves made before the lockout began. I don't think that any teams anticipated that happening.

Adam....with no disrespect whatsoever--and I realize I'm new to this board--I read the entire old CBA in search of the answers to these questions back in January. There is nothing even close to anything in there about not being able to cut players to save money during the uncapped year. I felt like the players who were cut on Tuesday should have been the day after the Super Bowl, when rosters were unfrozen. I was critical of Jerry for this the other day, before someone pointed out that the accelerated bonus money may not have been forgiven with a massive purge. Maybe, maybe not.

I wonder if this season also remained uncapped if Jerry would have kept those players, and that's the reason he didn't do it. Jerry the GM takes some due heat, but as far as understanding and managing the cap, Im not sure who else I would want, so part of me trusts that he had/has a plan in mind.

Some opinions from another board about how the dead money will work going forward notwithstanding, I'll reserve my final thoughts until the public gets a look at the new CBA, which I don't believe has happened yet since it hasn't been ratified.

 

[Verdict]

The old CBA was designed so that teams could not "dump" cap charges into the uncapped year by cutting players. Teams could pay players more in the uncapped year so that other years in their contract would count less against the cap, but the CBA even limited how much that could be done.

When the new CBA was negotiated, however, it retroactively forgave all "dead money" from roster moves made before the lockout began. I don't think that any teams anticipated that happening.

That makes perfect sense as to why we didn't take advantage of a loophole that didn't exist at the time for us to take advantage of it. I kinda thought that might be the case. But if that is the case, why would teams vote to forgive the cap hit and give a team like the Commanders a free pass? I can't see Jerry Jones signing up to give an NFC East opponent (Commanders) that kind of get out of jail free card.

What are your insights as to that issue, Adam?

 

[Bulldog]

The old CBA was designed so that teams could not "dump" cap charges into the uncapped year by cutting players. Teams could pay players more in the uncapped year so that other years in their contract would count less against the cap, but the CBA even limited how much that could be done.

When the new CBA was negotiated, however, it retroactively forgave all "dead money" from roster moves made before the lockout began. I don't think that any teams anticipated that happening.

So if that is true, then aren't we still operating under the old CBA rules until the new league years starts next Wednesday? So technically any cuts made before the opening of the new league year would occur in the uncapped year of 2010 and would fall under the "Dead Money Rule" is that correct?

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam....with no disrespect whatsoever--and I realize I'm new to this board--I read the entire old CBA in search of the answers to these questions back in January. There is nothing even close to anything in there about not being able to cut players to save money during the uncapped year.

Under the old CBA, if a player was cut or traded during the uncapped year, his future signing bonus prorations did not accelerate into the uncapped year, they remained prorated against each season of the (former) contract. That's what I meant by not being able to dump cap charges into the uncapped year. Of course teams could "save money" by cutting players and not paying them. They just couldn't get rid of the dead money, other than that season's proration.

The new CBA, obviously, changed the rules.

 

[AdamJT13]

So if that is true, then aren't we still operating under the old CBA rules until the new league years starts next Wednesday?

No, the old CBA expired March 11.

So technically any cuts made before the opening of the new league year would occur in the uncapped year of 2010 and would fall under the "Dead Money Rule" is that correct?

No. Everything since the lockout ended is governed by the new CBA.

 

[Bulldog]

No, the old CBA expired March 11.




No. Everything since the lockout ended is governed by the new CBA.

Thanks Adam.

 

[JustDezIt]

masterful.