News: Six Cap Moves The Cowboys Will Make In The 2017 Offseason

[AbeBeta]

0% chance TCrawford is even asked to take a paycut......this is Year 2 of his deal and he was top 15 in QB pressures last year

Dez is a lifer....he is a Cowboy, like or not, forever....knock down his ridiculous 17m cap hit and move on to the next guy

Go look at Crawford's deal. It is designed to be a show me deal with 2017 seeing no real cap difference if he stays or goes.

He's a nice rotational player but you don't spend 7 mill on that sort of player

 

[Nightman]

Go look at Crawford's deal. It is designed to be a show me deal with 2017 seeing no real cap difference if he stays or goes.

He's a nice rotational player but you don't spend 7 mill on that sort of player

We didn't pay him 17m to cut him after 1 year.....not even close...........7m is yesterdays 4m

 

[LocimusPrime]

Wonder if we could trade Crawford for Damon Harrison straight up since they have the same salary and contract. I think "snacks" is a force!

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I wasn't big on releasing Jackson either, but back-up RB is arguably the easiest spot to fill on the roster.

"arguably"

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Or if you weren't sure that you wanted to stay in a long term contract with a particular player. This is the factor that continues to be minimized and overlooked. Accounting is one thing. Flexibility is another. You gain short term cap space at the expense of long term commitment.

Take Dez Bryant's contract. Left alone, the team gains the option of terminating the deal if they wanted to. Reworking it may save money today, but it makes walking away from the deal if things were to go bad, much more problematic.

There's a tradeoff.

You aren't paying attention really. This team doesn't do planned restructures with everyone. For instance Dez is going on year 3 of his 5 year deal and not a single restructure in sight.

If you aren't taking advantage of a rising Salary Cap you're freely forfeiting an advantage offered to everyone.

Yes, you have to be careful. Yes, you can make mistakes. Yes, you should be maximizing restructures in building a team.

 

[rkell87]

Cleveland didn't give him a carry either. He might just not be as good as people expect.

He isn't

 

[Stash]

You aren't paying attention really. This team doesn't do planned restructures with everyone. For instance Dez is going on year 3 of his 5 year deal and not a single restructure in sight.

If you aren't taking advantage of a rising Salary Cap you're freely forfeiting an advantage offered to everyone.

Yes, you have to be careful. Yes, you can make mistakes. Yes, you should be maximizing restructures in building a team.

It's funny, the Cowboys are one of the teams with the smallest amount of available cap space, and yet some people still want to holler that "they can do whatever they want", as if the team's that actually do have available cap space, and have been able to roll over huge dollars year after year, can't do the same thing.

Like I've said, restructuring deals keeps you in them, whether you still want to be there or not. Deal with that truth while Tyrone Crawford costs this team $10 million in total for 2017.

But yeah, "I'm not paying attention"...

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

The way I look at it from a drunk guy sitting on my couch watching The Walking Dead is this.........

The Cowboys are near the bottom of the league in available money to spend, they can do some things to improve this but so can 31 other teams. The cap is going to grow next year which helps the Cowboys, but also helps every other team in the league. Now we have all 32 teams with a lot of money to spend, the Cowboys have money to spend, but they will still remain near the bottom when compared to the amount every other team has to spend. Does this really help the Cowboys? Basically, the Cowboys with some money to spend are competing against a lot of teams with massive amounts of money to spend.

Burp....................

 

[gmoney112]

It's funny, the Cowboys are one of the teams with the smallest amount of available cap space, and yet some people still want to holler that "they can do whatever they want", as if the team's that actually do have available cap space, and have been able to roll over huge dollars year after year, can't do the same thing.

Like I've said, restructuring deals keeps you in them, whether you still want to be there or not. Deal with that truth while Tyrone Crawford costs this team $10 million in total for 2017.

But yeah, "I'm not paying attention"...

A lot of teams don't spend money in FA either, because some owners don't care, their franchise is an ATM. Get enough talent to sit butts in the seats.

We're probably going to open up a bit and be ~20 million under the cap, so yeah, if we really want a player or two we can get them. We'll still be like 45 million under next year.

The cap is really easy to understand, and learning how it works + getting our numbers will probably only take like an hour in all. Why don't you do that instead of going insane on everyone on a forum?

 

[Teague31]

If Free is our week one starter at RT, the entire FO needs to be gone

 

[Stash]

A lot of teams don't spend money in FA either, because some owners don't care, their franchise is an ATM. Get enough talent to sit butts in the seats.

We're probably going to open up a bit and be ~20 million under the cap, so yeah, if we really want a player or two we can get them. We'll still be like 45 million under next year.

The cap is really easy to understand, and learning how it works + getting our numbers will probably only take like an hour in all. Why don't you do that instead of going insane on everyone on a forum?

Not going "insane" at all. I respond to those who respond to me. Are you trying to project something that isn't there because someone has a different point of view? Maybe you need to look into that?

For the record, I never said that the team can't sign players. So I don't know ever you're getting that from. What I disagree with is the "we can do whatever we want" extreme point of view. It's as bad as the "cap he'll" extrememe at the other end. Neither extreme is accurate and as I've said ad nauseum, the truth is in between.

But yet folks continue to argue over degrees and minutiae.

 

[CCBoy]

Not going "insane" at all. I respond to those who respond to me. Are you trying to project something that isn't there because someone has a different point of view? Maybe you need to look into that?

For the record, I never said that the team can't sign players. So I don't know ever you're getting that from. What I disagree with is the "we can do whatever we want" extreme point of view. It's as bad as the "cap he'll" extrememe at the other end. Neither extreme is accurate and as I've said ad nauseum, the truth is in between.

But yet folks continue to argue over degrees and minutiae.

Stash, I'm still excited about next season...and no, it all won't be a bed of roses.

 

[AbeBeta]

We didn't pay him 17m to cut him after 1 year.....not even close...........7m is yesterdays 4m

It was two years.

And it is completely obvious from the contract structure - 2017 is the year that dead cap matches the cap hit to keep him - that we absolutely intended the deal to work like this.

He's had two years to justify the salary. Now we can cut him with little consequence for the cap. This is exactly the sort of situation where you ask the player to take a cut.

I expect we'll see his base cut in half and guaranteed - possibly for both 17&18.

 

[CowboyStar88]

I still scratch my head at cutting RB Jackson less than a year after using a draft pick on him but keeping not one but two largely washed up RBs on the roster that cost twice as much plus Dunbar who we also didn't end up using anyway. Seems like it would've made tons more sense to go with the younger cheaper option for at least one of those four RB spots. Maybe the guy was a turd or something but I never understood it.

Obviously we are not privy to practice or any of the meetings. Maybe he was struggling to understand what to do, and they decided to cut bait early. It is what it is. There is always a Jackson type player every year in the draft or UDFA.

 

[CowboyStar88]

Cleveland didn't give him a carry either. He might just not be as good as people expect.

nonsense I read right here he was a HOF back and the boys would rue the day!

 

[Stash]

The way I look at it from a drunk guy sitting on my couch watching The Walking Dead is this.........

The Cowboys are near the bottom of the league in available money to spend, they can do some things to improve this but so can 31 other teams. The cap is going to grow next year which helps the Cowboys, but also helps every other team in the league. Now we have all 32 teams with a lot of money to spend, the Cowboys have money to spend, but they will still remain near the bottom when compared to the amount every other team has to spend. Does this really help the Cowboys? Basically, the Cowboys with some money to spend are competing against a lot of teams with massive amounts of money to spend.

Burp....................

I thînk you're doing a fine job of it.

 

[Stash]

Stash, I'm still excited about next season...and no, it all won't be a bed of roses.

Me too.

There's some ups and downs for me. A great ride of a season, far exceeding expectations, with a disappointing finish where I felt we shot ourselves in the foot, followed by a future that looks bright.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It's funny, the Cowboys are one of the teams with the smallest amount of available cap space, and yet some people still want to holler that "they can do whatever they want", as if the team's that actually do have available cap space, and have been able to roll over huge dollars year after year, can't do the same thing.

Like I've said, restructuring deals keeps you in them, whether you still want to be there or not. Deal with that truth while Tyrone Crawford costs this team $10 million in total for 2017.

But yeah, "I'm not paying attention"...

Well yes. When two teams have available cap space to fit in a free agent it then becomes an issue of where a player wants to go. That should be self evident.

The question being debated is if we have the cap space to try and sign anyone we want. Yes we do. That too should be self evident.

Also, talking about the "cost" of a player using their cap hit to prove a point is remedial cap 101. It's disingenuous unless you also speak about how said player "cost" us so much less in the past. It might work on some who don't understand the cap.... But against me it's a rhetorical trick that makes me question your fundamental understanding of the topic of player acquisition. Don't make me question your fundamental understanding of the topic of player acquisition. In a topic about player acquisition. It's not good.

 

[Stash]

Well yes. When two teams have available cap space to fit in a free agent it then becomes an issue of where a player wants to go. That should be self evident.

It's also "evident" that a team with $50 million-plus in available cap space can afford to offer more money to free agents than a team that currently sits over the cap, finance juggling or not. Some team said can afford to be big spenders, while others can't. Some are bereft of talent and may be willing and able to overpay to get it. Reckless or not.

The question being debated is if we have the cap space to try and sign anyone we want. Yes we do. That too should be self evident.

It not "evident", and it's not true. They're not in "cap hell", but they can't "sign anyone they want" either.

Also, talking about the "cost" of a player using their cap hit to prove a point is remedial cap 101. It's disingenuous unless you also speak about how said player "cost" us so much less in the past. It might work on some who don't understand the cap.... But against me it's a rhetorical trick that makes me question your fundamental understanding of the topic of player acquisition. Don't make me question your fundamental understanding of the topic of player acquisition. In a topic about player acquisition. It's not good.

It's not a "trick" to anyone. Each and every person is free to take the time to seek out the abundant information that's out there, and I've repeatedly put a guy like Crawford's contract in my posts for all to see. So, the fact is that unlike some people, I'm not trying to "trick" anyone.

The only "trick" is the one the team played on themselves, "tricking" themselves into believing that they had found their Warren Sapp, and paying a player before they should have. Followed up by "tricking" themselves into restructuring the contract and putting themselves on the hook for another $5.5 million and essentially sticking themselves in a bad deal. Something that some people still try to call "smart accounting".

Again, no "tricks", anyone can look for themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/tyrone-crawford-9891/

But feel free to "question" whatever you want.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It's also "evident" that a team with $50 million-plus in available cap space can afford to offer more money to free agents than a team that currently sits over the cap, finance juggling or not. Some team said can afford to be big spenders, while others can't. Some are bereft of talent and may be willing and able to overpay to get it. Reckless or not.

Everyone overpays in free agency you're right. But you're either able to offer a market rate contract to a player or you are not. You're able to be offering enough to be in the conversation or you're not. Players also don't always take the absolute biggest deal possible. The fact of the matter is we can be legitimately in any conversation with any free agent in the market. This is fact. Not opinion. Not really interested in debating these facts any further.

It not "evident", and it's not true. They're not in "cap hell", but they can't "sign anyone they want" either.

I'm similarly disinterested in debating your alternative facts.

It's not a "trick" to anyone. Each and every person is free to take the time to seek out the abundant information that's out there, and I've repeatedly put a guy like Crawford's contract in my posts for all to see. So, the fact is that unlike some people, I'm not trying to "trick" anyone.

The only "trick" is the one the team played on themselves, "tricking" themselves into believing that they had found their Warren Sapp, and paying a player before they should have. Followed up by "tricking" themselves into restructuring the contract and putting themselves on the hook for another $5.5 million and essentially sticking themselves in a bad deal. Something that some people still try to call "smart accounting".

Again, no "tricks", anyone can look for themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/tyrone-crawford-9891/

But feel free to "question" whatever you want.

Ahhh so we arrive at the truth. Before you said Crawford costs this team $10mm. Now you arrive at the correct number of $6mm. Hey your original assertion was only intentionally too high by 40%. I mean what's 40% of intentionally misleading misinformation between friends?

If you want to do a 3 year average of his cap allocated cost you arrive at under $6mm per. And next year we'd actually save money releasing Crawford.

Pointing to Crawford as some type of albatross of a contract and/or player shows that you don't understand how we structure deals and you don't understand how we value players. Crawford is neither expensive off the field nor a bad player on it.

You're embarrassing yourself again.