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

[gimmesix]

Six Cap Moves The Cowboys Will Make In The 2017 Offseason

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2017...17-offseason-tony-romo-jason-witten-doug-free


Salary Cap Hell. As Dallas fans we have gotten inured to hearing those words and they no longer induce the panic, or even discussion, they once did. Nonetheless Dallas finds themselves with a pretty good shortfall at the moment, for the 2017 salary cap. Spotrac and Over the Cap disagree by about $1 million dollars but both have the Cowboys eight figures over for 2017. That is not chump change. In fact, it’s the worst number in the league.

But all that actually means is that Dallas has a large amount of its resources concentrated into next (this) year’s cap. And this should come as no surprise to anyone, with the big recent contracts for Travis Frederick and Dez Bryant, along with the the extensions and restructures of Brandon Carr, Jason Witten, and, of course, Tony Romo’s money as the team worked hard to keep core older talent while rewarding core newer talent. Dallas clearly has a plan for dealing with the situation through a variety of cap manipulations. Now, these moves do cost the Cowboys some small amount of 2018 cap space, so we will track that as well. This is particularly important as Zack Martin and La’el Collins are both up for new contracts in 2018, along with a few others, and keeping the powder dry for those guys is important.

Here are the six biggest moves I expect Dallas to make for their salary cap.

Starting point:

2017 — $11.3 million over

2018 — $34.9 million under...

Although I agree that the linemen are the starting point for restructures, I would expect Bryant to be next on the list ahead of the others he mentions, like Witten. Bryant has a $13 million base this year, so if the team converts $12 million to bonus, it could save $9 million or more this year.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

He is certainly younger and cheaper and hey we all love his measurables. But we are talking about a healthy player that lasted into the 6th round of the NFL draft and hasn't convinced two teams to give him a carry in a game that matters. While I wish he was the Lance Dunbar/Alfred Morris/Dmac all rolled into one....I just can't get worked up over losing him. And I actually didn't want him cut for the same reasons as everyone else.

But RBs are a dime a dozen. There is almost always a "deep class" of RBs. And there are always a ton available late. Because they are running backs.

As I said, we won't really know what he is until this season, for Cleveland. He may not be a great RB but he might be. Rookies don't usually come into the league and have it figured out. It takes time to learn how to pick up the blitz, understand the hot assignment etc. It's not uncommon to see young backs take time to learn that and once you join a team during the season, there is no time to be taught that. We will see what happens but just from my point of view, why keep two of the same guy and let go a younger player with talent? Why even draft guys to develop if you are going to do that? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That would be the figure at the end of the row, second column from the end. His total cap hit.

I can see why that gives you trouble as you have a well-established issue with keep your rows and columns straight.



Tell us all again about that "$6 million" figure.

That total cap hit is not a number that makes sense in an individual year except insofar as to a cut or keep decision. Because just looking at that number ignores the savings you got in prior years when he was cheaper. It ignores that the cap has risen in time.

Here let's look at more numbers.

2015 NFL Salary Cap $143.28mm
2016 NFL Salary Cap: $155.27mm
2017 Projected NFL Salary Cap: $165mm

Now let's look at Crawford's contract in a few ways: Average annual value, cap hits on contract untouched and his restructured deal cap hits.

He signed a 5 year 45mm deal. So let's look at it using just his average annual value and let's look at it using restructures.

Using AAV of $9mm his percent of the cap each year is:

2015: 9 / 143.28 = 6.3%
2016: 9 / 155.27 = 5.8%
2017: 9 / 165 = 5.5%

If we were to then average his percent of the cap used over those 3 years you'd get: 5.9%

Using the contract untouched:

2015: 2,828,813 / 143.28 = 2.0%
2016: 8,750,000 / 155.27 = 5.6%
2017: 9,250,000 / 165 = 5.6%

If we were to then average his percent of the cap used over those 3 years you'd get: 4.4%

Using his actual cap hit numbers:

2015: 2.828,813 / 143.28 = 2.0%
2016: 4,350,000 / 155.27 = 2.8%
2017: 10,350,000 / 165 = 6.3%

If we were to then average his percent of the cap used over those 3 years you'd get: 3.7%

What number is lower. 5.9%, 4.4% or 3.7%? This is not a trick question.

In a rising cap environment you SHOULD be pushing money into the future for players you plan to keep around.

The Cowboys plan to keep Crawford around (again he led our team in pressures last year). And using restructures they have kept Crawford around at a cheaper expenditure of cap resources.

These are facts. Period.

 

[Stash]

That total cap hit is not a number that makes sense in an individual year except insofar as to a cut or keep decision. Because just looking at that number ignores the savings you got in prior years when he was cheaper. It ignores that the cap has risen in time.

Here let's look at more numbers.

2015 NFL Salary Cap $143.28mm
2016 NFL Salary Cap: $155.27mm
2017 Projected NFL Salary Cap: $165mm

Now let's look at Crawford's contract in a few ways: Average annual value, cap hits on contract untouched and his restructured deal cap hits.

He signed a 5 year 45mm deal. So let's look at it using just his average annual value and let's look at it using restructures.

Using AAV of $9mm his percent of the cap each year is:

2015: 9 / 143.28 = 6.3%
2016: 9 / 155.27 = 5.8%
2017: 9 / 165 = 5.5%

If we were to then average his percent of the cap used over those 3 years you'd get: 5.9%

Using the contract untouched:

2015: 2,828,813 / 143.28 = 2.0%
2016: 8,750,000 / 155.27 = 5.6%
2017: 9,250,000 / 165 = 5.6%

If we were to then average his percent of the cap used over those 3 years you'd get: 4.4%

Using his actual cap hit numbers:

2015: 2.828,813 / 143.28 = 2.0%
2016: 4,350,000 / 155.27 = 2.8%
2017: 10,350,000 / 165 = 6.3%

If we were to then average his percent of the cap used over those 3 years you'd get: 3.7%

What number is lower. 5.9%, 4.4% or 3.7%? This is not a trick question.

In a rising cap environment you SHOULD be pushing money into the future for players you plan to keep around.

The Cowboys plan to keep Crawford around (again he led our team in pressures last year). And using restructures they have kept Crawford around at a cheaper expenditure of cap resources.

These are facts. Period.

See, you spent all of that time on those numbers and then you undermined it all by throwing in that garbage about "plan to keep Crawford around". That's a load of bull and everyone knows it. You're suggesting the team is a bunch of idiots that don't know a bad fit and a bad contract when they see one.

I don't think they're the morons that your comment suggests. Because anyone planning to keep a guy coming off of back to back shoulder surgeries, at an inflated salary, with no true starting role wouldn't have to be a moron.

I mean a "$6 million" moron.

 

[Nightman]

In a rising cap environment you SHOULD be pushing money into the future for players you plan to keep around.

Preach!!!!!!

 

[Toruk_Makto]

See, you spent all of that time on those numbers and then you undermined it all by throwing in that garbage about "plan to keep Crawford around". That's a load of bull and everyone knows it. You're suggesting the team is a bunch of idiots that don't know a bad fit and a bad contract when they see one.

I don't think they're the morons that your comment suggests. Because anyone planning to keep a guy coming off of back to back shoulder surgeries, at an inflated salary, with no true starting role wouldn't have to be a moron.

I mean a "$6 million" moron.

So you can't argue against anything that I said.

And if you think they signed Crawford who was 25 to a 5 year contract and expected to cut him before his age 27 season you're a fool. So yes they expect(ed) to keep Crawford around this year. And last year in his age 26 season he led the team in pressures.

If you want further evidence that that they expected Crawford to be here this year....well his 2017 base salary is guaranteed. This has been incredibly embarrassing for you. But you've handled it well. This happen often?

 

[AbeBeta]

He was already under contract for 2015 at 675k when they extended him......the 17m would only cover 2016 if they cut him and that is nowhere near the plan.......the plan is for him to play out the entire deal.....his salary is 6m next year and 7m next....it doesn't escalate dramatically like it would for a 1-2 year deal

No, that 17 mill bonus doesn't only cover 2016. How on earth can you argue that giving a guy money in 2015 isn't really part of what we paid him in 2015?

You are not reading the deal correctly. Salaries that escalate dramatically do not indicate anything. Most teams haven't structured deals like that since the 90s.

The true indicator of the poop or get off the pot year is when cutting and keeping have basically the same cap consequences. Crawford has substantially underperformed his deal. He is at the point of his contract where there are no negative cap consequences for his release. This deal is a textbook example of a player betting on himself to play up to the level of the contract and the team building in flexibility if he doesn't.

The whole idea that "the plan is for him to play out the entire deal" is ridiculous. Teams would love for every signing to do that - it would mean the player earned their salary. I doubt the front office believes he's shown enough to cost the team 28 million over the next four years.

 

[Nightman]

No, that 17 mill bonus doesn't only cover 2016. How on earth can you argue that giving a guy money in 2015 isn't really part of what we paid him in 2015?

You are not reading the deal correctly. Salaries that escalate dramatically do not indicate anything. Most teams haven't structured deals like that since the 90s.

The true indicator of the poop or get off the pot year is when cutting and keeping have basically the same cap consequences. Crawford has substantially underperformed his deal. He is at the point of his contract where there are no negative cap consequences for his release. This deal is a textbook example of a player betting on himself to play up to the level of the contract and the team building in flexibility if he doesn't.

The whole idea that "the plan is for him to play out the entire deal" is ridiculous. Teams would love for every signing to do that - it would mean the player earned their salary. I doubt the front office believes he's shown enough to cost the team 28 million over the next four years.

HE WAS UNDER CONTRACT FOR 2015 for 675k

THEY DIDN'T GIVE HIM 17M TO PLAY ONE MORE YEAR

2017 was never a cut year ....that is ridiculous

If you think taking a 10.3m cap hit to waive TCrawford is a good plan you don't understand the cap nearly as well as you think

 

[AdamJT13]

If you think taking a 10.3m cap hit to waive TCrawford is a good plan you don't understand the cap nearly as well as you think

The difference between his current cap number and the dead money if we release him on or before June 1 is only $50,000. So the number to look at is his base salary -- $7.25 million. If he's not worth paying $7.25 million this year and there's no way to get him to play for less than $7.25 million, then releasing him is actually the smart thing to do.

 

[Stash]

So you can't argue against anything that I said.

Sure I can. And I have, starting with you trying to solid someone about being wrong while being wrong yourself "$6 million".

And if you think they signed Crawford who was 25 to a 5 year contract and expected to cut him before his age 27 season you're a fool. So yes they expect(ed) to keep Crawford around this year. And last year in his age 26 season he led the team in pressures.

Their initial plan was to pay Crawford to be their Warren Sapp at the 3T position. And that plan was obviously a mistake. The fool is the person who follows up one mistake - thinking he was that player - with restructuring his deal to keep you in it even longer. There's the "fool".

If you want further evidence that that they expected Crawford to be here this year....well his 2017 base salary is guaranteed. This has been incredibly embarrassing for you. But you've handled it well. This happen often?

"$6 million". There's no bigger "embarrassment" in this thread than that. Deal with it.

 

[Stash]

The difference between his current cap number and the dead money if we release him on or before June 1 is only $50,000. So the number to look at is his base salary -- $7.25 million. If he's not worth paying $7.25 million this year and there's no way to get him to play for less than $7.25 million, then releasing him is actually the smart thing to do.

Ooh, he's not gonna like you telling him things he doesn't want to hear. No matter how true they might be.

 

[Stash]

The difference between his current cap number and the dead money if we release him on or before June 1 is only $50,000. So the number to look at is his base salary -- $7.25 million. If he's not worth paying $7.25 million this year and there's no way to get him to play for less than $7.25 million, then releasing him is actually the smart thing to do.

And in my opinion, a guy that doesn't even have a true starting role isn't worth half of that $7.25 million, much less all of it. And that's why I continue to advocate getting out of the deal now.

In any conversations I've had with anyone trying to defend his contract, nobody can ever answer where his sure starting role would even be.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Sure I can. And I have, starting with you trying to solid someone about being wrong while being wrong yourself "$6 million".



Their initial plan was to pay Crawford to be their Warren Sapp at the 3T position. And that plan was obviously a mistake. The fool is the person who follows up one mistake - thinking he was that player - with restructuring his deal to keep you in it even longer. There's the "fool".



"$6 million". There's no bigger "embarrassment" in this thread than that. Deal with it.

What are you babbling about? His 3 year average salary cap cost is $6mm.

This team absolutely never planned to part ways with Crawford until at least after 2017. I know this because his 2017 salary is guaranteed. And so in that sense the restructures means Crawford took up 3.7% of our total cap over those 3 years.

These are facts.

 

[Stash]

What are you babbling about? His 3 year average salary cap cost is $6mm.

Nice try. Great attempt at revisionist history. Too bad neither I or anyone else buys it. Anyone reading this thread knows the truth. Own it.

This team absolutely never planned to part ways with Crawford until at least after 2017. I know this because his 2017 salary is guaranteed. And so in that sense the restructures means Crawford took up 3.7% of our total cap over those 3 years.

These are facts.

They never planned for him to be a player with no true starting role either! That's a fact, too. They never intentionally gave a guy a contract averaging $9 million a year to be a part-time, role player.

But apparently, this is a "fact" that hurts your fragile sensibilities, so you'd rather not acknowledge that "fact". Instead, you try to point to this as some grand "plan" that the team envisioned all along.

Another weak attempt at revisionist history. And another fail.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Nice try. Great attempt at revisionist history. Too bad neither I or anyone else buys it. Anyone reading this thread knows the truth. Own it.



They never planned for him to be a player with no true starting role either! That's a fact, too. They never intentionally gave a guy a contract averaging $9 million a year to be a part-time, role player.

But apparently, this is a "fact" that hurts your fragile sensibilities, so you'd rather not acknowledge that "fact". Instead, you try to point to this as some grand "plan" that the team envisioned all along.

Another weak attempt at revisionist history. And another fail.

What? You aren't making sense at this point and the effort i've put into trying to break down the numbers has been shrugged off. Good day sir.

 

[Stash]

What? You aren't making sense at this point and the effort i've put into trying to break down the numbers has been shrugged off. Good day sir.

Smart move.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Stash]

Ignorance is bliss.

You outta know.

Apparently, you have "$6 million" reason to think so...

 

[Nightman]

The difference between his current cap number and the dead money if we release him on or before June 1 is only $50,000. So the number to look at is his base salary -- $7.25 million. If he's not worth paying $7.25 million this year and there's no way to get him to play for less than $7.25 million, then releasing him is actually the smart thing to do.

Yeah but the rest of the hit comes next year.......that would mean they took cap hits of.....

2015- 2.8m- (675k original rookie deal) = 2.1m
2016- 4.3m
2017- 3.1m
2108- 7.3m
Total of 16.8m for one extra year past his rookie deal........that would make it one of the worst deals in history

If that was anyone's plan they should be fired......the plan was keeping a 25 year old DT/DE for several years at a good rate

 

[AdamJT13]

Yeah but the rest of the hit comes next year.......that would mean they took cap hits of.....

2015- 2.8m- (675k original rookie deal) = 2.1m
2016- 4.3m
2017- 3.1m
2108- 7.3m
Total of 16.8m for one extra year past his rookie deal........that would make it one of the worst deals in history

If that was anyone's plan they should be fired......the plan was keeping a 25 year old DT/DE for several years at a good rate

If the team determines that he's not worth paying $7.25 million to play this season, you don't keep him at that price just because you planned for him to be worth it. If it's a bad deal, it's a bad deal, and you get out of it as soon as possible. Otherwise, you're just compounding the problem.