Stephen on "All-In" - "We spend max, max money year in and year out

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except then you would carry over the extra cap to future years. I would have to check but I do not believe there are any teams that are leaving cap space on the table. Certainly the Cowboys have not had a year where they had an extra 50m in cap space that they were not using. The fact that as fans know that means that we also know that people are selectively picking years in order to try and twist data to suit a theory. This would normally be less obvious but we have basic addition laws that show this to be true.

that is a good consideration. indeed cap space is fungible.

IOW, the conclusion is if they have not spent money to the cap in the past the space is not wasted it just moves forward.

IOW, the conclusions we are getting are not only sensationalist fearmongering but completely misleading.

thanks for the correction.

 

[Sydla]

Except then you would carry over the extra cap to future years. I would have to check but I do not believe there are any teams that are leaving cap space on the table. Certainly the Cowboys have not had a year where they had an extra 50m in cap space that they were not using. The fact that as fans know that means that we also know that people are selectively picking years in order to try and twist data to suit a theory. This would normally be less obvious but we have basic addition laws that show this to be true.

But is looking at a decade worth of data "selectively picking years"?

I mean I would but that theory if you looked at one year here or there and purposely picked year AFTER the Cowboys had laid out big signing bonuses. In that case, the following years might show low cash paid because they had paid a huge chunk in signing bonuses the year before the measure started.

But a decade worth of data, which includes signing of some really large contracts such as Romo and Elliott and Dak, is a fairly decent data set. And over that period, despite Stephen claiming they spent as much as anyone, they really have not.

Yes, in theory, teams should spend the same amount of cash but in actual practice with the differing contracts, terms, cap manipulations, etc. you can go long stretches - 5, 10, even 15 years - where teams actually spent more actual cash on their roster than other teams. Again, we see this in the data from the last decade.

 

[Miller]

Multiple sources huh?

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/202...hen-jones-family-cash-spend-prorate-contracts

021-2023

I looked hard, but could not find the 2020 data, so we’ll have to do without. Again the NFLPA provides the data for 2021, 2022, 2023. The data for all three years is summarized in the table below.

Rank	Team	2021	2022	2023	Total
1	CLE	239.4	276.3	241.8	757.5
2	NYJ	203.5	262.6	253.3	719.4
3	BAL	197.5	250.0	261.9	709.4
4	DEN	200.5	241.4	248.2	690.1
5	IND	222.6	219.7	237.7	680.0
6	SEA	205.9	233.7	231.8	671.4
7	SF	219.2	203.0	242.5	664.7
8	BUF	204.4	248.4	204.6	657.4
9	JAC	216.5	252.1	188.6	657.2
10	PHI	185.8	212.2	257.2	655.2
11	TEN	207.2	221.7	222.7	651.6
12	MIA	195.7	244.2	206.0	645.9
13	KC	186.2	215.1	243.4	644.7
14	HOU	188.4	184.8	269.8	643.0
15	NYG	215.7	190.9	230.3	636.9
16	CIN	197.9	182.4	253.2	633.5
NFL Average	627.4
17	OAK	197.3	206.3	222.0	625.6
18	NE	234.9	197.2	189.9	622.0
19	WAS	223.3	212.6	182.5	618.4
20	DET	188.8	221.3	205.1	615.2
21	ARI	190.8	208.9	213.8	613.5
22	TB	230.8	225.7	152.9	609.4
23	LAC	200.2	238.3	167.2	605.7
24	PIT	161.6	216.3	219.4	597.3
25	CAR	194.1	195.3	200.5	589.9
26	LAR	137.5	282.8	163.5	583.8
27	MIN	194.9	180.1	207.5	582.5
28	ATL	147.6	169.5	253.0	570.1
29	CHI	165.9	148.2	242.4	556.5
30	DAL	196.5	146.9	190.9	534.3
31	GB	177.8	187.0	156.3	521.1
32	NO	183.1	148.3	183.2	514.6

The Cowboys, like it or not, have spent less cash on their team over the last decade than almost any other NFL team. They ranked 25th in cash spend from 2013-2016, 32nd from 2016-2019, and 30th from 2021-2023. That’s as clear a pattern as you’re going to get.

https://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/li...-2024-free-agency-cash-jerry-jones-biography/

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...ce-2016-why-cash-trumps-cap-new-cba-and-more/

2016-2020

Cowboys: $634,379,000
Texans: $646,479,000
Bills: $648,442,000
Colts: $654,999,000
Chargers: $658,299,000
Ravens: $678,220,000
Browns: $687,708,000

That is your bottom 20 percent in spending in the league in that time frame. The average NFL team spent $703 million on payroll in that span, and the top five spending teams in the league during that span – the Jaguars, Eagles, Falcons, Bears, and Packers – all spent at least $750M in salary since 2016. Of course, spending the most didn't prove worth it for any of those teams save Philadelphia – but nevertheless, I'd presume seeing Jerah's World at the bottom of this list would surprise some people (and seeing the Ravens that low as well probably would too, since their annual woes with the salary cap have become a narrative).

So what's the moral of this story?

Cowboys fans, don't believe the hype about trouble keeping Dak Prescott and Amari Cooper and Byron Jones and anyone else. It's beyond time for the Cowboys to be writing checks left and right. The poster boys for marketing and sales revenue spent $134M less than the tiny-market Jaguars over the past four years. Let the shopping begin in The Big D!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But is looking at a decade worth of data "selectively picking years"?

I mean I would but that theory if you looked at one year here or there and purposely picked year AFTER the Cowboys had laid out big signing bonuses. In that case, the following years might show low cash paid because they had paid a huge chunk in signing bonuses the year before the measure started.

But a decade worth of data, which includes signing of some really large contracts such as Romo and Elliott and Dak, is a fairly decent data set. And over that period, despite Stephen claiming they spent as much as anyone, they really have not.

that is not a decade of data and you know it.

plus is surplus cap space rolled over to the next year?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let's humor you. Why would they need to "normalize" a simple measure of cash spent? How would/should they go about normalizing the cash spent totals? What needs to be done?

review the ETL of the datasets and go from there. you call it simple but you don't know that. You just want it to be true.

 

[Sydla]

review the ETL of the datasets and go from there.

It's a simple total of cash spent by teams.

Are you saying that the NFLPA, for example, calculated the totals of cash spent differently at various points over the last decade?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's a simple total of cash spent by teams.

Are you saying that the NFLPA, for example, calculated the totals of cash spent differently at various points over the last decade?

that is how the column ends up.

I get that you want it to be a simple query like

select cash
from nflpa
where year between x and y;

that doesn't mean it happened that way.

 

[Sydla]

that is not a decade of data and you know it.

plus is surplus cap space rolled over to the next year?

It's 10 years of data from the last 11 years. They are missing one year. So for all intents and purposes, what was provided was basically a look back at the last decade and how much cash each team spent over that period (minus one year - 2020).

And yes surplus cap space is rolled over but cash spent in a given year is cash spent. There's nothing magical or complex about simply totaling the amount of money the team paid their players in a given year.

 

[Bigrandrn]

These two are just bad GMs, so many other teams seem to know how to manipulate the cap in a way these two don’t, at least we don’t seem them ever trying.

 

[Sydla]

that is how the column ends up.

I get that you want it to be

select cash
from nflpa
where year between x and y;

that doesn't mean it happened that way.

So this is your off ramp? You are going to take the position that the NFLPA, for example, somehow calculated cash spent differently over the periods measured and therefore we can reject the analysis.

LOL, why would they do that. Cash spent is cash spent. Teams have to provide that information to the league and NFLPA. It's standardized. It's spelled out in the CBA and the NFLPA and league use the data to check CBA compliance on spending. The notion that the cash spent "data" is random and not standardized and needs to be "normalized" (and I guess would potentially make Dallas look better) is quite the theory..............

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's 10 years of data from the last 11 years. They are missing one year. So for all intents and purposes, what was provided was basically a look back at the last decade and how much cash each team spent over that period (minus one year - 2020).

And yes surplus cap space is rolled over but cash spent in a given year is cash spent. There's nothing magical or complex about simply totaling the amount of money the team paid their players in a given year.

is the cap zero sum? IOW is space created or destroyed independent of annual cap allotments?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So this is your off ramp? You are going to take the position that the NFLPA, for example, somehow calculated cash spent differently over the periods measured and therefore we can reject the analysis.

LOL. Classic Fuzzy.

how is cash expenditure calculated?

what does the base NFLPA db even look like?

my position is taht when it comes to data analysis you are extremely ignorant.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Cowboys EVP Stephen Jones on @1053thefan

on Jerry Jones saying Dallas would be "all in" this season: "Everybody has their own definition of what that means, but I've never not known us to be all in, nor have I known anyone we compete against not to be all in." What does he say to fans that don't believe the Cowboys have been "all in" this offseason? "We spend max, max money year in and year out. All 32 can only spend the same amount of money over a five-year stretch. When we're all said and done, we max out our salary cap every year. We will have done that. What comes with having a good roster, which we do, we're also looking towards signing our own guys. "It doesn't mean it happens overnight. But when you're wanting to sign players like Dak (Prescott) and Micah (Parsons) and CeeDee (Lamb), then you have to hold money back if you want to have a realistic chance of signing those guys."

Hearing Stephen makes me want to cheer for any other team but the Dallas Cowboys. So after the season we can all rub it in their faces and say "we told you so".

 

[Cowfan75Lives]

The only thing I am 100% sure of is that when either of these two absolute moronic embarrassments say ANYTHING, I am sure to feel even worse as a fan. I have absolutely zero hope, and at this point I hope we absolutely stink this season. It's clear this is the only hope we have for change. I never thought I'd hope for a tank season, but I just can't take Cap Boy anymore. They do nothing but speak nonsense and lies EVERY SINGLE TIME they open their rotten mouths. I hate our FO with a passion.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/202...hen-jones-family-cash-spend-prorate-contracts

021-2023

I looked hard, but could not find the 2020 data, so we’ll have to do without. Again the NFLPA provides the data for 2021, 2022, 2023. The data for all three years is summarized in the table below.

Rank	Team	2021	2022	2023	Total
1	CLE	239.4	276.3	241.8	757.5
2	NYJ	203.5	262.6	253.3	719.4
3	BAL	197.5	250.0	261.9	709.4
4	DEN	200.5	241.4	248.2	690.1
5	IND	222.6	219.7	237.7	680.0
6	SEA	205.9	233.7	231.8	671.4
7	SF	219.2	203.0	242.5	664.7
8	BUF	204.4	248.4	204.6	657.4
9	JAC	216.5	252.1	188.6	657.2
10	PHI	185.8	212.2	257.2	655.2
11	TEN	207.2	221.7	222.7	651.6
12	MIA	195.7	244.2	206.0	645.9
13	KC	186.2	215.1	243.4	644.7
14	HOU	188.4	184.8	269.8	643.0
15	NYG	215.7	190.9	230.3	636.9
16	CIN	197.9	182.4	253.2	633.5
NFL Average	627.4
17	OAK	197.3	206.3	222.0	625.6
18	NE	234.9	197.2	189.9	622.0
19	WAS	223.3	212.6	182.5	618.4
20	DET	188.8	221.3	205.1	615.2
21	ARI	190.8	208.9	213.8	613.5
22	TB	230.8	225.7	152.9	609.4
23	LAC	200.2	238.3	167.2	605.7
24	PIT	161.6	216.3	219.4	597.3
25	CAR	194.1	195.3	200.5	589.9
26	LAR	137.5	282.8	163.5	583.8
27	MIN	194.9	180.1	207.5	582.5
28	ATL	147.6	169.5	253.0	570.1
29	CHI	165.9	148.2	242.4	556.5
30	DAL	196.5	146.9	190.9	534.3
31	GB	177.8	187.0	156.3	521.1
32	NO	183.1	148.3	183.2	514.6

The Cowboys, like it or not, have spent less cash on their team over the last decade than almost any other NFL team. They ranked 25th in cash spend from 2013-2016, 32nd from 2016-2019, and 30th from 2021-2023. That’s as clear a pattern as you’re going to get.

https://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/li...-2024-free-agency-cash-jerry-jones-biography/

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...ce-2016-why-cash-trumps-cap-new-cba-and-more/

2016-2020

Cowboys: $634,379,000
Texans: $646,479,000
Bills: $648,442,000
Colts: $654,999,000
Chargers: $658,299,000
Ravens: $678,220,000
Browns: $687,708,000

That is your bottom 20 percent in spending in the league in that time frame. The average NFL team spent $703 million on payroll in that span, and the top five spending teams in the league during that span – the Jaguars, Eagles, Falcons, Bears, and Packers – all spent at least $750M in salary since 2016. Of course, spending the most didn't prove worth it for any of those teams save Philadelphia – but nevertheless, I'd presume seeing Jerah's World at the bottom of this list would surprise some people (and seeing the Ravens that low as well probably would too, since their annual woes with the salary cap have become a narrative).

So what's the moral of this story?

Cowboys fans, don't believe the hype about trouble keeping Dak Prescott and Amari Cooper and Byron Jones and anyone else. It's beyond time for the Cowboys to be writing checks left and right. The poster boys for marketing and sales revenue spent $134M less than the tiny-market Jaguars over the past four years. Let the shopping begin in The Big D!

You missed my point. You cannot just equate datasets from multiple sources like that. Further even if you are right any cash not spent to the cap in past years would translate into cap space pushed forward to today.

 

[CowboyStar88]

You missed my point. You cannot just equate datasets from multiple sources like that. Further even if you are right any cash not spent to the cap in past years would translate into cap space pushed forward to today.

I always figured they used that rollover to offset dead money freeing up cap space. I am curious if that number looks the same year after year. Like If they have a set dollar amount in mind that they try and create for rollover.

 

[KingintheNorth]

Guys,only stats that show Stephen and Jerry are smart football big boys count. Any stats that show otherwise are invalid.



Here’s an example:

The Cowboys have won 5 Super Bowls, 3 of which with Jerry Jones as Owner and young Cap Boy Stephen learning the ropes. That would be a good statistic proving how good the Jones are.

The Cowboys have not been to a conference championship game in 28 years. FAKE NEWS !!!!!

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

We don't have to "think" or "guess" or "believe".

We can look at the actual data. Blogging the Boys put some of the data together, looking at various time periods over the last decade.

The NFLPA released data from 2013-2016. The Cowboys were 25th in cash spent over that four year period (and that includes big FA signings like Carr as well as Romo's big extension).

Jason La Canfora released an analysis of team salaries showing the period from 2016-2019. Dallas was DEAD LAST in cash spent over that period.

There was no 2020 data available but the NFLPA released a study of the period from 2021-2023. The Cowboys were 30th in cash spent.

These are just facts. The Cowboys, over the last decade, have literally been one of the "cheapest" teams, for lack of a better term, when it comes to investing in the roster.

Well I can't disagree with your facts. I will point out the difference between cash spent and salary cap hit. Take Dak for example. Dallas has pushed a portion of his salary cap hit into the future, but not the corresponding cash spent. In the short run these things can be manipulated.

 

[Adreme]

But is looking at a decade worth of data "selectively picking years"?

I mean I would but that theory if you looked at one year here or there and purposely picked year AFTER the Cowboys had laid out big signing bonuses. In that case, the following years might show low cash paid because they had paid a huge chunk in signing bonuses the year before the measure started.

But a decade worth of data, which includes signing of some really large contracts such as Romo and Elliott and Dak, is a fairly decent data set. And over that period, despite Stephen claiming they spent as much as anyone, they really have not.

Yes, in theory, teams should spend the same amount of cash but in actual practice with the differing contracts, terms, cap manipulations, etc. you can go long stretches - 5, 10, even 15 years - where teams actually spent more actual cash on their roster than other teams. Again, we see this in the data from the last decade.

Yes it would. Every dollar of the cap is accounted for. This is true for all 32 teams. This means that all 32 teams are spending the same money but the only difference is what years you start with, and how much money they are pushing into the future years. It is impossible to do otherwise as you can rollover unused cap space. Just to use a simple example if I were to use the past 2 years and this upcoming year (so far) Dallas would probably rank lower than a lot of teams. The reason is because I am intentionally leaving out the year Dak signed the contract and got his signing bonus. That money was all paid out in his first year but the cap hits for it take place over the life of the contract. Similarly I could, and they did, do the same thing by using the year after Romo signed his deal as a starting point.

Now teams like the Saints, the Browns, the 49ers, and the Seahawks also pushed some of that bonus money into future years, which is why they are currently over the projected cap for next year. Now borrowing from the future to pay out more in the present is another viable strategy but every team is using the same amount of cap space and since the leftover rolls over (up to a threshold that I can be confident none are going over) there is not really a difference in spending between the 32 teams.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I always figured they used that rollover to offset dead money freeing up cap space. I am curious if that number looks the same year after year. Like If they have a set dollar amount in mind that they try and create for rollover.

Sure they might do that but that is is besides the point.

If a team pays in cash it is either accounted for that year or up to 5 future years. It doesn't gain, lose, or disappear. It just moves around.

Similarly if a team has cap space left over in one year it is carried over to the next. it too does not gain lose or disappear. It just moves forward

IOW, if the Cowboys are the lowest cash paying team over a 10 year period then they will also have the highest amount of rollover capspace from that 10 year period. It is a zero sum game.