The 2 most important reasons why Romo should not be traded

[waldoputty]

We are now contenders with a 4-5 year window unless disaster injuries strike.
Here are my 2 best reasons why Romo should not be traded if we want to win as many Super Bowls as possible.

1. QB injury - Bridgewater is the best example - young tough QB goes down for 1-2 years. Cowboys of 90's have great backups in Buerlein and Kosar because Jimmy Johnson learned his lesson of having inferior backup QBs. Lets hope Jerry can convince Romo to stay to compete for the spot.

2. You do not help complete your biggest threats to win the Super Bowl. In our case, our biggest threats are the Patriots and Seattle, and you dont want to create a 3rd in Denver. Don't do what the 49ers did when they traded Haley for our 2nd round pick. 49ers essentially handed 3 Superbowls to us. Denver was able to get Manning, but they have not been able to get anyone else - I doubt Patriots would trade Garroppolo to them because they are smart.
One can argue that Denver can knock off Patriots - so is that not a good thing. However, with a healthy Romo, I would say Denver is at least as tough as Patriots. You dont want to maximize the chance that the AFC champion can beat you. I would give the Patriots has a 50% chance of winning the AFC next year, and they definitely can beat us. The other 50% has a much lower chance of beating us.
If we help Broncos be a complete team, then the AFC champion would be 90% likely to be capable of beating us because 90% likely to be Patriots or Romo-improved Broncos. Our chance of winning the Super Bowl would been essentially reduced by 50%.
That would be dumb.

 

[Clove]

Awesome, let's keep an expensive back up QB on our roster, limiting our ability to upgrade the defense. Good idea.

 

[reddyuta]

Romo is not going to be a Backup here,either its going to be a Qb competition in the preseason or he will want to be traded.

 

[waldoputty]

Romo is not going to be a Backup here,either its going to be a Qb competition in the preseason or he will want to be traded.

That may be, but trading him may reduce our chance for winning the Superbowl by 50%.
Do you want that?

 

[Avery]

If Dak is real, you have to trade Romo.

Romo is scheduled to count $24.7 million against the 2017 cap, it’s already earmarked. That includes his base salary of $14 million, which would be traded away, and his prorated signing/restructure bonuses that count for another $10.7 million. That would stay with the Cowboys after a trade.

What also would stay with the Cowboys are the prorated bonus amounts for 2018 and 2019. Those total an additional $8.9 million.

This means Romo has $19.6 million remaining of unamortized signing bonus. If he is traded or retires, that would accelerate onto the 2017 ledger, meaning the Cowboys would save $5.1 million of space on next year’s cap from what they are “expected” to carry currently.

That would also clear up $25.2 million of 2018 space that is currently earmarked for Romo, and $23.7 million of similar 2019 space.

You can't ignore how that money could go towards upgrading our defense.

 

[darthseinfeld]

That may be, but trading him may reduce our chance for winning the Superbowl by 50%.
Do you want that?

Romo wont last 8 games behind Denvers line

 

[Zekeats]

Awesome, let's keep an expensive back up QB on our roster, limiting our ability to upgrade the defense. Good idea.

Yeah cause Romo can bring either a couple of big $$$ free agents that never pan out or a couple of 2nd round picks that we can flush down the drain on injured players or tight ends. That will really improve the team. So silly how people on here want to forget Romo so easily. Those same people must not remember Testeverde, Storner, Wright, Hutchinson, Carter, Henson, Leaf, ect. Those were fun years.

 

[SDCowboy]

Awesome, let's keep an expensive back up QB on our roster, limiting our ability to upgrade the defense. Good idea.

/thread

 

[reddyuta]

If Dak is real, you have to trade Romo.

Romo is scheduled to count $24.7 million against the 2017 cap, it’s already earmarked. That includes his base salary of $14 million, which would be traded away, and his prorated signing/restructure bonuses that count for another $10.7 million. That would stay with the Cowboys after a trade.

What also would stay with the Cowboys are the prorated bonus amounts for 2018 and 2019. Those total an additional $8.9 million.

This means Romo has $19.6 million remaining of unamortized signing bonus. If he is traded or retires, that would accelerate onto the 2017 ledger, meaning the Cowboys would save $5.1 million of space on next year’s cap from what they are “expected” to carry currently.

That would also clear up $25.2 million of 2018 space that is currently earmarked for Romo, and $23.7 million of similar 2019 space.

You can't ignore how that money could go towards upgrading our defense.

not just Defense but also to keep our Oline together.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Romo wont last 8 games behind Denvers line

He might not last 8 games behind anybody's line. Teams that get him will have to take a chance.

 

[rynochop]

If Dak is real, you have to trade Romo.

Romo is scheduled to count $24.7 million against the 2017 cap, it’s already earmarked. That includes his base salary of $14 million, which would be traded away, and his prorated signing/restructure bonuses that count for another $10.7 million. That would stay with the Cowboys after a trade.

What also would stay with the Cowboys are the prorated bonus amounts for 2018 and 2019. Those total an additional $8.9 million.

This means Romo has $19.6 million remaining of unamortized signing bonus. If he is traded or retires, that would accelerate onto the 2017 ledger, meaning the Cowboys would save $5.1 million of space on next year’s cap from what they are “expected” to carry currently.

That would also clear up $25.2 million of 2018 space that is currently earmarked for Romo, and $23.7 million of similar 2019 space.

You can't ignore how that money could go towards upgrading our defense.

What big time high priced free agent do you want to sign? Not that I'm disagreeing with your post.

 

[waldoputty]

If Dak is real, you have to trade Romo.

Romo is scheduled to count $24.7 million against the 2017 cap, it’s already earmarked. That includes his base salary of $14 million, which would be traded away, and his prorated signing/restructure bonuses that count for another $10.7 million. That would stay with the Cowboys after a trade.

What also would stay with the Cowboys are the prorated bonus amounts for 2018 and 2019. Those total an additional $8.9 million.

This means Romo has $19.6 million remaining of unamortized signing bonus. If he is traded or retires, that would accelerate onto the 2017 ledger, meaning the Cowboys would save $5.1 million of space on next year’s cap from what they are “expected” to carry currently.

That would also clear up $25.2 million of 2018 space that is currently earmarked for Romo, and $23.7 million of similar 2019 space.

You can't ignore how that money could go towards upgrading our defense.

The money is nice to have.
But @bkight13 also showed that we can open up 30M by renegotiating the top 5 contracts, and 50M if we really wanted to.

As far as salary cap is concerned, it is time to put the chips in and double down.
A window is a precious thing to waste, and the clock is ticking.
Heck, if we want to free space with Romo, I would extend him and worry about it in 3 years.

We have a built-in get-out-of-jail card for the salary cap.
That is because Romo and Witten will retire in a few years, latest.

 

[Sarge]

We are now contenders with a 4-5 year window unless disaster injuries strike.
Here are my 2 best reasons why Romo should not be traded if we want to win as many Super Bowls as possible.

1. QB injury - Bridgewater is the best example - young tough QB goes down for 1-2 years. Cowboys of 90's have great backups in Buerlein and Kosar because Jimmy Johnson learned his lesson of having inferior backup QBs. Lets hope Jerry can convince Romo to stay to compete for the spot.

2. You do not help complete your biggest threats to win the Super Bowl. In our case, our biggest threats are the Patriots and Seattle, and you dont want to create a 3rd in Denver. Don't do what the 49ers did when they traded Haley for our 2nd round pick. 49ers essentially handed 3 Superbowls to us. Denver was able to get Manning, but they have not been able to get anyone else - I doubt Patriots would trade Garroppolo to them because they are smart.
One can argue that Denver can knock off Patriots - so is that not a good thing. However, with a healthy Romo, I would say Denver is at least as tough as Patriots. You dont want to maximize the chance that the AFC champion can beat you. I would give the Patriots has a 50% chance of winning the AFC next year, and they definitely can beat us. The other 50% has a much lower chance of beating us.
If we help Broncos be a complete team, then the AFC champion would be 90% likely to be capable of beating us because 90% likely to be Patriots or Romo-improved Broncos. Our chance of winning the Super Bowl would been essentially reduced by 50%.
That would be dumb.

Romo will not be a Cowboy next year. Book it. No brainer.

 

[waldoputty]

Romo wont last 8 games behind Denvers line

He may not.
But instead of counting your enemies to be stupid, assume they can come up with something craft to preserve Romo for the playoffs.
You do not complete your biggest threats.

Lets say the Cowboys have a 50% chance to get to the Superbowl.
To keep it simple, let say the Patriots 50% of getting to be the AFC champion with a 50% chance to beat us, but no one else in AFC can beat us.
Then our chance for winning the Super Bowl is 25%.

If you help complete the Broncos to a team that can beat you,
To keep it simple again, the AFC champion is either the Patriots or the Broncos, and both teams have a 50% chance of beating us.
By trading Romo to Broncos, then our chance for winning the Super Bowl has just gone down by 50% -- from 25% to 12.5%

That would be pretty stupid.

 

[waldoputty]

Romo will not be a Cowboy next year. Book it. No brainer.

When you want to win, you need to find a way.
Instead of just saying we cannot do it, we need to be creative.

 

[darthseinfeld]

He may not.
But instead of counting your enemies to be stupid, assume they can come up with something craft to preserve Romo for the playoffs.
You do not complete your biggest threats.

Lets say the Cowboys have a 50% chance to get to the Superbowl.
To keep it simple, let say the Patriots 50% of getting to be the AFC champion with a 50% chance to beat us, but no one else in AFC can beat us.
Then our chance for winning the Super Bowl is 25%.

If you help complete the Broncos to a team that can beat you,
To keep it simple again, the AFC champion is either the Patriots or the Broncos, and both teams have a 50% chance of beating us.
By trading Romo to Broncos, then our chance for winning the Super Bowl has just gone down by 50% -- from 25% to 12.5%

That would be pretty stupid.

How did you calculate those numbers?

 

[Sarge]

When you want to win, you need to find a way.
Instead of just saying we cannot do it, we need to be creative.

It's clear to me you don't understand (or want to understand) the salary cap. Having that kind of money riding
the pine is beyond foolish. You are entitled to your opinion but I will bet your savings account Romo is not a Cowboy next year.

 

[CF74]

Just a crazy hypothetical question but what if Romo would stay on as a backup for $10-Million per season, would you keep him then?

 

[waldoputty]

How did you calculate those numbers?

Sorry I did the math incorrectly.
I corrected it below - but feel free to check it.
By trading Romo, we reduce our chance for winning the Super Bowl from 37.5% to 25%.

These percentages are arbitrary and just make it easier to do the math
The exact numbers do not matter that much as long as you assume a Romo-equipped Broncos is just as dangerous as the Patriots.

I assume we have a 50% chance of getting to the Superbowl (actually this does not matter to the final number).
I assume Patriots have a 50% chance of winning the AFC and I gave them 50% chance of beating us.
.I assume no other team in AFC has a chance against us to keep the math simple.

If we do not trade Romo, our chances 37.5%
50% * (100%*50% + 50%*50%) = 50% * 75% = 37.5%

If we improve the Broncos by trading them Romo, then the AFC has now 2 equally dangerous teams with an equal chance of being the AFC champion.
Now with Broncos and Patriots being equally dangerous, there is an essentially 100% chance that the AFC champion is 50% likely to beat us.
So the math becomes 50% * (100% * 50%) = 25%.

Counter Argument
@bkight13 has already shown we have enough $, so the cap argument is not valid.

One can say we can get a 1st round pick from Denver to improve the defense.
However, keeping Romo insures either Romo or Dak is the backup which protects us from QB injury.
Do these cancel out?
May be or may be not.
But the "dont improve your enemy" argument is obvious.

 

[waldoputty]

It's clear to me you don't understand (or want to understand) the salary cap. Having that kind of money riding
the pine is beyond foolish. You are entitled to your opinion but I will bet your savings account Romo is not a Cowboy next year.

The salary cap info came from @bkight13 - not me.
It is pretty obvious that we can push the cap into the future.
Commanders did it for years.

We already have the get -out-of-jail card when Romo and Witten retire if Romo retires at least 1 year before Dak gets his 2nd contract.