The Mythical Salary Cap Monster

[Alexander]

Not every team's owner is willing to max out the cap.

That and not every owner has the true cash money to pay the free agents. They cannot pay them in cap funny money.

 

[Nightman]

I wish there was a way for us to buy cap space from cash strapped teams like the Raiders. Will give them 10 million for freeing up 10 of our cap space. Thus they be able to afford some of their players that would otherwise go to other teams. And we also would be able to sign more players without having to worry about the cap as much. We will still be regulated by the cap. But buying cap space frees us up a little and ALL the parties thats involved wins, especially the players and teams with lots of cap space.

Call it silly but I think its a great idea. They can limit the amount of cap space we buy just to make sure we don't sign the top FAs each and every year.

I think it's a great idea. It's like a luxury tax in MLB and the NBA. The players get more money actually spent on salaries and teams strapped for cash get a nice influx. The commissioner divied up cap space when he penalized Dallas and Wash, so it's not unprecedented.

 

[Nightman]

I've read through all these salary cap threads and have yet to see anyone get down to the truth of the current situation. The fact is that the team went 13-3 not that long ago and Jerry viewed that team as a super bowl contender and attempted to keep it together for 4-5 years. To do that, he had to re-sign the players to market deals. The only way to do that is to cheat the cap the way they have been doing it. They have adopted a business model for dealing with the cap that allows them to spend roughly 140-150% of the cap number in real dollars. They view that as a massive competitive advantage over teams not doing it. That type of cap management is not the problem because as we have seen, they can get around it anytime they want. I keep seeing everyone talk about bad contracts, bad contracts but if you go back and look at each one, they were market deals and no one wanted those players to be let go at the time. We have all enjoyed the fact that Jerry refused to let our good players leave. To do that, he had to work the cap the way he did. So lets get down to the real problem. Its the players! There is something going on in Dallas that allows the players to get paid and then not perform at the same level. This problem goes back to guys like Roy Williams and Terrance Newman and continues today. If all the players that Jerry has re-signed had continued to play at similar levels for 2-4 years, no one would be complaining about anything and the team would probably have seen more success like that 13-3 season. If you want to see Jerry treat cap dollars as real dollars, then guys like Ware would not be re-signed and would be leaving in their prime, not after they had broken down and no longer were worth their contract. If Ware hadn't been such a non-factor for the last two years, he would still be here. His contract would have been restructured and he would be a Cowboy for life but he didn't fulfill his part of the bargain. He is just the latest in a long line of players that played very well, looked like a long-term core player, got paid by Jerry, and then didn't continue to play at the same level that earned him his money. Break that cycle in Dallas and the way Jerry works the cap will bring back the glory days!

Great analysis. We are all frustrated with the lack of playoff success, but the reason could be the most obvious one. The players did not perform up to their abilities and salaries.

 

[Alexander]

The players did not perform up to their abilities and salaries.

Or, they were paid off of less than consistent established success (Roy Williams, Miles Austin) and in some cases (Jay Ratliff) paid when they were in a state of flux or even decline.

It is not just those darn players stealing money.

 

[starfrombirth]

But Dallas does have an available surplus of 25m and they still made those moves. Too many people confuse the salary cap with all personnel moves. No matter what system you use, it's not smart to overpay for declining performance. Jerry got burned by taking care of Ratliff and Hatcher expressed nothing but the same desire to cash in. Ware was treated very fairly by Jones and the first time he asked for something back Ware bolted for a little more money.

where do you get we have a surplus of 25 million? We had to cut Ware just to get 8 mill under!

 

[Nightman]

Or, they were paid off of less than consistent established success (Roy Williams, Miles Austin) and in some cases (Jay Ratliff) paid when they were in a state of flux or even decline.

It is not just those darn players stealing money.

I don't think it's about "stealing money", it's just that a lot of players over the years didn't perform up to their expectations for whatever reason. It could be coaching, scheme, injuries, motivation, or personal problems. I would say that Witten, Ware and Romo pretty much did their jobs, the rest of the guys, not so much. And even those guys have had their problems in some big spots.

 

[Nightman]

where do you get we have a surplus of 25 million? We had to cut Ware just to get 8 mill under!

I said easily available. If they restructure Witten, Carr and Free that's 10m. June 1st cuts of Austin and Orton will add another 9m.

 

[Doc50]

Why isn't a cure all. If the cap is inconsequential and Jerry has the highest earnings in the entire league, why wouldn't he just hoard the talent?

Because many of those FA's are looking only for the big payday, so they're not not good value, not a wise buy.

Even my wife goes shopping with a full purse and sometimes doesn't buy anything -- not because she doesn't want to, but because she doesn't find anything she likes at the offered price (years of value training under my tutelage).

The deals we make are becoming more about roster space than cap space. We can keep a guy if he's cheap, or we can keep a guy if everybody loves him -- but will he be able to get on the field, and will his roster presence stifle the development of some young prospect?

 

[Alexander]

I don't think it's about "stealing money", it's just that a lot of players over the years didn't perform up to their expectations for whatever reason. It could be coaching, scheme, injuries, motivation, or personal problems. I would say that Witten, Ware and Romo pretty much did their jobs, the rest of the guys, not so much. And even those guys have had their problems in some big spots.

The kind of money some of these players were due to make were next to impossible to perform up to. If you are judging that they "failed to meet expectations" then the issue is with the expectations for the money paid out. It means the evaluation of their worth, coupled with market pressure, was out of line.

 

[starfrombirth]

I said easily available. If they restructure Witten, Carr and Free that's 10m. June 1st cuts of Austin and Orton will add another 9m.

I was going to expand on this but I don't know the exact numbers and don't want to come off as a complete moron. Maybe someone who knows them can share. I do, however, understand the principle that the more we restructure the more "dead money" we have and the less actual cap room available to sign current and future players.

 

[CyberB0b]

Because many of those FA's are looking only for the big payday, so they're not not good value, not a wise buy.

Even my wife goes shopping with a full purse and sometimes doesn't buy anything -- not because she doesn't want to, but because she doesn't find anything she likes at the offered price (years of value training under my tutelage).

The deals we make are becoming more about roster space than cap space. We can keep a guy if he's cheap, or we can keep a guy if everybody loves him -- but will he be able to get on the field, and will his roster presence stifle the development of some young prospect?

We aren't concerned with value. We max out the cap for some of the worst defense in franchise history. The reason why we didn't go after Byrd is because we can't afford it, period.

 

[Nightman]

I was going to expand on this but I don't know the exact numbers and don't want to come off as a complete moron. Maybe someone who knows them can share. I do, however, understand the principle that the more we restructure the more "dead money" we have and the less actual cap room available to sign current and future players.

You said if they have a surplus and I showed you how to get to a 27m surplus with 3 pen strokes. So it's a matter of perception. If they wanted to keep Ware they could have easily done it.

If you clear 10m with restructures, that means you are adding 2.5m a year to the next 4 years. Everyone always harps on the cost down the road, but they never focus on the savings today. It's about the time value of money.

 

[starfrombirth]

You said if they have a surplus and I showed you how to get to a 27m surplus with 3 pen strokes. So it's a matter of perception. If they wanted to keep Ware they could have easily done it.

If you clear 10m with restructures, that means you are adding 2.5m a year to the next 4 years. Everyone always harps on the cost down the road, but they never focus on the savings today. It's about the time value of money.

I NEVER said they have a surplus because they don't ... this year or next.

 

[Nightman]

We aren't concerned with value. We max out the cap for some of the worst defense in franchise history. The reason why we didn't go after Byrd is because we can't afford it, period.

So you are saying that they pick worse players on purpose for some reason. That they want to field the worst defense as a plan. Got it.

 

[Nightman]

I NEVER said they have a surplus because they don't ... this year or next.

The guy I responded to talked about "if they had a 25m surplus" they would have kept Ware. I said they did have one and you responded to that. AND they can and do have a surplus, this year and next whether you see it or not. They are already 29m under the cap next year and that includes Romo's 27m cap hit that will be cut in half. So that's over 42m.

 

[Cowboys22]

The kind of money some of these players were due to make were next to impossible to perform up to. If you are judging that they "failed to meet expectations" then the issue is with the expectations for the money paid out. It means the evaluation of their worth, coupled with market pressure, was out of line.

That's not it. Dallas has had too many players that have played very well on their rookie deals, looked like long-term core players, got paid by Jerry, and then didn't play at anywhere near the same level. That's the issue. Its not that expectations were raised after getting paid, its that they actually dropped in production. When nearly every player you re-sign follows that same path, there is a major problem with the culture surrounding the team not the juggling of cap dollars. Every contract Jerry gave out was a market deal at that time and we all were happy to have the player as a Cowboy. There may have been a few that were head scratchers at the time, but one or two bad deals won't get you in trouble. The bottom line is that if most of the players would have continued to perform at the same level after getting paid, Dallas would have had much more success since that 13-3 season and no one would be complaining about the cap. Since so many players simply dropped off their performance after getting paid, it is now an issue. Even with that its not really a big issue because it appears with a few simple moves, it has all been cleaned up this year and the immediate future beyond 2014 looks to be flush with cap space. So for all his efforts to keep a 13-3 team together for 5 years, he has to get through one or two years with a tight cap. That would have been a great trade off if the players had been up to the challenge.

 

[CyberB0b]

So you are saying that they pick worse players on purpose for some reason. That they want to field the worst defense as a plan. Got it.

Out of incompetence. They switched to a 4-3, but didn't draft any front 7 players, except for a 6th round project linebacker.

 

[Oh_Canada]

At the moment, we probably have the worst DL in football and we have $20 million in dead cap attributable to mostly + 30 year old, no longer on the team, defensive linemen. Those lost cap dollars would be sufficient to re-stock the line. Poor salary cap management is not a "fear", it is a reality.

The problem with the dline isn't the cap, it's that they haven't drafted any dlineman of significance since 2007, probably since they used a 3-4 and they felt like they were stocked at the position. They switch to the 4-3 and inexpilcably decided to ignore the position again last offseason because Kiffen and Maranelli seemed content with what they had.

 

[Nightman]

Out of incompetence. They switched to a 4-3, but didn't draft any front 7 players, except for a 6th round project linebacker.

Most people thought Ratliff would flourish in the 4-3, Hatcher had his best year ever. Ware and Spencer looked talented enough to perform in any scheme. They had Crawford, Bass and Lissemore as quality depth. DL was not exactly a pressing need last year. They were older, but not old and I'm sure they thought they could get another year or two out of them. They went offense heavy last year in the draft and I expect they were planning to go defense heavy in this draft.

 

[CyberB0b]

Most people thought Ratliff would flourish in the 4-3, Hatcher had his best year ever. Ware and Spencer looked talented enough to perform in any scheme. They had Crawford, Bass and Lissemore as quality depth. DL was not exactly a pressing need last year. They were older, but not old and I'm sure they thought they could get another year or two out of them. They went offense heavy last year in the draft and I expect they were planning to go defense heavy in this draft.

Yeah, we have heard that over and over.

The fact is that our entire projected starting defensive line isn't here a year later speaks volumes about the wisdom of that line of thinking. We have over 18M in dead money sunk into the defensive line with guys like Ware, Ratliff, Spears and Lissemore.