This is why we keep Spencer

[Hoofbite]

Franchise tag and trade.

 

[AbeBeta]

not as bad as signing him to a long term deal with guaranteed money based on 1 productive year. See Doug Free for reference. I'd tag him if it doesnt break the bank. Keep him hungry for one more run.

If we tag him we are using about 7 mill more cap space than we need to next year. Spencer had three very good years leading up to this year. That's why he got the tag in the first place.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Look at the rest of his years as a Cowboy, aka, his NON CONTRACT years, don't think you can find numbers that justify signing him for a lot and long term. If you can, I'll gladly eat my words.

Think it was 2010 when he had the second most QB pressures in the league, hence the nickname almost anthony.

 

[Future]

Spencer was the best defender on the field for the Cowboys Sunday night (with Brent a close second).

It's going to be hard losing him.

He's been our best defensive player several times this season.

I wouldn't mind giving him 9 mil a year, it's a contract that's going to keep him until he's 34 or 35 that scares me. To avoid that, I wouldn't mind trying something like 3 year/30 mil so that we aren't paying him after his production slides off entirely.

Also, let me say that I don't think he's having a great year because it's his contract year. I think he's reached the point in his career where the fundamentals are habit and he can just play, allowing his athleticism to take over. He had a great year in 09 and was excellent last year as well. How long he can play at a high level...who knows. But he's a guy we can't let go imo.

 

[Idgit]

We can afford him if we want him. At least you guys get points for being stubborn after you've been proven wrong about the guy.

 

[Hoofbite]

We can afford him if we want him. At least you guys get points for being stubborn after you've been proven wrong about the guy.

Any team can afford any player if they "want". That' doesn't mean there isn't a price at which it becomes a foolish business decision.

And as far as proven wrong? In what regard? The majority of the talking points were about him not being worth the cap hit of the franchise tag. He wasn't and still isn't. Has he made the hit a little less egregious by stepping his game up? Absolutely he has.

Kind of interesting.

Guy has the best year of his career and suddenly all the production he wasn't providing prior to that year is suddenly there?

 

[JBell]

I doubt he's been signficantly better this year than in year's past.

Fans are finally accepting the fact that he's not a double digit sack guy, and realizing how valuable he is in other areas. He's also been pimped quite a bit by analysts this year.

 

[Joshmil53]

I doubt he's been signficantly better this year than in year's past.

Fans are finally accepting the fact that he's not a double digit sack guy, and realizing how valuable he is in other areas. He's also been pimped quite a bit by analysts this year.

Exactly, he's not a flashly NFL.com stat guy, but it's his other stats that are insanely good.

 

[Idgit]

Guy has the best year of his career and suddenly all the production he wasn't providing prior to that year is suddenly there?

Or else...and bear with me a bit...everyone, including his fellow players and opposing coaches, and his own coaches, under different coordinators, who've been saying he's a very good player all these years were actually, gulp, right about him all along. Shocking to contemplate, but the guy's always been a good player, and we're lucky to have him.

 

[Joshmil53]

PFF on their NFC pro bowl has Spencer in instead of Ware.

"Can I really sub out DeMarcus Ware for Anthony Spencer? Sure Ware has more pressure, but he has also had more opportunities to do it. When I consider how exceptional Spencer has been in the run game I can live with it."

 

[AbeBeta]

He's been our best defensive player several times this season.

I wouldn't mind giving him 9 mil a year, it's a contract that's going to keep him until he's 34 or 35 that scares me. To avoid that, I wouldn't mind trying something like 3 year/30 mil so that we aren't paying him after his production slides off entirely.

Also, let me say that I don't think he's having a great year because it's his contract year. I think he's reached the point in his career where the fundamentals are habit and he can just play, allowing his athleticism to take over. He had a great year in 09 and was excellent last year as well. How long he can play at a high level...who knows. But he's a guy we can't let go imo.

Future -- you seem to fall in the group that doesn't really understand NFL contracts. NFL contracts are not guaranteed. If we sign him to a 7 year 70 million deal it doesn't tie us to him for seven years.

Realistically a deal of that size ties you to a guy for three years. After three years you save money by cutting him. Most BIG NFL deals boil down to three year commitments.

 

[IrishAnto]

Look at the rest of his years as a Cowboy, aka, his NON CONTRACT years, don't think you can find numbers that justify signing him for a lot and long term. If you can, I'll gladly eat my words.

OK Who are you going to replace him with?

Are we going to spend another 1st rounder to replace one of our better defenders (if not the best right now) while ignoring other areas that are in more need i.e. OL, DL and S?

What free agent would be as good for significantly less money?

 

[9darter]

PFF on their NFC pro bowl has Spencer in instead of Ware.

"Can I really sub out DeMarcus Ware for Anthony Spencer? Sure Ware has more pressure, but he has also had more opportunities to do it. When I consider how exceptional Spencer has been in the run game I can live with it."

Trade Ware and extend Spencer. It's in the best interest of the team. Then draft Ware's replacement with the extra first rounder.




jk

 

[LittleD]

Dead money is irrelevant if you realize that new deals are always super cap friendly in the first two years. A 5 year deal for 45 mill might cost us about 3 mill in cap space for 2013. That'd be a huge savings from what he is costing against the cap now (around 8.5 mill).

There simply is no reasonable argument that we can't afford him.

Those who argue otherwise are simply bad with arithmetic.

He's a one year wonder in a contract year. He's approaching 30 and the Cowboys just have to stop giving big contracts to guys going over the performance cliff. If he was 26 and playing this way...I'm all for it. It's time to unload all of these 30 year old guys and build from youth. Keep churning the barrel just like New England does. That's the winning formula.

 

[Hoofbite]

OK Who are you going to replace him with?

Are we going to spend another 1st rounder to replace one of our better defenders (if not the best right now) while ignoring other areas that are in more need i.e. OL, DL and S?

What free agent would be as good for significantly less money?

Part of that question can only be answered by know what it will cost to keep Spencer.

Also, simply because Spencer is currently under contract doesn't mean that his position isn't of need. He's a free agent. It's not like re-signing him means that they still have all the available resources at hand to fill those other positions.

Re-signing him means they likely forgo addressing one of the many other positions of need.

As it stands right now, Dallas doesn't not have him under contract. For all intents and purposes as far as next year is concerned he might as well be playing for another team and Dallas currently be in the position to find a player at OLB. The only real difference being that they have far more control over where he plays right now than they would if he were on another team in that they can franchise him.

If you look at it from that perspective, is Spencer the guy you target in free agency?

 

[IrishAnto]

Part of that question can only be answered by know what it will cost to keep Spencer.

Also, simply because Spencer is currently under contract doesn't mean that his position isn't of need. He's a free agent. It's not like re-signing him means that they still have all the available resources at hand to fill those other positions.

Re-signing him means they likely forgo addressing one of the many other positions of need.

As it stands right now, Dallas doesn't not have him under contract. For all intents and purposes as far as next year is concerned he might as well be playing for another team and Dallas currently be in the position to find a player at OLB. The only real difference being that they have far more control over where he plays right now than they would if he were on another team in that they can franchise him.

If you look at it from that perspective, is Spencer the guy you target in free agency?

Part of that question can only be answered by knowing who’s available in free agency

The only other available option to Spencer on the team is Butler and he’s also a free agent and not as good as Spencer if you look at his overall game.

I think the key here as you mentioned is control.

You might be able to use the threat of the franchise to resign Spencer to a long term deal or else he’ll have to keep up his level of play for another year (which would at least give you more time to find an alternative).

If he goes then you’re forced to find an adequate replacement through the draft which would be a big risk and mean one less pick available for the myriad of other needs on the team or pick up somebody through free agency which would be expensive.

So all in all I’m for keeping him.

 

[Hoofbite]

Dead money is irrelevant if you realize that new deals are always super cap friendly in the first two years. A 5 year deal for 45 mill might cost us about 3 mill in cap space for 2013. That'd be a huge savings from what he is costing against the cap now (around 8.5 mill).

There simply is no reasonable argument that we can't afford him.

Those who argue otherwise are simply bad with arithmetic.

I dunno.

12M in dead money and 5M in penalty for a total of 17M in unusable money seems pretty relevant to me.

That almost covers the combined cap hits for Ben Grubbs' first 3 years in New Orleans.

It isn't prohibitive but it's also not irrelevant.

And not all teams structure super-friendly up front route either. I think there are a couple of trains of thought on the issue.

Tampa for example, signed both Carl Nicks and Vincent Jackson and neither got a signing bonus from the looks of things. They both have the first two seasons guaranteed but that's it. They're taking the hits up front.

The Eagles opted for only 7M out of Vicks 80M dollar contract as a signing bonus. Nnamdi didn't get a signing bonus at all.


Some teams look as though they are avoiding signing bonuses and it's likely they are trying to avoid having cap space 100% committed to future years from the moment the deal is struck.


Personally, I think Dallas should go the route of San Fran & Ahmad Brooks if they are considering signing Spencer again. If Ahmad Brooks had been a complete turd and totally failed out this year, San Fran could have cut him after this season and only had to pay a little more in total cap hit than they would have taken last year on the franchise tag.

Dallas should have done it last year. They would have had a cap like 6M less than the tag and with most of the money coming from the base salary, it would have put Spencer in a position to keep up any potential good play in order to stay on the roster and keep getting paid, and the longer he stays on the roster the more his pay goes up. Pretty much win-win.

Had they done it, the cap hit this year would be in the 6-7M range and the moment he doesn't give you what you expect, you cut him and have very little left in terms of signing bonus.

 

[burmafrd]

He's been our best defender this year and one of the best OLB in the league.

He's certainly worth the 9 or 10 mill a year he will get. Again, that presumes you understand that like most deals he's going to be backloaded and the "real" contract is going to be more like 3 years at 24 mill

But I do know you are poor with arithmetic

and you are poor at reality

 

[burmafrd]

PFF on their NFC pro bowl has Spencer in instead of Ware.

"Can I really sub out DeMarcus Ware for Anthony Spencer? Sure Ware has more pressure, but he has also had more opportunities to do it. When I consider how exceptional Spencer has been in the run game I can live with it."

just another example of why PFF is a joke.

You call every DC in this league and ask them to make a choice between Ware and Spencer.

Who do you really think is going to choose spencer?

 

[burmafrd]

Future -- you seem to fall in the group that doesn't really understand NFL contracts. NFL contracts are not guaranteed. If we sign him to a 7 year 70 million deal it doesn't tie us to him for seven years.

Realistically a deal of that size ties you to a guy for three years. After three years you save money by cutting him. Most BIG NFL deals boil down to three year commitments.

your claim to understand contracts is hilarious.