Idgit;5021747 said:
Because there's not a single poster who supports Spencer who would characterize him as mediocre for the majority of his time here.
Only the people who didn't pay close attention in the first place find themselves confused by last season's sack totals. Teams have been planning around him on defense for years, and multiple DCs coming through Dallas have commented on what a good player Anthony Spencer is.
I am sure that the guys who support him think that he is all that and a bag of chips. That really isn't the issue. It isn't about whether or not you like the player, the question is "Is the player worth the cap hit, and what is the opportunity cost of paying it?"
Anyone who is half way objective would say that Spencer is not a scrub. He is arguably a top 20 player on this roster (how high within the top 20 is the subject of legitimate debate).
However, anyone who takes the position that he is a perennial pro bowler would not appear to have a legitimate leg to stand on. I doubt most believe that Spencer is a top 5 player on the Cowboys roster. That would be a pretty untenable position to take based on what we have seen in his play so far. So his probable rank on the roster probably is somewhere in the 7 to 15 range. I personally view it lower than most but reasonable minds certainly can differ and interpret the same facts differently.
My issue with Spencer isn't about the player. I will agree that he has value to the team (at least I think he does, since no one really knows if he can play DE in a 4-3). My issue with resigning him is that the risk of resigning him, and accompanying opportunity cost, is greater than the risk of allowing him to walk.
In an effort to be objective I have considered that we might not be able to replace Spencer this year if we had allowed him to walk and that his leaving may cause a drop off in the level of play at his position. I have also considered that his improved play at the end of last year might be a function of him "coming into his own" as a more dominant player.
The problem with that school of thought is that it is narrow minded and masks the other side of the issue which is less readily apparent. If Spencer had been allowed to walk, (or be traded) here are the possible outcomes:
1. We can't replace Spencer and the level of play drops off at his position (but we save over $10 million on the cap. That is the worst case scenario, and we still save over $10 million. But we would probably have received a 3rd round pick next year for his loss, which can't be understated.
2. Someone on the roster steps up and does a decent job at filling his shoes (Crawford comes to mind) and the level of play is satisfactory at a much reduced cap number, we save $10 million on the cap, we find out what we have in Crawford AND we get a 3rd round comp pick out of Spencer next year allowing us to fill ANOTHER hole with that 3rd round pick.
In both scenarios, we avoid the RISK that Spencer's better play last year was an aberration, or that his play will drop off due to age, injury, etc. and we wont have to pay a guy a bunch of dead money or pay a guy who is dead weight because his contract prevents him from being cut. That is just as much of a risk as allowing him to walk. But the more you believe in your draft process, the more expendable players become.
The other cost in keeping Spencer is the opportunity cost. If we resign Spencer to a huge deal, then it is really going to force our hand going forward with guys like Dez, Lee, Carter, etc, or signing another team's free agents that we would like to acquire. For example, the opportunity cost of resigning Spencer this year (franchising him) precludes us from trying to sign a guy like Livetrae (sp).
Right now, most would agree that our OL is the number 1 priority. If we were to sign the top guard then we instantly improve our OL, and be prepared to go with Crawford at DE, and when the draft comes around take the BPA at #18 whether it be a guard, RT, safety, or DL. I just think that the risk in resigning him far outweighs the risk of keeping him.
Just think..... if we trade Spencer for a 2nd or even a 3rd round pick this year, we could add it to this year's second to move up and get another first round pick if we chose to. That gives you lots of flexibility in this year's draft.
What if trading Spencer allowed you to add a guy like Cyprien in the second round without moving at all? You would still have your 1st and 2nd rounders plus Cyprien. That would be huge in this draft.
If you could trade down in the first a little (in theory) you could end up with 5 picks in the first 3 rounds. If you hit on 3 or 4 of those guys (or, gasp---all 5) then suddenly the bad contract extensions we made before don't sting quite as bad. You have more talent on the roster. Guys become more expendable, and suddenly you start getting more compensatory picks. It is a positive cycle.