Will Carr actually be restructured?

[Alexander]

This team EVERY YEAR finds a way to get under the cap and still play in Free Agency or keep their own

It will happen again once this year, but instead Dez and Tyron will be given long and well deserved extensions.

Why do you waste so much time worrying about stupid crap that is never an issue?

Teams have no choice but to get under the cap. It has to happen and steps have been made with each and every contract to make that happen.

Not speaking for others, my "worry" comes from the consistent and perpetual habit of being tight to the cap and how it impacts the ability to be flexible adding personnel.

It makes the draft all that much more important and that unfortunately is a place where we are not exactly strong.

 

[Alexander]

Is there any way we can work into the new contract that he plays for another team?

What a horrifically bad decision.

It is not the player but the organizational perspective on the position he plays.

They felt compelled, dare I say obsessed, with improving the cornerback play after the 2011 season. They invested inordinate amounts of money and draft resources in a vain attempt at making the position "set" with man press corners only to scrap the idea a year later. That was the real bad decision.

The way I see it, teams should approach cornerbacks like quarterbacks, try to get them cheap and while they are young because the free agency game is a stupid endeavor. By the time a CB hits that big contract, they are going eventually be unable to fulfill the contract and the money involved. Two recent very big examples are Asomugha and Darrelle Revis. Neither was a missing piece. Meanwhile teams that field young draft picks and moderately priced free agents at the position have been making Super Bowls.

 

[jterrell]

Going to be a long off-season of cap talk if we can't get the basics understood.

Every vet has his BASE year contract guaranteed after week 1.
Speaking of that as additionally guaranteed money is pointless because it is guaranteed league wide.

That's why we sign a guy like Brian Waters post week 1.

Taking the base year and converting it to bonus only hands them the money they'd have been guaranteed week 2 anyways.
They get a big check and are happy. Cap total falls and we are happy.

All in all it is a bad way to do business ONLY if as Dallas has, you PLAN this in advance as a means to get under the cap in March.
It is a very viable avenue for increasing cap space but once you've locked yourself into it, you no longer can evaluate players fairly.

For instance with Carr. He is not a bad CB and he is not a great CB. He is a very legit starter who needs help on long crossing routes and very deep routes but little else.
Had Carr been starting in Seattle/SF he probably makes the Pro Bowl this year.
Issue is we are paying him like a top 5 guy. That he is clearly not.
With massive amounts of money pushed forward you are forced to continue to pay large base seasons or eat a lot of dead money.
In those scenarios where a player isn't playing great but is far cheaper to keep and restructure and pay(even at high yearlies) it is almost illogical to cut them.

That is also why we have very little muscle to use with Ware.
He was a scheduled restructure and we save cap space by restructuring him day 1 rather than cutting him day 1.
As to June talk, get out of here with that.
Ware represents too much cap to sit untouched until then.
While theoretically possible it would mean making 5+ other terrible cap decisions to make one possibly smart one.
Ware is in fact the type of guy almost every team overpays.
Future Hall of Famer at tail end of his career.

 

[jterrell]

there isn't a CB in the league that can cover for as long as the DB's need to cover for dallas...if there was a modicum of pressure on the opposing QB's, then they wouldn't be able to just sit back, do their nails, read the newspaper until someone gets open....

...I am NOT on the Carr sucked last year bandwagon at all....he had moments where he got torched (see: megatron) but he also played well in games...

they have got to restructure him, his contract, Iike tony's, like Lee's has the built in "restructure" designed into it

Every CB in the league needs some help from a pass rush and from safeties.

An offense that knows it can toss a deep post pattern every play for 40+ yards is never going to struggle.

Carr is one of the very best CBs in football at getting you an extra second at the LOS.
And he is a great physical presence on anything to his immediate area.
But he lacks top end speed and is not going to show make up speed once he is beaten.
He needs safety help over the top and LB help on long crossing routes.

Dallas has one of the best CB trios in football.
But they had the most beat up DL in football and by far the worst safety group.
That's what has to change this off-season.

 

[Fredd]

Every CB in the league needs some help from a pass rush and from safeties.

An offense that knows it can toss a deep post pattern every play for 40+ yards is never going to struggle.

Carr is one of the very best CBs in football at getting you an extra second at the LOS.
And he is a great physical presence on anything to his immediate area.
But he lacks top end speed and is not going to show make up speed once he is beaten.
He needs safety help over the top and LB help on long crossing routes.

Dallas has one of the best CB trios in football.
But they had the most beat up DL in football and by far the worst safety group.
That's what has to change this off-season.

I agree with 100% of what you wrote, although I think the S position is just green, a lot of room to grow there

 

[Common Sense]

What in the world are you talking about? All a restructure does is take the money that you're paying him this season and change how it is charged against the cap. You're not guaranteeing anything after this season. If you're not going to cut him now and eat the cap hit, then you restructure him and minimize this season's cap number. Doing anything else would be stupid.

I understand what you are saying, but if that were absolutely true all of the time, then every contract should just look like Darrelle Revis's.

My point was why not avoid restructuring Carr as a motivational tactic. In a way, similar to the Free situation, but without the pay cut. Had he just been restructured, no one would have ever said "It looks like Doug Free had a fire lit under him this year." When a team starts restructuring all of its highly paid veterans except for you, it's going to send a message. Granted, Carr didn't play that poorly, but he also didn't play like his contract indicates he should play. This scheme needs physical CBs and Carr didn't always show that this past year.

It really has nothing to do with salary cap economics except for the fact that if the team did decide to release Carr as early as 2015, it's easier to spread out $12 million over two years than it is $17 million. You can talk about saving the money now and rolling it forward, but there is a difference between normative and positive economics -- in this case, what a rational Jones family SHOULD do (holding on to some of those savings to account for future dead money/player salaries) versus what you know they WILL do ("We're aggressive with our cap dollars blah blah blah.").

 

[xwalker]

I understand what you are saying, but if that were absolutely true all of the time, then every contract should just look like Darrelle Revis's.

My point was why not avoid restructuring Carr as a motivational tactic. In a way, similar to the Free situation, but without the pay cut. Had he just been restructured, no one would have ever said "It looks like Doug Free had a fire lit under him this year." When a team starts restructuring all of its highly paid veterans except for you, it's going to send a message. Granted, Carr didn't play that poorly, but he also didn't play like his contract indicates he should play. This scheme needs physical CBs and Carr didn't always show that this past year.

It really has nothing to do with salary cap economics except for the fact that if the team did decide to release Carr as early as 2015, it's easier to spread out $12 million over two years than it is $17 million. You can talk about saving the money now and rolling it forward, but there is a difference between normative and positive economics -- in this case, what a rational Jones family SHOULD do (holding on to some of those savings to account for future dead money/player salaries) versus what you know they WILL do ("We're aggressive with our cap dollars blah blah blah.").

That makes no sense. His salary will be guaranteed once the season starts with or without a restructure.

Whatever money they free up by restructuring Carr's contract can be carried forward to next year if they don't use it.

 

[AdamJT13]

I understand what you are saying, but if that were absolutely true all of the time, then every contract should just look like Darrelle Revis's.

My point was why not avoid restructuring Carr as a motivational tactic. In a way, similar to the Free situation, but without the pay cut. Had he just been restructured, no one would have ever said "It looks like Doug Free had a fire lit under him this year." When a team starts restructuring all of its highly paid veterans except for you, it's going to send a message. Granted, Carr didn't play that poorly, but he also didn't play like his contract indicates he should play. This scheme needs physical CBs and Carr didn't always show that this past year.

It really has nothing to do with salary cap economics except for the fact that if the team did decide to release Carr as early as 2015, it's easier to spread out $12 million over two years than it is $17 million. You can talk about saving the money now and rolling it forward, but there is a difference between normative and positive economics -- in this case, what a rational Jones family SHOULD do (holding on to some of those savings to account for future dead money/player salaries) versus what you know they WILL do ("We're aggressive with our cap dollars blah blah blah.").

So you think intentionally trying to field a worse team this season will motivate players?

 

[Common Sense]

So you think intentionally trying to field a worse team this season will motivate players?

Well, not when you put it that way, but what happens if Carr never fits in with this scheme?

 

[rojan]

I understand what you are saying, but if that were absolutely true all of the time, then every contract should just look like Darrelle Revis's.

My point was why not avoid restructuring Carr as a motivational tactic. In a way, similar to the Free situation, but without the pay cut. Had he just been restructured, no one would have ever said "It looks like Doug Free had a fire lit under him this year." When a team starts restructuring all of its highly paid veterans except for you, it's going to send a message. Granted, Carr didn't play that poorly, but he also didn't play like his contract indicates he should play. This scheme needs physical CBs and Carr didn't always show that this past year.

It really has nothing to do with salary cap economics except for the fact that if the team did decide to release Carr as early as 2015, it's easier to spread out $12 million over two years than it is $17 million. You can talk about saving the money now and rolling it forward, but there is a difference between normative and positive economics -- in this case, what a rational Jones family SHOULD do (holding on to some of those savings to account for future dead money/player salaries) versus what you know they WILL do ("We're aggressive with our cap dollars blah blah blah.").

Hmm..I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

From what I understand, when we restructure a players contract, we are turning their base salary into signing bonus which we are then spreading over the length of their contract which lowers the cap for this year but increases the total for the remaining years (because their base stays the same for the upcoming years but they now have taken on a portion of the restructured signing bonus).

so the singing bonus portion of the players salary is going to count on the salary cap weather he is on the team or not which leads to a higher amount of dead money if he were to be cut.

So by not restructuring his contract this year, it makes it easier to cut him next year because the dead money will be less.

If this is correct then I am with you on not restructuring his contracts unless we absolutely have to.

 

[Common Sense]

Hmm..I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

From what I understand, when we restructure a players contract, we are turning their base salary into signing bonus which we are then spreading over the length of their contract which lowers the cap for this year but increases the total for the remaining years (because their base stays the same for the upcoming years but they now have taken on a portion of the restructured signing bonus).

so the singing bonus portion of the players salary is going to count on the salary cap weather he is on the team or not which leads to a higher amount of dead money if he were to be cut.

So by not restructuring his contract this year, it makes it easier to cut him next year because the dead money will be less.

If this is correct then I am with you on not restructuring his contracts unless we absolutely have to.

Yeah, because the team isn't going to set that money aside to account for a possible release in the future. They're going to spend it on the DL or somewhere else. That's what I meant earlier about Carr becoming virtually uncuttable. He's going to have to play like a shutdown zone CB to justify that contract, and I'm not sure how likely that is. I don't see the point in freeing up money from Carr's contract this year if there's a chance you're better off walking away from it next year. You're just going to need that exact same cap space to handle the dead money you've actualized, and you can't roll it over if you've already spent it.

AdamJT's point was that it makes you a worse team in 2015, but the alternative may very well make you a worse team in 2016 and 2017. It's the same as the old argument of whether or not you blow up the team in order to rebuild. I personally think this secondary needs to be blown up if they are serious about being a zone coverage team. If these pieces don't fit, then you are only making it worse by holding onto them at the expense of future cap flexibility. Again, you can only roll over money if you don't spend it, and we're talking about Jerry Jones here.

 

[rojan]

Yeah, because the team isn't going to set that money aside to account for a possible release in the future. They're going to spend it on the DL or somewhere else. That's what I meant earlier about Carr becoming virtually uncuttable. He's going to have to play like a shutdown zone CB to justify that contract, and I'm not sure how likely that is. I don't see the point in freeing up money from Carr's contract this year if there's a chance you're better off walking away from it next year. You're just going to need that exact same cap space to handle the dead money you've actualized, and you can't roll it over if you've already spent it.

AdamJT's point was that it makes you a worse team in 2015, but the alternative may very well make you a worse team in 2016 and 2017. It's the same as the old argument of whether or not you blow up the team in order to rebuild. I personally think this secondary needs to be blown up if they are serious about being a zone coverage team. If these pieces don't fit, then you are only making it worse by holding onto them at the expense of future cap flexibility. Again, you can only roll over money if you don't spend it, and we're talking about Jerry Jones here.

This is a big year for Dallas and I think they are going to go all in. That is probably why they are going to restructure Carr and hope he plays up to his contract. Restructuring contract can be justified as long as the player keeps playing at a high level. I think that they believe Carr can still play at a high level if they fix the D-line and get healthier. Carr does have some great games on tape in his 2 years in Dallas. The front office is just showing faith in Carr which I can understand.

 

[xwalker]

Hmm..I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

From what I understand, when we restructure a players contract, we are turning their base salary into signing bonus which we are then spreading over the length of their contract which lowers the cap for this year but increases the total for the remaining years (because their base stays the same for the upcoming years but they now have taken on a portion of the restructured signing bonus).

so the singing bonus portion of the players salary is going to count on the salary cap weather he is on the team or not which leads to a higher amount of dead money if he were to be cut.

So by not restructuring his contract this year, it makes it easier to cut him next year because the dead money will be less.

If this is correct then I am with you on not restructuring his contracts unless we absolutely have to.

If you look at the big picture of the salary cap, it does not really matter if he is restructured or not. If you think of the 5 year cumulative salary cap, then having Carr on the roster for 2014 will take 7.5M away from the 5 year cap total regardless of whether his contract is restructured or not.

It's the same with Ware. If he stays without a pay cut, he will count 12.25M against the 5 year cap total regardless of how his contract is structured.

 

[rojan]

If you look at the big picture of the salary cap, it does not really matter if he is restructured or not. If you think of the 5 year cumulative salary cap, then having Carr on the roster for 2014 will take 7.5M away from the 5 year cap total regardless of whether his contract is restructured or not.

It's the same with Ware. If he stays without a pay cut, he will count 12.25M against the 5 year cap total regardless of how his contract is structured.

But that's only if they play out their contracts. If we decide to cut them, there will be more dead money because of restructuring.

 

[Common Sense]

But that's only if they play out their contracts. If we decide to cut them, there will be more dead money because of restructuring.

Not over a five year span. By then all of the guaranteed money will have been actualized whether it's dead money, base salary, or whatever. If Ware or Carr is on the team in 2014, then it will cost the team the amount of that player's base salary whether it all gets paid in 2014 or spread out somehow within that five year window. The conventional wisdom is that if you expect a player to be on the team that year, you might as well restructure them, since you're paying the salary at some point either way. But the Ratliff situation proves that you can never really know what's going to happen, and you might just end up with $7 million in dead money on the books the following season.

That's why I'm thinking that if there's a chance a certain player might not be on the team in 2015, it might not make sense to restructure him in 2014, even though you can technically roll the savings over into next year to help you manage the cap (In practice, this never happens because it gets spent elsewhere.). The two arguments I made in favor of this were 1) It sends a "prove it" message to the player, who isn't really thinking about salary cap economics so much as he is job security, and B) If you have to cut a player the following year, there's less money to juggle because you've already paid it the previous year in the form of base salary. Basically, it would be Jerry Jones saving himself from himself.

 

[dogunwo]

What in the world are you talking about? All a restructure does is take the money that you're paying him this season and change how it is charged against the cap. You're not guaranteeing anything after this season. If you're not going to cut him now and eat the cap hit, then you restructure him and minimize this season's cap number. Doing anything else would be stupid.

People always confuse restructuring with contract extension. Restructuring is just re-accounting of the same money.