yimyammer
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 10,910
- Reaction score
- 4,954
Thats refreshing to see, I think this is a better way to manage the cap. Stop pushing the cap hit into the future and take the hit early so you have leverage over the player and can cut him if he doesn't perform but you need a big chunk of cap space to begin this process.
I really wish they would have used the 8-8 and 3-13 years to clear out the roster of dead weight and dead cap money so they could get a nice chunk of cap available (50+ million). Then they could spend it on bonuses each year (& have a big chunk again the next year) that can be completely absorbed in the first 2 years of a players contract so there is little to no dead or guaranteed money beyond year 2.
Wish I had time to do the math on this to show whether its doable. Seems like once you get ahead of the cap, you can stay ahead or you can stay behind like the cowboys always seem to be. When you're ahead, a team has cap room, flexibility and leverage over a player, when you're behind, you have none of the above.
Looks like Sturm is making similar observations, here's a quote from his recent article:
Now, there is one thing that I continue to be dissatisfied about, and that is the way they write their contracts. They do not write contracts that they intend to honor as written. They write contracts to allow them multiple restructures to accommodate other contracts that they have already restructured to make room for contracts that they wrote before that were restructured. And so on and so on and so on. There was some back and forth on this behavior this past week when Stephen Jones again defended the fine art of credit-card juggling.
They have so much dead money on Player A, that they must restructure Player B to free up the room. But, then, Player B cannot be cut because he isn't very good anymore, since the restructure guaranteed money for him in Year 3 of his deal (because of Player A's situation), so now we must restructure Player C's deal to accommodate Player B, who is only in his spot because of Player A. It is maddening. But, perhaps not as maddening as knowing we have all be desensitized to it as a poor way of doing business.
There are media folks who tell us "everyone does it", which is sort of true, but not. Yes, everyone you know uses credit cards. So, you can justify your credit card use by looking around the room and seeing everyone uses them. But, does everyone open up new credit cards to pay off the old ones? Does everyone max them out and have to sit out shopping because of the unpaid balances?
The Cowboys are doing better, but a sign that they are still in a weird spot is that they definitely need to retain some players, but in order to do so, they have to figure out how to restructure more deals to make even a little room.
The best example is the Romo deal. They signed his deal in 2013. Restructured in 2014. Restructured in 2015. And now have $20 million in dead money. It isn't uncommon to restructure a QB deal when you are in a pinch. But, hopefully, you can see the difference between an emergency restructure and a planned contract to do it every year because it is our way of "gaming the cap".
Now, in a year where they should likely at least consider walking away from Tyrone Crawford's deal, they are still upside down in his deal (meaning, it costs more to cut him than it does to keep him). There is no reason a defensive tackle should have a deal that is five years long and Year 3 is basically guaranteed again. Unless, you planned on it. Which, why would you ever fully guarantee Tyrone Crawford's deal?
And look, Year 4 already has $7.3 million in dead money which might become fully "upside down" if they restructure him again this month - which they just might.
Heck, everyone loves Jason Witten, but should you really restructure his deal every single season? Because, they did in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016. Why? Because they had to.
And before you feed me the propaganda that they have never lost a player because of money and they always have a good team, let me stop you there. They started rookies Phil Costa and Bill Nagy in a season opener in 2011 because of money. They started George Selvie and Nick Hayden on NFL minimum deals off of their couches in 2013 because of money. They weren't half bad, but that isn't the point.
The point is that restructuring (like blitzing the quarterback) should be a weapon, not a necessity or a habit. This team not only restructures everyone with routine, but then acts like it is both normal and acceptable. It isn't. Try writing one deal that you plan to pay out as you wish. Write one deal where in Year 3 of a five-year deal, if you don't like the player's performance, you can walk away because you paid him every guaranteed penny when it was scheduled.
Then, you aren't scrambling every year at this time and watching everyone else participate in team building while you try to figure out how to "June 1st" your latest money mess.