To cap gurus

[Schmoopy1000]

It seems to me if we release Tony Romo. it is basically a favor to Romo (not the Cowboys)
We can cut him pre 6/1 & save 5 mil, or post 6/1 & save 14 mil. this year but owe dead money for even longer (& I think more dead money combined could be wrong though)
I would prefer to get the dead money out of the way. I know this leads to a new debate, on which is better, but lets for the sake of this thread table that debate for a bit later.
So now we would have 5 mil saved by releasing Romo. Which realistically doesn't save us shit, since a decent back up will probably cost us 5 mil.
Which if my thinking is even close to being true, all we did was downgrade our Back up QB for the same money (relatively close anyways on the cap)


Which leads me back to the only reason we don't keep Tony is for Romo's sake. Not the Sake of the Cowboys.

So why not keep Romo?
Then this leads to the debate of paying a back up such a huge salary. (what a waste right?)
However upon further review........
Tony cost the cap in 17' 24.7 mil I believe (or dead money of19.6) & dak cost us a whopping $635,848.
So total for QBs just over 25 mil. If the starter & back up salaries were reversed, everyone would consider this to be ok, but keep in mind if we got rid of Romo we would still be paying close to 25 mil for the same two positions. No matter what. if we waited a year our dead money is only I believe to be around 8.9 mil period.

So if I am correct (which I may very well be way off base, not a guru) We could have the best back up in the NFL instead of a huge downgrade for around the same price in 17' & only have 8.9 mil in dead cap space in 18' & be done with it. (much less dead cap from getting rid of him in 17')

Really if I read this right. Logic would dictate keeping Romo one more year & the only real argument would be to release him for his sake........ not the Cowboys.

So to the major cap gurus is my thinking even close on this or am I way off on these #'s & screwing up all my thoughts on this?

 

[jarntt]

You have to dig a little deeper and not just look at the cap hit, it's what makes up the cap hit in each case. The big difference is the 2017 salary. If you cut or trade Romo his cap hit that is left is only all of the old bonuses that we pushed back through the stupid restructures we did. If you keep him you only tick a way at one years worth of those bonuses and still need to account for the rest in a future year. So if you cut him next year instead of this year you still pay 100% of the unallocated bonus, but you also pay him $14M in salary for 2017 which is both a cash cost and a cap hit.

1) Romo cut today: 2017 cap hit 19.6M
2) Romo cut post 6/1 2017 cap hit 10.7M; 2018 cap hit 8.9M
3) Romo cut a year from now 2017 cap hit 24.7M; 2018 cap hit 8.9M

So if you compare scenario 1 and 3, scenario 1 saves us $5M this year and $8.9M next year. If you compare 2 and 3, scenario 2 saves us $14M this year and is the same next year.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

You have to dig a little deeper and not just look at the cap hit, it's what makes up the cap hit in each case. The big difference is the 2017 salary. If you cut or trade Romo his cap hit that is left is only all of the old bonuses that we pushed back through the stupid restructures we did. If you keep him you only tick a way at one years worth of those bonuses and still need to account for the rest in a future year. So if you cut him next year instead of this year you still pay 100% of the unallocated bonus, but you also pay him $14M in salary for 2017 which is both a cash cost and a cap hit.

1) Romo cut today: 2017 cap hit 19.6M
2) Romo cut post 6/1 2017 cap hit 10.7M; 2018 cap hit 8.9M
3) Romo cut a year from now 2017 cap hit 24.7M; 2018 cap hit 8.9M

So if you compare scenario 1 and 3, scenario 1 saves us $5M this year and $8.9M next year. If you compare 2 and 3, scenario 2 saves us $14M this year and is the same next year.

my thought is though, if we keep him we have a much better back up than if we released him, & if we released him we are still paying approximately the same # for the position. By next year will only be 8.9 mil in dead cap space. Just curious if my #'s are off & not understanding something?

 

[es4m11]

my thought is though, if we keep him we have a much better back up than if we released him, & if we released him we are still paying approximately the same # for the position. By next year will only be 8.9 mil in dead cap space. Just curious if my #'s are off & not understanding something?

Next year is a whole other set of problems. Dallas needs to worry about getting through this off-season and making it to camp with a full roster of NFL caliber players.

It's just not feasible to carry Romo as a backup with a $24.7m cap hit.

 

[jarntt]

my thought is though, if we keep him we have a much better back up than if we released him, & if we released him we are still paying approximately the same # for the position. By next year will only be 8.9 mil in dead cap space. Just curious if my #'s are off & not understanding something?

If we keep him we have the best backup in the league for sure. But we pay him $14M to sit on the bench? You can get a top CB or DE with that money. Which helps the team more? Any way you slice it, it still costs a team with cap issues $14M extra for one year. If Dak goes down then it's worth it for sure. I guess it's up to each individual to decide. IMO it's time to move on. If we didn't have a cap I'd keep him around for sure; would be a great insurance policy.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Next year is a whole other set of problems. Dallas needs to worry about getting through this off-season and making it to camp with a full roster of NFL caliber players.

It's just not feasible to carry Romo as a backup with a $24.7m cap hit.

for the top 2 QBs on the team we would be spending roughly 25 mil either way. Only with a worse Back up. (going the way of pre 6/1 cut.
Keep him & we spend roughly 25 mil on he top 2 QBs & have a lot less dead cap space, next year.
If we pre6/1 Cut tony, to me it is only to help Tony, not the Cowboys so much.


Post 6/1 cut we are just extending dead money further out. Which if we could afford to not do, we shouldn't.
Yes saving 14 mil for this year is the easy solution for this year, just not convinced it is necessary.
I am really not to stressed right now on our cap situation. Many options to deal with left in the kettle.

Pre 6/1 cuts to me isn't making much sense. Post 6/1 now is a different debate. Depending on many variables. I can see both sides there.

 

[jarntt]

Interesting inclusion in Dez Bryant's contract:

• $500,000 Annual base salary de-escalators for missing workouts

 

[jarntt]

Next guy to be restructured will be Sean Lee IMO. I think he showed them he can stay healthy, especially on the weak side.

 

[jarntt]

I'm hoping we can agree with our own guys we want back quickly so we know where we stand. But I don't want to overpay anyone. There will always be scraps to pick up later on when the deals are had. We all know week one is full of ridiculous contracts

 

[es4m11]

Next guy to be restructured will be Sean Lee IMO. I think he showed them he can stay healthy, especially on the weak side.

I suggested this same thing in another thread. Lee's contract is the only one left that makes any sense to restructure - not much dead money at current, and a restructure doesn't make it in albatross.

Dez has too much dead money. Witten's contract is up after 2017, and I don't think he is interested in signing an extension at this time. That leaves Crawford as an option to restructure, but if I am the Cowboys, I want to get out of that contract ASAP - not kick the can further down the road.

 

[es4m11]

for the top 2 QBs on the team we would be spending roughly 25 mil either way. Only with a worse Back up. (going the way of pre 6/1 cut.
Keep him & we spend roughly 25 mil on he top 2 QBs & have a lot less dead cap space, next year.
If we pre6/1 Cut tony, to me it is only to help Tony, not the Cowboys so much.


Post 6/1 cut we are just extending dead money further out. Which if we could afford to not do, we shouldn't.
Yes saving 14 mil for this year is the easy solution for this year, just not convinced it is necessary.
I am really not to stressed right now on our cap situation. Many options to deal with left in the kettle.

Pre 6/1 cuts to me isn't making much sense. Post 6/1 now is a different debate. Depending on many variables. I can see both sides there.

Look at the cap numbers, Dallas just can't afford to keep Romo on at his current number. Even cutting him prior to 6/1 doesn't help much, unless drastic steps are taken (e.g. two more restructures). This isn't really a matter of opinion, unless you want practice squad guys filling out 15-20% of the game day roster.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Look at the cap numbers, Dallas just can't afford to keep Romo on at his current number. Even cutting him prior to 6/1 doesn't help much, unless drastic steps are taken (e.g. two more restructures). This isn't really a matter of opinion, unless you want practice squad guys filling out 15-20% of the game day roster.

this is actually my point. Realistically doesn't help at all. Even would hurt more than help.

 

[jarntt]

this is actually my point. Realistically doesn't help at all. Even would hurt more than help.

I'm confused as to what you are saying. Any way you slice it is saves us $14M. If we cut him prior to 6/1 it saves us $5M this year. Not a lot, but for a team up against t he cap it could be the difference between filling a hole and not filling a hole. It will cover one of our DBs for sure. But then next year it saves us $9M more. That is a stud player. All this for a guy to sit on the bench and have the camera follow him around all game?

I could end up wrong, but I feel very confident that they designate him a post 6/1 cut if not traded. This team is always about the present when it comes to the cap which is why we have an issue in the first place. It makes it easier this year with the extra $14M, so we will do it that way and worry about next year when we have to. If they have the foresight to not use the post 6/1 designation then I will finally believe they have changed.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

cutting him pre 6/1 to me doesn't help anything. We would spend much of the 5 mil we save, on replacing the back up QB.

 

[jarntt]

cutting him pre 6/1 to me doesn't help anything. We would spend much of the 5 mil we save, on replacing the back up QB.

Good chance the backup is Moore, a journeyman or a rookie. So that's about a million or so. The other $4M will cover year one of one of our DBs. But you are missing the point. Next year it saves us $9M more. It's simple Math. But we all get to decide what we feel is best for this team and I see the value in having Romo hanging around in case we need him. Just not $14M in value

 

[fastforward]

Would you be happy with Romo as the starter and Prescott as the back-up if it cost $14.5M? If so does it matter if Prescott is the starter and Romo is the back-up? If it's $14M for Romo or $5M for Sanchez i'd rather have Romo.

The only real question is do you want to keep Romo this year at $14M?

The $19.6M dead money is against the Cowboys not Romo. It can't be avoided. If you don't keep Romo you can account for all of the $19.6M this year or account for $10.7M of it now and $8.9M of it next year.

 

[Manster7588]

Would you be happy with Romo as the starter and Prescott as the back-up if it cost $14.5M? If so does it matter if Prescott is the starter and Romo is the back-up? If it's $14M for Romo or $5M for Sanchez i'd rather have Romo.

The only real question is do you want to keep Romo this year at $14M?

The $19.6M dead money is against the Cowboys not Romo. It can't be avoided. If you don't keep Romo you can account for all of the $19.6M this year or account for $10.7M of it now and $8.9M of it next year.

I want Romo to play for about 10M with the right to compete to be the starter.

 

[jarntt]

I want Romo to play for about 10M with the right to compete to be the starter.

If he is brought back (I don't think he will or should be) he absolutely will have every chance to win the job.

 

[Manster7588]

If he is brought back (I don't think he will or should be) he absolutely will have every chance to win the job.

That's all I expect, a fair challenge. Best man starts.

 

[jarntt]

That's all I expect, a fair challenge. Best man starts.

Absolutely would be. Best man always starts for Garrett and did in the playoffs