The 2016 Cap and AP

[jarntt]

Actually the Cowboys could - even if Peterson signed for $12M/year for 4 years with the 1st 2 years fully guaranteed, (example only). By counting $10M of the $12M each year as a signing/restructuring bonus the cap effects for keeping Peterson for 2 years then cutting him with a post May 12th designation in 2017 would be $4.5M in 2015, $7.833M in $2016, $5.833M in 2017 and $5.833M in 2018. There would be a problem in 2017 because Peterson would count as $17.833M towards the cap throughout the FA and Draft period prior to May 12th. However the team could choose to cut him before May 12th 2017 and have the combined 2017 and 2018 cap total of $11.667M count throughout the 2017 season.
It's doable but the question is whether it's prudent, especially if the Cowboys have to give up a high pick in addition to the $24M guaranteed over 2 years, (example only), for a player who might be past his best.

This is what drives me nuts about people saying you CAN do something under the cap. It's not just about making the Math work on 4/10/15. That doesn't prove your point any more than simply "they got under teh cap" does. It's about making the Math work for the next number of years and also being able to deal with EVERYTHING else that comes up, including things we don't even know of yet. What if we don't draft a CB this year and want to sign a big FA next year? That is huge dollars. What if we also want to add a safety? Even Nate Allen got a big contract and he sucks. Restructuring Romo was already a horrible mistake. At his age and wit hhis recent injury history the guy could be one hit away from never playing again at this point. Do you know what that would do to our cap and at the same time would make us sign a differnt QB and fit him under teh cap also? The smart thing to do was to continue to chip away at that unallocated cap hit that was already bastardized by hte restructures of the last few years. The dumb thing was to restructure him and act as if he will absolutely be our starting QB for the next 3 or 4 years.

Can we technically fit AP under our cap? Of course we can. Can we really afford to? Not if we want to prioritize the long term over the short term. Is giving big $'s and giving up an early pick worth it for a 30 year old RB with his attitude and recent drama? NFW in my book.

 

[jarntt]

To be clear I quoted your post, but my point was more against the idea of what you "can" do in general that I read all to often.

 

[NetsGotBanned21]

This is what drives me nuts about people saying you CAN do something under the cap. It's not just about making the Math work on 4/10/15. That doesn't prove your point any more than simply "they got under teh cap" does. It's about making the Math work for the next number of years and also being able to deal with EVERYTHING else that comes up, including things we don't even know of yet. What if we don't draft a CB this year and want to sign a big FA next year? That is huge dollars. What if we also want to add a safety? Even Nate Allen got a big contract and he sucks. Restructuring Romo was already a horrible mistake. At his age and wit hhis recent injury history the guy could be one hit away from never playing again at this point. Do you know what that would do to our cap and at the same time would make us sign a differnt QB and fit him under teh cap also? The smart thing to do was to continue to chip away at that unallocated cap hit that was already bastardized by hte restructures of the last few years. The dumb thing was to restructure him and act as if he will absolutely be our starting QB for the next 3 or 4 years.

Can we technically fit AP under our cap? Of course we can. Can we really afford to? Not if we want to prioritize the long term over the short term. Is giving big $'s and giving up an early pick worth it for a 30 year old RB with his attitude and recent drama? NFW in my book.

To be honest bro, think of the cap as inflation. In other words the dollar in todays NFL is not worth the same as it will be next year.

If the cap is $75 dollars today and tomorrow it is $100 dollars, that means that the dollar that was once worth one dollar is now only worth .75c due to it's inflation as I am still paying you based on the contract I brought you in at while the cap was at $75 dollars. Therefore, moving money into the future does not hurt as much as you believe it to be.

The problem with doing this in the early years of the cap is because the NFL was no where near as popular as it is present day. Example of this was Direct TV and NFL first made a 4yr contract for 4B from 2009 ending early 2014 which was an average of 1 Billion per year. Fast forward and in October of 2014the new Direct TV deal is 8 years at 12B which is 1.5B per season which is a 50% increase, which adds to inflation. Which in return will spark the cap to continue to rise at all time highs, which in all honesty we have seen nothing yet, wait until the NFL gets a team in LA in the next few years. Point is the cap is a result of over inflation and as inflation continues to occur for AT LEAST the next 8 years, the cap will NEVER be an issue unless you are a complete idiot, i.e. the Saints front office (and even they got off lucky by releasing a few old players and trading a player that was possibly their best player on O but had injury concerns for a first rounder which they can probably get Maxx Williams for far less).

Anyways my point is that it doesn't really matter about the here nor the now, because in essence you could to a CERTAIN extent continue to push money out and out and out and out. Think of it in terms of having a 100,000.00 loan on your home and you being able to pay interest only, well when you die then your heir sales the home for 200,000.00 profits 100k and you never paid your debt. Sure you have to pay eventually, but at what value of the dollar do you have to pay is the question?

 

[jarntt]

But it works both ways. A guy signs a contract today for $75 dollars and a guy just like him and with the same talent level signs a contract tomorrow for $100. In the long run its a wash.

 

[NetsGotBanned21]

You are correct Jar; but what you are forgetting is that currently the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of return on players. Example, you will not add a top dollar player every year, but your cap number will inflate every year. I.E. The cap went up last year substantially, but we added no top dollar players last season.

 

[Manster7588]

You are correct Jar; but what you are forgetting is that currently the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of return on players. Example, you will not add a top dollar player every year, but your cap number will inflate every year. I.E. The cap went up last year substantially, but we added no top dollar players last season.

We signed no top dollar players because of cap restraints forced on the team from years past. We're finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel and some want to turn that light into a train.

 

[cowboycolors]

Anyways my point is that it doesn't really matter about the here nor the now, because in essence you could to a CERTAIN extent continue to push money out and out and out and out. Think of it in terms of having a 100,000.00 loan on your home and you being able to pay interest only, well when you die then your heir sales the home for 200,000.00 profits 100k and you never paid your debt. Sure you have to pay eventually, but at what value of the dollar do you have to pay is the question

Ok Nets I'm no cap guru but this is a terrible analogy. A home in your example is a physical value piece of property, that can appreciate in value or depreciate due to market forces. But you still have a physical asset not just a debt.

Dead cap money is a defined value kind of .
1 million in dead money today is still 1 million in dead money next year. If the cap goes up from 5 million to 6 million you can park your 1 million in dead money in the cap increase but your money has not technically gained any increase in value. Your spending ability was increased due to more money coming in via TV revenue Hotdog sales etc. If the cap goes down due to hotdog sales being off to 4 million you still have the 1 million in dead money. Its more like going long or short in the stock market IMHO with the Bulls betting long on a cap increase every year with nobody thinking a Bear market is even possible. The Bear market comes when you have to eat the dead money whether its at 100% or 50% due to inflation or 125% due to deflation in cap dollars the money is still due.

Maybe to simple or I don't get it

JMHO

 

[jarntt]

You are correct Jar; but what you are forgetting is that currently the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of return on players. Example, you will not add a top dollar player every year, but your cap number will inflate every year. I.E. The cap went up last year substantially, but we added no top dollar players last season.

That works both ways too. This year depending on suspension we could be giving big dollars to Hardy and likely will at some point this year sign Dez to a huge deal. And your saying we may sign AP to a huge deal too. That's 3 years worth of studs. Here's the thing. Each time we restructure Romo we make the future worse to benefit the present and we wouldn't be doing it if we didn't have an issue in the present.

 

[jarntt]

Romo has had some serious health issues lately. If he suffers a career ending injury this year he'll cost us over $30M next year and won't even play. Plus we'd have to sign another QB and pay him too

 

[fastforward]

Ok Nets I'm no cap guru but this is a terrible analogy. A home in your example is a physical value piece of property, that can appreciate in value or depreciate due to market forces. But you still have a physical asset not just a debt.

Dead cap money is a defined value kind of .
1 million in dead money today is still 1 million in dead money next year. If the cap goes up from 5 million to 6 million you can park your 1 million in dead money in the cap increase but your money has not technically gained any increase in value. Your spending ability was increased due to more money coming in via TV revenue Hotdog sales etc. If the cap goes down due to hotdog sales being off to 4 million you still have the 1 million in dead money. Its more like going long or short in the stock market IMHO with the Bulls betting long on a cap increase every year with nobody thinking a Bear market is even possible. The Bear market comes when you have to eat the dead money whether its at 100% or 50% due to inflation or 125% due to deflation in cap dollars the money is still due.

Maybe to simple or I don't get it

JMHO

Think of it as paying off a debt. For example suppose you could pay this year's taxes this year or you could pay the exact same amount in 2018 at 0% interest.
You should be able to cope even in a deflationary market if you don't over-extend yourself, (which is what the Cowboys did previously).

 

[fastforward]

Romo has had some serious health issues lately. If he suffers a career ending injury this year he'll cost us over $30M next year and won't even play. Plus we'd have to sign another QB and pay him too

The point of restructuring Romo was that it allows the Cowboys to account for Hardy's full cap cost instead. The team couldn't pay both the cap hit for Romo's 2015 $17M salary and Hardy's full cap cost. Let's say the combined bill ended up being $27M and the Cowboys could only pay $19M. If the Cowboys paid as much of the Romo cap hit as possible and had $8M left to account for with Hardy, all of that $8M would have to be accounted for next year. Instead the plan is to account for all of Hardy's money and part of Romo's cap hit. There's still an $8M shortfall but because Romo is under contract for 4 more years that $8M can be accounted for at $2M per year for the next 4 years. The Cowboys can still choose to pay all $8M next year but the point is they have a choice. Having choice over no choice is why restructuring Romo was a good move. Even in the nightmare scenario of Romo retiring before May12th 2016 the Cowboys will be no worse off than if they had accounted for Romo this year and Hardy next year.

 

[jarntt]

Think of it as paying off a debt. For example suppose you could pay this year's taxes this year or you could pay the exact same amount in 2018 at 0% interest.
You should be able to cope even in a deflationary market if you don't over-extend yourself, (which is what the Cowboys did previously).

But in 2018 you still have to pay 2018's taxes too and eventually your water heater (player) is going to go unexpectedly and you are going to have to be able to afford a new one under your current cap and if you still owed a lot on your old water heater you need to make that payment now too even though you had to get rid of it.

 

[jarntt]

The point of restructuring Romo was that it allows the Cowboys to account for Hardy's full cap cost instead. The team couldn't pay both the cap hit for Romo's 2015 $17M salary and Hardy's full cap cost. Let's say the combined bill ended up being $27M and the Cowboys could only pay $19M. If the Cowboys paid as much of the Romo cap hit as possible and had $8M left to account for with Hardy, all of that $8M would have to be accounted for next year. Instead the plan is to account for all of Hardy's money and part of Romo's cap hit. There's still an $8M shortfall but because Romo is under contract for 4 more years that $8M can be accounted for at $2M per year for the next 4 years. The Cowboys can still choose to pay all $8M next year but the point is they have a choice. Having choice over no choice is why restructuring Romo was a good move. Even in the nightmare scenario of Romo retiring before May12th 2016 the Cowboys will be no worse off than if they had accounted for Romo this year and Hardy next year.

There is a lot wrong here, but I'm not getting into cap discussions. Point is that if you couldn't sign Hardy without killing future caps (they could have done other things instead) by restructuring Romo you don't sign him.

 

[fastforward]

There is a lot wrong here, but I'm not getting into cap discussions. Point is that if you couldn't sign Hardy without killing future caps (they could have done other things instead) by restructuring Romo you don't sign him.

I would have been fine with the Cowboys making different cost and personnel choices. Signing or keeping 1 choice means not making another choice. Spending $7.5M on Carr last year means there's $7.5M less now. Signing Hardy means not signing certain other players. The point is how does the team best deal with the choices they've made. Having the option to pay in 2016 or pay over 4 years is better than being forced to pay in 2016.

 

[jarntt]

I would have been fine with the Cowboys making different cost and personnel choices. Signing or keeping 1 choice means not making another choice. Spending $7.5M on Carr last year means there's $7.5M less now. Signing Hardy means not signing certain other players. The point is how does the team best deal with the choices they've made. Having the option to pay in 2016 or pay over 4 years is better than being forced to pay in 2016.

Not in Romo's case it's not

 

[es4m11]

On this issue I will defer to S.Jones and his knowledge of the cap. Obviously restructuring Romo is not ideal, but barring major injury he was going to be the QB in Dallas for the next 3-4 years anyway. No restructure, no Hardy. There was no other way the math was going to work. If Romo suffers some sort of career altering injury then the team is fucked regardless of the cap situation. The accelerated cap hit will be disastrous, but Dallas won't be a contender without a QB anyway.

It's a big gamble, but I think this move is going to pay dividends for Dallas, Hardy is going to be a game changing force for the defense. Romo seems healthy and has had a full off-season to rest while not rehabbing some sort of injury-- something which he hasn't been able to do in a while. If Dallas can effectively limit Romo's usage as they did in 2014 then I think Romo may be a good bet to make it through the next 3 years. As the line continues to get better Romo's long term outlook improves as well.

 

[jarntt]

On this issue I will defer to S.Jones and his knowledge of the cap. Obviously restructuring Romo is not ideal, but barring major injury he was going to be the QB in Dallas for the next 3-4 years anyway. No restructure, no Hardy. There was no other way the math was going to work. If Romo suffers some sort of career altering injury then the team is fucked regardless of the cap situation. The accelerated cap hit will be disastrous, but Dallas won't be a contender without a QB anyway.

It's a big gamble, but I think this move is going to pay dividends for Dallas, Hardy is going to be a game changing force for the defense. Romo seems healthy and has had a full off-season to rest while not rehabbing some sort of injury-- something which he hasn't been able to do in a while. If Dallas can effectively limit Romo's usage as they did in 2014 then I think Romo may be a good bet to make it through the next 3 years. As the line continues to get better Romo's long term outlook improves as well.

No, that's not true. Hardy could haven been signed without restructuring Romo. Why do you think all the AP talk started after Romo was restructured? Because if they want they can mathematically fit Hardy and AP. Don't forget cutting Carr post 6/1 saves like $8M this year. Also, they could have restructured Romo for less to. Why go to the max?

 

[es4m11]

There's no guarantee Hardy is on the market come June 1. All this talk of Peterson is a bunch of B.S., they would not have the room to sign him with the cap hits for Hardy and McClain. Hardy isn't just a 3 mil cap hit this year, he figures to count another 6-8 mil against the cap. Then figure in the draft class, and Dallas actually won't have much money at all. Carr may end up playing the year under his current contract. Dallas can't really afford to lose any corners right now.

 

[jarntt]

There's no guarantee Hardy is on the market come June 1. All this talk of Peterson is a bunch of B.S., they would not have the room to sign him with the cap hits for Hardy and McClain. Hardy isn't just a 3 mil cap hit this year, he figures to count another 6-8 mil against the cap. Then figure in the draft class, and Dallas actually won't have much money at all. Carr may end up playing the year under his current contract. Dallas can't really afford to lose any corners right now.

You wouldn't have to wait until 6/1. Hardy's current cap hit is low (it will grow during the season) and even if it wasn't you could designate Carr a post 6/1 cut today if you wanted. But that wasn't the point. Also, Dallas would be foolish to pay Carr $8M in salary this year. Don't see it happening. He redoes his deal or he is cut IMO.

 

[es4m11]

You wouldn't have to wait until 6/1. Hardy's current cap hit is low (it will grow during the season) and even if it wasn't you could designate Carr a post 6/1 cut today if you wanted. But that wasn't the point. Also, Dallas would be foolish to pay Carr $8M in salary this year. Don't see it happening. He redoes his deal or he is cut IMO.

I highly doubt Carr is going anywhere this year. If Dallas was going to post-June 1 cut him, they would have already done it, I think. It is seriously unlikely that Dallas goes into next year with either Mo Claiborne or a rookie as their starting 2nd corner. There aren't any serviceable corners available on the FA market that would be an upgrade from Carr. If Dallas has serious aspirations of competing this year, Carr will be on the team. That's why I think Carr's agent has come out and said he won't be taking a pay cut. Carr has more leverage than Dallas at the moment it would seem. I seriously think Carr may play the season under his current contract if he does not agree to a pay cut. And any potential pay cut Carr may take, certainly will not be enough to create enough space for AP.

Can we please put this AP stuff to bed? It's not happening...