Fisher: Cowboys hit a 'Downturn' in Spencer contract talks

IRVING, Texas – The Dallas Cowboys have hit what a source terms a "downturn'' in contract negotiations with franchise-tagged defensive end Anthony Spencer, the problem being the club believes recent NFL deals have shoved the market value of comparable players down to the $5-million-a-year range.

The Spencer camp wants the recent five-year, $66-million extension given Packers linebacker Clay Matthews to be part of the conversation. Or, at least, the $8-million-year deal Cleveland gave pass-rushing linebacker Paul Kruger to lure him from Baltimore.

But three other NFL contracts hang like a dark cloud over Spencer's wishes of receiving a long-term deal in Dallas before July 15, the deadline to re-up him or else the one-time Pro Bowler will play out the season at the tag number of $10.6 million.

The three contracts the Cowboys are using as leverage: Cliff Avril's deal to move him to Seattle at $7.5 million a year but only for two seasons, so the total is only $13 million and the signing bonus is just $4.5 million; Elvis Dumervil's deal to move him to Baltimore at about $5 million a year; and another Seattle bargain, Michael Bennett's deal for just one year and $4.8 million.

Spencer's side is arguing that all three of this situations are anomalies, especially in the cases of Dumervil (who signed with Baltimore after the infamous fax mixup in Denver) and Bennett, signed by the Seahawks with their full knowledge of his torn rotator-cuff problem.

Spencer is clear on what he wishes his future to be.

"I want to be here for the rest of my career," says Spencer, Dallas' top defensive player last season. "Hopefully we can get that done. If we can't, then so be it."

The "so-be-it'' scenario for both sides in the Spencer negotiations isn't that bad. The Cowboys might get a contract-season performance from Spencer while avoiding overspending on an admittedly quality player who is 29 years old (as they develop replacements like Tyrone Crawford). And Spencer might get to play under the terms of that $10.6 million existing deal.

The Spencer camp wants the recent five-year, $66-million extension given Packers linebacker Clay Matthews to be part of the conversation. Or, at least, the $8-million-year deal Cleveland gave pass-rushing linebacker Paul Kruger to lure him from Baltimore.

Click to expand...

The Spencer camp is smoking something. There is no way in hell they should do anything but let him walk if this is the price.

The three contracts the Cowboys are using as leverage: Cliff Avril's deal to move him to Seattle at $7.5 million a year but only for two seasons, so the total is only $13 million and the signing bonus is just $4.5 million; Elvis Dumervil's deal to move him to Baltimore at about $5 million a year; and another Seattle bargain, Michael Bennett's deal for just one year and $4.8 million.

Click to expand...

If this is what they wanted, they should have just signed one of these guys.

Spencer isn't worth that much in any dimension. That's a "bye-bye now" for sure if he doesn't come down.

If he has a bigger year than last year though......


Nope, too old. I'd rather let his already modest ability tail off on someone else's team.

I love it. I hope he has a career year and they can't re-sign him. There's no way he's worth a new deal when the team needs to get younger on the DL to begin with. Crawford who was born to play DE in a 4-3 should be able to step in and take over.

Everyone knows Dallas needs to draft DL and OL or you can kiss any chance at long term success goodbye.

Genghis Khan said:

If this is what they wanted, they should have just signed one of these guys.

Click to expand...

And should have traded Spencer.

We are dumbasses.

mschmidt64 said:

And should have traded Spencer.

We are dumbasses.

Click to expand...

Who would have traded for him? It not just that easy.

The team that got him would have the same problem we have...a guy about ready to hit the age wall.

ravidubey said:

Everyone knows Dallas needs to draft DL and OL or you can kiss any chance at long term success goodbye.

Click to expand...

Not everyone.

The three contracts the Cowboys are using as leverage: Cliff Avril's deal to move him to Seattle at $7.5 million a year but only for two seasons, so the total is only $13 million and the signing bonus is just $4.5 million; Elvis Dumervil's deal to move him to Baltimore at about $5 million a year; and another Seattle bargain, Michael Bennett's deal for just one year and $4.8 million.

Click to expand...

If we had negotiated openly with Avril and Spencer, we'd have one of them at a much lower price. But we just HAD to go all in on Spencer and use the damned franchise tag like idiots.

mschmidt64 said:

And should have traded Spencer.

We are dumbasses.

Click to expand...

In what? Madden? Are you too thick to see that the pass rushers on the market were not in high demand (maybe because of high supply), hence their lower than expected compensation?

boozeman said:

Who would have traded for him? It not just that easy.

The team that got him would have the same problem we have...a guy about ready to hit the age wall.

Click to expand...

I refuse to believe there is not a team out there who would have given even a mid round pick.

The more important part for us wouldn't be the third or fourth round pick, it would be clearing 10 million in cap space with which we could have signed Michael Bennett or somebody, plus another player. Like an offensive lineman.

Clay_Allison said:

In what? Madden? Are you too thick to see that the pass rushers on the market were not in high demand (maybe because of high supply), hence their lower than expected compensation?

Click to expand...

Last time I checked pass rushers actually were in high demand. Non-elite players like Bennett, Avril, and Dumervil all got pretty sizeable deals. You could make the argument that Spencer is better than all of them as a complete player. And Spencer wasn't ON the market because of his two-first-round-pick franchise tag, so we don't know how much interest there would have been, but my guess is, substantial.

Someone would have given something for him in a trade, just like those players found teams willing to give them sizeable contracts.

mschmidt64 said:

I refuse to believe there is not a team out there who would have given even a mid round pick.

The more important part for us wouldn't be the third or fourth round pick, it would be clearing 10 million in cap space with which we could have signed Michael Bennett or somebody, plus another player. Like an offensive lineman.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't take a mid-rounder for him. What the hell good would that do? We'd just blow that on some dork in the draft.

I'd rather have Jones spend the cash and get a prime year out of a guy that doesn't have many left.

He's better to keep than to trade as nobody would give up enough for him to make it worthwhile.

boozeman said:

I wouldn't take a mid-rounder for him. What the hell good would that do? We'd just blow that on some dork in the draft.

I'd rather have Jones spend the cash and get a prime year out of a guy that doesn't have many left.

Click to expand...

I would.

I would rather have Michael Bennett on his contract, plus a fourth round pick, and another $5 million in cap room, than just Anthony Spencer.

mschmidt64 said:

I would.

I would rather have Michael Bennett on his contract, plus a fourth round pick, and another $5 million in cap room, than just Anthony Spencer.

Click to expand...

Torn rotator cuff guy who might not be ready to start, never has been a great starter nor might not be ready to play at a high level plus five milllion and a fourth rounder?

You want to call Jerry Jones a bad GM?

boozeman said:

Torn rotator cuff guy who might not be ready to start, never has been a great starter nor might not be ready to play at a high level plus five milllion and a fourth rounder?

You want to call Jerry Jones a bad GM?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'd rather have three players more than one, in a year where we aren't going to be winning anything, anyway.

I know I'm not getting exact value, but long term we'd be better off rather than hitching our cart to Spencer who is simply too old and too expensive for us to give a megadeal to.

Since it's either give him a megadeal or let him walk for nothing, I'll take the third option and trade him for something. And then use his cap space on another player or two who WILL be here when we are gearing up for a Super Bowl run (lulz, j/k about that last part, but a long term player, you know what I mean).

It's called asset management. The player is not long for this team. He will either be overpaid tremendously (a bad thing in our position) or he'll walk. Either way it's a negative for us.

Trading him could have turned it into a positive for us for 2-3 years down the line.

mschmidt64 said:

I would.

I would rather have Michael Bennett on his contract, plus a fourth round pick, and another $5 million in cap room, than just Anthony Spencer.

Click to expand...

That's a recipe for disaster. Bennett is not someone you'd want to count on like we do Spencer, who has been ultra reliable.

Better to keep one of your best defensive players, if you can. Spencer would have commanded a huge amount of money on the market though, to be fair.

mschmidt64 said:

Yes, I'd rather have three players more than one, in a year where we aren't going to be winning anything, anyway.

Click to expand...

You forget who the eff is drafting for us and signing players, obviously.

boozeman said:

You forget who the eff is drafting for us and signing players, obviously.

Click to expand...

Well, sure, but I like to pretend that, say, this board is doing the picking, that way I maintain some hope and sanity.

Lotuseater said:

That's a recipe for disaster. Bennett is not someone you'd want to count on like we do Spencer, who has been ultra reliable.

Better to keep one of your best defensive players, if you can. Spencer would have commanded a huge amount of money on the market though, to be fair.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

I don't see Avril as being that much worse...I doubt he gets some king-sized deal back in FA.

It is a down market for DEs.

Lotuseater said:

That's a recipe for disaster. Bennett is not someone you'd want to count on like we do Spencer, who has been ultra reliable.

Better to keep one of your best defensive players, if you can. Spencer would have commanded a huge amount of money on the market though, to be fair.

Click to expand...

Of course it's better to keep one of your best defensive players. But you even clarify "if you can."

We can't. We cannot afford to meet Spencer's contract demands (if we do, we are surely sacrificing something else we shouldn't give up, probably something better).

So if the choice is to give Spencer the 5 year, $60 million contract he is asking for, or let him walk, my logic is, "I cannot afford him at that price and I have to let him walk."

So I get nothing.

I'd rather have a pick than "one more year of Spencer." We aren't winning anything this year anyway.