Archer: Cowboys looking for best returns in free agency

Cowboys looking for best returns in free agency
February, 18, 2015

By Todd Archer | ESPNDallas.com

INDIANAPOLIS -- Every year the same thing happens when it comes to free agency: see a big name and link said player to the Dallas Cowboys.

It’s happened with Ndamukong Suh. It’s happened to a degree with Jason Pierre-Paul. It’s happened with Justin Houston.

“I would continue to say shopping in free agency, especially on big-priced players, has not historically been good returns,” Cowboys executive vice president Stephen Jones said.

In 2012, the Cowboys gave Brandon Carr a five-year, $50 million deal. If Carr wants to have a fourth season with the Cowboys he will likely have to accept a pay cut from his $8 million base salary. In 2007, the Cowboys signed Leonard Davis to a monstrous $49 million deal with $18 million guaranteed. He played at a high level for two years and was released after the 2010 season.

The Cowboys’ focus is to keep their own, like Dez Bryant, DeMarco Murray, Doug Free, Rolando McClain and some others. But even that has not had the best returns, despite the intimate knowledge of the players.

If the Cowboys go outside the building for help, they will look to get bargains (see Jeremy Mincey last year) in the free-agent market as opposed to loading up on one star player.

“A lot of times you think it’s the player (to make the difference) and it’s usually not,” Jones said. “Usually the ones that are free out there they’re out there free for a reason and you end up overpaying for guys that you probably shouldn’t be paying that kind of money. I think that’s the big question: Is the guy really worth what you’re going to step up to pay?”

The NFL has yet to finalize the 2015 salary cap. The Cowboys can work off their best guess at this point, but that makes it difficult to “put our best foot forward,” in talks with Bryant and Murray, according to Jones. He said the team has made progress on the smaller deals for some of their unrestricted and restricted free agents.

In recent years the Cowboys have had to restructure contracts of a number of players just to get under the salary cap. That won’t be the case this year. According to ESPN Stats & Information, the Cowboys are roughly $4 million under a proposed $140 million cap. That does not include the roughly $15 million gained by declining to pick up Henry Melton’s option and the expected voiding of Free’s contract.

They can gain more room by re-working Tyron Smith’s contract as well as other players. They could gain about $8 million in room by designating Carr a June 1 cut should he not accept a pay cut.

But just because the Cowboys will have the room doesn’t mean they have to spend it or will spend it.

“We’re usually able to get accomplished what we want to get accomplished,” Jones said. “The question becomes strategy. Do we want to push money out in order to have money now? Sometimes that necessarily hasn’t worked great for us. We’ll just have to make good, sound decisions. You always feel like you can get things done that you need to get done, but at the same time you have to make sure it’s the right thing.”

So, cutting Carr, declining the option on Melton and losing Free gives the Cowboys 27 million in cap space?

UncleMilti said:

So, cutting Carr, declining the option on Melton and losing Free gives the Cowboys 27 million in cap space?

Click to expand...

Yes, but there is a lot of dead money that also comes with cutting Carr. But, just Melton and Free gives us like 18 mill or something like that.

Iamtdg said:

Yes, but there is a lot of dead money that also comes with cutting Carr. But, just Melton and Free gives us like 18 mill or something like that.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't care about the dead money. You should only care about the cap savings and if you can find a replacement of similar ability for less then the cap savings.

Cowboysrock55 said:

You shouldn't care about the dead money.

Click to expand...

Wut?

Dead money on the cap is basically losing cap space with nothing to show for it. I think we should care about that. A lot, in fact.

NoDak said:

Wut?

Dead money on the cap is basically losing cap space with nothing to show for it. I think we should care about that. A lot, in fact.

Click to expand...

The dead money with Carr means nothing at this point. It's a sunk cost. That cap space is already spent weather Carr is on the roster or not. To lament over cutting him because of the dead cap space is the dumbest thing you can do. That money is already spent and gone. What you should care about is the money that you haven't paid him yet. The salary and bonuses that could potentially still be paid to him.

NoDak said:

Wut?

Dead money on the cap is basically losing cap space with nothing to show for it. I think we should care about that. A lot, in fact.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm more than a little worried that we also still have 5 mill in dead money from Miles f'ing Austin against our cap this year. That's right, that Miles Austin. So, yeah, dead money is important when considering cutting a player, and more importantly how you structure a deal.

Iamtdg said:

Yeah, I'm more than a little worried that we also still have 5 mill in dead money from Miles f'ing Austin against our cap this year. That's right, that Miles Austin. So, yeah, dead money is important when considering cutting a player, and more importantly how you structure a deal.

Click to expand...

Dead money is important to consider when signing a player. As soon as the signatures are on the contract there is nothing you can do about it. Like Crock said, it's a sunk cost, money you've already spent.

Iamtdg said:

Yeah, I'm more than a little worried that we also still have 5 mill in dead money from Miles f'ing Austin against our cap this year. That's right, that Miles Austin. So, yeah, dead money is important when considering cutting a player, and more importantly how you structure a deal.

Click to expand...

So you would rather have Austin on the team? That's you choice cut him or don't cut him. He'd be costing us more then the 5 mil in dead money this year if he was still on the roster. The amount of dead money shouldn't even be part of the talk when considering to cut a player. If it is you're screwing your cap.

Cowboysrock55 said:

So you would rather have Austin on the team? That's you choice cut him or don't cut him. He'd be costing us more then the 5 mil in dead money this year if he was still on the roster. The amount of dead money shouldn't even be part of the talk when considering to cut a player. If it is you're screwing your cap.

Click to expand...

Well, there is the consideration as to whether you go June 1st or take your medicine all at once. In our case I say, restructure Romo and whomever else, mortgage everything until this window is closed. We don't know when Romo will play his last down of football and I think we should be in win-now mode until he breaks down.

Cowboysrock55 said:

So you would rather have Austin on the team? That's you choice cut him or don't cut him. He'd be costing us more then the 5 mil in dead money this year if he was still on the roster. The amount of dead money shouldn't even be part of the talk when considering to cut a player. If it is you're screwing your cap.

Click to expand...

So, did you not read the rest of my post on purpose or did you just miss it?

Cowboysrock55 said:

The dead money with Carr means nothing at this point. It's a sunk cost. That cap space is already spent weather Carr is on the roster or not. To lament over cutting him because of the dead cap space is the dumbest thing you can do. That money is already spent and gone. What you should care about is the money that you haven't paid him yet. The salary and bonuses that could potentially still be paid to him.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Dead money counts towards future caps, and inhibits your ability to spend on other players.

I see what point you're trying to make, but to say you shouldn't care about the dead money is ignorant. Dead money is VERY important towards your cap.

As far as your example of Carr is concerned, right now it is not considered dead money because he is a player on the roster. Granted, a player that isn't worth what he's being paid, but an active player just the same. Once he is gone, that money is then dead. Being spent on a player that is no longer on the roster. Meaning you now have to pay another player new money to get services rendered.

So basically, yeah. Dead money is important towards your cap and your ability to spend towards other players. Not sure where you ever got the idea you shouldn't care about it.

Iamtdg said:

So, did you not read the rest of my post on purpose or did you just miss it?

Click to expand...

No I was specifically talking about the part I disagree with. No reason for me to address the parts of your post that I agree with. Unless you want me to give a half prop or something?

NoDak said:

Wrong. Dead money counts towards future caps, and inhibits your ability to spend on other players.

I see what point you're trying to make, but to say you shouldn't care about the dead money is ignorant. Dead money is VERY important towards your cap.

As far as your example of Carr is concerned, right now it is not considered dead money because he is a player on the roster. Granted, a player that isn't worth what he's being paid, but an active player just the same. Once he is gone, that money is then dead. Being spent on a player that is no longer on the roster. Meaning you now have to pay another player new money to get services rendered.

So basically, yeah. Dead money is important towards your cap and your ability to spend towards other players. Not sure where you ever got the idea you shouldn't care about it.

Click to expand...

I think what Cowboy is saying is that dead money is a dead issue by virtue that there is nothing you can do about it once the player is cut. It then becomes a moot point as to how you plan your roster for the future because you have to make do with what resources you have available. Of course it restricts what your choices you may have but it is already etched in stone againt the financial resources remaining.

NoDak said:

Wrong. Dead money counts towards future caps, and inhibits your ability to spend on other players.

I see what point you're trying to make, but to say you shouldn't care about the dead money is ignorant. Dead money is VERY important towards your cap.

As far as your example of Carr is concerned, right now it is not considered dead money because he is a player on the roster. Granted, a player that isn't worth what he's being paid, but an active player just the same. Once he is gone, that money is then dead. Being spent on a player that is no longer on the roster. Meaning you now have to pay another player new money to get services rendered.

So basically, yeah. Dead money is important towards your cap and your ability to spend towards other players. Not sure where you ever got the idea you shouldn't care about it.

Click to expand...

When deciding to cut a player, dead money is meaningless. I don't care if a guy will leave 15 mil in dead money or 2 mil in dead money. Doesn't matter, that player should be treated exactly the same. The only thing you should care about is what you are saving. Meaning if the guy is going to earn a base salary of 7 mil, then by cutting him you are saving 7 mil. It might not all come in this years cap but it will still come. So Carr for example, you should totally ignore the dead money. Doesn't mean anything. What you should focus in on is the money that is still owed to him. Is Carr worth that money? So next year Brandon Carr is going to get paid 8 mil additionally in base salary. So is what Brandon Carr will give you next season worth 8 mil? If it is, you should keep him. If he isn't, then you should cut him. It really is that simple.

If you are worried about "cap room" for this off season you are focusing on the wrong thing. Cap room is fluid. You can buy cap room for this off season if you need it and if you don't spend the cap room this season it just adds dollar for dollar to your cap room for next season.

Cowboysrock55 said:

When deciding to cut a player, dead money is meaningless. I don't care if a guy will leave 15 mil in dead money or 2 mil in dead money. Doesn't matter, that player should be treated exactly the same. The only thing you should care about is what you are saving. Meaning if the guy is going to earn a base salary of 7 mil, then by cutting him you are saving 7 mil. It might not all come in this years cap but it will still come. So Carr for example, you should totally ignore the dead money. Doesn't mean anything. What you should focus in on is the money that is still owed to him. Is Carr worth that money? So next year Brandon Carr is going to get paid 8 mil additionally in base salary. So is what Brandon Carr will give you next season worth 8 mil? If it is, you should keep him. If he isn't, then you should cut him. It really is that simple.

If you are worried about "cap room" for this off season you are focusing on the wrong thing. Cap room is fluid. You can buy cap room for this off season if you need it and if you don't spend the cap room this season it just adds dollar for dollar to your cap room for next season.

Click to expand...

If the money is already spent then isn't it better to keep a player even if he's under performing, rather than have to spend the money all over again on a new starter?

townsend said:

If the money is already spent then isn't it better to keep a player even if he's under performing, rather than have to spend the money all over again on a new starter?

Click to expand...

Will you get a better performance for the money you saved? is the right question.

If by cutting Carr you save 7 mill and can get a better CB with that money or less, by all means you cut him.
If you can get a similar performance with less than the 7mill, again cut him and you have more money to spend elsewhere.
If you get a similar performance, but have to pay more than the 7mill... might as well keep him.
If you have to pay more to get a better performance... It all depends on what you have allotted to the diffrent areas...

townsend said:

If the money is already spent then isn't it better to keep a player even if he's under performing, rather than have to spend the money all over again on a new starter?

Click to expand...

As far as the math is concerned yes. The hoped for result however would be to find a replacement for an amount coupled with the dead money that was less than the scheduled salary of the releleased player. That would offset the scheduled money of the released player but the amount charged to the cap would depend on the contractual terms of the one released. At lest that's how I understand it.

townsend said:

If the money is already spent then isn't it better to keep a player even if he's under performing, rather than have to spend the money all over again on a new starter?

Click to expand...

Nope, the only thing you need to be concerned about is the 8 mil you will be spending on Carr next year (His base salary).

The dead money really doesn't matter. It's going to count against the cap either this year or against the cap over the next few years.

townsend said:

If the money is already spent then isn't it better to keep a player even if he's under performing, rather than have to spend the money all over again on a new starter?

Click to expand...

That assumes that all of the money you will be spending on him will be dead money (like Claiborne). Since a lot of it is base salary it is possible to realize considerable savings by signing a cheaper guy who performs the same or better.

Caring about sunk costs is like staying in a poker hand that you're losing because you're worried about the money you've already bet, desperately throwing good money after bad. When the odds aren't in your favor any more the smart thing is to cut your losses and fold.