Archer: Cowboys have to 'put socks back on' all over again

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

kidd said:
All I'm saying is if it comes down to giving a contract to Dez or Murray, I give it to Dez without even thinking about it.

By the looks of it, it looks to me like it's coming down to this scenario.

I agree. You give Dez the contract to make the franchise tag available to Murray.

Carp · Jan 30, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
I agree. You give Dez the contract to make the franchise tag available to Murray.

Which kills any flexibility you have to make other moves...you have to allocate more than 8 million more in cap space to Murray next year than you did this year. Using the tag on him would be a terrible idea.

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

Carp said:
Which kills any flexibility you have to make other moves...you have to allocate more than 8 million more in cap space to Murray next year than you did this year. Using the tag on him would be a terrible idea.

Dallas wasnt going to get by this year paying Murray 2013 wages. There are some like Spencer who will make a lot of cap space available. It is a matter of trimming some and reallocating to others.

Carp · Jan 30, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
Dallas wasnt going to get by this year paying Murray 2013 wages. There are some like Spencer who will make a lot of cap space available. It is a matter of trimming some and reallocating to others.

Dez is the only player I would use the tag on...and Spencer only counted 1.2 mil against the cap.

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

Carp said:
Dez is the only player I would use the tag on...and Spencer only counted 1.2 mil against the cap.

But Spencer would have cost much more if he were retained for the upcoming season. Say 5 M. in projected salary. If he is gone then it is zero. Its a matter of reallocation to a new roster not what was paid on a former budget.

Carp · Jan 30, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
But Spencer would have cost much more if he were retained for the upcoming season. Say 5 M. in projected salary. If he is gone then it is zero. Its a matter of reallocation to a new roster not what was paid on a former budget.

Flawed logic...Spencer could not command 5 mil a year anywhere.

I don't want to be limited to address other needs because we were not able to reach a deal with Murray, then tag him. Used smartly you could get 3-4 players with that money and could help in resigning McClain.

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

Carp said:
Flawed logic...Spencer could not command 5 mil a year anywhere.

I don't want to be limited to address other needs because we were not able to reach a deal with Murray, then tag him. Used smartly you could get 3-4 players with that money and could help in resigning McClain.

That was just a hypothetical example to display how changing personnel creates a different circumstance for budgets. The underlying point is in order to have an option available to retain both Bryant and Murray, a contract will have to be extended to Bryant in order to retain the franchise tag for Murray.

Angrymesscan · Jan 30, 2015

I think LT has Spencer and Melton mixed up...

Jiggyfly · Jan 30, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
That was just a hypothetical example to display how changing personnel creates a different circumstance for budgets. The underlying point is in order to have an option available to retain both Bryant and Murray, a contract will have to be extended to Bryant in order to retain the franchise tag for Murray.

The other underlying point is that Franchising Murray would severly handicap retaining other players on the roster or adding other FA talent to the roster.

Have you worked out these numbers or do you believe its worth keeping Murray at any cost?

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

Angrymesscan said:
I think LT has Spencer and Melton mixed up...

I just picked a name. It could have been Hammersmith for the exercise. It was the situation I was dealing with not the way it will actually be done. I hope everyone got that.

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
The other underlying point is that Franchising Murray would severly handicap retaining other players on the roster or adding other FA talent to the roster.

Have you worked out these numbers or do you believe its worth keeping Murray at any cost?

At any cost? No. That job belongs to the organization.

Jiggyfly · Jan 30, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
I just picked a name. It could have been Hammersmith for the exercise. It was the situation I was dealing with not the way it will actually be done. I hope everyone got that.

So you have not actually put any thought into how that would affect the team overall in roster construction.

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
So you have not actually put any thought into how that would affect the team overall in roster construction.

Not my job. The numbers are someone elses decision. I was addressing what would have to be done if the organization wants to keep both players next seazon. It's a mechanical process not a financial one. If the don't sign Bryant they will have to franchise him to keep him. If they do that Murray will go elsewhere. Its a simple premise and not a salary cap solution.

Jiggyfly · Jan 30, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
Not my job. The numbers are someone elses decision. I was addressing what would have to be done if the organization wants to keep both players next seazon. It's a mechanical process not a financial one. If the don't sign Bryant they will have to franchise him to keep him. If they do that Murray will go elsewhere. Its a simple premise and not a salary cap solution.

Not your job. :lol

I don't understand your premise at all everyone else is discussing this in totality of the overall team and salary cap while you are doing what exactly?

Everybody knows you could franchise Murray but how does that effect the team overall, you can't just throw that out there without discussing the ramifications.

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
Not your job.

I don't understand your premise at all everyone else is discussing this in totality of the overall team and salary cap while you are doing what exactly?

Everybody knows you could franchise Murray but how does that effect the team overall, you can't just throw that out there without discussing the ramifications.

Do you think all those discussions are what the organization is going to do? It doesn't matter how much in depth anyone wants to chew on it the simple fact is that if Dallas plans to keep both they will likely have to give a contract to one and franchise the other. Everyone on this board can work up a, budget and tell them how to structure the cap but in reality the folks that write the checks will have already figured that out. Further discussion about how it will be financially is an exercise some may enjoy but it isnt an imperative to participate in a discussion.

Simpleton · Jan 30, 2015

I think we could still maneuver enough in free agency to re-sign our own guys and a few mid level FA's even if we franchise Murray, we'd just have to restructure some deals and structure the new ones in a way that doesn't have a huge 1st year cap hit. Then when those 8 or so million come off the books next year you have that much extra space to fit the current guys in.

L.T. Fan · Jan 30, 2015

Simpleton said:
I think we could still maneuver enough in free agency to re-sign our own guys and a few mid level FA's even if we franchise Murray, we'd just have to restructure some deals and structure the new ones in a way that doesn't have a huge 1st year cap hit. Then when those 8 or so million come off the books next year you have that much extra space to fit the current guys in.

Yep. It's probably a one year process at several levels. If they franchised Murray it would then allow a year for further evaluation to see if they wanted to keep him long term. In addition it would allow for additional expermentation with the other RBs. If Murray didn't hold up physically then it would answer the question of his durability. It would be money spent now but might save a lot in the long haul if he was already in a long term deal then got seriously injured. It's a gamble but it could be a good payoff if he has another good year and allowed Dallas to content for a championship.

Jiggyfly · Jan 30, 2015

Simpleton said:
I think we could still maneuver enough in free agency to re-sign our own guys and a few mid level FA's even if we franchise Murray, we'd just have to restructure some deals and structure the new ones in a way that doesn't have a huge 1st year cap hit. Then when those 8 or so million come off the books next year you have that much extra space to fit the current guys in.

Its possible but do you really want to restructure Romo when he is a hit away from blowing your cap up?

I think that restructure should be a last resort.

Simpleton · Jan 30, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
Its possible but do you really want to restructure Romo when he is a hit away from blowing your cap up?

I think that restructure should be a last resort.

Not really but I understand it if the philosophy is that we only have a 2-3 year window with Romo and want to maximize it as much as possible.

Jiggyfly · Jan 30, 2015

Simpleton said:
Not really but I understand it if the philosophy is that we only have a 2-3 year window with Romo and want to maximize it as much as possible.

Yeah I guess it depends on what else you could do with that money, this will be an interesting offseason.

Archer: Cowboys have to 'put socks back on' all over again

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

DCC 4Life

Banned