From bad boys to good deals

Two years ago, the Cowboys signed Terrell Owens, a bad guy. T.O. was bad because he had been blamed for poisoning locker rooms in San Francisco and Philadelphia and making enemies in Baltimore after refusing a trade to the Ravens. Owens has never been in trouble off the field and no one would question his work ethic. But he has clashed with teammates and coaches when things haven't gone to his liking.

And then there is Adam 'Pacman' Jones, also a bad guy, but a different kind of bad than T.O. Jones had no problems fitting into the Titans locker room, but off the field he has been almost nothing but trouble, eventually receiving a minimum one year suspension from the NFL.

So which type of bad is worse?

The answer is most likely whichever one you are dealing with at any particular moment. It also depends on exactly what you are talking about. If you are talking about a good teammate, then T.O. is potentially the greater problem. If you are talking about marketing or public perception, Pacman is probably a bigger headache. But either one is more than capable of tearing a team apart.

Which leads us to the Dallas Cowboys. Jerry Jones has apparently discovered a new favorite way to legally circumvent the salary cap: acquiring 'bad guys' cheaply on the rebound. T.O. was a a cheap acquisition two years ago, Tank Johnson became a Cowboy at little cost during last season, and now Pacman is in a holding pattern. Each player is a star on the field, but because of their 'bad boy' history, they have a contract that puts little to no financial risk on the team should any further problems occur.

And as a Cowboy fan, I think this is brilliant.

These players are poison for their old teams so the Cowboys have all the leverage in negotiations. The Boys end up with first round talent for late round picks, Pro Bowlers for backup dollars. Each of these players is likely on their last chance in the NFL with the Cowboys and have so far been on their best behavior. And if a problem should occur all Dallas has to do is release them because of the structure of the contract.

Of course, while the contract structure provides a safety net, these players are acquired with the hopes that that won't have to happen. So far, the Cowboys have been able to create an environment that keeps these players productive and out of trouble. Maybe they have just been lucky. Maybe they really know what they are doing. Either way, the results have been positive so far in Dallas.

Who knows, a few more of these 'bad boy' deals and they might even win a playoff game.

Also published at 110 Percent.

JuTMSY4Legend

589 days ago

Score 2

Its not really circumventing the cap...more like buying on discount for "damaged goods"

They could be just as good, or they could not...so far so good though

And the tune changes once you get scorned...look at cincy and Tennessee...especially tennessee which is this close to returning to 1999 form...

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

589 days ago

Score 1

Of course you are right. I use "circumvent" in the sense that they are getting more player for their cap dollars than normal. Basically the same idea as buying on discount. I agree that the tune changes when scorned. The difference, however, is that Cincy, Tenn, Philly and San Fran all were hurt as teams by the loss of the players. If things did go bad in Dallas, the Cowboys can cut the players at little cost.

Permalink

JuTMSY4Legend

589 days ago

Score 1

and you're sorta right on the financial risk part.

My understanding is this: most are set up as a series of one year deals. That being said, they are paying owens roughly 9 mil a year and if he goes nuts this year and they release him by week 4, the cowboys are still on the hook for the 9 mil

It does make me wonder about how that 9 mil will be seen the following year though and for those of you familiar with the "incentives not reached" section of the salary cap for the next season I'd be interested to know...

Permalink | Reply

BigPPupMajor Leaguer

589 days ago

Score 2

The Owens deal was structured so that if he made it this far he would get what he wanted and that was money. Truth be told it actually screws him over more, because at the end of the year he is 35 and will be a due a big deal, but its hard to justify a big deal for an old WR

Permalink | Reply

JuTMSY4Legend

589 days ago

Score 2

If i had the chance, i'd punch drew rosenhaus in the balls...

Permalink

BigPPupMajor Leaguer

589 days ago

Score 1

The great secret is that owners love Drew because in reality he is not that great at what he does. Many times his deals help the team more than the player.

Permalink

LASportsblogAAA-er

589 days ago

Score 1

Only complaint, in your second sentence you go to describe T.O. using because and it's not right. Don't use prepositions when they are unneeded.

T.O. was bad because he had been blamed for poisoning locker rooms in San Francisco and Philadelphia and making enemies in Baltimore after refusing a trade to the Ravens.

or

Poor locker room behavior in Philadelphia and San Francisco and his Baltimore trade fiasco earned Owens the "bad teammate" moniker.

What do you think?

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

589 days ago

Score 3

I would normally agree, but I'm trying to highlight the simplicity of the "bad" label. Your way is better stylistically, and not unlike what I would normally write. As is, though, it reflects the simplicity that goes into labeling athletes as "good" or "bad". You will notice that the "simple" style continues in the next paragraph about Pacman as well.

Permalink

LASportsblogAAA-er

589 days ago

Score 1

Ya, I just noticed you do start the last sentence of the Pacman paragraph with a preposition as well - I'll just walk away from it. I liked the article.

Permalink

Sj-hypocycloidAll-American

589 days ago

Score 1

You make very good points here. If we take another troubled player, Randy Moss, I think there is another balancing factor involved. Winning. If you win, all is well. I don't think a team like St. Louis or the Jets would have done so well with T.O. or Moss. It is also very true that both T.O. and Moss contributed greatly to the wins.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

589 days ago

Score 1

Very true, and I meant to put that in when I was thinking about that earlier this week but forgot it when I actually wrote it. If Dallas starts next season slowly, there are going to be some major problems. Winning cures all ills.

Permalink

Sj-hypocycloidAll-American

589 days ago

Score 1

More food for thought: T.O. was fairly quiet in his first season in Philly (except for the Pittsburgh game) and worked his way back from a pretty serious injury to play (and play well) in the Super Bowl. Who knows, though? Maybe he's really happy in Dallas - he's certainly flourished there. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Cowboys lose a few games.

Permalink