FRISCO - The concept of the Dallas Cowboys treating the 2024 season as a final cap-safe run before a "Blow It Up!'' remodel in 2025 was first revealed months ago by CowboysCountry.com, in part as a result of our exploration of the timing of the expiration of bigger contracts for older guys.
Exhibit A was and is DeMarcus Lawrence, 32, who is in 2024 playing on the final year of a deal that will cost the Cowboys $20 million.
Saying goodbye to Lawrence is an obvious part of the plan. Next year.
Our coverage of this - and the offseason media frenzy of goofy trade ideas - have led to Cowboys "media casuals'' who jumping on the bandwagon to hint at transactions by using false information.
A perfectly awful example comes from a site called "Pro Football Network'' (which we won't link to here) that's been regurgitated by a fan site (which we also won't link to here) ... with them pushing the idea that Lawrence "could be a trade candidate'' with "the Cowboys shopping'' the veteran defensive end.
Writes the fan site: "It’s all about freeing up that money to keep their key pieces in tact.''
Yes, they write "in tact'' as two words. And boy, are they equally wrong about "freeing up that money.''
Writes PFN: ”Dallas could actually save $10 million by trading Lawrence ...''
No, no, no.
The Cowboys, in the event of a Lawrence trade, absolutely do not "save $10 million'' in a trade. In fact, they do not at all escape their $20 million of ballast. As confirmed by our man Joey Ickes, while there is a technical "cap savings'' of $10 million in 2024, the two sites fail to realize that "savings'' is offset by the $10.4 million of dead-money penalty Dallas would pay the cap in 2024 ...
And the $7.4 million dead-money penalty additionally owed the cap in 2025.
So trading Tank Lawrence would rob the team of the player's talent ... while still costing the Dallas cap a total of 17.8 million (with a massive net loss.)
So trading Lawrence isn't impossible; it's just impossibly dumb.
And reporting anything to the contrary, as these two sites have done? It's irresponsibly dumb.
