by Team Del Genio
Sunday, Aug 31, 2025The oddsmakers make a living from the public being wrong. They also make a living from sharps being wrong. The sports media certainly considers themselves as sharps. Just ask them.
The Dallas Cowboys' trade of Micah Parsons on Thursday has been almost universally slammed. Yet very few of these critics, professional or just fans, have identified the real reason why owner and general manager Jerry Jones was boxed into a corner.
To be fair, Jones has never explicitly stated his main reservation for his unwillingness to renegotiate his contract and offer him an extension now. Yet one considers themselves an expert on the NFL, the reason should be evident, especially if they feel the need to offer an “expert” opinion on the matter. Jones has commented that he needed Parsons to play the fifth year on his initial contract before he could consider the extension.
Jones is not taking an ethical stance, with an unwillingness to renegotiate contracts before they expire. Since 1992, he has renegotiated the contracts for wide receiver Michael Irvin, running back Emmitt Smith, wide receiver Dez Bryant, running back Ezekiel Elliott, center Zack Martin, wide receiver CeeDee Lamb, quarterback Dak Prescott, and even cornerback DaRon Bland earlier this month. What is different now is the impact a new contract for Micah Parsons would have on the Cowboys’ salary cap.
The hard salary cap in the NFL for 2025 is $279.2 million. Parson’s renegotiated deal with the Packers was for only $9.9 million this season. For the Cowboys, 2025 was not the problem. It was the problem of Parsons’ second year on the 2026 cap. The official hard cap for that is not known until the 2025 revenues are confirmed. The best estimates are that the hard cap will rise to $295 to $307 million. Prescott’s salary hit in 2026 is over $74 million. Lamb’s hit is $38.6 million. The retired Martin’s cap hit is $16.4 million. If then adding Parson’s 2026 salary cap hit of $19.2 million for Green Bay, then those four players (three active) would total more than $148.2 million. If the conservative low-end salary projection is assumed, then the Cowboys would only have 49.2% of their cap to pay the remaining 53 players on the roster and the practice squad.
History indicates that even approaching 40% of a team’s salary cap on three active players is untenable in the NFL. The most an NFL team ever invested in three players in relation to the salary cap was the 2014-15 Detroit Lions. That year, quarterback Matthew Stafford, wide receiver Calvin Johnson, and defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh represented 39% of the Lions’ hard salary cap. That team finished 11-5 in the regular season before losing to Dallas in the wild-card round. They missed the playoffs the next year. Detroit did make the playoffs in 2016-17 but lost in their opening game. After signing extensions for those three players, the Lions made the playoffs twice and lost both times. Eventually, the team traded Stafford, did not re-sign Suh, and saw Johnson retire early. Their current playoff run took place after a rebuild under head coach Dan Campbell.
The New Orleans Saints offer an even starker cautionary tale. In the 2015-16 season, the Saints had 37% of their salary cap locked up in quarterback Drew Brees, tight end Jimmy Graham, and pass rusher Junior Galette. The Saints finished 7-9 that year, as they did the year before, and as they did in 2017-18. General manager Mickey Loomis is notorious for kicking the can down the road by taking advantage of some of the loopholes in the rules regarding when annual salaries and signing bonuses are put on the books. Yet eventually, the costs cannot be avoided. Recent dead salary cap hits have contributed to New Orleans perhaps being the worst team in the NFL this year.
Even the Cincinnati Bengals' recent extension of wide receiver Tee Higgins does not approach the conundrum Jones and the Cowboys faced. Quarterback Joe Burrow and wide receivers Ja’Mar Chase and Higgins only account for $93 million, which is 33% of the hard cap. Even when adding defensive end Tre Hendrickson’s new contract into the mix, those four players account for under 42% of the Bengals' salary cap.
Not only would signing Parsons now represent an unprecedented salary cap hit of roughly 50% on next year’s books, but the NFL clubs that tried approaching even 40% of the cap on three players have not then won even one playoff game. Cincinnati did not make the playoffs last year. They need more players, and that costs money.
Given this, the Packers may have bailed Dallas out. Even if Green Bay has one of the best records in the league, the next two years, the ability to acquire one of the top 32 players in the draft on top of your other first-round pick will have a big impact on the quality of the roster. They could also package their first two round picks for a very high pick and grab a potential elite player. Getting nose tackle Kenny Clark back in the trade will help tremendously. Dallas ranked 29th in the NFL last year by giving up 137.1 rushing yards per game. Former first-round pick Mazi Smith has been a bust as a run stopper. Even with Parsons getting at least 12 sacks per year, the Cowboys have only one playoff victory in his tenure. Last year, Dallas ranked 28th in total defense, even with Parsons getting 12 sacks. This defense is not simply one player away. Given the roster this year, few serious people considered them a serious threat to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. The criticism that the Cowboys are built to “win now” seems naive. They just fired their head coach.
Waiting a year to sign Parsons could have avoided the 2026 salary cap disaster. Martin still has the $16.4 million of dead cap money, yet if Parsons agrees to the $9.9 million number for his first year on the new deal. Parsons' second year number of $19.2 million can be absorbed in 2027 because Martin is off the books, and it is two years of salary cap increases from the expected increased revenues. When Jones says he needed Parsons to play on his fifth year of his contract this year, his reasons are sound.
Why didn’t Jones simply make the unique salary cap concerns clear when talking to the media? Because it would communicate weakness, and it would run counter to the perception he wants to feed that he has deep pockets and is willing to spend money. For those critics concerned that Jones is more concerned about promoting the Cowboys' brand rather than winning, the trade was very good news. Jones could have just paid Parsons and then watched the team fail next year because the supporting cast would not have been good enough.
It probably was a good trade for the Packers, who had the salary cap room to sign him to the extension. Yet he is developing into an injury risk after missing four games last year. Parsons has not been productive in the playoffs either. In his four career postseason games, he has only one sack, three hits on the quarterback, and three tackles for loss in those 251 snaps (roughly 63 plays per game). Dallas has won only one of those games. He is streaky. He has failed to sack the quarterback in 30 of his 63 career starts in the regular season and the postseason. When he does get a sack in a game, he is averaging 1.6 sacks per game, meaning that more often than not, when he gets one sack in a game, he adds a second one. Digging deeper, 27.0 of his sacks (50.4%) were in games that were designated as “not close” with one of the teams having a lead of at least three scoring possessions.
The Micah Parsons problem was really a “it costs too much to pay the highest quarterback salary in the NFL, the highest non-quarterback salary in the NFL, and the third-highest wide receiver salary in the NFL” problem. Maybe not paying Prescott would have made more sense? But not paying above-average quarterbacks has also placed many an NFL team into purgatory for many years. If you are going to pay Prescott, they it makes sense to pay the wide receiver. In the face of two undesirable options, Dallas did just fine in dealing Parsons for two first-rounders and a run stopper.
Good luck - TDG.
The Dallas Cowboys' trade of Micah Parsons on Thursday has been almost universally slammed. Yet very few of these critics, professional or just fans, have identified the real reason why owner and general manager Jerry Jones was boxed into a corner.
To be fair, Jones has never explicitly stated his main reservation for his unwillingness to renegotiate his contract and offer him an extension now. Yet one considers themselves an expert on the NFL, the reason should be evident, especially if they feel the need to offer an “expert” opinion on the matter. Jones has commented that he needed Parsons to play the fifth year on his initial contract before he could consider the extension.
Jones is not taking an ethical stance, with an unwillingness to renegotiate contracts before they expire. Since 1992, he has renegotiated the contracts for wide receiver Michael Irvin, running back Emmitt Smith, wide receiver Dez Bryant, running back Ezekiel Elliott, center Zack Martin, wide receiver CeeDee Lamb, quarterback Dak Prescott, and even cornerback DaRon Bland earlier this month. What is different now is the impact a new contract for Micah Parsons would have on the Cowboys’ salary cap.
The hard salary cap in the NFL for 2025 is $279.2 million. Parson’s renegotiated deal with the Packers was for only $9.9 million this season. For the Cowboys, 2025 was not the problem. It was the problem of Parsons’ second year on the 2026 cap. The official hard cap for that is not known until the 2025 revenues are confirmed. The best estimates are that the hard cap will rise to $295 to $307 million. Prescott’s salary hit in 2026 is over $74 million. Lamb’s hit is $38.6 million. The retired Martin’s cap hit is $16.4 million. If then adding Parson’s 2026 salary cap hit of $19.2 million for Green Bay, then those four players (three active) would total more than $148.2 million. If the conservative low-end salary projection is assumed, then the Cowboys would only have 49.2% of their cap to pay the remaining 53 players on the roster and the practice squad.
History indicates that even approaching 40% of a team’s salary cap on three active players is untenable in the NFL. The most an NFL team ever invested in three players in relation to the salary cap was the 2014-15 Detroit Lions. That year, quarterback Matthew Stafford, wide receiver Calvin Johnson, and defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh represented 39% of the Lions’ hard salary cap. That team finished 11-5 in the regular season before losing to Dallas in the wild-card round. They missed the playoffs the next year. Detroit did make the playoffs in 2016-17 but lost in their opening game. After signing extensions for those three players, the Lions made the playoffs twice and lost both times. Eventually, the team traded Stafford, did not re-sign Suh, and saw Johnson retire early. Their current playoff run took place after a rebuild under head coach Dan Campbell.
The New Orleans Saints offer an even starker cautionary tale. In the 2015-16 season, the Saints had 37% of their salary cap locked up in quarterback Drew Brees, tight end Jimmy Graham, and pass rusher Junior Galette. The Saints finished 7-9 that year, as they did the year before, and as they did in 2017-18. General manager Mickey Loomis is notorious for kicking the can down the road by taking advantage of some of the loopholes in the rules regarding when annual salaries and signing bonuses are put on the books. Yet eventually, the costs cannot be avoided. Recent dead salary cap hits have contributed to New Orleans perhaps being the worst team in the NFL this year.
Even the Cincinnati Bengals' recent extension of wide receiver Tee Higgins does not approach the conundrum Jones and the Cowboys faced. Quarterback Joe Burrow and wide receivers Ja’Mar Chase and Higgins only account for $93 million, which is 33% of the hard cap. Even when adding defensive end Tre Hendrickson’s new contract into the mix, those four players account for under 42% of the Bengals' salary cap.
Not only would signing Parsons now represent an unprecedented salary cap hit of roughly 50% on next year’s books, but the NFL clubs that tried approaching even 40% of the cap on three players have not then won even one playoff game. Cincinnati did not make the playoffs last year. They need more players, and that costs money.
Given this, the Packers may have bailed Dallas out. Even if Green Bay has one of the best records in the league, the next two years, the ability to acquire one of the top 32 players in the draft on top of your other first-round pick will have a big impact on the quality of the roster. They could also package their first two round picks for a very high pick and grab a potential elite player. Getting nose tackle Kenny Clark back in the trade will help tremendously. Dallas ranked 29th in the NFL last year by giving up 137.1 rushing yards per game. Former first-round pick Mazi Smith has been a bust as a run stopper. Even with Parsons getting at least 12 sacks per year, the Cowboys have only one playoff victory in his tenure. Last year, Dallas ranked 28th in total defense, even with Parsons getting 12 sacks. This defense is not simply one player away. Given the roster this year, few serious people considered them a serious threat to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. The criticism that the Cowboys are built to “win now” seems naive. They just fired their head coach.
Waiting a year to sign Parsons could have avoided the 2026 salary cap disaster. Martin still has the $16.4 million of dead cap money, yet if Parsons agrees to the $9.9 million number for his first year on the new deal. Parsons' second year number of $19.2 million can be absorbed in 2027 because Martin is off the books, and it is two years of salary cap increases from the expected increased revenues. When Jones says he needed Parsons to play on his fifth year of his contract this year, his reasons are sound.
Why didn’t Jones simply make the unique salary cap concerns clear when talking to the media? Because it would communicate weakness, and it would run counter to the perception he wants to feed that he has deep pockets and is willing to spend money. For those critics concerned that Jones is more concerned about promoting the Cowboys' brand rather than winning, the trade was very good news. Jones could have just paid Parsons and then watched the team fail next year because the supporting cast would not have been good enough.
It probably was a good trade for the Packers, who had the salary cap room to sign him to the extension. Yet he is developing into an injury risk after missing four games last year. Parsons has not been productive in the playoffs either. In his four career postseason games, he has only one sack, three hits on the quarterback, and three tackles for loss in those 251 snaps (roughly 63 plays per game). Dallas has won only one of those games. He is streaky. He has failed to sack the quarterback in 30 of his 63 career starts in the regular season and the postseason. When he does get a sack in a game, he is averaging 1.6 sacks per game, meaning that more often than not, when he gets one sack in a game, he adds a second one. Digging deeper, 27.0 of his sacks (50.4%) were in games that were designated as “not close” with one of the teams having a lead of at least three scoring possessions.
The Micah Parsons problem was really a “it costs too much to pay the highest quarterback salary in the NFL, the highest non-quarterback salary in the NFL, and the third-highest wide receiver salary in the NFL” problem. Maybe not paying Prescott would have made more sense? But not paying above-average quarterbacks has also placed many an NFL team into purgatory for many years. If you are going to pay Prescott, they it makes sense to pay the wide receiver. In the face of two undesirable options, Dallas did just fine in dealing Parsons for two first-rounders and a run stopper.
Good luck - TDG.
