ARLINGTON, Texas — For about 20 minutes, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones refused all roster questions. That means he refused to answer questions about Terrell Owens.

At the end of a news conference to announce George Strait would headline the first act at the Cowboys' new stadium, Jones — at times more contentious than he generally is in these settings — had had enough.

And without saying it, Jones announced Owens will be a Cowboy in 2009.

What else could these words possibly indicate?

"You and I both know that the one (player) you're asking about all the time, if I gave you the answer that you want to hear, then you would have already had it," Jones said. "So the fact you don't have it ought to tell you something."

Jones assumes most of the media members want Owens gone. With some, it's pretty obvious. So is there any way to interpret Jones' answer as meaning the Cowboys plan to cut Owens any time soon?

I don't think so.

And does the optimism that bubbled out of Jones at different times Tuesday afternoon suggest this is a man about to take a $9.6 million salary cap hit to get rid of his best receiver?

I don't think so.

And don't his answers about team chemistry not being a concern indicate he plans to get rid of the wide receiver who allegedly most often disturbs that chemistry?

I don't think so.

Owens does things and says things I find disruptive, and, good grief, he is oversensitive to a ridiculous degree. That doesn't tell me the Cowboys should get rid of him.

If the Cowboys play better and win more games, a lot of Owens' issues disappear. And I don't think his declining numbers in 2008 automatically indicate he has reached an age where his skill level is fading.

He still has enough explosion to dunk a basketball, as we saw during the NBA's All-Star Weekend.

I don't think we know enough about Roy Williams — from his years with really bad Detroit teams and his 10 games in Dallas — to say he's ready to take on Owens' role. Those 198 receiving yards in 10 games certainly don't tell us that.

Besides, those who argue getting rid of Owens will upgrade team chemistry are wrong. There are players on the Cowboys who like Owens and think he gives them a better chance to win.

If the Cowboys were to cut Owens, how many players would think quarterback Tony Romo, coordinator Jason Garrett and possibly tight end Jason Witten were the reason for it? And exactly how is that racially charged situation going to enhance feelings in the locker room?

In the age of the diva wide receiver, sometimes it's worth it to live with an uncomfortable situation.

The Giants were Super Bowl champs with Plaxico Burress and no threat to get deep on the Eagles in the playoffs this season without him.

The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl with Randy Moss, but no one thinks New England would be better off without him.

Jones believes, correctly, that the Cowboys have a better chance to get back to 13-3 with Owens than without him. He talked around it rather than just coming out and saying it Tuesday. But he also talked a lot about his sensitivity to these tough economic times.

Mostly, that involves the ticket-buying public. Is there any reason it shouldn't also include a reluctance to take a big salary cap hit to get rid of his most valuable wide receiver?