Because it doesnt show the full extent/years of the contract, doesnt include how Dak's contract was restructured (and effects moving forward)....it's pertinent because the 12-5 years were based on 'credit card' payments. Is it an excuse for not spending - hell no, however, what's also true and why the premise that Dak isnt a main factor in the CAP, is that HE insisted of a shorter 4 year contract, which means 2029 is (now) the final year as he's played himself out of a further extension.
Finally, the 'cherry-picked' nature is that it doesnt equate Dak's performance against the value for the CAP hit......Dak does well when there's CAP available for a roster, once he hits a high CAP allocation he struggles. Therefore you cant have both (especially under such a short contract) QED - the OP is limited and indeed misleading as to Dak (and his performance) and his correlation to the CAP and spending.
More complex than showing a year with an allocation, rather than view it as part of a wider problem. the OP is too binary.