Chris Mortensen’s Dak Contract Update

[HungryLion]

I don't know when the first offer was mad, in terms of this contract negotiation but I do remember back in 2018, the team did try to get him more money. they wanted to extend him. That is what lead to the firing of Guerriero and the hiring of Todd France and CAA.

Dak wasn’t eligible for an extension until after the 2018-2019 season. So the soonest he could sign one was in the spring of 2019.

I would imagine it was possible to negotiate before then. But not to actually come to an agreement.

 

[slick325]

You're conveniently neglecting to include the key reasons why those Steelers and Seahawks were able to win those championships with Ben and Russell Wilson on their cheap contracts. A loaded, top 3 defense.



Seriously? The Skins have been a league laughingstock for years. Where ya been?



Good call.

Stash, I'm not neglecting why those Steelers and Seahawks won...it is my whole point! Build the OL, DL and control the LOS. Have a strong running game and be able to strike on the outside with playmaking WRs. The Jets made AFC Championships with Mark Sanchez man! Mark Sanchez! Stop paying average QBs just because of the position they play. Glad Tannehill made money but seriously? Ryan Tannehill? The Titans should draft Jalen Hurts and let him drive that bus. Lol

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Dak wasn’t eligible for an extension until after the 2018-2019 season. So the soonest he could sign one was in the spring of 2019.

I would imagine it was possible to negotiate before then. But not to actually come to an agreement.

That makes sense. I mean, I distinctly remember discussion around this back in 2018 but what you suggest, that's reasonable and logical.

 

[Captain-Crash]

I don't think that's as easy as some people think it is. If it were teams would do it all the time and have the kind of offensive success the Cowboys did that year.

I don't think they will be a season this year and if so, it looks like Dak loses again. Dallas wouldn't lose anything if he refuses to sign. They can use the money elsewhere and then worry about him next year?

 

[OmerV]

"First of all" I am not upset if he is asking for 3 years (which I suspect he is and what I would do as an agent myself). Kirk Cousins 1st deal in Minnesota was a 3yr deal, hence why he just signed another extension. Russell Wilson's deal was of the three year variety as well. It has been a trend and why Todd would not follow it makes zero sense from a contract advisor position.

Good for Dak if he can get it. I don't ever blame players for getting paid. It's their bodies and brains on the line.

Wilson's contract was for 4 years. Wentz and Goff were also 4 years. In any case, I wasn't necessarily saying anyone should be upset if Dak is asking for 3 years, I was just saying we don't know that he is. Wentz and Goff would seem to be more the structural prototype for a deal with Dak, and again, most reports suggest it is the Cowboys wanting more than 4 years that is causing the holdup. Besides, even if he were asking for 3 years, there is nothing that suggests he wouldn't honor the full 3 years rather than expecting to renegotiate after 2. He didn't do that with his rookie contract.

 

[OmerV]

I don't think they will be a season this year and if so, it looks like Dak loses again. Dallas wouldn't lose anything if he refuses to sign. They can use the money elsewhere and then worry about him next year?

That really could be a monkey wrench in the deal. Of course, if there isn't a season then there isn't much need to spend the money elsewhere either.

 

[aria]

Eventually the owners will realize that it isn't financially tenable to have QB's receiving 3 big money nearly fully guaranteed contracts in a short timeframe. Using the example I gave with Prescott, he will get 3 big deals in 5 years. Great for the player but man that is tough for team building.

Eventually the owners will begin to treat the QB position like Nick Saban historically does...put a bus driver back there surrounded by a team built around controlling the LOS, running the football and having big play WRs on the outside. It is how Big Ben and Russell Wilson won their initial SBs. Phil Simms, Brad Johnson, all three of Joe Gibbs 'Skins title winning QBs and Flacco won the same way. So it works in the NFL and we all have seen it. It works in college. The QB position should be replaced as soon as they have to get a big contract UNLESS you have Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. Kirk Cousins like QBs don't get big contracts if I'm an Owner or GM. They get franchised until I find a young kid to do his job for three to four years. Then rinse, wash, repeat. Trust your scouts and drafting. Period.

It is whispered about in League circles but no one has the guts to do it since their jobs would be on the line. But no one really ridiculed the Skins for not signing Captain Kirk.

Edit: I am aware that my opinion is in the extreme minority and unpopular. I'm fine with that.

I agree and think it’s even more true with RB’s.

 

[Stash]

Stash, I'm not neglecting why those Steelers and Seahawks won...it is my whole point!

Then why was defense not mentioned?

Build the OL, DL (Not included in the original statement) and control the LOS. Have a strong running game and be able to strike on the outside with playmaking WRs.

The Jets made AFC Championships with Mark Sanchez man! Mark Sanchez!

And both he and they are considered failures. And where's the head coach that presided over that team? Out of the league and trying to make inflammatory statements to keep his TV gig at this point. Hardly what I would use to bolster my case.

Stop paying average QBs just because of the position they play. Glad Tannehill made money but seriously? Ryan Tannehill?

Where did he help that team to go while the supposed 'can't miss' draft pick failed? As I recall, Mariota was drafted #2 overall and even that was no guarantee he'd be good - clearly. But your idea is to 'roll the dice' even more than that?

The Titans should draft Jalen Hurts and let him drive that bus. Lol

The Titans and Tannehill just made the AFC Championship Game, losing to the eventual Super Bowl Champs, and you feel their best course of action should be hitting the reset button and rolling the dice on an unproven college quarterback? Think about that for a second.

 

[Captain-Crash]

That really could be a monkey wrench in the deal. Of course, if there isn't a season then there isn't much need to spend the money elsewhere either.

I'd use the money on the defense.

 

[Stash]

I don't think they will be a season this year and if so, it looks like Dak loses again. Dallas wouldn't lose anything if he refuses to sign.

Other than any chance to be competitive in 2020? Sure.

They can use the money elsewhere and then worry about him next year?

What for? So they can field a team with a quarterback that can't play?

 

[OmerV]

I'd use the money on the defense.

But what are you paying for if there is no season to play?

 

[Captain-Crash]

Other than any chance to be competitive in 2020? Sure.



What for? So they can field a team with a quarterback that can't play?

if they are no season in 2020 why worry about Dak? unless you want to go ahead and give him the 4-year deal and lose one year so we can move on from him faster? sounds great.

 

[glimmerman]

Agreed, I think the finacials could be worked out between 4-6 years. Those are typical contract lengths. It's been reported the the biggest issue is lenght, so maybe you theory of some below 4 years is the show stopper.

Don't you just love the off-season...lol

To much free time on our hands. Lol..

 

[Stash]

if they are no season in 2020 why worry about Dak? unless you want to go ahead and give him the 4-year deal and lose one year so we can move on from him faster? sounds great.

Is that how you think this whole thing would work?

Players getting fully paid while no season takes place?

Seriously?

Do some homework on that and then get back to me.

And I thought you said you would "use the money on defense", which is it? No season or use the money on defense? You seem to want to have it both ways.

 

[Captain-Crash]

Is that how you think this whole thing would work?

Players getting fully paid while no season takes place?

Seriously?
Do some homework on that and then get back to me.

And I thought you said you would "use the money on defense", which is it? No season or use the money on defense? You seem to want to have it both ways.

if they are no season and you don't have to pay dak, why not pick up some defensive players for the next year? is the league going to stop all transactions?
it's just a what-if question.

 

[Little Jr]

WIth the amount of years difference comes the GTD difference. If years were the ONLY issue, then Cowboys would be dumb to not just give him the 4 instead of 5, which I think they will eventually do because they will give in to the GTD he wants on that 4 yr deal. I believe Dallas is ok with the GTD he wants, but want it on a 5 yr deal. Dak people are saying, that 1 extra yr will cost you more GTD. 111m GTD on a 4 yr deal is more valuable that it would be on a 5 yr deal. Dallas is great at structuring contracts, but they are HORRIBLE at negotiating them.

If they would have signed him last year before Wentz and Goff, and even Wilson, they probably could have had him for 32, maybe 33m or less. His counter offer in May of last year was 34m and that was before Wentz and Goff. So they could have gave him that and saved a little on avg annual and saved at least 20m in GTD. Once Goff and Wentz signed they werent getting him for less than 33.5m and 110m GTD.

 

[Stash]

if they are no season and you don't have to pay dak, why not pick up some defensive players for the next year? is the league going to stop all transactions?
it's just a what-if question.

Sorry, but it's a foolish one.

 

[DeaconBlues]

Nah, they want it both ways.

"Dak's not worth it, but we should keep him for many years!"

Or "Dak's a lousy QB. Let's trade him for multiple 1st and 2nd round picks."

 

[Stash]

WIth the amount of years difference comes the GTD difference. If years were the ONLY issue, then Cowboys would be dumb to not just give him the 4 instead of 5, which I think they will eventually do because they will give in to the GTD he wants on that 4 yr deal. I believe Dallas is ok with the GTD he wants, but want it on a 5 yr deal. Dak people are saying, that 1 extra yr will cost you more GTD. 111m GTD on a 4 yr deal is more valuable that it would be on a 5 yr deal. Dallas is great at structuring contracts, but they are HORRIBLE at negotiating them.

If they would have signed him last year before Wentz and Goff, and even Wilson, they probably could have had him for 32, maybe 33m or less. His counter offer in May of last year was 34m and that was before Wentz and Goff. So they could have gave him that and saved a little on avg annual and saved at least 20m in GTD. Once Goff and Wentz signed they werent getting him for less than 33.5m and 110m GTD.

This team's negotiators (I won't mention last names but it rhymes with bones!) have bungled and mismanaged this thing at every turn. They tried to go cheap and will ultimately end up paying far more than they could have if they had been smarter and more proactive earlier. That's on them.

Forget 'greedy player', if you want to point the finger anywhere, point it at 'dumb ownership'.

Little Enos has screwed this one up from jump street. The biggest deal that he has had to negotiate and he's completely botched it. But he will never lose the job that Big Enos gifted to him.

 

[Stash]

Or "Dak's a lousy QB. Let's trade him for multiple 1st and 2nd round picks."

Yeah, because those other teams will be lining up to throw top picks at us for our 'lousy quarterback' so they can set the quarterback market to pay him.