News: Dalton doesnt really have a $7MM deal and he's not competing with Dak

[DallasInDC]

https://sports.yahoo.com/andy-dalto...eting-with-dak-prescott-either-182055337.html

This article sums it up pretty well. I do believe the Cowboys did this 1) to get a quality backup to Dak and 2) to regain some leverage in the negotiations. Unlike the Dak haters, I believe the Cowboys are sold on Dak, and will get a long term contract, but they do want to stick to their contract principles. If you believed your QB was a franchise QB would you want them locked in for 4 years only to have to pay him a mega deal 4 years later after playoff/SB success? Or licked in for 5-7 years with the ability to restructure.

If the Cowboys weren't sold, you take the 3-4 year deal that Dak wants so you can draft and groom someone else and move on year 4-5.

 

[keysersoze]

https://sports.yahoo.com/andy-dalto...eting-with-dak-prescott-either-182055337.html

This article sums it up pretty well. I do believe the Cowboys did this 1) to get a quality backup to Dak and 2) to regain some leverage in the negotiations. Unlike the Dak haters, I believe the Cowboys are sold on Dak, and will get a long term contract, but they do want to stick to their contract principles. If you believed your QB was a franchise QB would you want them locked in for 4 years only to have to pay him a mega deal 4 years later after playoff/SB success? Or licked in for 5-7 years with the ability to restructure.

If the Cowboys weren't sold, you take the 3-4 year deal that Dak wants so you can draft and groom someone else and move on year 4-5.

GOOD POINTS!

 

[speedkilz88]

Exclusive: Cowboys Contract Details - QB Dalton Must Win Super Bowl to Get $7 Million

How can he make the other "potential'' $4 million? Like so:

*One example: Dalton would have to play 50 percent of the snaps over the course of the entire season - regular season and playoffs - to reach his first big bonus, of $1 million.

*Another level of partial play-time and playoff success would get him another bonus.

*One more level of partial play-time and playoff success would get him an additional bonus.

*And finally, to earn the entire $7 million? Andy Dalton would have to play an active role in a Cowboys' Super Bowl win.

 

[Sevenup3000]

https://sports.yahoo.com/andy-dalto...eting-with-dak-prescott-either-182055337.html

This article sums it up pretty well. I do believe the Cowboys did this 1) to get a quality backup to Dak and 2) to regain some leverage in the negotiations. Unlike the Dak haters, I believe the Cowboys are sold on Dak, and will get a long term contract, but they do want to stick to their contract principles. If you believed your QB was a franchise QB would you want them locked in for 4 years only to have to pay him a mega deal 4 years later after playoff/SB success? Or licked in for 5-7 years with the ability to restructure.

If the Cowboys weren't sold, you take the 3-4 year deal that Dak wants so you can draft and groom someone else and move on year 4-5.

No starting QB is signing a deal longer than 4 years. Did Tannehill? Did Brees? Brady? Bridgewater? Rivers? Cousins?

Wentz and Goff signed 4 year extensions.

Dak is right to demand a 4 year contract.

Or if the Cowboys want a 6 year deal so bad, they really should pay Dak $40m a year.

 

[speedkilz88]

No starting QB is signing a deal longer than 4 years. Did Tannehill? Did Brees? Brady? Bridgewater? Rivers? Cousins?

Wentz and Goff signed 4 year extensions.

Dak is right to demand a 4 year contract.

Or if the Cowboys want a 6 year deal so bad, they really should pay Dak $40m a year.

They did extensions so the total years was 5 or more. Dak's contract is up, not an extension.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

They did extensions so the total years was 5 or more. Dak's contract is up, not an extension.

Stupid question but is there a difference? Had he signed a extension last year wouldn't it still be a 4 year deal?

 

[Dre11]

No starting QB is signing a deal longer than 4 years. Did Tannehill? Did Brees? Brady? Bridgewater? Rivers? Cousins?

Wentz and Goff signed 4 year extensions.

Dak is right to demand a 4 year contract.

Or if the Cowboys want a 6 year deal so bad, they really should pay Dak $40m a year.

actually I think it amounted to a 5 they did, I know Wentz did and Goff, Wentz still had a year left on the rookie deal added to the 4 year extention. Dak didnt have another year. that's the difference

 

[GMO415]

Dalton is getting more publicity than any other Cowboy. Absurd.

 

[Dre11]

Stupid question but is there a difference? Had he signed a extension last year wouldn't it still be a 4 year deal?

if he signed it last year, Dak would've probably wanted it to be 5. I Thought I saw he want it to end around the time the new TV contract money is available.

 

[JoeKing]

https://sports.yahoo.com/andy-dalto...eting-with-dak-prescott-either-182055337.html

This article sums it up pretty well. I do believe the Cowboys did this 1) to get a quality backup to Dak and 2) to regain some leverage in the negotiations. Unlike the Dak haters, I believe the Cowboys are sold on Dak, and will get a long term contract, but they do want to stick to their contract principles. If you believed your QB was a franchise QB would you want them locked in for 4 years only to have to pay him a mega deal 4 years later after playoff/SB success? Or licked in for 5-7 years with the ability to restructure.

If the Cowboys weren't sold, you take the 3-4 year deal that Dak wants so you can draft and groom someone else and move on year 4-5.

Correct. The other $4M he could earn was based on in-game incentives. Let's face it, he's not playing in games so this is just a $3M, 1 year deal.

 

[blueblood70]

https://sports.yahoo.com/andy-dalto...eting-with-dak-prescott-either-182055337.html

This article sums it up pretty well. I do believe the Cowboys did this 1) to get a quality backup to Dak and 2) to regain some leverage in the negotiations. Unlike the Dak haters, I believe the Cowboys are sold on Dak, and will get a long term contract, but they do want to stick to their contract principles. If you believed your QB was a franchise QB would you want them locked in for 4 years only to have to pay him a mega deal 4 years later after playoff/SB success? Or licked in for 5-7 years with the ability to restructure.

If the Cowboys weren't sold, you take the 3-4 year deal that Dak wants so you can draft and groom someone else and move on year 4-5.

did we need a 34th post about Dalton, could you not have stated that on an open one ? we know the details period and if dak holds out gets hurt, or lays bad rest assured MM will be confident to pull Dak and lay Dalton.. rush no Dalton yes ..this was agreat signing..

pay means nothing Tannehill took Mariota job and never gave it back..it can happen,,

 

[blueblood70]

Correct. The other $4M he could earn was based on in-game incentives. Let's face it, he's not playing in games so this is just a $3M, 1 year deal.

lets face what you predicting the future, he will play if dak holds out, gets hurt or has 3qtrs without a TD, Dalton will be a true backup a coach can go to even to change the momentum in stagnant games..

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

if he signed it last year, Dak would've probably wanted it to be 5. I Thought I saw he want it to end around the time the new TV contract money is available.

But the extension wouldn't kick in to this year right?

 

[Sevenup3000]

They did extensions so the total years was 5 or more. Dak's contract is up, not an extension.

That is because their teams ALREADY controlled them for 5 years and not 4 years like Dak because they were first rounders.

So if the Cowboys want to likewise control Dak for 5 years, AND if the Cowboys want to treat Dak exactly like them, the Cowboys can start by giving Dak his "back pay" of 26 million dollars.

Deal? The Cowboys get their extra year and Dak gets whatever Wentz and Goff got on their extension PLUS 26 million dollars.

That way Dak is treated exactly like Wentz and Goff.

 

[johneric8]

https://sports.yahoo.com/andy-dalto...eting-with-dak-prescott-either-182055337.html

This article sums it up pretty well. I do believe the Cowboys did this 1) to get a quality backup to Dak and 2) to regain some leverage in the negotiations. Unlike the Dak haters, I believe the Cowboys are sold on Dak, and will get a long term contract, but they do want to stick to their contract principles. If you believed your QB was a franchise QB would you want them locked in for 4 years only to have to pay him a mega deal 4 years later after playoff/SB success? Or licked in for 5-7 years with the ability to restructure.

If the Cowboys weren't sold, you take the 3-4 year deal that Dak wants so you can draft and groom someone else and move on year 4-5.

May I suggest you tread lightly with your conspiracy theories? I'm just a tad bit concerned you may cause some anxiety for those whom suffer from DDS. (Dak Derangement Syndrome)

 

[CowboyRoy]

https://sports.yahoo.com/andy-dalto...eting-with-dak-prescott-either-182055337.html

This article sums it up pretty well. I do believe the Cowboys did this 1) to get a quality backup to Dak and 2) to regain some leverage in the negotiations. Unlike the Dak haters, I believe the Cowboys are sold on Dak, and will get a long term contract, but they do want to stick to their contract principles. If you believed your QB was a franchise QB would you want them locked in for 4 years only to have to pay him a mega deal 4 years later after playoff/SB success? Or licked in for 5-7 years with the ability to restructure.

If the Cowboys weren't sold, you take the 3-4 year deal that Dak wants so you can draft and groom someone else and move on year 4-5.

It really is both laughable and pathetic how the signing of a guy like Dalton can get so many people confused. The Cowboys wanted a quality backup and Dalton was at the right price. Simple as that.

It was a fantastic move. And if this gives us more leverage with Dak then great. If Dak wants to hold out then I would give the EXACT same advice I have with Zeke...……….LET HIM ROT!!!!!!!

 

[Ranched]

Tannehill took Mariota job and never gave it back..it can happen,,

Already has. Remember, Romo took Bledsoe' job and never gave it back.

 

[John813]

I really thought this was all common sense

 

[EMMITTnROY]

No starting QB is signing a deal longer than 4 years. Did Tannehill? Did Brees? Brady? Bridgewater? Rivers? Cousins?

Wentz and Goff signed 4 year extensions.

Dak is right to demand a 4 year contract.

Or if the Cowboys want a 6 year deal so bad, they really should pay Dak $40m a year.

I'm totally fine with Dak signing a 4 year deal, but if he does, then he needs to come down off the average per year. No way Dallas should pay Dak $35 million or more per year AND only do a short deal. Make him the highest paid QB in the league and on the amount of years he wants? How is that good for the Cowboys?

 

[Sevenup3000]

I'm totally fine with Dak signing a 4 year deal, but if he does, then he needs to come down off the average per year. No way Dallas should pay Dak $35 million or more per year AND only do a short deal. Make him the highest paid QB in the league and on the amount of years he wants? How is that good for the Cowboys?

Fine give him 33 million a year. That is what Cousins deal averages.

And Dak is looking out for No 1. Like Romo did twice. Dak should not care what is best for the Cowboys like they didn't care he was the 77th highest paid QB the last 4 seasons.

And the Cowboys damn sure won't care what is best for Dak if he breaks his legs or turns into Dalton the last 4 years. That 6 year contract will quickly turn to a 3 year contract when Dak is cut.