News: BR: Report: Cowboys Stunned by Dak Prescott's Stance on Length of New Contract

[Future]

Wentz and Goff were 4 year extensions that also had the last year of the previous contracts as part of the deal. This equals 5 years in both cases. Tannehill and Wilson are both going on their 3rd contract ( not their 2nd following the rookie deal) so they don't equate.

Well first of all, a 4-year extension is the direct equivalent of Dak signing a 4-year deal right now.

I guess no QB deals equate then, because that's basically all of the deals that are even close to benchmarks.

 

[MarcusRock]

I just don't see how this is a huge holdup or why the Cowboys and Dak can't agree to an escalator/ voidable clause for the 5th year.

It just not seem like it should be that difficult. He is a QB who would be 30-31 when the deal is done, still plenty of time for a QB to get a next contract.

Somebody is being difficult here! and really I am not insinuating who is being difficult either -I don't have a clue.

Well if you're promoting a 5 year deal but only offering the same amount guaranteed that those who signed 4 year extensions did then you need to up your guarantee at least. Here are those comparative deals:

Wilson: 4 years, $140M ($107M guaranteed)
Goff: 4 years, $134M ($110M guaranteed)
Wentz: 4 years, $128M ($108M guaranteed)

If you want to lock a player into a 5th year you have to make it worth his while, maybe with a combination of that voidable clause you mention plus more guaranteed money. So Dak shouldn't have signed those rumored offers, that's for sure.

 

[Creeper]

I don't get it, is there really that big of a difference in 1 year for the Cowboys? Give him 4 years at $33 million and move on.

 

[Ranched]

Dallas will likely want Dak to sign a longer term deal for salary cap purposes. A 5 year deal would allow the team to spread out Dak's signing bonus over a longer period of time and give them more immediate flexibility.

 

[Cowboys22]

Not really. Your logic is that...the value of the contract is the same at 4 or 5 years? It would be 4x160 or 5x200, and the guarantees will escalate accordingly too. The cap hit isn't really going to change much b/c of the 5th year.

The bonuses he will get which are spread out over the life of the deal will not change that much because of the years. I'm talking about signing and roster bonuses. Being able to spread $50-60 million out over 5 years instead of 4 is a big deal. Do the math and you will see what I'm talking about.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well first of all, a 4-year extension is the direct equivalent of Dak signing a 4-year deal right now.

I guess no QB deals equate then, because that's basically all of the deals that are even close to benchmarks.

Not true. The finances are very different. We've been over and over this multiple times. Saying it's the same or equivalent is simply not true.

 

[Future]

The bonuses he will get which are spread out over the life of the deal will not change that much because of the years. I'm talking about signing and roster bonuses. Being able to spread $50-60 million out over 5 years instead of 4 is a big deal. Do the math and you will see what I'm talking about.

This isn't right. The bonus isn't going to be the same regardless of the number of years. If the signing bonus is $100m at 4 years, it's not going to be $100m at 5 years.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This isn't right. The bonus isn't going to be the same regardless of the number of years. If the signing bonus is $100m at 4 years, it's not going to be $100m at 5 years.

This is not clear. What do you mean here?

 

[Cowboys22]

This isn't right. The bonus isn't going to be the same regardless of the number of years. If the signing bonus is $100m at 4 years, it's not going to be $100m at 5 years.

Signing bonuses don't change significantly based on the number of years on the deal. It may be slightly more on a 5 year deal but not nearly enough to outweigh the extra year to spread it out. He is going to get roughly the same signing bonus on whatever deal he may sign and it will be based on what other QBs have gotten recently. Then they will add to it or add roster bonuses along the way to manipulate the cap as they think will be beneficial.

 

[G2]

The staff should have extended him in year. The longer they wait, the higher the QB market will be. Just dumb.

 

[Future]

Signing bonuses don't change significantly based on the number of years on the deal. It may be slightly more on a 5 year deal but not nearly enough to outweigh the extra year to spread it out. He is going to get roughly the same signing bonus on whatever deal he may sign and it will be based on what other QBs have gotten recently. Then they will add to it or add roster bonuses along the way to manipulate the cap as they think will be beneficial.

If that's the case, then the guaranteed money would have to increase so much that any cap savings you're talking about wouldn't exist anyway. I feel like you're leaving out full guarantees, which is what matters in total. If the signing bonus doesn't change (which, I doubt), then the guaranteed money does anyway so you'd not be saving anything, regardless.

 

[viman96]

Offer 5yr and put in the contract he cannot be franchised and make years 4 and 5 optional as a tradeoff.

 

[xwalker]

Dak could probably say the same thing about the Cowboys unwillingness to come down from 5 years....

I don't blame Dak for wanting 4 years - he probably would prefer 3.

It isn't about maximizing this contract, it's about maximizing his NEXT contract. The younger he is as a free agent, the bigger that next one will be.

It's an odd risk IMO. If he had a career ending injury, he would end up with more money if he had signed a 5 year contract because there will be more guaranteed money in a 5 year contract.

His agent already put him at great risk by not getting a deal done before 2019. A career ending injury in 2019 would have meant a career total earnings of 4M. If he had signed a contract before 2019 and then had a career ending injury his career earnings would have been about 80M.

 

[Future]

It's an odd risk IMO. If he had a career ending injury, he would end up with more money if he had signed a 5 year contract because there will be more guaranteed money in a 5 year contract.

His agent already put him at great risk by not getting a deal done before 2019. A career ending injury in 2019 would have meant a career total earnings of 4M. If he had signed a contract before 2019 and then had a career ending injury his career earnings would have been about 80M.

And if he doesn't get hurt his earnings could be like $250m. I'd take that bet.

He has loss of value insurance that covers him if he's injured anyway.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27566538/dak-wait-bolstered-insurance-ads

 

[MyFairLady]

Just make him play on the tag. There is no advantage to the team to do otherwise. Play him on the tag for 2 years and get every last bit of mileage out of him that you can. Play to his strengths. Run a true read option. Do like Baltimore does with Jackson. Play to win now.

 

[xwalker]

What would be stunning about wanting to sign your franchise QB for 5 years. With the bonuses and salaries he will get, it will have a massive impact on his cap number if it is only spread out over 4 years instead of 5. You might be talking about him counting $7-8 million more against the cap each year. That's gets your draft picks and a decent free agent or two signed. That amount could mean retaining Gallup or not. I don't think Dak's camp should be stunned by the team wanting him to lessen his cap impact to help keep a better team around him.

If that's the case, then the guaranteed money would have to increase so much that any cap savings you're talking about wouldn't exist anyway. I feel like you're leaving out full guarantees, which is what matters in total. If the signing bonus doesn't change (which, I doubt), then the guaranteed money does anyway so you'd not be saving anything, regardless.

They can add dummy years at the end of contracts if they just want to spread out cap hits. They did it with Romo's contract.

The issue with the length of contract is that the Cowboys want to delay the decision of signing him to a 2nd big contract.
- For players that sign big contracts and play to the end of the contract, the "bargain" years for the team are at the end.

Dak/Agent want to be at the end of this contract before he is over 30.

 

[Bigdog]

When you bet on yourself you don't factor in getting hurt.

Dak will make 31 million this year and factor in his endorsements? He probably feels like he's playing with house money.

I agree with you on that. I am just saying it might be better to take the more guarantee money over the 5 years than the 4 years, imo. I understand both sides. Just hope it works out for both Dak and the Cowboys.

 

[xwalker]

And if he doesn't get hurt his earnings could be like $250m. I'd take that bet.

He has loss of value insurance that covers him if he's injured anyway.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27566538/dak-wait-bolstered-insurance-ads

Those insurance policies are dangerous.

Teddy Bridgewater could still play football, but he lost out on a mega-contract. Insurance companies get difficult about those types of situations.

 

[CouchCoach]

The aholes that work in a vacuum would be stunned, the 4 year contract is the norm, there is no advantage to the player in anything longer than that.

When the Mahomes, Jackson and Watson deals get done, they will be for no more than 4 years of new contract and players like Rodgers, Rothliesberger and Wilson will regret signing anything longer. I think GB saw this coming and made their preemptive move in the draft, just as they did with Rodgers and Favre.

When these owners began giving the QB's a disproportionate % of the cap increase, they created this. The agents are going to take advantage and drive it up further because few owners are willing to stare down their QB. The agents and QB's know this.

 

[Qcard]

Report: Cowboys 'Stunned' by Dak Prescott's Stance on Length of New Contract

The Dallas Cowboys and Dak Prescott are reportedly at an impasse over their preferred contract length in extension talks...

Read Full Story

Yep.... definitely "Breaking News"!

Click bait.... nothing new here