Dak and the Cowboys are fighting over leverage.I really don't envision the Cowboys and Dak reaching a long term deal anytime soon. The situation is even more messy than last year, with Dak looking better than ever, but also having a gruesome ankle injury.
Agree with La Canfora that we all know this is heading to a second franchise tag
Step 1) Tag n Trade Dak.
Step 2) Jerry sells the team.
Step 3) Super Bowl !!!
Step 4) wake from the dream and watch as the Cowboys go 8-8 with overpaid players and Jerry laughs all the way to the bank.
You got it right with the last sentence. This has nothing to do with Dak wanting to know that he is "their guy", it's about going back into FA again as soon as possible so he can cash in. I do not want to pay Dak anywhere near $40m/yr. He's just not worth it from what I have seen. Tag him, trade him, roll with someone else. This team needs an overhaul on defense which, while not impossible, is definitely harder to do with a highly paid QB.I don't believe that having language included excluding the use of another franchise tag is an unreasonable ask by Prescott and his people. Nor is asking for the inclusion of a no trade clause as well.
If he is "your" guy, commit to him. They have played their hand regarding him since his rookie year. So, as long as the numbers are reasonable enough to still have room to field a talented team around him, and the years are agreeable enabling the team to spread his cap hit...add the language and get it over with. If he isn't your guy...tag and trade him and move on.
As an aside, knowing he wants this language leads me to presume that Prescott won't budge on wanting a shorter deal so he can test the market again sooner rather than later.
I don't know that. And neither does anyone else at this point.I really don't envision the Cowboys and Dak reaching a long term deal anytime soon. The situation is even more messy than last year, with Dak looking better than ever, but also having a gruesome ankle injury.
Agree with La Canfora that we all know this is heading to a second franchise tag
You mean the GOAT that has 7 rings and 10 trips to the Super Bowl?5 years no franchise tag clause. Get it done
Brady had that clause too with the Pats so its been done before.
You mean the GOAT that has 7 rings and 10 trips to the Super Bowl?
Why should Dak ever expect to be treated like Brady?
Maybe they did not want the precedence in Dallas."1:04 min mark. Cowboys Front Office did not want to set a precedence..."
It's not precedence if it's been done before.
so all the other teams that are trading away "their" guys should have given up the right when originally signing "their" guys?I don't believe that having language included excluding the use of another franchise tag is an unreasonable ask by Prescott and his people. Nor is asking for the inclusion of a no trade clause as well.
If he is "your" guy, commit to him. They have played their hand regarding him since his rookie year. So, as long as the numbers are reasonable enough to still have room to field a talented team around him, and the years are agreeable enabling the team to spread his cap hit...add the language and get it over with. If he isn't your guy...tag and trade him and move on.
As an aside, knowing he wants this language leads me to presume that Prescott won't budge on wanting a shorter deal so he can test the market again sooner rather than later.
I'm positive the team is asking for 5 anyway.So he gets his 4 years and no franchise tag, and his asking price. No thanks. A negotiations are a give and take, I would do it this way if he wants all Franchise tags off the table he would need to sign for 5 in the 37m AAV, other wise if he wants 4 years or higher than 37m AAV exclusive franchise is off the table but non-exclusive is still there. If he wants more money and less years franchise him and look to trade him.
I understand but if he is asking for the moon, why should they hand over the franchise tags. A good negotiation neither side comes away 100% happy.I'm positive the team is asking for 5 anyway.
That was the hangup all along. If the tags aren't removed it could be 7.
As I've said several times....if Dak hasn't won over a five year deal....that's TEN seasons that he hasnt....wouldn't it be time for the team to move on anyway??
Also the tags have zero to do with the teams ability to create more cap room over the life of the deal....which was their complaint all along.
The team should give in on this one.
If it sets a "precedent," then so what. Its no worse of one than when average QBs began to command 25M yearly.