3 reasons the F.O. Has leverage on Dak if they have the guts to use it

[noshame]

And to which team(s) you think will Prescott (& agent Lance) put forth to Jones&Jones that he prefers to go to?

Anybody who'll take him?

 

[5Stars]

GIve him a chance......he might be from Northern California

He's one of them posters that say, "bye bye", so he does not read what I post. The same with Mr. War And Peace, and probably more that I don't know about? lol.

I would not like to live in that state...of mind.

 

[Chasing6]

Tin Foil hate time...

Assuming this is all real...

I think these things are discussed/agreed upon way in advance. As in...if I am the Owner...I would not have signed Dak to the second contract without having an gentlemen's agreement on the third contract...

If you think that is absurd or crazy...whatever....we are talking a billion dollar industry...

I work out a deal with France that gives him the NTC on Dak's second contract to make him look like a power agent(the NTC can be waived and isnt a major hurdle in most cases) so he can get more clout and clients and be more kosher with the Cowboys in the future...but only allow the NTC if the 3rd contract for Dak based on a couple of scenarios is in place...

Example:

Jerry gives Dak and France the NTC and large contract on the second signing but it is agreed upon that Dak and France dont ask for more than x amount of the cap(i know it fluctuates from year to year but these accountants know how to hash this out) on 3rd contract(assuming Dallas wants to resign) if Dallas has not won a Super Bowl or done well post season.

I am not signing big contracts without knowing what the player wants on the next one and what their expectations are. I think Dak is the perfect example of why there should be somewhat of a gentleman's agreement during the second contract about the third. "Ok...you played well for 4 years on a cheap deal, I want to pay you, Dakota. I think you are a very good QB and love your leadership...I want to pay you the most in the league...but only if we win, Dakota. If I give you this second deal at your desires...what are we doing on your 3rd deal if we have not had success in playoffs or made a Super Bowl? Its going to be hard to get a Super Bowl if you are wanting 23% of cap on your 3rd deal. Can we agree to a deal on your 3rd deal if you are still a good QB but havent had success? What are you contract expectations if you have not looked like Michael Jordan or we have not had post season success, Dakota? I dont want to low-ball you...I want to pay you...but I want to win, Dakota"

In a Billion Dollar industry...I would have the 3rd contract hashed out before signing the 3rd on a position that takes up so much cap.

Then why not just resign a 10 year deal back then?

 

[tomokawan]

Like I said. They have the leverage if they have the guts to use it. Or they can bend over again.

They got 0 Leverage.

 

[fivetwos]

Maybe not, but they're LOSING current players who were actually on the team because they can't afford them. Hankins, Armstrong, Fowler and Biadacsz(sp) might still be here if they had an additional $20 million on the cap.

Fair point.

 

[FanofJerry]

Then why not just resign a 10 year deal back then?

Depends on the outs available to the owner and if the player is interested.

If I am not mistaken...Mahomes original 10 year deal was very favorable out wise to the Franchise. If what I read earlier on this board is true...that the Chiefs have renegotiated or freed up space along the way to keep giving Mahomes more money because he is performing...that seems like a better way of approaching the QB fiasco. He took a long term deal(dont know the guaranteed which is all that matters) which averages less long term, but the team is doing right by him and giving him money when they can based on his performances.

If how I am thinking/envisioning the Chiefs/Mahomes agreement...this is how it should be done. Gives team flexibility to stay contenders while also keeping their word on compensating the QB. If what I am thinking is how its happening...if its because of the long term deal is providing the accounting department to manipulate the math(because of long term deal) but the performer still gets his due...I am all for this assuming the player doesnt get screwed if the team wants to move on and assuming the team has reasonable outs from a super long term deal.

 

[Chasing6]

They have to either wise he would hold out. Smart GM's don't let it get to that point.

 

[McKDaddy]

While I agree that almost all QB's have a market, I think some people forget how quickly the league moves on when they decide a guy is just a backup or no longer even that. You want to remain relevant & unquestioned as a starter for as long as you can.

 

[KJJ]

Dak has all the leverage. The Cowboys have no viable QB behind him and if he’s not extended by the FA period next year, he’ll be signed by another team.

 

[FanofJerry]

Dak has all the leverage. The Cowboys have no viable QB behind him and if he’s not extended by the FA period next year, he’ll be signed by another team.

Not unless Jerry is all in on a rebuild if Dak doesnt like the teams offer.

 

[KJJ]

Not unless Jerry is all in on a rebuild if Dak doesnt like the teams offer.

If he makes it to free agency someone will pay him big unless he has a rotten season.

 

[Coogiguy03]

It’s cute how people think a discount is going to result in free agent signings lol.

We get more money to work with the MORE happier we are with our guys lol

 

[FanofJerry]

If he makes it to free agency someone will pay him big unless he has a rotten season.

I get that the past suggests team will line up for Dak.

But how does Dak have leverage if Jerry and Co.(possibly) dont care if he stays or goes unless its at their price?

If the team decision makers dont care...but Dak can still go get paid...who loses?

 

[Pentagruel]

Except they don’t actually hold any leverage. They could pay him to sit and he will say thank you very much and sign a massive contract with another team the following year. The cowboys would be out a boatload of greenbacks and a top 10 QB for nothing in return. On top of that, those kind of moves engender a lot of resentment within the team and from players in general which does not help you negotiate deals in the future.

Dallas’ problem is that they have no foresight or proactivity. Look at Lamb as an example. They could have already had a deal done the year before and likely would be paying about 25 million AAV; now it’ll be above 30 million. Was there any doubt they were going to re-sign Lamb? I don’t think so, hence the sooner you get it done, the less you pay. Even if they blow the team up after this year and you want to trade Lamb, at 25 million AAV he would look like a decent deal next year after other receivers start going into the 30’s. It’s the same old story every single time. The Jones’ pinch their pennies and they price just keeps going up. Then they either have to cave and get a deal done for more or let the player walk for free. They are always a day late and a dollar short.

 

[Chasing6]

I get that the past suggests team will line up for Dak.

But how does Dak have leverage if Jerry and Co.(possibly) dont care if he stays or goes unless its at their price?

If the team decision makers dont care...but Dak can still go get paid...who loses?

If GM Jerry had a QB ready to replace Dak it would be a none issue. He does not. If he could trade him it would not be an issue. He could use this picks to move up and draft a QB.

If we win 10 games next year and Dak leaves.

We will be drafting at 20 and still paying Dak $40M.

So it will force a rebuild if we like it or not.

 

[KJJ]

I get that the past suggests team will line up for Dak.

But how does Dak have leverage if Jerry and Co.(possibly) dont care if he stays or goes unless its at their price?

If the team decision makers dont care...but Dak can still go get paid...who loses?

I explained how he has leverage. We don’t have a viable QB behind him and the Joneses know it. If Dak leaves we’re stuck with Lance and Cooper. We would likely have to use a high pick on a QB and the last time Jerry did that we ended up with Quincy Carter. We could be enduring QB hell for years if Dak walks. Jerry may not live long enough for the team to find another solid QB.

 

[Jimbo123]

Giving Dak the no trade clause was a huge mistake but I believe they could be in the drivers seat if they man up and it could help with other negotiations in the future.

1 Dak realistically has 5 or 6 years left in his career and one year could make a huge difference in the only category Dak has an opportunity to shine. Stats! Sitting a year could be the difference between retiring as the leader in several categories or dropping down the list.

2. Dallas truly is a better place to play QB than any other. Aikman and Romo would not have the jobs they currently have if they had played for the Jets. Not to mention the current endorsements and status that comes with QB’ing the Cowboys.

3. He truly wants to be here. There is no other team he would rather play for.

Offer him what you believe he is worth. If he declines. Ask him if he would prefer to be traded or to mentor the other QB’s on the roster and make him the highest paid clipboard holder in the history of the NFL. If he decides to sign do not give him another no trade clause.

Do you want to be the highest paid player in NFL history or do you want to be a champion? If the answer is the prior you’re going to have to do it elsewhere.

Do you really think Jerry would sit Dak and turn a $6B franchise over the Cooper Rush?

 

[FanofJerry]

I feel like the the FO "not caring is being side-stepped here.

If Dak leaves and we have a trash QB...the FO knew this and was planning on rebuilding anyways.

How is Dak leaving with no QB backup plan a win for Dak if Dallas plan is to get off contracts and rebuild and has a couple years window to do it?

Dak still gets paid...Dallas gets to rebuild instead of paying a player(who I am assuming is being let walk because of being unreasonable) large amounts of cap that they deem not worth it.

Can anyone tell me who is the winner here if I dont care if Dak goes and gets paid elsewhere and wins a Super Bowl if I am am fine with doing a team rebuild with cap space that doesnt have a non-elite QB making elite money?

I dont see how Dak wins if the Cowboys are willing to spend next 2 or 3 years retooling

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Giving Dak the no trade clause was a huge mistake but I believe they could be in the drivers seat if they man up and it could help with other negotiations in the future.

1 Dak realistically has 5 or 6 years left in his career and one year could make a huge difference in the only category Dak has an opportunity to shine. Stats! Sitting a year could be the difference between retiring as the leader in several categories or dropping down the list.

2. Dallas truly is a better place to play QB than any other. Aikman and Romo would not have the jobs they currently have if they had played for the Jets. Not to mention the current endorsements and status that comes with QB’ing the Cowboys.

3. He truly wants to be here. There is no other team he would rather play for.

Offer him what you believe he is worth. If he declines. Ask him if he would prefer to be traded or to mentor the other QB’s on the roster and make him the highest paid clipboard holder in the history of the NFL. If he decides to sign do not give him another no trade clause.

Do you want to be the highest paid player in NFL history or do you want to be a champion? If the answer is the prior you’re going to have to do it elsewhere.

dak has realistically 5 or 6 years. I think everyone understands that. but how is he sitting for a year? and why does he care about being leader in categories. that's for the fans to argue and I doubt if they actually sit and talk and think about this stuff. too much TMZ in that first one.

Dallas is a place to make money. not a place to win. there is a huge change of ERA between Aikman and today. if you want to make money, you stay in dallas. if you want to win you go somewhere else. been proven for 30 years now.

I do think Dak wants to be here, but its also that he will be FA next year and he may go somewhere else as some of the others before him and perhaps have a better chance to win. that ain't happening in Dallas.

right now, Jerry has no leverage. a QB that he can't trade. he owes 30M and is a FA in 2025. your only recourse is threatening to bench him just to hurt him. how do you think that's going to work out? I am sure a few here would say do it. just because for some odd reason they want revenge on Dak....but how is that going to work out for jerry. Dak was #5 in Jersey sales. benching him is going to hurt jersey sales and lead to losing and no butts in seats. so Jerry doesn't hold the card there neither unless he is willing to hurt himself as a business man in the process. I am sure somebody will say Rush. I would say if we want a top 5 pick, lets go with Rush. I am sure somebody else will say Lance, to which I will say the same thing. but both will involve money being lost for Jerry and that will never happen.

Jerry cornered himself on this one.

 

[America's Cowboy]

The biggest favor they could do for Prescott is not play him, thereby not subjecting him to injury.

Having no “stats” for 2024 isn’t going to prevent him from getting near record offers as a FA. An injury would.

Also, you can’t be cutthroat like that and expect to continue to do business within the league…and what is the locker room going to look like with Dak on the bench while most of the players want him on the field?

The only way they get a discount is if Dak insists, which I doubt.

Just like the Elliott deal, they got absolutely murdered on the terms and are now paying for it. Either pay a non elite QB elite money or start over.

non-Elite???