Hardy, Dez and the Franchise Tag

[Toruk_Makto]

The Cowboys might use the franchise tag on Dez again next year anyway.

In regards to Hardy, the Cowboys got the top available player at their top position of need on a Zero risk contract but somehow it's a big problem that they can't franchise him next year...

Bottom Line the options were:

1. Hardy on a Zero risk contact.

2. Not signing Hardy at all.

Option 1 is drastically better than option 2.

I never said it wasn't a good signing. I was cheering with everyone else.

But you presented this as if it's the same to any 1 year signing. The lack of a no tag clause needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

No one is giving him Calvin Johnson money. You are kidding yourself.

You think the Colts with all their space wouldn't approach 16 a year? When most here would be fine with a deal that runs 14 or so?

Agree to disagree.

 

[Stash]

Yet if we weren't able to Franchise him someone would have offered him a contract in that range. I guarantee it. There were no talks if letting Dez test the open market like we did with Murray.

What would Oakland or Jacksonville or Indy or Cleveland or Buffalo or the Jets or Seattle (to name a few off hand) be willing to pay for a young talent like Dez?

Without the franchise tag we'd have been forced to match or watch him walk to a competitor.

Which is my point. And it's why NFL players generally hate the tag. Without it Dez has 40m dollars right now sitting in his bank account and many more millions in the way.

It was a tool collectively bargained for during player/owner negotiations. He signed up for it the moment he decided to enter the NFL, he's not a victim.

He's averaging the second highest paid salary this year, so I have a hard time feeling sorry for him. If he's willing to negotiate, both sides can get that long-term deal done.

 

[Nightman]

I don't think teams want to do too many One year deals. Back in the days before FA they loved it, but not anymore. They like a little more stability than that. Dallas loves the Hardy deal because of the drama involved with Hardy right now, but having him under control for multiple years would also be nice depending on the overall cost.

That is the sticking point with Dez right now. Dallas wants a long term deal, but on their terms. Dez is complaining about the Franchise Tag, but if he tagged next year as well it will be for around 15.5m for a total of 28m+ for 2 years. That is a great deal for Dez and he would still be a FA. Dallas could tag him again but it would be for 144% of his contract or the QB tag, which ever was larger. He is trading one more contract year for a lot more money over the full 3 years.

If Dez gets 25m guaranteed after 2016 that would be a total of 53m for the next 3 years which is probably what his camp is holding out for.

Hardy and Rosenhaus are thinking the same thing. If he makes 10m this year and 20-25m next year after staying clean and producing, that is better than accepting a 4/32m deal right now with 16m guaranteed. He is betting on himself. That is why they insisted on the 'No tag' clause.

 

[xwalker]

Dez can be franchised 3x's, just the cost escalating to almost $25mil in the 3rd year. Sorta like Suh, but his was due to multiple restructuring

It would be about 18.7M in year 3.

 

[DFWJC]

Honest question here; Is there a rule against a player being franchised tagged by more than one team in a short period of time?

 

[NEODOG]

It would be about 18.7M in year 3.

3rd year franchise includes qb franchise tender as well.... 44% or qb, which ever is greater....... That number is getting ready to explode

 

[Danger]

I don't think teams want to do too many One year deals. Back in the days before FA they loved it, but not anymore. They like a little more stability than that. Dallas loves the Hardy deal because of the drama involved with Hardy right now, but having him under control for multiple years would also be nice depending on the overall cost.

That is the sticking point with Dez right now. Dallas wants a long term deal, but on their terms. Dez is complaining about the Franchise Tag, but if he tagged next year as well it will be for around 15.5m for a total of 28m+ for 2 years. That is a great deal for Dez and he would still be a FA. Dallas could tag him again but it would be for 144% of his contract or the QB tag, which ever was larger. He is trading one more contract year for a lot more money over the full 3 years.

If Dez gets 25m guaranteed after 2016 that would be a total of 53m for the next 3 years which is probably what his camp is holding out for.

Hardy and Rosenhaus are thinking the same thing. If he makes 10m this year and 20-25m next year after staying clean and producing, that is better than accepting a 4/32m deal right now with 16m guaranteed. He is betting on himself. That is why they insisted on the 'No tag' clause.

Why are people assuming that Dez is pouting about the tag? Does his tweet sound ANYTHING like he's upset?

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Consider how players don't like the Franchise Tag.

Now consider that Hardy allowed the Cowboys to basically give him the equivalent of a non-guaranteed Franchise Tag despite not being their own free agent.

That is a huge advantage to the team.

You start from the premise that players generally don't like the franchise tag and quickly conclude that the Cowboys struck a great deal because Hardy essentially allowed himself to be tagged on a non-guaranteed basis.

Of course, what is generally true is not always true in specific cases. Hardy was willing to take-- in fact, he probably insisted upon-- a one year deal, because he knows it's likely to maximize his long-term earning potential if he just goes out and performs as he's done in the past. For that very reason, some think the Cowboys should have tried to sign him up to something longer term now: it'll likely be more expensive to do so later.

At the end of the day, this is a deal in which Hardy takes almost all of the risk and the Cowboys take close to none. The flip side is that if he performs, Hardy will reap all of the long-term financial upside and the Cowboys will capture none. Whether you think that's a good deal for the Cowboys (or for Hardy, for that matter) just depends on your appetite for risk.

 

[xwalker]

You start from the premise that players generally don't like the franchise tag and quickly conclude that the Cowboys struck a great deal because Hardy essentially allowed himself to be tagged on a non-guaranteed basis.

Of course, what is generally true is not always true in specific cases. Hardy was willing to take-- in fact, he probably insisted upon-- a one year deal, because he knows it's likely to maximize his long-term earning potential if he just goes out and performs as he's done in the past. For that very reason, some think the Cowboys should have tried to sign him up to something longer term now: it'll likely be more expensive to do so later.

At the end of the day, this is a deal in which Hardy takes almost all of the risk and the Cowboys take close to none. The flip side is that if he performs, Hardy will reap all of the long-term financial upside and the Cowboys will capture none. Whether you think that's a good deal for the Cowboys (or for Hardy, for that matter) just depends on your appetite for risk.

People that think they should have signed him long term are assuming it would be cheaper than signing him next year, but he just was not going to sign a discount contract.

If his choice was between 2 offers, 1 with the no franchise clause and the other without the clause, he likely would have given up several million this season in order to have the clause included.

 

[Jenky]

You start from the premise that players generally don't like the franchise tag and quickly conclude that the Cowboys struck a great deal because Hardy essentially allowed himself to be tagged on a non-guaranteed basis.

Of course, what is generally true is not always true in specific cases. Hardy was willing to take-- in fact, he probably insisted upon-- a one year deal, because he knows it's likely to maximize his long-term earning potential if he just goes out and performs as he's done in the past. For that very reason, some think the Cowboys should have tried to sign him up to something longer term now: it'll likely be more expensive to do so later.

At the end of the day, this is a deal in which Hardy takes almost all of the risk and the Cowboys take close to none. The flip side is that if he performs, Hardy will reap all of the long-term financial upside and the Cowboys will capture none. Whether you think that's a good deal for the Cowboys (or for Hardy, for that matter) just depends on your appetite for risk.

Hardy went all in and bet on himself. If he produces, he'll break the bank next year and go to the highest bidder.

Almost the same as what Maclin did. Signed a 1 year deal after injury, came back, produced and got paid by KC.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

People that think they should have signed him long term are assuming it would be cheaper than signing him next year, but he just was not going to sign a discount contract.

If his choice was between 2 offers, 1 with the no franchise clause and the other without the clause, he likely would have given up several million this season in order to have the clause included.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this (though I have my doubts) but now you're making it sound like Hardy was able to dictate his terms and the Cowboys simply had to accept them. If that's the case, then the idea that they got a great deal becomes far less compelling. One can't have it both ways.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Hardy went all in and bet on himself. If he produces, he'll break the bank next year and go to the highest bidder.

Exactly. Thing is, I think if you took a poll most of us would bet with him. So it's worth questioning whether the Cowboys FO shouldn't also have bet on Hardy's ability to produce long-term and bargained for something more than a short-term rental. (Unless of course one thinks they didn't have a choice, in which case the notion that they got a great deal becomes a bit of a fiction: they got the only deal available on that view of things.)

 

[xwalker]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this (though I have my doubts) but now you're making it sound like Hardy was able to dictate his terms and the Cowboys simply had to accept them. If that's the case, then the idea that they got a great deal becomes far less compelling. One can't have it both ways.

I don't know how you get that from what I said.

Obviously Hardy had some leverage; otherwise they would have paid him the veterans minimum.

They Cowboys got a zero guaranteed money contract with top FA DE and one of the best DEs in the NFL. That's not exactly the player dictating terms.

 

[Nightman]

Both sides got the deal they wanted.

DAL gets a top notch DE to bolster a 12-4 team with no long term risk
Hardy gets a National stage to rehab his image and re-establish himself as one the top edge rushers

Since Hardy had no criminal history to speak of, he is probably confident he will stay out of trouble off the field and is confident enough to know what he can do on the field. The TSmith and Hardy camp battles should be fun. The games will be easy after that.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

I don't know how you get that from what I said.

Obviously Hardy had some leverage; otherwise they would have paid him the veterans minimum.

They Cowboys got a zero guaranteed money contract with top FA DE and one of the best DEs in the NFL. That's not exactly the player dictating terms.

Ok. But this thread started (so I thought) with you arguing how well the Cowboys did by getting a one-year deal. Your words were "I see people complaining about him not being signed long term, but his contract is a huge advantage to the team."

In response to my pointing out that the deal simply allocated both risk and reward disproportionately among the parties (with Hardy taking the lion's share of both) in a way that results in pros and cons for both sides, you suggested that a long-term deal simply wasn't available, except at full price (in other words, where Hardy got all of the reward but the Cowboys took all the risk): "People that think they should have signed him long term are assuming it would be cheaper than signing him next year, but he just was not going to sign a discount contract." And that does indeed sound like the player dictating terms: "you can have a fair one-year deal or a long-term deal that heavily favors me -- take your choice, Cowboys."

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It was a tool collectively bargained for during player/owner negotiations. He signed up for it the moment he decided to enter the NFL, he's not a victim.

He's averaging the second highest paid salary this year, so I have a hard time feeling sorry for him. If he's willing to negotiate, both sides can get that long-term deal done.

I didn't say feel sorry for the guy. I'm just saying if you were in his shoes I'm not sure how anyone would be happy. We are talking significant dollars. I don't begrudge him fighting for a fair deal.

He is better at playing football than 99 percent of people are good at anything.

 

[Stash]

I didn't say feel sorry for the guy. I'm just saying if you were in his shoes I'm not sure how anyone would be happy. We are talking significant dollars. I don't begrudge him fighting for a fair deal.

He is better at playing football than 99 percent of people are good at anything.

$13 million for one season isn't 'fair'?

I want Dez Bryant back and on a long term deal, but I do not want the Cowboys screwing up their long-term cap because one guy insists on being overpaid.

If that's what Bryant and his people are looking for, I would prefer two years under the tag and trying to replace him in the meantime and letting him go after that.

The franchise is more important than any single player.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

$13 million for one season isn't 'fair'?

I want Dez Bryant back and on a long term deal, but I do not want the Cowboys screwing up their long-term cap because one guy insists on being overpaid.

If that's what Bryant and his people are looking for, I would prefer two years under the tag and trying to replace him in the meantime and letting him go after that.

The franchise is more important than any single player.

13 million is a lot of money. We know that. When you're worth 40m up front with a signature... It no longer looks as nice.

Would you be willing to take 1/3rd of your fair market value and be happy about it?

I wouldn't.

 

[Stash]

13 million is a lot of money. We know that. When you're worth 40m up front with a signature... It no longer looks as nice.

Would you be willing to take 1/3rd of your fair market value and be happy about it?

I wouldn't.

That depends on what I'm asking for overall, doesn't it? If he's looking for Calvin Johnson money, he can go pound sand and 'suffer' with $13 million.

If he wants $40 million up front, he can agree to a more reasonable long term deal.