Rumor: DLaw looking for 100mils / 70 guaranteed

[CPanther95]

You're getting beaten like a piñata here.

You need a bigger stick.

 

[Stash]

You need a bigger stick.

Me and everyone else are doing just fine. You need to know when to just wave the white flag and concede defeat.

 

[Sydla]

That's the only case needed.

That's pretty much the entire reason for guaranteed money. Only an idiotic team would be offering guaranteed money to assure the player that he'll get paid even if he decides to kick back and mail in his performance.

But you can't assume you would get hurt. Further, few injuries nowadays are career ending. So if Bell plays for $15MM guaranteed in 2018 and gets hurt, he's likely not going to be playing his last game ever in 2018. He cost himself $15MM, it's just that simple. And he probably cost himself in his next deal because teams are now weary of him and his attitude.

I am not sure what your last paragraph even means.

 

[Bigdog]

Good luck to that

 

[CPanther95]

I would always assume that I could get hurt. That's precisely why I would want guaranteed money. Any smart player should also assume that - especially a RB.

But I'm also more conservative financially. I would have sold my Enron stock for a guaranteed doubling of my money at the current stock price rather than wait 5 more years for a "sure thing" assurance that it would be worth 4 times more by then.

Likewise, I'd rather be guaranteed $36 million for 3 years of service than only guaranteed $15 for one even if I thought it was more likely than not I could get another $28 million the following 2 years.

Maybe if it was 95‰ more likely than not, I might choose differently - but I believe the odds are far less than that.

 

[Nightman]

But you can't assume you would get hurt. Further, few injuries nowadays are career ending. So if Bell plays for $15MM guaranteed in 2018 and gets hurt, he's likely not going to be playing his last game ever in 2018. He cost himself $15MM, it's just that simple. And he probably cost himself in his next deal because teams are now weary of him and his attitude.

I am not sure what your last paragraph even means.

LBell should have come back Week 10 and made the Playoff rush....instead he hung his team out to dry and wasted the whole 14m

Then Conner and Samuels did so great they missed LBell even less

He can't tack a 14m year on the end of his career... it will be a 2m year

PITT didn't insult him with a 5/70m offer

 

[Sydla]

I would always assume that I could get hurt. That's precisely why I would want guaranteed money. Any smart player should also assume that - especially a RB.

But I'm also more conservative financially. I would have sold my Enron stock for a guaranteed doubling of my money at the current stock price rather than wait 5 more years for a "sure thing" assurance that it would be worth 4 times more by then.

Likewise, I'd rather be guaranteed $36 million for 3 years of service than only guaranteed $15 for one even if I thought it was more likely than not I could get another $28 million the following 2 years.

Maybe if it was 95‰ more likely than not, I might choose differently - but I believe the odds are far less than that.

But the odds are in Bell's favor that over three years (from 2018-2020), he'd have made more guaranteed money if he had played under the $15MM tag. He thought he could strong arm the Steelers into a big long term contract OR trading him to a team that might pay him what he wanted. The Steelers called his bluff and he lost out on $15MM in actual cash and now has a reputation as a malcontent that likely will hurt him in his next negotiation.

He's likely not even going to get a deal better than the long term one Pittsburgh offered him which was rumored to be 5 years, $70MM with $33MM in guaranteed cash, with $45MM total earning potential in the first 3 years of the deal.

He turned that down. If he thinks he's getting more than that this year, he's a bigger fool than I thought.

 

[Nightman]

I would always assume that I could get hurt. That's precisely why I would want guaranteed money. Any smart player should also assume that - especially a RB.

But I'm also more conservative financially. I would have sold my Enron stock for a guaranteed doubling of my money at the current stock price rather than wait 5 more years for a "sure thing" assurance that it would be worth 4 times more by then.

Likewise, I'd rather be guaranteed $36 million for 3 years of service than only guaranteed $15 for one even if I thought it was more likely than not I could get another $28 million the following 2 years.

Maybe if it was 95‰ more likely than not, I might choose differently - but I believe the odds are far less than that.

Teams have to put all guaranteed money into an escrow account to insure the League and Player they will get every dime

Teams are reluctant and some teams unable to put up so much cash.... they say OAK traded Mack because they have 52m to tie up in guarantees with the move ...... once Mack was gone ACooper was expendable too

DAL has the cash to do whatever is needed with all its players but I can't see giving DLaw any more than 50m guaranteed.... maybe 60m staggered over 30 months

I would not give DLaw 20m a year with 70m gtd
I would do 18m tops with 50m gtd over 2 years

 

[glimmerman]

Figured he would want it all.

 

[Whyjerry]

No one here is serious about not signing DLaw correct? Not his fault the drunken owner and sideline prop failed to take advantage of Dak’s rookie contract. The need to keep Lawrence.

 

[Sydla]

The contract will be a big one for sure. And the flipside to this is that if you let him walk, your defense takes a major step back because now DE goes to largely a wasteland with only Gregory having shown any potential.

I am not opposed to letting him walk. But the obvious question for those who are pushing back on signing him long term, what do you do at DE for 2019 after your defense finally took a major step forward? And no, just assuming Gregory, Charlton, Armstrong pick up the slack isn't a legitimate answer. Also remember, we don't have a #1 pick so we can't take one of the premier edge players either.

 

[Jake]

And Vernon's deal is now three years old. And negotiated by this very same agent, who is not about to go backwards in what he gets for his clients.

Good for him. That deal hasn't been good for the Giants. I want a deal that makes sense for the Cowboys, not DLaw's agent.

 

[Stash]

Good for him. That deal hasn't been good for the Giants. I want a deal that makes sense for the Cowboys, not DLaw's agent.

So let him go and take your chances then. If you think you hate Taco Charlton now, just wait.

 

[Jake]

He isn't going anywhere, and will be paid big money. We have some really large large contracts coming up with Zeke, and Prescott. Unfortunately for lesser players they will have to take pay cuts, or cut to make room for the most important players. It's just how it is.

So will giving big money to Zeke, Dak, and Lawrence while filling other holes for less money make the Cowboys a better team? The only way the answer is "yes" is if those contracts improve the play of Dak, Zeke, and Lawrence.

Zeke is already a top player at his position but RBs have diminishing returns - the only question is how soon. I don't believe giving Dak and Lawrence more money will improve them. At best they'll stay what they are, with a cheaper supporting cast. If someone can explain how that improves the Cowboys odds of winning a championship, I'd love to read it.

Again - there's paying guys who are the best in the NFL versus paying guys because they're the best you have at their position. The first one makes sense, the second one is reaching for a false sense of security.

"But we don't have anyone to replace them!"

Fine, then pay them like mega stars and hope for more seasons like the last one because you've pretty much made it your ceiling at that point.

 

[CPanther95]

But the odds are in Bell's favor that over three years (from 2018-2020), he'd have made more guaranteed money if he had played under the $15MM tag. He thought he could strong arm the Steelers into a big long term contract OR trading him to a team that might pay him what he wanted. The Steelers called his bluff and he lost out on $15MM in actual cash and now has a reputation as a malcontent that likely will hurt him in his next negotiation.

He's likely not even going to get a deal better than the long term one Pittsburgh offered him which was rumored to be 5 years, $70MM with $33MM in guaranteed cash, with $45MM total earning potential in the first 3 years of the deal.

He turned that down. If he thinks he's getting more than that this year, he's a bigger fool than I thought.

The way the contract the Steelers offered was reported was extremely misleading . It looked like 33 guaranteed for the first 2 years and 45 total over the first 3 years (3rd year not guaranteed).

The actual contract had a "rolling guaranteed structure" where the money isn't actually guaranteed unless the Steelers keep him on each season. The only fully guaranteed money was the $10 million signing bonus. Substantially less than the $14.5 franchise tag. The Steelers could have released him after the first year of the contract.

 

[Stash]

So will giving big money to Zeke, Dak, and Lawrence while filling other holes for less money make the Cowboys a better team? The only way the answer is "yes" is if those contracts improve the play of Dak, Zeke, and Lawrence.

Zeke is already a top player at his position but RBs have diminishing returns - the only question is how soon. I don't believe giving Dak and Lawrence more money will improve them. At best they'll stay what they are, with a cheaper supporting cast. If someone can explain how that improves the Cowboys odds of winning a championship, I'd love to read it.

Again - there's paying guys who are the best in the NFL versus paying guys because they're the best you have at their position. The first one makes sense, the second one is reaching for a false sense of security.

"But we don't have anyone to replace them!"

Fine, then pay them like mega stars and hope for more seasons like the last one because you've pretty much made it your ceiling at that point.

Do you believe that young players improve?

 

[America's Cowboy]

New England is an outlier organization. Do we have Belichik? No. Do we have Brady willing to play for 15 million a year? No. Do we have an owner that stays consistent with his personnel philosophy and lets his staff do their jobs? No.

Of course you can't pay everyone that kind of money and you have to pick and choose who you let walk away. I am not advocating irresponsible contracts. The question is whether or not D Law is a core player. If he is a core player-- which I believe he is-- pay him his market value. If you stiff him-- you lose credibility with the rest of the players in the locker room and with the fan base.

You commit to solid, reliable, productive players. D Law has stepped up and been a soldier-- pay the man.

Disagree. It's about building/keeping a yearly competitive team within the restrictions of a yearly salary cap. That's the bottom line. If not, why watch if you're going to overpay 3-5 players while not having enough money left to afford a competitive team?

 

[Nightman]

The contract will be a big one for sure. And the flipside to this is that if you let him walk, your defense takes a major step back because now DE goes to largely a wasteland with only Gregory having shown any potential.

I am not opposed to letting him walk. But the obvious question for those who are pushing back on signing him long term, what do you do at DE for 2019 after your defense finally took a major step forward? And no, just assuming Gregory, Charlton, Armstrong pick up the slack isn't a legitimate answer. Also remember, we don't have a #1 pick so we can't take one of the premier edge players either.

We wouldn't just let him walk.... we would get at least a 1st back for him or he isn't worth 100m

With 100m and a 1st we could solve our DE problem

 

[America's Cowboy]

Dallas needs to pay the man his market value for three reasons:

1. D Law balled out while injured this year and was a good soldier while playing under the tag. He is a top 3 DE right now in the NFL— pay him what he deserves

2. The philosophy the FO has established and communicated is that they want to build through the draft, develop their players, and sign their guys longterm that produce. If they let D Law walk— they lose credibility with players and the result could easily be a loss of trust that the FO will give their productive core players long term security in a very violent sport.

3. They lose further credibility with the fan base. You can’t tell us you will stay out of FA bc you want the cap to sign your best players— and then you let a guy like D Law walk. Fans will question their commitment to winning (more than they already do) and moves like this cement the narrative that the Jones family are only in this for money.

Bottom line: sign D Law for what he is worth. Honor your players when they produce and they will run through a brick wall for you.

Where was D-Law the last 8 games of the season, plus the playoffs? Playing injured.

How did that turn out?

 

[Sydla]

The way the contract the Steelers offered was reported was extremely misleading . It looked like 33 guaranteed for the first 2 years and 45 total over the first 3 years (3rd year not guaranteed).

The actual contract had a "rolling guaranteed structure" where the money isn't actually guaranteed unless the Steelers keep him on each season. The only fully guaranteed money was the $10 million signing bonus. Substantially less than the $14.5 franchise tag. The Steelers could have released him after the first year of the contract.

That's how most contracts are. Aaron Donald has $86MM in guarantees but only $50MM of that was guaranteed at signing and the remaining $36MM was rolling guarantees.

And the contract to Bell wasn't misleading. In fact, I said exactly what you said in my post. $33MM guaranteed at signing, $45MM in total pay if he makes it 3 years.

And sure, they could have cut him after one year, but then they'd have to eat the remaining $23MM in guaranteed money they gave him at signing. Just because they only paid him $10MM physically at signing, doesn't mean they don't have to carry and pay him the other $23MM if they cut him.