Video: Zeke holding out? "Trade him" says Cowherd

[Diehardblues]

I dont see his trade value as high. Whoever trades for him is going to be expected to sign him after the traded. Likely to a contract that makes him the highest paid HB in the NFL. Thats going to lessen his trade value. A really doubt a team would trade a 1st for him

It would be a similar deal like we made for Cooper. Cooper came to Dallas assuming we’d offer him a 2nd contract cause if you don’t then you’ve basically giving up a 1st round pick for one season. Or a half season in our case.

 

[darthseinfeld]

It would be a similar deal like we made for Cooper. Cooper came to Dallas assuming we’d offer him a 2nd contract cause if you don’t then you’ve basically giving up a 1st round pick for one season. Or a half season in our case.

To me I see the positions as being the big difference here. WR's are infinitely more valuable than HB's

 

[Diehardblues]

To me I see the positions as being the big difference here. WR's are infinitely more valuable than HB's

I suppose it would depend on your immediate need. Much like with us last year.

If you thought Elliott was enough to put you over the top you might pull the trigger and deal with the effects later. Much like we are now with Cooper.

 

[percyhoward]

Cowherd is basically paid to embarrass himself.

 

[dogunwo]

Cowherd says anything and everything that's on the hotplate and he thinks he's the smartest man in the room because of it.
Even though he gets so much wrong...

It's a weird thing, feeling you're super-smart because you can open your mouth.

At least he's willing to acknowledge when he got something wrong concerning a sports hot take.

 

[Beaker42]

Pay him...big 4yr extension.

No - absolutely not. If Feed Me holds out he needs to be gone.

 

[Corso]

At least he's willing to acknowledge when he got something wrong concerning a sports hot take.

Admirable.

 

[darthseinfeld]

I suppose it would depend on your immediate need. Much like with us last year.

If you thought Elliott was enough to put you over the top you might pull the trigger and deal with the effects later. Much like we are now with Cooper.

You need a dance partner that is willing to pay that price. Thats why getting a decent return for Elliott would be possible. However those you cant really count on that type of situation being present. My guess, is that since a new team would be giving him a hefty deal, I wouldn't expect them to be willing to give up more than a 2nd for Elliott. If we had decided to trade him last year, we probably could have gotten a first and some change (3rd/4th) considering the contract control the team would maintain.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I dont see his trade value as high. Whoever trades for him is going to be expected to sign him after the traded. Likely to a contract that makes him the highest paid HB in the NFL. Thats going to lessen his trade value. A really doubt a team would trade a 1st for him

I think it's a market thing. You can want something but it doesn't mean it necessarily happens. I mean, think about the situation here. If the Cowboys trade Zeke, that sends a message to Zeke that's pretty clear. If he goes to another team and plays for two seasons and never comes close to a Gurley like deal, that means that two teams are saying no and that's including the Cowboys, who probably value him the most of any team. Now, if he decides to test the market and no team steps up with a Gurley deal, that tells you that your value proposition is wrong. I mean, look at Bell and what happened there. He never got the deal he thought he was worth and all he did was turn down 13 mil he will never make back up, by doing this bone head move and "Showing the team" what's up. I think Zeke is wrong here, I think he's getting bad advice from his agent but who knows? Either way, the team that might trade for him would get him with two years left and would still have the option to Franchise him for two more. I mean, Zeke would be foolish, if after all of that, to not sign a deal. I honestly don't think there is much risk here for a team that might trade for him. I think the message will speak loud and clear but that's just my opinion on it.

 

[Diehardblues]

You need a dance partner that is willing to pay that price. Thats why getting a decent return for Elliott would be possible. However those you cant really count on that type of situation being present. My guess, is that since a new team would be giving him a hefty deal, I wouldn't expect them to be willing to give up more than a 2nd for Elliott. If we had decided to trade him last year, we probably could have gotten a first and some change (3rd/4th) considering the contract control the team would maintain.

There weren’t any takers for Cooper until we had a greater need.

Elliott could end up sitting out and a contender loses their RB and all of a sudden there’s a greater demand and a deal is done.

 

[darthseinfeld]

I think it's a market thing. You can want something but it doesn't mean it necessarily happens. I mean, think about the situation here. If the Cowboys trade Zeke, that sends a message to Zeke that's pretty clear. If he goes to another team and plays for two seasons and never comes close to a Gurley like deal, that means that two teams are saying no and that's including the Cowboys, who probably value him the most of any team. Now, if he decides to test the market and no team steps up with a Gurley deal, that tells you that your value proposition is wrong. I mean, look at Bell and what happened there. He never got the deal he thought he was worth and all he did was turn down 13 mil he will never make back up, by doing this bone head move and "Showing the team" what's up. I think Zeke is wrong here, I think he's getting bad advice from his agent but who knows? Either way, the team that might trade for him would get him with two years left and would still have the option to Franchise him for two more. I mean, Zeke would be foolish, if after all of that, to not sign a deal. I honestly don't think there is much risk here for a team that might trade for him. I think the message will speak loud and clear but that's just my opinion on it.

Most likely a team trading for him would likely sign him to an extension very soon after the trade. This is more typical of big trades. Cooper was an exception, and frankly he should been extended after the was made. That was a poor decision by the Cowboys FO.

 

[darthseinfeld]

There weren’t any takers for Cooper until we had a greater need.

Elliott could end up sitting out and a contender loses their RB and all of a sudden there’s a greater demand and a deal is done.

Eagles supposedly were offering a 2nd for Cooper. I don't know that there was a robust market for him, but there were reports of offers made for a 2nd

 

[Diehardblues]

We’ve been sitting here thinking we’ll milk Elliott for all we can his last two years of his contract and Ezekiel is saying... hold on. Lol

The kid is smarter than I thought.

 

[kskboys]

Ok. I see you think you have a winning strategy so you want to waste time going down a hole here. The contract is written to give the owners all the power. Or are we disagreeing on this also just to make a message board argument? The players only leverage they have is to chose whether they want to sell their services at the rate provided.

These contracts can be terminated at any time by the owner. The player is not a slave here. The owner does not own him. Read a contract and tell me it does not cover penalties for a player breaking the agreement.

Stop being a message board argument nerd.
Regardless of what you want to believe and regardless of who you think it right it doesn’t change the facts.

Owners cut players with years left.
Players can hold out for more money or extensions.

Being right or wrong by some message board interpretation of contract law doesn’t mean jack here.

Your strange need to insult really hurts your arguments. Might want to rethink that strategy.

What's up w/ this slave talk? Very weird.

You are correct. And the facts are that the owners are employers who pay their employees very well due to the extreme income provided by the services the players provide. So, the owners and players agree to a contract. I have yet to see an owner refuse to pay a player who was under contract.

At some point in the contract, there are generally opt out clauses. Some for the players, some for the owners. Kapernick, for instance, opted out of the last year of his contract w/ SF, which was somewhere around 14-17 mil. If he'd have stayed, the owners would have paid him, even though they would rather have not at this point.

Yes, owners cut players, and the amount that they agreed upon to be guaranteed then must be paid. A player, on the other hand, would have the option to vie for a contract for a bit less, but w/ more guaranteed money.

I really don't comprehend most of what you are saying. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.

 

[superonyx]

Players have agents. There is a union in place to protect them. It's not like the old, old days. Teams just can't break a contract without cause. That doesn't happen. Players sign contracts and teams live up to those contracts. The language in any given contract is agreed upon, by the simple act of both sides signing a deal. Players don't have to sign deals, they have options. To me, it's not debatable. Especially in the case of Zeke. Jerry has treated Zeke very well IMO. He has not been taken advantage of. It was Zeke and his agent who drove the structure of the deal on his Rookie contract and the team has already said that Zeke would get a nice deal. It just won't be a Gurley deal and why? It's because that deal was a truly terrible deal and no good management would ever sign a deal like that, or at least shouldn't. Zeke wants that kind of deal but you can't fault the team for not wanting to sign a really bad deal like that, just because the Rams are idiots. I mean, how in the world could anybody hold the team at fault for not wanting to do that? Zeke is trying to force this by choosing to do this at this exact time, assuming the story is true that he is planning to hold out. It's a tactic I suppose.

Oh boy. The old 'the player doesnt have to sign the deal' story again.
Let's stop pretending so we can all at least agree that this isnt an equal agreement. The billionaires have the power over the millionaires and just because someone agrees to be abused doesnt mean its not abuse.

We would all be better off with these conversations if we could stop this trying to discuss these things from a position that requires us to have to pretend certain terms and reality are just and fair just because they already exist.

Would a player rather get millions than go out and work a 8-6 job like the rest of us joes'? Of course.

What option does the 21 year old just drafted have when a team owns you rights and every other business in the industry have colluded to make sure you have little rights? Lets move past that so we can discuss things from a reality perspective. Not pointing at you personally but its just kind of a goodball message board tactic that is played out already.

As to them not paying him like Gurley? I thought I read they already admitted he will be the highest paid back in the league? I have not heard anything that would make me think otherwise.

Of course I hope he never holds out and I doubt he will.

But I wont pretend I can't understand why a player would. Especially a cowboys RB when the team decided Joe Randle was a suitable replacement for Demarco Murray.

 

[Diehardblues]

Eagles supposedly were offering a 2nd for Cooper. I don't know that there was a robust market for him, but there were reports of offers made for a 2nd

And Cooper might have stayed in Oakland until we had a greater demand. The same could happen with Elliott. Just saying..

 

[superonyx]

Your strange need to insult really hurts your arguments. Might want to rethink that strategy.

What's up w/ this slave talk? Very weird.

You are correct. And the facts are that the owners are employers who pay their employees very well due to the extreme income provided by the services the players provide. So, the owners and players agree to a contract. I have yet to see an owner refuse to pay a player who was under contract.

At some point in the contract, there are generally opt out clauses. Some for the players, some for the owners. Kapernick, for instance, opted out of the last year of his contract w/ SF, which was somewhere around 14-17 mil. If he'd have stayed, the owners would have paid him, even though they would rather have not at this point.

Yes, owners cut players, and the amount that they agreed upon to be guaranteed then must be paid. A player, on the other hand, would have the option to vie for a contract for a bit less, but w/ more guaranteed money.

I really don't comprehend most of what you are saying. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.

Don't be sorry. You were born that way.
It's ok. We are all friends around here.

 

[slick325]

No - absolutely not. If Feed Me holds out he needs to be gone.

Lol...ok.

You ALWAYS pay talent. Especially special talent no matter the position. Period. Am I a proponent of giving a 28 or 29 year old RB a huge contract (be it a 2nd contract or in Zeke's case 4 years from now, a 3rd contract) NO! But...this instance is different aand he deserves a HUGE contract.

Edit: I'll take it a step further, NEVER pay average talent big money no matter the position he plays.

 

[kskboys]

Oh boy. The old 'the player doesnt have to sign the deal' story again.
Let's stop pretending so we can all at least agree that this isnt an equal agreement. The billionaires have the power over the millionaires and just because someone agrees to be abused doesnt mean its not abuse.

We would all be better off with these conversations if we could stop this trying to discuss these things from a position that requires us to have to pretend certain terms and reality are just and fair just because they already exist.

Would a player rather get millions than go out and work a 8-6 job like the rest of us joes'? Of course.

What option does the 21 year old just drafted have when a team owns you rights and every other business in the industry have colluded to make sure you have little rights? Lets move past that so we can discuss things from a reality perspective. Not pointing at you personally but its just kind of a goodball message board tactic that is played out already.

As to them not paying him like Gurley? I thought I read they already admitted he will be the highest paid back in the league? I have not heard anything that would make me think otherwise.

Of course I hope he never holds out and I doubt he will.

But I wont pretend I can't understand why a player would. Especially a cowboys RB when the team decided Joe Randle was a suitable replacement for Demarco Murray.

Of course. We are all subject to the whims and such of our employers.

What exactly are you arguing?

 

[kskboys]

Don't be sorry. You were born that way.
It's ok. We are all friends around here.

And more insults. Man, you are one strange dude. Throw a cheap insult, and then pretend you didn't. Do you have mental issues?