Would 3-years, $100 million get this thing done?

[conner01]

$33 million in this case. And it certainly is 'a big whack', but considering that they will easily have $80 million in cap room this year, it becomes much more manageable. And if and when that new CBA is worked out? Boom! The entire salary cap will be shooting up dramatically.

Not sure he would take 33 but if it was 33 and all 33 hit each year it is hard to manage because it takes up so much of your cap each year
Long term deals have fluff in them that puts a bunch at the end that never gets paid but makes early years cheap
That’s why owners want long deals
I could see him maybe doing less like this just because it’s all real money but not sure how well it works for team
That’s basically half your money this year and haven’t looked going forward but Dlaw and Zeke will get more expensive going forward
As a player I’d rather have money I know I will get versus money I’m almost guaranteed to never get

 

[Doomsday101]

Can’t blame the players for wanting guarantees
Many have life long damage to their bodies
Can’t blame owners because if a guy doesn’t produce he still gets paid

I don't blame either side. It is the business they are in. You are right players get paid they also get cut and while the team takes on the cap hit, it does not put any extra money in the players pocket. I don't see good guy or bad guy in the Dak situation. He played 4 season at a cheap price and never complained about it, when asked it was always his agent will handle it, as it should be. After all that is why players get agents. Dak really has not said what he will do one way or the other if he is tagged other than he would discuss it with his agent.. In the end I firmly believe a deal will be done before the deadline gets here.

 

[Stash]

There are a couple of reasons I agree with your 3 year deal concept. The first being that we give Dak essentially a prove it deal after the big bucks roll in and don’t hamstring ourselves for too far down the line.

Secondly, it wouldn’t prevent us from drafting a high potential qb still. If Dak falters, we have an ace in the hole after three years of grooming and he can go get his 40+ mil on some other team’s cap. If he succeeds we are still safe with a solid young backup or a tradable asset ala a Jimmy G perhaps.

That's my thinking.

A true compromise. He gets the shot at the big bucks he wants while the team doesn't have to pay $35 million or more long term and get to continue to evaluate or pursue other options if they so choose. Both sides assume risk, both sides can reap potential rewards.

 

[Stash]

Not sure he would take 33 but if it was 33 and all 33 hit each year it is hard to manage because it takes up so much of your cap each year
Long term deals have fluff in them that puts a bunch at the end that never gets paid but makes early years cheap
That’s why owners want long deals
I could see him maybe doing less like this just because it’s all real money but not sure how well it works for team
That’s basically half your money this year and haven’t looked going forward but Dlaw and Zeke will get more expensive going forward
As a player I’d rather have money I know I will get versus money I’m almost guaranteed to never get

But you're saying yourself that a short term deal won't have that 'fluff' that you're referring to, not for the player, not for the team. It's part of the compromise. Neither side can get everything they want.

 

[conner01]

But you're saying yourself that a short term deal won't have that 'fluff' that you're referring to, not for the player, not for the team. It's part of the compromise. Neither side can get everything they want.

Yep
It’s a compromise and risks for both sides so that could get Dak what he wants as in a new deal fast
May get the team a better price
The risks are for the team bigger cap hits and having to do this again very soon
For the player injury or bad play

 

[ondaedg]

There are a couple of reasons I agree with your 3 year deal concept. The first being that we give Dak essentially a prove it deal after the big bucks roll in and don’t hamstring ourselves for too far down the line.

Secondly, it wouldn’t prevent us from drafting a high potential qb still. If Dak falters, we have an ace in the hole after three years of grooming and he can go get his 40+ mil on some other team’s cap. If he succeeds we are still safe with a solid young backup or a tradable asset ala a Jimmy G perhaps.

Dak doesn't have to prove anything to at least 10 teams in this league and likely more. So a prove-it deal doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Typhus]

If it were up to me I would jump all over a 3-4 year deal. It makes Dak happy and the Cowboys get a longer look at him with a different offense in place. The only downside being that maybe the Cowboys are already committed to keeping Dak even if he is a 2nd tier quarterback (let's face it, even 2nd tier quarterbacks are hard to find and Dak is a good face for the organization). If that's the case they don't want to be in this exact same position 3-4 years from now and have to overpay,,, again.

Good face?
You want to sell Jerseys or win SBs?
I never fall in love with any player, and I understand the stigmata with replacing the most important position on any NFL team.
Finding a true franchise QB is like looking for gold with a shovel.
So if your comfortable as a fan just having a decent team that never advances, but is entertaining on Sundays than by all means, do it.
I would be more interested as a fan, more invested as a fan, if I saw this franchise actually invest in greatness,, might take several years to find that gem, don't care.
Ive already been waiting since 1995, and I would rather tear the whole thing down, then mortgaging another 10 years on over payed average talent that will do just enough to
sale tickets and jerseys.

 

[OmerV]

Sure, it's yet another 'Dak thread'. If you don't like that or don't want to talk about it, you're not required to. But it seems like the most important order of business that the team has right now so I consider it a topic for conversation.

Based on what I'm reading, the holdup at this point is more about years than dollars. Dak and his agent know that the cap, and by extension player salaries, will be going up significantly under the new CBA. And teams like the Eagles and Rams realized that too, and that's why they seemingly rushed to get their quarterbacks signed even when they didn't have to.

Now that they have, those teams can pay more now with the ability to save big later on, or to cut bait if things don't turn out as they had hoped. Wentz' deal is already looking like a bargain, at an average of $32 million a year, and Goff's is heavily front-loaded, giving the Rams an out clause if they choose, or much lower costs down the road. Goff's deal averages $33.5 million a year.

Hypothetically, would you do a deal that pays a bit less than that in exchange for getting at some of that bigger cap money down the line? Is this a deal that works for the Cowboys?

It seems like a shorter deal, for a bit less money, and betting on yourself to get at even bigger money down the road, is a compromise that might finally get this deal done.

Thoughts from those who do want to discuss it?

This may well be something that would work for Dak, but the key might be how much of that $100 million would be guaranteed. If the Cowboys are willing to guarantee all or most of it, I would think Dak would be interested, but otherwise I doubt it.

On the other hand, I doubt the Cowboys would give up that much without some ability to control Dak longer than 3 years.

Daks camp is all about the guaranteed money

Every player and agent is all about the guaranteed money. That's the real value of a contract.

 

[Direwolf63]

If

Sure, it's yet another 'Dak thread'. If you don't like that or don't want to talk about it, you're not required to. But it seems like the most important order of business that the team has right now so I consider it a topic for conversation.

Based on what I'm reading, the holdup at this point is more about years than dollars. Dak and his agent know that the cap, and by extension player salaries, will be going up significantly under the new CBA. And teams like the Eagles and Rams realized that too, and that's why they seemingly rushed to get their quarterbacks signed even when they didn't have to.

Now that they have, those teams can pay more now with the ability to save big later on, or to cut bait if things don't turn out as they had hoped. Wentz' deal is already looking like a bargain, at an average of $32 million a year, and Goff's is heavily front-loaded, giving the Rams an out clause if they choose, or much lower costs down the road. Goff's deal averages $33.5 million a year.

Hypothetically, would you do a deal that pays a bit less than that in exchange for getting at some of that bigger cap money down the line? Is this a deal that works for the Cowboys?

It seems like a shorter deal, for a bit less money, and betting on yourself to get at even bigger money down the road, is a compromise that might finally get this deal done.

Thoughts from those who do want to discuss it?

If all of it was guaranteed, Dak might sign it.

The CBA negotiations has thrown a wrench into this deal. Nobody knows how much the cap will go up with the new deal. Nobody knows what the rules will be going forward.

Dak's agent doesn't want him to sign a low ball deal because it makes him look bad it would be tougher to get more clients.

I think this deal would be done if this CBA deal wasn't about to expire. Just my opinion.

 

[Stash]

This may well be something that would work for Dak, but the key might be how much of that $100 million would be guaranteed. If the Cowboys are willing to guarantee all or most of it, I would think Dak would be interested, but otherwise I doubt it.

On the other hand, I doubt the Cowboys would give up that much without some ability to control Dak longer than 3 years.

Hence my reasoning for calling it a compromise.

I certainly think that the Cowboys would like to have control over his rights for longer than 3 years, and their actions have shown that. But they have been unable to get Dak and his agent to agree to a long term deal, so it's either a compromise like this, or trying to go the tag route and paying far more money to have that same limited amount of control.

 

[Stash]

If

If all of it was guaranteed, Dak might sign it.

The CBA negotiations has thrown a wrench into this deal. Nobody knows how much the cap will go up with the new deal. Nobody knows what the rules will be going forward.

Dak's agent doesn't want him to sign a low ball deal because it makes him look bad it would be tougher to get more clients.

I think this deal would be done if this CBA deal wasn't about to expire. Just my opinion.

I agree too. I think that Dak's agent knows that huge spike is coming, and he's instructed his client to wait for it.

 

[CouchCoach]

If that's all guarantee, it's similar to Cousins deal for 84M. The NFL doesn't want to go down the guaranteed contract road but since Cousins started it, why not?

Since few players or agents think they will see the maturation of any contract, why not just make it a deal like that? The team is on the hook for 3 years and can decide what to do with him during the 2022 season but if he has delivered, why not pay him? That's what this is all about, winning. They're trying to avoid that but on the other side of that, they're only on the hook for 3 years, which gives them time to look for a better backup and possible successor like White was for Staubach.

stash, I also like this as it gets the deal done because they need to start moving forward and take it out of neutral. It's just money and money they'll have to spend anyway.

The tricky part of this is what if they've already offered the 100M guaranteed but over a 5 year span? The first words out of any agent's mouth after they've told the player when the offer is are "what this really means is.....". None of them care about the fluff of the contract. Remember when Aikman got the first 100M contract? How much of that do we really think he saw?

 

[Direwolf63]

I agree too. I think that Dak's agent knows that huge spike is coming, and he's instructed his client to wait for it.

Yes.

I agree with you that a 3 year deal may be the way to go. Dak would still be young enough to sign another mega deal if he succeeds. And he pockets $100M.
Gives the team (and new HC) a chance to develop and evaluate further to decide whether or not to give him that mega deal.

I just don't think Jerry/Stephen is thinking this way, however.

 

[OmerV]

Hence my reasoning for calling it a compromise.

I certainly think that the Cowboys would like to have control over his rights for longer than 3 years, and their actions have shown that. But they have been unable to get Dak and his agent to agree to a long term deal, so it's either a compromise like this, or trying to go the tag route and paying far more money to have that same limited amount of control.

But it's not a compromise unless the guaranteed money can be agreed upon, and I think it would take either Dak agreeing to take dramatically less guaranteed money than other QBs got, or the Cowboys agreeing to get less control while paying a similar amount of guaranteed money than others got. If that is the issue anyway, I don't know that this plan would solve it

 

[Stash]

Yes.

I agree with you that a 3 year deal may be the way to go. Dak would still be young enough to sign another mega deal if he succeeds. And he pockets $100M.
Gives the team (and new HC) a chance to develop and evaluate further to decide whether or not to give him that mega deal.

I just don't think Jerry/Stephen is thinking this way, however.

Something else to consider:

You start playing the 'tag game'?

Exclusive rights costs you $33 million for 2020.

Then it costs you $40 million for 2021.

For 2022? The cost balloons to an enormous and ridiculous $57 million!!!

So, for the same three years I'm proposing as a compromise, you're paying him $100 million.

Going the tag route costs you $130 million.

 

[Stash]

But it's not a compromise unless the guaranteed money can be agreed upon, and I think it would take either Dak agreeing to take dramatically less guaranteed money than other QBs got, or the Cowboys agreeing to get less control while paying a similar amount of guaranteed money than others got. If that is the issue anyway, I don't know that this plan would solve it

They would have to guarantee at least two thirds of the deal, in the area of $65 million or so. You would effectively be totally locked in for two of the three years, no matter how things played out. But again, that's the compromise. The team would structure as much of the guarantees into the first two years as they could, giving them the option and the out in the third year of they so choose. Again, that's the compromise.

The alternative right now?

Tagging him at:

1. $33 million this year
2. $40 million in 2021
3. $57 million in 2022

Total cost of that route $130 million. How does my $100 million compromise look now?

 

[blueblood70]

Sure, it's yet another 'Dak thread'. If you don't like that or don't want to talk about it, you're not required to. But it seems like the most important order of business that the team has right now so I consider it a topic for conversation.

Based on what I'm reading, the holdup at this point is more about years than dollars. Dak and his agent know that the cap, and by extension player salaries, will be going up significantly under the new CBA. And teams like the Eagles and Rams realized that too, and that's why they seemingly rushed to get their quarterbacks signed even when they didn't have to.

Now that they have, those teams can pay more now with the ability to save big later on, or to cut bait if things don't turn out as they had hoped. Wentz' deal is already looking like a bargain, at an average of $32 million a year, and Goff's is heavily front-loaded, giving the Rams an out clause if they choose, or much lower costs down the road. Goff's deal averages $33.5 million a year.

Hypothetically, would you do a deal that pays a bit less than that in exchange for getting at some of that bigger cap money down the line? Is this a deal that works for the Cowboys?

It seems like a shorter deal, for a bit less money, and betting on yourself to get at even bigger money down the road, is a compromise that might finally get this deal done.

Thoughts from those who do want to discuss it?

yes with 33mil guaranteed ..LOL the DC want a longer deal backloaded to make them feel better and Daks camp would luv this deal but want it 100% guaranteed, that wont go well with the FO..thats been the holdup YEARS and Guarantees. They are willing to give dak 33 but not the short deal..

 

[Direwolf63]

Something else to consider:

You start playing the 'tag game'?

Exclusive rights costs you $33 million for 2020.

Then it costs you $40 million for 2021.

For 2022? The cost balloons to an enormous and ridiculous $57 million!!!

So, for the same three years I'm proposing as a compromise, you're paying him $100 million.

Going the tag route costs you $130 million.

This is why if I were Dak I would sign the tag. All the money is guaranteed.

Cousins played this to perfection. Signed his 2 tags in Washington and made a boatload of money. No way the Commanders could tag him again and Cousins parlayed that into an $84M guaranteed deal with the Vikings.

If I were Dak I'd be all over that strategy.

 

[Rockport]

Sure, it's yet another 'Dak thread'. If you don't like that or don't want to talk about it, you're not required to. But it seems like the most important order of business that the team has right now so I consider it a topic for conversation.

Based on what I'm reading, the holdup at this point is more about years than dollars. Dak and his agent know that the cap, and by extension player salaries, will be going up significantly under the new CBA. And teams like the Eagles and Rams realized that too, and that's why they seemingly rushed to get their quarterbacks signed even when they didn't have to.

Now that they have, those teams can pay more now with the ability to save big later on, or to cut bait if things don't turn out as they had hoped. Wentz' deal is already looking like a bargain, at an average of $32 million a year, and Goff's is heavily front-loaded, giving the Rams an out clause if they choose, or much lower costs down the road. Goff's deal averages $33.5 million a year.

Hypothetically, would you do a deal that pays a bit less than that in exchange for getting at some of that bigger cap money down the line? Is this a deal that works for the Cowboys?

It seems like a shorter deal, for a bit less money, and betting on yourself to get at even bigger money down the road, is a compromise that might finally get this deal done.

Thoughts from those who do want to discuss it?

Stephen knows better than any of us. Whatever is in the best interest of Dak and the team.

 

[blueblood70]

Something else to consider:

You start playing the 'tag game'?

Exclusive rights costs you $33 million for 2020.

Then it costs you $40 million for 2021.

For 2022? The cost balloons to an enormous and ridiculous $57 million!!!

So, for the same three years I'm proposing as a compromise, you're paying him $100 million.

Going the tag route costs you $130 million.

exclusive ? why explain the risk on Non excusive ? you can get that for 27-28? what team in their right mind offers 2 firsts and also willing to give dak 34 hes asking? im betting NONE why use the more expensive tag>explain? ill take 2 firsts for dak in heartbeat..no team I know of would try that offer him a big deal and hand us 2 fiorsts????

go ahead explain why we would waste the non exclusive and get him cheaper?

If Dak proves himself further this season ion the tag paying him more for a LTD once they are more comfortable..