News: Agent's Take: A five-year deal Dak Prescott should consider

ABQCOWBOY said:

Well, I think it depends on the actual numbers. The way I see this, CAA and France have figured out that you can take advantage of this idea of "Next Man Up" by forcing a 4 year deal. The way teams like to work contracts, and the Cowboys are no different, is to work a deal where you pay big dollars over multiple years and then in the last year of the contract, they restructure and push the remainder of the money on the contract into future cap years. It is beneficial to be able to create this flexibility in your cap so that you can sign guys down the road, while still paying players substantial amounts of money. Yeah, when their careers are over, we carry debt in future cap years but it still seems to work for teams who use this approach. What CAA has figured out is that if you create a contract that forces you to limit the years you can spread it out, you then can force teams into a position where they forgo the Tag, in exchange for more years. What does that do for you? Well, once you get a team in a situation where they have so much money hitting the cap in the last year of a contract, once you have no ability to Tag a player, then you are either forced to have a firesale and gut your team, in order to get under the cap and pay off a contract or, you suffer the loss of a key player on your team with zero compensation. What does that do? It basically creates a situation where the agent and player have all the leverage. The follow on contract that teams ultimately agree to are stupid expensive and that's the end game here. If CAA and Dak can negotiate that deal, where you wave the Tag in exchange for the fifth year, guess what, your going to see another record breaking deal that's going to burn down the entire cap structure for the Cowboys eventually. The numbers will be stupid and we will have no choice but to accept it. That's the real goal for CAA IMO.

Click to expand...

Idgit said:

I agree that it’d be stupid to waive the right to tag just to buy an extra year on the deal now. I can’t imagine we’d actually do that.

Click to expand...

ABQCOWBOY said:

Why would you be asking me that? I clearly stated that we don't know what the details are of any of this. More to the point, you specifically, don't even know if the details being related to this entire discussion are accurate. Nobody knows anything for certain. But let me ask you this, before Russell Wilson got his 35 AAV, did you ever see a deal that paid that much out annually? The answer would be no, correct? And yet, there it is. I've heard you and many, many others say that Mahomeboy is going to get 40/50 mil in his next deal. Have you ever seen that deal done? Have you ever seen anybody get a deal like that? Let me help you, the answer is no. And yet, you still believe that this is what will happen.

I don't know what you are trying to do here, other then stir the pot, but the fact remains that we don't know the details of the contract so you can't say anything definitively and that is the point I was trying to make in my very first post.

Click to expand...

ABQCOWBOY said:

Lord, I hope you are right on this one Idgit. I mean, I can't even understand how anybody would ever allow for that situation. It would be stupid, I agree.

BTW, how you been my friend? You and yours doing well?

Click to expand...

ABQCOWBOY said:

Show me where I did this please.

Obvious to you, perhaps. But certainly not a given. So simple is apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I do agree with you, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't adjust the plan. In fact, they may plan to just role with Dalton and go draft a guy. That too could be the plan going forward. See how that works?

The rest of your post, I don't agree with but it's not really worth my time to argue the point. In fact, this entire response is pretty much a waste of time IMO.

Click to expand...

MarcusRock said:

I asked that because YOU introduced the $80 to $100M figure knowing you were going on nothing. And you did that "well, what if" because you had no back-up for opposing an article that supports the idea that Dak was right not to agree to any rumored offer. We get that you don't want Dak paid just like you didn't want Zeke paid. But that's what you do when you have nothing of substance to oppose good points: just say, "that's just your opinion" or "well, we don't know" or "well it could also not fall that way" No spit, Sherlock. What reasons do you have for those opinons? Just say "none" so we can confirm you're merely posting out of your hopes. Just telling you the reality will be different (like with Zeke), and unlike you, I can actually point to why.

Now comes the part where you feign incredulousness and proceed to tell me "I don't have time to teach you" to attempt to make your graceful exit in lieu of having no substantive points.

Click to expand...

OmerV said:

Show you?

Nope. They discuss this only from the perspective of keeping him and agreeing to terms. Nothing about Tag him and move on. I disagree.

Again, I didn't say the article said anything about "Tag him and move on", so this response to me made no sense.


As for a reason why they might tag him twice being to have a QB, how can you say that isn't an obvious reason? I didn't say it was likely, and in fact, said I didn't think it was. But the mere fact that is a reason they might do it if they don't get Dak signed isn't even disputable.

It appears you only see the things you want to see. So with that, I'm good with you deciding the rest of my post isn't worth discussing. I can't discuss something with you that you intentionally ignore.

Click to expand...

Idgit said:

We’re good. Crazy busy, though. You’d think things would have slowed down. And it’s hard having nothing more than Dak’s contract to talk about right now. I actually find myself wanting the to stretch things out so we have something to debate. Can you imagine what it’d be like if we didn’t have this?

Click to expand...

ABQCOWBOY said:

Yes, in order to make the point that you have to understand what the deal is. If...... "IF" the deal is an up front guarantee of a large amount of money like 80 or 100, then.... "THEN" the years make all the difference. So you can't make the statement you made because you don't know. Because "YOU" are going on nothing as well. Stop wasting my time. I don't have time for this BS. If you don't agree, then just say that and move on.

However, if you have proof of what the offer actually is, then post that and let us all see it. If not, stop wasting my time. You aren't worth nearly as much of it as I've already spent on you.

Click to expand...

MarcusRock said:

"Don't have time" verbatim. Lol. If your time were so precious then maybe don't insert yourself into conversations with no substance because all of the time taken up is in asking you to produce something other than what you "hope" will happen.

What I'm going on is the OP article and the contracts I brought to the discussion in support of why Dak shouldn't have signed that rumored offer. That was literally my first reply in here stating my stance. The article goes into great detail about lengths, guarantees and cashflows. All we have from you are Captain Obvious "we don't know" observations. No one does. But we do have history and when I asked you to produce some after introducing figures out of the wind, you can't. So you have no support and just seek to cast contrarian doubt on a strong piece against your "feelings" that you have zero ammo against. Most of the don't pay Dak folks didn't even bother trying to attack this article because it's a pretty solid case. Why someone like you would even attempt to is beyond a lot of us. But emotions are compelling. And in this case, they're going to be dashed.

Click to expand...

DuncanIso said:

5 years is a long time.

that would be 9 seasons as a starting QB in the NFL.

144 games.

3-4 is probably the median.

Click to expand...

Doomsday101 said:

One major sticking point in the negotiations is length of contract as Prescott wants a four-year deal. If representing Prescott, I wouldn't want a five-year deal either. The salary cap is expected to increase significantly with the addition of a 17th regular season game and new media rights deals, and most of the current TV deals expire after the 2022 season. The 17th game most likely will be implemented at some point before the 2023 season. Prescott would be better positioned to take advantage of the anticipated financial growth with a four-year deal.

The recent trend with high-end quarterback contracts has been a shorter term than what Dallas would prefer. There are seven passers with contracts averaging $30 million or more per year. Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan is the only one whose deal contains more than four new contract years as he signed a five-year contract extension. The average length for these seven quarterback deals is 3.57 new years. Since all seven deals were extensions (had at least one year remaining on their existing deals when signed), the quarterbacks are under contract for average of 4.71 total years.

Total and average salary
There wouldn't be many circumstances where a five-year deal would get real consideration from Prescott's agent. First off, I would be operating under the assumption that Prescott would get a second franchise tag in 2021 at the CBA-mandated 20 percent increase, so his salary next year would be $37,690,800. Prescott would make nearly $69.1 million through 2021 by going year-to-year with unrestricted free agency as a realistic possibility in 2022, since a third franchise tag would be $54,274,752, a 44 percent increase over the 2021 franchise tag.

Read more
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-a-five-year-deal-dak-prescott-should-consider-even-if-the-cowboys-qb-wants-to-go-shorter/?fbclid=IwAR0FSnVtWbF1pRyvT7iVqeIjgNSJ4QnRrSeBaK1JRFOaFUwWZvKNfdLZZEI

Click to expand...

ABQCOWBOY said:

Like you, this article knows nothing about the real offer. Nothing. Prove me wrong. Post the numbers. This isn't about "ammo", this is about understanding limitations. I don't know what the contract offer is. Neither do you. The difference is that I admit that from the jump. You, well, you can't. Why is that?

Click to expand...

calicowboy54 said:

I know im late to the game here, but why not offer him a 5 year deal, with with options in it that if he reaches 1 Superbowl game it reduces from 5 to 4 years. then he gets his way, Team gets there way, if he does not reach 1 superbowl.

Click to expand...

jwooten15 said:

At this point, I’m just ready for July to come and go, so we have a better idea what reality will look like.

Either sign him to a 4/5 year deal or have him play on the tag, and move on. He’s not worth the money he’ll get, but that’s the nature of the NFL landscape.

Just do something so we can all argue over other things

Click to expand...

stasheroo said:

I have little doubt that Bill O'Brien and the Texans will undoubtedly screw up the quarterback market even more than it currently is.

If the team does want Dak long term, get the deal done ahead of those morons.

Click to expand...