Twitter: Stephen: Cowboys spending the amount in total players' salaries, regardless what we spend on Dak

OmerV · May 18, 2020

leeblair said:
No, I see the two 8-8 seasons and the 10-6 season in the worst division in football.
I saw him choke with a 13-3 team in the first round of the playoffs- but to be fair, he was a rookie.
But in the three years since- and especially last season, game after game went by in which just one more win would have clinched the division, but he wasn't up to the challenge.
Now if that's what you're looking for in a franchise quarterback, that's your business.
But Cowboys fans should demand better.

There was only one 8-8 season, and there were 2 division championships, not just the one you claim.

In any case, if you truly think the QB is solely responsible for wins and losses, you really don't have much to back up anything you say. Of course Dak bears his share of responsibility, but it's clearly not a one man game.

By the way, wasn't Dak a great QB when he went 13-3? Or is Dak only responsible for the seasons when the record is bad?

lkelly · May 18, 2020

America's Cowboy said:
If that's the case, they had best get Dak signed because if Dak sits out, this season is over before it gets started. Guaranteed.

If you can't get Dak signed to a contract that works for you, you simply do what you can to move him for maximum return. Tag him with the non-exclusive number next year and invite him to negotiate around the league. There are other QBs that the team can win with. Of course I have no faith in Jerry/Stephen being able to pull off a big trade since they are usually on the receiving end of such deals.

leeblair · May 18, 2020

OmerV said:
There was only one 8-8 season, and there were 2 division championships, not just the one you claim.

In any case, if you truly think the QB is solely responsible for wins and losses, you really don't have much to back up anything you say. Of course Dak bears his share of responsibility, but it's clearly not a one man game.

By the way, wasn't Dak a great QB when he went 13-3? Or is Dak only responsible for the seasons when the record is bad?

Dak was a rookie who got to stand behind the best offensive line in football, with the best running back in the NFL, in the worst division in the NFL.
He did okay- because the team was doing well.
But then reality set in, and he struggled the next 3 years.
By the way- he never should have been under center in his second year, but Garrett was hoping he would show everyone what a great coach he was.
As usual, Garrett didn't have a clue.

gjkoeppen · May 18, 2020

Kevinicus said:
*Sigh* The "regardless of what we spend on Dak" is the important part of the quote.

You just don't understand how this works. It's okay.

How about you stop making generalized cap comments into meaning negotiating in the press. Just where in "regardless of what we spend on Dak" is Stephen detailing any of the things being negotiating thus negotiating in the press. ALL HE SAID was generalized cap statements.
.

Kevinicus · May 18, 2020

gjkoeppen said:
How about you stop making generalized cap comments into meaning negotiating in the press. Just where in "regardless of what we spend on Dak" is Stephen detailing any of the things being negotiating thus negotiating in the press. ALL HE SAID was generalized cap statements.
.

Negotiating in the press != "detailing"

gjkoeppen · May 18, 2020

Kevinicus said:
Negotiating in the press != "detailing"

Hey if you want to think giving generalized statements on any issue to the press is negotiating in the press, then knock your socks off. You'll just be either surprised or disappointed when those contracts do get signed and the facts are finally made public.
.

Kevinicus · May 18, 2020

gjkoeppen said:
Hey if you want to think giving generalized statements on any issue to the press is negotiating in the press, then knock your socks off. You'll just be either surprised or disappointed when those contracts do get signed and the facts are finally made public.
.

What exactly do you think "negotiating through the press" is?

Are you expecting contract offers to be going back and forth from the team to the media?

Bullflop · May 18, 2020

Tough to make any sense about what Stephen is claiming to do with his spending on the players other than Dak. On one hand, he makes statements saying he doesn't want to give Dak too much because it'll adversely affect what he's able to do for the rest of the team.

Now he's saying that no matter what he pays Dak, it won't affect the rest of the team, since they're still going to get the same thing that they would have gotten otherwise. Something is amiss with those two statements. One has to be true and the other false. You can't have it both ways, imho.

Reid1boys · May 18, 2020

Oz-of-Cowboy-Country said:
What does that even mean? They have a cap within their cap?

whats hard about what he said? Hes saying if they spend 10 million ,20 million, or 80 million per season on Dak, it isnt impacting what they spend per year on ALL player salaries. This isnt about them trying to save money and put more into Jerry's pocket.

gjkoeppen · May 18, 2020

Kevinicus said:
What exactly do you think "negotiating through the press" is?

Are you expecting contract offers to be going back and forth from the team to the media?

I can tell you what negotiating through the press isn't. It isn't giving generalized comments that don't speak of the actual negotiations. Your big "regardless of what we spend on Dak" is not ANYTHING that everyone and their brother know that Prescott's contract has a big baring on the cap. That is not negotiating through the press. In the past agents have leaked actual contract details to the press thinking it will help but it never did and made things tougher for those agents because teams didn't trust them. Like I said if you want read things into generalized comments knock your socks off. If you're interest I know where there is some swamp land for sale.
.

Kevinicus · May 18, 2020

gjkoeppen said:
I can tell you what negotiating through the press isn't. It isn't giving generalized comments that don't speak of the actual negotiations. Your big "regardless of what we spend on Dak" is not ANYTHING that everyone and their brother know that Prescott's contract has a big baring on the cap. That is not negotiating through the press. In the past agents have leaked actual contract details to the press thinking it will help but it never did and made things tougher for those agents because teams didn't trust them. Like I said if you want read things into generalized comments knock your socks off. If you're interest I know where there is some swamp land for sale.
.

Everything you just said is wrong.

Verdict · May 18, 2020

doomsday9084 said:
I believe he is trying to say:
- Dak's pay comes out of other people's pay
- Dak's pay has no impact on Jerry's wallet

Its a back handed slam on Dak and the "just pay him" group supporting Dak.

Its interesting that SJ has been turning more negative recently. They were really trying hard to not let this get acrimonious or spill into the public. That no longer seems to be the goal as there are public comments and salary offer/demand leaks that seem to be coming from the team. They seem to be trying to set the fanbase up so that if the negotiation fails, the team won't get the blame.

I think that’s reasonable.

gjkoeppen · May 18, 2020

Kevinicus said:
Everything you just said is wrong.

Again if you think so, fine knock your socks off and I guess we're done. I tired of trying to educate you anyways.
.

plasticman · May 19, 2020

Hey thanks, Stephen. Do you have any information that we don't already know and understand? Something we wouldn't label as "obvious"? Or perhaps you would like to insult our intelligence again?

How about telling us what would happen at the QB position if Dak doesn't sign before the season starts. Would somebody else start instead?

I realize it took about 20 years for you to understand salary cap dynamics but most fans grasp the concept pretty quick.

tunahelper · May 19, 2020

pansophy said:
Collective bargaining does have stipulations on the minimum amount of the cap a team has to spend. I believe that window got even tighter in the latest agreement, so yeah we are spending what we are spending. It’s about who gets what proportion of the pie.

Exactly and underscores how Dak is being unreasonable.

Kwyn · May 19, 2020

doomsday9084 said:
I believe he is trying to say:
- Dak's pay comes out of other people's pay
- Dak's pay has no impact on Jerry's wallet

Its a back handed slam on Dak and the "just pay him" group supporting Dak.

Its interesting that SJ has been turning more negative recently. They were really trying hard to not let this get acrimonious or spill into the public. That no longer seems to be the goal as there are public comments and salary offer/demand leaks that seem to be coming from the team. They seem to be trying to set the fanbase up so that if the negotiation fails, the team won't get the blame.

i don’t think that’s what he was saying. I think it’s what you’re saying

lockster · May 19, 2020

Oz-of-Cowboy-Country said:
What does that even mean? They have a cap within their cap?

I don't think it's mathematical regardless of what he actuallyeant, because that's not possible!

lockster · May 19, 2020

I'm just hoping , dinucci comes out on fire baby!!!! It's a win win for us if he does.

. Of we force Daks hand, this will set a good precedence for the future.

doomsday9084 · May 19, 2020

Kwyn said:
i don’t think that’s what he was saying. I think it’s what you’re saying

Lol, to paraphrase, he said "the total amount of money dallas spends on players is fixed, regardless of how much we pay Dak"

Either:
- He was trying to educate everyone on the cap and pointing out that Dallas doesn't directly financially benefit from keeping his salary down
or
- He was pointing out that what Dak gets comes out of what other people get paid

What other reason could he have for making this comment?

Oz-of-Cowboy-Country · May 19, 2020

Reid1boys said:
whats hard about what he said? Hes saying if they spend 10 million ,20 million, or 80 million per season on Dak, it isnt impacting what they spend per year on ALL player salaries. This isnt about them trying to save money and put more into Jerry's pocket.

Left over cap money doesn't go in Jerry's pocket. And if you read through this thread you'll see about ten other explanations or interpretations of Stephen's words, including yours. So I just posed the question..."what does that even mean?"

Twitter: Stephen: Cowboys spending the amount in total players' salaries, regardless what we spend on Dak

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Cowboys Diehard

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member