How about a 5 year contract with incentives if meet becomes a 4 year contract

John813

John813

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,191
Reaction score
33,977
I rather say 5 yer deal with agreement franchise tag can't be used afterwards.

IMO Dallas wants 5 for a few reasons.

1. Easier to play with cap numbers with more term
2. The assumption that in years 3-5 the deal becomes a steal. One more year under 2020 cap terms is better than a year sooner going to to the negotiation table and a larger deal.
 
jazzcat22

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
77,346
Reaction score
96,004
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Dak wants that one year less deal, so he can get a larger contract a year earlier, as no incentive will make up for what he thinks he can make after 4 years, not 5.
He is betting not just on himself, but the team that surrounds him also.
 
Jenky

Jenky

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,656
Reaction score
4,233
jazzcat22 said:
Dak wants that one year less deal, so he can get a larger contract a year earlier, as no incentive will make up for what he thinks he can make after 4 years, not 5.
He is betting not just on himself, but the team that surrounds him also.
Click to expand...

No, he just wants to maximize the amount of money he can get.
 
fivetwos

fivetwos

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,242
Reaction score
26,128
Signing a shorter deal with the idea that he can cash in again in four years is flat out stupid.

He almost HAS to win a SB in those four years.

I don't how much better off he would be pushing 30 and not having won in eight seasons than he would be just taking a 6-7 year deal now.

I don't think QB salaries are going to continue to climb the way they are. The point is going to come (and we are getting close) to where teams will just take chances on draftees and recycled vets than pay 3M a game to one player.

Even if I'm wrong, I wouldn't advise Prescott to put himself in a situation where he is gambling on himself and his teammates when he doesnt at all need to.
 
Denim Chicken

Denim Chicken

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,321
Reaction score
23,870
fivetwos said:
Signing a shorter deal with the idea that he can cash in again in four years is flat out stupid.

He almost HAS to win a SB in those four years.

I don't how much better off he would be pushing 30 and not having won in eight seasons than he would be just taking a 6-7 year deal now.

I don't think QB salaries are going to continue to climb the way they are. The point is going to come (and we are getting close) to where teams will just take chances on draftees and recycled vets than pay 3M a game to one player.

Even if I'm wrong, I wouldn't advise Prescott to put himself in a situation where he is gambling on himself and his teammates when he doesnt at all need to.
Click to expand...

Some people believe & bet on themselves.
 
Hennessy_King

Hennessy_King

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,625
Reaction score
25,418
Every recent qb deal has been a 4 year deal why would dak want to do it differently. We havent won jack in a quarter century.
 
darthseinfeld

darthseinfeld

Groupthink Guru
Messages
32,011
Reaction score
36,449
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
fivetwos said:
Signing a shorter deal with the idea that he can cash in again in four years is flat out stupid.

He almost HAS to win a SB in those four years.

I don't how much better off he would be pushing 30 and not having won in eight seasons than he would be just taking a 6-7 year deal now.

I don't think QB salaries are going to continue to climb the way they are. The point is going to come (and we are getting close) to where teams will just take chances on draftees and recycled vets than pay 3M a game to one player.

Even if I'm wrong, I wouldn't advise Prescott to put himself in a situation where he is gambling on himself and his teammates when he doesnt at all need to.
Click to expand...
QB salaries and salaries in general are going to spike with the new TV contract. There are going to be very large cap spikes in the next few years (maybe not 2021) thats why you see talk of Mahomes getting close to 50 million
 
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
Here's how I see it. A 5 year deal that can be changed to a 4 year deal, based on incentives, doesn't really help the Cowboys. They use longer term contracts to work future cap relief. I mean, 4 year big money deals don't work guys. The money, believe it or not, is not the main issue here IMO. Don't get me wrong, it definitely doesn't help things but it's not the main thing. Fexability of cap is the more important issue here.

I think the team needs to stick to the offer on the table and just let this thing ride. If Dak's team doesn't want to accept that deal, then play him on the tag and try to work out a trade that works for us.

JMO
 
fivetwos

fivetwos

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,242
Reaction score
26,128
Denim Chicken said:
Some people believe & bet on themselves.
Click to expand...
Let me ask this...is Prescott coupling the idea of betting on his team and himself with making it more difficult for the team to create cap room to retain players?

Seems a bit counterproductive.
 
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
fivetwos said:
Let me ask this...is Prescott coupling the idea of betting on his team and himself with making it more difficult for the team to create cap room to retain players?

Seems a bit counterproductive.
Click to expand...

I just posted on this in another thread. So the problem with some sort of optional 5th year that can be voided is that as a team, you plan to basically spread out a signing bonus or up front, fully guaranteed money. The team structures these contracts to be able to utilize years out to help with the cap hit. When you take a year away, you are then accelerating the cap hit into the existing cap year. Lets say, Russell Wilson's contract for example. Wilson has 70 mil guaranteed up front. Lets say, for the sake of discussion, he was in a 5 year deal and you split that over 5 years. You would basically say that, on average that would be 14 mil a year that hits the cap, in addition to any base salary or incidental bonus/incentives reached. If that suddenly became 4 years rather then 5, you would see a cap hit in the last year of 28 mil, plus base year and any other incentives reached. Now think about what we've heard, coming out of reports and media talking heads. They are talking about numbers that far exceed 70 mil guaranteed. They are talking about numbers in excess of 100 mil, up front. Basically, what you are now doing is taking that up front money and creating a situation where the team has to either structure a 5 year deal where they have to plan for a huge cap hit in year 4, regardless of if Dak makes the numbers to void the final year or not. You can't afford to use a 5 year formula and see a 50 mil cap hit, or whatever the contract structure allows for, in that last year. That number is going to be extremely high so you have to plan for 4 years no matter what. You know that you are basically back at the table in 3 trying to work out an even more expensive extension so you don't lose Dak and get nothing in exchange. So see, there really is no benefit, at all, to the team on a deal like that. You basically are under the same cap burden no matter what. It basically provides no real value to the team and shifts all negotiating leverage to Dak on the follow on contract. Imagine what that situation would look like for the Cowboys.

It's a bad idea no matter how you look at it IMO.
 
fivetwos

fivetwos

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,242
Reaction score
26,128
ABQCOWBOY said:
I just posted on this in another thread. So the problem with some sort of optional 5th year that can be voided is that as a team, you plan to basically spread out a signing bonus or up front, fully guaranteed money. The team structures these contracts to be able to utilize years out to help with the cap hit. When you take a year away, you are then accelerating the cap hit into the existing cap year. Lets say, Russell Wilson's contract for example. Wilson has 70 mil guaranteed up front. Lets say, for the sake of discussion, he was in a 5 year deal and you split that over 5 years. You would basically say that, on average that would be 14 mil a year that hits the cap, in addition to any base salary or incidental bonus/incentives reached. If that suddenly became 4 years rather then 5, you would see a cap hit in the last year of 28 mil, plus base year and any other incentives reached. Now think about what we've heard, coming out of reports and media talking heads. They are talking about numbers that far exceed 70 mil guaranteed. They are talking about numbers in excess of 100 mil, up front. Basically, what you are now doing is taking that up front money and creating a situation where the team has to either structure a 5 year deal where they have to plan for a huge cap hit in year 4, regardless of if Dak makes the numbers to void the final year or not. You can't afford to use a 5 year formula and see a 50 mil cap hit, or whatever the contract structure allows for, in that last year. That number is going to be extremely high so you have to plan for 4 years no matter what. You know that you are basically back at the table in 3 trying to work out an even more expensive extension so you don't lose Dak and get nothing in exchange. So see, there really is no benefit, at all, to the team on a deal like that. You basically are under the same cap burden no matter what. It basically provides no real value to the team and shifts all negotiating leverage to Dak on the follow on contract. Imagine what that situation would look like for the Cowboys.

It's a bad idea no matter how you look at it IMO.
Click to expand...
The team cant be totally blamed at this point, because QB salaries have just now gotten out of hand...and them wasting Prescotts rookie deal on Garrett is another debate....but teams need to be developing QBs to take over every five years.

This is how you're held hostage to pay elite numbers for average play.

When teams begin to no longer accept having to pay 2-3 million a game for QBs the numbers will go down.

I'm sorry but a QB capable of starting right away is by far the most valuable thing out there if things are going to be this way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top