A part of the Dak Negotiation that wasn't discussed much

Diehardblues said:

That’s possible.

A big part of the problem is our frikin owner big blabber mouth always touting our talent. The All In, we’re totally sold he’s our guy is just an awful tactic if you’re intent on playing hardball standing firm on an offer which implies if you don’t accept you can walk.

Maybe Dak didn’t feel the love in the end after all of the praising. Especially after we showed the love to Elliott and Cooper.

Click to expand...

And even w/ all that, the agent did not get it done. Are you seriously telling me that the blabbing of Jerry kept the agent from making a deal? To me, that's a weak conclusion.

kskboys said:

Of course. However, the agent and the team didn't talk. Which points hard toward either terrible agent or greedy player.

A couple million more is that backup OT that you will need when someone goes down. He's Joe Smith, he's Joe Looney, Antwon Woods, Anthony Brown. He's that backup that gets you by when the starter goes down.

Click to expand...

I understand but in the end if we don’t have a Franchise QB does it matter?

These are the tough decisions that need to be made and why so much criticism on other big contracts we’ve dished out without locking up our QB.

If we think we can get by without Dak then that’s fine but will not having that backup OL depth have as much impact as not having the Franchise QB. These are the decisions we must live with.

blueblood70 said:

I think Mods need to lighten this rule..as ;long as we arent debating which side of it we are on or posting data etc etc on this subject, its part of sports right now front and center and hard to not talk about it in general sense..i mean PS was canceled because of it, yet what i cant say that? when a player gets quarantined what we cant discuss it even though its very important that that next 2 games he misses?

come on Mods lighten that rule.. its not part of all discussion in all sports arenas, everywhere , why not here? if its generalized and on topic that doesnt discuss the other parts of it but stay in the relationship to the NFL and the Dc, why not?

Click to expand...

I think the fact they have let this thread go may indicate that they are okay with what you are talking about. Just keep the focus on the NFL/Cowboys.

kskboys said:

And even w/ all that, the agent did not get it done. Are you seriously telling me that the blabbing of Jerry kept the agent from making a deal? To me, that's a weak conclusion.

Click to expand...

Not what I’m saying. I’m saying Jerry touting Dak didn’t support him standing firm.

But Jerry tried to influence public perception while being tough on negotiations. I think in at least this instance it didn’t serve the Cowboys best interest.

When our offer was rejected then you’re either prepared to walk away or you present another offer attempting to get closer to demands. I’m not sure we did that. If everyone is ok walking away risking having our franchise QB secured and potentially losing him the next year then all is good. No worries. Let it play out and prepared to move on.

It’s still to be determined how this plays out but if we end up paying Dak more or he walks after next year then we will look back saying we probably missed an opportunity to get the job done.

And then all of the collateral damage attached with the effects on our team until we find our next franchise QB. Not to mention the distractions now. And why all of the uncertainty and criticism.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily the wrong decision. I’m saying it certainly could be if you thought he was your guy which every indication from Jerry is he was. And was it worth the risk over possibly only a couple million. I think it’s a worthy argument. Obviously the media does too.

Diehardblues said:

I’m not sure how all of the contracts would be effected.

Click to expand...

That is the question without an answer right now. The owners and the players have to negotiate and agree.

Billionaires and millionaires fighting for money. The owners also have to agree with the networks who are not paying top dollar if fans will not watch. They might not be able to agree and have to go to binding arbitration which will take many months. I doubt the NFL could just go exclusively with their NFL Network without paying a hefty contract cancellation fee.

I would not be surprised if all negotiations get bogged down and everyone says ‘see you next year.’

Diehardblues said:

Yea, we really haven’t got the whole story yet.

In the end it’s up to Mgmt to get their guy signed. It’s very unusual when teams can’t eventuality come to an agreement. And we all know QB’s are overpaid to some extent. Some teams simply make an offer they can’t refuse.

I heard he wanted 37 for 4 years. To me if we offered 35 we could have gotten a little closer. And if we’d done it before the Mahomes deal Dak could have been highest paid probably satisfying his ego.

So while Dak was stubborn we weren’t aggressive or flexible enough. In the end what’s a couple million more if you’re likely to pay it or more next year. And why media bashed us.

Click to expand...

management is like mother nature. it is concerned with the species/team as a whole. not just one individual. stephen explained the pie. he drew a line in the sign. dak and france totally misread the outcome. looking forward to dak 2.0 next year.

OmerV said:

Another poster brought this up in another thread, and it's an interesting aspect of Dak's negotiation that doesn't seem to have been discussed much, but it's not unreasonable to wonder if, without the threat of the season not taking place at all, the Cowboys would have taken the 5th year off the table and signed Dak. As it is they may have worried that if the 2020 season isn't played that with a 4 year contract they would have effectively only had Dak committed for 3 seasons.

It's probably a waste of key strokes for me to write this, but if all you have for this thread is something like "Jerry just screwed it all up", or "Jerry just decided Dak sucks", or "Dak doesn't want to play in Dallas" please let it go in favor of some discussion on this topic. Obviously there was a desire to get a deal done, whether 4 or 5 years, or the two sides wouldn't have held out the possibility of a deal until the deadline.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think that the Cowboys were never going to move off of their terms in large part because of the uncertainty of revenues and the salary cap for the next few seasons. Without knowing how the losses from 2020 were going to be applied to future caps (there was word that the owners wanted to do it over a short time frame, perhaps two seasons, and the players association wanted it across five or more), I don't think that the Cowboys were going to be flexible on the terms. I do believe that by next training camp, they will have figured it out and an extension will be signed.

Plankton said:

Personally, I think that the Cowboys were never going to move off of their terms in large part because of the uncertainty of revenues and the salary cap for the next few seasons. Without knowing how the losses from 2020 were going to be applied to future caps (there was word that the owners wanted to do it over a short time frame, perhaps two seasons, and the players association wanted it across five or more), I don't think that the Cowboys were going to be flexible on the terms. I do believe that by next training camp, they will have figured it out and an extension will be signed.

Click to expand...

There wasn't much indication that price was really the problem anyway, just length of contract, and of course the uncertainty of revenues and the salary cap are caused by the uncertainty of the coming season, so what you are saying still comes down to the same thing - that uncertainty of playing the season could have affected the Cowboys willingness to bend on their demands.

OmerV said:

Another poster brought this up in another thread, and it's an interesting aspect of Dak's negotiation that doesn't seem to have been discussed much, but it's not unreasonable to wonder if, without the threat of the season not taking place at all, the Cowboys would have taken the 5th year off the table and signed Dak. As it is they may have worried that if the 2020 season isn't played that with a 4 year contract they would have effectively only had Dak committed for 3 seasons.

It's probably a waste of key strokes for me to write this, but if all you have for this thread is something like "Jerry just screwed it all up", or "Jerry just decided Dak sucks", or "Dak doesn't want to play in Dallas" please let it go in favor of some discussion on this topic. Obviously there was a desire to get a deal done, whether 4 or 5 years, or the two sides wouldn't have held out the possibility of a deal until the deadline.

Click to expand...

My understanding is if a season doesn't happen the player wouldn't accrue a year towards his experience or the contract. So, if they signed him for four years, it would be four years of actual NFL service, not four calendar years.

JBS said:

I highly doubt this had any impact on negotiations. There aren't even procedures in place at the moment for what would happen if a season is canceled entirely or cut short..so for the front office to jump to a conclusion on that front, wouldn't make sense.

Click to expand...

They can negotiate something but my understanding is the cba does cover it. The way I’ve read it is if one game is played then the get paid and season counts. If cancelled before start no pay and no season. They have had talks on some type of salary but not agreed to
Atleast that’s the way I understand it

texbumthelife said:

My understanding is if a season doesn't happen the player wouldn't accrue a year towards his experience or the contract. So, if they signed him for four years, it would be four years of actual NFL service, not four calendar years.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. A lot of folks have been speculating on that, but nobody had an answer before now. Thanks.

A follow up to this is do NFL teams not have to pay the players anything for that off year? That seems a little odd that they could retain a player without paying him, but of course NFL standards don't always align with the standards in other businesses.

texbumthelife said:

My understanding is if a season doesn't happen the player wouldn't accrue a year towards his experience or the contract. So, if they signed him for four years, it would be four years of actual NFL service, not four calendar years.

Click to expand...

OmerV said:

That's interesting. A lot of folks have been speculating on that, but nobody had an answer before now. Thanks.

A follow up to this is do NFL teams not have to pay the players anything for that off year? That seems a little odd that they could retain a player without paying him, but of course NFL standards don't always align with the standards in other businesses.

Click to expand...

I found an NBC Sports article that has this to say …

the league is now proposing a series of drastic pay cuts for players if the season winds up shortened or completely canceled, according to Pro Football Talk.

Any changes to the recently agreed-upon CBA have to be collectively bargained, so if the NFLPA and NFL can't agree to a new salary structure, the players would be paid their full base salary for the season as long as one game is played.

That would obviously hurt the league. But every week of regular-season football that's played would bring the NFL about $258 million in TV revenue. So there's a lot to consider here.

The current rules also do not provide any payments to the players other than a small daily training camp stipend in the event the season is canceled before opening day.

How the length of the contract is affected is not addressed, but I would have to think that if any portion of the season is played and players get paid accordingly, that would have to be a year under the contract.

The article can be found here … https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/eagles/nfl-player-salaries-cancellation-nfl-cba

Plankton said:

Personally, I think that the Cowboys were never going to move off of their terms in large part because of the uncertainty of revenues and the salary cap for the next few seasons. Without knowing how the losses from 2020 were going to be applied to future caps (there was word that the owners wanted to do it over a short time frame, perhaps two seasons, and the players association wanted it across five or more), I don't think that the Cowboys were going to be flexible on the terms. I do believe that by next training camp, they will have figured it out and an extension will be signed.

Click to expand...

I dont see it as a large disadvantage that the team isnt locked into a deal with Prescott with all this uncertainty.

All those increases in revenue that his agent was banking on may very well be offset with losses.

They tripped over it, but I think it's best to not be locked in with a huge contract right now, especially when you can control him for two more seasons.

texbumthelife said:

My understanding is if a season doesn't happen the player wouldn't accrue a year towards his experience or the contract. So, if they signed him for four years, it would be four years of actual NFL service, not four calendar years.

Click to expand...

I think that is probably true. It makes sense.

But what happens if they play for 6 weeks, then are forced to shut down the season? I'm not sure anybody has the answer to that scenario.

Diehardblues said:

I understand but in the end if we don’t have a Franchise QB does it matter?

These are the tough decisions that need to be made and why so much criticism on other big contracts we’ve dished out without locking up our QB.

If we think we can get by without Dak then that’s fine but will not having that backup OL depth have as much impact as not having the Franchise QB. These are the decisions we must live with.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have much impact? How did our starting QB do when our backup OT Chaz Green came in? 8 sacks. That's not an OT, that's a Rosie O'Donnell shopping cart. Poor backups have plenty of impact.

NotForLong said:

Cowboys insisted on 5 years because they knew it was a sticking point and that France would never agree to it

Click to expand...

Smh....they also Tagged Dak with Exclusive Franchise Tag so France could not negotiate with any other team..

Yes yes ....the Cowboys are pissed at Todd France after many other successful contracts between the 2 parties

Direwolf63 said:

I think that is probably true. It makes sense.

But what happens if they play for 6 weeks, then are forced to shut down the season? I'm not sure anybody has the answer to that scenario.

Click to expand...

See post #72 above

OmerV said:

See post #72 above

Click to expand...

The league has proposed something but there is no agreement in place.

Who knows where it's going to end up at the end of the day? It's all guesswork at this stage.

Direwolf63 said:

The league has proposed something but there is no agreement in place.

Who knows where it's going to end up at the end of the day? It's all guesswork at this stage.

Click to expand...

But there are already rules in place for the situation even if there is no new agreement. As things sit, if they play any games at all the players get full pay. What they are trying to negotiate is something that would only require partial pay for a partial season.

Flamma said:

It doesn't have much impact? How did our starting QB do when our backup OT Chaz Green came in? 8 sacks. That's not an OT, that's a Rosie O'Donnell shopping cart. Poor backups have plenty of impact.

Click to expand...

I understand but that’s not what I said.

Does it matter If we don’t have a Franchise QB?

I’d suggest signing your QB first then your WR1 and top RB.