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

[OmerV]

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

I didn't say anything about "tag him and move on". The article did, however, talk about the possibility of tagging Dak for 2 years, and discussed what that cost would be. Maybe you didn't scroll down through the entire article.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Anybody know if the team can tag him, sign him to a three or four year deal, and then tag him two times again the next time he’s a free agent?

You can if you don't give that away in negotiation, which is what I understood one of the previous articles to suggest.

That article was suggesting a 5th year in exchange for waiving the ability to tag the next time Dak is an FA.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I didn't say anything about "tag him and move on". The article did, however, talk about the possibility of tagging Dak for 2 years, and discussed what that cost would be. Maybe you didn't scroll down through the entire article.

OK, but nobody asked that of you. That is what I said prior to you trying to say that I was incorrect in my view of this article.

Yes, I did read the entire article. But again, suggesting that the team would tag him twice only enforces the theory. Why in the world would the team do that if they can't sign him? I mean, everybody and the dog has said that the only reason the team has tagged Dak is so that they can sign him. Well, if he doesn't sign, what does that say? But the article never even considers that. It only takes one version into consideration and that is to sign Dak no matter what.

That's not the only option and if he doesn't sign a deal before the second tag, I don't even think it's the best option.

 

[fivetwos]

Exactly. If he wants a really large amount of that deal up front, which I hate BTW, then you need more years to spread that out. You can't have 100 mil hitting your cap all in the same year, or even 3 or 4 years depending on the number. Lets say he's getting 100 mil plus signing bonus of an additional 10, that's and average of like 27.5 hitting the cap, all by itself every year. That's a huge amount and that doesn't include base or whatever else is negotiated. Just one additional year makes that number much more manageable. Then you are looking at something like 22 and that could easily be the key for them. It's just the numbers. If Dak wants only 4 years, then I think he needs to be looking at something in the area of 90 mil guaranteed and an AAV of something like 30. You gotta be able to manage the cap.

This sounds ridiculous, maybe morbid, not sure....but sometimes people tragically pass away.

What if that happened to Prescott in year one of a contract with all that guaranteed money?

Would the team need to cut half of its roster due to the bonus acceleration?

If so, they cant guarantee that much money any more than Prescott can guarantee he wont die.

 

[DuncanIso]

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

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.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This sounds ridiculous, maybe morbid, not sure....but sometimes people tragically pass away.

What if that happened to Prescott in year one of a contract with all that guaranteed money?

Would the team need to cut half of its roster due to the bonus acceleration?

If so, they cant guarantee that much money any more than Prescott can guarantee he wont die.

He would have already gotten paid. It's in his account the minute he signs the contract. That's why it's important to get the right years in the contract, depending on what the up front guaranteed money is. You can spread a lot of that out, in the existing years of a contract, if you have enough of them because it's very, very unlikely that a team goes 4 or 5 years without having to make additional expensive FA acquisitions.

 

[RamziD]

This might or might not be true, IMO. I mean, how exactly does Dak go about getting the team to release him out right? How does he do this without hurting himself?

He would get hurt, maybe not the best example, but players have asked for releases and gotten them or just held out (ie Antonio Brown, Le’veon Bell).

The more likely scenario I guess would be holding out and then DAL realizing that Dalton’s not going to lead them very far and then Dak has even more leverage. I just don’t think we’re in the era anymore where the FO “wins” a contract negotiation with a star player. Either they agree to a little bit of a hometown discount or they get paid market value. Dak’s not at the point in his career where he’ll take a discount, this will be his first big contract.

I think you gotta pay your QB and make him happy or risk being QB deprived again.

 

[EMMITTnROY]

This is all so silly.

All these articles are just talking like “Mahomes and Watson and Jackson are gonna be making $40 million in a year or two.”

Well Dak isn’t as good Mahomes or Watson or Jackson.

And this isn’t a year or two from now, it’s now.

The Cowboys are gonna have to come off the 5 year proposal. Dak won’t do it.

Dak has to come off the ridiculously high money. Cowboys won’t do it.

That’s the compromise. Dak gets the short length so he can break the bank in a few years. Cowboys get a reasonable deal while contending for the next few years.

Give Dak something like 3 years for $100 million or 4 years for $135 million.

 

[MarcusRock]

I guess you are not understanding here. Guaranteed and up front are not the same thing. Up front is what goes directly into a players account the minute he signs and that's different. That has to be accounted for with the years you have available. So it makes a big difference in what a player actually gets and how many years a team has. You can't just compare those numbers to what is RUMORED to be offered to Dak. You have to understand what that upfront number is because it changes everything. All of the contracts you show up above are extensions so those deals are actually being spread out over more then 4 years.

Yes, I know guaranteed at signing vs. other guarantees and the article makes that point also. I'm asking where you've seen a deal like Dak's rumored offer with "80 or 100 mil in advance" as you state, as superior or just as good over 5 years than it would be on a 4-year deal that might exist out there since you don't want to use those extensions numbers.

 

[Bullflop]

Obviously, the Cowboys are objecting to the average ongoing amount of increases that a shorter year on a contract involves.

With that being so, why not make the contract for 4.5 years, instead of five? That way, it'd be a compromise between the two.

 

[Idgit]

You can if you don't give that away in negotiation, which is what I understood one of the previous articles to suggest.

That article was suggesting a 5th year in exchange for waiving the ability to tag the next time Dak is an FA.

That’s why I asked. We’d be better off doing the tag, a four year deal, and two more tags. That gives you seven. Or five if he’s not any good in five or six years. Maybe he only does the tag and three years, but still, your control him for six. That’s plenty of time.

 

[slick325]

@Doomsday101...thanks for posting. Always good to read or hear Joel talk sports business.

 

[MarcusRock]

@Doomsday101...thanks for posting. Always good to read or hear Joel talk sports business.

It's a good business article and one I knew wouldn't be popular because people want to hold to their notion that Dak is greedy for not accepting that rumored offer by the FO. When you look at comparisons and such and the way this guy laid things out, he's saying any 5-year deal would need to come close to 5 years, $190M with at least $125M in guarantees, $95M fully guaranteed. I don't think Dak will get that $38M average but I do think it will exceed Wilson's $35M. That rumored offer doesn't even pass the eye test to recent 4-year deals below so that's when the "greedy" crowd has to scurry to inject hypotheticals that usually don't have a chance in Hades of coming to pass or has no precedence. If a defense strategy is solely to introduce doubt but has zero substance to support the opposing position, then folks have trouble with conceding points.

Wilson: 4 years, $140M ($107M guaranteed)
Goff: 4 years, $134M ($110M guaranteed)
Wentz: 4 years, $128M ($108M guaranteed)
Dak: 5 years, $175M ($105M guaranteed) - rumored and $175M based on $35M yearly average

 

[OmerV]

OK, but nobody asked that of you. That is what I said prior to you trying to say that I was incorrect in my view of this article.

Yes, I did read the entire article. But again, suggesting that the team would tag him twice only enforces the theory. Why in the world would the team do that if they can't sign him? I mean, everybody and the dog has said that the only reason the team has tagged Dak is so that they can sign him. Well, if he doesn't sign, what does that say? But the article never even considers that. It only takes one version into consideration and that is to sign Dak no matter what.

That's not the only option and if he doesn't sign a deal before the second tag, I don't even think it's the best option.

Great, nobody asked it of me, and I didn't say it. But, you did indicate I said it anyway.

The obvious reason they might tag him twice if they can't sign him is so they would have a QB. lol - it's that simple. The fact that they intended to try and get him signed after tagging him doesn't somehow mean they wouldn't adjust the plan if they can't sign him.

But, it's not what I expect to happen. I think Dak will get signed. But it was discussed in the article, and if I'm wrong and Dak doesn't get signed that would have to be considered an option. And, there was additional discussion from the team's perspective that you indicated wasn't there.

 

[McKDaddy]

Why can't the contract be written with %'s of cap? If the market goes up, his $ value would rise as well. Doesn't seem that complicated.

 

[OmerV]

Why can't the contract be written with %'s of cap? If the market goes up, his $ value would rise as well. Doesn't seem that complicated.

Because neither side knows what that number will be, so there would be risk and uncertainty involved. Plus, part of the point of the team wanting a long term deal is that if the salary cap goes up the QB's salary over time will take up less of the cap space and give the team more room to sign others.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

He would get hurt, maybe not the best example, but players have asked for releases and gotten them or just held out (ie Antonio Brown, Le’veon Bell).

The more likely scenario I guess would be holding out and then DAL realizing that Dalton’s not going to lead them very far and then Dak has even more leverage. I just don’t think we’re in the era anymore where the FO “wins” a contract negotiation with a star player. Either they agree to a little bit of a hometown discount or they get paid market value. Dak’s not at the point in his career where he’ll take a discount, this will be his first big contract.

I think you gotta pay your QB and make him happy or risk being QB deprived again.

He might get hurt but the team doctors would have to confirm his injury in order for him to make that work for him. I don't believe that either Antonio Brown, nor Le'veon Bell sat out for two consecutive seasons. I don't see a player doing that and then getting a record setting deal.

I would not say that the "more likely scenario" would be that the team realizes that Dalton can't get it done. I actually think that there is not going to be a lot of difference between Dalton and Dak at this point. I'm also not sure that it creates more leverage for Dak. My experience, over the years, is that a team is afraid of losing key players in the beginning but after a time, they adapt. If the team is without Dak for two seasons, I expect they probably learn to live without him. However, if they seriously tank, that only means that the pick they receive for a utterly failed season will likely be very high. That translates into an excellent position in the draft to land your next Franchise QB. That's really how I see it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, I know guaranteed at signing vs. other guarantees and the article makes that point also. I'm asking where you've seen a deal like Dak's rumored offer with "80 or 100 mil in advance" as you state, as superior or just as good over 5 years than it would be on a 4-year deal that might exist out there since you don't want to use those extensions numbers.

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.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That’s why I asked. We’d be better off doing the tag, a four year deal, and two more tags. That gives you seven. Or five if he’s not any good in five or six years. Maybe he only does the tag and three years, but still, your control him for six. That’s plenty of time.

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.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Great, nobody asked it of me, and I didn't say it. But, you did indicate I said it anyway.

The obvious reason they might tag him twice if they can't sign him is so they would have a QB. lol - it's that simple. The fact that they intended to try and get him signed after tagging him doesn't somehow mean they wouldn't adjust the plan if they can't sign him.

But, it's not what I expect to happen. I think Dak will get signed. But it was discussed in the article, and if I'm wrong and Dak doesn't get signed that would have to be considered an option. And, there was additional discussion from the team's perspective that you indicated wasn't there.

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.