Can We Clear Up The No Trade Clause Myth?

[G2]

Thanks for giving it!

Thanks for the beatings you take. We're all better Cowboys fans because of it.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

He’s not alone though.

• Jalen Hurts, Philadelphia Eagles. ...
• Russell Wilson, Denver Broncos. ...
• Josh Allen, Buffalo Bills. ...
• Deshaun Watson, Cleveland Browns …

Watson and Wilson both were traded to their current teams while having a no trade clause.

 

[Kwyn]

Watson and Wilson both were traded to their current teams while having a no trade clause.

Of course, which proves your original point.

I was commenting more on the response that made it as if Jerry is the only GM idiot enough to give a no trade.

Two or three years ago there were even more in the league. Nine of them.

▪️ Drew Brees, QB (Saints)
▪️ Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, OL (Chiefs)
▪️ Jimmy Garoppolo, QB (49ers)
▪️ Jimmy Graham, TE (Bears)
▪️ DeAndre Hopkins, WR (Cardinals)
▪️ Patrick Mahomes, QB (Chiefs)
▪️ Deshaun Watson, QB (Texans)
▪️ J.J. Watt, DL (Cardinals)
▪️ Russell Wilson, QB (Seahawks)

 

[EenonyMoose]

Also, none of this matters because he’s just going to get extended.

We’ll be going through this again when we have a 36 year old Dak that’s owed 80+ million in his final year because cap boyz like to kick money down the road. So I expect extensions for Dak until he retires.

Oh, and he’ll still have that no trade clause.

What people don't get is that extending him actually makes next year's cap problem even worse, except it pushes it back to 2028-2029. Which for Jerry is probably fine because he gets to keep playing make believe until he isn't here anymore.

But for the rest of us, here's the thing: The prorated and/or guaranteed money is already accounted for. It's a sunk cost. You can't make it go away. All you can do is break it up and push it into future years. If you think a $60 million cap hit is bad, then why would you try to spread it out *on top of* even more $60 million future cap hits? It doesn't make any sense. The money doesn't magically disappear somewhere between now and then.

If next year's cap hit is a problem, then committing to four or five more years of the same average amount is an even worse problem to have. The cap won't go up enough to offset that anytime soon. And no, I don't care what Baker Mayfield might make in the future. Other teams can do dumb things.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

What people don't get is that extending him actually makes next year's cap problem even worse, except it pushes it back to 2028-2029. Which for Jerry is probably fine because he gets to keep playing make believe until he isn't here anymore.

But for the rest of us, here's the thing: The prorated and/or guaranteed money is already accounted for. It's a sunk cost. You can't make it go away. All you can do is break it up and push it into future years. If you think a $60 million cap hit is bad, then why would you try to spread it out *on top of* even more $60 million future cap hits? It doesn't make any sense. The money doesn't magically disappear somewhere between now and then.

If next year's cap hit is a problem, then committing to four or five more years of the same average amount is *an even worse problem* to have. The cap won't go up enough to offset that anytime soon. And no, I don't care what Baker Mayfield might make in the future. Other teams can do dumb things.

That 60$ mil cap hit right now is going to be 80$+ mil 5 years from now.

Dak’s gonna get a raise, not a lateral move.

But maybe you’re right and Jerry is playing this as a thing that won’t be his problem when it becomes a real problem.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Per Over the Cap and Spotrac, we are between $11MM and $14MM over the cap.

Ok I stand corrected I thought I read on here we were 29 over the cap….ok then that’s a different conversation.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

One further point here, if you make him a June 1 trade (or cut) you actually don't get the cap savings until after June 1. So anyone thinking we can then spread that $34 million around in FA, to get under the cap by start of league year, etc? Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Ouch. Actually didn’t know that.

 

[EenonyMoose]

That 60$ mil cap hit right now is going to be 80$+ mil 5 years from now.

Dan’s gonna get a raise, not a lateral move.

But maybe you’re right and Jerry is playing this as a thing that won’t be his problem when it becomes a real problem.

lol, nah. They'll do the dumb thing again.

Although I can't help but wonder where all these articles about how Dallas can actually restructure Dak without an extension came from all of a sudden. Is that an internal conversation that got leaked to the media? The beat writers aren't sitting around doing cap contract math.

 

[PAPPYDOG]

You really should stop talking because it makes you look deranged.

A team picking him up in a trade only owes him his base salary in 2024, which isn't $60MM.

The only thing deranged is folks who still believe that Dak would be a HOT commodity in the FA market.
Now that my friend is DERANGED!!!!!

 

[Mikexike]

Having a no trade clause does not mean you cannot be traded.

It simply gives the player leverage to choose his destination.

So, if Jerry decides he wants to trade Dak he could do it, but only if Dak is okay with the destination.

This is just another example of how Dak’s agent schooled Jerry in negotiations.

Please let him pick the next franchise to hamstring.

 

[Typhus]

So why did you create this thread if you knew all of this???

Thought that was always the base premise of a forum, for open discussion.

 

[The Fonz]

Having a no trade clause does not mean you cannot be traded.

It simply gives the player leverage to choose his destination.

So, if Jerry decides he wants to trade Dak he could do it, but only if Dak is okay with the destination.

This is just another example of how Dak’s agent schooled Jerry in negotiations.

and took him to the woodshed

 

[Sarge]

Having a no trade clause does not mean you cannot be traded.

It simply gives the player leverage to choose his destination.

So, if Jerry decides he wants to trade Dak he could do it, but only if Dak is okay with the destination.

This is just another example of how Dak’s agent schooled Jerry in negotiations.

He didn’t school Jerry because Jerry has no intention of letting Dak go. To Jerry, that clause meant nothing. Dak is his guy, clearly.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Thought that was always the base premise of a forum, for open discussion.

Jerry is keeping Dak. It's been so obvious for quite some time. Why can't Dak critics understand that? They refuse to understand that.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

Jerry is keeping Dak. It's been so obvious for quite some time. Why can't Dak critics understand that? They refuse to understand that.

The same reason you can accept Dak is a loser.

We all have our issues.

 

[KingCorcoran]

Having a no trade clause does not mean you cannot be traded.

It simply gives the player leverage to choose his destination.

So, if Jerry decides he wants to trade Dak he could do it, but only if Dak is okay with the destination.

This is just another example of how Dak’s agent schooled Jerry in negotiations.

He can choose to remain with the Cowboys. That sort of means he can trade himself if Jerry agrees, otherwise there is no trade.

 

[HMJYay]

Nope. The June 1 cut would take place in March anyway. They'd have to give him an extension anyway if they traded for him, makes no difference.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Either can be right. It would be a dick move but the Cowboys could keep him until May and then designate him a post June 1st cut. But, if I recall in March there is a 5 million bonus due. But, regardless it could be done in a fashion that makes teams choose him after free agency and the draft. Jerry won’t do that, but he could eat that 5 million and do it if he wanted.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

The same reason you can accept Dak is a loser.

We all have our issues.

Funny thing is you gonna be right here cheering for that “loser” lol.

 

[nightrain]

Having a no trade clause does not mean you cannot be traded.

It simply gives the player leverage to choose his destination.

So, if Jerry decides he wants to trade Dak he could do it, but only if Dak is okay with the destination.

This is just another example of how Dak’s agent schooled Jerry in negotiations.

Isn't that point of a no-trade clause? The player has the leverage. You go from 31 potential trading partners to very few, if any.

 

[America's Cowboy]

The same reason you can accept Dak is a loser.

We all have our issues.

So speaks the troll with Sirianni as his avatar picture.

Mega loser