Cowboys agree to extension with Scandrick

[TwoDeep3]

Before this extension Scandrick wasn't in the top fifty highest paid corners in the league.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Yep.

So, are you a stalker now? Hope this won't shatter your weekend, but you ain't the first., kiddo.

Nah. Just pointing out a completely unsubstantiated opinion you're positing. Would you like to defend your position? Please list the teams that Scanny wouldn't start for. It's a short list. Nowhere close to half the league. And you'd know that if you had any clue what you were talking about. But you tend to just fly off the handle and then start flinging insults when you get called on it so please proceed.

 

[JohnsKey19]

im not mad at Scandrick. NFL contracts are basically year to year despite what the terms may read on paper. Within reason, the way the system is set up, either the player or team is always able to ask or demand to renegotiate the terms.

 

[jnday]

YOu are so right, when you sign a contract you are giving your word that you will perform at your highest level for this much pay for this many years. It's really sad that to so many people this means nothing to them ! I guess to a lot of people your word means nothing, well that's not me and not how I was raised.

You just gained my respect . these player's words mean nothing.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

YOu are so right, when you sign a contract you are giving your word that you will perform at your highest level for this much pay for this many years. It's really sad that to so many people this means nothing to them ! I guess to a lot of people your word means nothing, well that's not me and not how I was raised.

Aren't you leading the charge for AP?

 

[xwalker]

Before this extension Scandrick wasn't in the top fifty highest paid corners in the league.

Is your Sig the result of losing a bet?

 

[dallasdave]

You just gained my respect . these player's words mean nothing.

Thank you.

 

[dallasdave]

I'm not interested in whether he's underpaid, what's fair to the player or any other nonsense. You had him under contract for multiple years. He had no option. Doesn't seem sensible whatsoever to do this.

That is so true, why spend more than you have to ?

 

[dallasdave]

Teams do honor the deal with the players

If a team cuts a player for underperformance they:

1. Have to pay him his guaranteed money AND

2. Their ability to cut the player after a certain number of years was part of the deal

I don't know how often this BASIC fact about contracts has to be repeated before people actually get it

These are multi millionaires with a powerful union behind them

This was great.

 

[dallasdave]

Common sense had no place on this discussion so please refrain from using it while posting in this thread

This was better

 

[Hoofbite]

Should be fun to do all over again next year.

 

[dallasdave]

Yep.

So, are you a stalker now? Hope this won't shatter your weekend, but you ain't the first., kiddo.

I think he is a stalker

 

[TwoDeep3]

Is your Sig the result of losing a bet?

No, it is owning what I said lasr year.I made the decision to say I was wrong.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Nah. Just pointing out a completely unsubstantiated opinion you're positing. Would you like to defend your position? Please list the teams that Scanny wouldn't start for. It's a short list. Nowhere close to half the league. And you'd know that if you had any clue what you were talking about. But you tend to just fly off the handle and then start flinging insults when you get called on it so please proceed.

Yep, stalker.

 

[BigD16]

Can we make his contract performance-based on completion percentage allowed/ interceptions or something? I've always been a Scandrick fan but jeez this guy just comes off as arrogant/entitled from his interviews and now this. Dez deserves a new contract more than him imo.

 

[gmoney112]

I'm not interested in whether he's underpaid, what's fair to the player or any other nonsense. You had him under contract for multiple years. He had no option. Doesn't seem sensible whatsoever to do this.

Because it's reputation.

A strong reputation for a company (team), especially in the midst of a business environment where the playing field has to be kept relatively level (salary cap, tampering), is just about the only way you can gain a significant advantage when the only advantage you can realistically gain is player/agent sentiment.

Rewarding a player for outplaying his contract gains you a lot of favorability in this arena, leading to acquisitions or more favorable terms you may have not garnered otherwise.

 

[Idgit]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a player asking for a renegotiation within the context of an existing contract. As is there's nothing wrong with a team refusing to do so. As is there's absolutely wrong with a team agreeing to do so.

If we're so concerned about precedents, perhaps we should pat ourselves on the back re: the precedent we've just set that we're willing to compensate players positively when we think they've significantly over performed our expectations. This is the flip side of asking someone to take a cut to something they've agreed to. The important difference being that teams reserve the right to cut players whenever they chose to do so. Since they're the ones paying out the big money in a capped system, that's their prerogative.

We wanted a culture where hard work earns you reps and reps earn you starting positions and starting positions earn you compensation. We've got it. Now we complain about that, too. If any party in this transaction had acted in any way outside the confines of the agreement that was already in place, I'd have an issue with it, too. But nobody did. This is how well run organizations handle legitimate disputes. The Free negotiation from a year or so ago was another example. The Carr negotiation that's probably going on right now might be another one. There's really no downside to see, here.

 

[TheDude]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a player asking for a renegotiation within the context of an existing contract. As is there's nothing wrong with a team refusing to do so. As is there's absolutely wrong with a team agreeing to do so.

If we're so concerned about precedents, perhaps we should pat ourselves on the back re: the precedent we've just set that we're willing to compensate players positively when we think they've significantly over performed our expectations. This is the flip side of asking someone to take a cut to something they've agreed to. The important difference being that teams reserve the right to cut players whenever they chose to do so. Since they're the ones paying out the big money in a capped system, that's their prerogative.

We wanted a culture where hard work earns you reps and reps earn you starting positions and starting positions earn you compensation. We've got it. Now we complain about that, too. If any party in this transaction had acted in any way outside the confines of the agreement that was already in place, I'd have an issue with it, too. But nobody did. This is how well run organizations handle legitimate disputes. The Free negotiation from a year or so ago was another example. The Carr negotiation that's probably going on right now might be another one. There's really no downside to see, here.

Only point I don't see mentioned much is that the extension/raise should be based more on EXPECTED out performance. I think past performance was rewarded more in the past. Scandricks value is perceived to be durable. He is young and has talent - likely most talent at the position.

No problem with the ask, no problem with the club if they think he isn't slipping for 2-3 or more years

 

[Idgit]

Only point I don't see mentioned much is that the extension/raise should be based more on EXPECTED out performance. I think past performance was rewarded more in the past. Scandricks value is perceived to be durable. He is young and has talent - likely most talent at the position.

No problem with the ask, no problem with the club if they think he isn't slipping for 2-3 or more years

Yep. That's what I should have said. The team's recourse if they're wrong on the expected performance is to do what they're doing now with Carr. They just need to make sure they keep a roster that's young enough and deep enough that they can afford to ask for discounts as well as give premiums when they think it's appropriate. Overall, though, I think that willingness to be reasonable helps clubs and doesn't hurt them. And I'm sure at some point there will be an exception to that rule. You want more Scandrick situations and fewer Crazy Jay Ratilff ones.

 

[Risen Star]

Only point I don't see mentioned much is that the extension/raise should be based more on EXPECTED out performance. I think past performance was rewarded more in the past. Scandricks value is perceived to be durable. He is young and has talent - likely most talent at the position.

No problem with the ask, no problem with the club if they think he isn't slipping for 2-3 or more years

Right. You never pay for past performance. That's irrelevant. You pay for projected future performance.