News: Cowboys placed exclusive franchise tag on Prescott

[ABQCOWBOY]

you don't see an issue to be locked in a contract for three years with no guarantees?

I don't even see a contract for 3 years, as yet.

 

[fivetwos]

Possibly, but I thought I read that the new CBA makes it tougher for players to hold out. Can't remember the specifics off the top of my head though.

That would apply to the situation last year with 21.

If you're under contract but dint show up.

An unsigned tag is not the same as being under contract.

 

[Gameover]

Sad that they used the exclusive.

They should be hoping someone is dumb enough to give us 2 1st's for him.

I pray that some team will rescue Dak from this ********! #chargers

 

[aikemirv]

Well, back to the Dak Prescott without Amari Cooper - oh boy!

Jones's are truly idiots!

 

[jaythecowboy]

I don't even see a contract for 3 years, as yet.

You said you saw no issue with a six year deal. If Dak's deal was for six years with those numbers, after the first three years he would have three years with no guarantees.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If Dak's deal was for six years with those numbers, after the first three years he would have three years with no guarantees. You said you saw no issue with a six year deal.

No. That is not the way NFL contracts work. First of all, Dak's agent would never allow that and secondly, Jerry and Stephen know this. The way it works is that if a player is on the roster for a given date, prior to the start of the season, his contract year or years get guaranteed. So basically, the player either gets his money in full or he gets released.

I mean think about it. Do we really want to see an NFL where players have guaranteed contracts like they do in Baseball? Do we really want to see guys like Irvin staying home, getting stoned all day and getting paid for it, while not even being on the team? We see this in Baseball all the time. Players who sign deals and never get on the field. I understand why players want that but that is not a good thing for the game IMO. This is why you don't fully guarantee a contract for a player. Think about what would happen if Dak got a fully guaranteed contract or 3 years and in a year or two, he came back to the table and demanded a deal in excess of Mohomboys' or he just wouldn't show up. How would that be for the team and do you see this as a ploy that Scott Frances and CAA would use? If you don't, go look up Aaron Donalds negotiations with the Rams and what Frances did there. This guy is all about screwing whomever to get a deal done and then creating a leverage point that allows him to go right back to the team and double down on them. That's how he works.

 

[jaythecowboy]

No. That is not the way NFL contracts work. First of all, Dak's agent would never allow that and secondly, Jerry and Stephen know this. The way it works is that if a player is on the roster for a given date, prior to the start of the season, his contract year or years get guaranteed. So basically, the player either gets his money in full or he gets released.

I mean think about it. Do we really want to see an NFL where players have guaranteed contracts like they do in Baseball? Do we really want to see guys like Irvin staying home, getting stoned all day and getting paid for it, while not even being on the team? We see this in Baseball all the time. Players who sign deals and never get on the field. I understand why players want that but that is not a good thing for the game IMO. This is why you don't fully guarantee a contract for a player. Think about what would happen if Dak got a fully guaranteed contract or 3 years and in a year or two, he came back to the table and demanded a deal in excess of Mohomboys' or he just wouldn't show up. How would that be for the team and do you see this as a ploy that Scott Frances and CAA would use? If you don't, go look up Aaron Donalds negotiations with the Rams and what Frances did there. This guy is all about screwing whomever to get a deal done and then creating a leverage point that allows him to go right back to the team and double down on them. That's how he works.

He still would be playing year to year after the first three years. I'm not saying the whole thing needs to be guaranteed. Like I said before, if it's a for year deal it is a decent offer. That being said, Cousins signed a there year fully guaranteed deal at $28 million per year three years ago. So $33 million per year for 3 years fully guaranteed wouldn't be a horrible deal for either side.

 

[ESisback]

Is this the part where you tell me and everyone else what the distinctions are?

How exactly should we think? Since you seem to be the self-appointed authority on it?

[/QUOTE

Self-appointed authority? I’m merely trying to understand how a person gets labeled a “homer” (which seems to have a negative connotation) just because he/she doesn’t always think they are more qualified than experienced and motivated professionals immersed in it for a living. Aren’t we all just speculating fans hoping for the best?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

He still would be playing year to year after the first three years. I'm not saying the whole thing needs to be guaranteed. Like I said before, if it's a for year deal it is a decent offer.

No. It depends on how a contract is written up. For example, lets say it's a five year contract with the first three guaranteed. The contract could be written in such a way as to stipulate that on July 1st, for example, if Dak is on the roster his remaining two years are fully guaranteed. Or lets say that it is only year to year after the 3 guaranteed, again I say, so what? Why is that a bad thing? If the team walks away from Dak after 3 seasons, it means that either Dak did not turn out and the team needs to move on or that Dak got injured and can no longer play at the level the team needs him to be. The team is not going to fail to guarantee his contract if Dak is playing at a high level. What will happen is they will try to start extending him in year 4, if he is playing at a high level. If the team walks away from the Contract with Dak, how then would that be a big deal for Dak? He basically wants a deal now where he gets paid and then is an FA in three years anyway. I mean, I don't really see the down side on a 5 year deal, other then the fact that if you are Dak, you can't immediately go back to the Cowboys and demand another record setting deal in two or three years. But does that really seem fair? I mean, I hear people say that signing Dak to a record deal is fair because it's his time and that is reason enough. Dak is certainly not the best QB in the NFL. It is a reasonable argument to make, regardless of if you believe it or not, that Dak is not the best QB in the NFC East. Most talking heads don't believe he is. So if you say that you pay him because it's his time and that is what the market demands then isn't it fair to say that the team should get benefit of a longer term deal? To me, it's certainly unfair to expect the team to just volunteer to pay Dak a record deal and then stand still for another one in two or three years. That, to me, is not reasonable at all. I get why his agent would want to do that but it's not fair to the team and I do not blame them in the slightest when they say, "no deal, here's your tag."

 

[Stash]

Maybe you should have made that same consideration before you tried to lecture others about how they should feel? I guess when it comes to you and your viewpoint, the 'rules' are then different? In case, you haven't noticed, that is the double standard that you're displaying that I am pointing out to you.

 

[Rayman70]

Maybe you should have made that same consideration before you tried to lecture others about how they should feel? I guess when it comes to you and your viewpoint, the 'rules' are then different? In case, you haven't noticed, that is the double standard that you're displaying that I am pointing out to you.

^^AMEN^^

 

[jaythecowboy]

No. It depends on how a contract is written up. For example, lets say it's a five year contract with the first three guaranteed. The contract could be written in such a way as to stipulate that on July 1st, for example, if Dak is on the roster his remaining two years are fully guaranteed. Or lets say that it is only year to year after the 3 guaranteed, again I say, so what? Why is that a bad thing? If the team walks away from Dak after 3 seasons, it means that either Dak did not turn out and the team needs to move on or that Dak got injured and can no longer play at the level the team needs him to be. The team is not going to fail to guarantee his contract if Dak is playing at a high level. What will happen is they will try to start extending him in year 4, if he is playing at a high level. If the team walks away from the Contract with Dak, how then would that be a big deal for Dak? He basically wants a deal now where he gets paid and then is an FA in three years anyway. I mean, I don't really see the down side on a 5 year deal, other then the fact that if you are Dak, you can't immediately go back to the Cowboys and demand another record setting deal in two or three years. But does that really seem fair? I mean, I hear people say that signing Dak to a record deal is fair because it's his time and that is reason enough. Dak is certainly not the best QB in the NFL. It is a reasonable argument to make, regardless of if you believe it or not, that Dak is not the best QB in the NFC East. Most talking heads don't believe he is. So if you say that you pay him because it's his time and that is what the market demands then isn't it fair to say that the team should get benefit of a longer term deal? To me, it's certainly unfair to expect the team to just volunteer to pay Dak a record deal and then stand still for another one in two or three years. That, to me, is not reasonable at all. I get why his agent would want to do that but it's not fair to the team and I do not blam in the slightest when they say, "no deal, here's your tag."

I agree with that sentiment. If the Cowboys want to lock Dak up for six years they should be setting the market. What the Cowboys offered hasn't done that.

 

[Rayman70]

Maybe you should have made that same consideration before you tried to lecture others about how they should feel? I guess when it comes to you and your viewpoint, the 'rules' are then different? In case, you haven't noticed, that is the double standard that you're displaying that I am pointing out to you.

ITS THE THOUGHT POLICE COMING AFTER US STASH LOL..I just dealt with another guy on here like this...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with that sentiment. If the Cowboys want to lock Dak up for six years they should be setting the market. What the Cowboys offered hasn't done that.

Oh I beg to differ. According to folks close to the deal, it actually has set the market.

 

[jaythecowboy]

Oh I beg to differ. According to folks close to the deal, it actually has set the market.

I haven't seen anything like that. $105 million guaranteed doesn't set the market and neither does $34 AAV.

 

[blueblood70]

Jerry fails again. Non-exclusive was better move.

it changes nothing because if a team wants to trade for dak the two firsts are still in play,,Dak just cant seek out his own deals BUT of a teams wants him they can come to Dallas with offers..let the games begin..lets see whos knocking down the door for a tier 2 QB who turned down top 5 money to be FT and now would take 2 firsts to get..)

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I haven't seen anything like that.

What has been reported is 34 at 105 guaranteed and possibly even 35 at 110. Now, that's a three year up front deal. The higher figures are reportedly if he agrees to a longer term deal. So if that's accurate, then the deal is 140 over 4 years which is more then Wentz at 128 over 4. It's higher then Goff's 134 over 4 years. Dak's AAV would be 35, that's higher then Wentz at 32 and Goff at 33.5. If it's 105 GTD, it's a little under both Wentz and Goff at 107 and 110 but if it's 110 mil Guaranteed then it's more then Wentz and right with Goff and remember, both of those two QBs are working with extensions that added money from existing contracts. Dak's deal is money that is coming straight out of the cap with no funds from a previous deal to sweeten the deal. Those offers, IMO, are right where everybody said they wanted the contracts to be. If Dak is saying no to those deals, then the question I would have is why? What is it that you really want? The obvious answer would be a shorter deal and record money, which is not fair to the team.

 

[jaythecowboy]

What has been reported is 34 at 105 guaranteed and possibly even 35 at 110. Now, that's a three year up front deal. The higher figures are reportedly if he agrees to a longer term deal. So if that's accurate, then the deal is 140 over 4 years which is more then Wentz at 128 over 4. It's higher then Goff's 134 over 4 years. Dak's AAV would be 35, that's higher then Wentz at 32 and Goff at 33.5. If it's 105 GTD, it's a little under both Wentz and Goff at 107 and 110 but if it's 110 mil Guaranteed then it's more then Wentz and right with Goff and remember, both of those two QBs are working with extensions that added money from existing contracts. Dak's deal is money that is coming straight out of the cap with no funds from a previous deal to sweeten the deal. Those offers, IMO, are right where everybody said they wanted the contracts to be. If Dak is saying no to those deals, then the question I would have is why? What is it that you really want? The obvious answer would be a shorter deal and record money, which is not fair to the team.

I still haven't seen a source for these higher numbers you have been saying. That being did it is on the Cowboys for not offering this deal last year. Then Dak only making $2 million would have pushed the AAV down down to $28 million. They been lowballing him the whole time so the price is only going to go up. If Dak plays the whole year on the tag then the price goes up again.

 

[jaythecowboy]

What has been reported is 34 at 105 guaranteed and possibly even 35 at 110. Now, that's a three year up front deal. The higher figures are reportedly if he agrees to a longer term deal. So if that's accurate, then the deal is 140 over 4 years which is more then Wentz at 128 over 4. It's higher then Goff's 134 over 4 years. Dak's AAV would be 35, that's higher then Wentz at 32 and Goff at 33.5. If it's 105 GTD, it's a little under both Wentz and Goff at 107 and 110 but if it's 110 mil Guaranteed then it's more then Wentz and right with Goff and remember, both of those two QBs are working with extensions that added money from existing contracts. Dak's deal is money that is coming straight out of the cap with no funds from a previous deal to sweeten the deal. Those offers, IMO, are right where everybody said they wanted the contracts to be. If Dak is saying no to those deals, then the question I would have is why? What is it that you really want? The obvious answer would be a shorter deal and record money, which is not fair to the team.

From what I've seen it is the Cowboys that want it both ways. They don't want to set the market but they also want Dak to sign a 6 or 7 year dea . That isn't a fair deal on its face, and I haven't even brought up the new tv money which will cause an even bigger jump in the cap. There were reports that qbs could be making $70 million a year in 7 years.

 

[ESisback]

ITS THE THOUGHT POLICE COMING AFTER US STASH LOL..I just dealt with another guy on here like this...

Thought police?!? I just have a different opinion! Why is it so offensive to ask someone why they think the way they do? Aren’t we all Cowboy fans?

We’re all just speculators here, aren’t we? So why do we so often think we’re more qualified than people who do it for a living?