Dak contract restructured; small cap amount added via bonus

[Chuck 54]

Well I will just continue to say you must have short term memory problems, the boy still sucks just like he did the year before and seven before that. He sucks, you defending him shows you have a problem with acceptance

It’s really just an emotional reaction and bias to ever use the phrase “he sucks.” That is not true. There is not one coach or GM or anyone who understands football who would ever say Dak sucks, not even in private. Among the 32 starting QBs in the NFL, there’s lots of room to argue where he should be ranked, but he is obviously in the upper half. He may not be the elite super star you want; he may not perform in the playoffs the way you want. But even if he never wins another playoff game in his career, it’s still just an emotional reaction to say he sucks.

 

[OGSixshooter]

Remember when Dak Haters were mad Prescott didn't CALL CeeDee Lamb immediately after the draft?? ....

I applaud those teams for not being ego-invested in bad decisions. That's how you end up paying alimony...or $55million for a choker.

 

[Chuck 54]

But why add more void years...wouldn’t just converting his roster bonus to a signing bonus accomplish the same thing? If we don’t agree on a new deal, the added void years mean nothing.

I don’t think those void years will actually be used. That’s why they are still working on an extension. Dallas doesn’t want to use the void years because they simply increase the salary even more for any extension or new contract. This was a short term move to save money that had a deadline on it. They continue to discuss an extension, and for all we know, it may not even be about money at this point. It might be, but it could just as easily be Jerry not wanting to put in another no trade and no tag stipulations, moves you probably want in a contract as a player ages.

 

[Chuck 54]

This is a good point. I find it odd they are pushing negotiations to TC. I think Dak’s issues off the field may be contributing to that but you bring up a good point. We have no idea what he’s asking for. We are assuming 60+ million APY. Everyone is saying “Dak has all the leverage “ and he does. He could be asking for 70 million a year for all we know. He might greed himself out of Dallas. I wonder if Jerry and DNA are pushing the contract negotiations back to TC to make him sweat a little bit. Or maybe to see how far along Lance has developed. Lance comes out with a massive pre season then that adds a wrinkle to the plot.

Fans also forget that a contract holdup may not even be about money. Maybe Jerry doesnt want the no trade, no tag language in this one. Our contract agreement with Randy Gregory fell apart over language, not money. Sometimes it’s years, not money.

Im not even sure where this 60 million number came from. I think someone made it up. Today I heard one of the NFL insiders say, Look at Cousins contract he just signed. If Dak hit free agency next year, on the open market, he would have no problem getting 50 million per year. Cousins’ 4 year 184 million averages 46 million, but that’s not even his cap hit. I may be wrong, but I think Dak’s contract will come in at a reasonable number, nowhere near 60 million, and of course it will be way more than many emotional fans think he’s worth, but I believe we will eventually see that this negotiation had absolutely nothing to do with our conservative approach to free agency.

 

[Spottswoode]

I don’t think those void years will actually be used. That’s why they are still working on an extension. Dallas doesn’t want to use the void years because they simply increase the salary even more for any extension or new contract. This was a short term move to save money that had a deadline on it. They continue to discuss an extension, and for all we know, it may not even be about money at this point. It might be, but it could just as easily be Jerry not wanting to put in another no trade and no tag stipulations, moves you probably want in a contract as a player ages.

Got it…it is the adding of the void years that I am unclear on. My understanding (likely wrong) was most contracts have wording to allow converting roster to signing bonuses baked in but adding void years typically require player approval. I also thought if he leaves, the dollars owed would escalate, making the void years meaningless (also possibly wrong). If those assumptions are true, what would be a rational for adding void years when the cap savings could have been accomplished with a simple bonus conversion unless they think an agreement is still possible.

 

[HonoluluCowboy]

Well those people are deranged, in part, because they think Dak just blows and one of the 5-7 worst QBs in football. Don't listen to those fans, they are dumb. Dak is a good QB. He's not a great one. Regardless, it won't be easy to find a replacement that is as good, let alone better.

To me, if they move on from Dak, I expect a tough 2-3 years, at least.

From this fan who definitely believes Dak BLOWS , I do not care how long it takes . Even if its 3-8 years . That is what Daktards cannot fathom . We do not care if we take 1-2 steps back , as we know we will find the next guy . And that guy will take us to a SB , that Dak will be watchin from his couch .

 

[Polkton31]

From this fan who definitely believes Dak BLOWS , I do not care how long it takes . Even if its 3-8 years . That is what Daktards cannot fathom . We do not care if we take 1-2 steps back , as we know we will find the next guy . And that guy will take us to a SB , that Dak will be watchin from his couch .

I wonder how many people thought the same thing when the Cowboys moved on from Troy.

 

[Sydla]

Because this particular part of the contract had a deadline and had to be done now or never. Jerry is no dummy. They cut guys and don’t sign free agents over 1-2 million, so naturally they want to spread this out and save 4 million now.

They owed him the money, regardless, since he was on the roster as of today. All they did was change the designation of the bonus from roster to signing to be able to account for it differently on cap.

 

[gimmesix]

But why add more void years...wouldn’t just converting his roster bonus to a signing bonus accomplish the same thing? If we don’t agree on a new deal, the added void years mean nothing.

Couldn't do a signing bonus without actually signing him. However, the void years, if I understand it right, make it easier to come to a new agreement with him because we'll already have all his dead cap hit spread out over four years (instead of one, or two as a June cut, if he leaves in free agency), which will create more room to fit his new contract around the signing and restructure hits.

If the plan was simply to cut him after this year and take the hit, then there was no reason to add the extra void years, because the hit would be the same either way. I think they wanted to go ahead and move some of that hit down the line for extension purposes.

 

[DUO_CORE]

The 8-9 million we have now we can go straight to the Superbowl!!!!

Will that cover tickets and transportation for the whole team?

 

[Spottswoode]

Couldn't do a signing bonus without actually signing him. However, the void years, if I understand it right, make it easier to come to a new agreement with him because we'll already have all his dead cap hit spread out over four years (instead of one, or two as a June cut, if he leaves in free agency), which will create more room to fit his new contract around the signing and restructure hits.

If the plan was simply to cut him after this year and take the hit, then there was no reason to add the extra void years, because the hit would be the same either way. I think they wanted to go ahead and move some of that hit down the line for extension purposes.

I‘m no expert on contracts but couldn’t the extra void years be included in any new contract to accomplish the same outcome you described. I’m not disagreeing with your post. I’m just trying to understand the logic of adding the void years before v after an extension unless the void years are somehow needed to satisfy the bonus conversion (I don’t think that’s the case).

 

[plymkr]

Fans also forget that a contract holdup may not even be about money. Maybe Jerry doesnt want the no trade, no tag language in this one. Our contract agreement with Randy Gregory fell apart over language, not money. Sometimes it’s years, not money.

Very good points. Very true. I do believe the 60 million came from Francis but not 100% sure. But I agree that Jerry could want some outs as far as Franchise Tag or a trade clause in it. Or a behavior clause that was omitted in his last contract. Considering the events of last week Jerry may want that behavior clause put back in.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

From this fan who definitely believes Dak BLOWS , I do not care how long it takes . Even if its 3-8 years . That is what Daktards cannot fathom . We do not care if we take 1-2 steps back , as we know we will find the next guy . And that guy will take us to a SB , that Dak will be watchin from his couch .

So without Dak we're back where we were from 1996-2015; only this time not knowing who will fill the most important position on the roster.

No Dak is not perfect and he is not blameless. But this front office didn't get it right before he got here, they didn't get it right when he was here cheap for four years on his rookie deal, and they aren't getting it right now.

So why would they get it right after getting rid of him? And how is getting rid of Dak like waving a magic wand thinking this team's next franchise quarterback will materialize out of thin air and suddenly the Super Bowls start rolling in?

 

[Flamma]

It’s really just an emotional reaction and bias to ever use the phrase “he sucks.” That is not true. There is not one coach or GM or anyone who understands football who would ever say Dak sucks, not even in private. Among the 32 starting QBs in the NFL, there’s lots of room to argue where he should be ranked, but he is obviously in the upper half. He may not be the elite super star you want; he may not perform in the playoffs the way you want. But even if he never wins another playoff game in his career, it’s still just an emotional reaction to say he sucks.

It's not just the playoffs. Every time Dallas goes up against a top team like the 49ers, Chiefs, Bills, Packers, we lose. It's hard to tell how much of it is Dak's fault because everyone is playing so poorly. But it's not just the playoffs.

 

[Flamma]

This is even more evidence that an extension is not coming.

We tried to tell y’all.

I was trying to tell people last year that Dak wouldn't get an extension because he already got restructured. You don't do both. But I'm not sure a restructure of 5M would qualify. The added void years would indicate he's getting a 4 year extension.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Sometimes you stare at these numbers and you’re like sheesh .

Good on ya mate

Exactly................we are just throwing numbers around like 55 here and 36 there and another 40 over here not even taking time to think these numbers are in the millions, LOL.

This really is generational wealth here, Dak's great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson will still be living off this money 200 yrs from now.

 

[Spottswoode]

Exactly................we are just throwing numbers around like 55 here and 36 there and another 40 over here not even taking time to think these numbers are in the millions, LOL.

This really is generational wealth here, Dak's great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson will still be living off this money 200 yrs from now.

The wealthy don’t care about dollars. They know we are printing our way to a worthless currency. Dollars are for peasants.

 

[gimmesix]

I‘m no expert on contracts but couldn’t the extra void years be included in any new contract to accomplish the same outcome you described. I’m not disagreeing with your post. I’m just trying to understand the logic of adding the void years before v after an extension unless the void years are somehow needed to satisfy the bonus conversion (I don’t think that’s the case).

There are multiple ways they could go. With the void years already on there, they could give him a four-year deal and it would actually be more like seven years as far as parsing the money. Or they could just replace the void years with contract years. For some reason, they want to disperse the money, which would seem to indicate if nothing else, that they want to get a long-term deal done. If they were only wanting to pay him this year and then let his contract run out and let him leave, it doesn't seem like they would have any reason to add the void years.

I think what makes the most sense is for them to keep them on any contract they give him because then they can push any bonuses out and lower the initial hit. I mean, $240 million (counting the money they'll still owe him) over eight years is a lot easier to absorb than $200 million over four. In the end, they still would have to take the final hit over two years at the most, but it would make Years 1-4 much more palatable.

I do agree that they could have just added more void years at the time of the extension, but maybe they thought it would be easier to get him to agree to the void years now, so when they do get the extension done, they can sell it to him as a 4-year, $240 million deal instead of a 6-year, $240 million deal (with the extra two void years added at that time).

I don't know for sure, other than the fact that adding more void years doesn't seem like something a team would do with a player they consider to be on a one-and-done deal.

 

[DandyDon52]

This Guy is leaving off Goff, Wentz and how their respected teams won the Super Bowl after moving on from them. Also he’s leaving out Green Bay moving on from Rodgers. Time to move from Dak.

good point , add garopolo in too, and others who have done way better than dak in playoffs, yet their team let them go and got another qb.
Rams won the SB as a result, but that team was much better than the team goff lost with. Goff also got to the SB.
Goff could have made it to another SB, this year but his HC is a idiot.

 

[Spottswoode]

There are multiple ways they could go. With the void years already on there, they could give him a four-year deal and it would actually be more like seven years as far as parsing the money. Or they could just replace the void years with contract years. For some reason, they want to disperse the money, which would seem to indicate if nothing else, that they want to get a long-term deal done. If they were only wanting to pay him this year and then let his contract run out and let him leave, it doesn't seem like they would have any reason to add the void years.

I think what makes the most sense is for them to keep them on any contract they give him because then they can push any bonuses out and lower the initial hit. I mean, $240 million (counting the money they'll still owe him) over eight years is a lot easier to absorb than $200 million over four. In the end, they still would have to take the final hit over two years at the most, but it would make Years 1-4 much more palatable.

I do agree that they could have just added more void years at the time of the extension, but maybe they thought it would be easier to get him to agree to the void years now, so when they do get the extension done, they can sell it to him as a 4-year, $240 million deal instead of a 6-year, $240 million deal (with the extra two void years added at that time).

I don't know for sure, other than the fact that adding more void years doesn't seem like something a team would do with a player they consider to be on a one-and-done deal.

Makes sense…thanks for the reply.