Dak contract restructured; small cap amount added via bonus

[ConstantReboot]

Clearance shopping time for Dallas

While other teams are busy making trades and bolstering their rosters through free agency, our front office is tied up in endless negotiations with Dak Prescott and seems to be wrestling with the basics of salary cap management. It's almost comical how every team but the Cowboys can smoothly navigate their finances to snag the players they desire. It's as if Jerry Jones is stumbling over elementary math, unable to leverage the salary cap to our advantage.

 

[gimmesix]

Makes sense…thanks for the reply.

I could be completely wrong on it. Just thinking out loud on why they would do it. I'm not familiar with all the rules surrounding contracts, so it may just be something they were required to do in order to move the money without actually extending him.

 

[gimmesix]

While other teams are busy making trades and bolstering their rosters through free agency, our front office is tied up in endless negotiations with Dak Prescott and seems to be wrestling with the basics of salary cap management. It's almost comical how every team but the Cowboys can smoothly navigate their finances to snag the players they desire. It's as if Jerry Jones is stumbling over elementary math, unable to leverage the salary cap to our advantage.

This is an active cap choice, not endless negotiations or stumbling over elementary math. They don't believe in paying outside free agents much money at all. They don't believe they get their money's worth, so they build through paying their own, trades, drafting well (sometimes) and filling in gaps with cheap free agents.

I'm not a fan of their philosophy (adopted in 2013) and the fruits of it have been sour in the playoffs, but still they seem stubborn to stick to it. Their justification is probably that we weren't doing any better when Jerry was throwing money at outside free agents right and left, but they fail to acknowledge that they largely ignored the draft back then, thinking that if they missed with it, they could just buy a free agent to fill the hole.

 

[Spottswoode]

I could be completely wrong on it. Just thinking out loud on why they would do it. I'm not familiar with all the rules surrounding contracts, so it may just be something they were required to do in order to move the money without actually extending him.

That was my initial thought but I don’t remember having to add void years for bonus conversions with other players. Maybe the requirements to satisfy are different if done in the final year. Whatever the case, I don’t think they did it for grins.

 

[gimmesix]

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.

Dak likely wants no more than four years and might want three again. If so, the void years can come in handy for spreading out the early hits. They could push any added bonus money into the void to lower the front-end hit.

 

[GMO415]

Something big is coming.

From these bucket-of-fools? I'd hate to imagine.

 

[Beast_from_East]

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

Good point..............its like a professor I had in grad school when I was getting my MBA, he said "never sit on cash, it can devalue and disappear faster than a fart in the wind"

You got to convert that cash to stocks, bonds, commodities, real estate, ect....

That is how the rich stay rich.

 

[Wildcat711]

It's funny, their actions could lead you to believe they are NOT extending him, yet I know deep down 100% certain they ARE extending him. Which, when they do, I'll be thoroughly annoyed at how they handled this off-season.

Just imagine, extending Dak for another term will be the final coffin nail in assuring us of eclipsing 30+ years of playoff futility.

I got so annoyed when I saw Tyron had gone to the Jets I clicked out of here and went and tidied up the garage.

My wife says she hopes the Joneses annoy me some more !

(and yes I'm aware plenty of people were happy to see him gone)

 

[Beast_from_East]

Dak likely wants no more than four years and might want three again. If so, the void years can come in handy for spreading out the early hits. They could push any added bonus money into the void to lower the front-end hit.

This is actually a very good point.

That is why I dont get all the anti-Dak posters pleasuring themselves to this news, I actually think it makes an extension more likely to happen than not.

I mean, do you really think the Cowboys are going to eat $40 million on next year's cap for a player not on the team?

I find that very hard to believe, but who knows, I might be wrong..............guess we will find out soon enough.

 

[The Fonz]

They didn’t need Daks permission to do this.

They’re making his cap hit more manageable for next year because there’s not going to be an extension.

you saying there is a hope he won't be with the in 2024? will buy you a Denny's Gift Card if that is true

 

[Beast_from_East]

They didn’t need Daks permission to do this.

They’re making his cap hit more manageable for next year because there’s not going to be an extension.

This is so totally wrong.

Yes, it has been confirmed by multiple sources that Dak and his agent did have to sign off because void years for 2027 and 2028 were added. That is considered a "material change" to the contract and under the CBA the player and his agent must sign off for this change to be allowed.

This also does not make Dak's cap hit overall more manageable, all they did was move $4 million from 2024 and pitched it over into 2025.

As a result, Dak's cap hit in 2024 dropped from 59 million to 55 million, but the 4 million didnt just disappear like a fart in the wind, it was added to the 36 million in 2025 so now the new 2025 cap hit is 40 million.

Dak's cap hits before this restructure...............59 in 2024...........36 in 2025..........95 million combined for both years.
Dak's cap hits after this restructure..................55 in 2024...........40 in 2025...........95 million combined for both years.

This actually makes it harder to move away from Dak after this season because the extra 4 on top of the 36 represents about 11% increase.

Maybe I missed something in MBA classes at UT, but if the cost to dispose of an asset increases by 11%, you are less likely, not more likely, to dispose of that asset.

 

[gimmesix]

This is actually a very good point.

That is why I dont get all the anti-Dak posters pleasuring themselves to this news, I actually think it makes an extension more likely to happen than not.

I mean, do you really think the Cowboys are going to eat $40 million on next year's cap for a player not on the team?

I find that very hard to believe, but who knows, I might be wrong..............guess we will find out soon enough.

After I looked at what they did again, it can be argued that they had to add void years to maximize the savings. By adding the two years, it allowed them to spread the $5 million roster bonus over five years ($1 million per year), so they really had to do it this way if they wanted to get $4 million out of it.

It doesn't really affect how they take the $40 million in dead cap hit since they can't prorate that hit out. They'd either have to take it all at once or over two years if he is declared a June 1 cut.

So I'm kind of backing off on what I have been saying. The void years were added simply to help with the savings this year. Now, they could be used to help prorate any bonuses he would receive on a new deal, which would help to lower the hits in the long-term deal, but I don't know if they were looking at that or just simply looking at the savings now.

 

[InPhiltraitor]

This is so totally wrong.

Yes, it has been confirmed by multiple sources that Dak and his agent did have to sign off because void years for 2027 and 2028 were added. That is considered a "material change" to the contract and under the CBA the player and his agent must sign off for this change to be allowed.

This also does not make Dak's cap hit overall more manageable, all they did was move $4 million from 2024 and pitched it over into 2025.

As a result, Dak's cap hit in 2024 dropped from 59 million to 55 million, but the 4 million didnt just disappear like a fart in the wind, it was added to the 36 million in 2025 so now the new 2025 cap hit is 40 million.

Dak's cap hits before this restructure...............59 in 2024...........36 in 2025..........95 million combined for both years.
Dak's cap hits after this restructure..................55 in 2024...........40 in 2025...........95 million combined for both years.

This actually makes it harder to move away from Dak after this season because the extra 4 on top of the 36 represents about 11% increase.

Maybe I missed something in MBA classes at UT, but if the cost to dispose of an asset increases by 11%, you are less likely, not more likely, to dispose of that asset.

In the grand scheme of the overall dollars allocated to our QB, moving 4 million just isn’t much money. Perhaps enough to sign an average player (at best) that can fill a void to a one year deal.

Glad that whole UT education is working out for you.

 

[Spottswoode]

After I looked at what they did again, it can be argued that they had to add void years to maximize the savings. By adding the two years, it allowed them to spread the $5 million roster bonus over five years ($1 million per year), so they really had to do it this way if they wanted to get $4 million out of it.

It doesn't really affect how they take the $40 million in dead cap hit since they can't prorate that hit out. They'd either have to take it all at once or over two years if he is declared a June 1 cut.

So I'm kind of backing off on what I have been saying. The void years were added simply to help with the savings this year. Now, they could be used to help prorate any bonuses he would receive on a new deal, which would help to lower the hits in the long-term deal, but I don't know if they were looking at that or just simply looking at the savings now.

So a 1 time savings of $667k that would escalate into next year if they don’t agree on a contract?. And after free agency is well underway and the market has been picked over? I guess it’s possible but considering they have numerous other pathways to create much more room, it feels like there is more to it than a small cap savings this year.

 

[gimmesix]

So a 1 time savings of $667k that would escalate into next year if they don’t agree on a contract?. And after free agency is well underway and the market has been picked over? I guess it’s possible but considering they have numerous other pathways to create much more room, it feels like there is more to it than a small cap savings this year.

Not sure I get the one-time savings of $667K. They added $4 million to their salary cap space this year by adding the two extra void years and spreading the $5 million roster bonus over five years.

I agree with you, though, that there were other ways for them to create cap space so this was a very deliberate decision. Of course, it really only means what they want it to mean, other than creating a little cap room this year. If they don't extend Dak, they were going to have to take a major cap hit anyway. It really doesn't matter if they take it this year or next year and it really doesn't matter if they added void years. If they do extend Dak, they could do away with the void years entirely, replacing them with contract years (although I do think they will keep them to spread out the hit, which is the only way that I can figure that adding the void years matters).

 

[Spottswoode]

Not sure I get the one-time savings of $667K. They added $4 million to their salary cap space this year by adding the two extra void years and spreading the $5 million roster bonus over five years.

I agree with you, though, that there were other ways for them to create cap space so this was a very deliberate decision. Of course, it really only means what they want it to mean, other than creating a little cap room this year. If they don't extend Dak, they were going to have to take a major cap hit anyway. It really doesn't matter if they take it this year or next year and it really doesn't matter if they added void years. If they do extend Dak, they could do away with the void years entirely, replacing them with contract years (although I do think they will keep them to spread out the hit, which is the only way that I can figure that adding the void years matters).

Yea, it wasn’t very clear. What I meant was the yearly difference between $5 mil spread over 5 years v 3 years is $667k per year. If he is not resigned, all they did was save $667k this year by moving $667k to next year because without a contract, all money owed would be due next year. It seems counterintuitive to move more money into a year when they already have a huge amount of dead money.

 

[khiladi]

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

None of them walked into a situation like Dak did and they all this proves is that they know a bad QB when they see it and they are ready to move on. They should have walked after year 2 and they had plenty of evidence before they signed Cooper to bail him out that he was an over-rated scrub.

 

[khiladi]

The way I see it, moving on from Dak will put more pressure on the front office to win a Super Bowl soon after his departure. If Dak was truly the one holding this franchise back for all of these years, then we as Cowboys fans shouldn't have to wait a prolonged or extended period of time before we see the Cowboys winning their sixth Super Bowl post Dak era. Any period which extends beyond 5 years or close to another decade without another Super Bowl win, means that the front office is still the major issue and will continue to be no matter who the QB of the team is.

The front office has gotten some of the fanbase on their side by believing that they are about to move on from Dak. But those fans will quickly sour against them if the Cowboys move on to other QBs and still keeps failing at the goal of winning another Super Bowl.

Well then, the same could apply to Romo. meaning they should have started him instead of Dak... but they chose Dak and now they are on year 9 and teetering on a rebuild... but with Dak they had multiple all-pro OL and the best scoring defense in the league and TO defense and Dak still sucked it up against play-off and good teams..

 

[CowboyFrog]

you dont add void years to a contract your looking to get rid of..NOW this maybe could help if they have a trade he has signed off on (not sure how that would work but could help the trade team)...If they are going to trade him I will 100% give them credit for trying to do a smart thing, im betting they are getting ready to extend him..."Ok we want this player gone after next year so lets move the hit money from this year we are gonna suck to future years we are trying to rebuild..." not even the Jones are this dumb..

 

[FanofJerry]

Good point..............its like a professor I had in grad school when I was getting my MBA, he said "never sit on cash, it can devalue and disappear faster than a fart in the wind"

You got to convert that cash to stocks, bonds, commodities, real estate, ect....

That is how the rich stay rich.

such bad advice unless you assume all this is real.

its all theft anyway.

just using the S&P 500 historic value...in 2007 you would have lost a substantial amount of wealth...would have had to wait until 2014 to gain that wealth back to even and then wait even longer to get some real gains.

by that time inflation had nearly doubled.

odd that the system tells you to save your money when thats bad for you. it just means less services the system has to pay you out in the end(which it prefers) because of inflation eating all your savings power.

its all built on a lie...and boils down to theft.

the rich get rich by lying to kids

warren buffet has said Berkshire has dipped below 50% of its value a view times and it was never warranted. who would invest in something that can take unsuspecting nosedives when they are not warranted. sounds like a scam.