Video: Dak doesn’t deserve long term deal until SB win

[ABQCOWBOY]

Its easy to pick a number now knowing what Goff & Wentz received. But if we initially offered 30M, I'd say offering 33.5M would be sweetening it. Essentially giving Goff's contract before Goff signed his.

I see. And what if Dak's camp would have said no to that?

 

[shabazz]

https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSjIiu43LI1UYI6f6Usap0TFpvYv9qA7Tp2QlYkbth9DJS4wXLx&usqp=CAU

 

[ksg811]

I see. And what if Dak's camp would have said no to that?

Then you go to $34 million, which is still less than his current demands in total value while using his in place $2m deal to average down the contract for cap flexibility. "Overpaying" on an extension is better than waiting a year for "market" value, especially when extending a 4th round rookie contract.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Then you go to $34 million, which is still less than his current demands in total value while using his in place $2m deal to average down the contract for cap flexibility. "Overpaying" on an extension is better than waiting a year for "market" value, especially when extending a 4th round rookie contract.

I see. So you basically pay him as the highest paid player in the NFL, regardless of what the price tag was? Keep in mind, the offer of 30, at the time, would have made him the second highest paid player in the NFL. The offer of 27, which was the original offer according to reports, would have made him the second highest, along with Garoppolo. So you believe that the Cowboys should have paid him 34 or whatever it took to get him to sign an extension? Is that essentially accurate?

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Exactly, we gave Romo his first big contract after starting 17 games in October of 2007, during a successful season. We had too many opportunities to sign him to an extension, and now the FO is up against a wall because we used the franchise tag.

Tony signed with the cowboys for $10,000 originally...not even close to compare someone on the team for years working for nothing to someone who made $3 million.

 

[nobody]

Dak deserved a better contract after his rookie season. The Jones boys messed up when that did not happen. Making him stick to that 4th rounder deal for 4 years sent a message to Dak that has him squeezing every penny he can get out of his current negotiations. The Jones boys created this mess.

Wrong. He was drafted in the 4th. That's because his on-the-field play on top of the DUI. It's his own fault. Should he have been signed last season? Probably. Right after his rookie year? No. Definitely not.

 

[ksg811]

I see. So you basically pay him as the highest paid player in the NFL, regardless of what the price tag was? Keep in mind, the offer of 30, at the time, would have made him the second highest paid player in the NFL. The offer of 27, which was the original offer according to reports, would have made him the second highest, along with Garoppolo. So you believe that the Cowboys should have paid him 34 or whatever it took to get him to sign an extension? Is that essentially accurate?

Pretty much, yeah, so long as it's within reason. If you're dead set on re-signing a guy, especially at the QB position, it is in your best interest to get it done as soon as possible. The QB market resets every year and not incrementally. Jimmy Garropolo signed the richest deal in history just 2 offseason ago. He's now 10th with #1 (Russel Wilson) resetting the market by 27% just 14 months later. What might be viewed as an overpay today, will be savings in just a year with even bigger savings when considering accrual based cap accounting, which is what matters most.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Pretty much, yeah, so long as it's within reason. If you're dead set on re-signing a guy, especially at the QB position, it is in your best interest to get it done as soon as possible. The QB market resets every year and not incrementally. Jimmy Garropolo signed the richest deal in history just 2 offseason ago. He's now 10th with #1 (Russel Wilson) resetting the market by 27% just 14 months later. What might be viewed as an overpay today, will be savings in just a year with even bigger savings when considering accrual based cap accounting, which is what matters most.

Well I mean, that's the problem. That's what I am asking you. What is, within reason? Think about what you are suggesting here. You are suggesting that in 2018, the Cowboys should have offered numbers that are, right now today, the top salaries in the game. The cap had not yet gone up, the percentage of total cap that contract would represent would be about 20% of your total cap space. You have DLaw, you have Zeke, you have multiple young important FAs that are or will be coming due and you want to spend that kind of money on Dak, which BTW, because he is not a high first round pick with a 5th year option, brings nothing in the way of salary to off set the numbers you are suggesting. Unlike Wentz or Goff or any of these other QBs everybody brings up, who had existing contracts that got extended, Dak's deal is all cap that will have to be accounted for the hard way. No advantage, no benefit to the team in terms of cap relief.

So 2018, if we offer that deal and Dak takes it, do you see him agreeing to a 5 year deal? I don't. I see a 3 or 4 year deal being accepted, so we would be back at the table after this season, trying to get him resigned before he becomes an FA in 2021. We would be negotiating an even more expensive deal because we would have agreed to a 34 mil deal in 2018, which would have raised the bar even more and we would now be looking at paying him even more next year.

So lets go back to your post where you say:

"What might be viewed as an overpay today, will be savings in just a year with even bigger savings when considering accrual based cap accounting, which is what matters most."

How do you see any of that savings happen if you pay him 34 or whatever in 2018? How does the team realize any savings, based on what we know about Dak and CAA and how they work and what likely would have happened? I don't see any opportunity to see cap relief. All I see is a situation where we would end up paying a whole lot of money, getting no relief and losing even more talent because of the situation we would have put ourselves in.

 

[ksg811]

Well I mean, that's the problem. That's what I am asking you. What is, within reason? Think about what you are suggesting here. You are suggesting that in 2018, the Cowboys should have offered numbers that are, right now today, the top salaries in the game. The cap had not yet gone up, the percentage of total cap that contract would represent would be about 20% of your total cap space. You have DLaw, you have Zeke, you have multiple young important FAs that are or will be coming due and you want to spend that kind of money on Dak, which BTW, because he is not a high first round pick with a 5th year option, brings nothing in the way of salary to off set the numbers you are suggesting. Unlike Wentz or Goff or any of these other QBs everybody brings up, who had existing contracts that got extended, Dak's deal is all cap that will have to be accounted for the hard way. No advantage, no benefit to the team in terms of cap relief.

So 2018, if we offer that deal and Dak takes it, do you see him agreeing to a 5 year deal? I don't. I see a 3 or 4 year deal being accepted, so we would be back at the table after this season, trying to get him resigned before he becomes an FA in 2021. We would be negotiating an even more expensive deal because we would have agreed to a 34 mil deal in 2018, which would have raised the bar even more and we would now be looking at paying him even more next year.

So lets go back to your post where you say:

"What might be viewed as an overpay today, will be savings in just a year with even bigger savings when considering accrual based cap accounting, which is what matters most."

How do you see any of that savings happen if you pay him 34 or whatever in 2018? How does the team realize any savings, based on what we know about Dak and CAA and how they work and what likely would have happened? I don't see any opportunity to see cap relief. All I see is a situation where we would end up paying a whole lot of money, getting no relief and losing even more talent because of the situation we would have put ourselves in.

Dak wasn't eligible for an extension in 2018. Not really sure why you're even suggesting going back to 2018 in the first place. This would have been last year, with Lawrence, Zeke, and Jaylon Smith all signed to long term deals so there was no worry of how to afford them because they were all set.

The savings would have come over the life of the deal. Let's just say they signed him to the deal he reportedly wants now, which is 4 years and $140 million dollars at $35m AAV. If that same contract is signed last year instead, when combined with the $2 million he had left on his rookie deal creates a 5 year $142 million deal, or $28.4 million AAV for cap purposes. While yes, it would have increased his cap hit last year, it would have created flexibility over the remaining life of he contract. They could have signed him at a first year cap hit as low as 6 or 7 million, only a few million more than what he accounted for.

They rolled over nearly $20 million in cap space into this offseason, most of which was already earmarked for Dak either on the tag or a long term deal. They would have had options to either front-load Dak a little more to create even more future cap flexibility or use that remaining space to improve the team as they saw fit with the knowledge and comfort of having their big money QB already on the books.

 

[cowboygo]

I see. So you basically pay him as the highest paid player in the NFL, regardless of what the price tag was? Keep in mind, the offer of 30, at the time, would have made him the second highest paid player in the NFL. The offer of 27, which was the original offer according to reports, would have made him the second highest, along with Garoppolo. So you believe that the Cowboys should have paid him 34 or whatever it took to get him to sign an extension? Is that essentially accurate?

Getting ahead of Goff's contract correct, yes. At the time of signing, highest paid guarantee for a quarterback. Not highest paid player in the NFL. Goff is now currently the #4 QB in average salary. This contract was signed September, 2019. If we got Dak signed before Goff signed his, Goff would most likely have bumped Dak to #5 in average salary, and trumped his guarantees.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Dak wasn't eligible for an extension in 2018. Not really sure why you're even suggesting going back to 2018 in the first place. This would have been last year, with Lawrence, Zeke, and Jaylon Smith all signed to long term deals so there was no worry of how to afford them because they were all set.

The savings would have come over the life of the deal. Let's just say they signed him to the deal he reportedly wants now, which is 4 years and $140 million dollars at $35m AAV. If that same contract is signed last year instead, when combined with the $2 million he had left on his rookie deal creates a 5 year $142 million deal, or $28.4 million AAV for cap purposes. While yes, it would have increased his cap hit last year, it would have created flexibility over the remaining life of he contract. They could have signed him at a first year cap hit as low as 6 or 7 million, only a few million more than what he accounted for.

They rolled over nearly $20 million in cap space into this offseason, most of which was already earmarked for Dak either on the tag or a long term deal. They would have had options to either front-load Dak a little more to create even more future cap flexibility or use that remaining space to improve the team as they saw fit with the knowledge and comfort of having their big money QB already on the books.

2018, I believe, is when the discussion started. You can not start discussion until the third year of a given players contract. 2018 would have been the third year but that's here nor there. Even if you say 2019, I still fail to see the point where the team recoups any advantage. I mean, all that does is raise the starting point for his follow on contract negotiation, which would have happened in year three anyway. All of the things you mention above can still be done, or has been done and they pay Dak 31 rather then 35 or more for 4 years. The numbers do not support your messaging here. Personally, I don't believe that the Cowboys are going to go much higher then what's already been reported here. I think they are locked in and now it's just a matter of seeing what's what come 7/15.

JMO

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Getting ahead of Goff's contract correct, yes. At the time of signing, highest paid guarantee for a quarterback. Not highest paid player in the NFL. Goff is now currently the #4 QB in average salary. This contract was signed September, 2019. If we got Dak signed before Goff signed his, Goff would most likely have bumped Dak to #5 in average salary, and trumped his guarantees.

But again, how does that help the team? The team ends up spending more money, over the long term. I don't see it.

 

[cowboygo]

But again, how does that help the team? The team ends up spending more money, over the long term. I don't see it.

Its the best option available while we have the O-Line playing at a high level for the next several years. I don't want to nurse a rookie right now with this roster. What is your alternative? Was it signing a vet QB this offseason? Dalton is only cheap because he signed as a backup.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Its the best option available while we have the O-Line playing at a high level for the next several years. I don't want to nurse a rookie right now with this roster. What is your alternative? Was it signing a vet QB this offseason? Dalton is only cheap because he signed as a backup.

But what if it's not? What if we find that Dalton or a young kid can come in and do the job? I mean, think about it. If we overspend on Dak and we can't keep talent around, or enough talent around, what happens to Dak eventually?

I don't believe Dak can go anywhere but if he can, then we get trade value and cap relief. We take a good young QB surrounded by quality OL and tools on the OL and we can replicate success at the position. Dak wasn't good his first 4 years because he is an all world talent. He was good because he stepped into a great situation. You probably kill that with a bad contract to Dak. You save it if you can either, A. Get Dak to sign a reasonable deal or B. Get value for him and bring in a good player.

 

[Redball Express]

So while everyone else gets paid Dak has to win a superbowl to get a new contract?. This offseason needs to end so the subject can change.

Good lord..

You do understand Daks present Tag is $32 mil/yr..

And the combined deals of Zeke, Amari and D. Smith equal Daks approximately. If it ends up more then the Dak deal substitute Tank for Smith.

That's a chunk of change for a QB who has won nothing you can record in the history books.

Does Dak have to win a SB at least to become the highest paid contract in league history?

Yes, I am afraid he does.

If he does not do a "I'm going to Disney World" commercial.

He does not get the deal.

 

[Starforever]

Dumbest take ever.

 

[Bullet22]

https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSjIiu43LI1UYI6f6Usap0TFpvYv9qA7Tp2QlYkbth9DJS4wXLx&usqp=CAU

That is the first time, I've seen that....a football first....what will he do next that no other qb has done...throw an int...

 

[cowfan]

I'm entertained with the Dak haters. I guess with that logic that Tony Romo must have won multiple Super Bowls because he got his long term deal.

 

[BourbonBalz]

I seem to recall Elway. Farve, Manning, Marino, Romo, and on and on getting long term deals before winning a Super Bowl, or ever winning one.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Wrong. He was drafted in the 4th. That's because his on-the-field play on top of the DUI. It's his own fault. Should he have been signed last season? Probably. Right after his rookie year? No. Definitely not.

I don’t think you can redo a rookie contract after one year. I’m pretty sure it’s not allowed.