News: Details Emerge From The Cowboys Current Offer To Prescott

[gimmesix]

Sorry misunderstood you i thought you were talking about the deal the way Dak wants it at 4 years not 5 the Cowboys want. Still i think you need to account for a little more of the 44m you didn't pay him over the 1st 4 years, i don't see Dak willing to leave that amount off the table, under your scenario he would only average 24m per season over the 1st 4 years, it would be great if he would do but i doubt that would happen

Every player knows that the inflated salary number doesn't matter, only the guaranteed.

Look at Wentz's deal. The first time he makes more than $18.6 million is in the third year of the extension and Philly can cut him the fourth year and save $7 million. If Philly doesn't cut him that year, he'll make $31 million and the Eagles can cut him the next year and save $21 million. His average salary is $32 million, but he'll never see the last two years where he'd make the bulk of that ($36.2 in 2023 and $32 even in 2024). He might not see the $31.2 million he's supposed to make in 2022, but still would essentially pocket $24.5 million that year because of prorated bonuses and guarantees. So for four years, even if he's not on the roster the fourth one, he actually averages $21.5 million.

Now, his deal is a little different because it was an extension, but it all works relatively the same — big money on the back end that inflates the APY that the player will never see.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I am referring to this comment, in your previous post. I assume you are suggesting that the team needs to account for what Dak was paid in his initial rookie contract, is that accurate? If so, why is that on the Cowboys responsibility?

I think he was referring to the first 4 years if a 5 year contract was signed. I could be wrong but that's what I think he was referring to.
.

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

Its not about Gurley having a bad year. The Rams asked themselves can they get this same production from someone else at a cheaper rate. The answer was yes and they let him go. And Gurley got picked up for a 4 million dollar deal so they were right. You can't say his knee was a issue and not understand why they let him go. Lack of production + knee issues?

You can't sit here and talk about them being cap casualties when there are guys on the roster who could've been cut before them. And then you acknowledge Cooks has concussion issues and Gurley has a knee issue so why are you confused to why they were cut?

And they did that one year after signing a 25 year old back to the biggest deal in history for a RB? C'mon they cut him because they weren't sure about his knee and his lack of production was a result of them not using him as much because of the knee, they didn't think it would hold up and if he injured it more they would not have been able to cut him while he was rehabbing the injury. And they are not going to get the same production as Gurley at a cheaper rate this season because they are going to be eating 17.5 million on their cap this year as a result of releasing him. Where's the deal? They won't get any savings until at least next year, which should tell you he was released stricly because of his knee, they didn't want to take the chance of him hurting it more going on IR at some point next season and not being able to cut him during the offseason because of the injury. They will look a bit foolish if he has a big year with the Falcons, but i grant you that is a big if at this point

 

[Cowboys22]

Does this mean all of the QB’s out there lack of passing abilities falls on their coaching?

Remember McCarthy was fired because he underperformed with Rodgers his last season there.

I was actually talking more of an overall team performance as it relates to the talent level on the entire roster.

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

I am referring to this comment, in your previous post. I assume you are suggesting that the team needs to account for what Dak was paid in his initial rookie contract, is that accurate? If so, why is that the Cowboys responsibility?

No the poster i was talking about didn't account for that 44m in his projections for the cap

 

[Frozen700]

Well......there goes the #DontpayDak campaign @Frozen700

Are you saying you are on board? Welcome my brother!

The war against Dak begins.

#DontpayDak

 

[Cowboys22]

I was just using talent on the roster. If I were going off of talent+coaching, well the Cowboys were not one of the 12 teams to make the playoffs so they could not be top 10 and that was despite a very soft schedule.

You don't think the perceived talent level of individual player or a roster as a whole is impacted by the coaching? If a coach continually puts a player or every player in a position to fail or at least at a disadvantage due to scheme or poor coaching, then that player is going to be perceived as less talented. That was my point.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No the poster i was talking about didn't account for that 44m in his projections for the cap

I see, so not speaking to the rookie contract at all, understood.

 

[Whyjerry]

I’m fine with giving Dak a 4 year contract, but if we give him that, he’s gotta give some and come down on the per year money.

Say something like 4 years for $132 million.

He gets the short contract he wants, Cowboys Dave a couple million per year.

Yes this seems like the mature compromise. In 4 years Dak will either deserve top money or not. Plus he will still be young enough to get a big, long term deal. He gets paid on the upper end of his comps so that should make him happy. Tons of skill and OL talent to play with. A HC that truly knows the position. Lastly nice endorsement checks from being QB of the Dallas Cowboys. It makes all the sense.

That said his agent seems to want to squeeze every nickel out of Jerry.

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

Every player knows that the inflated salary number doesn't matter, only the guaranteed.

Look at Wentz's deal. The first time he makes more than $18.6 million is in the third year of the extension and Philly can cut him the fourth year and save $7 million. If Philly doesn't cut him that year, he'll make $31 million and the Eagles can cut him the next year and save $21 million. His average salary is $32 million, but he'll never see the last two years where he'd make the bulk of that ($36.2 in 2023 and $32 even in 2024). He might not see the $31.2 million he's supposed to make in 2022, but still would essentially pocket $24.5 million that year because of prorated bonuses and guarantees. So for four years, even if he's not on the roster the fourth one, he actually averages $21.5 million.

Now, his deal is a little different because it was an extension, but it all works relatively the same — big money on the back end that inflates the APY that the player will never see.

I agree but the amount you left on the table is a bit excessive in my opinion. Ask yourself why Dak would take 37m in the 1st 2 years of his deal under your scenario when he will get 31m being tagged this year and at least 40m if the Cowboys had to tag him again next year?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

And they did that one year after signing a 25 year old back to the biggest deal in history for a RB? C'mon they cut him because they weren't sure about his knee and his lack of production was a result of them not using him as much because of the knee, they didn't think it would hold up and if he injured it more they would not have been able to cut him while he was rehabbing the injury. And they are not going to get the same production as Gurley at a cheaper rate this season because they are going to be eating 17.5 million on their cap this year as a result of releasing him. Where's the deal? They won't get any savings until at least next year, which should tell you he was released stricly because of his knee, they didn't want to take the chance of him hurting it more going on IR at some point next season and not being able to cut him during the offseason because of the injury. They will look a bit foolish if he has a big year with the Falcons, but i grant you that is a big if at this point

Jesus Christ.....so they cut him because of his knee. That still goes against your own point you are trying to create that he was cut because he got paid too much.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree but the amount you left on the table is a bit excessive in my opinion. Ask yourself why Dak would take 37m in the 1st 2 years of his deal under your scenario when he will get 31m being tagged this year and at least 40m if the Cowboys had to tag him again next year?

I am guessing here but, I don't think the Cowboys intend to tag Dak twice. If it comes to that, I think you'll see him play on a tag this year and if nothing can be done, he will be moved next year. Dalton would be extended if it came to that and the Cowboys would get serious about drafting a QB. So there is no guarantee that Dak would actually see 40 in 2021, IMO.

That's just my opinion thou.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

That's a fair answer but you are avoiding the real question, do you think Dak should be paid like a top 5 QB?

Yes. He should be paid like a top 5 QB. But like I said that's irrelevant.

My reasons would be his age, he's never lost less than 8 games, his progression, potential, etc. If you told me he wouldn't' get any better from here on out then yeah I wouldn't.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Rams knew he had a bad knee when they drafted him. They knew he had a bad knee when they extended him. Rams gave him a bad contract and every team in the league knew it and said it. Rams released him because he had a bad knee and they also released him because it was a bad contract. It could be both and it was both. That's just the truth of it.

 

[jterrell]

Am I missing something or your proposed number is off? Not much of a discount for a shorter contract. I would say 4 yrs but average less than $30 million per yer. It’s a bet on himself.

That's not going to happen.
He is making 31.4 GTD this year. 39 next year.
He's not going to accept less than 30 AAV.

You really think he is going to accept Ryan Tannehill MONEY?
RT got 4 years 29.5M AAV. 62m GTD.

Wentz got 4 years 32M AAV with 66.5M GTD.
Dak will be north of that.

Aaron Rodgers 4 year 33.5M AAV is a good target for Dallas who probably has to go a little higher because AR signed that in 2018.

Reality is the cap effect is minimal on what it actually takes versus what they are trying to do.

35.01M x 4 years. GTD is 103M.
36M SB
2020 15m base
2021 25m base
2022 27m base
2023 37M base

Obviously he doesn't see year 4.
He is either cut or extended.

 

[gjkoeppen]

This is true but, there is a difference there. You home can also tank and you can end up with a home selling for a lot less, even though it might be much nicer. We've seen that happen before, based on all sorts of variables. But see, here is the thing, smart investors don't buy property like that. They leverage a situation and walk away from a bad market. This is what you don't see in the Dak discussion. The market argument is all well and good so long as it's an escalating discussion but it never considers the other side of the market discussion, which does exist, IMO.

To use other types of markets as examples of what can or does happen in the sporting world is trying to add apples to oranges. The cost or price of pro athletes contracts as in market value always continue to rise until a player is felt to be on the downward side of their careers. Your example of the housing market is an orange in a pile of apples. There are many reasons why a house drops in price. First, like a player, age. Next there could be something being built close by that causes all the homes in that block or area to drop. Things like if there is some open area near by that everyone thinks will be subdivided and homes built but all of a sudden a prison is getting built there. Or because of zoning rules and a larger home is bought and is turned into a half way house so all of the surrounding homes just lost value. In pro sports the market value as a whole just keeps going up every year.
.

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

Jesus Christ.....so they cut him because of his knee. That still goes against your own point you are trying to create that he was cut because he got paid too much.

C'mon stop trying to twist this around. My point was they cut him a season early to avoid having to pay him more because they didn't trust his knee to hold up, his lack of production was because the Rams didn't use him as much because they didn't trust the knee!!! And your point of them finding someone else cheaper is also BS because Gurley is costing them 17.5 on the cap this year while not being there so whoever you find better get you 800 yards, 39 catches and 14 TD's, what's a back like that cost per year? 3-4m which is what the Falcons paid him..lol. The Rams are paying more to replace Gurley and sign a replacement than they would have to keep him. It is all about his knee

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Are you saying you are on board? Welcome my brother!

The war against Dak begins.

#DontpayDak

Naw I'm saying I think your campaign may be coming to a end....unfortunately....I honestly thought your campaign was going to work honestly. I really thought Stephen and Jerry would listen.

 

[OmerV]

This is true but, there is a difference there. You home can also tank and you can end up with a home selling for a lot less, even though it might be much nicer. We've seen that happen before, based on all sorts of variables. But see, here is the thing, smart investors don't buy property like that. They leverage a situation and walk away from a bad market. This is what you don't see in the Dak discussion. The market argument is all well and good so long as it's an escalating discussion but it never considers the other side of the market discussion, which does exist, IMO.

Yes, it's true that a housing market is more susceptible to a downturn than a market for players in the NFL. But the thing is there is never an oversupply of QB's like there sometimes is with houses, so that's why you can't look at QB's as being susceptible to the other side of the coin the way houses are. There are never enough quality NFL starting QBs to go around, and as long as that's the case the market will dictate a high price.

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

Yes. He should be paid like a top 5 QB. But like I said that's irrelevant.

My reasons would be his age, he's never lost less than 8 games, his progression, potential, etc. If you told me he wouldn't' get any better from here on out then yeah I wouldn't.

Well that is where we Disagree at his absolute best Dak might sneak into the lower end of the top 10 but for me he will never be more than a top 15 QB. Paying him 35m is just a waste of good money