First Things First FOX:The Cowboys should try to trade Dak Prescott for Draft picks

[Jake]

I am not pushing any agenda here and I am speaking about ANY player with a no-trade clause, not just Dak Prescott.

You can strongly encourage a no-trade-clause player to accept a trade if you tell them you are not going to play them the whole season.

There is no rule saying you have to start or play a player with a big contract, so a team would have some leverage if they really wanted to trade a no-trade-clause player.

While it would be foolish for a team to waste that money, from a leverage standpoint not playing them would very likely impact their free agent contract with their next team given they would be a year older and having not played for a year.

So my choice is to collect $34 million in cash for 2024 (cash, not cap hit), take no lumps, then be a healthy free agent in 2025. Or, accept a trade to somewhere I don't want to go. There are enough teams desperate for a starting QB in this league, every year, that Dak would have suitors as a free agent in 2025. Ask Kirk Cousins.

I'm not Dak nor his agent, but come at me with that and I'm calling your bluff. Pay me, sit me, and if my replacement stinks sell continuing to play him to the rest of the roster, 52 other players (and coaches) who want to win and get paid for winning. Meanwhile, I'm going to make some popcorn and wait for free agency.

 

[Tabascocat]

If most have been paying attention, Jerry doesn’t work that way. He is not proactive but reactive. Also, he is not going to pay Dak to not play, there is no free lunch with him. Expect Jerry to extend him right before the Super Bowl just to steal the limelight.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

At some point, but not yet. There's a right way to do this. I have a thread for how I see this being played out properly.

 

[Jake]

Yeah that isn’t how it works. If you think he wants to sit on the bench , you aren’t being realistic

No one wants to sit the bench. But if you agree to a no trade clause then try to make me agree to a trade to crap franchise, we're going to have a problem.

Dak makes a lot of money off the field because he's a Cowboy. He loses that the moment he agrees to go to Tennessee, or somewhere similar.

 

[Reality]

So my choice is to collect $34 million in cash for 2024 (cash, not cap hit), take no lumps, then be a healthy free agent in 2025. Or, accept a trade to somewhere I don't want to go. There are enough teams desperate for a starting QB in this league, every year, that Dak would have suitors as a free agent in 2025. Ask Kirk Cousins.

I'm not Dak nor his agent, but come at me with that and I'm calling your bluff. Pay me, sit me, and if my replacement stinks sell continuing to play him to the rest of the roster, 52 other players (and coaches) who want to win and get paid for winning. Meanwhile, I'm going to make some popcorn and wait for free agency.

I am not saying no team would sign a player that was demoted for a year due to blocking a trade as I'm sure several teams would if the player was good the previous season.

However, the player would be another year older and a year out of football by the start of the 2025 season and most teams would likely hedge their contract offerings with incentives and/or a shorter deal than the player would get moving straight from a good 2023 season to a new 2024 team.

 

[JBS]

No one wants to sit the bench. But if you agree to a no trade clause then try to make me agree to a trade to crap franchise, we're going to have a problem.

Dak makes a lot of money off the field because he's a Cowboy. He loses that the moment he agrees to go to Tennessee, or somewhere similar.

Who said a crap franchise? I said he obviously has a say in where he goes. He has to waive his NT clause for a team he would accept going to.

 

[Jake]

I am not saying no team would sign a player that was demoted for a year due to blocking a trade as I'm sure several teams would if the player was good the previous season.

However, the player would be another year older and a year out of football by the start of the 2025 season and most teams would likely hedge their contract offerings with incentives and/or a shorter deal than the player would get moving straight from a good 2023 season to a new 2024 team.

Dak has already made $162 million with the Cowboys on the field (with $34 million more coming), and God only knows how much off it. Money will never be an issue.

So it comes down to legacy, and a chance to win. Accepting a trade to a crap team lessens both of those things. It would have to be a trade to something better, which immediately limits Dak's market. Something better doesn't need Dak Prescott, so his best option is to be a Cowboy for as long as possible.

 

[Jake]

Who said a crap franchise? I said he obviously has a say in where he goes. He has to waive his NT clause for a team he would accept going to.

What team that isn't desperate for a QB is going to be on the phone trying to trade for Dak?

His trade market would be crap franchises, for the same reason we're talking about trading him. He's not deemed good enough for the Dallas Cowboys.

 

[HMJYay]

No team is going to give premium picks for Dak and pay him that much. He’s only that valuable to Jerry. Those QB needy teams in the top 10 aren’t going to trade for an aging and slow (in football terms) Dak Prescott (and my gosh does he look slow, I think Drew Bledsoe might have faster feet) when they can get the young guy they want for way cheaper, I think the Cowboys could get a low 1st and most likely a 2nd for Dak. I do not see any team making him the highest paid player except for the Cowboys. lol. Jerry over values all of his players. He extremely over values Dak because he sees Dak as a great GM decision he made. But, they didn’t want to pay him last time, so I think there is slight possibility they do not. We will see

 

[Reality]

Dak has already made $162 million with the Cowboys on the field (with $34 million more coming), and God only knows how much off it. Money will never be an issue.

So it comes down to legacy, and a chance to win. Accepting a trade to a crap team lessens both of those things. It would have to be a trade to something better, which immediately limits Dak's market. Something better doesn't need Dak Prescott, so his best option is to be a Cowboy for as long as possible.

Again, I was not talking specifically about Dak, and I never said the Cowboys would trade him to a crap team and make him accept the trade.

I just said that players with no-trade clauses are not impervious to being impacted with or without accepting a trade.

A no-trade clause is only impossible to trade when the contract is way overpriced for any would-be interested team or interested teams cannot afford it.

Beyond that, it comes down to how bad does the team want to trade the player and how bad does the player not want to be traded.

In baseball, most athletes with no-trade clauses will gladly provide a list of teams they are willing to accept a trade to and then their team starts contacting those teams to see if one or more of them are interested in a trade.

For most athletes who demand a no-trade clause their primary goal is to avoid being sent to a bad team or a city/location where they do not want to live for some reason.

 

[PAPPYDOG]

What team that isn't desperate for a QB is going to be on the phone trying to trade for Dak?

His trade market would be crap franchises, for the same reason we're talking about trading him. He's not deemed good enough for the Dallas Cowboys.

Only the Cowboy Homers believe Dak is a top 10 QB.
Jerry is a good salesman if not anything else.
No team in the NFL would pay Dak 60 million a year.......................NONE!!!!
But you go right ahead and keep selling trash for Gold bud!

 

[JBS]

What team that isn't desperate for a QB is going to be on the phone trying to trade for Dak?

His trade market would be crap franchises, for the same reason we're talking about trading him. He's not deemed good enough for the Dallas Cowboys.

I can name plenty

Steelers?
Pats?
Falcons?
Saints?
Broncos?
Raiders?
Vikings?
Titans?

Some of these teams might be crap. Not all of them. Just takes one. I can name more

 

[noshame]

I'd settle for a venti mocha/whip cream

 

[Gonzomandela01]

Bench him until he accepts the trade

 

[KingCorcoran]

Again, I was not talking specifically about Dak, and I never said the Cowboys would trade him to a crap team and make him accept the trade.

I just said that players with no-trade clauses are not impervious to being impacted with or without accepting a trade.

A no-trade clause is only impossible to trade when the contract is way overpriced for any would-be interested team or interested teams cannot afford it.

Beyond that, it comes down to how bad does the team want to trade the player and how bad does the player not want to be traded.

In baseball, most athletes with no-trade clauses will gladly provide a list of teams they are willing to accept a trade to and then their team starts contacting those teams to see if one or more of them are interested in a trade.

For most athletes who demand a no-trade clause their primary goal is to avoid being sent to a bad team or a city/location where they do not want to live for some reason.

Their primary goal, and particularly their agent’s primary goal, is too gain the kind of leverage Dak and his representation have now. It has nothing to do with bad teams or places they do or don’t want to live. Professional football players play for money, not teams.

 

[zeke21]

I can name plenty

Steelers?
Pats?
Falcons?
Saints?
Broncos?
Raiders?
Vikings?
Titans?

Some of these teams might be crap. Not all of them. Just takes one. I can name more

Far out.. it is like groundhog day in here. I heard the same arguments when Dak signed his first stupid contract. So here we go again..

Steelers: Tomlin is a defence first guy. They also went up and picked Pickett who then lost his spot to Rudolph. They will back themselves in to develop one of those guys.
Pats: On field yeah maybe.. but they haven't shown any indication they want to pay huge money for a QB and are not know for 'setting the market' and that included when they had the GOAT. With pick 3 in the draft they are likely to try and hit there.
Falcons: Most likely. Would Dak agree to trade here? Unlikely but legitimate option.
Saints: No, Carr to Dak is lateral move and Carr only 1 year into a 4 year deal. Cross Saints off the list.
Broncos: Just got torched giving big money to Wilson and you think they go for round 2.. not going to happen. Cross off list.
Raiders: Outside chance although they too got burnt paying money to Garappolo. I think they will look to go into the draft. Possible.
Vikings: Move from Cousins to Dak? Not even the Vikes are that stupid. Lateral move that will cost big $$. Nope.
Titans: They will want to give Levis a little longer and looks like Tannehill will stay as backup. NO way they set the market and give up trade capital to pay Dak. None.

Jerry will not allow Dak to go to a divisional rival. He just couldn't do it.

So therefore the teams that are no chance: Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Ravens, Bengals, Browns, Texans, Colts, Jags, Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Giants, Eagles, Commanders, Lions, Packers, Vikings, Panthers, Bucs, Saints, Cardinals, Rams, Seahawks, 49ers.
You can not make a legitimate argument for any of those 25 teams. Plus us. So that leaves 6 possible landing spots:
Pats - unlikely as per above
Steelers - unlikely as per above
Titans - unlikely as per above

The only three teams that I see being even a chance are Falcons, Raiders and Bears.

For me the Bears are the biggest/best chance because they do have that extra draft capital and may feel that they have enough pieces to make things work - the 2nd half of their season was more promising.

So for the all the stats, talking heads and raging.. no I don't think Dak creates a feeding frenzy. At all. That is half the problem. We legit are about to extend a guy and probably reset the QB market that literally no one else wants. And I could have written the exact same thing four years ago. Dak only has value to Jerry. That it is. If I was Jerry though, I'd be calling Bears and hoping I could sell some sweet Dak candy.

 

[Verdict]

I would not give Dak a big extension to reduce the cap hit. I can see the Cowboys offering an extension at a reduced rate to lower Dak’s cap hit (I wouldn’t).

Worst case scenario is pay Dak to play this year, and take the 3rd round comp pick when he leaves after this year. Get your replacement QB ready this year.

 

[Scottishcowboy]

I am not saying no team would sign a player that was demoted for a year due to blocking a trade as I'm sure several teams would if the player was good the previous season.

However, the player would be another year older and a year out of football by the start of the 2025 season and most teams would likely hedge their contract offerings with incentives and/or a shorter deal than the player would get moving straight from a good 2023 season to a new 2024 team.

Mmmm

Cleveland didn't "hedge" with Watson out of football for a year +.

We need to face facts, Dak holds ALL the cards here, they also happen to be aces and he has a set of loaded dice in his pocket too just in case.

 

[RoboQB]

I can name plenty

Steelers?
Pats?
Falcons?
Saints?
Broncos?
Raiders?
Vikings?
Titans?

Some of these teams might be crap. Not all of them. Just takes one. I can name more

He might as well go to the Raiders.
I mean, since he's got the LV luggage and purse already.

 

[csirl]

What do you think he could get for draft picks? I bet we could get a first rounder. Not a high one though which is what we want to find his replacement.

They're talking like Dak could get Matthew Stafford trade picks. I don't see it happening.

Dak would be the "Jared Goff" in any Stafford type of trade. So we'd be giving high picks + Dak.