Is Trading Zeke on the Table?

[ItzKelz]

To many fans think TRADE is the cure for anything. You missed the point those former GM's and I were making. Because of Elliott's off the field troubles ever off season and having already been suspended for 6 games and the next time will be 10 games or an entire season, Elliott's value could be much lower than many fans think it will be. Now the Cowboys have him for this season and then can exercise the 5th year option and if Elliott sit for the entire season or comes back at week 10 for an accrued season and then pulls that again in 2020 not only will his off the field troubles come into play, but also his selfish stance will be front and center and he may have to decide to take a league minimum contract as a prove it year before getting a bigger contract, but not the kind he's holding out for now. In any case he'll never recoup all the money he will be losing doing that instead of taking a reasonable contract now. Now if Elliott is still;l running well why the Cowboys except a low ball trade offer when they have all the leverage.
.

Paying him is what I do not wish to do. Whatever we can get in return is worth not dishing out the check considering the shelf life of a running back....especially one that gets more carries than most in the NFL.

 

[JD_KaPow]

But the flip side is that you can also see your benefits and or pay be decreased. However, what you say is not true, even in the Commercial Industry. If you have a contract, you are bound by that contract and you have legal ease in order to get compensated. That's just the way Contracts work and it doesn't matter if you are in the NFL or in the Private Sector. A contract is binding.

Sure (well, mostly; you can always try to renegotiate the contract). But you negotiated that contract when you went in. Drafted rookies aren't allowed to negotiate their contracts. They're stuck with the terms they're given, including length. And when your contract is over (or even during, for consultants and others), you're completely free to negotiate with anyone you want; there's nothing equivalent to the franchise tag.

As for benefits or pay being decreased, remember that NFL players' contracts aren't guaranteed (yes, some contracts have guaranteed money). They can be cut at any time and never get paid a lot of what's in there.

The NFL is just nothing like a normal free-market system: it's a bad analogy.

 

[JoeKing]

If the player is threatening a hold out from training camp if he doesn't get a new contract, that happens to be his rookie contract that he has only fulfilled 3/5ths of, yeah I'd say a trade is on the table.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Paying him is what I do not wish to do. Whatever we can get in return is worth not dishing out the check considering the shelf life of a running back....especially one that gets more carries than most in the NFL.

I don't want to see Elliott get a cap crippling contract either, but for the next 2 years the Cowboys have the leverage against Elliott walking and getting a huge contract and as long as he's producing, if he shows up, taking less in trade for him is foolishness. Again I'm sure in the private negotiations between the Cowboys and his agent they will continually point out all the off season troubles Elliott has had and the risk of a long suspension when it happens again.
.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sure (well, mostly; you can always try to renegotiate the contract). But you negotiated that contract when you went in. Drafted rookies aren't allowed to negotiate their contracts. They're stuck with the terms they're given, including length. And when your contract is over (or even during, for consultants and others), you're completely free to negotiate with anyone you want; there's nothing equivalent to the franchise tag.

As for benefits or pay being decreased, remember that NFL players' contracts aren't guaranteed (yes, some contracts have guaranteed money). They can be cut at any time and never get paid a lot of what's in there.

The NFL is just nothing like a normal free-market system: it's a bad analogy.

Of course they are and everybody knows this. Guess what thou, these rookies know that too. You say it's a bad analogy but what I posted in not an analogy. It's the truth and there is no middle ground there. A contract is a contract and you don't break it. That's bad business, it's as simple as that really.

 

[ItzKelz]

I don't want to see Elliott get a cap crippling contract either, but for the next 2 years the Cowboys have the leverage against Elliott walking and getting a huge contract and as long as he's producing, if he shows up, taking less in trade for him is foolishness. Again I'm sure in the private negotiations between the Cowboys and his agent they will continually point out all the off season troubles Elliott has had and the risk of a long suspension when it happens again.
.

Letting him walk and not getting anything in return is foolish.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Of course they are and everybody knows this. Guess what thou, these rookies know that too.

Yes, and they also know that a holdout is their leverage.

You say it's a bad analogy but what I posted in not an analogy. It's the truth and there is no middle ground there. A contract is a contract and you don't break it. That's bad business, it's as simple as that really.

I don't follow. Of course there's middle ground. Tell Le'Veon Bell or Emmitt Smith that there's no middle ground.

 

[xwalker]

Yes, it absolutely is.

The title of the thread is a Question asking if we should trade Zeke. It is not a statement saying we are or should. Poster gives his opinion but he's definitely asking the question.

I'm referring to the "Zeke is going to holdout rumor" that you referenced.

I don't see anything in the OP or title regarding Zeke holding out.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, and they also know that a holdout is their leverage.I don't follow. Of course there's middle ground. Tell Le'Veon Bell or Emmitt Smith that there's no middle ground.

Le'Veon paid a step price for his stance. He lost 14.5 he will never ever see again and he signed for less money after all said and done. Effectively 5 million less. Emmitt, his sito was different to me, in that the dynamics then are much different then now. The cap changes all and it evolves. I can see that more in Emmitt's case then Bell's IMO but still, you don't break a contract. That's bad business. Sitting out two games is different then sitting out 7 because to me, you can lose an entire season in Seven games. In 2 or 3, you can still recover but I do see your point. I just feel as though Zeke needs to understand that Jerry is going to take care of him. Jerry always takes care of his guys and it's pretty clear to me, Zeke is one of Jerry's guys. You look at the lengths Jerry goes to cover Zeke and it's plain to see, to me.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm referring to the "Zeke is going to holdout rumor" that you referenced.

I don't see anything in the OP or title regarding Zeke holding out.

Under stand. I was thinking a little different when I read your response. I was assuming you were referring to the actual question of, is it a question or is it a statement, that we should trade him.

Apologies X, my bad.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Le'Veon paid a step price for his stance. He lost 14.5 he will never ever see again and he signed for less money after all said and done. Effectively 5 million less. Emmitt, his sito was different to me, in that the dynamics then are much different then now. The cap changes all and it evolves. I can see that more in Emmitt's case then Bell's IMO but still, you don't break a contract. That's bad business. Sitting out two games is different then sitting out 7 because to me, you can lose an entire season in Seven games. In 2 or 3, you can still recover but I do see your point. I just feel as though Zeke needs to understand that Jerry is going to take care of him. Jerry always takes care of his guys and it's pretty clear to me, Zeke is one of Jerry's guys. You look at the lengths Jerry goes to cover Zeke and it's plain to see, to me.

I have mixed feelings about your last point. Jerry does take care of his guys. On the other hand, Zeke can see what they did with/to DeMarco Murray and that has to give him pause.

Bell's situation is pretty interesting. I'm pretty sure he believed Pittsburgh planned to run him into the ground in the last tag year (he said as much), which would have carried a lot of risk for him (injury risk not least). By sitting out, he avoided that risk of getting hurt and not seeing the next contract at all. I also think he despised Pittsburgh management and didn't want to play for them any more. But he wasn't allowed to leave and negotiate with another team, even though his contract was over, thanks to the franchise tag. So I don't think you can just look at the contract numbers to evaluate his decision.

Which leads to another point: breaking a contract isn't always bad business. If you find yourself in a situation with people you can't stand to work with or for, you may find it worth it to break the contract, depending on whether you can live with the financial (and possible reputational) penalties associated with breach of contract. It's also not unheard of to have a new employer buy out the contract of someone with another company/firm. Look at the college football coaching ranks for examples.

 

[Cowboys1fan]

Why would anyone do that? He has 2 years left on his rookie deal and then we can franchise him for two more years. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to give him a new, more expensive deal other then the fact that he may try to hold out.

Let him hold out. It will help force Dallas to continue to take talented backs in the draft and they will find out how they can replace that idiot for much cheaper and then don't need a top 4 pick to do it.

Bc he deserves it and could hold out like Le’Veon and lose him for absolutely nothing. You don’t draft a player in the top 5 to lose after rookie deal. He is part of the future so break bank on him

 

[xwalker]

Under stand. I was thinking a little different when I read your response. I was assuming you were referring to the actual question of, is it a question or is it a statement, that we should trade him.

Apologies X, my bad.

Sorry.

I'm grumpy because I'm burned out on the Zeke rumor.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Bc he deserves it and could hold out like Le’Veon and lose him for absolutely nothing. You don’t draft a player in the top 5 to lose after rookie deal. He is part of the future so break bank on him

HE has two more years left on his contract. He needs to honor that. I could see him being pissed about being franchised. Different story. And its not like he is getting paid poorly these next couple of years.

As far as Bell, that was a very very rare occurrence. And he was holding out against the franchise tag. Zeke is under contract. He would have to hold out for two years and then we could start franchising him. He would really have to quit football for 3 years. He doesn't have much leverage. In a few years the likelihood is that Zeke will have lost a step already.

The best part about taking a guy in the first round is you have them for 5 years on the rookie scale. I don't see Dallas giving that up.

Dallas was very smart in taking two backs in the draft this year. If these guys show then Zeke will have even more leverage. If I was Dallas, I would draft another back in say the 3rd or 4th round next season in preparation for the holdout.

And you bring up the Bell situation. Perfect example of why you DONT pay a back big money. Connor stepped right in and gave them similar production.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have mixed feelings about your last point. Jerry does take care of his guys. On the other hand, Zeke can see what they did with/to DeMarco Murray and that has to give him pause.

Bell's situation is pretty interesting. I'm pretty sure he believed Pittsburgh planned to run him into the ground in the last tag year (he said as much), which would have carried a lot of risk for him (injury risk not least). By sitting out, he avoided that risk of getting hurt and not seeing the next contract at all. I also think he despised Pittsburgh management and didn't want to play for them any more. But he wasn't allowed to leave and negotiate with another team, even though his contract was over, thanks to the franchise tag. So I don't think you can just look at the contract numbers to evaluate his decision.

Which leads to another point: breaking a contract isn't always bad business. If you find yourself in a situation with people you can't stand to work with or for, you may find it worth it to break the contract, depending on whether you can live with the financial (and possible reputational) penalties associated with breach of contract. It's also not unheard of to have a new employer buy out the contract of someone with another company/firm. Look at the college football coaching ranks for examples.

Here is what I would say about Murray. The Cowboys didn't give him a bad offer. In fact, they gave him a very fair offer. The problem was that Philly wanted to separate the Murray and the Cowboys because it was in their best interest to do so. They were the only team to offer Murray anything close to what the Cowboys offered. I mean, if you really look back at the deal that Philly offered, it was more money on the surface but long term, the Cowboys deal was better. It just wasn't as much on the surface. Had Murray stayed in Dallas, he would have made more money. I don't think the Cowboys did Murray dirty at all. I think they offered him what was the market for him, at the time. Philly over paid him to get him out of Dallas with the intention to get out of the contract in short order.

Bell, well, the Steelers did treat him bad but, it's either a business or it's not. He got a better offer from Pitt then he did from the Jets. If it's about money, then so be it. You sign a contract, you are responsible to uphold that contract and liking somebody has nothing to do with anything. Sometimes you sign a bad deal and you just gotta stand up to your word. If Bell didn't like the Steelers, he should have just played out his deal and hit FA. The problem with Bell is that he signed a bad rookie deal. He signed a backloaded deal that promised big money in the final year and paid him next to nothing in the first 4 years. Yeah, Pittsburgh did him dirty but he was stupid to sign that deal in the first place. Besides, the Bell deal and the situation with Zeke are nothing at all alike. Pittsburgh treated Bell bad and Jerry, well, Jerry has treated Zeke better then he deserves IMO. Jerry has done nothing to suggest that he would ever treat Zeke anything like Pittsburgh treated Bell. The two situations are just not comparable IMO.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Here is what I would say about Murray. The Cowboys didn't give him a bad offer. In fact, they gave him a very fair offer. The problem was that Philly wanted to separate the Murray and the Cowboys because it was in their best interest to do so. They were the only team to offer Murray anything close to what the Cowboys offered. I mean, if you really look back at the deal that Philly offered, it was more money on the surface but long term, the Cowboys deal was better. It just wasn't as much on the surface. Had Murray stayed in Dallas, he would have made more money. I don't think the Cowboys did Murray dirty at all. I think they offered him what was the market for him, at the time. Philly over paid him to get him out of Dallas with the intention to get out of the contract in short order.

Bell, well, the Steelers did treat him bad but, it's either a business or it's not. He got a better offer from Pitt then he did from the Jets. If it's about money, then so be it. You sign a contract, you are responsible to uphold that contract and liking somebody has nothing to do with anything. Sometimes you sign a bad deal and you just gotta stand up to your word. If Bell didn't like the Steelers, he should have just played out his deal and hit FA. The problem with Bell is that he signed a bad rookie deal. He signed a backloaded deal that promised big money in the final year and paid him next to nothing in the first 4 years. Yeah, Pittsburgh did him dirty but he was stupid to sign that deal in the first place. Besides, the Bell deal and the situation with Zeke are nothing at all alike. Pittsburgh treated Bell bad and Jerry, well, Jerry has treated Zeke better then he deserves IMO. Jerry has done nothing to suggest that he would ever treat Zeke anything like Pittsburgh treated Bell. The two situations are just not comparable IMO.

We're getting into "agree to disagree" territory here. The Cowboys didn't give Murray a very fair offer. They made him an offer they knew he would turn down. Bob Sturm just wrote about this the other day: "The decision seemed pretty clear. The two parties did discuss “an offer,” but it was firmly low. Cynically, it became pretty clear that the Cowboys weren’t going to keep Murray; therefore, they had no reason to monitor his workload. Ride the horse as far as he can go in 2014, and then find a new back." And no, the offer from Dallas was not better. Dallas offered 4 years, $24 million, $12 million guaranteed. The Eagles offered 5 years, $42 million with $21 million guaranteed. The Cowboys' offer wasn't better short term, long term or any term.

As far as Le'Veon Bell is concerned, never mind. He wasn't under contract (and was way past his rookie contract): they were sticking the franchise tag on him the second time. He declined to sign it and sat out.

Regarding "Jerry has done nothing to suggest that he would ever treat Zeke anything like Pittsburgh treated Bell." Jerry did run Murray into the ground. Zeke knows that. Maybe Zeke trusts Jerry not to do that to him, but if I were him, I'd be concerned about the history there.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We're getting into "agree to disagree" territory here. The Cowboys didn't give Murray a very fair offer. They made him an offer they knew he would turn down. Bob Sturm just wrote about this the other day: "The decision seemed pretty clear. The two parties did discuss “an offer,” but it was firmly low. Cynically, it became pretty clear that the Cowboys weren’t going to keep Murray; therefore, they had no reason to monitor his workload. Ride the horse as far as he can go in 2014, and then find a new back." And no, the offer from Dallas was not better. Dallas offered 4 years, $24 million, $12 million guaranteed. The Eagles offered 5 years, $42 million with $21 million guaranteed. The Cowboys' offer wasn't better short term, long term or any term.

As far as Le'Veon Bell is concerned, never mind. He wasn't under contract (and was way past his rookie contract): they were sticking the franchise tag on him the second time. He declined to sign it and sat out.

Regarding "Jerry has done nothing to suggest that he would ever treat Zeke anything like Pittsburgh treated Bell." Jerry did run Murray into the ground. Zeke knows that. Maybe Zeke trusts Jerry not to do that to him, but if I were him, I'd be concerned about the history there.

Yes, we agree to disagree. I thought that the deal the Cowboys offered was more along the lines of 4 years at 6.5 and I felt like it was guaranteed. If it was 24 and 12 and the Eagles were as you say they were, then you are right. However, in 2014/15, the top backs were in line with what Dallas Offered Murray.

McCoy signed a new deal in 2015 5 yr 40 Mil with an annual of 8 mil per.

We know what Bell was making..........

Lynch was making 6.5

Forte was making 6.9


The truth of the matter is that the offer you outline from the Eagles is not accurate, according to Over The Cap. Murray played 1 year in Philly and made 9 Mil. It's the difference between Fully Guaranteed and the Guaranteed number, I'm guessing. Her is the link that says what Murray was paid by the Eagles. It does not look like the Eagles paid him 21. Very good money in 2015 for sure but the Cowboys could not match that number and what they did offer was completely in line with all of the best backs, at the time. So yes, In my view, it was a fair offer. In the end, the Eagles accomplished exactly what they wanted to do, which is get Murray out of Dallas and from there, who cares because he's no longer their headache.

I don't see how you say that Jerry ran Murray into the ground. He's a RB who in 2014 had 392 carries. His prior three seasons, he had 164 carries (2011), 161 (2012) and 217 (2013). That's and average of 233.5 carries a season, that's practically nothing. No, Jerry and the Cowboys didn't run Murray into the ground. Not even close.

https://overthecap.com/player/demarco-murray/621/

In terms of Bell, no this is way off. Just before the deadline, before the tag, Pittsburgh offered Bell a 70 mil deal over 5 years with an annual of 14 mil per season. Bell refused it and elected to sit out instead. He also refused to sign the tag because he wanted 17 and the Steelers didn't offer that. Nobody did, so yes, he did cost himself money and he was offered more then he ended up playing for in NY. Less money annually, less money Guaranteed and fewer years.

We agree to disagree.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Yes, we agree to disagree. I thought that the deal the Cowboys offered was more along the lines of 4 years at 6.5 and I felt like it was guaranteed. If it was 24 and 12 and the Eagles were as you say they were, then you are right. However, in 2014/15, the top backs were in line with what Dallas Offered Murray.

McCoy signed a new deal in 2015 5 yr 40 Mil with an annual of 8 mil per.

We know what Bell was making..........

Lynch was making 6.5

Forte was making 6.9


The truth of the matter is that the offer you outline from the Eagles is not accurate, according to Over The Cap. Murray played 1 year in Philly and made 9 Mil. It's the difference between Fully Guaranteed and the Guaranteed number, I'm guessing. Her is the link that says what Murray was paid by the Eagles. It does not look like the Eagles paid him 21. Very good money in 2015 for sure but the Cowboys could not match that number and what they did offer was completely in line with all of the best backs, at the time. So yes, In my view, it was a fair offer. In the end, the Eagles accomplished exactly what they wanted to do, which is get Murray out of Dallas and from there, who cares because he's no longer their headache.

I don't see how you say that Jerry ran Murray into the ground. He's a RB who in 2014 had 392 carries. His prior three seasons, he had 164 carries (2011), 161 (2012) and 217 (2013). That's and average of 233.5 carries a season, that's practically nothing. No, Jerry and the Cowboys didn't run Murray into the ground. Not even close.

https://overthecap.com/player/demarco-murray/621/

In terms of Bell, no this is way off. Just before the deadline, before the tag, Pittsburgh offered Bell a 70 mil deal over 5 years with an annual of 14 mil per season. Bell refused it and elected to sit out instead. He also refused to sign the tag because he wanted 17 and the Steelers didn't offer that. Nobody did, so yes, he did cost himself money and he was offered more then he ended up playing for in NY. Less money annually, less money Guaranteed and fewer years.

We agree to disagree.

The Eagles traded Murray (and his contract) to the Titans. He ended up being paid $22 million, a tad over the guaranteed number. So he did get it.

The Cowboys certainly did run Murray into the ground in 2014, and consciously so. Sturm again: "Murray’s 449 touches in the regular season were the second-most over the last 15 seasons in the NFL. (Only Larry Johnson’s, 2006 season, in which he was clearly run into the ground, featured more.) If you add in the two playoff games that took him to 497 touches, you would find that no player in the history of the sport had ever carried and caught the ball more in one campaign than Murray did in 2014. It wasn’t a heavy workload. It was the heaviest ever."

I don't know what you're saying about Bell at this point. When he held out, he wasn't breaking a contract; he didn't have one. He turned a contract down, but surely you're not saying that there's anything wrong with that from a professionalism standpoint. It's just not relevant to the conversation we've been having about holding out when under contract.

 

[Jake]

In terms of Bell, no this is way off. Just before the deadline, before the tag, Pittsburgh offered Bell a 70 mil deal over 5 years with an annual of 14 mil per season. Bell refused it and elected to sit out instead. He also refused to sign the tag because he wanted 17 and the Steelers didn't offer that. Nobody did, so yes, he did cost himself money and he was offered more then he ended up playing for in NY. Less money annually, less money Guaranteed and fewer years.

Nope.

When the Steelers offered $70 million to Bell in July, it came with a laughably low $10 million guaranteed.

He got $35 million guaranteed from the Jets.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Letting him walk and not getting anything in return is foolish.

Lets see the Cowboys had another RB that wanted to be the highest paid RB and the Cowboys said bye and Murray didn't do anything after leaving the Cowboys. He went to the eagles and after just one season before that 5m year contract was up they traded him to the titans for a mid round pick. He lasted 2 years there before being released and never played again or even made it to the end of that 5 year contract signed when he was with the eagles.

Now many fans here were so upset that the Cowboys let the previous season's league leading rusher and NFL offensive player of the year walk yet he only lasted 3 more seasons in the league and never again led the league in rushing.

No I don't think the same thing would happen to Elliott but just like with Murray, the Cowboys did draft a back that has done quite well for them. If Elliott does decide to sit out there is 2 things to remember. First the Cowboys can exercise the 5th year option for 2020 that means Elliott would then have to sit for 2 seasons and how many teams are going to be interested in a player who sat for 2 seasons. Second whether Elliott sits for one or two seasons he won't have 4 accrued seasons in so instead of becoming an unrestricted free agent he will be a restricted free agent which makes it much harder for him to go to another team and will prevent him from getting the highest paid RB contract.

Now I'd rather see Elliott and the Cowboys come to an agreement on a fair contract taking into consideration his off season troubles history and the suspension that will happen when it happens again.
.