CFZ Lets talk about the salary cap and why the Cowboys have it wrong

[Kolemmitt]

Its weird that we limit ourselves to 1/32nd of the market when it comes to top and mid-level FA.

Our players use other teams bidding on them to drive up their salary, but we don't use the potential of paying legit non-Cowboys FAs to drive them down. This is especially perplexing when we think about the built-in advantage of being a Dallas Cowboy. If you are a solid player on the Cowboys, you are automatically a well-known name across the country - endorsements and life-long notoriety await. On the other hand, do you really want to go to Jacksonville or Cleveland and never be on national TV again? Go right ahead. We will take this other guy that might be a little older than you, maybe not quite a as good, but his salary is half of what you are asking for.

Right now we have the reputation that players know if you get drafted by the Cowboys, play pretty well, and kiss Jerry's wrinkled butt, but then play hardball at negotiation time, you will set yourself up for life.

 

[My3Sons]

The FO can error on one or maybe even two contracts. The Cowboys just do it too often.

Dak, Zeke, Cooper, Jaylon Smith, DLaw, Zeurlien, Jarwin.

The Zeke deal was really stupid. Should have told him to stay in Cabo. He would have come back a game or two later and his horrific contract never happens.

JJ is a cap mess.

 

[tm1119]

First off, the salary cap is real….as the owner wants it be

Fixed that for you. It’s just factually incorrect that the cowboys are using the salary cap and the built in ways to manipulate it equally to other teams.

 

[Flamma]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

Excellent points, top to bottom. But unlike other positions, all QBs want market value coming off their rookie deal if the team that drafted them wants to resign them. Lamar, Baker, and Kyler all want what Josh Allen got. They need to be released in order to make less money, and you're left with what? That's what they're banking on.

Take the Browns and Ravens for example. If I'm a GM for either team, I wouldn't want no quarterback, but at the same time I don't want to pay either one of them Allen money. But I'd probably pay them 50-60% of market value to keep them on. But quarterbacks coming off a rookie deal don't give you that choice. Can you name 1?

Jerry has the habit of letting players exhaust their rookie years. Whenever this happens I assume he's letting them walk. But most of the time I'm wrong. I don't know why he does this.

 

[charron]

My issue isn't that they won't pay a guy in free agency it's they over pay to keep their own guys. Then others they won't even offer a contract to. You don't have to have kept dlaw, he was never worth his contract at any point. Didn't have to extend jaylon or Zeke but they did way too early. Do offer Gallup a small 1 year deal cause he can't stay healthy but don't give him much guaranteed money they'll regret next year. Don't pay Schultz 10/year. Do let him walk get a comp pick or trade him for picks. Do offer Wilson a cheap contract maybe 4-5/year, atleast he stays healthy.

 

[Sandyf]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

Nice article and you are right to a point although you have to factor the cap with players and what they want. Maybe Dak is 70 percent of Rodgers, that doesn't mean Dak would take 70 percent of what Rodgers makes or gets. So you take a hard line and tell him to find another team and who does that leave you with, maybe a washed up backup that another team cut or a draft pick. Yes the draft pick is certainly less but how many of those draft picks even those draft #1 or #2 ever make it as a true top ten QB. Check the stats and the results. Sometimes a draft hits on 3 or 4 but not often. Then you are drafting multiple years in the top ten. Sure would be great to get a Joe Burrow on a cheap contract but even the Bengals are going to overpay this off season for OL help and most likely by a lot.

The point is that it is just not a team that determines a salary, it is also a player and also a team's decision whether to try and keep winning and hopefully make the playoffs are be a Detroit or Jets or Browns. Guess it depends on what a fan is happy with how a season turns out. Sure the Boys don't manage the cap the way we think they should but really neither do the other 31 teams.

 

[kskboys]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

You are so on point about the rest, but completely off base w/ your synopsis of Witten. You must think Irvin really sucked.

Completely agree on Wilson. It didn't make sense to me at the time either.

 

[kskboys]

Nice article and you are right to a point although you have to factor the cap with players and what they want. Maybe Dak is 70 percent of Rodgers, that doesn't mean Dak would take 70 percent of what Rodgers makes or gets. So you take a hard line and tell him to find another team and who does that leave you with, maybe a washed up backup that another team cut or a draft pick. Yes the draft pick is certainly less but how many of those draft picks even those draft #1 or #2 ever make it as a true top ten QB. Check the stats and the results. Sometimes a draft hits on 3 or 4 but not often. Then you are drafting multiple years in the top ten. Sure would be great to get a Joe Burrow on a cheap contract but even the Bengals are going to overpay this off season for OL help and most likely by a lot.

The point is that it is just not a team that determines a salary, it is also a player and also a team's decision whether to try and keep winning and hopefully make the playoffs are be a Detroit or Jets or Browns. Guess it depends on what a fan is happy with how a season turns out. Sure the Boys don't manage the cap the way we think they should but really neither do the other 31 teams.

But it should. Why in the world do you think otherwise? How did you come to the conclusion that people shouldn't be paid what they are worth?

 

[Ranched]

Lol. A member of some Cowboys forum is going to say the richest franchise in the world owned by a self-made billionaire "have it wrong". Hilarious!

 

[kskboys]

You can find a good one just like him in the 4th or 5th round. Schultz was a 4th rounder.

Draft him, save $10M per year over the life of his contract and maybe he ends up being Schultz or better. You not only get a cheap player but you get a free comp pick for your efforts.

I always get a chuckle when I hear how easy it is to find players past the 3rd round. Might want to rethink that strategizing, you have such a good grasp on so many other things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kskboys]

Lol. A member of some Cowboys forum is going to say the richest franchise in the world owned by a self-made billionaire "have it wrong". Hilarious!

As a GM? You'd have to ignore 26 years of ineptitude to think your billionaire "Has it right"!!!!!!!

 

[Cowboys1fan]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

I agree but at the same time paying Wagner this late in his career will likely be a bad contract too

 

[McKDaddy]

At some point with players you have to either be willing to let them sit out the year while under contract (Zeke) or let them walk in free agency if the cost is too high.

This can't be stated strongly enough. You have to be willing to hold your line. Bill B has been doing this for his entire career but apparently some are slow learners.

 

[Verdict]

I agree but at the same time paying Wagner this late in his career will likely be a bad contract too

Very possibly so.

 

[DanA]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

There are a few mistakes in this post.
1. Market value isn’t static. The cost of a QB has increased so you can’t compare a contract signed today to one signed 3 years ago.

2. You have to consider the negotiating position. For instance if you’ve got a QB coming off their 3rd year with a 4th year, 5th year option and then franchise tag….that guy signing a 40m p/y contract is not the same as a guy coming off a franchise tag paid 40m p/y. And Brady is an anomaly being married to a billionaire and not really caring about his salary.

I also don’t think Shultz is a bad idea to franchise tag in the context of the off-season. We have Lamb and Shultz, the rest of our receiving targets are in the air. We’re paying below his market value and its a one year rental while we find a permanent solution to the position. I’m kinda hoping we also sign a guy like OJ Howard and draft a guy in the 3rd or 4th. TE IMO is one of the worst performing positions in their rookie year.

 

[xwalker]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

QBs are different than all other positions.
- Teams have to sign legit starting QBs when they have the opportunity even if they're not top 3 at the position.
- The availability of legit starting QBs is just too low.
- Team's don't have the option to say "You're the 10th best starting QB in the league we're going to pay you accordingly".

You are way underrating prime years Witten.
- Prime Witten is exactly the player they needed in 2021.

They franchised Schultz because the Tag for TEs is low relative to most positions.
- If they change their mind, another team will take him and pay the 10M.
TE: 10M
WR: 19M
DE: 18M

Bobby Wagner is 31.
- Gerald McCoy was 32 when they signed him. He was a 3 time All-Pro and 6x Pro Bowler.
- Off-ball LB is the position with the 2nd shortest productive careers on average. RB is #1.
- You can't compare a 1-year, 10M contract (Schultz) with a multi-year contract which Wagner will expect to receive.
- There is more risk in the multiple year deal, even if it averages out to 10M per.

Cedrick Wilson
- I agree to some extent; although, some players/agent prefer to 'bet on themselves' over taking a low end deal early.
- Also, veteran players become unhappy if they start far outperforming their contracts.
- They have been burned giving out some mid-level contracts early (Jarwin, etc..)


My only complaint this year is that they should have hyped up Amari Cooper as 'The Man' that they can't live without.
- They could then have given his agent permission to seek a trade.
- Some teams are definitely much better at creating a market for players that they want to trade.
- The new team gets Cooper on the equivalent of three 1-year deals for 2022, 2023 and 2024.
- i.e. Lower risk than a new 3 year, 20M deal with guaranteed money.

 

[xwalker]

I agree but at the same time paying Wagner this late in his career will likely be a bad contract too

Statistically, it's not a good strategy to give big contracts to players over 30 (QBs are different if they have had significant injury issues).

On average, Off-Ball LBs decline at the highest rate of any position. RBs are 1st.
- Taking on blocker that outweigh them by 80 pounds takes a toll.

For the right price, Wagner would be interesting, but not for 3-years, 50M.

 

[Verdict]

QBs are different than all other positions.
- Teams have to sign legit starting QBs when they have the opportunity even if they're not top 3 at the position.
- The availability of legit starting QBs is just too low.
- Team's don't have the option to say "You're the 10th best starting QB in the league we're going to pay you accordingly".

Agreed, to some extent which I why I stated that they were a slightly different creature.

You are way underrating prime years Witten.
- Prime Witten is exactly the player they needed in 2021.

You are one of my favorite posters on this forum, but I could not disagree more. Witten was what was right with this franchise early in his career. But he was the epitome of what wa strong with the Cowboys the last third of his career with the Cowboys.

They franchised Schultz because the Tag for TEs is low relative to most positions.

Understood. I know WHY they did it. I think Schultz is a lot like Witten. Any QB is going to get usage with Dak. He can’t throw receivers open and he can’t anticipate openings.

- If they change their mind, another team will take him and pay the 10M.
TE: 10M
WR: 19M
DE: 18M

I’m OK with the 3rd or 4th round comp pick.

Bobby Wagner is 31.
- Gerald McCoy was 32 when they signed him. He was a 3 time All-Pro and 6x Pro Bowler.
- Off-ball LB is the position with the 2nd shortest productive careers on average. RB is #1.
- You can't compare a 1-year, 10M contract (Schultz) with a multi-year contract which Wagner will expect to receive.
- There is more risk in the multiple year deal, even if it averages out to 10M per.

I am not saying he is all that and a bag of chips. I’m just saying if a team believes he has useful life left that he is a guy you take a hard look at based on past production. I would avoid players like this in general.

Cedrick Wilson
- I agree to some extent; although, some players/agent prefer to 'bet on themselves' over taking a low end deal early.
- Also, veteran players become unhappy if they start far outperforming their contracts.
- They have been burned giving out some mid-level contracts early (Jarwin, etc..)

This would have been low risk high reward for the Cowboys.


My only complaint this year is that they should have hyped up Amari Cooper as 'The Man' that they can't live without.
- They could then have given his agent permission to seek a trade.
- Some teams are definitely much better at creating a market for players that they want to trade.
- The new team gets Cooper on the equivalent of three 1-year deals for 2022, 2023 and 2024.
- i.e. Lower risk than a new 3 year, 20M deal with guaranteed money.

WE AGREE ON THIS ONE.
.