Rapoport would not be surprised if Dak gets a shorter deal

[RustyBourneHorse]

Okay, here's my thinking on this subject. This idea makes very little sense for several reasons. Firstly, I understand that the QB prospects may not look great for the 2025 draft. However, we are going to learn a lot from this training camp and preseason about Lance. The only way that extending Dak makes any sense is if Lance completely sucks and the QB prospects for 2025-2027 are terrible. In that sense, I could see a 3 year deal to try to buy time until then.

However, in no way should it be at $60 mpy. That would kill our cap space, and it'd give us very little ability to move the money around. Additionally, we need Parsons and Lamb in most scenarios. Plus, that's hinging on Lance being a complete disaster that makes Ryan Leaf look like Peyton Manning. I personally think that Lance will be okay. Probably not great, but probably decent. I say this because, especially given the likely prospects next year, I think that Lance will probably be the next starter just from a financial standpoint.

Additionally, the 2026 QBs might be decent. I'd be curious to see how they look, and it's possible that, even if Lance is completely awful, they roll with him anyway. The ONLY reason this makes sense is if there's a QB they're tanking for. HOWEVER, they need to make sure they get Lamb and Parsons onboard. If we are going to rebuild, we need both of them. Parsons wants to win a championship. If we're just going to tank two seasons without a clear plan, he and Lamb will probably walk and go to a team like the Chiefs leaving us needing a pass rusher. This will make rebuilding much harder.

I mention Lamb and Parsons because we need to extend their deals and include them in any plans going forward. In Lamb's case, he would be vital for a young QB going forward. It'd be good to let a rookie QB have a WR like Lamb to rely on in key situations. As for Parsons, he's one of the best pass rushers in the league. We need him going forward, and he should be allowed to help build this defence further. I suppose if I had to pick one, I'd keep Parsons as a new WR is easier to find. That said, extending Dak on a short term deal with his asking price means we probably lose both of them it it is a 3 year deal. I think that'd be a bad move UNLESS we can keep one of those others anyway AND there are no good options until 2027 at the earliest.

 

[DuncanIso]

Extending Dak at all would be a massive mistake!

Yup.

They’ll let Lance play out first.

 

[CowboyFrog]

This is just an extension of what the problem is, an inept FO, like Dak dont like Dak for us really doesnt matter....this is showing everyone once again this FO does not and has not been able to execute its own plan for years...its a row boat with no oars....

 

[charron]

Dak can do whatever he wants but I don't know why he would. His team outsmarted the cowboys, taking 100% of the contract leverage. Best believe they will get the biggest contract Dak wants. If he wants a 6 year deal, hell get it. These owners are stone less.

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

His last contract was already short, it was 4 years. So what's considered short, 2 years?

Exactly, and we see the shape the cap is in now. Imagine having no room to restructure, combined with the big chunk of change he's already owed. If Mahommes can take a deal to help his team, so can Dak. If Dak wants to break the bank and ruin the cap, he can take his services elsewhere.

 

[FVSTONE]

This isn't the first time I have read or heard this.

Prescot is worth nothing more or nothing less than a New York minute!

 

[FVSTONE]

Exactly, and we see the shape the cap is in now. Imagine having no room to restructure, combined with the big chunk of change he's already owed. If Mahommes can take a deal to help his team, so can Dak. If Dak wants to break the bank and ruin the cap, he can take his services elsewhere.

Thank You!

 

[FVSTONE]

This isn't the first time I have read or heard this.

When Mahomes signed his mega contract, little did we know just how favorable it would be to KC to maintain a competitive team for years to come. Mahomes is a winner on the field, in his locker room, in the eyes of his fans and in the wallets of the major businesses that are filling his bank account with gold. This cannot be said about Prescot, he's greedier than most QBs in the league which is going to result in a contract that is going to suck up a huge part of the team's cap space, he's a loser of big games, some of his teammates are tiring of his MIA acts in big games and probably want him gone tomorrow, the Cowboy fans don't trust him anymore and other than a lousy mattress commercial, businesses are not banging done his doors and offering bags of gold to allow them to put his meg on their products. The Cowboys should offer Prescot a one-day contract to allow him to clean out his locker.....................

 

[KingCorcoran]

"Unprecedented leverage" give me a break, he has the same exact leverage every franchise qb has at one time or another.

As QB1 he controls the Cowboys’ destiny for yet another season, and gets a check for $1,705,882.35 (gross) whether he plays or not for each of the 17 regular season games, and then controls his own destiny when the season is over. It’s not leverage, but he is in a real good place for a professional football player. Probably why he’s always smiling. I’ll bet with friends and family he laughs a lot.

 

[Chuck 54]

LOL at “unprecedented leverage”. Only QBs like Brady or Maholmes have that.

Wrong. They were and are the best, but their teams never allowed them to get one year from free agency with no tag and no trade options. That’s the leverage. To my knowledge, Cousins and Dak are the only two good QBs who’ve ever had all the leverage, meaning they don’t have to sign and can make more on the market.

The Cowboys completely mismanaged this situation all the way back to franchising Dak the last time they let his contract run out.

 

[Chasing6]

"Unprecedented leverage" give me a break, he has the same exact leverage every franchise qb has at one time or another.

Yes, because they all have a no trade clause.

Give me a break.

 

[CWR]

Yes, because they all have a no trade clause.

Give me a break.

I love how yall treat that no trade clause like the holy grail. It's not absolute buddy, it's really not.

 

[CWR]

As QB1 he controls the Cowboys’ destiny for yet another season, and gets a check for $1,705,882.35 (gross) whether he plays or not for each of the 17 regular season games, and then controls his own destiny when the season is over. It’s not leverage, but he is in a real good place for a professional football player. Probably why he’s always smiling. I’ll bet with friends and family he laughs a lot.

I don't disagree.

 

[TheSport78]

Hit the bricks, Dakota.

 

[Chasing6]

I love how yall treat that no trade clause like the holy grail. It's not absolute buddy, it's really not.

Let me know when he is traded.

 

[TwentyOne]

"Unprecedented leverage" give me a break, he has the same exact leverage every franchise qb has at one time or another.

I was laughing about the shorter deal.

As if this is any kind of news.

Length of the deal was always an issues. Dak wanted 3 years, DC 5-6. Who won ?

Now suddenly DC is the one who also want a shorter deal. Come on. Write something i dont know or am not able to figure out on my own.

 

[Setackin]

This isn't the first time I have read or heard this.

s

So we can be right here AGAIN in 3 yrs…. No thanks, I’d rather let him walk, he has the organization hostage.

 

[Chasing6]

I was laughing about the shorter deal.

As if this is any kind of news.

Length of the deal was always an issues. Dak wanted 3 years, DC 5-6. Who won ?

Now suddenly DC is the one who also want a shorter deal. Come on. Write something i dont know or am not able to figure out on my own.

Dak does not have leverage?

How did he get the shorter deal last time?

How did he get the no trade clause?

Do you believe those were GM Jethro's ideas last time?

Dak has always had the leverage.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I love how yall treat that no trade clause like the holy grail. It's not absolute buddy, it's really not.

A no trade clause is not absolute?

How exactly do you trade a player with a no trade clause unless he waives it?

And why would Dak waive his no trade clause to go to a crap team? Answer is he is not, he will only waive his no trade clause if he is going to a good team and he gets a new market contract.

That sounds pretty dam absolute to me, but maybe I am missing something.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I was laughing about the shorter deal.

As if this is any kind of news.

Length of the deal was always an issues. Dak wanted 3 years, DC 5-6. Who won ?

Now suddenly DC is the one who also want a shorter deal. Come on. Write something i dont know or am not able to figure out on my own.

Exactly.............last time it was reported that Dak wanted a 3 yr deal and the Cowboys wanted a 5 yr deal.............they comprised and went with 4 yrs.

Expect something similuar this time, Dak probably wants a 2-3 yr deal so he can get back to the table for another market deal while he is still in his prime. The Cowboys obviously want a 5-6 yr deal just like last time so they will probably compromise again with something in the middle or the last year being a player or team option year.

Posters are going to be shocked when they learn that the holdup has been the lenght of the contract, not the amount. The Cowboys have no concerns at all about paying Dak market, do people really think the Cowboys are going to let Dak walk in free agency and eat $40 million on the cap for a player not on the team? I would say the chance of this happening is about 1%, but maybe that is just me. We shall see soon enough.