Realistically can we afford to sign all three Lamb, Ceedee, and Dak?

[charron]

If you look at the situation - you need to get cheaper at qb, like way cheaper.

Why? And I'll preface by saying most other GM's would use the savings to acquire free agent talent. Knowing Stephen won't do that, why does it matter if the QB makes 60 a year or rookie wages? I wish I could say they'd actually use the savings like some of the better GM's would but that's not what rece t history says.

 

[speedkilz88]

If you look at the situation - you need to get cheaper at qb, like way cheaper.

 

[DallasEast]

All of that is nice, but the same things you posted are causing us to act how we are this off season. It can be a myth, it can be whatever, but in the end, it can hurt you by pushing money down the road trying to manipulate it.

Just answering the question.

 

[Coogiguy03]

Just answering the question.

no hard feelings!

 

[DallasEast]

no hard feelings!

None taken. Thoughts?

 

[Creeper]

If they sign all 3, then we have to wonder what happens to guys like Diggs, Bland, Tyler Smith, etc. It will be tough to sign all of the better players on Dallas if they are paying Dak, CeeDee, and Micah $120 million per year.

 

[kskboys]

Spending half your salary cap on 3 players is foolish. If we'd have done that w/ the triplets in the 90's, no super bowls.

 

[Jayinem]

It's going to be like when Lebron joined the Heat and they had him Wade and Bosh, and a bunch of scrubs.

The difference is basketball just plays 5 players so they won titles, we won't.

 

[Bobhaze]

The Cowboys under Jerry’s “leadership” will always sign their perceived “marquee” players. Not based on an actual strategic roster decision but on their sales and marketing strategies which drive this FO more than winning playoff games. Jersey sales and off-field advertising deals carry as much weight as playoff wins.

I know most fans would not agree with this, but I would prefer seeking a trade for any or all of the three- Parsons, Lamb and Dak. I think draft picks would be better at this point than the big contracts of those guys.

Why? Here’s my reasoning for all three:

• Cedee Lamb- IMO, good WRs are not that difficult to fInd. Yes Cedee Lamb is very good but would I want to pay him top of the market money? No. Is he going to be the big difference maker in winning playoff games in the future? Not without a better cast around him. So NO, I would NOT sign him to a big contract. I would try and trade Lamb.
• Micah Parsons- I would think long and hard about paying this guy top of the defensive market. Not because of talent. He’s the most talented guy on this team. But he’s also the biggest head case on this team. Hate to say it, he disappears in big games, pouts and talks waaaay too much. Trade him while his value is high. He might garner a first and a second round pick.
• Dak Prescott- I know the Jones boys don’t have the stones to do this but I would be vigorously seeking trade partners right now for Dak. They should have shopped him to Pitts because I think Dak would have agreed to that trade. That “no trade clause” just means they need to find a team he would like. It may be too late now.

In answer to the OP, “Can the Cowboys sign all three- Dak, Lamb and Parsons?” Answer is yes they can. But my answer is NO they shouldn’t. But they will. Marketing is the centerpiece of this organization’s focus.

 

[kskboys]

The Cowboys under Jerry’s “leadership” will always sign their perceived “marquee” players. Not based on an actual strategic roster decision but on their sales and marketing strategies which drive this FO more than winning playoff games. Jersey sales and off-field advertising deals carry as much weight as playoff wins.

I know most fans would not agree with this, but I would prefer seeking a trade for any or all of the three- Parsons, Lamb and Dak. I think draft picks would be better at this point than the big contracts of those guys.

Why? Here’s my reasoning for all three:

• Cedee Lamb- IMO, good WRs are not that difficult to fInd. Yes Cedee Lamb is very good but would I want to pay him top of the market money? No. Is he going to be the big difference maker in winning playoff games in the future? Not without a better cast around him. So NO, I would NOT sign him to a big contract. I would try and trade Lamb.
• Micah Parsons- I would think long and hard about paying this guy top of the defensive market. Not because of talent. He’s the most talented guy on this team. But he’s also the biggest head case on this team. Hate to say it, he disappears in big games, pouts and talks waaaay too much. Trade him while his value is high. He might garner a first and a second round pick.
• Dak Prescott- I know the Jones boys don’t have the stones to do this but I would be vigorously seeking trade partners right now for Dak. They should have shopped him to Pitts because I think Dak would have agreed to that trade. That “no trade clause” just means they need to find a team he would like. It may be too late now.

In answer to the OP, “Can the Cowboys sign all three- Dak, Lamb and Parsons?” Answer is yes they can. But my answer is NO they shouldn’t. But they will. Marketing is the centerpiece of this organization’s focus.

Well said.

Paying those 3 big money completely precludes us from super bowl contention.

 

[Bobhaze]

Well said.

Paying those 3 big money completely precludes us from super bowl contention.

Exactly. Paying big money for those guys has become more like fantasy football than championship football.

 

[Coogiguy03]

The Cowboys under Jerry’s “leadership” will always sign their perceived “marquee” players. Not based on an actual strategic roster decision but on their sales and marketing strategies which drive this FO more than winning playoff games. Jersey sales and off-field advertising deals carry as much weight as playoff wins.

I know most fans would not agree with this, but I would prefer seeking a trade for any or all of the three- Parsons, Lamb and Dak. I think draft picks would be better at this point than the big contracts of those guys.

Why? Here’s my reasoning for all three:

• Cedee Lamb- IMO, good WRs are not that difficult to fInd. Yes Cedee Lamb is very good but would I want to pay him top of the market money? No. Is he going to be the big difference maker in winning playoff games in the future? Not without a better cast around him. So NO, I would NOT sign him to a big contract. I would try and trade Lamb.
• Micah Parsons- I would think long and hard about paying this guy top of the defensive market. Not because of talent. He’s the most talented guy on this team. But he’s also the biggest head case on this team. Hate to say it, he disappears in big games, pouts and talks waaaay too much. Trade him while his value is high. He might garner a first and a second round pick.
• Dak Prescott- I know the Jones boys don’t have the stones to do this but I would be vigorously seeking trade partners right now for Dak. They should have shopped him to Pitts because I think Dak would have agreed to that trade. That “no trade clause” just means they need to find a team he would like. It may be too late now.

In answer to the OP, “Can the Cowboys sign all three- Dak, Lamb and Parsons?” Answer is yes they can. But my answer is NO they shouldn’t. But they will. Marketing is the centerpiece of this organization’s focus.

I feel a lot of these deals are too much based off of what these players have already done, which to me is why Haze I feel like some of these contracts should just be FRONT loaded! You're paying them for what they just did, as the contract is over, it's down to a minimal number (probably not smart in all means but hey!)

 

[SiCk_DiAbLo]

I'd trade all 3, didn't win with them, so grab as many picks as you can...CD already said he wants to be the highest paid, Dak wants 60 million yearly...Micah thinks he's the next LT, and he wants Big $$$...Clean House...

 

[Sandyf]

Could they? Yes. Would they? Who knows. It all depends on length of contracts, structure of contracts, what cap will be over say next 5 years, what projected cap will be in coming years and remember the cap will really jump once the gambling money hits the NFL in next year or two.

 

[DallasEast]

The Cowboys under Jerry’s “leadership” will always sign their perceived “marquee” players. Not based on an actual strategic roster decision but on their sales and marketing strategies which drive this FO more than winning playoff games. Jersey sales and off-field advertising deals carry as much weight as playoff wins.

I know most fans would not agree with this, but I would prefer seeking a trade for any or all of the three- Parsons, Lamb and Dak. I think draft picks would be better at this point than the big contracts of those guys.

Why? Here’s my reasoning for all three:

• Cedee Lamb- IMO, good WRs are not that difficult to fInd. Yes Cedee Lamb is very good but would I want to pay him top of the market money? No. Is he going to be the big difference maker in winning playoff games in the future? Not without a better cast around him. So NO, I would NOT sign him to a big contract. I would try and trade Lamb.
• Micah Parsons- I would think long and hard about paying this guy top of the defensive market. Not because of talent. He’s the most talented guy on this team. But he’s also the biggest head case on this team. Hate to say it, he disappears in big games, pouts and talks waaaay too much. Trade him while his value is high. He might garner a first and a second round pick.
• Dak Prescott- I know the Jones boys don’t have the stones to do this but I would be vigorously seeking trade partners right now for Dak. They should have shopped him to Pitts because I think Dak would have agreed to that trade. That “no trade clause” just means they need to find a team he would like. It may be too late now.

In answer to the OP, “Can the Cowboys sign all three- Dak, Lamb and Parsons?” Answer is yes they can. But my answer is NO they shouldn’t. But they will. Marketing is the centerpiece of this organization’s focus.

I think Mike Tomlin would consider Dak Prescott a touch *too conservative* for his conservative style of offense in comparison to what Russell Wilson brings to the table, or even Justin Fields in a backup role. The Steelers would have considered a trade but I doubt they would have bit at the offer.

 

[Verdict]

I'm guessing you mean Lamb, Parsons, and Prescott. They can, in theory, sign all three. It doesn't leave much for building a roster around them. My amateur roster building experience would say that if a team has a generational QB worth resetting the market then that QB does not need a top receiver (Mahomes). With that in mind, I'd sign the generational QB and ship the receiver for more help elsewhere. Prescott is not a generational QB, unfortunately, but if they keep him then he probably has to do it without Lamb.

If I'm picking just one, I'd sign the defensive player (Parsons) and hope he matures into an actual leader. Trading Lamb and Prescott (I realize no trade clause for Prescott) would hopefully net enough picks to build a formidable offense to help protect the defense.

I think Dak is the odd man out. It’s also not out of question that the team would let more than one of the 3 get moved via trade.

 

[Montanalo]

In a word, No

I would move on from Dak, trade Parsons and resign Lamb... who would become the next QB's best friend.

 

[baltcowboy]

Can we afford to do this, if we do this is it worth that much of the cap being tied up in three huge contracts. I'm sure it's been done before elsewhere or maybe not, but it's a lot of money to go out. What about the depth that we will need to bring in to close out the roster?? Please give your thoughts, can we financially make this happen and play good football????

Probably not. You can’t just pay three players your whole cap. Sign two of the three and trade 1.

 

[IceStar-D7]

Easily.....You believe Dallas is in Cap hell? Then believe I created the Universe....

 

[baltcowboy]

I'm guessing you mean Lamb, Parsons, and Prescott. They can, in theory, sign all three. It doesn't leave much for building a roster around them. My amateur roster building experience would say that if a team has a generational QB worth resetting the market then that QB does not need a top receiver (Mahomes). With that in mind, I'd sign the generational QB and ship the receiver for more help elsewhere. Prescott is not a generational QB, unfortunately, but if they keep him then he probably has to do it without Lamb.

If I'm picking just one, I'd sign the defensive player (Parsons) and hope he matures into an actual leader. Trading Lamb and Prescott (I realize no trade clause for Prescott) would hopefully net enough picks to build a formidable offense to help protect the defense.

I agree with you and it appears the Cowboys want to sign all three by the way they treat free agency.