Recent and soon to be moves by the front office is for leverage against Dak

[Longboysfan]

Dak played on 2mil as the 4th year starter instead of signing a below market extension.

I don't see a guy feeling he owes the franchise anything, and he has a point. If they try to box Dak into taking another below market contract, I can totally see him walking.

Understood on waiting and taking.

Please factor in all the ENDORSEMENT $$$$$$$$$$$ being Quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys brings you.
Team friendly deal is in his best long range interests.

 

[Ken]

If he’s worth a haul why trade him? The other 31 teams will have a similar evaluation of Dak Prescott. Well, 30 teams, San Francisco obviously has difficulty accurately evaluating quarterback talent. The Cowboys can only trade him to the team he allows Jerry to trade him to. That alone reduces his trade value. There will be no “haul”. And I’m sure Prescott’s representation will advise him to simply become a free agent and allow the entire league to bid on his services as opposed to only a team he designates. Jerry trades him only with Dak’s expressed consent. Jerry has zero leverage here and the irony is he agreed to it.

No haul? Conservatively....addung a top 10 qb involves a haul. If Dak loses his job at some point to Trey, he would approve most trades to be able to play.

 

[KingCorcoran]

No haul? Conservatively....addung a top 10 qb involves a haul. If Dak loses his job at some point to Trey, he would approve most trades to be able to play.

If you trade for a player his contract comes with him. What team would trade for what Prescott would be due to be paid in 2024? And if they did, what would Dallas have to provide to entice a team to take on that financial obligation? Staying on the Cowboys is Prescott’s most prudent scenario, financially. Can’t be traded, can’t be tagged. He is light years ahead of Lance in ability and experience. What would other players think of the organization if they try to go cheap on a top ten QB and then expect them to win a Super Bowl with a QB that has started four games in three season in the NFL? Remember all the goof balls claiming Parsons wants to play for the Eagles because he wore a Sixers jersey? They would all of a sudden seem less goofy. There will be no haul, there will be no trade.

 

[buybuydandavis]

So the Cowboys didn't offer Dak a 35/yr. 90 mil guaranteed, five year deal which would have made him the highest paid QB, at the time?

What was the "below market extension" offer you referenced?

The offer he didn't accept and they subsequently substantially raised.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Understood on waiting and taking.

Please factor in all the ENDORSEMENT $$$$$$$$$$$ being Quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys brings you.
Team friendly deal is in his best long range interests.

A very good point. I've made it myself.
There is a good argument to be made that being a Cowboy, especially a Cowboy QB, is a huge *benefit* that Jerry brings to the table that should be factored into contract negotiations.
He should have been making that argument and making it publicly for *decades*. Players who don't value those extras that Jerry brings to the table probably shouldn't be signed.

 

[KingCorcoran]

A very good point. I've made it myself.
There is a good argument to be made that being a Cowboy, especially a Cowboy QB, is a huge *benefit* that Jerry brings to the table that should be factored into contract negotiations.
He should have been making that argument and making it publicly for *decades*. Players who don't value those extras that Jerry brings to the table probably shouldn't be signed.

Look at what Jerry gave up to get Prescott, and then agreed to no trade and no tag. Prescott’s current deal would indicate his representation took Jerry to the cleaners. No reason to believe that will not happen again. Endorsements come after you sign on to be a Cowboys quarterback. They will never factor into negotiations. Prescott’s representation knows they can get him a massive contract from the Cowboys and endorsements. And agents’ are in it for the money and advise their clients accordingly.

 

[Ken]

If you trade for a player his contract comes with him. What team would trade for what Prescott would be due to be paid in 2024? And if they did, what would Dallas have to provide to entice a team to take on that financial obligation? Staying on the Cowboys is Prescott’s most prudent scenario, financially. Can’t be traded, can’t be tagged. He is light years ahead of Lance in ability and experience. What would other players think of the organization if they try to go cheap on a top ten QB and then expect them to win a Super Bowl with a QB that has started four games in three season in the NFL? Remember all the goof balls claiming Parsons wants to play for the Eagles because he wore a Sixers jersey? They would all of a sudden seem less goofy. There will be no haul, there will be no trade.

I don't think there is a high probability of Dak getting traded in the next two years but it is higher than it was.

Dak could get traded to another team with that contract as they would extend him out.

I am the biggest Dak fan there is...but I see this as a higher possibility now than before they made the trade for Lance.

 

[Vtwin]

The offer he didn't accept and they subsequently substantially raised.

I'm honestly not trying to argue for the sake of argument but what you're saying just doesn't make sense.

The first offer put him in the top five, and the difference between 1 and 5 was not very much.

The second offer would have made him the highest paid QB in history.

I just don't see how you can argue that either of those offers, especially the second, were "below market".

The argument that Jerry screwed up by not signing Dak sooner to get him cheaper is presented here all the time, but the facts show that it's just not true. Dak turned down two offers. One at market rate, and one that would have reset the market.

Jerry never low-balled Dak.

 

[Typhus]

Dak owes the franchise what?

about 160 million and some change.

 

[USArmyVet]

Again you are not actually saving money with that tactic. You are adding 30m in cap for one year but after June1 you are not going to be using it so you added cap space for nothing. So Dak will still get a pay raise, the team will get a bunch of cap it cannot use, and you probably make it much harder to negotiate with other players when you are now seen as someone who negotiates in bad faith. Basically there is not a single positive to doing it that and it gives you zero leverage.

The kicker to all of this though is that even if you were to spread out the 60m in dead cap, if Trey Lance is anything but a massive downgrade at QB, after 2024 you would have to pay him which means you still saved nothing in cap space.

So they couldn't use $30M to front-load contracts for Lamb and Parsons? Dallas holds the rookie 5th-year option on Lance so that would be exercised in 2025 and depending on Pro Bowl appearance and performance levels Lance could be looking at anywhere between roughly $22M-$33M....still a considerable savings should he be playing well.

 

[USArmyVet]

Dak didnt play poorly in 21' vs the 49ers. The offense couldnt run the ball, the defense couldnt stop the run, and the team had 14 penalties. Those are facts not opinions.

You are cherry picking when you single out one players performance, especially when the entire team wasnt playing well.

Dak was 23 of 43 for 254 yards with 1 td and 1 int....he had a QBR of 32.4 and could only lead Dallas to 7 points through 3 quarters, getting only an additional 10 points when the game was all but over.

The Dallas defense gave up 23 points, 7 of which came by way of a Dak INT on his own 26-yard line.

Lastly, while Dallas did commit 14 penalties for 89 yards, SF was called for 9 penalties for 58 yards so it's not like the difference was dramatic in the least.

So say all you want that Dak didn't play poorly but the facts/stats show differently.....1 Dak turnover was the difference much like Dak's 2 turnovers were the difference in 2022 vs. SF.

 

[Momanpr100]

What is a max contract in the NFL

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

Blocked , I feel better

 

[KJJ]

The only leverage they have against Dak is getting Trey Lance on the field to where he can win enough games that he would make Dak expendable. Good luck with that.

 

[CCBoy]

While Lance has struggled with injuries and his time in SF in terms of development, his pedigree is based on his draft selection makes him an upgrade over any backup QB Dallas has had in the Dak tenure and I agree this is JJ saying we now have a 23-year old former #3 overall draft pick that we can develop in 2023 in time for the 2024 Dak negotiations.
While some say Dallas has zero leverage, I agree this is JJ developing leverage as he has put all the pieces in place for Dak to take this team to the NFCCG and possibly Super Bowl or it's time to move on from Dak.

Accountability usually works in a team setting.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Solidifying the defense by extending Diggs, the raise Martin received, trading for Lance, today's extension of Steele and the incoming extension of Lamb is all being done as part of a strategic roster construction so that when Dak and the front office negotiate a new deal, the front office is going to be able to say we've given you all these key pieces for success, now it's time that you work with us.

Plus, the front office is going to let them know they can not budge with Micah needing an extension as soon as next year.

Dak got the max deal last time around.

Now it's time for him to take a team friendly deal for a Superbowl run.

If not, then it will be best for both parties to go their separate ways.

Hopefully a team friendly extension is worked out with Dak.

Dak has all the leverage because Dallas needs to bring his massive cap hit down. They can extend him now or pay him 60 million 2024. Love him or hate him, thats the reality. You guys do it to yourselves reading whatever you want to come true in the tea leaves

 

[darthseinfeld]

The only leverage they have against Dak is getting Trey Lance on the field to where he can win enough games that he would make Dak expendable. Good luck with that.

Even then what are they going to do with Dak. NTC and 61 million in dead cap if cut in 2024

 

[CowboyStar88]

Dak fans fear Lance.

You’re putting unrealistic expectations on a project. Look man, I’m a fan of Lance but your hate for Dak is blinding you. There is no scenario where Lance would beat Dak out in a competition. Let’s be real.


The level of Dak (I was a critic of Dak’s for years here) hate is on par if not worse than the hate Romo got. It’s ridiculous. For both players the hate just doesn’t seem justifiable.

 

[Adreme]

So they couldn't use $30M to front-load contracts for Lamb and Parsons? Dallas holds the rookie 5th-year option on Lance so that would be exercised in 2025 and depending on Pro Bowl appearance and performance levels Lance could be looking at anywhere between roughly $22M-$33M....still a considerable savings should he be playing well.

That doesnt actually do anything. First off barring massive injury the 5th year option will be a guaranteed 22m for a guy who will have not started in 5 years and who recently again lost out to Sam Darnold. So if he improves to the level of Sam Darnold that is still a guaranteed overpay and you are swapping a top 10 QB for a borderline top 35 and the kicker is that with the dead cap hits you are paying the same amount for the QB position. So your threat is to pay the same amount to be worse at a position, so even in the best case that he takes a leap to reach Dak's level (well several leaps because he will have to jump from outside the top 35 to inside the top 10) that still does not actually save you anything.

More importantly though there is something you are missing and that is how unimportant your distinction between front loading the dead cap and front loading Lamb and Parsons contract is. They are functionally the same thing. You saved nothing. Lamb and Parsons would not be getting less, in fact once they realize you are the type of owner to negotiate in bad faith they might want larger guarantees because they cant trust you, Dak's dead cap is still the same number, so you accomplish NOTHING by cutting him after June 1 besides telling people not to trust you. Dak would still get his contract because "leaks" would happen to the effect of Dak being willing to play in one place after the release and so they would know who their QB1 is. So you gain zero savings under your idea, lose credibility with the locker room, and Dak would still get his contract with the worst case being he takes a 1 year 45m contract which is still a raise and then cashes in for a 55m in 2025.

 

[Jimbo123]

So they couldn't use $30M to front-load contracts for Lamb and Parsons? Dallas holds the rookie 5th-year option on Lance so that would be exercised in 2025 and depending on Pro Bowl appearance and performance levels Lance could be looking at anywhere between roughly $22M-$33M....still a considerable savings should he be playing well.