Rumor: DLaw looking for 100mils / 70 guaranteed

[ShiningStar]

4 things for me,


I say we ll sign him because thats what the fans want, it has no meaning if we re taking the SB serious or not, just get the fans in the seats and keep them sedated.

Unless KR gets DC and can tell Rod, "go after the QB" i dont see the need for DLaw because this hasnt been a sack the qb defense for a long time. so what are we paying for?

and if we dont get Dlaw some help, its not going to get us anywhere and hes going to do like Demarcus Ware and go elsewhere.

The FO must decide if the SB is worth going after and they really told me, "no we dont take it serious thats why we promoted KM to learn for 10 years" Now i have to see if they take their defense serious because they refuse to get to the qb and refuse to get Dlaw help. This is "almost" Spencer all over again. OMG the fans that would go on and on and on about Spencer and how this defense would drop if he was gone, and we didnt even know when we was gone, thats how useless he was. Luckily Ware woke up and left for better pastures. I hope DLaw gives it considerable thought, getting locked in Dalllas will just say "im here for the money", i hope someone is advising him wisely.

 

[Sydla]

I'd peg Lawrence's deal at $40 million at signing and $60 million guaranteed overall. Essentially locking it in as a three year deal at a minimum.

Boom. Like it.

 

[Stash]

They dont have to keep him. Dont make yourself so dependend on one player. DLaw is good but he is not someone who can make others around him better .

He already does that now. If you think this line was bad against the Rams, see what they'd be without their one true pass rusher.

FT him and let Tacco develope one more year. All you really get from DLaw is his run play. Tacco with one more year and more strength hopfully will be there too. We need some DTs and a good LDE. Gregory could provide this.

That's insane. Pinning any hopes on Taco Charlton is a fool's errand.

And about Donalds contract: you cant compare Ware to Donald. Nor Mack either. They are in a nother league. Donald and Mack are elite players. DLaw is good.

Productivity numbers show otherwise. You should look those up.

 

[TwentyOne]

What's the length? 4-5-6 years?

6 years at 100mil is a steal, even with the huge guarantee.

Assuming that number comes with a 5 year extension

No word about the length.

 

[AbeBeta]

I had a 5-year deal for him pegged at exactly $100 million. That's the going rate and the coast of doing business. Compared to the deals for Aaron Donald and Khalil Mack, it's a relative "bargain". My issue would be with the "guaranteed money" portion based on his suspension and injury history.

Worrying about a suspension? That's just terribly limited thinking. His next suspension would be for 10 games. You get that money back for each week of the suspension.

Not seeing the logic there at all.

 

[Stash]

Worrying about a suspension? That's just terribly limited thinking. His next suspension would be for 10 games. You get that money back for each week of the suspension.

Not seeing the logic there at all.

Not having a player for 10 games. You said it yourself.

 

[AbeBeta]

No word about the length.

Every deal is realistically a three year commitment with team options to continue the deal further. Length is meaninglessness beyond that.

Read any contract as 3 years for whatever the guaranteed money is.

 

[AbeBeta]

Not having a player for 10 games. You said it yourself.

Sure. But you aren't paying his guaranteed money for those 10 games. Recall also that, although DLaw has admitted he used to smoke weed (and credits Crawford for convincing him to stop), that his suspension was for PEDs reportedly prescribed following back surgery. Recall also that the team strongly believed they would win an appeal of that suspension. You've really got to attend to context here

 

[Hadenough]

I had a 5-year deal for him pegged at exactly $100 million. That's the going rate and the coast of doing business. Compared to the deals for Aaron Donald and Khalil Mack, it's a relative "bargain". My issue would be with the "guaranteed money" portion based on his suspension and injury history.

Good call!

 

[Idgit]

It’s referencing a Fansided article.

 

[Stash]

Sure. But you aren't paying his guaranteed money for those 10 games. Recall also that, although DLaw has admitted he used to smoke weed (and credits Crawford for convincing him to stop), that his suspension was for PEDs reportedly prescribed following back surgery. Recall also that the team strongly believed they would win an appeal of that suspension. You've really got to attend to context here

It's not about the money, it's about potentially not having your best pass rusher for 10 games. The NFL isn't going to care about "context" if he violates the PED policy again. The fact is that it's a risk, a higher risk than there would be for another player who hasn't been suspended. And that's a factor.

 

[Ranching]

Trade him. Too much for his I just history, beside, Rod can turn Taco into another Tank. Tanco!

 

[Sydla]

Sure. But you aren't paying his guaranteed money for those 10 games. Recall also that, although DLaw has admitted he used to smoke weed (and credits Crawford for convincing him to stop), that his suspension was for PEDs reportedly prescribed following back surgery. Recall also that the team strongly believed they would win an appeal of that suspension. You've really got to attend to context here

Team doesn't really have a great track record of predicting their players will win their appeals.

 

[Aven8]

And remember when Romo’s 60 million guaranteed was too much? Lol

 

[CWR]

Dallas needs to pay the man his market value for three reasons:

1. D Law balled out while injured this year and was a good soldier while playing under the tag. He is a top 3 DE right now in the NFL— pay him what he deserves

2. The philosophy the FO has established and communicated is that they want to build through the draft, develop their players, and sign their guys longterm that produce. If they let D Law walk— they lose credibility with players and the result could easily be a loss of trust that the FO will give their productive core players long term security in a very violent sport.

3. They lose further credibility with the fan base. You can’t tell us you will stay out of FA bc you want the cap to sign your best players— and then you let a guy like D Law walk. Fans will question their commitment to winning (more than they already do) and moves like this cement the narrative that the Jones family are only in this for money.

Bottom line: sign D Law for what he is worth. Honor your players when they produce and they will run through a brick wall for you.

 

[NeonNinja]

Just curious if anyone would choose Clowney over Tank. Let’s also assume money is close or equal.

 

[Brax]

Dallas needs to pay the man his market value for three reasons:

1. D Law balled out while injured this year and was a good soldier while playing under the tag. He is a top 3 DE right now in the NFL— pay him what he deserves

2. The philosophy the FO has established and communicated is that they want to build through the draft, develop their players, and sign their guys longterm that produce. If they let D Law walk— they lose credibility with players and the result could easily be a loss of trust that the FO will give their productive core players long term security in a very violent sport.

3. They lose further credibility with the fan base. You can’t tell us you will stay out of FA bc you want the cap to sign your best players— and then you let a guy like D Law walk. Fans will question their commitment to winning (more than they already do) and moves like this cement the narrative that the Jones family are only in this for money.

Bottom line: sign D Law for what he is worth. Honor your players when they produce and they will run through a brick wall for you.

Bye, to much $$$ use the patriot model let him walk.

 

[CPanther95]

Pay him or let him walk, but tagging him is not an option. No chance he plays under a franchise tag.

 

[Sydla]

Pay him or let him walk, but tagging him is not an option. No chance he plays under a franchise tag.

He has no choice if he wants to get paid.

There is little to no chance he'd sit out. In fact, last year, he even said he wouldn't mind playing under the tag twice because it would put roughly $40MM guaranteed in his pocket and still give him the chance to sign a deal after 2020.

 

[TwentyOne]

Every deal is realistically a three year commitment with team options to continue the deal further. Length is meaninglessness beyond that.

Read any contract as 3 years for whatever the guaranteed money is.

For me it is important to post the rumor as it is. Everthing more to it would only be my opinion. And that would taint the original post.