Rumor: DLaw looking for 100mils / 70 guaranteed

[Nightman]

He's not under contract, you're not trading him.

The decision is between signing him or letting him go.

That is not correct

He can be traded if a team is allowed to negotiate... he is like a FA in that way..... it is up to him who he negotiates with

When he reaches a deal on a new contract then they work out the trade compensation..... when everyone is happy he signs the FT and gets traded

 

[Nightman]

Hostage? Lol... that is quite a defensive way to view the situation.

You draft a guy. Develop him. He ultimately produces for you. Your stated personnel philosophy is to “develop and sign your own guys.”

He wants to play longterm for you. You tag him and tell him to produce again for you to prove his big year wasn’t a fluke.

He accepts the tag— finishes with double digit sacks despite a shoulder that needs surgery— and he is holding the team hostage by wanting market value on a long term deal?

Strange logic

DAL wanted to extend him last year but he wanted too much money

Your timeline is not accurate

 

[CyberB0b]

He wasn't anywhere close to being the best DE in the league last year. He's smoking something.

 

[MarcusRock]

DAL wanted to extend him last year but he wanted too much money

Your timeline is not accurate

Love how the assumption during contract negotiations is that the player wanted too much. It could have been that the front office lowballed him a la Demarco Murray. But agendas are what they are.

 

[Nightman]

Love how the assumption during contract negotiations is that the player wanted too much. It could have been that the front office lowballed him a la Demarco Murray. But agendas are what they are.

DLaw knew he had the 17m Franchise Tag to fall back on..... he had no incentive to sign

Players complain about the FT but they really love it...... it sets the FT amount as the new salary floor even though it shouldn't.... you have to trade top dollar for long-term security

 

[MarcusRock]

DLaw knew he had the 17m Franchise Tag to fall back on..... he had no incentive to sign

Players complain about the FT but they really love it...... it sets the FT amount as the new salary floor even though it shouldn't.... you have to trade top dollar for long-term security

You don't risk your career and the possibility of a huge payday vs. a one-year big payday by aiming for the one-year payday from the outset. Perhaps if the offer been enough to guarantee his security over the long-term period, he would have jumped at it as would just about all players. You take the longer term deal all the time if you're a player. That was LeVeon Bell's reasoning and all players feel that way even if they aren't willing to hold out. Whatever the front office offered him, they'll be offering quite a bit more now. But I think jealous plebians love to push the "greedy players" narrative to elevate themselves morally as a consolation for seeing someone else making a boatload.

 

[Nightman]

You don't risk your career and the possibility of a huge payday vs. a one-year big payday by aiming for the one-year payday from the outset. Perhaps if the offer been enough to guarantee his security over the long-term period, he would have jumped at it as would just about all players. You take the longer term deal all the time if you're a player. That was LeVeon Bell's reasoning and all players feel that way even if they aren't willing to hold out. Whatever the front office offered him, they'll be offering quite a bit more now. But I think jealous plebians love to push the "greedy players" narrative to elevate themselves morally as a consolation for seeing someone else making a boatload.

17m vs 34m is no Sophie's Choice.... both are huge amounts and one year risk is not a big deal

He can always get a 15m insurance policy that is tax free if activated

LBell will never make up that 14m he walked away from last year going for 30m guaranteed over 2 years

 

[blueblood70]

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

I can live with that but not the 70 guaranteed.. that type of guarantee is too much as at times when players have to play for their money they put off surgerys , play through pain and what not, having guarantee like that can take away that incentive and being on or off the injured reserve wont matter..id say 50mil guaranteed..

 

[Blue&Silver]

So will giving big money to Zeke, Dak, and Lawrence while filling other holes for less money make the Cowboys a better team? The only way the answer is "yes" is if those contracts improve the play of Dak, Zeke, and Lawrence.

Zeke is already a top player at his position but RBs have diminishing returns - the only question is how soon. I don't believe giving Dak and Lawrence more money will improve them. At best they'll stay what they are, with a cheaper supporting cast. If someone can explain how that improves the Cowboys odds of winning a championship, I'd love to read it.

Again - there's paying guys who are the best in the NFL versus paying guys because they're the best you have at their position. The first one makes sense, the second one is reaching for a false sense of security.

"But we don't have anyone to replace them!"

Fine, then pay them like mega stars and hope for more seasons like the last one because you've pretty much made it your ceiling at that point.

I stopped reading after your first paragraph. Of course it doesn't make the team better that's why there's more parity in the NFL than there used to be. When Tom Brady retires we are more likely to see a different Super Bowl winner every year. When you have too much talent they need to be paid. Every team needs to make decisions that won't be popular. It's the NFL today. You can cut your stars & have an overabundance of mediocre players, or keep them all in sacrifice at other positions. The teams doing the best win the Super Bowl.

 

[Jake]

I stopped reading after your first paragraph.

I stopped reading after your first sentence.

 

[BigCatMonaco]

Love how the assumption during contract negotiations is that the player wanted too much. It could have been that the front office lowballed him a la Demarco Murray. But agendas are what they are.

Murray signed a deal with philly that would still make him the fourth highest paid RB per year if he signed it today. Cowboys were right not to try to approach anywhere near that.

 

[Nightman]

I can live with that but not the 70 guaranteed.. that type of guarantee is too much as at times when players have to play for their money they put off surgerys , play through pain and what not, having guarantee like that can take away that incentive and being on or off the injured reserve wont matter..id say 50mil guaranteed..

It would be staggered guarantees

2+ years at first(40m).... then after year1 contract year3 is guaranteed and then after year2 contract year4 is guaranteed........... years 5 and 6 would have no guarantees