News: SDFW: Dallas Cowboys: Stephen Jones is ruthless and the real villain

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,804
Reaction score
91,316
Horrendous article. One, they were smart to not overpay for Murray. Two, the contract Dak was offered would have made him a Top 10 paid QB, fitting for what the reporter "Dink" thinks Dak is ranked. I suspect if Dak was willing to go to 5 years, the Cowboys would have upped the money. But to argue the Stephen was "ruthless" offering a contract in the range of what Wentz, Wilson was getting is patently absurd.
 

Rayman70

Well-Known Member
Messages
33,221
Reaction score
31,700
if ruthless means he offered Dak a deal that would have paid him well north of 110 mil over 4 years, then MY LORD...I guess he's ruthless lol. See the BIG problem with this PR stunt article? Dak and his agent are busy doing spin control on this. They know they screwed the pooch. The Jones Family did nothing wrong here. To imply they were too heavy handed during the negotiations is funny. The Greedy agent and Dak himself made major miscalculations and lost. NOW we hear reports he doesnt wanna be here. Lets do this, see what happens when Dak realizes how great MM is instead of the Clapper...and all this goes away by years end. Winning cures all ills. THAT SAID, Its SB or bust for Dak in The Jones Family view. Anything short is bad news for Dak.
 

Valkyr

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
2,502
Well between the kid's "ruthlessness" and Jerry's (wow fill in the blanks on this), we should be in fine shape moving ahead.

Bear in mind no team would EVER hire EITHER of them to run their team. They just happen to own it.

We all get all hopeful every year, but when the results arent there year after year, its logical to see why.

They sell hope very well. That's it.
giphy.gif
 

Valkyr

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
2,502
Stephen suckled at the teat of Jerry for his entire life and we're supposed to believe he'll be better than dad?
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,286
Reaction score
36,436
I think they did so with Byron Jones too.

But at least in Dak's case, they did lock him up for another year....so not toally a line in the sand.
Barely. Still to be determined next year.

The bigger point is we missed an opportunity. Assuming we wanted to lock him up for the future.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,286
Reaction score
36,436
The money in relation to what will happen during this pandemic and in relation to what the cap might be going forward is going to be very important to the team. So I disagree that it had to be something else. That will be vital and by next year they won’t have to guess what the cap will be... they’ll know. It makes perfect sense why the team would view that as important to know before handing out a contract paying around $36M/year.

And why would the team need to be fine with losing Dak? They can pick up negotiations after this year except they’ll know where the cap will be.

I don’t think the team views this at all like it means they’re going to lose Dak. That is just some fans and the media’s wild speculation.
I didn’t say they would lose Dak. It just opens up that possibility. And if they do we will look back on this missed opportunity.

Speculative opinions is what we do here. Along with the media.
 

TheMarathonContinues

Well-Known Member
Messages
74,687
Reaction score
69,356
I'll try dumb it down. Byron was going to get top cb money. Dak wanted top money. Dak was valued more highly than byron, ergo cowboys could only afford one. Same thing when we had to choose between Murray and dez. It all comes down to the size of the pie.
Except you would’ve saved MORE money this season if you re-signed Dak. And you would’ve had plenty of money. They added Dix, McCoy and Poe. They also could’ve restructured contracts. Now do you see why I said your logic is silly? But thanks for breaking it down for me....
 

TheMarathonContinues

Well-Known Member
Messages
74,687
Reaction score
69,356
I'm not asking you why they didn't sign dak long term. I'm fully capable of making my own conclusions. His demands were excessive and his desire for a 4 year deal would have hurt the team. Imo, simple as that.
And you don't see how inconsistent all of this is? You acknowledge that signing a 4 year deal instead of 5 hurts us but you don't see how signing Amari Cooper who only plays well at home hurts us? Or how signing a running back before his rookie deal is up hurts us?
 

TheMarathonContinues

Well-Known Member
Messages
74,687
Reaction score
69,356
I often agree with you but I don’t think the team got cheap with Dak. I think they offered him around R Wilson money but wanted the five years to give them flexibility with the cap. Dak was adamant on the four years and Stephen was adamant on the 5.

IMO, it isn’t fair to expect the team to give on their stance while expecting Dak/France not to.

I think that it was a combination of a few things that led us to this point: The franchise tag, the uncertainty of the financial outlook because of the pandemic and the all-new coaching staff.

With the franchise tag, Dak’s services were guaranteed in Dallas, no matter what.

From Stephen’s perspective, Dak was going to be his QB in 2020, no matter what... which is the big thing and it removed any real sense of urgency that the team might feel. It did take away some cap room this season - all $31M had to hit this year - but it isn’t that different from what he’d be paying on a long term deal (LTD). Plus, the actual amount Dak is going to play for (31) is below the yearly average of what Dak would make on a LTD.

The financial outlook and what the league (and salary cap) will do was (I’m sure) always in the back of Stephen’s mind. I simply think that this kept Stephen from going any higher on his offer to Dak. He wasn’t, IMO, going to let the money creep up from what was already a crazy high figure (R Wilson) when he doesn’t know if the salary cap will flatten or even recede from its current figure. Particularly when Dak was making the team fight for flexibility in structure, along with the dollar figure.

It would have been reckless to do so, and frankly as much as I do like Dak, I’m glad that Stephen drew a line and didn’t cross it. I support that because as a fan of the team, I don’t want the cap to be too stressed to pay some of the other good players that they’ll need to.

Then, throw in that there is the inherent uncertainty of Dak having never played for McCarthy and in his system and you have a unique situation where the team felt like it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world to let Dak play a year on the franchise tag. Let the league figure out where it will be financially before next season and have a year with Dak playing under MM to see what you’re getting there.

It makes perfect sense to me and really, I don’t understand why some are so upset by it. Yes, the contract will likely cost more next year but to have certainty on the cap and Dak’s play under McCarthy would be well worth it to the team.
Like I said above, the one thing that would have galvanized the team into getting a LTD done would have been if they could have lost his services this season... and absent that, there was too much upside with just waiting to next season to get the LTD done.

As for Dak, his perspective is simple: He will make $31 million this season, which is infinitely more than he made last season. Plus, he knows that he has great weapons in Dallas and will be playing under a coach that is somewhat of a passing game guru (and under Moore), so he expects to have a good enough season to up his pay after waiting a year. Not to mention that he knows more pressure will be on Dallas in a year because of the franchise tag being so high to do it again.

Making more this year than he’s ever made in his life and with the ability to pick right back up with the negotiations after the season made enough sense to him that he didn’t feel compelled to sign a deal now that isn’t 100% what he wanted.

So, I get both sides and why they decided to just wait until the off season to pick it up again.

I don’t think either side is really upset about waiting until after the season. There were simply too many reasons on each side to wait. No real reason to push hard and concede a lot on what they wanted. I think everybody is fine just waiting. Well, everyone except some of the fans.

I understand both sides as well. IF this was a isolated issue I wouldn't be concerned. But this isn't. If we take a step back and look at the moves this organization has made for the past 3 years.....they are inconsistent and show we don't have any form of plan AT ALL. No one is concerned now because they look at it as Dak was "playing hard ball". But there are some questionable moves taking place on this team and I hope for our sake it isn't Stephen.
 

cern

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,900
Reaction score
21,050
Those are fair and reasonable arguments. But does the potential of not having a franchise QB after 2020 hurt the team even more?
Those are fair and reasonable arguments. But does the potential of not having a franchise QB after 2020 hurt the team even more?

Was this the right contract and player to draw our line in the sand.
Sometimes an example has to be made that others can understand. Remember the asthma field. Whenever i fired an employee others understood why. Players and agents have taken notice.
 

StarBoyz83

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,272
Reaction score
11,831
if dak was really offered 35 a year a 110 plus guaranteed that was a more than fair offer imo. But i can't blame dak for betting on himself.
 

cern

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,900
Reaction score
21,050
And you don't see how inconsistent all of this is? You acknowledge that signing a 4 year deal instead of 5 hurts us but you don't see how signing Amari Cooper who only plays well at home hurts us? Or how signing a running back before his rookie deal is up hurts us?
Signing zeke was a good deal. Cap flexibility. Cooper needs to work under a new coach. I had no problems with dak negotiations. I said last year Stephen was sending a clear message to dak when he signed jaylon and la'el that the pie was getting smaller. I've made enough large business deals where certain sequences of events become obvious. Stephen wasn't going to budge. France just didn't get it.
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
23,977
Reaction score
16,255
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
People want to know is it Brady or Belichick. In my opinion it’s actually neither it’s the owner. That gets credit. You can’t micromanage. And that’s all the Stevens and Jerry’s want to do
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
23,977
Reaction score
16,255
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Signing zeke was a good deal. Cap flexibility. Cooper needs to work under a new coach. I had no problems with dak negotiations. I said last year Stephen was sending a clear message to dak when he signed jaylon and la'el that the pie was getting smaller. I've made enough large business deals where certain sequences of events become obvious. Stephen wasn't going to budge. France just didn't get it.
It’s like we have everybody sign we need to. I haven’t seen it like this in quite some time. I’m not worried about Prescott. When the time is right. Or even if the time is wrong this is the best thing that could’ve happened the franchise tag
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
23,977
Reaction score
16,255
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
if dak was really offered 35 a year a 110 plus guaranteed that was a more than fair offer imo. But i can't blame dak for betting on himself.
I wish more people understood that. It’s about betting on yourself. And that’s a good thing because it’s positive. He how do you not like that attitude
 

Kingofholland

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,887
Reaction score
6,301
Guess one person's opinion on what Stephen should have done. Nothing wrong with standing your ground on what the market says Dak is worth.
 

cern

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,900
Reaction score
21,050
Except you would’ve saved MORE money this season if you re-signed Dak. And you would’ve had plenty of money. They added Dix, McCoy and Poe. They also could’ve restructured contracts. Now do you see why I said your logic is silly? But thanks for breaking it down for me....
You're welcome.
 

KingintheNorth

Chris in Arizona
Messages
17,442
Reaction score
23,952
Stephen Jones' stubbornness
I think this "stubbornness" is a much better adjective than "ruthless"... Ruthless implies he has some sort of plan and is willing to do whatever to achieve it. He's stubborn and wrong, a lot.

I just get the feeling he's trying to overcome the previous reputation about the Cowboys (mainly Jerry) that they are free spenders and poor negotiators (as far as trades and contracts) so he's gone 180 degrees the other way.
 
Top