northerncowboynation
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 7,925
- Reaction score
- 6,303
So much for the narrative that the Cowboys are cheap and way off with Tank on this. What's a piddling 2 mil among friends
But last year was a different scenario. You can't throw premium money toward a guy who needs to prove his worth and availability.
Restructuring contracts is what has hamstrung this team over a decade. While we do need to first see the amount of guaranteed money and the payout structure of DLaw's contract year to year, restructuring these deals and kicking guaranteed money down the road is more times than not a bad idea.
He has to be worth something comparable to what Mack got the Raiders. Trade him
The market rate is 20 million. It's really 19 but he can argue he's better than FlowersHe proved it in 2017. If the FO wanted another prove it year, then they are going to have to pay the market rate.
Actually, that's incorrect. Dallas got in salary cap trouble in the 1990s because it didn't understand how to manipulate the cap. It has since learned how to stagger contracts to essentially make one pay for another. It's like a puzzle that has to be put together in a specific way to work, only there are some unknown variables (such as injury, sudden retirement) that can make teams have to shift the puzzle some, but good cap managers keep those variables in mind when they are structuring deals.
He didnt get what he asked for.If he won’t take that offer, let him walk. He got what he asked for and now wants to say no to it? Let another team pay him.
The mistakes this front office has made on the risk which failed them this year placed us in this more vulnerable circumstance with Lawrence or we'd be in a better negotiation position.Of course you don't get it, you're expecting everyone to blast Jerry Jones and if they don't you claim they are defending him.
It works both ways. A player deserves their fair share. But in order to build a competitive team properly you have to balance the cap and not overpay players. Especially those who are a risk.
Most reasonable fans want the TEAM to be great and that happens when a staff is smart and doesn't throw ridiculous money toward a player that will eventually hurt the team financially.
There are a ton of examples in the past and I commend the staff for NOT simply signing whatever.
If, and that's a big if, the Cowboys went to $20MM AAV but then cut the guaranteed money they initially offered, that changes the calculus a bit.
Sort of. He played injured and has delayed that process. It's a significant surgery, procedure and recovery that leaves questions unanswered until you "wait and see."He proved it in 2017. If the FO wanted another prove it year, then they are going to have to pay the market rate.
Hahahah. If we could get two first he'd be packing his bags.
You would be lucky to get 1 first.
Based on what I’ve read he asked for $20 mil per year. That’s what has been offered. Now he wants $22.5 mil? Piss on him and his agent.He didnt get what he asked for.
The market rate is 20 million. It's really 19 but he can argue he's better than Flowers
SHOCKER, GREEDY AGENT. lol...Gonna haggle over 2 mil. lol..
You're placing too much importance on rotational players. And you're mistaken on the financial effect. Also, we're very early in the off season and you've hit the panic button already.The mistakes this front office has made on the risk which failed them this year placed us in this more vulnerable circumstance with Lawrence or we'd be in a better negotiation position.
If we lose Lawrence this year after losing Gregory and Irving this DL and defense are going to be severely challenged to repeat carrying us to the playoffs again.
Despite some of the better decisions which have been made in recent years were still having enough poor decisions being made to stifle a greater team.
Having to pony up a couple million more than we’d like to cause of our poor decisions is not what I’d define as “ signing whatever”.
Exactly. It's a biased opinion to suggest Lawrence gets paid like Mack. That's just simply silly.So for the record.
You'd be lucky to get a 1st for him which would be significantly less than what Mack got in a trade, but you are arguing here that we need to pay him almost like Mack because they are more similar than people want to admit?
How does that make sense?