CZ POLL What do you think the Cowboys should offer Dak? *** POLL CLOSED ***

[OmerV]

That was exactly my point regarding Goff and Wentz. Already under control and got 4 year extensions in addition to what they still had... so they would expire after 2024 season.

Dak only had an original 4 year deal. His expired, so instead of adding onto to anything, he just gets a new deal.

A 5 year deal for Dak would take him also out thru 2024, just like his classmates, but via new contract vs extension.

Instead, he wants to get to the open market a year before them...after 2023

My point was that a 5 year deal lines him up with his 1st round classmates
But Wentz get 32/yr and the universally agreed to be overpaid Goff gets 33.5/yr....

Dak will get 35ish with slightly more guaranteed.
Good for him

4 years is 4 years whether an extension or a new deal. Either way it adds 4 years of team control that the team didn't have before, and that is what the team is paying for.

The fact that with a 4 year deal Dak could get to the open market a year before Wentz and Goff isn't because of the terms of the second contracts, it's because of the rookie contracts. In other words, Dak was always on a different timetable as Wentz and Goff from the day they signed their rookie contracts - the rookie deals created that situation. There really isn't an obligation to give the Cowboys a 5 year deal to make the timing fit with Wentz and Goff, he's just looking for 4 years on his new deal the same way Wenz and Goff did.

 

[sulu1701]

Whatever an agent says it is apparently.

Imo, there's a reason that there are only 6 Qb's getting 30+ million, 3 have rings, 2 have taken their team to the SB, and one was having an MVP year when he got hurt, so as far as I'm concerned, it should be based on results

 

[DFWJC]

4 years is 4 years whether an extension or a new deal. Either way it adds 4 years of team control that the team didn't have before, and that is what the team is paying for.

The fact that with a 4 year deal Dak could get to the open market a year before Wentz and Goff isn't because of the terms of the second contracts, it's because of the rookie contracts. In other words, Dak was always on a different timetable as Wentz and Goff from the day they signed their rookie contracts - the rookie deals created that situation. There really isn't an obligation to give the Cowboys a 5 year deal to make the timing fit with Wentz and Goff, he's just looking for 4 years on his new deal the same way Wenz and Goff did.

I don't see it that way.
I think he wants out in 2023, a year ahead of Goff and Wentz. And to me, that is the bottom line.
We're talking in circles here, OV.
I think we both want dak signed, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Imo, there's a reason that there are only 6 Qb's getting 30+ million, 3 have rings, 2 have taken their team to the SB, and one was having an MVP year when he got hurt, so as far as I'm concerned, it should be based on results

Kinda lost on this response. Doesn't seem to address the post I made, which was trying to answer the question asked previously.

 

[OmerV]

This is wrong. Look at the contract. Of course it helped. You don't think that Dak is also going to get a significant amount of money up front? The team is going to have to account for that in two fewer years. This is not about the players. You have a hardcap. obviously it is much more beneficial to have 6 years, rather then 4 years, to spread that money over. This is about how you structure a contract in order to manage your cap, over time.

Of course Dak will get a significant amount of money up front - I didn't suggest otherwise. And yes, the team will have to account for that in 2 fewer years than the Eagles and Rams. which is exactly what I said when I talked about the Rams getting to spread the cap hit over a longer period of time. And yes, that part of it is not about the players, it's about the team, which is also what I said.

So, you are arguing against what I said, yet saying the same things I did.

The element you are missing to this is that there is also a player side in the negotiation, and from the players side it's about the team paying for 4 years of control it didn't have before. Of course spreading the cap hit over 6 years helps the team, but that's the benefit the Rams and Eagles got when they signed Wentz and Goff to an extension on top of the 2 remaining years on the contract. The Cowboys didn't do the same with Dak, so they aren't in the same position as the Rams and Eagles. It's not Dak's job to fix that for the team, that's just the bed the team made for itself.

 

[OmerV]

I don't see it that way.
I think he wants out in 2023, a year ahead of Goff and Wentz. And to me, that is the bottom line.
We're talking in circles here, OV.
I think we both want dak signed, so I'll leave it at that.

So, you think it's Dak's responsibility sign a new deal for 5 years instead of 4 so his contract timing matches with Wentz and Goff, even though Wentz and Goff only signed new deals for 4 years themselves? That really doesn't make sense. Again, rookie contracts created the difference in timing, and it makes no sense to suggest that Dak has an obligation to do a deal he doesn't want to just for the purpose of matching the same timing as another player.

By that logic, every QB should feel obligated to negotiate every contract so that the expiration lines up exactly with every other QB. It doesn't matter when their previous one is set to expire, they should work out a 2 year or 4 year or 7 year deal so the expiration aligns with every other QB. That really makes no sense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Of course Dak will get a significant amount of money up front - I didn't suggest otherwise. And yes, the team will have to account for that in 2 fewer years than the Eagles and Rams. which is exactly what I said when I talked about the Rams getting to spread the cap hit over a longer period of time. And yes, that part of it is not about the players, it's about the team, which is also what I said.

So, you are arguing against what I said, yet saying the same things I did.

The element you are missing to this is that there is also a player side in the negotiation, and from the players side it's about the team paying for 4 years of control it didn't have before. Of course spreading the cap hit over 6 years helps the team, but that's the benefit the Rams and Eagles got when they signed Wentz and Goff to an extension on top of the 2 remaining years on the contract. The Cowboys didn't do the same with Dak, so they aren't in the same position as the Rams and Eagles. It's not Dak's job to fix that for the team, that's just the bed the team made for itself.

OK, well, I feel like we are talking in circles here. I resent the fact that you suggest I am missing something here. I'm not stupid so this idea is a bit insulting. You know as well as I do that I'm not missing that. I just don't agree with the idea that the team should sign a player, any player, to a contract that compromises the teams ability to manage the cap. The Wentz and Goff situations were different and can't be compared to Dak's. That's just the truth. It's not a matter of "the bed the team made for itself". It's a matter of the sleeping bag the team had to work with, as opposed to the bed scenario.

If the only options offered are to over pay or move on, then by all means, let me be shown on record as favoring moving on. I'm not ever going to support the idea of placing the teams cap integrity in jeopardy, just to over pay a player. That's really the bottom line. I'm not that guy and I am glad for it, to be honest. Wouldn't change that if I could and doubt I will ever support the other side of that equation.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't see it that way.
I think he wants out in 2023, a year ahead of Goff and Wentz. And to me, that is the bottom line.
We're talking in circles here, OV.
I think we both want dak signed, so I'll leave it at that.

I can absolutely see this. This is about CAA wanting to set up an optimal situation for his next payday. This is what a lot of fans, IMO, miss on this issue. This contract is not the objective. The next contract is the objective. Look at how CAA represented Romo. Look at how they set up that situation to take advantage of opportunity. Look at what they did with Donald. Look at how they operate and that tells you all you need to know. If I understand your point here, I think you are absolutely right, in terms of how Dak and CAA are trying to engineer the timing of all of this.

 

[DFWJC]

So, you think it's Dak's responsibility sign a new deal for 5 years instead of 4 so his contract timing matches with Wentz and Goff, even though Wentz and Goff only signed new deals for 4 years themselves? That really doesn't make sense. Again, rookie contracts created the difference in timing, and it makes no sense to suggest that Dak has an obligation to do a deal he doesn't want to just for the purpose of matching the same timing as another player.

By that logic, every QB should feel obligated to negotiate every contract so that the expiration lines up exactly with every other QB. It doesn't matter when their previous one is set to expire, they should work out a 2 year or 4 year or 7 year deal so the expiration aligns with every other QB. That really makes no sense.

You're now putting words in my mouth.
I never once said Dak was obligated to sign anything
Never...once

 

[DandyDon52]

If the only options offered are to over pay or move on, then by all means, let me be shown on record as favoring moving on. I'm not ever going to support the idea of placing the teams cap integrity in jeopardy, just to over pay a player. That's really the bottom line. I'm not that guy and I am glad for it, to be honest. Wouldn't change that if I could and doubt I will ever support the other side of that equation.

welcome to the dak haters club lol.
There is one other option, let dak play on the tag, or even force him to, evaluate him this season, and then decide next off season to pay or move on.

 

[OmerV]

OK, well, I feel like we are talking in circles here. I resent the fact that you suggest I am missing something here. I'm not stupid so this idea is a bit insulting. You know as well as I do that I'm not missing that. I just don't agree with the idea that the team should sign a player, any player, to a contract that compromises the teams ability to manage the cap. The Wentz and Goff situations were different and can't be compared to Dak's. That's just the truth. It's not a matter of "the bed the team made for itself". It's a matter of the sleeping bag the team had to work with, as opposed to the bed scenario.

If the only options offered are to over pay or move on, then by all means, let me be shown on record as favoring moving on. I'm not ever going to support the idea of placing the teams cap integrity in jeopardy, just to over pay a player. That's really the bottom line. I'm not that guy and I am glad for it, to be honest. Wouldn't change that if I could and doubt I will ever support the other side of that equation.

I didn't say the team should sign a player to a contract that it feels it can't live with under the cap. I understand completely why the Cowboys want the longer deal, and I don't begrudge them trying to get it. And ultimately, if the Cowboys don't feel they can make a deal that will work with the salary cap, they have to make a hard decision.

All I'm saying to you is that you can't act as if the Cowboys side of the negotiation is the only side of it. Clearly the player's side factors in, otherwise there would be no need for any player to negotiate or have an agent.

I understand the viewpoint of both sides, and understand why each side wants what they are presumably asking for (assuming the reports about the term being the sticking point are accurate).

 

[OmerV]

You're now putting words in my mouth.
I never once said Dak was obligated to sign anything
Never...once

4 years is 4 years, but you act like that's not the case because Dak's 4 years makes him a free agent sooner than Wentz's 4 years. So, you act like Dak should sign a 5 year deal so his deal runs concurrent with Wentz's deal, which actually does suggest that he should somehow feel obligated to put his timing on the same path as Wentz and Goff.

But, again, Dak did not create the situation where his 4 years doesn't run concurrent with Wentz's 4 years, the rookie contracts did. In any case, how does the fact his 4 years would run differently than Wentz's change the fact that both he and Wentz are being paid for 4 years more than their rookie deal?

I get why the Cowboys want that - they want to be able to spread the cap hit over a longer time frame. And that's understandable on their side of the negotiation. But the player and the team have different sides, which is why negotiations happen.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

welcome to the dak haters club lol.
There is one other option, let dak play on the tag, or even force him to, evaluate him this season, and then decide next off season to pay or move on.

That's not a really another option for me and this isn't really a new thing. This is always what I've believed, going back to before Dak was ever a Cowboy. I didn't believe in the Romo Contracts either. I didn't want the Lawrence deal, I didn't like the early Zeke deal, I didn't like the record WR deal for Coop. I guess I'm just a cheap skate........

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I didn't say the team should sign a player to a contract that it feels it can't live with under the cap. I understand completely why the Cowboys want the longer deal, and I don't begrudge them trying to get it. And ultimately, if the Cowboys don't feel they can make a deal that will work with the salary cap, they have to make a hard decision.

All I'm saying to you is that you can't act as if the Cowboys side of the negotiation is the only side of it. Clearly the player's side factors in, otherwise there would be no need for any player to negotiate or have an agent.

I understand the viewpoint of both sides, and understand why each side wants what they are presumably asking for (assuming the reports about the term being the sticking point are accurate).

For me it is. I can absolutely say that it's the only side because we all know that a fair offer has been made. More then fair IMO so if Dak and his representation elect to turn that down, then I can absolutely say that. It's not as if the team is trying to low ball Dak. If they were, that would be different but they aren't. That's how I see it.

 

[OmerV]

For me it is. I can absolutely say that it's the only side because we all know that a fair offer has been made. More then fair IMO so if Dak and his representation elect to turn that down, then I can absolutely say that. It's not as if the team is trying to low ball Dak. If they were, that would be different but they aren't. That's how I see it.

I don't think we do all know that. If the Cowboys are asking for a 5 year commitment with only a slight increase on the guaranteed money others got for a 4 year commitment, is that really fair?

I get that you are looking at the Cowboys viewpoint because it helps the team to pay less and spread out the cap hit, and personally I would be thrilled if Dak would sign at $20 million/year, but looking only at one side doesn't change the reality that the Cowboys aren't the only side with a dog in the fight.

 

[sulu1701]

Kinda lost on this response. Doesn't seem to address the post I made, which was trying to answer the question asked previously.

Whatever an agent says it is apparently.:
My point was that market value should be based on results, and imo Dak is not on par with the 6 Qb's I mentioned

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think we do all know that. If the Cowboys are asking for a 5 year commitment with only a slight increase on the guaranteed money others got for a 4 year commitment, is that really fair?

I get that you are looking at the Cowboys viewpoint because it helps the team to pay less and spread out the cap hit, and personally I would be thrilled if Dak would sign at $20 million/year, but looking only at one side doesn't change the reality that the Cowboys aren't the only side with a dog in the fight.

35 AAV with 110 or more guaranteed is more then fair IMO. I hear a lot of people talking about market. Well, that's the market right now, today. I don't see how that could not be fair.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Whatever an agent says it is apparently.:
My point was that market value should be based on results, and imo Dak is not on par with the 6 Qb's I mentioned

OK. I understand the direction of your post now. Forgive, I was struggling for a minute there.

 

[OmerV]

35 AAV with 110 or more guaranteed is more then fair IMO. I hear a lot of people talking about market. Well, that's the market right now, today. I don't see how that could not be fair.

That's the market for 4 years, not 5 or more.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That's the market for 4 years, not 5 or more.

According to who?