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

[CordovaRaider]

Trade him

 

[sacase]

Franchise tag him until they see what is going to happen with next years salary cap

 

[RoboQB]

Over 37,000 supposed members and we can't get 200 people
to vote on the most talked about topic on the board, by far.

Frankly, I'm disappointed.

 

[Redline360]

Im torn between the 30-34m & let him play on the franchise tag.

 

[Captain-Crash]

I'm torn between trading him for a lifetime supply of taco's or cut him.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What is "fully guaranteed" with Dak's offer, assuming the reports are even accurate? What I saw that was reported was a "guaranteed" amount, rather than a "fully guaranteed" amount, so how do we know the "fully guaranteed" amount is any more than Goff's?

IF the $110 million is accurate, and IF it is fully guaranteed, I would agree that even at 5 years it is a fair deal. But IF the fully guaranteed portion is more in the range of what Goff got, then I would say it is not because of the extra year the Cowboys are asking for.

Of course, this entire discussion has assumed the reporting is accurate but that goes both ways. Fully guaranteed means just what is says. It means you get that money regardless.

However, lets say it's guaranteed for something around what Goff got, for the sake of discussion. That's still an offer at the top of the market. I don't know why you would have issue with that, were you Dak.

If you think it's justified, that's your opinion. I don't. Fans of Dak have been screaming for Market Value well, that's where the Market is because it's still at the top of the scale for a player that is not at the top of his profession. If that's not good enough, then again I ask, who's really setting the numbers here? It's the agent and why should the team listen to that?

We don't agree, at all.

 

[OmerV]

Of course, this entire discussion has assumed the reporting is accurate but that goes both ways. Fully guaranteed means just what is says. It means you get that money regardless.

However, lets say it's guaranteed for something around what Goff got, for the sake of discussion. That's still an offer at the top of the market. I don't know why you would have issue with that, were you Dak.

If you think it's justified, that's your opinion. I don't. Fans of Dak have been screaming for Market Value well, that's where the Market is because it's still at the top of the scale for a player that is not at the top of his profession. If that's not good enough, then again I ask, who's really setting the numbers here? It's the agent and why should the team listen to that?

We don't agree, at all.

You said the highest fully guaranteed contract was $94 million, so if what Dak is being offered is in the ballpark of the $57 million you stated as Goff's fully guaranteed, how would that put him at the top of the market?

That said, I don't care if Dak gets top of the market. Personally I would love him to agree to something much less, but I don't begrudge him his right to get what he thinks is fair. I personally think something at or slightly above what Goff got is what is fair, and I'm not sure Dak wouldn't agree with that himself. But it still comes down to the term. Getting the same guaranteed amount as Goff is not equal if it buys an additional 5 years and with Goff it only buys an additional 4.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You said the highest fully guaranteed contract was $94 million, so if what Dak is being offered is in the ballpark of the $57 million you stated as Goff's fully guaranteed, how would that put him at the top of the market?

That said, I don't care if Dak gets top of the market. Personally I would love him to agree to something much less, but I don't begrudge him his right to get what he thinks is fair. I personally think something at or slightly above what Goff got is what is fair, I'm not sure Dak wouldn't agree with that himself, but it still comes down to the term. Getting the same guaranteed amount as Goff is not equal if he is committing to 5 years and Goff committed to 4.

Correct, but I also said "At The Top" if we assumed "For Discussion" that what you said was accurate and that the fully guaranteed amount was not 100 plus. Well, that would put him at the top of the market. 57 is still amoung the highest Fully guaranteed offers in the NFL. Under your scenario, we don't know what the Fully Guaranteed amount is so we can't even say that 57 is the accurate number and I don't believe it is. I believe the figure of 110 is closer to what the number is but, even if it was 57, that would still be a very nice offer. All we heard for over a year was that Dak should be paid in compensatory to Goff and Wentz. Well, this offer does that and now it's not good enough. Now it has to be more but you know what, this offer actually is more at a 170 mil but there again, that's not good enough. Now it has to be a shorter deal, even though it has been explained that a larger deal with less years is financially harmful to the team. Well, now that doesn't matter because Dak has to be paid more, even if it's bad for the team.

No, I can't agree to that line of thought. It's clear to me that all of this was spoken of as an ends to a means. The mark just keeps on moving. Once the team meets a certain desired level, the goal moves further down the field and it apparently doesn't mean a thing to certain fans. I'm not one of those fans. Dak and CAA have been offered a very fair deal in my view. I am not in favor offering more. Take it or leave it and if you choose to leave it, so be it. Play him on the tag, trade him next season, ride with Dalton this year. If we are lucky, Dalton will provide a similar level of production. If we are not, we get a higher pick in the upcoming draft. Work out a trade for Dak and start working towards Lawrence or another young QB option.

I can live with that and would completely understand. That's where I'm at.

 

[OmerV]

Correct, but I also said "At The Top" if we assumed "For Discussion" that what you said was accurate and that the fully guaranteed amount was not 100 plus. Well, that would put him at the top of the market. 57 is still amoung the highest Fully guaranteed offers in the NFL. Under your scenario, we don't know what the Fully Guaranteed amount is so we can't even say that 57 is the accurate number and I don't believe it is. I believe the figure of 110 is closer to what the number is but, even if it was 57, that would still be a very nice offer. All we heard for over a year was that Dak should be paid in compensatory to Goff and Wentz. Well, this offer does that and now it's not good enough. Now it has to be more but you know what, this offer actually is more at a 170 mil but there again, that's not good enough. Now it has to be a shorter deal, even though it has been explained that a larger deal with less years is financially harmful to the team. Well, now that doesn't matter because Dak has to be paid more, even if it's bad for the team.

No, I can't agree to that line of thought. It's clear to me that all of this was spoken of as an ends to a means. The mark just keeps on moving. Once the team meets a certain desired level, the goal moves further down the field and it apparently doesn't mean a thing to certain fans. I'm not one of those fans. Dak and CAA have been offered a very fair deal in my view. I am not in favor offering more. Take it or leave it and if you choose to leave it, so be it. Play him on the tag, trade him next season, ride with Dalton this year. If we are lucky, Dalton will provide a similar level of production. If we are not, we get a higher pick in the upcoming draft. Work out a trade for Dak and start working towards Lawrence or another young QB option.

I can live with that and would completely understand. That's where I'm at.

We really can't discuss the fully guaranteed amount fairly because we just don't know what it is, but I would be shocked if it is almost double what Goff got.

As for Dak requiring a shorter deal, I don't know how 4 years is shorter than 4 years. Goff was extended for 4 years, Dak is asking for 4 years, so Dak is not asking to be paid for a shorter deal.

Of course, and as always, assuming any of the media reports are accurate.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We really can't discuss the fully guaranteed amount fairly because we just don't know what it is, but I would be shocked if it is almost double what Goff got.

As for Dak requiring a shorter deal, I don't know how 4 years is shorter than 4 years. Goff was extended for 4 years, Dak is asking for 4 years, so Dak is not asking to be paid for a shorter deal.

Of course, and as always, assuming any of the media reports are accurate.

I would not be shocked at all. It would make entire sense, especially if the 5th year is the sticking point. Remember, the team originally wanted a 7 year contract. The more years, the easier it is to handle a big upfront fully guaranteed payout. If the upfront money were larger, it would make complete sense as to why the Cowboys were adamant over the longer term.

As to the 4 years, you need to get passed that. It's not a 4 year deal and you know it. It's a 4 year extension that leverages 6 full years for each of those players discussed so you saying you don't know how "4 years is shorter then 4" is completely disingenuous. I don't treat you like a fool or treat you as if you are stupid. I ask you to do the same with me. You know exactly how it's different so lets please not do that.

As I said, the offer is a very fair one. If Dak doesn't want it, OK. Lets move on.

 

[OmerV]

I would not be shocked at all. It would make entire sense, especially if the 5th year is the sticking point. Remember, the team originally wanted a 7 year contract. The more years, the easier it is to handle a big upfront fully guaranteed payout. If the upfront money were larger, it would make complete sense as to why the Cowboys were adamant over the longer term.

As to the 4 years, you need to get passed that. It's not a 4 year deal and you know it. It's a 4 year extension that leverages 6 full years for each of those players discussed so you saying you don't know how "4 years is shorter then 4" is completely disingenuous. I don't treat you like a fool or treat you as if you are stupid. I ask you to do the same with me. You know exactly how it's different so lets please not do that.

As I said, the offer is a very fair one. If Dak doesn't want it, OK. Lets move on.

If the $110 million is fully guaranteed I would agree Dak is getting a good offer.

As for the term, I still disagree. The number of years a team can spread the cap hit over doesn't mean a 4 year extension is not a 4 year extension. Goff did not commit to an additional 5 or 6 years - he committed to an additional 4.

What you can't ignore is that what is relevant to Dak is what guys like Goff got, not the salary cap flexibility the Eagles got by being more aggressive in extending their QB than the Cowboys were. That part of it is on the team side.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If the $110 million is fully guaranteed I would agree Dak is getting a good offer.

As for the term, I still disagree. The number of years a team can spread the cap hit over doesn't mean a 4 year extension is not a 4 year extension. Goff did not commit to an additional 5 or 6 years - he committed to an additional 4.

Well, there you have it. Plain and simple, if you don't have enough years to spread out the money, then the contract doesn't work. Philly and LA were able to do that with those two QBs and there is a reason why. I believe that both Goff and Wentz are represented by R1Sports. They both have the same agents and so it makes sense that each of those QBs were able to get a deal done. See, the difference here is how each agent handled this situation. The reason each of those deals got done was because each party got something they wanted. Philly and LA got deals that allowed them to enjoy very cheap and manageable contracts for 6 years and in return, the players and agents get a deal that expires at the right time for a renewal on the respective contracts of each player. IE, paydays! They essentially wanted to get a deal done and each understood what value each were getting out of the deal. In the case of CAA and he Cowboys, I don't believe that's the case. The years matter here. To simply suggest or ignore that fact is a lot of the problem. The team can not and should not sacrifice cap for Dak. That's a bad business decision.

 

[OmerV]

Well, there you have it. Plain and simple, if you don't have enough years to spread out the money, then the contract doesn't work. Philly and LA were able to do that with those two QBs and there is a reason why. I believe that both Goff and Wentz are represented by R1Sports. They both have the same agents and so it makes sense that each of those QBs were able to get a deal done. See, the difference here is how each agent handled this situation. The reason each of those deals got done was because each party got something they wanted. Philly and LA got deals that allowed them to enjoy very cheap and manageable contracts for 6 years and in return, the players and agents get a deal that expires at the right time for a renewal on the respective contracts of each player. IE, paydays! They essentially wanted to get a deal done and each understood what value each were getting out of the deal. In the case of CAA and he Cowboys, I don't believe that's the case. The years matter here. To simply suggest or ignore that fact is a lot of the problem. The team can not and should not sacrifice cap for Dak. That's a bad business decision.

I don't know if it's true that the contract can't work, but I agree it makes the contract more difficult for the team. But that's a problem the Cowboys have because they didn't do what the Eagles did and extend Dak with time left on his rookie deal.

What would be interesting to know is what the Cowboys were offering a year ago. If they were offering a 4 year deal in the same pay range as Goff, I would have to find fault with Dak for not working that out, but if they were talking 6-7 years like was reported, then I can understand Dak's hesitance.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't know if it's true that the contract can't work, but I agree it makes the contract more difficult for the team. But that's a problem the Cowboys have because they didn't do what the Eagles did and extend Dak with time left on his rookie deal.

What would be interesting to know is what the Cowboys were offering a year ago. If they were offering a 4 year deal in the same pay range as Goff, I would have to find fault with Dak for not working that out, but if they were talking 6-7 years like was reported, then I can understand Dak's hesitance.

No Omer, they couldn't do what the Eagles did because the agent was different and the situation was different. It is not a matter of didn't. It's a matter of couldn't. Dak was never going to sign early. Why? Because he and CAA have always been focused on timing. They wanted to get back to the table as quickly as possible and so they never wanted to sign anything that prevented them for doing this. They didn't sign an extension because it prevents them from getting to the table to bite the apple. This idea that the Cowboys screwed up is just no true IMO. It was never going to happen. I mean, look at where we are now. Dak has, arguably, the best contract offer for a QB in the NFL and that's not good enough. This is what was always going to happen and don't kid yourself, the next time Dak comes to the table, assuming CAA is still representing him, it's going to be exactly the same deal but worse in terms of demands.

 

[OmerV]

No Omer, they couldn't do what the Eagles did because the agent was different and the situation was different. It is not a matter of didn't. It's a matter of couldn't. Dak was never going to sign early. Why? Because he and CAA have always been focused on timing. They wanted to get back to the table as quickly as possible and so they never wanted to sign anything that prevented them for doing this. They didn't sign an extension because it prevents them from getting to the table to bite the apple. This idea that the Cowboys screwed up is just no true IMO. It was never going to happen. I mean, look at where we are now. Dak has, arguably, the best contract offer for a QB in the NFL and that's not good enough. This is what was always going to happen and don't kid yourself, the next time Dak comes to the table, assuming CAA is still representing him, it's going to be exactly the same deal but worse in terms of demands.

How do you know Dak was never going to sign early. Reports indicated the sides were talking in the offseason, and at some point Dak decided to break it off. How do we know he didn't break it off because the team was asking for 6-7 years, and that he wouldn't have done a 4 year deal? As for the apple, there were apples last year, it was just a matter of whether there was one that was attractive to Dak.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

How do you know Dak was never going to sign early. Reports indicated the sides were talking in the offseason, and at some point Dak decided to break it off. How do we know he didn't break it off because the team was asking for 6-7 years, and that he wouldn't have done a 4 year deal? As for the apple, there were apples last year, it was just a matter of whether there was one that was attractive to Dak.

I guess I'd have to see where that was reported. What I remember was the Cowboys offering deals and Dak basically saying he wasn't going to discuss contracts. How do we know Dak ever seriously talked about extension? How do we know that?

 

[OmerV]

I guess I'd have to see where that was reported. What I remember was the Cowboys offering deals and Dak basically saying he wasn't going to discuss contracts. How do we know Dak ever seriously talked about extension? How do we know that?

lol - how do we know anything either of us is talking about ever happened? Unfortunately we are relying on media reports, and history has shown that media reports are very often unreliable.

 

[DallasEast]

My vote was more "What do you think the Cowboys will offer Dak?" and less my own opinion of "What do you think the Cowboys should offer Dak?"

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

lol - how do we know anything either of us is talking about ever happened? Unfortunately we are relying on media reports, and history has shown that media reports are very often unreliable.

Because I was under the impression that we were going with what has been reported as credible. But how you answer here, there is a track record with CAA. There is a track record with how Dak has acted for over a year.

While I agree with your statement on the reliability of the media, Dak's behavior is a different matter all together. I think you can look at that and definitely see intentions. Again, if there is a report that suggests Dak ever seriously considered an extension, then please let see that because that is not my recollection.

 

[OmerV]

Because I was under the impression that we were going with what has been reported as credible. But how you answer here, there is a track record with CAA. There is a track record with how Dak has acted for over a year.

While I agree with your statement on the reliability of the media, Dak's behavior is a different matter all together. I think you can look at that and definitely see intentions. Again, if there is a report that suggests Dak ever seriously considered an extension, then please let see that because that is not my recollection.

I think both of us through this conversation have indicated at times that we really don't know, and we have both indicated that what the other is saying really isn't verifiable, so to me it's been pretty clear we both recognize the fallibility of media reports. With both of us now responding to each other with "how do you know that", it probably makes sense to acknowledge that neither of us truly knows.