I believe baker at a reasonable 15-20 million contract will be a far better option for the cowboys in the next 4-6 years than Dak .
Mayfield can ignite this offense and make better use of the receivers and OL we have .
Not to mention that dak has become injury prone, and has wild inconsistencies and slumps during the season.
There are 2 problems:
1. Dak had already been restructured twice,
meaning the dead money on his contract is so enormous, you can’t realistically cut/trade him for the entire duration of his deal. His dead cap each year remaining is more than his AAV; you lose salary cap space by not keeping him (it’s actually even worse than that, but that gets a bit complicated as to why). It ends in 2025, and it’s designed in such a way that if you don’t re-sign him to a longterm extension before then, you’ll immediately take a 20m$ cap hit… even though he’s a free agent. That’s more than Baker is even making. So Dak has to be the longterm QB, financially.
2. Baker is only on the books for 18m$ This year.
If you want him for 4-6 years, you’ll then have to explain to his agent that you’re valuing him higher than a QB who’s being paid 40m$ a year. He then can just hold out, knowing you’ve put all your eggs in his basket, in which the franchise tag for 2023 will likely be around 35m$ due to the Stafford deal.
This means that you have to pay him no less than 42m$ annually on an extension, as that would be what his salary is on the second franchise tag, which is a 20% bump up from the first one. Players don’t typically take pay cuts on franchise tags when they know they will get 42m$ the second time they get tagged.
But let’s say Baker is a very reasonable guy (which he hasn’t really shown to this point), and he meets you in the middle. You get him for your 4-6 years at just under 40m$. That means you will be paying 2 QBs a combined 80m$ over the next 3 years, and 60m$ in 2025. Literally impossible is the closest terminology to properly explaining this hypothesis.