Dak is out, but we in the Fields of play- Dallas Cowboys 2020 season thread

Dwight Howard

Superstar
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
20,551
Reputation
-3,540
Daps
57,809
Reppin
NULL
If the FO isn't sure about Dak then why would they push for a longer deal? Seems like a 3-4 year deal would be the best option for a guy you're not quite sure about.
Front office seem to rely on re-structuring long-term deals , which they usually do well on. Not many cases of them doing players dirty in that aspect. But if you're dak's agent you're not tryna hear that. Thus this whole negotiation.
 

Surreal

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
27,916
Reputation
1,686
Daps
63,408
Reppin
NULL
What do you brehs really think is going on with Dak’s contract :patrice:


Something just doesnt seem right:jbhmm:

Up front money. Everything else is whatever

Dak agent would want a 3/4 year with 60+ guaranteed.
Boyz not guaranteeing that much for 3/4 years. They would rather a 7/8 year deal that they could continue to restructure on hopes of signing more FAs in the future. Now the deals in 3/4 years will look like chump change due to revenues going up every year. Watch Mahomes and Lamar contracts. Hell even Baker in a couple years.
It's really not about Dak at this point. But Dak and his agent would be foolish to sign a long term deal now. Dallas should just rescind the franchise tag and let Dak walk cause no one wins in this situation. Shoulda been signed 2 years ago
 

Codeine Bryant

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
11,549
Reputation
3,230
Daps
45,567
Reppin
DFW
If the FO isn't sure about Dak then why would they push for a longer deal? Seems like a 3-4 year deal would be the best option for a guy you're not quite sure about.
Because it’s cheaper in the long run. You can lock in a QB for 5 years at the market price TODAY.

As opposed to signing him for 3/4 years and then having to give him considerably more annual money for his next deal.

These contracts always have outs after the first 2-3 years anyways. So getting Dak to sign a 5 year deal at 35mil per is better than signing him to a 3yr deal and then he turns around and asks for 45mil per in 3 years when that’s the market value at that time.

It sounds counterintuitive that you would want to lock in a guy for more years when you’re unsure about committing to him, but it can save you tens of millions in the long run and you always have an out with these NFL deals anyways with the guaranteed money always being frontloaded
 

Ghpstface

Kanye West fan
Joined
Nov 2, 2012
Messages
7,863
Reputation
1,505
Daps
21,803
Reppin
Ice Cream Castle
Because it’s cheaper in the long run. You can lock in a QB for 5 years at the market price TODAY.

As opposed to signing him for 3/4 years and then having to give him considerably more annual money for his next deal.

These contracts always have outs after the first 2-3 years anyways. So getting Dak to sign a 5 year deal at 35mil per is better than signing him to a 3yr deal and then he turns around and asks for 45mil per in 3 years when that’s the market value at that time.

It sounds counterintuitive that you would want to lock in a guy for more years when you’re unsure about committing to him, but it can save you tens of millions in the long run and you always have an out with these NFL deals anyways with the guaranteed money always being frontloaded
Ok I gotcha that makes sense.
 

BlueHeffner

Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
24,711
Reputation
6,301
Daps
101,556
From what I read and heard it’s not a money issue, it’s about how long the contract is. Dak wants a shorter contract.
Shorter deal = bigger cap hit

Cousins 3 year fully guaranteed deal he signed in 18, had cap hits of 24m, 29m, and 31m.

They know Dak needs a great team around him, so they want a longer deal to lower his cap
Hit AND like @Codeine Bryant said, have whats considered a bargain once Mahomes signs for $45m
 

L. Deezy

Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
37,721
Reputation
4,500
Daps
83,665
Because it’s cheaper in the long run. You can lock in a QB for 5 years at the market price TODAY.

As opposed to signing him for 3/4 years and then having to give him considerably more annual money for his next deal.

These contracts always have outs after the first 2-3 years anyways. So getting Dak to sign a 5 year deal at 35mil per is better than signing him to a 3yr deal and then he turns around and asks for 45mil per in 3 years when that’s the market value at that time.

It sounds counterintuitive that you would want to lock in a guy for more years when you’re unsure about committing to him, but it can save you tens of millions in the long run and you always have an out with these NFL deals anyways with the guaranteed money always being frontloaded


Good breakdown
 

Ethnic Vagina Finder

The Great Paper Chaser
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
54,546
Reputation
2,550
Daps
154,412
Reppin
North Jersey but I miss Cali :sadcam:
People keep comparing Romo's deals to Dak shouldn't do that.

For one Romo was never the highest paid player in the NFL. Not even top 5 which is what Dak is looking for. Dallas is already willing to make him the highest paid Cowboy ever.

Dak's agent is trying to set the market plain and simple.

People forget that last year Dak said out of his own mouth that He needed to earn the right to be the highest paid player by winning a super bowl.

A shorter deal would give him the opportunity :manny:

Dallas fukked up by low balling early on. They should've offered the best and final in the beginning. They gave all the leverage to Dak's agent.
 
Top