Dak Prescott turns down record breaking contract.

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

 

 

[AU-panther]

18 hours ago, MMA said:

I’m not talking about having max contracts like the NBA. Teams should just be smart enough to pay a player based of their value instead of overpaying for them. The league itself should find a way to have more control than the players. This next man up attitude is stupid. 

So collusion among the owners? 

That doesn’t work either.  It’s up to individual owners and GMs to decide.  Often Owners are afraid to let players walk, and I think a lot of it has to do is the fact they are afraid of  the backlash from fans.

Does Dallas have the nerve to not pay Dak?  What if he goes elsewhere and wins a Super Bowl? That is harder to explain to your fan base then you overpaying and you not going to the Super Bowl. 

[Sgt Schultz]

4 hours ago, AU-panther said:

So collusion among the owners? 

That doesn’t work either.  It’s up to individual owners and GMs to decide.  Often Owners are afraid to let players walk, and I think a lot of it has to do is the fact they are afraid of  the backlash from fans.

Does Dallas have the nerve to not pay Dak?  What if he goes elsewhere and wins a Super Bowl? That is harder to explain to your fan base then you overpaying and you not going to the Super Bowl. 

I don't think it would be that hard for Cowboys fans to come to terms with.  They chalk anything like that up to "it's Jerruh."  He is a known commodity among their fan base, and even when things look good, they have grown to expect something he does to screw it up.

Pretty good grasp of reality, actually.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Given that the salary cap.is likely going to contract in 2021 they better fit that into their negotiations. 

Yeah, honestly if I'm the Cowboys I'm probably content to simply let Dak play out the season under the tag and see what things look like after all this chaos. If you sign him to a classic NFL backloaded deal right now and the salary cap actually does take a step back due to loss of revenues, you're putting yourself in a really tough spot.

[panthers55]

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, honestly if I'm the Cowboys I'm probably content to simply let Dak play out the season under the tag and see what things look like after all this chaos. If you sign him to a classic NFL backloaded deal right now and the salary cap actually does take a step back due to loss of revenues, you're putting yourself in a really tough spot.

The same thing happened to us in 2010 where everyone thought the cap would go way up with the new CBA and it didn't. We had contracts like Williams which were negotiated with the idea that the cap would keep rising. When it didn't we got into a world of hurt because we guaranteed too much of the money. You can make any contract for any amount and survive it as long as it isn't guaranteed.

[MMA]

2 hours ago, AU-panther said:

So collusion among the owners? 

That doesn’t work either.  It’s up to individual owners and GMs to decide.  Often Owners are afraid to let players walk, and I think a lot of it has to do is the fact they are afraid of  the backlash from fans.

Does Dallas have the nerve to not pay Dak?  What if he goes elsewhere and wins a Super Bowl? That is harder to explain to your fan base then you overpaying and you not going to the Super Bowl. 

That’s dumb. People killed Gruden for trading away Mack for multiple 1st rounders. Hindsight now, that was a smart great move. If Dak was a top 5 QB, you sure as hell pay the man what he wants. He ain’t! 

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, MMA said:

Hindsight now, that was a smart great move.

That's still to be determined. The Bears were a combined 8-24 in the two seasons prior to that trade. They're a combined 20-12 in the two seasons since. The Raiders were a combined 18-14 in the two seasons prior to the trade and they're a combined 11-21 in the two seasons since.

It takes a long time to figure out the "winner" of a trade, especially when that trade involves future picks. It'll be 3-4 years at least before we know the full picture of how all of this situation will pan out. It all ultimately comes down to wins and losses and possible rings. On paper, lots of people felt the Chargers "won" that Eli trade situation but when it all played out the Giants got two rings with Eli and the Chargers got none with Rivers. You can argue that Rivers was better and the Chargers got better players out of the deal with the picks acquired, but two rings >>>>> no rings.

[MMA]

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

That's still to be determined. The Bears were a combined 8-24 in the two seasons prior to that trade. They're a combined 20-12 in the two seasons since. The Raiders were a combined 18-14 in the two seasons prior to the trade and they're a combined 11-21 in the two seasons since.

It takes a long time to figure out the "winner" of a trade, especially when that trade involves future picks. It'll be 3-4 years at least before we know the full picture of how all of this situation will pan out. It all ultimately comes down to wins and losses and possible rings. On paper, lots of people felt the Chargers "won" that Eli trade situation but when it all played out the Giants got two rings with Eli and the Chargers got none with Rivers. You can argue that Rivers was better and the Chargers got better players out of the deal with the picks acquired, but two rings >>>>> no rings.

Exactly. Two years later and both teams have zero ring. Oakland is building a teams with picks from the Mack trade. Chicago is cap strapped. 

[LinvilleGorge]

5 minutes ago, MMA said:

Exactly. Two years later and both teams have zero ring. Oakland is building a teams with picks from the Mack trade. Chicago is cap strapped. 

The Bears have about $11M in cap space. The Raiders have less than $9M.  The Bears have $184M in cap committed to '21 vs. $180M for the Raiders. I don't see a big difference in their cap situations in the short-term. If you look at '22, then the Bears are in a significantly better situation with $122M  committed to the '22 cap vs. $146M for the Raiders. Overall, I'd say the Bears have the stronger roster currently.

[MMA]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The Bears have about $11M in cap space. The Raiders have less than $9M.  The Bears have $184M in cap committed to '21 vs. $180M for the Raiders. I don't see a big difference in their cap situations. Overall, I'd say the Bears have the stronger roster.

Similar cap space but The raiders are adding players with the Bears’ picks. 

[Mr. Scot]

On 5/21/2020 at 5:00 PM, LinvilleGorge said:

I'd be trying to trade him at this point and let someone else deal with this. Dak just isn't that good.

I wouldn't trade for him.

I'd trade my sister for his offensive line though. 

[RASTAN66]

9 hours ago, MMA said:

I support the team to suck for Trevor. I’m looking out for the future of this franchise. Not, supporting garbage on the field stealing fans’ money and time.

Trevor ain’t happening here...

...surely you understand this?

The franchise has been “garbage” (your term) about 70% of the time since inception, surprised you stuck it out. 
 

There is now ample reason for optimism what with the richest/smartest owner who doesn’t spare ANY expense and provides only the very best for his organization/team/players — get on the Tepper Train pal and enjoy the ride!

 

[MMA]

4 minutes ago, RASTAN66 said:

Trevor ain’t happening here...

...surely you understand this?

The franchise has been “garbage” (your term) about 70% of the time since inception, surprised you stuck it out. 
 

There is now ample reason for optimism what with the richest/smartest owner who doesn’t spare ANY expense and provides only the very best for his organization/team/players — get on the Tepper Train pal and enjoy the ride!

 

TREVOR will be a Panther!!! Tepper is a dumb football owner but he ain’t that dumb. 

[RASTAN66]

1 minute ago, MMA said:

TREVOR will be a Panther!!! Tepper is a dumb football owner but he ain’t that dumb. 

The chances of Trevor being a Florida Panther are the same as being a Carolina Panther...

 

...exactly 0.00%.