Still don't know why the Dallas Morning News or Star-Telegram didn't back the truck up and make Bob the #1 sports columnist in the market. This column is a good example why they should have; and also why I am paying for this substack; and why I don't subscribe to the DMN or FWST.
This is too much common sense. If anyone has earned the right to have his contract revisited, it is Zach Martin. The Rangers went all in to win this year. Jerry talks about future contracts. They are important, but taking advantage of the opportunity this year is also important. We need Martin. One of the keys to making good decisions is knowing when the standard rules do not apply.
Also, what about the idea of not negotiating in public? Jerry needs more discipline, not more PR.
Another reminder of why the Cowboys are one of the least successful teams in the playoffs.
Well, you swung me 180°. I went from "Honor your contract, Sir," to "Sturm's right. Pay Martin." Well laid out argument using logic and data. Hmmm. I like it.
Bob, I don’t know if you can stomach looking at The Athletic anymore (I wouldn’t blame you at all if you couldn’t,) but I couldn’t believe the trolls when the story broke on Martin’s holdout last week.
One commenter in particular seemed stuck on the idea that “he signed the contract so he should honor it” in a series of back and forth (at least he wasn’t hostile, just adamant), I made many of the same points you just did. I wasn’t positive about how much of his money was guaranteed, but stated that it probably wasn’t much if any. I also pointed out the limited length of his career, that the money he’s losing out on couldn’t be made up on the next contract if he decides to continue playing and how Jerry’s finances are limited only by his lifespan.
Even after all that he could only answer simply that he signed the contract, so he should honor it as a rebuttal. Some people (like the Dak haters) will refuse to even moderate their opinion when confronted with overwhelming evidence they are wrong. There’s no fixing stupid...or stubborn.
I can't believe he brought up Parsons, LOL... Even if they do extend Parsons early next summer, with the way they usually structure contracts his big cap hits aren't even going to kick in until when? 2026 or 27? His complete mismanagement of his QB1 salary situation and the fact he has them over a barrel as a result would have been a more valid excuse.
I have no idea what Martin is asking for, but I don't recall this Owner/GM calling out an otherwise quiet, very professional, HOF calibur player in public like he has Zack.
Between Jerry publicly stating he wanted Johnny Football instead & sharing that he felt taking Martin was "Choosing to go 8-8" right after the guy becomes a 1st round pick and this latest Public pushback.... it's a different approach by Jerry than what he typically takes, and weird.
Personally, I don’t think fans side with the billionaire who owns the team because they can’t relate to athletes making huge money.
A Dallas Cowboys fan is a fan of the Dallas Cowboys team and they want what is best for the team at all times, so to them, a player looks selfish for trying to get more money from the team. Those who know how this league (and the world) works, know 3 basic facts about the NFL:
1) Players don’t ultimately get paid by the team. They get paid by the owner of the team and whatever money the players don’t take, the owner gets to keep.
2) The salary cap benefits the owners, not the players.
3) The Commissioner of the NFL is their to represent and protect the interests of the owners.
That’s why I don’t think the fans necessarily side with the billionaire owners in these standoffs. I think they’re ignorant to the business of the league and how it really works.
I think more fans, at least in Texas, side with the owner. Right-to-work laws and a general distrust of unions locally explain the attitude that the players union is controlling the purse strings and even the lowest compensated player is over paid. Many of the players make as much or more in one year than most of us will earn in our lifetimes. Add in the political climate where politicians espouse the belief that corporations are there to benevolently take care of their employees and that seeking higher pay or benefits would cripple any chance of making a profit. The truth is that the players union has done a poor job of negotiating contracts, albeit they have to negotiate from a position of inherent weakness. Not only have the owners gotten fabulously wealthy (see Jerry’s party bus, helicopter and yacht) but the union has never gone after the big payday in the owners’ appreciation of club value. Jerry paid what, $260 million for the Cowboys, and now the team is worth nearly $10 billion? It’s just hard for most fans to really grasp that much money, that there’s really that much difference between a million dollars and a billion. Until they do, don’t expect a change in attitude.
100% nailed it. If this was MLB or the NBA with fully guaranteed contracts I’d say the player has to honor the deal both sides agreed to. But in the NFL everyone knows that teams will cut a player as soon as he underperforms, so why isn’t it fair for them to ask for more when they drastically overperform?
I have to disagree, and not from any loyalty or favoritism towards Jerry. But there is a CAP in the NFL and there is a reason they don't do fully guaranteed contracts (unless you're the Browns). The NFLPA agreed to the current salary structure and they need to live with it.
Jerry is right, Zack has been paid top of the market throughout his career. He is now 33. You pay players for what they will do going forward, not past performance. Zack is likely to start seeing a decline in his performance due to natural aging.
The Boys have lots of upcoming contractual issues to deal with (Lamb, Parsons, Prescott). There is only so much pie to go around. While it is partially true that in the NFL that players get cut as soon as they underperform, the real truth is they don't usually get let go until the guaranteed portion of their contract is paid out.
It is rare that you see players give back money from their contract when they underperform, why should we expect the Owners to redo their deals when they play to or above their contract?
Truly hate these answers. Just like Jerry....if you can't distinguish between how you treat a no-doubt, first-ballot HOFer still producing at HOF level and your avg NFL player I can't help you.
Whatever portion of "pie" you save by hardballing Martin....isn't worth the affects it has on Martin, other players, overall team chemistry and player agents.
Imagine you're an agent. Next time Jerry comes to you saying they can't guarantee some future money bc blahblahblah you think the agent or the player is going to be willing to help?
There's a big picture that outweighs the zero sum cap game and failing to acknowledge that bigger picture is the path of losing orgs.
So Jerry should just cave and give Martin more? As he said, Martin has been paid top of the market his whole career. Martin sees the reality that he has maybe a couple more high quality years left.
To date Martin has been paid $74.8M with another with another $27.5M due over the next two years. At best, I would guarantee the final two years but not increase his pay.
At 33 years old, is he really going to hold out and miss out on his salary this year? He will still be under contract for two years with Dallas and another year older if he sat out.
I guess I can say I truly hate answers that always favor the player over the owner simply because owner is a billionaire. The NFLPA agreed to the current salary cap structure. If they didn't like they should have held out for a better deal.
The point is it almost never favors the player. How do you figure it always favors the player? But once in a while, it does. This is that case, imo. There is no "They" when we are talking Zack Martin. That is the overall point of this entire column.
Bob, first of all I love your work! I cancelled my Athlectic subscription when they cut you loose. You were the only reason I signed up with them. I am a life long Cowboy fan and no one compares to the insight you provide on the team.
The point I'm trying to make, maybe poorly, is that it doesn't favor anyone, including the owner. There is a finite pie of which it needs to be spread around in such a way as to put the best team on the field as possible.
The Cowboys have drafted well and secured talent throughout the roster making what appears to be the best overall roster in quite some time. As ownership does their planning for upcoming contracts they need to be able to feel confident that the players they have under contract will be there for the duration.
I love Martin as a player and all that he has contributed to the team over the years. But the Cowboys should not renegotiate his contract and give him more as it takes away from your next HoF and much younger Micah Parsons and Cedee Lamb.
What you don’t seem willing to consider is that the players’ earning potential I limited by how long their body can hold out and how long their mind can hold out. The owners can continue (or their family) in perpetuity. Jerry’s excuse that he has to pay Parsons and others doesn’t take into account the fact that he will backload their contracts with signing bonuses every year just as he has done with Martin, and the impact on the even higher cap next year will be negligible. What Martin should threaten to do is retire so all that money that’s been rolled forward makes a hit against this year’s cap. Suddenly Jerry has a problem that makes a raise with an extension much more palatable. This may truly Martin’s only chance at using effective leverage. Incurring a $50,000 a day fine for every day of his holdout just increases Jerry’s leverage. Why the NFLPA agreed to that, I will never understand. Dee Smith talks tough, but he folded like a cheap sear sucker suit.
The problem here is they are going to wind up doing it. They act cheap; they stall; they end up doing it and it costs, either in opportunity costs-such as players holding out and not being in camp, or in actual dollars-delays meant paying Dak more rather than less.
This is such a no brainer. Hard to figure why Jerrah playing hardball now and with this player. Not a good look for someone who really cares how he looks. The guy may have completely lost his mind here.
As usual Jerry should have handled this better but you can read the frustration in his response to the question. He's right that Martin has been paid at the top of the market throughout his career. One reader here stated around $75 million to date. Frankly, I probably would have a similar frustration/blurtation as Jerry. However, probably Martin has a great big old cap hit coming up that Jerry could smooth out with a pay bump, extra couple years, and nice guarantee for Martin that would work out for everybody. Always count to 10 before you blurt and if you still want to blurt count to 10 again.
It's astound that a person (jerry) and and org that are so successful in business can be this stupid when negotiating with players.
Extend Zeke despite having two more controllable years? Absolutely!
Extend Jaylen Smith despite only a single season of quality play and an inability to change directions? Let's do it!
Get ahead of escalating salaries to pay your woefully under compensated starting QB and thus keep his longterm costs down? Nope - gonna play hardball, back ourselves into a corner and end up paying the absolute max.
Keep your All World player (on the field, in the lockerroom and off the field) happy by supplementing his long term deal to keep him up to date with the best players? Nope! Instead rip him in public and accuse him of potentially preventing you from signing other superstars.
Only a dysfunctional owner could be responsible for all four of these things and that's our Jerry. Things have gotten better over the years, but Jerry (and Stephen's) love of hearing themselves talk to microphones creates endless challenges for the club that simply wouldn't exist if they just kept their damn mouths shut.
"Get ahead of escalating salaries to pay your woefully under compensated starting QB and thus keep his longterm costs down?"
Yeah, that parts actually not true. Jerry did offer Dak fair market value $$$ back then, Dak just didn't want the extra years. The money was right though. Dak decided to play it forward and bet on himself. Nothing wrong with that but you can't blame Jerry and you can't force Dak to sign. It does, as they say, take two to tango. TBH, Dak hasn't lived up to what he's paid now, so the notion he was ever 'woefully under compensated" rings a little hollow as well.
Being an immediate starter as a fourth round draft pick means Dak played his first four years “woefully undercompensated.” If Jerry had started working on an extension for Dak as soon as he was eligible, he could have probably signed him for around $30 million a year. Instead he waited until quarterback pay was escalating rapidly and had to pay him the going rate of $40 million.
Jerry has had a knack for jumping to play the wrong players early ( see Smith, Jaylon and Elliot, Ezekiel) then playing hardball with players like Prescott who deserved to be paid until their price skyrocketed.
I'm right there with you on that hill. Jason Garrett should have insisted the QB1 job goes back to the starter when he's healthy. I agree the Cowboys missed a huge opportunity for a deep playoff run.
"Jerry did offer Dak fair market value $$$ back then, Dak just didn't want the extra years. The money was right though"
I read things like this all the time...where people who had no involvement in negotiations seems to know what those negotiations involved. Did you read it from a journalist? Who told the journalist? Maybe the person talking to the journalist has an agenda and he told the journalist isn't true?
Fact is, unless we were there no one knows what the Cowboys offered Dak (meaning I'm equally guilty). What we do know is they didn't get it done. And in retrospect it's clear that not getting it done was a failure and then getting only a four year deal is going to look like a failure as well.
Sorry, I don't have citations to provide, Brofessor. I remember reading it enough times from enough sources that I formed that opinion. You seem awful testy though.
Again, you cannot make Dak sign the deal. He is being paid quite handsomely now. Dallas needs him but, imo, Dak needs Dallas every bit as much. This season is it for him. He has no more excuses in the eyes of most of the fanbase. This, too, has been written about by many up to this point.
If you read anything, what you read was what either the owner of the Cowboys or the agent of a player told a reporter. That's the only way reporters get their info. Because is was reported...and reports were repeated...doesn't make it true.
Similarly, if "most of the fanbase" thinks Dak has no more excuses and is going to be shipped out without a Super Bowl...well, I'd suggest you stop listening to whoever you're paying attention to because they're either lying or uninformed.
If I remember the sequence correctly, the reports I heard was that Jerry refused to negotiate the first year he contractually could, after Dak’s third year. QB contracts then were just starting to inch over $30 million. Whether Dak’s agents would have negotiated them is something only they and Dak know, but it certainly seems Jerry was being penny wise and pound foolish not to try at that point. Jerry didn’t start working on a contract until he had no choice but to franchise tag Dak, still stating he wanted him to prove himself as a franchise quarterback. QB salaries were still heading up, then Mahomes signed his 10-year, $500 million contract that blew up the highest level of quarterback compensation. So Jerry was stuck having to pay Dak $40 million a year, with only a four year extension that was timed to get Dak his next contract after the new TV deal kicked in, raising the cap even further.
So it’s quite possible Jerry could have saved around $10 million a year toward the cap that would have given him room to renegotiate Martin’s deal to market value. Then he wouldn’t be having to play hardball now at a time when the team otherwise seems to be all in on making a Super Bowl run. Jerry, Jerry, Jerry! SMH!
It will always be Jerry’s fault when no one has all the accurate details. He’s earned that rep many times over. I just recall Dak’s camp remaining firm on the extra year(s) that Dallas wanted tacked on. Back then I was still fresh off the angst of them not allowing Romo one last shot at greatness after getting healthy. I will die believing he would have run the gauntlet and won a SB. So I may be jaded in my memory.
I do agree though with Mr. Sturm here that Dak is certainly of the caliber to win. He’s not a creator like Romo but his troops believe in him and he has command of the team. They just need what every team needs in the postseason - for the ball to bounce their way more than not.
The Cowboys definitely have had their share of bad luck: Romo’s fumbled snap against Seattle when the Boys were clearly the superior team, the 2014 and 2016 flukes against Green Bay, the clock running out against the 49ers. And of course there was the 2011 team entering the playoffs as the NFC’s top seed, only to see their aging O-line exposed against the Giants NASCAR defense. And I’ve always believed they would have won four titles in a row if Jerry and Jimmy could have just controlled their egos.
Maybe Jerry made a Faustian bargain with the Devil to get those Super Bowl wins in the 90s in exchange for 30 years of bad luck. It would explain a lot since several teams have been good enough to make the NFC title game, if not the Super Bowl...with a little luck.
Still don't know why the Dallas Morning News or Star-Telegram didn't back the truck up and make Bob the #1 sports columnist in the market. This column is a good example why they should have; and also why I am paying for this substack; and why I don't subscribe to the DMN or FWST.
I'm glad they don't - because I don't want to subscribe to get past their paywalls!
It’s too bad we can’t re-do Jerry’s contract. He has been paid a LOT of money and hasn’t delivered many playoff wins.
Hehe
Something something more Pro Bowls than holding penalties.
Sure thing, Jerry. In terms of PR value, why don't you just dig up Tom Landry and fire him all over again.
PAY HIM! PAY THAT MAN HIS MONEY!
This is too much common sense. If anyone has earned the right to have his contract revisited, it is Zach Martin. The Rangers went all in to win this year. Jerry talks about future contracts. They are important, but taking advantage of the opportunity this year is also important. We need Martin. One of the keys to making good decisions is knowing when the standard rules do not apply.
Also, what about the idea of not negotiating in public? Jerry needs more discipline, not more PR.
Another reminder of why the Cowboys are one of the least successful teams in the playoffs.
Well, you swung me 180°. I went from "Honor your contract, Sir," to "Sturm's right. Pay Martin." Well laid out argument using logic and data. Hmmm. I like it.
Bob, I don’t know if you can stomach looking at The Athletic anymore (I wouldn’t blame you at all if you couldn’t,) but I couldn’t believe the trolls when the story broke on Martin’s holdout last week.
One commenter in particular seemed stuck on the idea that “he signed the contract so he should honor it” in a series of back and forth (at least he wasn’t hostile, just adamant), I made many of the same points you just did. I wasn’t positive about how much of his money was guaranteed, but stated that it probably wasn’t much if any. I also pointed out the limited length of his career, that the money he’s losing out on couldn’t be made up on the next contract if he decides to continue playing and how Jerry’s finances are limited only by his lifespan.
Even after all that he could only answer simply that he signed the contract, so he should honor it as a rebuttal. Some people (like the Dak haters) will refuse to even moderate their opinion when confronted with overwhelming evidence they are wrong. There’s no fixing stupid...or stubborn.
So good to have you back.
I can't believe he brought up Parsons, LOL... Even if they do extend Parsons early next summer, with the way they usually structure contracts his big cap hits aren't even going to kick in until when? 2026 or 27? His complete mismanagement of his QB1 salary situation and the fact he has them over a barrel as a result would have been a more valid excuse.
I have no idea what Martin is asking for, but I don't recall this Owner/GM calling out an otherwise quiet, very professional, HOF calibur player in public like he has Zack.
Between Jerry publicly stating he wanted Johnny Football instead & sharing that he felt taking Martin was "Choosing to go 8-8" right after the guy becomes a 1st round pick and this latest Public pushback.... it's a different approach by Jerry than what he typically takes, and weird.
Personally, I don’t think fans side with the billionaire who owns the team because they can’t relate to athletes making huge money.
A Dallas Cowboys fan is a fan of the Dallas Cowboys team and they want what is best for the team at all times, so to them, a player looks selfish for trying to get more money from the team. Those who know how this league (and the world) works, know 3 basic facts about the NFL:
1) Players don’t ultimately get paid by the team. They get paid by the owner of the team and whatever money the players don’t take, the owner gets to keep.
2) The salary cap benefits the owners, not the players.
3) The Commissioner of the NFL is their to represent and protect the interests of the owners.
That’s why I don’t think the fans necessarily side with the billionaire owners in these standoffs. I think they’re ignorant to the business of the league and how it really works.
I think more fans, at least in Texas, side with the owner. Right-to-work laws and a general distrust of unions locally explain the attitude that the players union is controlling the purse strings and even the lowest compensated player is over paid. Many of the players make as much or more in one year than most of us will earn in our lifetimes. Add in the political climate where politicians espouse the belief that corporations are there to benevolently take care of their employees and that seeking higher pay or benefits would cripple any chance of making a profit. The truth is that the players union has done a poor job of negotiating contracts, albeit they have to negotiate from a position of inherent weakness. Not only have the owners gotten fabulously wealthy (see Jerry’s party bus, helicopter and yacht) but the union has never gone after the big payday in the owners’ appreciation of club value. Jerry paid what, $260 million for the Cowboys, and now the team is worth nearly $10 billion? It’s just hard for most fans to really grasp that much money, that there’s really that much difference between a million dollars and a billion. Until they do, don’t expect a change in attitude.
Wess
just now
I agree, I don't think that most fans are really 'siding with the owners' as much as they are conscious of cap space.
The thinking is that any extra money given to one player will reduce the space available to retain other players and acquire free agents.
Thanks for writing this and explaining. I’ve always been an “honor your contract” person, but you convinced me. I’m with Dak now. “Pay the man.”
100% nailed it. If this was MLB or the NBA with fully guaranteed contracts I’d say the player has to honor the deal both sides agreed to. But in the NFL everyone knows that teams will cut a player as soon as he underperforms, so why isn’t it fair for them to ask for more when they drastically overperform?
I have to disagree, and not from any loyalty or favoritism towards Jerry. But there is a CAP in the NFL and there is a reason they don't do fully guaranteed contracts (unless you're the Browns). The NFLPA agreed to the current salary structure and they need to live with it.
Jerry is right, Zack has been paid top of the market throughout his career. He is now 33. You pay players for what they will do going forward, not past performance. Zack is likely to start seeing a decline in his performance due to natural aging.
The Boys have lots of upcoming contractual issues to deal with (Lamb, Parsons, Prescott). There is only so much pie to go around. While it is partially true that in the NFL that players get cut as soon as they underperform, the real truth is they don't usually get let go until the guaranteed portion of their contract is paid out.
It is rare that you see players give back money from their contract when they underperform, why should we expect the Owners to redo their deals when they play to or above their contract?
Truly hate these answers. Just like Jerry....if you can't distinguish between how you treat a no-doubt, first-ballot HOFer still producing at HOF level and your avg NFL player I can't help you.
Whatever portion of "pie" you save by hardballing Martin....isn't worth the affects it has on Martin, other players, overall team chemistry and player agents.
Imagine you're an agent. Next time Jerry comes to you saying they can't guarantee some future money bc blahblahblah you think the agent or the player is going to be willing to help?
There's a big picture that outweighs the zero sum cap game and failing to acknowledge that bigger picture is the path of losing orgs.
So Jerry should just cave and give Martin more? As he said, Martin has been paid top of the market his whole career. Martin sees the reality that he has maybe a couple more high quality years left.
To date Martin has been paid $74.8M with another with another $27.5M due over the next two years. At best, I would guarantee the final two years but not increase his pay.
At 33 years old, is he really going to hold out and miss out on his salary this year? He will still be under contract for two years with Dallas and another year older if he sat out.
I guess I can say I truly hate answers that always favor the player over the owner simply because owner is a billionaire. The NFLPA agreed to the current salary cap structure. If they didn't like they should have held out for a better deal.
The point is it almost never favors the player. How do you figure it always favors the player? But once in a while, it does. This is that case, imo. There is no "They" when we are talking Zack Martin. That is the overall point of this entire column.
Bob, first of all I love your work! I cancelled my Athlectic subscription when they cut you loose. You were the only reason I signed up with them. I am a life long Cowboy fan and no one compares to the insight you provide on the team.
The point I'm trying to make, maybe poorly, is that it doesn't favor anyone, including the owner. There is a finite pie of which it needs to be spread around in such a way as to put the best team on the field as possible.
The Cowboys have drafted well and secured talent throughout the roster making what appears to be the best overall roster in quite some time. As ownership does their planning for upcoming contracts they need to be able to feel confident that the players they have under contract will be there for the duration.
I love Martin as a player and all that he has contributed to the team over the years. But the Cowboys should not renegotiate his contract and give him more as it takes away from your next HoF and much younger Micah Parsons and Cedee Lamb.
What you don’t seem willing to consider is that the players’ earning potential I limited by how long their body can hold out and how long their mind can hold out. The owners can continue (or their family) in perpetuity. Jerry’s excuse that he has to pay Parsons and others doesn’t take into account the fact that he will backload their contracts with signing bonuses every year just as he has done with Martin, and the impact on the even higher cap next year will be negligible. What Martin should threaten to do is retire so all that money that’s been rolled forward makes a hit against this year’s cap. Suddenly Jerry has a problem that makes a raise with an extension much more palatable. This may truly Martin’s only chance at using effective leverage. Incurring a $50,000 a day fine for every day of his holdout just increases Jerry’s leverage. Why the NFLPA agreed to that, I will never understand. Dee Smith talks tough, but he folded like a cheap sear sucker suit.
The problem here is they are going to wind up doing it. They act cheap; they stall; they end up doing it and it costs, either in opportunity costs-such as players holding out and not being in camp, or in actual dollars-delays meant paying Dak more rather than less.
This is such a no brainer. Hard to figure why Jerrah playing hardball now and with this player. Not a good look for someone who really cares how he looks. The guy may have completely lost his mind here.
When are we signing CD btw?
Let’s get these deals done asap!
As usual Jerry should have handled this better but you can read the frustration in his response to the question. He's right that Martin has been paid at the top of the market throughout his career. One reader here stated around $75 million to date. Frankly, I probably would have a similar frustration/blurtation as Jerry. However, probably Martin has a great big old cap hit coming up that Jerry could smooth out with a pay bump, extra couple years, and nice guarantee for Martin that would work out for everybody. Always count to 10 before you blurt and if you still want to blurt count to 10 again.
Thanks Bob. Great article.
It's astound that a person (jerry) and and org that are so successful in business can be this stupid when negotiating with players.
Extend Zeke despite having two more controllable years? Absolutely!
Extend Jaylen Smith despite only a single season of quality play and an inability to change directions? Let's do it!
Get ahead of escalating salaries to pay your woefully under compensated starting QB and thus keep his longterm costs down? Nope - gonna play hardball, back ourselves into a corner and end up paying the absolute max.
Keep your All World player (on the field, in the lockerroom and off the field) happy by supplementing his long term deal to keep him up to date with the best players? Nope! Instead rip him in public and accuse him of potentially preventing you from signing other superstars.
Only a dysfunctional owner could be responsible for all four of these things and that's our Jerry. Things have gotten better over the years, but Jerry (and Stephen's) love of hearing themselves talk to microphones creates endless challenges for the club that simply wouldn't exist if they just kept their damn mouths shut.
"Get ahead of escalating salaries to pay your woefully under compensated starting QB and thus keep his longterm costs down?"
Yeah, that parts actually not true. Jerry did offer Dak fair market value $$$ back then, Dak just didn't want the extra years. The money was right though. Dak decided to play it forward and bet on himself. Nothing wrong with that but you can't blame Jerry and you can't force Dak to sign. It does, as they say, take two to tango. TBH, Dak hasn't lived up to what he's paid now, so the notion he was ever 'woefully under compensated" rings a little hollow as well.
Being an immediate starter as a fourth round draft pick means Dak played his first four years “woefully undercompensated.” If Jerry had started working on an extension for Dak as soon as he was eligible, he could have probably signed him for around $30 million a year. Instead he waited until quarterback pay was escalating rapidly and had to pay him the going rate of $40 million.
Jerry has had a knack for jumping to play the wrong players early ( see Smith, Jaylon and Elliot, Ezekiel) then playing hardball with players like Prescott who deserved to be paid until their price skyrocketed.
Tell me again, how did Dak get the starting gig?
Romo should have been handed back the reigns and Dallas would be shining trophy #6.
I will die on this hill.
I'm right there with you on that hill. Jason Garrett should have insisted the QB1 job goes back to the starter when he's healthy. I agree the Cowboys missed a huge opportunity for a deep playoff run.
"Jerry did offer Dak fair market value $$$ back then, Dak just didn't want the extra years. The money was right though"
I read things like this all the time...where people who had no involvement in negotiations seems to know what those negotiations involved. Did you read it from a journalist? Who told the journalist? Maybe the person talking to the journalist has an agenda and he told the journalist isn't true?
Fact is, unless we were there no one knows what the Cowboys offered Dak (meaning I'm equally guilty). What we do know is they didn't get it done. And in retrospect it's clear that not getting it done was a failure and then getting only a four year deal is going to look like a failure as well.
Sorry, I don't have citations to provide, Brofessor. I remember reading it enough times from enough sources that I formed that opinion. You seem awful testy though.
Again, you cannot make Dak sign the deal. He is being paid quite handsomely now. Dallas needs him but, imo, Dak needs Dallas every bit as much. This season is it for him. He has no more excuses in the eyes of most of the fanbase. This, too, has been written about by many up to this point.
If you read anything, what you read was what either the owner of the Cowboys or the agent of a player told a reporter. That's the only way reporters get their info. Because is was reported...and reports were repeated...doesn't make it true.
Similarly, if "most of the fanbase" thinks Dak has no more excuses and is going to be shipped out without a Super Bowl...well, I'd suggest you stop listening to whoever you're paying attention to because they're either lying or uninformed.
Holy cow. Did you just call me a liar because you disagree with an opinion I have about a QB?
Get a life, dude. This message board stuff has you on full tilt.
What are you talking about? I didn't say you were a liar in any way shape or form; you're the one taking this waaaay too seriously.
If I remember the sequence correctly, the reports I heard was that Jerry refused to negotiate the first year he contractually could, after Dak’s third year. QB contracts then were just starting to inch over $30 million. Whether Dak’s agents would have negotiated them is something only they and Dak know, but it certainly seems Jerry was being penny wise and pound foolish not to try at that point. Jerry didn’t start working on a contract until he had no choice but to franchise tag Dak, still stating he wanted him to prove himself as a franchise quarterback. QB salaries were still heading up, then Mahomes signed his 10-year, $500 million contract that blew up the highest level of quarterback compensation. So Jerry was stuck having to pay Dak $40 million a year, with only a four year extension that was timed to get Dak his next contract after the new TV deal kicked in, raising the cap even further.
So it’s quite possible Jerry could have saved around $10 million a year toward the cap that would have given him room to renegotiate Martin’s deal to market value. Then he wouldn’t be having to play hardball now at a time when the team otherwise seems to be all in on making a Super Bowl run. Jerry, Jerry, Jerry! SMH!
It will always be Jerry’s fault when no one has all the accurate details. He’s earned that rep many times over. I just recall Dak’s camp remaining firm on the extra year(s) that Dallas wanted tacked on. Back then I was still fresh off the angst of them not allowing Romo one last shot at greatness after getting healthy. I will die believing he would have run the gauntlet and won a SB. So I may be jaded in my memory.
I do agree though with Mr. Sturm here that Dak is certainly of the caliber to win. He’s not a creator like Romo but his troops believe in him and he has command of the team. They just need what every team needs in the postseason - for the ball to bounce their way more than not.
The Cowboys definitely have had their share of bad luck: Romo’s fumbled snap against Seattle when the Boys were clearly the superior team, the 2014 and 2016 flukes against Green Bay, the clock running out against the 49ers. And of course there was the 2011 team entering the playoffs as the NFC’s top seed, only to see their aging O-line exposed against the Giants NASCAR defense. And I’ve always believed they would have won four titles in a row if Jerry and Jimmy could have just controlled their egos.
Maybe Jerry made a Faustian bargain with the Devil to get those Super Bowl wins in the 90s in exchange for 30 years of bad luck. It would explain a lot since several teams have been good enough to make the NFC title game, if not the Super Bowl...with a little luck.
Thank you for explaining. I knew Jerry was being Jerry, but I didn’t know why.
What was that old Jimmy Johnson philosophy about not treating Troy airman the same way you would second-string LB?