- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 122,557
[h=1]What would Cowboys get in Lawrence trade? It better be Ed Oliver[/h] ByMIKE FISHER 5 hours ago
FRISCO - My 105,3 The Fan colleague Bryan Broaddus of DallasCowboys.com is spitballing the idea of trading DeMarcus Lawrence. His reasoning is sound, and isn't at all a denigration of the player; actually, Broaddus, himself a former NFL executive and scout, is chastising the Cowboys a bit for contributing to this contractual stalemate by not finding a way to get a deal done.
So, why trade Tank? If this dispute continues on into the spring and summer, it brings a dark cloud with it. It will be a flirtation with dissent in the building and in the locker room. It will, in my opinion, be a betrayal of the Cowboys' own "We Take Care Of Our Stars'' policy.
And of course, no deal means the team is robbed of the talents of one of its finest players.
None of this is to say that I can pinpoint a villain here. Is one side's proposal too low? Is the other's too high? I know that Cowboys management felt it was making progress in talks with agent David Canter back at the NFL Scouting Combine, and I've reported on Tank showing up to Captains Workouts, a nice show of good faith (or at least locker-room unity). But what if the Cowboys and DeMarcus Lawrence continue to fail to reach an agreement on a long-term contract ... and the NFL Draft approaches, and Dallas decides they are willing to trade Lawrence?
Broaddus' initial proposal is that Dallas call the Indianapolis Colts and try to acquire picks No. 26 (end of the first round) and No. 59 (end of the second). Why the Colts? Among other things, Indy's defense is run by Matt Eberflus, who is surely a Tank admirer. Also, Indy has ample cap room, all the better to help make Lawrence a $100-million man. (You can hear audio of a recent DallasCowboys.com segment here at 44:15.)
Broaddus has recently backed off the notion that Dallas "could even get a first-rounder'' in trade, but let's stick with the original idea first. If I'm Dallas, and I am truly committed to "2019 urgency'' as owner Jerry Jones swears is the case, I simply cannot trade a 26-year old Pro Bowl defensive end who might very well be the best player on my team (in a conversation with Ezekiel Elliott and Zack Martin) for a pair of picks that will likely not help my "2019 urgency.'' Pick at the end of the first and second rounds and you'll surely get good prospects with hopefully bright futures. But the likelihood that one of them ever becomes a Tank Lawrence? Slight. The likelihood that he becomes the equivalent of Tank Lawrence immediately?
Close to zero.
A Broaddus update notes that the Colts value their picks too much to do a deal like this, and I think that's always going to be an obstacle, especially as the April Draft nears. Teams traditionally fall in love with "the next big thing,'' especially when it comes to the "existing thing'' coming at a cost of $100 million-plus.
In the end, nobody knows Lawrence's value better than the Cowboys do, and nobody values him more than the Cowboys do, either. If they are serious about winning in 2019 -- and I know they are -- then they should value Tank's recent Captains Workouts gesture, they should try to bury the hatchet with agent Canter (the relationship isn't a great one) and they should be willing to nudge from whatever place it is that they've always budgeted to retain this player ... because the massive cap room they carved out for this spring was largely part of the plan to retain him.
Yes, it's a problem if Dallas insists on a deal with Tank along the lines of the way Dee Ford; he's not signing that anytime soon. And yes, if Tank wants to be paid like Khalil Mack, we've got the same level of problem on the other end of the teeter-totter. And if nobody budges? Fine. Find me a trade that allows the "2019 urgency'' to remain intact. Find me an asset I can get in return that keeps the Cowboys in play as an NFC East favorite.
And what does that trade look like? In my mind's eye ... It looks like Ed Oliver.
It's becoming a "loud secret'' that here inside The Star in Frisco, when Will McClay and the scouting staff and the coaching staff are done with their Big Board input, Oliver, the Houston defensive tackle, is going to rank very, very high. Quinnen Williams of Alabama probably goes higher than he does. But Oliver is seen by the Cowboys scouting department as a difference-maker. Trading Tank for a couple of "maybes'' is not wise asset management by Dallas. Talking to teams in the top 10 of this draft about trading Tank for a potential Tank-level defensive lineman is. The obstacle there, though, is obvious: If Dallas sees Williams and Oliver as likely Tank-level forces only at a fraction of Lawrence's price, why wouldn't Dallas' potential trade partners see the same thing?
Trading "this Tank'' for "the next Tank'' is a fine theory but one difficult to apply practically. The Cowboys are therefore likely left with the next best approach: Finish carving out the path they've already begun with "this Tank.''
FRISCO - My 105,3 The Fan colleague Bryan Broaddus of DallasCowboys.com is spitballing the idea of trading DeMarcus Lawrence. His reasoning is sound, and isn't at all a denigration of the player; actually, Broaddus, himself a former NFL executive and scout, is chastising the Cowboys a bit for contributing to this contractual stalemate by not finding a way to get a deal done.
So, why trade Tank? If this dispute continues on into the spring and summer, it brings a dark cloud with it. It will be a flirtation with dissent in the building and in the locker room. It will, in my opinion, be a betrayal of the Cowboys' own "We Take Care Of Our Stars'' policy.
And of course, no deal means the team is robbed of the talents of one of its finest players.
None of this is to say that I can pinpoint a villain here. Is one side's proposal too low? Is the other's too high? I know that Cowboys management felt it was making progress in talks with agent David Canter back at the NFL Scouting Combine, and I've reported on Tank showing up to Captains Workouts, a nice show of good faith (or at least locker-room unity). But what if the Cowboys and DeMarcus Lawrence continue to fail to reach an agreement on a long-term contract ... and the NFL Draft approaches, and Dallas decides they are willing to trade Lawrence?
Broaddus' initial proposal is that Dallas call the Indianapolis Colts and try to acquire picks No. 26 (end of the first round) and No. 59 (end of the second). Why the Colts? Among other things, Indy's defense is run by Matt Eberflus, who is surely a Tank admirer. Also, Indy has ample cap room, all the better to help make Lawrence a $100-million man. (You can hear audio of a recent DallasCowboys.com segment here at 44:15.)
Broaddus has recently backed off the notion that Dallas "could even get a first-rounder'' in trade, but let's stick with the original idea first. If I'm Dallas, and I am truly committed to "2019 urgency'' as owner Jerry Jones swears is the case, I simply cannot trade a 26-year old Pro Bowl defensive end who might very well be the best player on my team (in a conversation with Ezekiel Elliott and Zack Martin) for a pair of picks that will likely not help my "2019 urgency.'' Pick at the end of the first and second rounds and you'll surely get good prospects with hopefully bright futures. But the likelihood that one of them ever becomes a Tank Lawrence? Slight. The likelihood that he becomes the equivalent of Tank Lawrence immediately?
Close to zero.
A Broaddus update notes that the Colts value their picks too much to do a deal like this, and I think that's always going to be an obstacle, especially as the April Draft nears. Teams traditionally fall in love with "the next big thing,'' especially when it comes to the "existing thing'' coming at a cost of $100 million-plus.
In the end, nobody knows Lawrence's value better than the Cowboys do, and nobody values him more than the Cowboys do, either. If they are serious about winning in 2019 -- and I know they are -- then they should value Tank's recent Captains Workouts gesture, they should try to bury the hatchet with agent Canter (the relationship isn't a great one) and they should be willing to nudge from whatever place it is that they've always budgeted to retain this player ... because the massive cap room they carved out for this spring was largely part of the plan to retain him.
Yes, it's a problem if Dallas insists on a deal with Tank along the lines of the way Dee Ford; he's not signing that anytime soon. And yes, if Tank wants to be paid like Khalil Mack, we've got the same level of problem on the other end of the teeter-totter. And if nobody budges? Fine. Find me a trade that allows the "2019 urgency'' to remain intact. Find me an asset I can get in return that keeps the Cowboys in play as an NFC East favorite.
And what does that trade look like? In my mind's eye ... It looks like Ed Oliver.
It's becoming a "loud secret'' that here inside The Star in Frisco, when Will McClay and the scouting staff and the coaching staff are done with their Big Board input, Oliver, the Houston defensive tackle, is going to rank very, very high. Quinnen Williams of Alabama probably goes higher than he does. But Oliver is seen by the Cowboys scouting department as a difference-maker. Trading Tank for a couple of "maybes'' is not wise asset management by Dallas. Talking to teams in the top 10 of this draft about trading Tank for a potential Tank-level defensive lineman is. The obstacle there, though, is obvious: If Dallas sees Williams and Oliver as likely Tank-level forces only at a fraction of Lawrence's price, why wouldn't Dallas' potential trade partners see the same thing?
Trading "this Tank'' for "the next Tank'' is a fine theory but one difficult to apply practically. The Cowboys are therefore likely left with the next best approach: Finish carving out the path they've already begun with "this Tank.''
