Donovan McNabb says Cowboys could have ‘major problem’ if they don’t pay Dak Prescott

[p1_]

Former Eagles QB says Dallas needs to pay Prescott before other star quarterbacks get deals.

By Calvin Watkins



2:24 PM on May 12, 2020



The Cowboys currently have placed the exclusive franchise tag on quarterback Dak Prescott and have until July 15 to reach a long-term deal.



If a new contract can’t be obtained with Prescott by then, he will play with a salary of $31.5 million. Of course, the Cowboys could try again in 2021 to come to terms. If the Cowboys and Prescott still fail to reach a deal and he could get franchised again, and get paid $37.6 million.



And that’s when the fun starts -- or the trouble.

Houston’s Deshaun Watson and Kansas City’s Patrick Mahomes are also seeking large contracts within the next year. Watson has held preliminary discussions with the Texans, but nothing has started yet for Mahomes.


Former Eagles and Redskins quarterback Donovan McNabb believes if Watson and Mahomes get new deals before Prescott it could present a problem.


“Pay the man,” McNabb said on the Last Stand Podcast with Showtime’s Brian Custer.


“Pay the man because I’m going to tell you one thing -- (when) you franchise him, say he has half Jameis Winston’s season and y’all make it to the NFC Championship Game or second round of the playoffs. And he passes for 5,000 yards, 35 touchdowns and maybe about 12 to 13 picks. You know how much money he’s going to ask for? You think it’s a problem now. It’s going to be a major problem if Deshaun Watson and Patrick Mahomes sign their contracts.”

 

[boozeman]

WGAS what McNappy says?

 

[ravidubey]

Has this guy ever been right?

 

[Bluestar71]

Players, former and current, don't give a damn how contracts effect a team's ability to put together a winning roster. They act like there's no cap and teams should just pay any player whatever they ask for.

 

[1bigfan13]

Players, former and current, don't give a damn how contracts effect a team's ability to put together a winning roster. They act like there's no cap and teams should just pay any player whatever they ask for.

I don't blame them. I'd do the same if I were in their shoes because since we've been in the salary cap era, teams have cut players early for cap reasons.

It's gotten better recently now that modern players have wised up and are now demanding more guaranteed money up front.

But given the violent nature of the sport, where careers are frequently cut short due to injury, I can't blame them for wanting to get as much as they can while they can. I bet there are hundreds of former players out there at this moment, working normal jobs, who are kicking themselves for leaving $500K or more on the table for the sake of the salary cap.

It sucks as a fan, but I understand the business side of the sport.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Players, former and current, don't give a damn how contracts effect a team's ability to put together a winning roster. They act like there's no cap and teams should just pay any player whatever they ask for.

and the Cowboys could have 90 mil in cap space and still make their biggest signing a guy for 5 mil a year. The owners do the exact opposite. Most NFL teams are hording their pennies too. It's a game both sides play.

 

[1bigfan13]

and the Cowboys could have 90 mil in cap space and still make their biggest signing a guy for 5 mil a year. The owners do the exact opposite. Most NFL teams are hording their pennies too. It's a game both sides play.

I think somewhere along the line they are going to either get rid of the cap all together or go to a soft cap with luxury tax penalties for teams who exceed the cap (similar to what the NBA has). I think it'll be the latter.

The argument for the salary cap has always been about making sure there's parity in the NFL but the cap only came about in the mid-90s and before then, I don't recall there being any issues with teams monopolizing the NFL.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I think somewhere along the line they are going to either get rid of the cap all together or go to a soft cap with luxury tax penalties for teams who exceed the cap (similar to what the NBA has). I think it'll be the latter.

The argument for the salary cap has always been about making sure there's parity in the NFL but the cap only came about in the mid-90s and before then, I don't recall there being any issues with teams monopolizing the NFL.

They say parity but I think it's also about budgeting and making sure NFL teams have leverage to keep salaries low.

 

[1bigfan13]

They say parity but I think it's also about budgeting and making sure NFL teams have leverage to keep salaries low.

Absolutely.

I think it's a built in excuse to control player salaries.

You always hear the excuse of how the NFL has a lot more players to pay so they can't be paid as much as MLB or NBA players, but the NFL dominates other major sports leagues in revenue generated. So that excuse doesn't hold a lot of water with me. I'm not saying they should be paid the same or more, but the gap shouldn't be as wide as it is.

Revenue generated estimates: NFL - $16 billion | MLB - $10 billion | NBA $8 billion | NHL $5 billion

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Absolutely.

I think it's a built in excuse to control player salaries.

You always hear the excuse of how the NFL has a lot more players to pay so they can't be paid as much as MLB or NBA players, but the NFL dominates other major sports leagues in revenue generated. So that excuse doesn't hold a lot of water with me. I'm not saying they should be paid the same or more, but the gap shouldn't be as wide as it is.

Revenue generated estimates: NFL - $16 billion | MLB - $10 billion | NBA $8 billion | NHL $5 billion

That's exactly right and an NFL team doesn't want to be pressured into spending 70% of their sales on salaries. But the salary cap gives them the built in excuse of, well if I pay you that, we can't field a competitive team under the salary cap.

 

[p1_]

WGAS what McNappy says?

Hes hoping we wreck our cap.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Hes hoping we wreck our cap.

I care about as much about what McNappy says as I do Chris Sims. They are just idiots. Hell Emmitt supposedly is saying the Cowboys just need to pay the man too. But what the hell does he know.

Truth is the Cowboys are going to pay Dak. I wish Dak would be willing to just accept a sweetheart deal. It would be better for us as fans for him to do that. I also understand that he is trying to do the best he can for himself and his family because tomorrow is never promised. Which is fine and that's why I'm not upset with him. Just wish the whole thing could be over with and we could move on. I feel like both sides are fighting over pennies in the larger scheme of things with how close they are to getting a deal done. But neither side is going to feel much pressure until we get close to that July 15th deadline.

 

[Simpleton]

Dak's cap hit this year is 31 and we still have a relatively stacked roster. The cap hits for certain guys will go up but so will the CBA, some guys like Lee and Crawford will be gone, others like Gallup will be re-signed but ultimately if we're able to absorb a cap hit of 31 this year we should be able to absorb cap hits of like 28, 32, 36 and 39 over the next 4 years.

 

[Cotton]

Fuck Donovan McNabb.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Simpleton]

McNabb has been eligible for the HOF for 5 years now, surely many mid-2000's McNabb fans are distraught.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I don't blame them. I'd do the same if I were in their shoes because since we've been in the salary cap era, teams have cut players early for cap reasons.

It's gotten better recently now that modern players have wised up and are now demanding more guaranteed money up front.

But given the violent nature of the sport, where careers are frequently cut short do to injury, I can't blame them for wanting to get as much as they can while they can. I bet there are hundreds of former players out there at this moment, working normal jobs, who are kicking themselves for leaving $500K or more on the table for the sake of the salary cap.

It sucks as a fan, but I understand the business side of the sport.

I don't blame them. I'd do the same if I were in their shoes because since we've been in the salary cap era, teams have cut players early for cap reasons.

It's gotten better recently now that modern players have wised up and are now demanding more guaranteed money up front.

But given the violent nature of the sport, where careers are frequently cut short do to injury, I can't blame them for wanting to get as much as they can while they can. I bet there are hundreds of former players out there at this moment, working normal jobs, who are kicking themselves for leaving $500K or more on the table for the sake of the salary cap.

It sucks as a fan, but I understand the business side of the sport.

Former Eagles QB says Dallas needs to pay Prescott before other star quarterbacks get deals.

By Calvin Watkins



2:24 PM on May 12, 2020



The Cowboys currently have placed the exclusive franchise tag on quarterback Dak Prescott and have until July 15 to reach a long-term deal.



If a new contract can’t be obtained with Prescott by then, he will play with a salary of $31.5 million. Of course, the Cowboys could try again in 2021 to come to terms. If the Cowboys and Prescott still fail to reach a deal and he could get franchised again, and get paid $37.6 million.



And that’s when the fun starts -- or the trouble.

Houston’s Deshaun Watson and Kansas City’s Patrick Mahomes are also seeking large contracts within the next year. Watson has held preliminary discussions with the Texans, but nothing has started yet for Mahomes.


Former Eagles and Redskins quarterback Donovan McNabb believes if Watson and Mahomes get new deals before Prescott it could present a problem.


“Pay the man,” McNabb said on the Last Stand Podcast with Showtime’s Brian Custer.


“Pay the man because I’m going to tell you one thing -- (when) you franchise him, say he has half Jameis Winston’s season and y’all make it to the NFC Championship Game or second round of the playoffs. And he passes for 5,000 yards, 35 touchdowns and maybe about 12 to 13 picks. You know how much money he’s going to ask for? You think it’s a problem now. It’s going to be a major problem if Deshaun Watson and Patrick Mahomes sign their contracts.”

That would be the only way Prescott could attain any leverage and having those stats are more unlikely than probable. I think this is exactly the strategy that Jones is using and I think he believes the odds are in his favor. It will answer the question of being a top 5 and franchise player also the actual production bill be the basis for salary ranges rather than hypothecated status. It is a gamble for Jones but it may well be in his favor

 

[L.T. Fan]

I have different view about what players deserve. One position as I read is that by virtue of deciding to play a professional sport the are entitled to get not only what they earn as a player but even much more if they are no longer able to play because an already existing set of hazardous circumstances exist in the sport and although they know the hazards of the game the only equitable position for them is to be paid millions that they never earned even though they chose to take the known risk.

I see it as someone who volunteers to risk themselves because that is what they choose to do while accepting the risks of the game. They are no different than the military individuals who also know the risks but are willing to accept it. Perhaps the argument could be made that these individuals also deserve to be paid millions if they can no longer are able to serve because of being incapacitated. Would you agree ? Maybe so but which is easier for you to justify?
Let them take out insurance policies like the rest of the world.

 

[data]

I have different view about what players deserve. One position as I read is that by virtue of deciding to play a professional sport the are entitled to get not only what they earn as a player but even much more if they are no longer able to play because an already existing set of hazardous circumstances exist in the sport and although they know the hazards of the game the only equitable position for them is to be paid millions that they never earned even though they chose to take the known risk.

I see it as someone who volunteers to risk themselves because that is what they choose to do while accepting the risks of the game. They are no different than the military individuals who also know the risks but are willing to accept it. Perhaps the argument could be made that these individuals also deserve to be paid millions if they can no longer are able to serve because of being incapacitated. Would you agree ? Maybe so but which is easier for you to justify?

The players deserve what the owners are willing to give. The owners have done this to themselves.

In order for Dallas to sign Deion Sanders, they had to provide guaranteed money because other owners were willing to pay more annually. This wasn't the first case, but an early example of multi-year guaranteed money was a box that owners opened up and continue to leverage.

Not exclusive to football, contractors take job over another if one client is willing to pay more in advance whether it's construction, manufacturing, etc.

On the flipside, players that don't have the leverage that Dak has have signed incentive-laden, perform-for-pay, contracts to get an owner to take an opportunity.

---

How about I get my ticket refunded if the Cowboys lose? I get into the stadium for a base fee and, as I exit, 'll pay more on a sliding scale based upon Cowboys margin-of-victory. Extra $2.50 per point.

 

[1bigfan13]

I have different view about what players deserve. One position as I read is that by virtue of deciding to play a professional sport the are entitled to get not only what they earn as a player but even much more if they are no longer able to play because an already existing set of hazardous circumstances exist in the sport and although they know the hazards of the game the only equitable position for them is to be paid millions that they never earned even though they chose to take the known risk.

I see it as someone who volunteers to risk themselves because that is what they choose to do while accepting the risks of the game. They are no different than the military individuals who also know the risks but are willing to accept it. Perhaps the argument could be made that these individuals also deserve to be paid millions if they can no longer are able to serve because of being incapacitated. Would you agree ? Maybe so but which is easier for you to justify?
Let them take out insurance policies like the rest of the world.

But here's the thing, LT. You're speaking as if injuries are the only reason teams wiggle out of contracts early.

Every year there are several examples of players who are perfectly healthy and who actually perform up to their contract standard yet NFL organizations will still approach those players and either release them or strong-arm them into restructuring their deals for cap relief.

Where's the insurance policy for that?