I found it very interesting to hear Dak Prescott say, "I don't play for money." So if he doesn't play for money, should he re-sign for practically nothing, thereby allowing the team to spend money on other quality players? – Jimmy Schmidt/Wichita Falls, TX
Nick Eatman: I think this quote is taking on a life of its own. He's not going to play for "nothing" and nor should he. Dak should at least play for a fair amount - at least being in the Top 5 or Top 10 in the league. The interesting part of his quote is if they get into a situation where he's shooting for $60 million and not signing around $53-55 million, that's where it might look bad on Dak after making this comment. So no, I don't think he should just play for nothing but you wouldn't expect the negotiation to go too far down the road if what he's saying is true. I think we all know what he's saying - that money doesn't drive him to play a kid's game - but you still have to play the business part of it as well.
Kurt: Fans and of course the team would love it if Prescott was willing to literally give the Cowboys a big discount when it comes to his contract, but that's obviously not going to happen. Even if he wanted to, the NFLPA, which is looking out for players around the league as a group (a rising tide lifts all boats, you know), and his own agent, who gets a healthy percentage, would discourage it. Maybe I'm being naïve, but I do believe that for most players, including Dak, the money does take a back seat when it comes to their motivation and how they value themselves. They work so hard because they want to perform well on the field and win. If they can do that, sure, the money follows, but that's not the overriding factor that fuels them. By and large, no player is remembered for how much money he made. It's the games he won and the accomplishments he achieved. So I do think there is some truth to what Prescott said, but that by no means is going to affect contract negotiations. They may be playing a game but this is most definitely still a business.
