Cowboys Trade for Jonathan Taylor? Top 10 Takes on Proposed Colts Move

The negatives, the obstacles and the realities about a Cowboys trade for Jonathan Taylor? They are more subtle, more complex and more fact-based than any fantasy.

FRISCO - The idea of the Dallas Cowboys pursuing Jonathan Taylor in a trade has one obviously positive thing going for it: At age 24, he's a heckuva player.

But the negatives, the obstacles and the realities? They are more subtle, more complex and more fact-based than any fantasy ... and there are 10 of them. to wit ...

1 - The money and the cap. Taylor is in the fourth year of his rookie deal. He wants out of Indianapolis in large part because the Colts are unwilling to give him a raise and an extension beyond what he makes now ($5 million) to what he presumably wants (let's say $10 million APY.)

We've seen many write that "Dallas has plenty of cap room.'' That is sort of true; the Cowboys sit at about $20 million under the cap right now. But as Cowboys fans now, it's earmarked for CeeDee Lamb and Micah Parsons and others who the Cowboys view as being "heckuva players,'' too.

2 - The double payment. The Cowboys already have Pro Bowl running back Tony Pollard making $10 million in 2023. One team employing two backs both making top dollar? That would be unprecedented in the cap era.

It's not impossible. It's just unprecedented - and for a reason.

3 - A pricy backup. To continue that concept: Backup running backs matter. Isn't there a way to get some without paying them like superstars? Pollard, let's say, would suddenly be a backup. Isn't that a waste of $10 million?

Backup QBs matter even more than backup running backs. But you get one Dak Prescott at $40 million and then behind him you get a Cooper Rush at one-tenth that price. That's how this works.

4 - Pollard's health. People outside The Star continue to wonder if Pollard is healthy and recovered from the lower-body injury he sustained in the playoffs against the San Francisco 49ers. The answer has been clear since OTAs, and continues to be clear from here inside The Star, including our observation of Pollard practicing on Tuesday.

Tony Pollard's health is a non-issue. 

5 - Replacing Zeke? CBS writes that "after parting ways with Ezekiel Elliott, the Cowboys are left with a void at the position.'' That is absolutely not how Dallas looks at its amicable divorce from the beloved Zeke. The Cowboys did not invite him back because they never believed there was a "void.''

6 - How about a rental? Would Taylor accept a trade to a contender to get away from the Colts ... and do so without a new contract? And then Dallas just plays him for one year, while never paying him more?

That would seem to violate the exact reason for Taylor's protest. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones might be the world's greatest salesman. But not even he's that great.

7 - A Cowboys rental problem. OK, go ahead and dream. Taylor says "yes'' to the above scenario. I'll come to Dallas. I'll be a backup/share partner. And I'll play without a raise simply for the honor of joining "America's Team.''

Cool. So the Cowboys are going to trade a first-round pick to fill a non-position of need ... and only have him for one year? In terms of asset management, that's a horrible plan.

8 - The smoke and mirrors. Colts ownership isn't always the most clever. But this whole thing is rather devious. Jim Irsay is allowing Taylor to seek his own trade, knowing a) few teams will truly bid and b) the Colts can simply say "no'' if any offer is actually made.

In reality, the "freedom granted'' to Taylor is not "free.'' And it's therefore only "fake-granted.''

9 - The trade cost. The Colts are rightly looking for value here. One outlet is reporting that Indianapolis wants a first-round pick back in exchange for Taylor. Another says it'll be about a package richer than the multi-pick price the Niners paid for Christian McCaffrey.

The Niners made that 2022 trade with the Panthers because they are a contender with a hole at running back. They continue to view McCaffrey as a "final piece of the puzzle'' addition. Jerry has suggested that "money is not the issue'' and that in a similar situation Dallas would do the same. Maybe that is so, but ...

10 - Jerry and his "Splash.'' For four decades things have been written about situations like this that as if Jones simply cannot resist his own "Art of the Deal.'' As one outlet put it, "acquiring Taylor is the kind of splashy, star-driven move the Cowboys always make.''

But ... is it? The fact are, we've written about that for four decades but it was only actually true in Jones' first three decades. When was the last time Dallas made a Taylor-level "splashy, star-driven move''? Where is the "always''?

The Cowboys sign their own guys to big contracts. Adding from the outside? Deion Sanders? That was 29 years ago! Terrell Owens? That was 17 years ago! Jones' reputation here is simply wrong, as evidenced by Dallas' two big offseason trades for Stephon Gilmore and Brandin Cooks. 

Both are good and important players. But "splashy'' Jerry would've acquired cornerback Jalen Ramsey instead of Gilmore, and "splashy'' Jerry would've acquired receiver DeAndre Hopkins instead of Cooks.

Reasons to think the Cowboys will try to trade for Jonathan Taylor? Go ahead and try to conjure up some, but ... "Splashy Jerry'' is, contrary to common belief, absolutely not one of them.

COWBOYS FISH REPORT … now a podcast! Join us inside The Star, ANY TIME!

Want the latest in breaking news and insider information on the Dallas Cowboys?

Follow FishSports on Twitter

Follow Cowboys / Fish on Facebook

Subscribe to the Cowboys Fish Report on YouTube for constant daily Cowboys live reports!