PDA

View Full Version : It makes no sense



Dean
03-13-2010, 09:02 AM
Getlynched on Broncos Country posted this list of player's compensation for this year. It makes no sense.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2010/03/12/broncos-millionaire-club/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter&utm_content=Twitter



Brandon Marshall, Champ Bailey, Elvis Dumervil, Knowshon Moreno, Kyle Orton, Richard Quinn, salaries
Knowshon Moreno. It's great to be a first-round draft player. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)

With the Broncos giving cornerback Champ Bailey a $3 million signing bonus this week, Mike Klis on Saturday will breakdown the roster by salary. Look for it overnight.

Meantime, here’s the list of Broncos who stand to make at least seven figures next season.

Interesting list, how salaries work out. For example, Brandon Marshall is looking UP at Chris Simms and Robert Ayers.

The Broncos have 27 players due to make at least $1 million in 2010:

Player … Pos. … 2010 … salary

Champ Bailey … CB … $13 million
Knowshon Moreno … RB … $8.44 million
Justin Bannan … DE … $7 million
Jamal Williams … NT … $6 million
D.J. Williams … ILB … $6 million
Robert Ayers … OLB … $5.12 million
Daniel Graham … TE … $4.5 million
Jarvis Green … DE … $3.26 million
Elvis Dumervil … LB … $3.17 million
Kyle Orton … QB … $2.62 million
Chris Simms … QB … $2.54 million
Brandon Marshall … WR … $2.52 million
Chris Kuper … RG … $2.52 million
Andrι Goodman … CB … $2.34 million
Brandon Stokley … WR … $2 million
Jabar Gaffney … WR … $1.95 million
Renaldo Hill … FS … $1.95 million
Ronnie Fields … NT … $1.95 million
Brian Dawkins … SS … $1.82 million
Darrell Reid … OLB … $1.73 million
Nathan Jones … CB … $1.63 million
Correll Buckhalter … RB … $1.56 million
Brandon Lloyd … WR … $1.26 million
Tony Scheffler … TE … $1.18 million
Russ Hochstein … OL … $1.13 million
Ryan Clady … LT … $1.02 million
Mario Haggan … ILB … $1 million

27-player total: $89.21 million

There has got to be a cap on rookie salaries.

Tned
03-13-2010, 09:19 AM
Getlynched on Broncos Country posted this list of player's compensation for this year. It makes no sense.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2010/03/12/broncos-millionaire-club/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter&utm_content=Twitter




There has got to be a cap on rookie salaries.

Yep, the NFL really needs a cap on rookie salaries.

While there is a ton of Marshall hate, and it isn't the Broncos fault, because Marshall was a fourth round pick, the salaries he has gotten have not been in line with his production.

While he got a bump to $2 million or so last year, the year before, which turned out to be his 2nd straight 100 reception season, he was something like the 74th highest paid wide receiver, meaning there was 70+ wide receivers in the NFL that were paid more than him.

Worse, he was like the 7th or 8th highest paid Brroncos receiver in '08, with 2 or 3 of the players with higher salaries being cut by week 10 of the season, because they they sucked. If I remember correctly, he was tied for the lowest WR salary on the Broncos. It might have been Glenn Martinez he was tied with, but I am going by memory. In fact, I think Martinez had a slight edge with a couple $5,000 roster bonuses that year.

So, as I said, it is partially the breaks that come with signing a 4 year contract when your a 4th round pick, the fact is that he has been SEVERELY underpaid, and that has to bother him.

broncobryce
03-13-2010, 10:35 AM
Still, Clady is getting screwed. And I thought Dawkins made more than that. The Eagles must have really low-balled him.

Northman
03-13-2010, 10:40 AM
Yep, the NFL really needs a cap on rookie salaries.

While there is a ton of Marshall hate, and it isn't the Broncos fault, because Marshall was a fourth round pick, the salaries he has gotten have not been in line with his production.

While he got a bump to $2 million or so last year, the year before, which turned out to be his 2nd straight 100 reception season, he was something like the 74th highest paid wide receiver, meaning there was 70+ wide receivers in the NFL that were paid more than him.

Worse, he was like the 7th or 8th highest paid Brroncos receiver in '08, with 2 or 3 of the players with higher salaries being cut by week 10 of the season, because they they sucked. If I remember correctly, he was tied for the lowest WR salary on the Broncos. It might have been Glenn Martinez he was tied with, but I am going by memory. In fact, I think Martinez had a slight edge with a couple $5,000 roster bonuses that year.

So, as I said, it is partially the breaks that come with signing a 4 year contract when your a 4th round pick, the fact is that he has been SEVERELY underpaid, and that has to bother him.

Wow, you still dont get it.

Tned
03-13-2010, 10:45 AM
Still, Clady is getting screwed. And I thought Dawkins made more than that. The Eagles must have really low-balled him.

Yes and no on Clady. He got something like a $2 million signing bonus and his contract guaranteed him close to $12 million. It's very reasonable for a rookie contract, even as good as he's played, and his next contract should be a monster.

Also, I think the numbers on Clady are wrong, probably because he is due a roster bonus. He is scheduled to make $2.6 million this year.

Compare that to Marshall's first three years. He got something like a $500k signing bonus, and then made the rookie minimum in this first three years, making his first three year's TOTAL salary less than $2 million.

With Dawkins, he signed a 5 year, $17 million contract, with $7 million guaranteed. There is another $10 million available in performance incentives, which based on last year's performance, my guess would be he is well on the way to earning, which could bring his 5 year total to $27 million.

Tned
03-13-2010, 10:46 AM
Wow, you still dont get it.

Right back at you, buddy.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 10:47 AM
Wow, you still dont get it.

I think Tned gets it fine. I find it odd that you don't get what he's saying.

So no matter what, you think that the rookies should get more money than Marshall has, because they were picked before him? Or... No matter what, you are saying that because the 70+ WRs didn't get into off-field problems, that those 70+ receivers deserve more money than Marshall, even if they were bad enough to get cut?

If you agree this is a business, which it is, then what player within those 70+ receivers are making Bowlen, and the Broncos, more money?

broncobryce
03-13-2010, 10:49 AM
Yes and no on Clady. He got something like a $2 million signing bonus and his contract guaranteed him close to $12 million. It's very reasonable for a rookie contract, even as good as he's played, and his next contract should be a monster.

Also, I think the numbers on Clady are wrong, probably because he is due a roster bonus. He is scheduled to make $2.6 million this year.

Compare that to Marshall's first three years. He got something like a $500k signing bonus, and then made the rookie minimum in this first three years, making his first three year's TOTAL salary less than $2 million.

With Dawkins, he signed a 5 year, $17 million contract, with $7 million guaranteed. There is another $10 million available in performance incentives, which based on last year's performance, my guess would be he is well on the way to earning, which could bring his 5 year total to $27 million.

I thought those numbers looked low. What's crazy is Moreno and Clady were both picked at 12.

Northman
03-13-2010, 10:54 AM
I think Tned gets it fine. I find it odd that you don't get what he's saying.

So no matter what, you think that the rookies should get more money than Marshall has, because they were picked before him? Or... No matter what, you are saying that because the 70+ WRs didn't get into off-field problems, that those 70+ receivers deserve more money than Marshall, even if they were bad enough to get cut?

If you agree this is a business, which it is, then what player within those 70+ receivers are making Bowlen, and the Broncos, more money?


1st round rookies have been getting paid big money for years, its nothing new so its not about whether i think its wrong or right. The problem i have is that Tned is still clamoring about how Marshall should be getting paid more money when its about more than just on the field production. Do i think guys like Simms should be getting top dollar? Absolutely not. But are we really going to cry about Moreno when guys like Manning and so on are getting paid big bucks from day 1? Marshall would of gotten his payday LOOOOOOONG ago if not for his moronic behavior. Thats my problem with the comment he made. Teams look at what happened with Terrell Owens and are scared to put up the big money for a headcase who can come unglued and anytime. The reason why Marshall isnt getting paid and didnt get drafted in the first round is because of Marshall. Hell, Doom has more bitch about than Marshall does because the damage was self inflicting.

Tned
03-13-2010, 10:57 AM
I think Tned gets it fine. I find it odd that you don't get what he's saying.

So no matter what, you think that the rookies should get more money than Marshall has, because they were picked before him? Or... No matter what, you are saying that because the 70+ WRs didn't get into off-field problems, that those 70+ receivers deserve more money than Marshall, even if they were bad enough to get cut?

If you agree this is a business, which it is, then what player within those 70+ receivers are making Bowlen, and the Broncos, more money?

I have no idea where North is coming from, as I didn't even say the Broncos should pay him wrong.

I stated: "it isn't the Broncos fault, because Marshall was a fourth round pick, the salaries he has gotten have not been in line with his production" and then detailed his contract and how low it was in terms of other WRs on the Broncos and around the league. I detailed some of the details of Marshall's, Clady's and Dawkin's contracts.

With Marshall, I stated FACTUALLY what he was paid and where it ranked. Stated that the Broncos did nothing wrong. And, that it was a result of him being a 4th round pick.

Yet, according to Northman, "I still don't get it." Now, if that isn't a case of reading a whole ******* lot between the lines of what I posted, to take that shot at me, I don't know what is.

This is the problem, a lot of posters can't take the emotion out of the discussion and just discuss the facts, and even their opinions, without the emotional reactions.

Tned
03-13-2010, 10:59 AM
1st round rookies have been getting paid big money for years, its nothing new so its not about whether i think its wrong or right. The problem i have is that Tned is still clamoring about how Marshall should be getting paid more money when its about more than just on the field production. Do i think guys like Simms should be getting top dollar? Absolutely not. But are we really going to cry about Moreno when guys like Manning and so on are getting paid big bucks from day 1? Marshall would of gotten his payday LOOOOOOONG ago if not for his moronic behavior. Thats my problem with the comment he made. Teams look at what happened with Terrell Owens and are scared to put up the big money for a headcase who can come unglued and anytime. The reason why Marshall isnt getting paid and didnt get drafted in the first round is because of Marshall. Hell, Doom has more bitch about than Marshall does because the damage was self inflicting.

"Still clamoring about how Marshall should be getting paid more money". Oh, pray tell, where am I currently or previously clamoring about such.

Northman
03-13-2010, 11:02 AM
"Still clamoring about how Marshall should be getting paid more money". Oh, pray tell, where am I currently or previously clamoring about such.

You said he was "severely" underpaid and that is incorrect for a 4th round draft choice.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2010, 11:12 AM
It appears the Broncos also felt Brandon was underpaid:

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14527100

Before last season, according to what two sources told The Post's Mike Klis the past week, the Broncos offered Marshall a multiyear contract at $9.5 million per season. Marshall turned down the offer because he sought additional upfront money.

Tned
03-13-2010, 11:17 AM
You said he was "severely" underpaid and that is incorrect for a 4th round draft choice.

:salute: for your ability to take things out of context as a reason to take a pot shot at someone.

I said, "So, as I said, it is partially the breaks that come with signing a 4 year contract when your a 4th round pick, the fact is that he has been SEVERELY underpaid, and that has to bother him."

That's a fact. Based on his production, and that he and Glenn Martinez who was cut made the same money, and 70+ WR in the league made more than him in '08, he is severely underpaid. There is no disputing that, it's a fact.

I also said that the Broncos did nothing wrong, and it is the result of him signing a 4 year contract as a 4th rounder.

Where is any of that incorrect or my continued "clamoring"?

Northman
03-13-2010, 11:24 AM
That's a fact. Based on his production, and that he and Glenn Martinez who was cut made the same money, and 70+ WR in the league made more than him in '08, he is severely underpaid. There is no disputing that, it's a fact.

And i just explained two or three posts ago why he is not getting paid because of his production. So no, its not a fact that he's getting underpaid. You dont pay someone who has other issues that tie into a contract. Its not rocket science dude. The 4th round money is what he is owed because he hasnt done the necessary things to keep himself in check both on and off the field to get a increase in pay. Most receivers who are at his talent level get paid because they dont act like jackasses on and off the field. Thats been my point this entire time yet you keep seeming to miss that point. Never the less, ill let you get back to whining about poor ol Brandon Marshall.

Tned
03-13-2010, 11:32 AM
And i just explained two or three posts ago why he is not getting paid because of his production. So no, its not a fact that he's getting underpaid. You dont pay someone who has other issues that tie into a contract. Its not rocket science dude. The 4th round money is what he is owed because he hasnt done the necessary things to keep himself in check both on and off the field to get a increase in pay. Most receivers who are at his talent level get paid because they dont act like jackasses on and off the field. Thats been my point this entire time yet you keep seeming to miss that point. Never the less, ill let you get back to whining about poor ol Brandon Marshall.

North, I don't know if you don't read my posts, or you simply think you know what I 'mean', regardless of what I typed, dude.

I did NOT say he should be paid more. I said based on his production, he is underpaid, and from that you can understand why he is upset. Not that he is right, and I certainly DID NOT say the Broncos were wrong. He is under contract, and I have always stated that his salary is a result of him being a 4th round pick. I have never proposed the Broncos just give him a raise.

Lonestar
03-13-2010, 11:41 AM
I think we all agree that the rookie contracts are totally out of line.

Yearly numbers are bloated with signing bonuses and roster bonuses do not help.

But for those that bitch about BMs money they forget the following facts.
No one had a gun to his head when he signed it.
He would have had a new contract twice already had his off the field crap not stopped Josh from offerring it, once last off season about this time and then just before TC they offered him a 9 mil + contract that he declined.

So let's not whine or cry about BM and his productivity V. Money comparacine.

BM is the only one that is at fault for his plight.

Please do not bring up that contracts are one sided because the teams can cut somone thus ending there bloatd contracts that the poor players are getting shafted. Most of these guys are high level morons that would be selling drugs on the corner had sports not been their way out of the getto.

Now the owners are going to right the ship with this next CBA fixing the rookie money issuse and most likely the absurb guaranteed money issuse.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Northman
03-13-2010, 11:41 AM
I said based on his production, he is underpaid,

And its just this comment that i have a problem with. So much more goes into how a organization wants to pay to their top tier players. Is Brandon Marshall good on the football field? Yes, however he cant be underpaid when he isnt the total package and that is what im getting at. You can disagree and thats fine but this is why i made the comment. I know why they arent paying Marshall and i would think it would totally clear to others.

Tned
03-13-2010, 11:54 AM
And its just this comment that i have a problem with. So much more goes into how a organization wants to pay to their top tier players. Is Brandon Marshall good on the football field? Yes, however he cant be underpaid when he isnt the total package and that is what im getting at. You can disagree and thats fine but this is why i made the comment. I know why they arent paying Marshall and i would think it would totally clear to others.

This is where it's clear you and I are talking about two different things.

I have NEVER said the Broncos should be paying him more or criticized them for not paying him enough. They are HONORING his contract.

I'm simply able to look at it from both the Broncos side and his.

Can you 'honestly' say, that based on production, Marshall and Martinez should have been paid the same thing? No, of course you can't. No matter how you try and claim off field incidents, fights with McDonalds bags or anything else he did, you cannot make a case, based on production, or Glen Martinez and Brandon Marshall being paid the same money, based on production.

You are so geared up for a fight over people loving or hating Marshall, loving or hating McDaniels, etc., that you can't see that I am primarily agreeing with you, which is that the Broncos had no obligation to give Marshall a raise, nor did I think they should regardless of their obligation. I only stated, that from Marshall's perspective and based on production, when he was the lowest paid receiver on the Broncos in '08 and the 75th paid receiver, with top 5 or top 10 stats, you can understand why he feels he deserves more money.

Northman
03-13-2010, 11:58 AM
This is where it's clear you and I are talking about two different things.

I have NEVER said the Broncos should be paying him more or criticized them for not paying him enough. They are HONORING his contract.

I'm simply able to look at it from both the Broncos side and his.

Can you 'honestly' say, that based on production, Marshall and Martinez should have been paid the same thing? No, of course you can't. No matter how you try and claim off field incidents, fights with McDonalds bags or anything else he did, you cannot make a case, based on production, or Glen Martinez and Brandon Marshall being paid the same money, based on production.

You are so geared up for a fight over people loving or hating Marshall, loving or hating McDaniels, etc., that you can't see that I am primarily agreeing with you, which is that the Broncos had no obligation to give Marshall a raise, nor did I think they should regardless of their obligation. I only stated, that from Marshall's perspective and based on production, when he was the lowest paid receiver on the Broncos in '08 and the 75th paid receiver, with top 5 or top 10 stats, you can understand why he feels he deserves more money.

Its not that im geared up to fight with people over it Tned only when i see comments which i disagree with that puts me in utter shock.

Tned
03-13-2010, 12:00 PM
I think we all agree that the rookie contracts are totally out of line.

Yearly numbers are bloated with signing bonuses and roster bonuses do not help.

But for those that bitch about BMs money they forget the following facts.
No one had a gun to his head when he signed it.
He would have had a new contract twice already had his off the field crap not stopped Josh from offerring it, once last off season about this time and then just before TC they offered him a 9 mil + contract that he declined.

So let's not whine or cry about BM and his productivity V. Money comparacine.

BM is the only one that is at fault for his plight.

Please do not bring up that contracts are one sided because the teams can cut somone thus ending there bloatd contracts that the poor players are getting shafted. Most of these guys are high level morons that would be selling drugs on the corner had sports not been their way out of the getto.

Now the owners are going to right the ship with this next CBA fixing the rookie money issuse and most likely the absurb guaranteed money issuse.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Here's a thought, why don't you just discuss the topic, rather than telling the rest of us posters what we should or shouldn't discuss.

I, and the rest of us on this message board, have the right to 'bring up' and 'bitch' as you say, about whatever we would like. Just like you exercised your right to constantly bitch and 'bring up' everything you thought Shanahan and Cutler did wrong, and just like you constantly 'bitch' and 'bring up' how awful and a moron Marshall is.

Sorry I left out "whine" and "cry", but I think you get the point. It's not about other posters, its about the topic of the thread, which in this case is salaries.

As to rookie salaries, I hope you are right about the next CBA having a rookie cap, as some of them are crazy. When someone like Sanchez gets more guaranteed money than any QB in history, or something like that, without ever taking a snap, there are major problems with rookie salaries.

Tned
03-13-2010, 12:00 PM
Its not that im geared up to fight with people over it Tned only when i see comments which i disagree with that puts me in utter shock.

That's fine, but you put words in my mouth, because I never criticized the Broncos for what they paid Marshall.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 12:01 PM
Its not that im geared up to fight with people over it Tned only when i see comments which i disagree with that puts me in utter shock.

So you are in utter shock when someone disagrees with you?

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 12:03 PM
I think we all agree that the rookie contracts are totally out of line.

Yearly numbers are bloated with signing bonuses and roster bonuses do not help.

But for those that bitch about BMs money they forget the following facts.
No one had a gun to his head when he signed it.
He would have had a new contract twice already had his off the field crap not stopped Josh from offerring it, once last off season about this time and then just before TC they offered him a 9 mil + contract that he declined.

So let's not whine or cry about BM and his productivity V. Money comparacine.

BM is the only one that is at fault for his plight.

Please do not bring up that contracts are one sided because the teams can cut somone thus ending there bloatd contracts that the poor players are getting shafted. Most of these guys are high level morons that would be selling drugs on the corner had sports not been their way out of the getto.

Now the owners are going to right the ship with this next CBA fixing the rookie money issuse and most likely the absurb guaranteed money issuse.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Wow.. sometimes I forget what a prejudice person you are, until you remind everyone with posts like this. :tsk:

Tned
03-13-2010, 12:04 PM
Its not that im geared up to fight with people over it Tned only when i see comments which i disagree with that puts me in utter shock.


That's fine, but you put words in my mouth, because I never criticized the Broncos for what they paid Marshall.

Anyway, clearly you and I are talking past each other and not on the wave length, probably through no fault of either of us.

So, while I don't think we are even talk about the same thing, maybe it's best for an agree to disagree on this thread topic.

Northman
03-13-2010, 12:07 PM
So you are in utter shock when someone disagrees with you?

Uh no, im in utter shock when they make certain statements on certain issues. You on the other hand.....

silkamilkamonico
03-13-2010, 01:22 PM
Forget production on the field and antics off the field, from a pure business standpoint, Marshall is probably one of the more underpaid players in all the NFL considering people from all fanbases come out to watch him. He'd be #1 on that list, easily, in terms of the organization profiting on people coming to watch specific players.

WARHORSE
03-13-2010, 02:10 PM
BOTH North and Tned are right.

There are truths to both sides of that dialogue so its not really going to come to a common understanding until both sides address the others concerns.....which is what the Broncos and Marshall are going through now.

Brandon IS underpaid for his production...TRUE.

Brandon has NOT been paid (to the extent he desires) due to his conduct.....TRUE.


The salary layout in the first post is deceiving somewhat. While we all agree about the rookies being overpaid, lets understand that guys like Dawk, Clady, Doom and the like all signed contracts, and part of this business is, those who make it to free agency are going to get PAID.

Alot of that has to do with timing. Every single RFA out there today in any other year would be getting franchised, or long term contracts.

Its the luck of the draw.

And Denver lucked out along with alot of other franchises.

Dawk had 7 mil guaranteed. He came here cause he got paid more here than any other place.

Clady got more last year in year two I believe, just like Moreno.

It all works out in the end.

Brandon will get paid this year.

Not the way he was hoping.......but he will get paid.

Tned
03-13-2010, 02:27 PM
Brandon IS underpaid for his production...TRUE.

Brandon has NOT been paid (to the extent he desires) due to his conduct.....TRUE.


Yep and yep.


Alot of that has to do with timing. Every single RFA out there today in any other year would be getting franchised, or long term contracts.

Its the luck of the draw.

And Denver lucked out along with alot of other franchises.


Yea, I was praying they wouldn't sign a new CBA, because there was no way the Broncos would keep all their RFA's if one was signed. Now, hopefully this one year -- possibly two -- reprieve gives them a chance to at minimum sign Doom, make a decision on Orton and Kuper and sign them if they think they are long term solutions, and I hope resign Marshall. The extra year gives them a chance to stagger them, if they choose to..

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2010, 02:55 PM
It appears the Broncos also felt Brandon was underpaid:

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14527100

Before last season, according to what two sources told The Post's Mike Klis the past week, the Broncos offered Marshall a multiyear contract at $9.5 million per season. Marshall turned down the offer because he sought additional upfront money.

If this is true, do you all feel that the Broncos were being fair with Brandon as far as what they offered him before last season?

Northman
03-13-2010, 03:01 PM
If this is true, do you all feel that the Broncos were being fair with Brandon as far as what they offered him before last season?

Considering his past? Absolutely.

ursamajor
03-13-2010, 03:21 PM
I think Tned gets it fine. I find it odd that you don't get what he's saying.

So no matter what, you think that the rookies should get more money than Marshall has, because they were picked before him? Or... No matter what, you are saying that because the 70+ WRs didn't get into off-field problems, that those 70+ receivers deserve more money than Marshall, even if they were bad enough to get cut?

If you agree this is a business, which it is, then what player within those 70+ receivers are making Bowlen, and the Broncos, more money?

In all seriousness, Brandon Marshall is the most underpaid player in all of professional sports. At a point, it will begin to impact the attractiveness of Denver to high profile FAs

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2010, 03:27 PM
In all seriousness, Brandon Marshall is the most underpaid player in all of professional sports. At a point, it will begin to impact the attractiveness of Denver to high profile FAs

I don't agree with this - Brandon was offered a 9.5 million multiyear contract before last season, and turned it down.

Tned
03-13-2010, 03:36 PM
If this is true, do you all feel that the Broncos were being fair with Brandon as far as what they offered him before last season?

The term 'fair' is hard to quantify, which is why the subject of Marshall on the forums have been so heated.

In terms of what he has produced for the Broncos, the stats he has put up, and his talent level in relation to the rest of the league, it probably isn't fair. Although, it is hard to say, since your quote doesn't tell us much. Was there any up front money. What kind of clauses were in there, etc.

For instance, if the Broncos didn't want to give him guaranteed money because he might get suspended, did they offset that by giving him a 'guaranteed injury payout'. That is the flip side to the "we can't pay him, because he might get suspended". What if Orton throws a pick, ala Griese, and when trying to tackle the interceptor, Clady rolls over his knee and his career is over? The Broncos cut him and he has nothing.

That's the reason NFL contracts have up front money, because they aren't guaranteed (except for the portions that are specifically negotiated as guaranteed, which these days range from 10-50% of the contract).

So, for all the fans saying, give him no up front money because he might get suspended, they seem to ignore that there is a MUCH greater likelyhood that he gets a career ending injury on the field.

Now, in terms of the Broncos side, it is completely understandable that they wouldn't want to give him guaranteed money (or not much), because if he decides to smack his fiance (or wife, whatever she is now) around again, he could 'possibly' get an 8 or 16 game suspension.

This is where if the Broncos want him back, it seems that both sides could reach a compromise where Marshall is 'fairly' rewarded for what he has done and is capable of doing on the field, where Marshall is protected in case of an injury, and the Broncos have some protection in case of another suspension.

So, with all that said, in answer to your "was that fair" question: I honestly don't know. Mostly because we don't know all the details.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 03:41 PM
I don't agree with this - Brandon was offered a 9.5 million multiyear contract before last season, and turned it down.

with little to NO signing bonus. Thats not a fair deal to any FA. FA's aren't looking for the "promised yearly pay"... they are looking for the guaranteed money.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2010, 03:43 PM
with little to NO signing bonus. Thats not a fair deal to any FA. FA's aren't looking for the "promised yearly pay"... they are looking for the guaranteed money.


http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14527100

Before last season, according to what two sources told The Post's Mike Klis the past week, the Broncos offered Marshall a multiyear contract at $9.5 million per season. Marshall turned down the offer because he sought additional upfront money.

This says he sought additional upfront money. If true, we don't know if the Broncos offered up front money, which he, or probably moreso, his agent, did not feel was adequate.

Northman
03-13-2010, 03:43 PM
In all seriousness, Brandon Marshall is the most underpaid player in all of professional sports. At a point, it will begin to impact the attractiveness of Denver to high profile FAs

I dont think so but for somewhat different reasons. The league is aware of why Denver is holding back on Marshall. Its the same reason why no one is busting down the door to sign TO. This isnt like Reggie Wayne or Jerry Rice here so i think the league in general is smart enough to see why its happening with this particular player.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 03:45 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14527100

Before last season, according to what two sources told The Post's Mike Klis the past week, the Broncos offered Marshall a multiyear contract at $9.5 million per season. Marshall turned down the offer because he sought additional upfront money.

This says he sought additional upfront money. If true, we don't know if the Broncos offered up front money, which he, or probably moreso, his agent, did not feel was adequate.

Exactly... little or no.. or.. not enough. Fitz gets 2 million a year in salary.... but got 15 up front (making his first year getting 17 million, but only 4 against the cap). So I'm pretty sure, that if you re giving him (Marshall) 9.5 a year in salary, you aren't giving very much in guaranteed.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 03:46 PM
I dont think so but for somewhat different reasons. The league is aware of why Denver is holding back on Marshall. Its the same reason why no one is busting down the door to sign TO. This isnt like Reggie Wayne or Jerry Rice here so i think the league in general is smart enough to see why its happening with this particular player.

What kind of trouble has TO caused off the field?

Might have something to do with his high salary and being 37 yrs old at WR :cool:

Northman
03-13-2010, 03:48 PM
What kind of trouble has TO caused off the field?

Might have something to do with his high salary and being 37 yrs old at WR :cool:

Im sure thats part of it but its his on the field issues that troubles teams as well. Which now Brandon has been shown to behave like as well. If Brandon was in high demand teams would be crawling to sign him. Its just not the case for this "elite" wr.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2010, 03:52 PM
Exactly... little or no.. or.. not enough. Fitz gets 2 million a year.... but got 15 up front (making his first year getting 17 million, but only 4 against the cap). So I'm pretty sure, that if you re giving him 9.5 a year in salary, you aren't giving very much in guaranteed.

We don't know if it was little or nothing, or not enough, unless we know exactly what the contract offer said. I really want Brandon to stay with the Broncos, but I truly feel that it was a mistake, whether it was Brandon who made the decision, or his agent convinced him not to sign the contract, that Brandon did not take the offer. What happens now - he either signs an offer sheet with someone else, which could be less than the 9.5 million/yr. he was offered with the Broncos, or he stays with the Broncos, and more than likely does not make 9.5/yr. And if Brandon did accept the offer from the Broncos before last season, and kept his nose clean, and produced on the field, more than likely the contract would have/could have been redone.

Northman
03-13-2010, 03:53 PM
We don't know if it was little or nothing, or not enough, unless we know exactly what the contract offer said. I really want Brandon to stay with the Broncos, but I truly feel that it was a mistake, whether it was Brandon who made the decision, or his agent convinced him not to sign the contract, that Brandon did not take the offer. What happens now - he either signs an offer sheet with someone else, which could be less than the 9.5 million/yr. he was offered with the Broncos, or he stays with the Broncos, and more than likely does not make 9.5/yr. And if Brandon did accept the offer from the Broncos before last season, and kept his nose clean, and produced on the field, more than likely the contract would have/could have been redone.

Exactly

Nomad
03-13-2010, 04:06 PM
We don't know if it was little or nothing, or not enough, unless we know exactly what the contract offer said. I really want Brandon to stay with the Broncos, but I truly feel that it was a mistake, whether it was Brandon who made the decision, or his agent convinced him not to sign the contract, that Brandon did not take the offer. What happens now - he either signs an offer sheet with someone else, which could be less than the 9.5 million/yr. he was offered with the Broncos, or he stays with the Broncos, and more than likely does not make 9.5/yr. And if Brandon did accept the offer from the Broncos before last season, and kept his nose clean, and produced on the field, more than likely the contract would have/could have been redone.

You speak volumes DN!!:) This subject is pretty much cooked, burnt and done here! We know just about everyone's opinion on this matter and now it's a wait and see!

As far as the rookie salaries, IMO they should give the 1st rounders a set salary for where they are taken and the contract is incentitive based! In other words you get paid this and if you kick ass and keep your nose clean you'll get paid more!! But this has been beaten to death too. Some feel they should get paid right away!!

Tned
03-13-2010, 04:20 PM
We don't know if it was little or nothing, or not enough, unless we know exactly what the contract offer said. I really want Brandon to stay with the Broncos, but I truly feel that it was a mistake, whether it was Brandon who made the decision, or his agent convinced him not to sign the contract, that Brandon did not take the offer. What happens now - he either signs an offer sheet with someone else, which could be less than the 9.5 million/yr. he was offered with the Broncos, or he stays with the Broncos, and more than likely does not make 9.5/yr. And if Brandon did accept the offer from the Broncos before last season, and kept his nose clean, and produced on the field, more than likely the contract would have/could have been redone.

If you admit to not knowing the details in stating you don't agree with another poster's opinion, how can you assert that it was a fair deal for Brandon?

Tned
03-13-2010, 04:23 PM
I dont think so but for somewhat different reasons. The league is aware of why Denver is holding back on Marshall. Its the same reason why no one is busting down the door to sign TO. This isnt like Reggie Wayne or Jerry Rice here so i think the league in general is smart enough to see why its happening with this particular player.

While I agree that every team looking at Marshall has to consider the off-field issues, what is the reason nobody is attempting to sign Doom? What about Vincent Jackson? What about all the other RFA's?

Personally, I think it's hard to argue that every RFA but Brandon is being affected by the lack of CBA and uncertainty about the future, but in Brandon's case, it's all about the off-field issues. I could be wrong, but I just have trouble making that distinction between him and all the other RFA's, when none of them are getting serious attention, based on the reports I am reading.

Northman
03-13-2010, 04:23 PM
If you admit to not knowing the details in stating you don't agree with another poster's opinion, how can you assert that it was a fair deal for Brandon?

Probably based off the number's given in terms of the contract itself. We can all speculate as too what the upfront money was but my guess is it wasnt anywhere near what Brandon wanted which is fine but i understand why Denver didnt sell the farm to him either.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 04:28 PM
We don't know if it was little or nothing, or not enough, unless we know exactly what the contract offer said. I really want Brandon to stay with the Broncos, but I truly feel that it was a mistake, whether it was Brandon who made the decision, or his agent convinced him not to sign the contract, that Brandon did not take the offer. What happens now - he either signs an offer sheet with someone else, which could be less than the 9.5 million/yr. he was offered with the Broncos, or he stays with the Broncos, and more than likely does not make 9.5/yr. And if Brandon did accept the offer from the Broncos before last season, and kept his nose clean, and produced on the field, more than likely the contract would have/could have been redone.

We don't know. But as I said, (this is a part of the article explaining Fitzgerald's new contract signed in '08)...

"Fitzgerald will receive a $15 million signing bonus Tuesday. His base salary will be $2 million, giving him a $17 million payout this year. He has a $5 million option bonus in 2009. Over the four years of his contract, he will receive $30 million in guarantees.

The new deal will save the team $8.842 million in cap room, dropping Fitzgerald's salary cap number from $16,485,000 to $7,643,334."

If the Broncos offered 9.5 million a year, there is no way it had much (if any) up front money when you compare the yearly salary to Fitz. So that means that Marshall basically signs a one year deal worth 9.5 million.... which is GREAT... but its the player that is accepting all the risk.

NFL Owners would LOVE IT if every player would sign a deal like that. They would LOVE for Fitzgerald to sign a deal like that. Then, if they get hurt, banged up...or show a single sign of not being AS good, they can simply drop the contract. Signing a multi-year deal in the NFL means squat for the player if there is no up-front money. All the team has to do is drop you. If you get hurt signing a one year deal like that, you are screwed.

Fitz has 15 million reasons why the Cards aren't going to cut him after the next season (more like 30 million reasons). He has 15 million ways that helps secure him if he gets hurt and doesn't put ALL the risk on the player for signing that contract.

WHEN Marshall signs with another team, he will be offered roughly the same kind of deal... with about 12-15 million up front money. He'll be offered about the same per season, AND incentive money (plus roster money) over the course of that contract.

But lets look at it from Marshall's perspective. He feels he put HIS career on the line by lining up and playing last year after the med-staff misdiagnosed his injury. He knows there were players on the roster, like Martinez, that were making MORE money than him. He didn't get the contract extension that he felt he was promised... THEN... Bowlen told him if he went out onto the field and produced and proved himself, he would get a contract extension (I believe he said that in the tv interview). So he goes out and has ANOTHER 100 catch/pro-bowl season, and is yet AGAIN told that he has to "prove himself" in order to get a long-term deal. He does NOT trust this med-staff at all, he doesn't trust the coach, and I seriously doubt he trusts Bowlen.

He signs that "long term" deal with the Broncos, and the ONLY thing that does is keeps him from going out and finding a team that will give him guaranteed money (because he's under contract). While giving the Broncos the freedom to simply keep, or cut, him as they please. No player in FA is looking for that (hence ursa's point about hurting our FA )

Denver Native (Carol)
03-13-2010, 04:34 PM
If you admit to not knowing the details in stating you don't agree with another poster's opinion, how can you assert that it was a fair deal for Brandon?

OK - first off, here is the following I replied to, which I did not agree with, with my reply:

Originally Posted by ursamajor View Post
In all seriousness, Brandon Marshall is the most underpaid player in all of professional sports. At a point, it will begin to impact the attractiveness of Denver to high profile FAs

I don't agree with this - Brandon was offered a 9.5 million multiyear contract before last season, and turned it down.

First off, to ursamajor's post - If Brandon would have accepted the Broncos' offer before last season, he would NOT have been the most underpaid player in all of professional sports - therefore, I can't believe Brandon's situation would impact the attractiveness of Denver to high profie FAs, as the Broncos did offer Brandon a substantial increase. That was my point in regards to ursamajor's post.

Secondly, I do not believe that I used the word "fair". My opinion is that Brandon should have accepted the Broncos' offer, which would have paid him substantially more than he is making now. AND, so far, no other team has made a move to offer Brandon anything.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 04:35 PM
As far as the rookie salaries, IMO they should give the 1st rounders a set salary for where they are taken and the contract is incentitive based! In other words you get paid this and if you kick ass and keep your nose clean you'll get paid more!! But this has been beaten to death too. Some feel they should get paid right away!!

I hear you, but it can't be that simple, and here is why.

Are the incentives placed by the owners of the CBA? What if they don't reach the incentives? Do they have to stay under the initial contract? Is that fair? What would keep a gm/owner from holding rookies back from much playing time their rookie season, so as to keep the rookie salaries down? If they don't match that first year's incentives, does it roll over to the next season? Do they get the opportunity to reach the FA market if they aren't played?

If they do reach their incentives, what kind of raise do they get? Do they get to restructure with their demands, or is it structured under the cba? So no matter what, the CBA determines the pay? When does this contract end? How long does the CBA control the amount a player can make?

I can go on and on that has conflicting situations with Free Agency as well with the rookie pay-scale. It has a domino effect.

There are a TON of problems with a rookie pay scale that needs to be answered. The owners would absolutely love it if they have all the advantages.

Northman
03-13-2010, 04:38 PM
If the Broncos offered 9.5 million a year, there is no way it had much (if any) up front money when you compare the yearly salary to Fitz. So that means that Marshall basically signs a one year deal worth 9.5 million.... which is GREAT... but its the player that is accepting all the risk.

Actually, i recall the article saying it was a multiyear deal but i could be wrong. Secondly, the reason why Brandon would have to take a risk is because of the past issues where Fitz didnt have those and got paid accordingly. Thats the part that Brandon seems to not be able to come to grips with yet and its costing him a raise of any kind right now.


Fitz has 15 million reasons why the Cards aren't going to cut him after the next season (more like 30 million reasons). He has 15 million ways that helps secure him if he gets hurt and doesn't put ALL the risk on the player for signing that contract.

He has 15 million reasons because he was smart and didnt get into off the field issues and just let his playing on the field do the talking.


WHEN Marshall signs with another team, he will be offered roughly the same kind of deal... with about 12-15 million up front money. He'll be offered about the same per season, AND incentive money (plus roster money) over the course of that contract.

Nothing has happened yet and frankly i know i would give up a first for a guy like Fitz so there has to be something holding teams back. I wonder what it could be? Honestly, i think Brandon will run into the very same problem that TO did after leaving the Eagles. He will more than likely find a team willing to pay him if they are desperate enough to take the risk. But, his choices will be very slim as most teams i believe will have clauses to protect themselves by recouping money if he steps out of line. Not many teams will be lining up to throw away money for a high risk player unlike Fitz.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 04:48 PM
Actually, i recall the article saying it was a multiyear deal but i could be wrong. Secondly, the reason why Brandon would have to take a risk is because of the past issues where Fitz didnt have those and got paid accordingly. Thats the part that Brandon seems to not be able to come to grips with yet and its costing him a raise of any kind right now.

That "multi-year" deal is only good for the Broncos. It keeps Marshall from making a deal with a team that would offer him up-front money because he's under contract. In the meantime, he gets hurt and he's the one taking all the risk. WHat a DEal!!

I get what you are saying about Brandon's history... but thats not the point. Thats not Brandon's perspective. I absolutely, 100% understand why he would NOT sign a deal like this. ITs putting ALL the risk on him and screws him if he gets hurt.



Nothing has happened yet and frankly i know i would give up a first for a guy like Fitz so there has to be something holding teams back. I wonder what it could be? Honestly, i think Brandon will run into the very same problem that TO did after leaving the Eagles. He will more than likely find a team willing to pay him if they are desperate enough to take the risk. But, his choices will be very slim as most teams i believe will have clauses to protect themselves by recouping money if he steps out of line. Not many teams will be lining up to throw away money for a high risk player unlike Fitz.

Not a SINGLE Player.. not one.. at ANY position in the ENTIRE NFL that has a first round tender on them, has signed. Huh.. I wonder what that is?

Teams signed Pac-man Jones and Chris Henry after their 1 year suspensions, and NEITHER of them have shown to be as dominant as Marshall has shown to be. The NFL is about high-risk high reward. Considering not a SINGLE player has signed with a first round tender on them, I don't take the Marshall situation as a sign of anything different.

You guys can believe what you want, but I don't think you realize how teams are willing to take chances on a dominant player, feeling that a new enviroment will change them. Happens every friggin year. Larry Johnson is an example. But he didn't have the 1st round tender on him.

Northman
03-13-2010, 04:56 PM
That "multi-year" deal is only good for the Broncos. It keeps Marshall from making a deal with a team that would offer him up-front money because he's under contract. In the meantime, he gets hurt and he's the one taking all the risk. WHat a DEal!!

I get what you are saying about Brandon's history... but thats not the point. Thats not Brandon's perspective. I absolutely, 100% understand why he would NOT sign a deal like this. ITs putting ALL the risk on him and screws him if he gets hurt.

And that is the consequence of his behavior and the things that have led him up to this point. Accountability. The risk is there but you have to start somewhere and right now he is still only hurting himself in the long run. Denver has to protect themselves just as much as he does but Denver isnt the one who screwed it all up from the get go.



Not a SINGLE Player.. not one.. at ANY position in the ENTIRE NFL that has a first round tender on them, has signed. Huh.. I wonder what that is?

Teams signed Pac-man Jones and Chris Henry after their 1 year suspensions, and NEITHER of them have shown to be as dominant as Marshall has shown to be. The NFL is about high-risk high reward. Considering not a SINGLE player has signed with a first round tender on them, I don't take the Marshall situation as a sign of anything different.

You guys can believe what you want, but I don't think you realize how teams are willing to take chances on a dominant player, feeling that a new enviroment will change them. Happens every friggin year. Larry Johnson is an example. But he didn't have the 1st round tender on him.

And yet those who have bad attitudes and off the field issues generally dont get championships. They may make it to the games but very few get to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Johnson is now a journeyman because of his actions, Moss and TO are the same way none of which have gotten rings despite their talents. Vick, same way. If Seattle wanted to take a chance on Brandon they would of given up their first. By his play on the field he is worth it no? Bmore took a chance on a guy who spends time being hurt and wasnt even the best receiver on his own team. Critics say Marshall is ten times the player that Boldin is. Cincy chose Bryant over TO and Marshall. I dont think you really realize that teams in general are just getting fed up with the prima donnas and realizing that they can win without them.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 04:59 PM
The Broncos are looking out for themselves. As they should. But they aren't looking out for Brandon's best interest.

Brandon is looking out for himself, as he should... because the Broncos are not looking out for HIS best interest. He has to.

Signing a contract that is as good as a one year deal (its only multi-year for the Broncos, but the Broncos can break it) would be stupid for any player with Marshall's ability.

Tned
03-13-2010, 05:02 PM
And that is the consequence of his behavior and the things that have led him up to this point. Accountability. The risk is there but you have to start somewhere and right now he is still only hurting himself in the long run. Denver has to protect themselves just as much as he does but Denver isnt the one who screwed it all up from the get go.


So, in order to protect both parties, would you be in favor of a contract with no money up front (to protect Denver from a suspension) and something like a $15 million injury payout (equivalent to signing bonus he would typically get, which would protect him from a career ending or team cutting injury)?




And yet those who have bad attitudes and off the field issues generally dont get championships. They may make it to the games but very few get to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Johnson is now a journeyman because of his actions, Moss and TO are the same way none of which have gotten rings despite their talents. Vick, same way. If Seattle wanted to take a chance on Brandon they would of given up their first. By his play on the field he is worth it no? Bmore took a chance on a guy who spends time being hurt and wasnt even the best receiver on his own team. Critics say Marshall is ten times the player that Boldin is. Cincy chose Bryant over TO and Marshall. I dont think you really realize that teams in general are just getting fed up with the prima donnas and realizing that they can win without them.



What type of draft pick did Cincy have to give up for Bryant?

Why are no teams talking to Dumvervil? Didn't he just lead the league in sacks, or close to it (can't remember which)?

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 05:07 PM
And yet those who have bad attitudes and off the field issues generally dont get championships. They may make it to the games but very few get to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Johnson is now a journeyman because of his actions, Moss and TO are the same way none of which have gotten rings despite their talents. Vick, same way. If Seattle wanted to take a chance on Brandon they would of given up their first. By his play on the field he is worth it no? Bmore took a chance on a guy who spends time being hurt and wasnt even the best receiver on his own team. Critics say Marshall is ten times the player that Boldin is. Cincy chose Bryant over TO and Marshall. I dont think you really realize that teams in general are just getting fed up with the prima donnas and realizing that they can win without them.

What????? What does Moss's attitude have anything to do with him getting beat in the Super Bowl against the Giants?

Vick didn't go to the Super Bowl because he fought dogs??? Really?

Johnson is now a journeyman because of his lack of skill. If he was good, he would still be in Cinci. Hell, if he was REALLY good he'd still be in KC.

What about all the a-holes and jerks that have won SUper Bowls????? Micheal Irvin has three. Rothlesburger is known to be a complete dick where he lives, and is now up on his second sexual assault charge. How come he won a Super Bowl? Should we bring up players that have had drug charges, assault charges, murder charges and rape charges against them that have a ring around their finger???

WHEN Seattle takes a chance on Marshall (and they will) they will do it by getting the most value for him. Thats what GOOD GMs do. That is why no one is giving up 1st round tenders right now, not because none of them aren't worth 1st round picks. So I guess you are saying that EVERY ONE of the players that has a 1st round tender on them isn't signed because they are a bad-egg?? SO its just a coincidence?

I don't think you realize that there is much more at play here than the fans' delusional perception of how "bad" Marshall is.

Northman
03-13-2010, 05:10 PM
So, in order to protect both parties, would you be in favor of a contract with no money up front (to protect Denver from a suspension) and something like a $15 million injury payout (equivalent to signing bonus he would typically get, which would protect him from a career ending or team cutting injury)?

$15 million? No. Most players dont even see that kind of upfront money. If the league made it a mandatory for EVERY player to get that kind of guaranteed money for injuries yea i would think thats fair. But we know that isnt going to happen and there's no way to justify that for Marshall. His risk is no greater than any other player in the NFL.





What type of draft pick did Cincy have to give up for Bryant?

Dont remember what they gave up for him.


Why are no teams talking to Dumvervil? Didn't he just lead the league in sacks, or close to it (can't remember which)?

Im sure a team would look at Doom at some point but with just one year on his resume where he excelled (not his fault) but i can see the hesitation to pull the trigger there.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 05:13 PM
$15 million? No. Most players dont even see that kind of upfront money. If the league made it a mandatory for EVERY player to get that kind of guaranteed money for injuries yea i would think thats fair. But we know that isnt going to happen and there's no way to justify that for Marshall. His risk is no greater than any other player in the NFL.

yes it is. If you are worth 15 million to a franchise, or have the ability to sign a 15 million dollar signing bonus, then your 'risk' is greater. Just like the risk for a guy that owns a 15 million dollar house is greater than the person that owns a 50k dollar home. The insurance companies aren't going to pay out the same to both home owners when there is a fire.

This is why a top college prospect can get a 15 million dollar insurance policy placed on his legs /arms/head from Lords of London insurance company. Because they know that he will be able to sign an NFL contract that will sign him that kind of money. Not every college player can sign that kind of deal.

Northman
03-13-2010, 05:15 PM
What????? What does Moss's attitude have anything to do with him getting beat in the Super Bowl against the Giants?

On the field nothing. But there was some drama brought on before the SB with some chick trying to sue him or something or another. Point is, its a trend of where "me" players just arent getting the rings.


Vick didn't go to the Super Bowl because he fought dogs??? Really?

Who said that? I said he got another chance to play just like Pac Man and Henry but hasnt gotten a ring and he was considered one of the best QB's (har har) before the dog incident.


Johnson is now a journeyman because of his lack of skill. If he was good, he would still be in Cinci. Hell, if he was REALLY good he'd still be in KC.

Johnson had some great years in KC and then when the attitude kicked in he was show the door. The rest is history.


What about all the a-holes and jerks that have won SUper Bowls????? Micheal Irvin has three. Rothlesburger is known to be a complete dick where he lives, and is now up on his second sexual assault charge. How come he won a Super Bowl? Should we bring up players that have had drug charges, assault charges, murder charges and rape charges against them that have a ring around their finger???

Hence why i said some. Go back and read what i wrote homie.


WHEN Seattle takes a chance on Marshall (and they will) they will do it by getting the most value for him. Thats what GOOD GMs do. That is why no one is giving up 1st round tenders right now, not because none of them aren't worth 1st round picks.

And Denver isnt budging which is what a good GM would do for a top tier player.


So I guess you are saying that EVERY ONE of the players that has a 1st round tender on them isn't signed because they are a bad-egg?? SO its just a coincidence?

I didnt say that, i said in Brandon's case.


I don't think you realize that there is much more at play here than the fans' delusional perception of how "bad" Marshall is.

There's no delusion Rav, the facts are there in terms of his on and off the field behavior. No one has made anything up, there is no conspiracy against Brandon Marshall dude. Time to wake up.

Northman
03-13-2010, 05:17 PM
yes it is. If you are worth 15 million to a franchise, or have the ability to sign a 15 million dollar signing bonus, then your 'risk' is greater. Just like the risk for a guy that owns a 15 million dollar house is greater than the person that owns a 50k dollar home. The insurance companies aren't going to pay out the same to both home owners when there is a fire.

This is why a top college prospect can get a 15 million dollar insurance policy placed on his legs /arms/head from Lords of London insurance company. Because they know that he will be able to sign an NFL contract that will sign him that kind of money. Not every college player can sign that kind of deal.

Like i said, all NFL players take a risk. Are you even taking the time to read what ive wrote dude? Seriously. I dont want to keep going through a circle jerk if your not going to bother reading what im writing. Ive explained my stance on EVERY player should get the 15 million if its based purely on "injury" risk. :rolleyes:

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 05:19 PM
Some? :lol: Well, that certainly clarifies things. SOME great men that have never had a single ounce of trouble, have never won the Super Bowl. I guess we shouldn't sign any great men, either. That about sums up that line of logic.

No conspiracy, but you haven't answered as to why there hasn't been a SINGLE 1st round tender offered for ANY player in the NFL? Because none of the players are worth it? Because they are all just bad people and the NFL isn't taking a chance? Maybe because there is something else to this?

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 05:22 PM
Like i said, all NFL players take a risk. Are you even taking the time to read what ive wrote dude? Seriously. I dont want to keep going through a circle jerk if your not going to bother reading what im writing. Ive explained my stance on EVERY player should get the 15 million if its based purely on "injury" risk. :rolleyes:

RIGHT.. and I'm showing you how that is NOT reasonable nor does it make sense, dude.

ALL NFL players take risk, but like Homes.. or the college players.. not ALLL players risks are considered equal when it comes to financial restitution.

I can't help it that your stance doesn't make sense.

Tned asked if instead of giving up 15 mllion in signing bonus it would make more sense to give him a 15 million dollar injury bonus to take the risk away from a player in order to sign a one year deal. Your reply is that ALL players are worth the 15 million dollar risk insurance???? :rolleyes: Yeah, hard to believe I questioned your logic on that one.

Northman
03-13-2010, 05:24 PM
RIGHT.. and I'm showing you how that is NOT reasonable nor does it make sense, dude.

ALL NFL players take risk, but like Homes.. or the college players.. not ALLL players risks are considered equal when it comes to financial restitution.

I can't help it that your stance doesn't make sense.

Tned asked if instead of giving up 15 mllion in signing bonus it would make more sense to give him a 15 million dollar injury bonus to take the risk away from a player in order to sign a one year deal. Your reply is that ALL players are worth the 15 million dollar risk insurance???? :rolleyes: Yeah, hard to believe I questioned your logic on that one.

I didnt put a price on it Rav. I used it as a example because Tned used that number. How bout 5 million for Brandon's injury risk? And he can only use it if he does get injured. Sounds fair right?

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 05:30 PM
I didnt put a price on it Rav. I used it as a example because Tned used that number. How bout 5 million for Brandon's injury risk? And he can only use it if he does get injured. Sounds fair right?


The reason the 15 million number was brought up, is because a player of Marshall's caliber would garnish 15 million signing bonus. Marshall isn't going to sign a one year deal and accept the fact that he's taking the risk. Players want the up-front signing bonus to secure their pay in case of injury, since NFL contracts are not guaranteed. So if Marshall could sign a deal and get a 15 million dollar signing bonus, but.. the team doesn't quite want to take that up-front money risk with him (although Marshall's point about injury is well accepted) then it would make sense to suppliment that risk with the amount that would normally be given as the guaranteed signing bonus.

I don't think Marshall, nor the Broncos, feel that Marshall would only be getting a 5 million dollar signing bonus.

Tned
03-13-2010, 05:35 PM
Like i said, all NFL players take a risk. Are you even taking the time to read what ive wrote dude? Seriously. I dont want to keep going through a circle jerk if your not going to bother reading what im writing. Ive explained my stance on EVERY player should get the 15 million if its based purely on "injury" risk. :rolleyes:

It wasn't based purely on injury risk. It would be a compromise, both parties protected, special case.

Based on performance, if the Broncos weren't worried about a possible suspension, he would get well more than $15 guaranteed. Probably something like $15 mil up front and another $5-10 guaranteed.

However, since as you say, that is too much money in case a suspension occurs and therefore you don't think he should get the upfront/guaranteed money, I asked if you would be open to a contract that moved what otherwise would be his upfront signing bonus into an injury payout, so that both parties were covered. it has nothing to do with every other player in the NFL getting it, because the standard NFL contract has a decent chunk of the money paid out in signing bonuses and guaranteed money, which you say is too risky for the Broncos with marshall.

Northman
03-13-2010, 05:40 PM
The reason the 15 million number was brought up, is because a player of Marshall's caliber would garnish 15 million signing bonus. Marshall isn't going to sign a one year deal and accept the fact that he's taking the risk. Players want the up-front signing bonus to secure their pay in case of injury, since NFL contracts are not guaranteed. So if Marshall could sign a deal and get a 15 million dollar signing bonus, but.. the team doesn't quite want to take that up-front money risk with him (although Marshall's point about injury is well accepted) then it would make sense to suppliment that risk with the amount that would normally be given as the guaranteed signing bonus.

I don't think Marshall, nor the Broncos, feel that Marshall would only be getting a 5 million dollar signing bonus.

So, if Marshall was to get a 15 million contract for the injury risk it would only be used if he indeed gets injured correct? If thats the case than i would agree with Tned. But if he could access that money for anything i would be against it.

Northman
03-13-2010, 05:41 PM
It wasn't based purely on injury risk. It would be a compromise, both parties protected, special case.

Based on performance, if the Broncos weren't worried about a possible suspension, he would get well more than $15 guaranteed. Probably something like $15 mil up front and another $5-10 guaranteed.

However, since as you say, that is too much money in case a suspension occurs and therefore you don't think he should get the upfront/guaranteed money, I asked if you would be open to a contract that moved what otherwise would be his upfront signing bonus into an injury payout, so that both parties were covered. it has nothing to do with every other player in the NFL getting it, because the standard NFL contract has a decent chunk of the money paid out in signing bonuses and guaranteed money, which you say is too risky for the Broncos with marshall.


Yea, see my last post.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 05:41 PM
It wasn't based purely on injury risk. It would be a compromise, both parties protected, special case.

Based on performance, if the Broncos weren't worried about a possible suspension, he would get well more than $15 guaranteed. Probably something like $15 mil up front and another $5-10 guaranteed.

However, since as you say, that is too much money in case a suspension occurs and therefore you don't think he should get the upfront/guaranteed money, I asked if you would be open to a contract that moved what otherwise would be his upfront signing bonus into an injury payout, so that both parties were covered. it has nothing to do with every other player in the NFL getting it, because the standard NFL contract has a decent chunk of the money paid out in signing bonuses and guaranteed money, which you say is too risky for the Broncos with marshall.

In all reality, this would seem like a very reasonable compromise... if they are still talking about paying him 9.5 million a year. I can't see Marshall doing this for 2 million a year. But if they offered the same contract as before with this, this is close. It would have to include some guaranteed roster bonus at 3/4s the way through the season though. Something that would eventually add up to the money he didn't get up-front in order to make the deal fair. Other wise, the Broncos could play him for 2 more seasons, then simply drop his contract and saving themselves a TON of money.

Ravage!!!
03-13-2010, 05:43 PM
So, if Marshall was to get a 15 million contract for the injury risk it would only be used if he indeed gets injured correct? If thats the case than i would agree with Tned. But if he could access that money for anything i would be against it.

Right... like you only collect on the fire insurance if there was a fire.

GEM
03-13-2010, 07:16 PM
Getlynched on Broncos Country posted this list of player's compensation for this year. It makes no sense.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2010/03/12/broncos-millionaire-club/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter&utm_content=Twitter




There has got to be a cap on rookie salaries.

Chris effing Simms makes more than Marshall?!? No wonder he's pissed. :laugh:

Tned
03-13-2010, 07:26 PM
Chris effing Simms makes more than Marshall?!? No wonder he's pissed. :laugh:

I know you were mostly joking, but it got me thinking. These are the players that made more than Marshall in '08:

Bly, Dre'
** Bailey, Roland 'Champ'
** Cutler, Jay
** Stokley, Brandon
** Bailey, Boss
** Robertson, Dewayne
** Hamilton, Ben
** Koutouvides, Niko
** Ekuban, Ebenezer
** Engelberger, John
** Royal, Eddie
** Ramsey, Patrick
** Moss, Jarvis
** Nalen, Tom
** Jackson, Nate
** McCree, Marlon
** Jackson, Darrell
** Winborn, Jamie
** Clady, Ryan
** Wiegmann, Casey
** Webster, Nate
** Manuel, Marquand
** Leach, Mike
** Paymah, Karl
** Graham, Daniel
** Williams, D.J.
** Green, Louis
** Pittman, Michael
** Lichtensteiger, Kory
** Williams, Jack
** Crowder, Tim
** Scheffler, Tony
** Peterson, Kenny
** Fox, Vernon
** Russell, Clifford
** Shaw, Josh
** Shepherd, Edell
** Gandy, Dylan
** Torain, Ryan
** Powell, Carlton
** Lowry, Calvin
** Kuper, Chris
** Pears, Erik
** Dumervil, Elvis

Here are the ones that made less than Marshall:

** Larsen, Spencer
** Clemons, Nic
** Harris, Ryan
** Prater, Matt
** Thomas, Marcus
** Young, Selvin
** Hall, Andre
** Hillis, Peyton
** Polumbus, Tyler
** Alridge, Anthony
** Woodyard, Wesley
** Kern, Brett

And Glenn Martinez made the same as Marshall.

That's if you include their signing bonuses in their salary, so that if someone got $10 million up front, but a lot annual salary, they wouldn't be near the bottom, but the list doesn't change much if you look at just salary.

Poet
03-13-2010, 07:35 PM
Marshall's a bum.

Slick
03-13-2010, 07:39 PM
Marshall's a bum.

Shut up fatty.

GEM
03-13-2010, 07:42 PM
I know you were mostly joking, but it got me thinking. These are the players that made more than Marshall in '08:

Bly, Dre'
** Bailey, Roland 'Champ'
** Cutler, Jay
** Stokley, Brandon
** Bailey, Boss
** Robertson, Dewayne
** Hamilton, Ben
** Koutouvides, Niko
** Ekuban, Ebenezer
** Engelberger, John
** Royal, Eddie
** Ramsey, Patrick
** Moss, Jarvis
** Nalen, Tom
** Jackson, Nate
** McCree, Marlon
** Jackson, Darrell
** Winborn, Jamie
** Clady, Ryan
** Wiegmann, Casey
** Webster, Nate
** Manuel, Marquand
** Leach, Mike
** Paymah, Karl
** Graham, Daniel
** Williams, D.J.
** Green, Louis
** Pittman, Michael
** Lichtensteiger, Kory
** Williams, Jack
** Crowder, Tim
** Scheffler, Tony
** Peterson, Kenny
** Fox, Vernon
** Russell, Clifford
** Shaw, Josh
** Shepherd, Edell
** Gandy, Dylan
** Torain, Ryan
** Powell, Carlton
** Lowry, Calvin
** Kuper, Chris
** Pears, Erik
** Dumervil, Elvis

Here are the ones that made less than Marshall:

** Larsen, Spencer
** Clemons, Nic
** Harris, Ryan
** Prater, Matt
** Thomas, Marcus
** Young, Selvin
** Hall, Andre
** Hillis, Peyton
** Polumbus, Tyler
** Alridge, Anthony
** Woodyard, Wesley
** Kern, Brett

And Glenn Martinez made the same as Marshall.

That's if you include their signing bonuses in their salary, so that if someone got $10 million up front, but a lot annual salary, they wouldn't be near the bottom, but the list doesn't change much if you look at just salary.

I just can't find it in my heart to feel bad for a guy who wasted his talent enough to go in the 4th round and then complain about it. And then continually make silly decisions that cost you the chance at big contracts. There are more worthy players to feel bad for. Marshall's actions have dictated his situation.

turftoad
03-13-2010, 07:44 PM
Shut up fatty.

:laugh:

T.K.O.
03-13-2010, 07:44 PM
it's just really bad timing for marshall.if he had not had the off-field issues when he did,shanahan probably would have tried to get him a new deal.
if he had not had the last court battle and tc blow up last year ,maybe mcd would have lobbied for him,and now the cba ,or lack thereof has kinda got everybody by the nad$
if marshall had been a "champ bailey" type of guy off the field the team would have already taken care of a new deal. but all the factors combined have put marshall and the team in a tough spot.

Broncogator
03-13-2010, 07:50 PM
I just can't find it in my heart to feel bad for a guy who wasted his talent enough to go in the 4th round and then complain about it. And then continually make silly decisions that cost you the chance at big contracts. There are more worthy players to feel bad for. Marshall's actions have dictated his situation.

I do agree..but still, he's gotta be a little disgruntled with a lot of the schmucks on that list making more than him. His game day contributions were definitely worth more than Mike Leach and Clifford Russell..

Poet
03-13-2010, 07:51 PM
Shut up fatty.

Dear Skinny man,

Clamoring for a guy who has done nothing to ever show that he's trustworthy to get paid is kind of like giving money to a struggling alcoholic to go to a drugstore right next to a liquor store.

The faith that some of the Denver fans have in this guy is strange. He was a first round talent who went in the fourth round because he's an idiot. He then gets suspended for off the field actions and then manages to get suspended twice for quitting on his team.

Yes, you can make a pile of excuses and rationalize some of it. He was never found guilty, McDaniels appears to be very strict, he's young, he is underpaid for his production, etc etc etc.

However, when you get to the point where you have to do that, something's wrong.

For all this talk of Marshall being this studly player, no one's making that much of an effort to get him. He's had one team show any real interest. No one has been knocking down the door to get him, and Denver gave him a lesser tender in an obvious effort to get rid of him.

This guy who produces more than most first rounders hasn't essentially been 'traded' for a first round pick.

Doesn't that tell you anything? In THIS league of all leagues.

Then you get to the flaws of his on the field. He drops a lot of balls, even when you factor in how many time's he's been thrown to. Then you factor in that he has two QB's who force fed him the ball too much, and he STILL can't put up elite yardage numbers. He's hit ten TD's ONE time.

Is he a stud? Oh yeah. Is he Randy Moss or TO good? And that means is he good enough to deal with the absolute amount of drama and garbage that comes with them?

Not. even. close.

Yeah, go ahead and pay THAT guy.

Broncogator
03-13-2010, 07:54 PM
Dear Skinny man,

Clamoring for a guy who has done nothing to ever show that he's trustworthy to get paid is kind of like giving money to a struggling alcoholic to go to a drugstore right next to a liquor store.

The faith that some of the Denver fans have in this guy is strange. He was a first round talent who went in the fourth round because he's an idiot. He then gets suspended for off the field actions and then manages to get suspended twice for quitting on his team.

Yes, you can make a pile of excuses and rationalize some of it. He was never found guilty, McDaniels appears to be very strict, he's young, he is underpaid for his production, etc etc etc.

However, when you get to the point where you have to do that, something's wrong.

For all this talk of Marshall being this studly player, no one's making that much of an effort to get him. He's had one team show any real interest. No one has been knocking down the door to get him, and Denver gave him a lesser tender in an obvious effort to get rid of him.

This guy who produces more than most first rounders hasn't essentially been 'traded' for a first round pick.

Doesn't that tell you anything? In THIS league of all leagues.

Then you get to the flaws of his on the field. He drops a lot of balls, even when you factor in how many time's he's been thrown to. Then you factor in that he has two QB's who force fed him the ball too much, and he STILL can't put up elite yardage numbers. He's hit ten TD's ONE time.

Is he a stud? Oh yeah. Is he Randy Moss or TO good? And that means is he good enough to deal with the absolute amount of drama and garbage that comes with them?

Not. even. close.

Yeah, go ahead and pay THAT guy.

Dear King, The people from Dairy Queen just called..they haven't seen you in a half hour and are getting worried..

Love Gator

Slick
03-13-2010, 07:56 PM
Dear Skinny man,

Clamoring for a guy who has done nothing to ever show that he's trustworthy to get paid is kind of like giving money to a struggling alcoholic to go to a drugstore right next to a liquor store.

The faith that some of the Denver fans have in this guy is strange. He was a first round talent who went in the fourth round because he's an idiot. He then gets suspended for off the field actions and then manages to get suspended twice for quitting on his team.

Yes, you can make a pile of excuses and rationalize some of it. He was never found guilty, McDaniels appears to be very strict, he's young, he is underpaid for his production, etc etc etc.

However, when you get to the point where you have to do that, something's wrong.

For all this talk of Marshall being this studly player, no one's making that much of an effort to get him. He's had one team show any real interest. No one has been knocking down the door to get him, and Denver gave him a lesser tender in an obvious effort to get rid of him.

This guy who produces more than most first rounders hasn't essentially been 'traded' for a first round pick.

Doesn't that tell you anything? In THIS league of all leagues.

Then you get to the flaws of his on the field. He drops a lot of balls, even when you factor in how many time's he's been thrown to. Then you factor in that he has two QB's who force fed him the ball too much, and he STILL can't put up elite yardage numbers. He's hit ten TD's ONE time.

Is he a stud? Oh yeah. Is he Randy Moss or TO good? And that means is he good enough to deal with the absolute amount of drama and garbage that comes with them?

Not. even. close.

Yeah, go ahead and pay THAT guy.

Oh, I agree he's been a schmuck for the most part, and I don't feel sorry for him. The only reason I want him back is because, in my humble opinion, he's the best player we have, and we'd be ****** without him.

No one is jumping on any of the tendered guys for the most part King. If this were last year, I believe Marshall would have already been scooped no matter how much baggage he brought with him.

Poet
03-13-2010, 07:58 PM
Dear King, The people from Dairy Queen just called..they haven't seen you in a half hour and are getting worried..

Love Gator

Dear Gator,

They burned my fries. I'm not going back there for a long time. It will probably ruin their business.

Hurt and hungry,

King.

Northman
03-13-2010, 08:23 PM
I just can't find it in my heart to feel bad for a guy who wasted his talent enough to go in the 4th round and then complain about it. And then continually make silly decisions that cost you the chance at big contracts. There are more worthy players to feel bad for. Marshall's actions have dictated his situation.

Exactly. I know what Tned is getting at but really Marsh wouldnt even be in this situation had he made better life decisions. The onus is 100% on him and no one else. I cant stress that enough.

Tned
03-13-2010, 08:46 PM
Exactly. I know what Tned is getting at but really Marsh wouldnt even be in this situation had he made better life decisions. The onus is 100% on him and no one else. I cant stress that enough.

I agree 100%, it's all on him. I only bring the list up for those that try and make it seem like he has no reason to feel underpaid. I make the distinction between him being underpaid based on his production, and WHY he is underpaid (being a 4th round pick, and off field problems making Broncos nervious about resigning him).

My only real issue is on the field. We simply don't have a player or players that are likely to make up for his production, and if the last draft is any indication, we are unlikely to draft a player that will make up his production. That's not to say we can't get lucky (like when we drafted Marshall), but the odds are against finding a player close to his talent level.

Head coaches all across the NFL deal with problem players and deal with immature, rich punks. Many ppl on this forum, and others, say, "well, ____ doesn't want to be here, so I don't want him on the team." Yet, we see players all around the NFL demanding trades, but their GMs don't go and trade them. More times than not, when we publicly here about ____ demanding a trade, he is never traded, and sometimes franchised when his contract is up.

A head coaches job is not to honor the requests of a player that wants to leave, it is to put the best team on the field, and that often means figuring out how to deal with high strung, punk players.


Oh, I agree he's been a schmuck for the most part, and I don't feel sorry for him. The only reason I want him back is because, in my humble opinion, he's the best player we have, and we'd be ****** without him.

No one is jumping on any of the tendered guys for the most part King. If this were last year, I believe Marshall would have already been scooped no matter how much baggage he brought with him.

I agree completely with both of your points.

LordTrychon
03-13-2010, 08:54 PM
I've seen the drops thing mentioned several times... it was more of an issue last year than this year. Could've sworn that I'd heard that it was a lot better this year.

Not sure what sites are good to look at for that stat... google gave me this page. Not sure of its correctness... but it shows Marshall tied with at least 13 other players (it's where the list ends) for 16th place in the league with 7 drops. If it's right, that means there's at least 29 other receivers with as many or more drops than Marshall last year.

Ok... just noticed at the bottom that it's got the Stats Inc logo. That probably means it's accurate.

Doubt there's a lot of 100 catch receivers on that list, too.

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=NFL&type=Receiving&rank=232

Northman
03-13-2010, 08:54 PM
I agree 100%, it's all on him. I only bring the list up for those that try and make it seem like he has no reason to feel underpaid. I make the distinction between him being underpaid based on his production, and WHY he is underpaid (being a 4th round pick, and off field problems making Broncos nervious about resigning him).

My only real issue is on the field. We simply don't have a player or players that are likely to make up for his production, and if the last draft is any indication, we are unlikely to draft a player that will make up his production. That's not to say we can't get lucky (like when we drafted Marshall), but the odds are against finding a player close to his talent level.

Head coaches all across the NFL deal with problem players and deal with immature, rich punks. Many ppl on this forum, and others, say, "well, ____ doesn't want to be here, so I don't want him on the team." Yet, we see players all around the NFL demanding trades, but their GMs don't go and trade them. More times than not, when we publicly here about ____ demanding a trade, he is never traded, and sometimes franchised when his contract is up.

A head coaches job is not to honor the requests of a player that wants to leave, it is to put the best team on the field, and that often means figuring out how to deal with high strung, punk players.



I agree completely with both of your points.

Yea, i only brought you up to distinguish your view vs some of the others that have been posted. I have a better understanding where your coming from there. :salute:

Lonestar
03-13-2010, 11:14 PM
Here's a thought, why don't you just discuss the topic, rather than telling the rest of us posters what we should or shouldn't discuss.

I, and the rest of us on this message board, have the right to 'bring up' and 'bitch' as you say, about whatever we would like. Just like you exercised your right to constantly bitch and 'bring up' everything you thought Shanahan and Cutler did wrong, and just like you constantly 'bitch' and 'bring up' how awful and a moron Marshall is.

Sorry I left out "whine" and "cry", but I think you get the point. It's not about other posters, its about the topic of the thread, which in this case is salaries.

As to rookie salaries, I hope you are right about the next CBA having a rookie cap, as some of them are crazy. When someone like Sanchez gets more guaranteed money than any QB in history, or something like that, without ever taking a snap, there are major problems with rookie salaries.


I merely put the comments in a bout do not bring up this or that because some folks will indeed bring up it unless preempted. Just wanted to not have to remind them again why.

If they really want to discuss it, it is a free forum for them to express their own minds.

I truly believe that there will be rookie caps as those that are agreeing to the new CBA will all already have their money and most would have more IF the un-proven rookies were not getting over bloated contracts. the only folks voting on this area are Veterans and they are going to throw the rookies to the wolves.

When they signed the last CBA I do not think anyone saw the guaranteed money and run away contracts for rookies as an issue.

Much like when they first developed Free agency they thought that owners would be responsible and not drive prices through the roof for some guys.
Then the Signing bonus loop hole was found and we all have seen what happened there.

Tned
03-13-2010, 11:18 PM
I truly believe that there will be rookie caps as those that are agreeing to the new CBA will all already have their money and most would have more IF the un-proven rookies were not getting over bloated contracts. the only folks voting on this area are Veterans and they are going to throw the rookies to the wolves.

When they signed the last CBA I do not think anyone saw the guaranteed money and run away contracts for rookies as an issue.

Much like when they first developed Free agency they thought that owners would be responsible and not drive prices through the roof for some guys.
Then the Signing bonus loop hole was found and we all have seen what happened there.

The union made some big miscalculations. They thought the owners were terified of an uncapped year, obviously they weren't. The union leader De Smith, implied that if the Owners wanted a rookie cap, they would have to concede something, even though that cap would benefit the vast majority of the players in their union.

It seems the union made some major miscalculations, thinking that they had the owners a bit over the barrel with their need for a rookie cap and fear of the uncapped year, when in hindsight, those issues weren't the huge bargaining chip that the union thought.

Lonestar
03-13-2010, 11:28 PM
The union made some big miscalculations. They thought the owners were terified of an uncapped year, obviously they weren't. The union leader De Smith, implied that if the Owners wanted a rookie cap, they would have to concede something, even though that cap would benefit the vast majority of the players in their union.

It seems the union made some major miscalculations, thinking that they had the owners a bit over the barrel with their need for a rookie cap and fear of the uncapped year, when in hindsight, those issues weren't the huge bargaining chip that the union thought.


Lots of fubars happened in the last few CBA's

This one will get fixed I'm sure of that.

Millions of wasted money going to unproven players and frankly the top ten or fifteen in each year are the ones that are causing the grief for the rest of the teams.

Ravage!!!
03-14-2010, 12:43 PM
I dont' think the rookie cap is a big concern for the owners. It never has been.

It came into light once the owners wanted to get the fans in their corner. Someone pointed out on ESPN radio, not long ago, how the rookie cap was never amongst the owners top list of priorities.. UNTIL they were trying to put pressure on (and used example after example of this being true).

The fans are much more bothered by the rookie cap than the owners are.

There are just so many dilemmas caused by a rookie cap. Problems that trickle down, and problems that the players union probably won't give in.

Nomad
03-14-2010, 01:39 PM
The NFL is thriving even in this economic turmoil! While I believe rookies should earn their way up, the union won't ask for pay cuts for rookies unless it helps out the retirees but they will try and get both!! I wonder what players pay in dues!!

T.K.O.
03-14-2010, 02:01 PM
jamarcus russell makes about 3 million bucks per touchdown.....i'd say something has to be done !

Ravage!!!
03-14-2010, 02:09 PM
jamarcus russell makes about 3 million bucks per touchdown.....i'd say something has to be done !

But, my perspective is... I just don't care how much Russell makes per touchdown. The NFL is thriving. Its the biggest sport in the US. Its a multi multi BILLION dollar industry. I just don't care how much Jamarcus is making. It doesn't take away how much I enjoy the sport. It doesn't make me watch it less.

Owners would LOVE a rookie cap. Why? More money for them. If you guys think this will put more money into the hands of the veterans, you are fooling yourself. They gave out numbers of the HUGE amounts of MILLIONS that have been available to give vets over the years, but wasn't. This before a cap? This before any "recession" in the economy. The owners would LOVE a rookie cap because its going to put a ton of money into their pockets, and won't be distributed out to give 'more' money to others. Its already been shown that this won't happen.

Personally. I just don't care.

Sparky The Sun Devil
03-14-2010, 02:13 PM
But, my perspective is... I just don't care how much Russell makes per touchdown. The NFL is thriving. Its the biggest sport in the US. Its a multi multi BILLION dollar industry. I just don't care how much Jamarcus is making. It doesn't take away how much I enjoy the sport. It doesn't make me watch it less.

Owners would LOVE a rookie cap. Why? More money for them. If you guys think this will put more money into the hands of the veterans, you are fooling yourself. They gave out numbers of the HUGE amounts of MILLIONS that have been available to give vets over the years, but wasn't. This before a cap? This before any "recession" in the economy. The owners would LOVE a rookie cap because its going to put a ton of money into their pockets, and won't be distributed out to give 'more' money to others. Its already been shown that this won't happen.

Personally. I just don't care.

I think there will be a rookie cap, but to ensure teams spend more on vets they will also have a minimum team salary set much higher than in the past

Nomad
03-14-2010, 02:16 PM
I think there will be a rookie cap, but to ensure teams spend more on vets they will also have a minimum team salary set much higher than in the past

And to help the retirees! That's Mawae's main focus from what I understand and read and they don't mind taking from the rookies (which the oldtimers have earned it)

Tned
03-14-2010, 03:16 PM
But, my perspective is... I just don't care how much Russell makes per touchdown. The NFL is thriving. Its the biggest sport in the US. Its a multi multi BILLION dollar industry. I just don't care how much Jamarcus is making. It doesn't take away how much I enjoy the sport. It doesn't make me watch it less.

Owners would LOVE a rookie cap. Why? More money for them. If you guys think this will put more money into the hands of the veterans, you are fooling yourself. They gave out numbers of the HUGE amounts of MILLIONS that have been available to give vets over the years, but wasn't. This before a cap? This before any "recession" in the economy. The owners would LOVE a rookie cap because its going to put a ton of money into their pockets, and won't be distributed out to give 'more' money to others. Its already been shown that this won't happen.

Personally. I just don't care.

Yes and no (on rookie cap effecting veteran pay). Many clubs only pay out the minimum required, which is like 60% of revenue or something like that. Even teams that might be close to the cap in terms of 'cap money' are often paying out real dollars close to the minimum salary.

When there is talk of a rookie salary cap, from the owners perspective, it is simply putting a cap on how much of that 60% that owners must pay in salaries that goes to rookies vs. the rest of the team. So, putting a rookie cap in place would, in fact, put more money in veterans pockets.

Tned
03-14-2010, 03:18 PM
I think there will be a rookie cap, but to ensure teams spend more on vets they will also have a minimum team salary set much higher than in the past

It's VERY unlikely that the owners are going to increase the minimum salary. In fact, one of the concessions the owners want is to lower the percentage of revenue that has to be paid out to players.

Lonestar
03-14-2010, 03:33 PM
It's VERY unlikely that the owners are going to increase the minimum salary. In fact, one of the concessions the owners want is to lower the percentage of revenue that has to be paid out to players.

Think they were discussing the max and MIn cap numbers each year.

As it is right now the players get 60% of the gross revenues of the clubs. the owners want to cut that back to 41% I suspect they will be closer to 53-4 54% when all is said bad done .

they will also get a bona fide rookie salary schedule because eNONE of them want the top ten picks because of the amounts of guarantees they have been giving of the years.

NO rookie is worht those numbers .. If they want a to set up and base minimum and then build in incentives for the length of the contract I have zero issue with that. that is fair to the team and the vets.

But upwards of 40 mil guaranteed is nuts.

IMHO their should be no Guaranteed money. I do not care about potential injuries cutting their careers short, they can buy insurance against that if it bothers them so much.

I do nto have a guaranteed job and know of few folks that do. why should they be all the diffeenret

Ravage!!!
03-14-2010, 04:01 PM
I still haven't seen of ANY system that will answer the questions I have posed in regards to a rookie salary cap. Nothing seems to make sense, and I just don't think the union (nor the players) are simply going to forfeit this over that easily. Don't think the Owners are just goign to say "tough, this is the way it is." Doesn't work that way.

There is a lot of problems that come along with rookie cap, and.... I don't think its been as big of a conflict with them as it has been with us.

But I am interested to see some kind of plan laid out that would help explain some of the basic questions and problems.

Ravage!!!
03-14-2010, 04:07 PM
But upwards of 40 mil guaranteed is nuts.

IMHO their should be no Guaranteed money. I do not care about potential injuries cutting their careers short, they can buy insurance against that if it bothers them so much.

I do nto have a guaranteed job and know of few folks that do. why should they be all the diffeenret

Because no one gives a crap if you take a job.

Owners and teams get BIG money simply by calling out a players name on draft day. That player, from day one, is making the owners MULTI MULTI millions of dollars. Whether thats in jersey sales, or seat/ticket sales. Yet the player gets no compensation for the money they just made the owner/company?

New Orleans made a TON of money from moment ONE they called out Reggie Bush's name. Its been WELL documented. Some famous basketball players have been known to CHANGE their number so that the owners can bring in enough money from jersey sales, to play for their signing bonus.

1st round draft picks, bring in a LOT of money for the team before they play a single down on the field.