PDA

View Full Version : How will the Marshall saga end?



Denver Native (Carol)
04-09-2010, 03:38 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/11811/how-will-the-marshall-saga-end

The Brandon Marshall watch is one of the longest and most intriguing storylines in the NFL this offseason.

The story started off hot with a Marshall visit to Seattle on the second day of free agency, but it has been in a holding pattern in the month-plus since.

Marshall, who recently turned 26, is one of the NFL's best wide receivers. Yet, because of several issues, it appears Marshall and the Denver Broncos have reached the end of their relationship.

Marshall is a restricted free agent who was given a first-round tender. The date for signing restricted free agents to an offer sheet is Thursday. So far, Seattle has been the only team to show real interest. There have been rumors and speculation of other teams being interested, but nothing concrete has materialized.

Denver has made it known it wants a first-round pick for Marshall. But if he isn’t signed to an offer sheet, the Broncos may have a difficult time getting their asking price. Denver may have to end up settling for another package, perhaps of existing players, a package of later picks or future picks. It wouldn’t be a surprise if this saga doesn’t conclude until the draft, which begins April 22. Currently, the most likely scenario for this coming to an end is during the second round on April 23. Here's a look at possibilities for Marshall:

Seattle: The Seahawks clearly have interest. They brought Marshall to their facility via a seaplane March 6. Seattle coach Pete Carroll acknowledged late last month that the team has had preliminary talks with Marshall’s agent about a new contract.

Seattle is still interested and must be considered the front-runner to acquire Marshall. I expect Seattle’s interest will continue into the draft, but there are sticking points. The Seahawks are unlikely to surrender the No. 6 or No. 14 pick (acquired from Denver during a draft-day trade last year). Because of a trade for San Diego No. 3 quarterback Charlie Whitehurst, Seattle now has the No. 60 overall pick in the second-round and not the No. 40 pick. So, Seattle may have to get creative to get Marshall. Perhaps it will give up the No. 60 pick, and another pick in the draft and/or a conditional future pick. If Seattle really wants Marshall, it could even make a trade in which it switches the No. 6 overall pick with Denver’s No. 11 pick as part of a package.

Washington: The Washington Post reported this week that the Redskins still may be in play for Marshall after trading the No. 37 overall pick (and a conditional pick next year) for Donovan McNabb. The Post reasons that the Redskins may want to pair Marshall with McNabb to make a fast run in the NFC East.

It was thought a Marshall deal would be out of the question after the Redskins gave up their second-round pick for McNabb. It would be a shock if the Redskins gave up the No. 4 pick for Marshall. If it wants him, perhaps Washington would be willing to give up their first-round pick in 2011 for Marshall.

It's going to take creativity to make Denver happy if a 2010 first-round pick is not part of the deal. Washington leaders Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen are known for being aggressive. If the Redskins want Marshall, they could go get him.

Other teams: Perhaps a team that drafts late in the first round will decide trading for and giving a large contract to a known commodity such as Marshall is better than giving a big contract to a draft pick. Marshall, a four-year veteran, has 100 or more catches in the past three seasons and is a brilliant talent. The Jets, Dolphins, Patriots, Cowboys, Rams (who have the first pick in the second round) and Bengals have all been connected to Marshall, but none has made a move.

Until they do, the Broncos may be stuck and only have to deal with Seattle. Denver must hope that Oklahoma State wide receiver Dez Bryant doesn’t fall down the draft board. If Bryant, who is talented but comes with off-field questions, is off the board early in the first round, perhaps one of these aforementioned teams will make a play for Marshall while on the clock.

Staying in Denver: I mention this option last because I think this is the last resort for Denver and Marshall. Both sides want to move on. The Broncos want fair trade value and Marshall wants a fair contract extension.

If neither option develops elsewhere, Denver and Marshall may be stuck with each other. It will be interesting to see what Denver’s breaking point is. If it truly will not take anything less than a 2010 first-round pick, we will know Marshall’s future by the end of the evening on April 22.

Marshall’s PR firm recently put out a statement indicating that Marshall wants a new deal and would be willing to stay in Denver. He asked to be traded before last season and ended up having a productive season. Still, the 2009 season ended with Marshall being benched for the final game of the season (in a game Denver had playoff hopes entering) because the team thought he milked a minor injury he suffered during the practice week leading up to the game. The relationship has not been publicly mended since.

I could see Denver keeping Marshall only if it doesn’t believe it is getting fair trade value. I don’t see Denver giving Marshall a long-term deal right away. Perhaps Denver will decide getting one more productive season out of Marshall before he can leave as unrestricted free agent will be better than getting a second-round pick.

Ravage!!!
04-09-2010, 03:50 PM
I think St. Louis may be a serious contender. Although, I find that it would be much more interesting to find him in Washington.

topscribe
04-09-2010, 03:55 PM
I believe the Broncos would be fools in letting Marshall go at all this year . . .

-----

LordTrychon
04-09-2010, 04:16 PM
Both sides have made statements that they've moved on from the week 17 issue... how is that not publicly mending the relationship? What do they have to do to publicly mend? Join their braids?

Ziggy
04-09-2010, 04:22 PM
I believe the Broncos would be fools in letting Marshall go at all this year . . .

-----

..and if we keep him this season and lose him to free agency for nothing next year, then what? We have no idea what kind of tags will be available if the CBA gets solved. People are going to be unhappy no matter what happens.

T.K.O.
04-09-2010, 04:25 PM
Brandon Marshall has also said he wants to return to the Broncos, if things - read contract - work out that way. Marshall has stated his love for Denver and his desire to stay.

In the past, Josh McDaniels has also said he would like Marshall to be around - at least as much as a coach like McDaniels will commit to anything. Now McDaniels has come out again, this time in a sit-down interview with CBS4's Gary Miller and once-again expressed his desire to bring Marshall back to the Broncos -

Certainly. I mean he had a great year, a Pro Bowl year. Brandon and I got along fine and I know we've had some differences of opinion and some other things that have happened, but he's a very good player, obviously, one of the elite receivers in this league. Our goal is to try to keep all of our good players and he's certainly one of them.

We're looking to assemble the best team we can with the best talent and the best players and he's certainly proved this year that he's one of those guys in this league that's going to continue to be productive at that level every season.

Ziggy
04-09-2010, 04:25 PM
Both sides have made statements that they've moved on from the week 17 issue... how is that not publicly mending the relationship? What do they have to do to publicly mend? Join their braids?

I think that a 1st and 3rd round tender would have been a statement that the Broncos were truly wanting to keep him. A 1st round tender basically said, "Come and get him."

T.K.O.
04-09-2010, 04:30 PM
i think the broncos are just letting brandon find out what his market value is.and then they will offer him a touch more to stay maybe a modest signing bonus/guaranteed money in the 3-5 mill range and 9 mil a year
why would he want to play in the rain with the shehawks when he can be a star in denver and take the ride all the way to multiple championships !

Ravage!!!
04-09-2010, 04:32 PM
Brandon Marshall has also said he wants to return to the Broncos, if things - read contract - work out that way. Marshall has stated his love for Denver and his desire to stay.

In the past, Josh McDaniels has also said he would like Marshall to be around - at least as much as a coach like McDaniels will commit to anything. Now McDaniels has come out again, this time in a sit-down interview with CBS4's Gary Miller and once-again expressed his desire to bring Marshall back to the Broncos -

Certainly. I mean he had a great year, a Pro Bowl year. Brandon and I got along fine and I know we've had some differences of opinion and some other things that have happened, but he's a very good player, obviously, one of the elite receivers in this league. Our goal is to try to keep all of our good players and he's certainly one of them.

We're looking to assemble the best team we can with the best talent and the best players and he's certainly proved this year that he's one of those guys in this league that's going to continue to be productive at that level every season.


Seems I heard a lot of the same "type" of quotes from McD regarding Hillis. He's purely playing the part (as to more coaches) to the media, because if they let anything go, the media hounds for more questions. You can't take these interviews seriously, and MOST certainly can't believe that they are telling the whole truth.

Italianmobstr7
04-09-2010, 04:32 PM
Sadly I believe he'll be traded during the draft. I'll be completely pissed when it happens and I'll bitch and moan for a couple of days and then I'll get over it. I'll never forget Brandon being a Bronco and the great plays he's made for us. It truly sucks that he's probably spending his last days as a Bronco right now.

topscribe
04-09-2010, 04:34 PM
..and if we keep him this season and lose him to free agency for nothing next year, then what? We have no idea what kind of tags will be available if the CBA gets solved. People are going to be unhappy no matter what happens.

Ever hear of the franchise tag?

Nonetheless, I believe I would announce categorically that Marshall is off the board.
Period. I then would let other teams bid on him as a RFA and then match. And keep
him. FWIW.

-----

topscribe
04-09-2010, 04:38 PM
Seems I heard a lot of the same "type" of quotes from McD regarding Hillis. He's purely playing the part (as to more coaches) to the media, because if they let anything go, the media hounds for more questions. You can't take these interviews seriously, and MOST certainly can't believe that they are telling the whole truth.

So it would be more reasonable, then, to believe summarily that they are NOT telling the truth?

I don't believe that is any more reasonable than accepting summarily that they are.

It's wait and see for me, but I understand that is considered by some here as unreasonable, too . . .

-----

Ziggy
04-09-2010, 04:41 PM
Ever hear of the franchise tag?

Nonetheless, I believe I would announce categorically that Marshall is off the board.
Period. I then would let other teams bid on him as a RFA and then match. And keep
him. FWIW.

-----

Yes Top I have. Ever hear of the collective bargaining agreement being over? There may or may not be franchise and transition tags with the new one. We also have more than 1 player on the roster that they may want to use a franchise tag on. Doom will also be an UFA if the CBA is resolved in the next year. If they do happen to keep the franchise tag, and each team has only 1, that leaves the Broncos having to let one of these 2 players go to another team anyways.

T.K.O.
04-09-2010, 04:43 PM
i do believe the F.O. is smart enough to know that they can't hold brandon over a barrel.he was promised a bigger contract if he played well in 08'....shanny gets fired.
he was offered a contract in 09' that had good money but no upfront $$$ (which a top reciever should get) again he was probably told ,keep out of trouble and play well and we'll see"
then the cba and a couple issues with the coach put the skids on that.
i think the team will at least make a reasonable "middle ground" offer rather than try and force him to play for a 13% raise and then attempt to franchise him the year after...basically using up his prime years while paying as little as possible.
sure it makes some business sense,but i doubt you would see the same effort from BM if that is the route they choose.

topscribe
04-09-2010, 04:44 PM
Yes Top I have. Ever hear of the collective bargaining agreement being over? There may or may not be franchise and transition tags with the new one. We also have more than 1 player on the roster that they may want to use a franchise tag on. Doom will also be an UFA if the CBA is resolved in the next year. If they do happen to keep the franchise tag, and each team has only 1, which leaves the Broncos having to let one of these 2 players go to another team anyways.

It was my understanding some time ago that under the new arrangement each
team will have three franchise tags to use. Maybe that has changed, I don't know . . . :whoknows:

-----

SOCALORADO.
04-09-2010, 04:55 PM
Sadly I believe he'll be traded during the draft. I'll be completely pissed when it happens and I'll bitch and moan for a couple of days and then I'll get over it. I'll never forget Brandon being a Bronco and the great plays he's made for us. It truly sucks that he's probably spending his last days as a Bronco right now.

Yes. I think he will be traded for the 1st pick of the 2nd round.
Or to TB a few picks later.

JDL
04-09-2010, 05:14 PM
I would actually prefer the 33rd pick over a late 1st rd pick for this reason.

There is an entire night for teams to reevaluate and look at what occurred in RD 1, see who slipped down. There will be plenty of teams desperate in the mid 2nd rd or later who will give up a future 1st rd pick for the right to go get a guy that unexpectedly slipped out of RD 1 or may be the last of quality players at a certain position.

With an entire night to negotiate, you can anticipate getting great value as team's jockey for that draft pick. It becomes exponentially less valuable though past that pick and more difficult. If you can get pick 33, I think you do it, because the net result could be 1st AND 2nd rd picks for Brandon Marshall.

Denver Native (Carol)
04-09-2010, 05:21 PM
I think that a 1st and 3rd round tender would have been a statement that the Broncos were truly wanting to keep him. A 1st round tender basically said, "Come and get him."

Not knowing how this all works, would it be if they did put a 1st and 3rd round tender on Brandon, if a team accepted that and offered him a contract, would they offer him a larger $ contract, than what just a 1st round contract would be - thus, if the Broncos really wanted to keep him, it would cost them more to match the offer?

Hope that makes sense.

Ravage!!!
04-09-2010, 05:25 PM
i do believe the F.O. is smart enough to know that they can't hold brandon over a barrel.he was promised a bigger contract if he played well in 08'....shanny gets fired.
he was offered a contract in 09' that had good money but no upfront $$$ (which a top reciever should get) again he was probably told ,keep out of trouble and play well and we'll see"
then the cba and a couple issues with the coach put the skids on that.
i think the team will at least make a reasonable "middle ground" offer rather than try and force him to play for a 13% raise and then attempt to franchise him the year after...basically using up his prime years while paying as little as possible.
sure it makes some business sense,but i doubt you would see the same effort from BM if that is the route they choose.

Not to mention.. every player and every agent will see this is how you treat your players, and if any FA has a choice between Denver and another team, this absolutely would come into question.

I think you are right.

topscribe
04-09-2010, 05:25 PM
Not knowing how this all works, would it be if they did put a 1st and 3rd round tender on Brandon, if a team accepted that and offered him a contract, would they offer him a larger $ contract, than what just a 1st round contract would be - thus, if the Broncos really wanted to keep him, it would cost them more to match the offer?

Hope that makes sense.

I do believe the Broncos wanted to test the market and see what others thought
he is worth. In fact, I would not be surprised for them to see what he can get as
an RFA. Let others name the price.

But it's all speculation at this point, of course . . .

-----

Ravage!!!
04-09-2010, 05:51 PM
So it would be more reasonable, then, to believe summarily that they are NOT telling the truth?

I don't believe that is any more reasonable than accepting summarily that they are.

It's wait and see for me, but I understand that is considered by some here as unreasonable, too . . .

-----

After the set pattern they have already established, I would say its more reasonable to not take what they are saying as being the entire truth.

"Cutler is our QB"... "Hillis will be a valuable member of the Broncos for a long long time."

But again, I say this about every coach, from any team, in regards to these situations and comments about players. The benching wasn't bad, but the bringing it to the media was bad for Marshall's value.....but it would be worse if the comments about not wanting him here were continued throughout the offseason. We can't keep 'demanding' first round value, then be quoted saying how much we don't want him here. So take what you want from it.

Ravage!!!
04-09-2010, 05:57 PM
Not knowing how this all works, would it be if they did put a 1st and 3rd round tender on Brandon, if a team accepted that and offered him a contract, would they offer him a larger $ contract, than what just a 1st round contract would be - thus, if the Broncos really wanted to keep him, it would cost them more to match the offer?

Hope that makes sense.

I understand what you mean.

I hope thats not the case. 1) It means we are trying to lowball Marshall.

now that may be ok for some, but I personally would just rather the Broncos offer him a fair market price rather than push the guy into a corner and match at the very lowest they have to.

Ziggy
04-09-2010, 06:05 PM
Not knowing how this all works, would it be if they did put a 1st and 3rd round tender on Brandon, if a team accepted that and offered him a contract, would they offer him a larger $ contract, than what just a 1st round contract would be - thus, if the Broncos really wanted to keep him, it would cost them more to match the offer?

Hope that makes sense.

Putting a 1st and 3rd round tender on Brandon would have been putting the highest tag on him, letting teams know that the Broncos will probably do whatever it takes to keep him, like they did with Doom. It won't affect the salary that another team would sign him to. Obviously, no team in the NFL wants to give BMarsh a huge contract, AND give up a 1st for him. If they did, he would have been gone weeks ago.

Hopefully this is a wakeup call for Brandon and his agent. People forget that he still doesn't have to sign his tender until June. Everyone is assuming that he will be traded during the draft, but in order for the Broncos to do that, Brandon would have to sign his tender early. If we do hear about him signing it, I'd expect him to be traded within the next day or 2. If he doesn't sign it before or on draft day, I'll expect him to remain a Bronco.

Ravage!!!
04-09-2010, 06:09 PM
At the same time, the signing is just a formality. A phone call to the agent, a paper that is already signed by not handed over to the Broncos. You simply have a rep at the draft that hands the papers over.... or simply a signed agreement that agrees the trade is agreed upon, after the signing of the tender. The paperwork is just paperwork.

Also, I want to point out.. that NO 1st round offer was signed by anyone. This isn't a wake up call to Marshall specifically in the least. This is a result of the CBA. Had there been other 1st round offers made to other players around the league, then I think it would be a sign to Marshall. As it is.... he's just a victim of the CBA just as all the rest.

dogfish
04-09-2010, 06:18 PM
How will the Marshall saga end?


poorly. . . . ?





Both sides have made statements that they've moved on from the week 17 issue... how is that not publicly mending the relationship? What do they have to do to publicly mend? Join their braids?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgTssbfJu3Y

Italianmobstr7
04-09-2010, 06:21 PM
Putting a 1st and 3rd round tender on Brandon would have been putting the highest tag on him, letting teams know that the Broncos will probably do whatever it takes to keep him, like they did with Doom. It won't affect the salary that another team would sign him to. Obviously, no team in the NFL wants to give BMarsh a huge contract, AND give up a 1st for him. If they did, he would have been gone weeks ago.

Hopefully this is a wakeup call for Brandon and his agent. People forget that he still doesn't have to sign his tender until June. Everyone is assuming that he will be traded during the draft, but in order for the Broncos to do that, Brandon would have to sign his tender early. If we do hear about him signing it, I'd expect him to be traded within the next day or 2. If he doesn't sign it before or on draft day, I'll expect him to remain a Bronco.

If a trade is worked out, he'll be signing the contract. He can wait until a trade is in place, he doesn't have to sign before he knows for sure that he's being traded. That's probably the only way he signs before June though.

Northman
04-09-2010, 07:10 PM
It wont end until he is traded. Simple as that.

BigBroncLove
04-09-2010, 07:42 PM
Yes Top I have. Ever hear of the collective bargaining agreement being over? There may or may not be franchise and transition tags with the new one. We also have more than 1 player on the roster that they may want to use a franchise tag on. Doom will also be an UFA if the CBA is resolved in the next year. If they do happen to keep the franchise tag, and each team has only 1, that leaves the Broncos having to let one of these 2 players go to another team anyways.

Well honestly all of us are purely speculating upon what will be in the new CBA. The original reason the owners opted out of the old CBA was because of 60% of all revenue for each team must be spent on players. They complained that rising stadium maintenance and other team financial obligations were making this percentage increasingly impossible to meet for the owners. So.... I would assume this is primary #1 for any new CBA negotiations.

Now remember, I'm no closer to the inside negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL owners association than any of you, so this is just as much speculation as anybody else but these are the reported main points of negotation at present over the CBA.

-Income percentage between owners and players
-Player benefits and retired NFL player health care
-Player periods to reach UFA/RFA
-Rookie contract structure
-Income/Earning reporting by owners (currently they do not report any earning to any governing body or the public)
-Change in cap system or complete abolition of the cap system.

So far that's all I read, and most of this is through the NFLPA. The NFL is being very close mouthed over the negotiations so far, likely because there is no reason to be at the negotiating table for the Owners until free agency is over.

So personally, given NFLPA's stance publicly, they have made no mention or protest of franchise tags and I completely believe they will remain intact whenever a new CBA is signed. Infact it would be a good idea for the NFLPA IMO to concede to have transitions tags instated as a negotiation tool for more of their larger goals in the new CBA. The owners likely wouldn't have to use franchise tags as bargaining chips since they hold the majority of the cards.

As for dumervil I have to admit the fact he isn't signed makes me angry. But at this point I have to imagine it might be business. It would be a bad idea to sign Dumervil to a large contract while the Marshall ordeal has not yet been settled. That would just add more fuel to Marshall's discontent to see a teammate drafted the same year he was signed to a contract he feels he earned. Especially if Dumervil is paid a big contract when Marshalls production has been at least on par in a different part of the field. I am not saying I agree with that, just that it would likely be MArshall's statement to the media since he so loves using public forums to hash out his contract.

I think we will see the Dumervil ordeal come to a head after mandatory mini-camps when the Marshall situation should either already been finished, or its conclusion is obvious. At this point Dumervil can still sign his tender and holdout during training camp while his agent and team negotiate. By this point Marshall should be cornered or traded letting the team deal with Dumervil and the contract he's earned.

topscribe
04-09-2010, 08:03 PM
Well honestly all of us are purely speculating upon what will be in the new CBA. The original reason the owners opted out of the old CBA was because of 60% of all revenue for each team must be spent on players. They complained that rising stadium maintenance and other team financial obligations were making this percentage increasingly impossible to meet for the owners. So.... I would assume this is primary #1 for any new CBA negotiations.

Now remember, I'm no closer to the inside negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL owners association than any of you, so this is just as much speculation as anybody else but these are the reported main points of negotation at present over the CBA.

-Income percentage between owners and players
-Player benefits and retired NFL player health care
-Player periods to reach UFA/RFA
-Rookie contract structure
-Income/Earning reporting by owners (currently they do not report any earning to any governing body or the public)
-Change in cap system or complete abolition of the cap system.

So far that's all I read, and most of this is through the NFLPA. The NFL is being very close mouthed over the negotiations so far, likely because there is no reason to be at the negotiating table for the Owners until free agency is over.

So personally, given NFLPA's stance publicly, they have made no mention or protest of franchise tags and I completely believe they will remain intact whenever a new CBA is signed. Infact it would be a good idea for the NFLPA IMO to concede to have transitions tags instated as a negotiation tool for more of their larger goals in the new CBA. The owners likely wouldn't have to use franchise tags as bargaining chips since they hold the majority of the cards.

As for dumervil I have to admit the fact he isn't signed makes me angry. But at this point I have to imagine it might be business. It would be a bad idea to sign Dumervil to a large contract while the Marshall ordeal has not yet been settled. That would just add more fuel to Marshall's discontent to see a teammate drafted the same year he was signed to a contract he feels he earned. Especially if Dumervil is paid a big contract when Marshalls production has been at least on par in a different part of the field. I am not saying I agree with that, just that it would likely be MArshall's statement to the media since he so loves using public forums to hash out his contract.

I think we will see the Dumervil ordeal come to a head after mandatory mini-camps when the Marshall situation should either already been finished, or its conclusion is obvious. At this point Dumervil can still sign his tender and holdout during training camp while his agent and team negotiate. By this point Marshall should be cornered or traded letting the team deal with Dumervil and the contract he's earned.

Meanwhile, the draft Dez Bryant, as some have suggested, and they get to pay
him what they would have paid Marshall to stick around.

Not a whole lot of this makes sense to me . . . :confused:

-----

Northman
04-09-2010, 08:05 PM
Meanwhile, the draft Dez Bryant, as some have suggested, and they get to pay
him what they would have paid Marshall to stick around.

Not a whole lot of this makes sense to me . . . :confused:

-----

I seriously doubt they draft Bryant. It would be a moronic move no doubt.

BigBroncLove
04-09-2010, 08:19 PM
Meanwhile, the draft Dez Bryant, as some have suggested, and they get to pay
him what they would have paid Marshall to stick around.

Not a whole lot of this makes sense to me . . . :confused:

-----

Well I don't think Dez would get nearly as much money. I am not a proponent of drafting Bryant, simply because I don't think the team will. I could very well be wrong but everything as far as team mentality and the coaching staffs obvious direction of the team point in a very different direction from Bryant (even if his character issues are only perceived they must be taken into consideration).

However I don't think Bryant would get the same money. First Marshall is looking for Fitzgerald type of money, which means an average of about 10 million per year (with accelerated contracts, and likely a similar length, were saying starting around 2-3 million and accelerating through the life of the contract which is a four year contract). Marshall likely wants guaranteed money with his contract, and honestly, I would too. Injury can end everything, guaranteed money is the only way to ensure you get paid in this league. I would expect eh wants something similar to fitz, which was an additional 30 milion guaranteed, but given his current status would downgrade that to about 15-20 million.

We have to look at Moreno's contract last year (#12) as a real teller for what Bryant might make at the #11th overall pick. #10 is crabtree who held out for the better part of the year and his contract is thus very unique. Maybin is an LB and so contract pay is very different from a WR.

Moreno received a 16.7million dollar contract for five years. About 3 million average, with a 12.5 guaranteed contract. Last year rookie salaries increased about 15% over the year before (12% increase from 07 to 08 contracts), so we should expect at least a 15% increase in contract money, if not 1 - 3% more. So lets say it's 20% increase...

Even with a 20% increase we are looking at around a 20 Million dollar contract for one more year worth of play (averaging about 4 million per year for five years). A far cry form 10 million per year, and likely at best the same in guaranteed money. Plus it will be easier to drop this for Bryant further with incentive based insertions that give more guaranteed money. Rookies often have a lot of those these days, and given they need to perform anyhow to get the bigger contract in FA they want, its a win win for both parties.

Plus of course the fact Marshall very much doesn't seem to want to be a Bronco anymore, despite PR statements to the contrary (which I think he has to make incase he does remain a Bronco). Once he gets his money, there is no guarantee... at least for the broncos, he will continue to perform with as much heart or zeal (at least for this coaching staff). Just my two cents....

Lonestar
04-10-2010, 09:11 AM
As I understand the current CBA the provisisons are the player must have SIX completed years in the NFL before he is considered an UFA. Until then he is a RFA.

If marshall does not go somewhere else this year he JUST gets another 50% bump in his salary next year and then we could FRANCHISE him thereafter.

Now if they sign a new CBA then whatever the new one applies.

But I guarantee that there will be some sort of "Franchise player" type provision in it. The owners are not stupid enough to give that leverage away. It may be for say top FIVE money instead of top 10 as it is now. But they have something in it.

So IMO unless they sign a new CBA he is here another two years or more as a franchise player. If there is a lockout he still can't complete his 6 year min to get to RFA. Also someone can be tagged for up to 2 years.

Marshall needs to sign else where if he wants guarantees.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Lonestar
04-10-2010, 09:16 AM
Sorry that should read FIVE played years to become an UFA.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

jhildebrand
04-11-2010, 11:58 PM
How will the Marshall saga end?

Marshall will not be signed by the end of the April 15th RFA deadline. He will be signed and traded on or a day or two before draft day. My guess is he will go to Seattle (which I called at the end of the season), Washington, or St Louis.

Denver will receive a player and a pick. My guess is we would be lucky to see as high as a second.

Italianmobstr7
04-12-2010, 12:34 AM
As I understand the current CBA the provisisons are the player must have SIX completed years in the NFL before he is considered an UFA. Until then he is a RFA.

If marshall does not go somewhere else this year he JUST gets another 50% bump in his salary next year and then we could FRANCHISE him thereafter.

Now if they sign a new CBA then whatever the new one applies.

But I guarantee that there will be some sort of "Franchise player" type provision in it. The owners are not stupid enough to give that leverage away. It may be for say top FIVE money instead of top 10 as it is now. But they have something in it.

So IMO unless they sign a new CBA he is here another two years or more as a franchise player. If there is a lockout he still can't complete his 6 year min to get to RFA. Also someone can be tagged for up to 2 years.

Marshall needs to sign else where if he wants guarantees.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

If they don't sign a new CBA there is no football next year. There will be a lockout.

Lonestar
04-12-2010, 12:58 AM
If they don't sign a new CBA there is no football next year. There will be a lockout.

And you got this from Goodell.

Why would the owners not want to play under the RFA banner atleast one more year.

They have the best of all worlds cheap labor again for another year from 90% of the class of 06 and 99% of 07.

The only reason the owners want a new CBA is to reduce the % they have to pay in salaries to players from the 60% now to more like 48-52% and a rookie scale.

Having an uncapped year or 3 is not bad for them.
The good clubs can't raid the cheaper ones of all their talent unless they lose one.

There is no MIN salary hit so the owners can go cheap.

They are in the cat birds seat. Unless the players strike and even then they still get the TV monies where they play or not.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

Italianmobstr7
04-12-2010, 01:02 AM
And you got this from Goodell.

Why would the owners not want to play under the RFA banner atleast one more year.

They have the best of all worlds cheap labor again for another year from 90% of the class of 06 and 99% of 07.

The only reason the owners want a new CBA is to reduce the % they have to pay in salaries to players from the 60% now to more like 48-52% and a rookie scale.

Having an uncapped year or 3 is not bad for them.
The good clubs can't raid the cheaper ones of all their talent unless they lose one.

There is no MIN salary hit so the owners can go cheap.

They are in the cat birds seat. Unless the players strike and even then they still get the TV monies where they play or not.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

It doesn't matter what the owners want.... Without a new CBA the players will lockout. They're not going to continue playing under the current CBA for years and years. If there's not a new CBA by the end of this season there will be no NFL in 2011. My bet is that they'll get a new CBA done. Too much $ and revenue for either the players or owners to not get something done.

BigBroncLove
04-12-2010, 02:39 AM
Well, one thing that people think that I think should be cleared (and this is not in response to your post) is that the 2010 season is considered the final league year in the current CBA, under revised rules. March 2011 is when the final year expires, and so the owners cant just decide to avoid negotiation and stay in these favorable waters for themselves.

I'll post something in football 101 on that, because its just to long of a rant to put here. Suffice to say though you can't just continue to operate under the rules of 2010. When March 2011 rolls around, its a completely different ball game if no new CBA or temporary CBA is signed. I will say this though.

The TV contract that pays, regardless if the games are played or not, is the DirectTV contract. It pays 1 Billion per year regardless, which averages out to about 31 million per team. At best that's survival money when on average each team has about 120 million in stadium based debt and maintenance. Total debt for the league for stadiums is abotu 8 Billion, which is 250 million per team. Currently the NFL makes about 7 - 8 Billion per year. That's a lot of reasons to find some type of conclusion to this ordeal. I'll post why a lockout is likely in football 101.

CoachChaz
04-12-2010, 07:25 AM
Plus of course the fact Marshall very much doesn't seem to want to be a Bronco anymore, despite PR statements to the contrary (which I think he has to make incase he does remain a Bronco). Once he gets his money, there is no guarantee... at least for the broncos, he will continue to perform with as much heart or zeal (at least for this coaching staff). Just my two cents....

If it "doesnt seem" to be a certain way, is it a "fact"? And if it is a fact...or even if it "doesnt seem" a certain way...how was this information obtained? Did someone close to Marshall speak with him about his intentions and desire to be a Bronco and report that info to us?

Just curious where these "facts" seem to be coming from lately.

BigBroncLove
04-12-2010, 07:42 AM
If it "doesnt seem" to be a certain way, is it a "fact"? And if it is a fact...or even if it "doesnt seem" a certain way...how was this information obtained? Did someone close to Marshall speak with him about his intentions and desire to be a Bronco and report that info to us?

Just curious where these "facts" seem to be coming from lately.

When you combine a "fact that it doesnt seem" you are conveying that its a fact that the circumstances seem (appear, look as if, look like, occur, resemble, sound, strike one as) this that or the other. I never said, "its a fact Marshall doesn't want to be in Denver". I said, "Its a fact it doesn't seem as if Marshall want's to remain in Denver". That seem being and equaling how the situation has unfolded and hows its been digested by myself, countless analysts, and others. That one little word changes the whole dynamic of the sentence.

CoachChaz
04-12-2010, 08:45 AM
So...the only FACT in the situation is that everyone is guessing. It's a FACT that people are drawing their own conclusions based on information that hasnt been divulged by anyone. It's a FACT that people are forming opinions based on zero actual information.

But the actual idea that any of it is true is completely a guess. Ok...I get it.

Maybe it's just me, but I dont know if the word FACT should be used when describing a situation that is pure speculation. But I could be wrong.

BigBroncLove
04-12-2010, 08:53 AM
So...the only FACT in the situation is that everyone is guessing. It's a FACT that people are drawing their own conclusions based on information that hasnt been divulged by anyone. It's a FACT that people are forming opinions based on zero actual information.

But the actual idea that any of it is true is completely a guess. Ok...I get it.

Maybe it's just me, but I dont know if the word FACT should be used when describing a situation that is pure speculation. But I could be wrong.

Wow, we are actually having a discussion about the ENGLISH LANGUAGE in a FOOTBALL forum.

Yes, it can be a fact that the general opinion surrounding a situation is a certainty. Simply because they are opinions, one can state that it is a fact that the general appearance of something exists. The existance of appearances can be stated as FACT, since it can be a FACT that said appearances exist. Combining those words does not somehow destroy the English language, nor are these words so vastly different that they cannot be used in the same sentence. Given that the English language allows us this levity I suppose we should accept this FACT and leave said discussion regarding that FACT to forums regarding the English language.

CoachChaz
04-12-2010, 09:28 AM
Wow, we are actually having a discussion about the ENGLISH LANGUAGE in a FOOTBALL forum.

Yes, it can be a fact that the general opinion surrounding a situation is a certainty. Simply because they are opinions, one can state that it is a fact that the general appearance of something exists. The existance of appearances can be stated as FACT, since it can be a FACT that said appearances exist. Combining those words does not somehow destroy the English language, nor are these words so vastly different that they cannot be used in the same sentence. Given that the English language allows us this levity I suppose we should accept this FACT and leave said discussion regarding that FACT to forums regarding the English language.

The way it's explained has a lot to do with the perception. When someone reads an article or statement describing Marshall's desire (or lack there of) to be with this team...and puts the word FACT in with it...it can lead some readers to believe that it's a fact that he doesnt want to be here. When in FACT...we have no clue based on his statements. We can speculate all we want, but since we think in language, our thoughts are only as good as our language.

Yeah...it sounds like a discussion in language and theory, but considering the current state of things, it may be a legitimate one.

BigBroncLove
04-12-2010, 09:30 AM
The way it's explained has a lot to do with the perception. When someone reads an article or statement describing Marshall's desire (or lack there of) to be with this team...and puts the word FACT in with it...it can lead some readers to believe that it's a fact that he doesnt want to be here. When in FACT...we have no clue based on his statements. We can speculate all we want, but since we think in language, our thoughts are only as good as our language.

Yeah...it sounds like a discussion in language and theory, but considering the current state of things, it may be a legitimate one.

No, it's not. For a case in point lets look at how often this phrase is used

Google search "fact that it seems" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22fact+that+it+seems%22&start=90&sa=N)

That's a case in point that it is more than a common phrase in the english language, and that it would seem a very well understood one given its regularity of use and variety of term. Therefor we should come to the obvious conclusion that to debate the use of the word fact in this phrase is obscene when it is accepted and not misleading. Breaking the sentence down to individual words and then choosing to diagram words on an individual basis is in itself misleading.

CoachChaz
04-12-2010, 09:34 AM
No, it's not. For a case in point lets look at how often this phrase is used

Google search "fact that it seems" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22fact+that+it+seems%22&start=90&sa=N)

That's a case in point that it is more than a common phrase in the english language, and that it would seem a very well understood one given its regularity of use and variety of term. Therefor we should come to the obvious conclusion that to debate the use of the word fact in this phrase is obscene when it is accepted and not misleading. Breaking the sentence down to individual words and then choosing to diagram words on an individual basis is in itself misleading.

My point is...dont expect too many people around here to take the phrase that literal. Someone is bound to later on say they read that it was a FACT that Marshall doesnt want to be here and get their panties in a twist over it.


That is a FACT

BigBroncLove
04-12-2010, 09:37 AM
My point is...dont expect too many people around here to take the phrase that literal. Someone is bound to later on say they read that it was a FACT that Marshall doesnt want to be here and get their panties in a twist over it.


That is a FACT

Well... I'm so glad that SO many people have come to that conclusion given that post was up for plenty of time and no one came around to the idea I said it was a FACT except you. I'm not saying you are the only one, but I am saying it hasn't puzzled people so much as to freak out about it like this...

I cannot stop people from misunderstanding well used phrases in the english language and won't stop using them due to ignorance of their existence, or ignoring the meaning of words used in conjunction with one another in a sentance. That's also a fact....

CoachChaz
04-12-2010, 09:41 AM
Well... I'm so glad that SO many people have come to that conclusion given that post was up for plenty of time and no one came around to the idea I said it was a FACT except you. I'm not saying you are the only one, but I am saying it hasn't puzzled people so much as to freak out about it like this...

I cannot stop people from misunderstanding well used phrases in the english language and won't stop using them due to ignorance of their existence, or ignoring the meaning of words used in conjunction with one another in a sentance. That's also a fact....

???????????????

claymore
04-12-2010, 09:44 AM
Cough Broncowarrior! CCCough!!!!!!!

T.K.O.
04-12-2010, 11:39 AM
it is a FACT that i believe this thread has been derailed:elefant:

Bosco
04-12-2010, 07:54 PM
How do I want it to end? With Marshall traded in exchange for a first rounder or a player of comparable value.

How will it likely end since my vision is looking like a pipe dream right now? Marshall and his agent probably realize that his value is not nearly as high as they deluded themselves into thinking, no one will offer a pick or player worthy of the Broncos consideration and he'll come back humbled and sign his tender to play out 2010.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 07:57 PM
I think its the Broncos that realize his value isn't going to bring a 1st (never was).. and they accept a 2nd during the draft....possibly a 3rd and a pick next year.

Bosco
04-12-2010, 08:05 PM
I think its the Broncos that realize his value isn't going to bring a 1st (never was).. and they accept a 2nd during the draft....possibly a 3rd and a pick next year.

I think the Broncos knew all along that his value wasn't going to be that high. Slapping him with the 1st round tender just protected themselves.

Ravage!!!
04-12-2010, 08:10 PM
I think the Broncos knew all along that his value wasn't going to be that high. Slapping him with the 1st round tender just protected themselves.

Agreed. I just think the desire to get rid of Marshall is greater than their desire to only accept high value. They will do their best to get the most, but will end up settling for less, and then state "We did what we could, but this was the highest offer we were offered, and feel this is the best move for the Broncos."