PDA

View Full Version : End of era may be nearing in Denver



Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 02:49 PM
End of era may be nearing in Denver



Champ Bailey may be entering his final week with the Denver Broncos and the future Hall of Fame cornerback already may have played his final game with the organization.

Whether he’s on the field or on the sideline against visiting San Diego on Sunday, Denver fans should enjoy Bailey. His seven-season stint with the team may be coming to an end. Bailey aggravated a heel injury Sunday against Houston. Interim Denver coach Eric Studesville said Monday that Bailey will be evaluated throughout the week. I could see a scenario where Bailey is rested to avoid further damage the injury.

......

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/22485/end-of-era-may-be-nearing-in-denver

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 02:51 PM
I just hope he goes to a team that can give him the opportunity to win a championship. He deserves it. I also do hope he just rests. He's taken a beating for this organization.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 02:53 PM
I think it would be foolish for him to play this coming Sunday. Why risk it? YOu are going to be UFA. Why take a chance on a fluke injury for a meaningless game that could literally cost you millions of dollars?

Lancane
12-29-2010, 02:55 PM
I just hope he goes to a team that can give him the opportunity to win a championship. He deserves it.

Couldn't agree more, of the Broncos we've had on the roster within the last decade, he is the most deserving of any to get a ring. I would love for him to return, but if not...I hope he ends up on a team that has a real shot to win a championship.

BroncoNut
12-29-2010, 02:58 PM
wow. seven years with the organization. time flies.

BroncoBJ
12-29-2010, 03:00 PM
wow. seven years with the organization. time flies.

Yea id does. I remember his 1st game as a Bronco against the Chiefs, and that same day watching Portis break off a 64 yard TD run vs the Bucs. Damn, hard to believe its been that long. Crazy how fast it flies by.

BroncoNut
12-29-2010, 03:02 PM
Yea id does. I remember his 1st game as a Bronco against the Chiefs, and that same day watching Portis break off a 64 yard TD run vs the Bucs. Damn, hard to believe its been that long. Crazy how fast it flies by.

I don't remember all of that, I was still in diapers, but time sure does fly

Sinthor
12-29-2010, 03:04 PM
Wow, I thought he'd been here longer. I really don't want to see him go, but that's the world of free agency. If he does, I'll wish him luck wherever he ends up. I would bet on the Patriots.

shank
12-29-2010, 03:05 PM
:singletearfollowedbyheartfeltsigh:

:salute: bailey, whatever happens.

BigDaddyBronco
12-29-2010, 03:05 PM
I bet Claymore is happy.

Northman
12-29-2010, 03:07 PM
I would certainly pay him before Lloyd. Let Champ play some more DB and then move him to safety and let him finish his career in Denver.

BroncoNut
12-29-2010, 03:08 PM
I would certainly pay him before Lloyd. Let Champ play some more DB and then move him to safety and let him finish his career in Denver.

definitely.

Rex
12-29-2010, 03:09 PM
I bet Claymore is happy.

Why? Are they selling pigs-in-blankets at the trailer park bar now?

BroncoBJ
12-29-2010, 03:11 PM
I don't remember all of that, I was still in diapers, but time sure does fly

:lol: @ in diapers. smh


And yea, I'm too scared to pay Lloyd. I just feel like, if we give him the money, he will lose focus and won't be as good. Hope I'm wrong. Would like to see both of them here for a while tho. :salute:

BroncoNut
12-29-2010, 03:18 PM
well bj, if we can get by without paying Lloyd, I would be all for it.

honz
12-29-2010, 03:18 PM
Bailey owes this franchise nothing. He has been our best and most consistent player for the past 7 years. Even when I thought he was slowing down last year, he bounced back and proved he's still got it this year. Hope he stays, but will have no ill feelings towards him if he wants to leave.

EMB6903
12-29-2010, 03:37 PM
Yea id does. I remember his 1st game as a Bronco against the Chiefs, and that same day watching Portis break off a 64 yard TD run vs the Bucs. Damn, hard to believe its been that long. Crazy how fast it flies by.

Watching Portis break off that run the first time he touched the ball as a redskin thinking to myself what a mistake the trade was.. Champ didnt disapoint against the chiefs on Sunday night though with that leaping interception. Great times.

Im pretty sure its safe to say that Denver got the better end of the deal in that trade.

BroncoNut
12-29-2010, 03:38 PM
Watching Portis break off that run the first time he touched the ball as a redskin thinking to myself what a mistake the trade was.. Champ didnt disapoint against the chiefs on Sunday night though with that leaping interception. Great times.

Im pretty sure its safe to say that Denver got the better end of the deal in that trade.

I think so too EMB. Clinton has personality disorder

Buff
12-29-2010, 03:40 PM
Two words: franchise tag

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 03:44 PM
Two words: franchise tag

I think I would be upset at the organization for doing that. Let him go, we've basically kept him hostage long enough with our inabiity to compete. I don't think Champ appreciates being a part of arguably the organizations worst defense in the history of its existence, and one of the worst defenses in the NFL year in and out.

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 03:44 PM
Two words: franchise tag

well we were in talks earlier in the year about a long term commitment. i think the whole cba thing scared the broncos from going through with the deal. alot will be determined once the superbowl is over.


i suspect bailey will remain a bronco.

Buff
12-29-2010, 03:45 PM
I think I would be upset at the organization for doing that. Let him go, we've basically kept him hostage long enough with our inabiity to compete. I don't think Champ appreciates being a part of arguably the organizations worst defense in the history of its existence, and one of the worst defenses in the NFL year in and out.

That's crazy. This is a business. The organization doesn't owe Bailey anything above the tens of millions they've already paid him.

He'll be signed or tagged... No way they just let that valuable of a player walk on down the road.

BroncoBJ
12-29-2010, 03:45 PM
Watching Portis break off that run the first time he touched the ball as a redskin thinking to myself what a mistake the trade was.. Champ didnt disapoint against the chiefs on Sunday night though with that leaping interception. Great times.

Im pretty sure its safe to say that Denver got the better end of the deal in that trade.

Yea, not to mention that Portis was my favorite player when we traded him. Still 1 of my favs. I loved watching CP here. But imo Joe Gibbs ruined him. If Portis had stayed here, he might have shattered some records. I'm probably 1 of few that wishes we never got rid of Portis. Bailey is nice, but without a pass rush, its pretty useless. Would rather have a Dline then a great CB any day. Thats just me though.

But yea, I remember when he broke off that run in his 1st ever play. But that night was pretty cool because Q had a pretty good game and looked good vs the Chiefs. Damn, ever since he fumbled vs the Jags, seems like that was the end of it for him.

EMB6903
12-29-2010, 03:46 PM
I think so too EMB. Clinton has personality disorder

ya and the fact that an elite CB brings so much more to the table.. a productive RB is a dime a dozen these days, finding an elite CB is unheard of.

Just wish Denver would have taken advantage of what they had in Champ Bailey instead of ignoring the fact that they needed a good Front 7 to maximize his talents.

He still played great though even playing with a bunch of scrubs most of his career in Denver.

LTC Pain
12-29-2010, 03:46 PM
Keep Champ, he's the best D-athlete on the team. He has several good seasons left (CB or Safety).

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2010, 03:47 PM
I would certainly pay him before Lloyd. Let Champ play some more DB and then move him to safety and let him finish his career in Denver.

Champ was ready to sign the contract offer, and the Broncos pulled it off the table?????????

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 03:47 PM
Why franchise tag him? Unless you plan on giving him a good contract for more than one year, why franchise a guy when our team isn't play-off caliber? Its not like we have the ability to "make that last run" of it. Would be silly to pay him top 5 money, for a single season at this point of his career for a team that will need many to get back to be competitive.

EMB6903
12-29-2010, 03:50 PM
Yea, not to mention that Portis was my favorite player when we traded him. Still 1 of my favs. I loved watching CP here. But imo Joe Gibbs ruined him. If Portis had stayed here, he might have shattered some records. I'm probably 1 of few that wishes we never got rid of Portis. Bailey is nice, but without a pass rush, its pretty useless. Would rather have a Dline then a great CB any day. Thats just me though.

But yea, I remember when he broke off that run in his 1st ever play. But that night was pretty cool because Q had a pretty good game and looked good vs the Chiefs. Damn, ever since he fumbled vs the Jags, seems like that was the end of it for him.

Ahhh Quentin Griffin...

The next Barry Sanders...

BroncoNut
12-29-2010, 03:50 PM
ya and the fact that an elite CB brings so much more to the table.. a productive RB is a dime a dozen these days, finding an elite CB is unheard of.

Just wish Denver would have taken advantage of what they had in Champ Bailey instead of ignoring the fact that they needed a good Front 7 to maximize his talents.

He still played great though even playing with a bunch of scrubs most of his career in Denver.

yeah, and rbs these days are pretty short-lived too unfortunately. Champ definitely stands out at corner. What I like most about him is his tackling. He puts himself into postiiton to tackle. nothing fancy, just very consistent. He'd be solid at safety for a while

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 03:50 PM
That's crazy. This is a business. The organization doesn't owe Bailey anything above the tens of millions they've already paid him.

He'll be signed or tagged... No way they just let that valuable of a player walk on down the road.

This would go towards my argument of not signing him then. We've had arguably the best CB in the NFL, and it has got 3 of the organization's worst defenses in history, along with 3 of the NFL's worst defenses throughout the season. In that case, I'm cutting ties with him, and using that $12 million + to actually try and upgrade the defense so we aren't among the NFL's worst anymore.

It's a matter of opinion, but from a business standpoint, that makes sense to me.

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 03:51 PM
Champ was ready to sign the contract offer, and the Broncos pulled it off the table?????????

yeah the excuse was the CBA and they wanted to make sure what would happen with it.

BroncoBJ
12-29-2010, 03:51 PM
Ahhh Quentin Griffin...

The next Barry Sanders...

:lol: Crazy how people proclaimed him that right away. I did like watching him run though. Small little shifty guy. I was definatly rooting for him. Damn, I miss those days. Back when we'd go 10-6 and actually make the playoffs. :fight:

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 03:52 PM
Bailey was recently quoted THIS WEEK saying that he hopes he's here to see Tebow win games.

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 03:52 PM
Why franchise tag him? Unless you plan on giving him a good contract for more than one year, why franchise a guy when our team isn't play-off caliber? Its not like we have the ability to "make that last run" of it. Would be silly to pay him top 5 money, for a single season at this point of his career for a team that will need many to get back to be competitive.

Great post. Franchising him makes 0 sense to me. If anything it hinders the organizations ability to rebuild. Keeping him around for an extra year or two is going to what, catapult our 31st ranked defense to maybe 29th? We aren't anywhere close to competing from a defensive standpoint, and by the time we are, chances are Bailey will be retired.

Buff
12-29-2010, 03:53 PM
Why franchise tag him? Unless you plan on giving him a good contract for more than one year, why franchise a guy when our team isn't play-off caliber? Its not like we have the ability to "make that last run" of it. Would be silly to pay him top 5 money, for a single season at this point of his career for a team that will need many to get back to be competitive.

Because whatever coach they bring in is going to try and win immediately. Coaches don't have 3-year plans anymore because there is no guarantee they survive past year two.

I think they'll try to hammer out a longterm deal, if they can't get that done then we'll rent him for one more year... Or tag him and trade him. But we won't just let him sign with another team for nothing.

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 03:53 PM
This would go towards my argument of not signing him then. We've had arguably the best CB in the NFL, and it has got 3 of the organization's worst defenses in history, along with 3 of the NFL's worst defenses throughout the season. In that case, I'm cutting ties with him, and using that $12 million + to actually try and upgrade the defense so we aren't among the NFL's worst anymore.

It's a matter of opinion, but from a business standpoint, that makes sense to me.

thats haloti ngata or julius peppers type money.

EMB6903
12-29-2010, 03:53 PM
yeah, and rbs these days are pretty short-lived too unfortunately. Champ definitely stands out at corner. What I like most about him is his tackling. nothing fancy, just very consistent. He'd be great at safety.

Definately.

Thats why IMO Champ is the greatest CB ive ever seen play and why Deion cant touch him.

People dont realize that Champ is not only an elite cover corner but hes better against the run. Hes dominated in an era where DB's arent allowed to sneeze on the recievers without it being called, and dominated without a great pass rush.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2010, 03:54 PM
yeah the excuse was the CBA and they wanted to make sure what would happen with it.

I know that was the excuse - but there must be more to it, as the CBA situation was the same before they offered the contract, as to when they pulled the contract. Champ even stated he was not crazy about the terms of the contract, but he was ready to sign it, because he wants to stay in Denver :mad:

SR
12-29-2010, 03:54 PM
I just hope he goes to a team that can give him the opportunity to win a championship. He deserves it. I also do hope he just rests. He's taken a beating for this organization.

Eff that. I hope he stays right where he is.

Buff
12-29-2010, 03:54 PM
This would go towards my argument of not signing him then. We've had arguably the best CB in the NFL, and it has got 3 of the organization's worst defenses in history, along with 3 of the NFL's worst defenses throughout the season. In that case, I'm cutting ties with him, and using that $12 million + to actually try and upgrade the defense so we aren't among the NFL's worst anymore.

It's a matter of opinion, but from a business standpoint, that makes sense to me.

That's fair, there is a legitimate debate as to whether you ought to sign a guy at his age to another big $$ contract, but in that scenario they probably tag him and trade him.

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 03:55 PM
Bailey was recently quoted THIS WEEK saying that he hopes he's here to see Tebow win games.

I wouldn't argue if Bailey wanted to finish his career in Denver. I would only ask, please do not ask for the contract you are worth, and strap our organization down to the point where we can't imporve the rest of the defense.

Denver's defense is at a point where we need to invest money into a few key positions, instead of trying to patchwork it like we've done the last few years.

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 03:57 PM
thats haloti ngata or julius peppers type money.

That's elite CB money. nnamdi is getting $15 million a year roughly. Unless you want to argue that Champ has regressed to the point where he's worth something half that.


Eff that. I hope he stays right where he is

PLease not at the expense of the rest of the defense. I actually want our defense to not be among the worst in the NFL year in and out.

LTC Pain
12-29-2010, 03:57 PM
I wouldn't argue if Bailey wanted to finish his career in Denver. I would only ask, please do not ask for the contract you are worth, and strap our organization down to the point where we can't imporve the rest of the defense.

Denver's defense is at a point where we need to invest money into a few key positions, instead of trying to patchwork it like we've done the last few years.

So how does a GM convince a player's agent that said player is past his prime to avoid just what you pointed out???

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 03:58 PM
I know that was the excuse - but there must be more to it, as the CBA situation was the same before they offered the contract, as to when they pulled the contract. Champ even stated he was not crazy about the terms of the contract, but he was ready to sign it, because he wants to stay in Denver :mad:

he and his agent said they would take less to stay in denver. bailey is orange and blue through and through so i dont know what all the fuss is about from some of the fans WHO ARE NOT paying the checks. dont know why they are crying when we are in good shape with the cap anyway.

if KC can turn things around then so can we.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 03:59 PM
Champ was ready to sign the contract offer, and the Broncos pulled it off the table?????????

yes. They offered him less than he was asking, but had was ready to sign, and the Broncos pulled out. Probably figuring they just set the 'value' of negotiations starting this year.

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 03:59 PM
That's fair, there is a legitimate debate as to whether you ought to sign a guy at his age to another big $$ contract, but in that scenario they probably tag him and trade him.

For me it's all about money and what's best for our defense. I still think Champ is among the best in the NFL. The fact, he plays a position that's completely predicated by what's happening among the front 7. Our front 7 sucks, so Champ's talent becomes irrelevant. If we were at a brink of being a good defense, I would probably invest in Champ's worth because we could have a capable defense. The only problem is our defense is so bad, and so far off right now of competing that IMHO we need to strip for money purposes and start anew.

Champ is not going to help this defense now, or in the near future, IMHO. No CB is.

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 04:01 PM
So how does a GM convince a player's agent that said player is past his prime to avoid just what you pointed out???

You don't. Champ and his agent know what his worth. The only option IMHO is, is Champ going to take a lower salary to stay in Denver because that's whats best for this organizaiton. I would love it if he did. I certainly wouldn't blame him if he didn't.

Sometimes, you just have to punt the football.

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 04:02 PM
I wouldn't argue if Bailey wanted to finish his career in Denver. I would only ask, please do not ask for the contract you are worth, and strap our organization down to the point where we can't imporve the rest of the defense.

Denver's defense is at a point where we need to invest money into a few key positions, instead of trying to patchwork it like we've done the last few years.

how are we strapping our organization down by resigning a 8 year pro bowler who is still the leagues best shut down corner? do you think we wont be able to sign anyone else? we are still in the bottom 10 cap wise.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 04:03 PM
That's fair, there is a legitimate debate as to whether you ought to sign a guy at his age to another big $$ contract, but in that scenario they probably tag him and trade him.

I don't think you have much value in the tag-n-trade. Not at the current system, anyway. Generally speaking, you have to get at LEAST a first round pick in exchange for a tagged player, and usually its been asking for 2 first rounders. Champ doesn't have that kind of value at 32.

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 04:05 PM
That's elite CB money. nnamdi is getting $15 million a year roughly. Unless you want to argue that Champ has regressed to the point where he's worth something half that.



PLease not at the expense of the rest of the defense. I actually want our defense to not be among the worst in the NFL year in and out.


no CB will ever get that kind of al davis contract again. even the raiders know they over paid...no one was going to pay nnamdi that.


i would think bailey would be guaranteed abou 8 mill per year with some up from signing bonuses.

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 04:08 PM
bailey is orange and blue through and through so i dont know what all the fuss is about from some of the fans WHO ARE NOT paying the checks. dont know why they are crying when we are in good shape with the cap anyway.

This isn't about the cap, especially from a business standpoint. This is about an organization who makes millions of dollars, and also pumps out millions of dollars to sustain itself. Losses are up, revenue is down, the organization is now paying out 2 different coaches millions who aren't even coaching here, and regardless of any cap situation, the money has to come from somewhere.

What people don't understand with professional sports teams, is these organizations are making on a very rough estimate of $170-180 million a year. They are also shelling out $130-140 million a year to operate in costs. That is not that much money being profited in a multi million dollar business, where major catastraphes can undoubtedly put you in the red on any given year, and then you're counting on the rest of the organizations to bail you out.

Buff
12-29-2010, 04:09 PM
For me it's all about money and what's best for our defense. I still think Champ is among the best in the NFL. The fact, he plays a position that's completely predicated by what's happening among the front 7. Our front 7 sucks, so Champ's talent becomes irrelevant. If we were at a brink of being a good defense, I would probably invest in Champ's worth because we could have a capable defense. The only problem is our defense is so bad, and so far off right now of competing that IMHO we need to strip for money purposes and start anew.

Champ is not going to help this defense now, or in the near future, IMHO. No CB is.

I mostly agree... I can see a solid argument for trading Bailey for draft picks, freeing up his $$ so we can rebuild this defense from the inside out.

But in a perfect world I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. I'd like to bring in a couple of DL man-eaters with our first couple of picks, sign a couple of difference makers in free agency and then sign Champ and have a chance to completely turn things around in a year or two. That's probably being a little overly optimistic though.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2010, 04:09 PM
Here is article when Broncos pulled the contract back in October:

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_16279530

Buff
12-29-2010, 04:13 PM
I don't think you have much value in the tag-n-trade. Not at the current system, anyway. Generally speaking, you have to get at LEAST a first round pick in exchange for a tagged player, and usually its been asking for 2 first rounders. Champ doesn't have that kind of value at 32.

I don't think that's necessarily true. We might lose a little bit of leverage because other teams would know that we'd prefer a trade as opposed to letting him be unhappy w/ the franchise tag.

But tagging him still assures us of his rights. I'd rather squeeze out a below market deal like a late 2nd rounder or early 3rd rounder than only getting a compensatory pick and letting him leave.

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 04:14 PM
how are we strapping our organization down by resigning a 8 year pro bowler who is still the leagues best shut down corner? do you think we wont be able to sign anyone else? we are still in the bottom 10 cap wise.

Yes, I certainly think that money can go to a better use. And say we don't have Champ on our roster. SO what, our currently 31st ranked defense goes to 32nd?

BTW, Dunta Robinson just signed a contract paying him roughly $9 million a year in Atlanta. Is he better than Bailey? The top CB's most certainly get paid that kind of money. Nnamdi is the best CB in the game right when he got his contract. Revis is now, and will likely make the same, if not more, when he signs his next contract.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 04:15 PM
I don't think that's necessarily true. We might lose a little bit of leverage because other teams would know that we'd prefer a trade as opposed to letting him be unhappy w/ the franchise tag.

But tagging him still assures us of his rights. I'd rather squeeze out a below market deal like a late 2nd rounder or early 3rd rounder than only getting a compensatory pick and letting him leave.

I don't think you can simply accept a 2nd or 3rd for a franchise tagged player.

Buff
12-29-2010, 04:20 PM
I don't think you can simply accept a 2nd or 3rd for a franchise tagged player.

Sure you can. Don't confuse the franchise tag with restricted free agency. All the franchise tag does is make him property of Denver. We could trade him just like we could any other player on the roster... The only limiting part is that any team who is going to trade for him is going to want to sign him to a longterm deal, so to a certain extent we'd have to trade him to a team where he wanted to go... Sort of like the Melo situation, but we're not as handcuffed as the Nuggets are (because there is no franchise tag in the NBA).

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 04:23 PM
Yes, I certainly think that money can go to a better use. And say we don't have Champ on our roster. SO what, our currently 31st ranked defense goes to 32nd?

BTW, Dunta Robinson just signed a contract paying him roughly $9 million a year in Atlanta. Is he better than Bailey? The top CB's most certainly get paid that kind of money. Nnamdi is the best CB in the game right when he got his contract. Revis is now, and will likely make the same, if not more, when he signs his next contract.

bailey and his agent were already on record saying they would take much less to stay in denver.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 04:25 PM
Sure you can. Don't confuse the franchise tag with restricted free agency. All the franchise tag does is make him property of Denver. We could trade him just like we could any other player on the roster... The only limiting part is that any team who is going to trade for him is going to want to sign him to a longterm deal, so to a certain extent we'd have to trade him to a team where he wanted to go... Sort of like the Melo situation, but we're not as handcuffed as the Nuggets are (because there is no franchise tag in the NBA).

I know that the going rate for a franchise tagged player is TWO, first round picks. I'm not sure that we can simply trade him away for a 3rd rounder just to get rid of him.

These rules may change with the new CBA, but there was a reason for giving a team the franchise tag, and that was to protect the team from losing all their players. There is a reason that 2 first round picks were the asking price, and that was to protect the player from simply tagging anyone and limiting the player's ability to negotiate and enter into UFA.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 04:26 PM
bailey and his agent were already on record saying they would take much less to stay in denver.

They were on record for saying they WERE prepared to take less. Not that they are still prepared to do the same.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2010, 04:27 PM
bailey and his agent were already on record saying they would take much less to stay in denver.


Bailey said he wasn't crazy about the deal, but he was willing to take it because he wants to stay in Denver.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_16279530

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 04:29 PM
This isn't about the cap, especially from a business standpoint. This is about an organization who makes millions of dollars, and also pumps out millions of dollars to sustain itself. Losses are up, revenue is down, the organization is now paying out 2 different coaches millions who aren't even coaching here, and regardless of any cap situation, the money has to come from somewhere.

What people don't understand with professional sports teams, is these organizations are making on a very rough estimate of $170-180 million a year. They are also shelling out $130-140 million a year to operate in costs. That is not that much money being profited in a multi million dollar business, where major catastraphes can undoubtedly put you in the red on any given year, and then you're counting on the rest of the organizations to bail you out.

i guess you know more than the players association then. thats why the cba is at a standstill because alot of these organizations wont actually show TRUE profits. the owners have 40 % and the players get 60% revenue. how do you know exactlly that the broncos are only making 30-40 mill a year? truth is you dont know the numbers....none of us do. ellis went on record saying "we dont care if we have to pay 10 coaches, we just want to turn this thing around."

and yes the cap does play a major factor.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 04:30 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_16279530

That was the time of the LAST contract when Bailey was ready to sign... but not after Denver pulled out and allowed Bailey to go a season and take a chance on getting hurt before Denver signed. That sticks with a player, and it gives Bailey the opportunity to talk with other teams to find out what his value truly is.

I'm betting Bailey feels pretty scorned after he was willing to take less and stay in Denver, and then watch Denver say "nope."

Buff
12-29-2010, 04:32 PM
I know that the going rate for a franchise tagged player is TWO, first round picks. I'm not sure that we can simply trade him away for a 3rd rounder just to get rid of him.

These rules may change with the new CBA, but there was a reason for giving a team the franchise tag, and that was to protect the team from losing all their players. There is a reason that 2 first round picks were the asking price, and that was to protect the player from simply tagging anyone and limiting the player's ability to negotiate and enter into UFA.

I don't believe that is correct.

You are thinking of restricted free agency, which is different than unrestricted free agency. If Champ were going to be a restricted free agent, then we could tender him at the highest level, which would mean that any team who signed him would owe us two first rounders (assuming we didn't match the deal).

But Champ is going to be unrestricted. Which means we do not have first right of refusal, unless we slap the franchise tag on him. Once we do that, he is guaranteed the average of the top 5 salaries at his position (or something along those lines). But there are no restrictions on trades.

If we do trade him to another team then the next team will simply rip the franchise tag up and sign him to a longterm deal.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 04:34 PM
i guess you know more than the players association then. thats why the cba is at a standstill because alot of these organizations wont actually show TRUE profits. the owners have 40 % and the players get 60% revenue. how do you know exactlly that the broncos are only making 30-40 mill a year? truth is you dont know the numbers....none of us do. ellis went on record saying "we dont care if we have to pay 10 coaches, we just want to turn this thing around."

and yes the cap does play a major factor.

Sure they know how much each franchise makes. THey have to file their tax documents just like anyone else.

Here is a forbes article (just one of many, actually) that talks about the 2009 drop

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Inside+the+2009+Forbes+NFL+Franchise+Valuations.-a0207236530


..."While the Cowboys remained the most valuable franchise, the most profitable (and second most valuable) is the Washington Redskins. The franchise saw operating income Operating Income

The profit realized from a business' own operations.

Notes:
This would not include income from things such as investments in other firms. Also referred to as operating profit or recurring profit. , a barometer for profitability, at $90.3 million. The Redskins are followed by the Patriots ($70.9 million), Buccaneers ($68.9 million), and Colts ($55.9 million).

According to Forbes, two franchises ran in the red this past year. The Seattle Seahawks are shown to have -$2.4 million, while the Oakland Raiders are shown to have an operating income of -$5.7 million. The Raiders' $5.7 million in operating losses is the third highest loss over the last 5 years. Only the Colts (-$17.3 million) and Vikings (-$19.1 million) have posted deeper operating losses. ..."

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 04:35 PM
I don't believe that is correct.

You are thinking of restricted free agency, which is different than unrestricted free agency. If Champ were going to be a restricted free agent, then we could tender him at the highest level, which would mean that any team who signed him would owe us two first rounders (assuming we didn't match the deal).

But Champ is going to be unrestricted. Which means we do not have first right of refusal, unless we slap the franchise tag on him. Once we do that, he is guaranteed the average of the top 5 salaries at his position (or something along those lines). But there are no restrictions on trades.

If we do trade him to another team then the next team will simply rip the franchise tag up and sign him to a longterm deal.


Perhaps you are right, I must be confusing the two :beer:

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 04:39 PM
i guess you know more than the players association then. thats why the cba is at a standstill because alot of these organizations wont actually show TRUE profits. the owners have 40 % and the players get 60% revenue. how do you know exactlly that the broncos are only making 30-40 mill a year? truth is you dont know the numbers....none of us do. ellis went on record saying "we dont care if we have to pay 10 coaches, we just want to turn this thing around."

and yes the cap does play a major factor.

Speculation. The players union also doesn't want a 16 game season, which is playing a huge part. A "rough estimate" does not mean the same as "exactly". I don't know the numbers, just like the players union doesn't know the numbers. Tell me, why is the players union conveniently avoiding the fact that owners are losing revenue in ticket sales because people nowadays would rather stay at home and watch the game on their Hi-Def tv, while their contracts continue to go up?

The cap does not play the main factor in the entity of the business. It only plays a factor in team costs, which are a small part in how the entire business is run. If this organization, or any organization, is going to continue to blindly throw money around with no actual results, then we are a part of a fanbase that roots for a very poorly run organization.

As far Bailey goes, and I love the guy, he's part of a defense that has finished among the bottom tier of the NFL in 5 of his 7 years, along with 3 of the worst defenses in the history of our organization. IMHO, I'm almost at a point where I'm saying, this just isn't working out, and the numbers prove it, and like I said I love Bailey.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2010, 04:43 PM
That was the time of the LAST contract when Bailey was ready to sign... but not after Denver pulled out and allowed Bailey to go a season and take a chance on getting hurt before Denver signed. That sticks with a player, and it gives Bailey the opportunity to talk with other teams to find out what his value truly is.

I'm betting Bailey feels pretty scorned after he was willing to take less and stay in Denver, and then watch Denver say "nope."

Guess I am not understanding you - the article was posted this October, when the Broncos pulled the offer this year off the table.

silkamilkamonico
12-29-2010, 04:46 PM
Guess I am not understanding you - the article was posted this October, when the Broncos pulled the offer this year off the table.

Well, the organization has changed significantly. We lost our coach, and Champ was on record as saying he thought McDaniels could turn this around. Our defense has plummeted to the depths of the NFL since October. We do have Tebow starting to come through and Champ does like Tebow.

I think there has been so much changed with the organization that I can see where Ravage is saying Bailey might not currently feel the same way. Maybe he does feel the same way, but then again maybe he's becoming frustrated with the organization. I think it's hard for anyone to know until we see how it all plays out.

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 04:53 PM
Guess I am not understanding you - the article was posted this October, when the Broncos pulled the offer this year off the table.

Yes.

Champ was willing to take less THEN.. when he was ready to sign the contract. The Broncos, then took the offer off the table and forced Bailey to play a full season while NOT getting the extension. If Bailey got hurt, do you think the Broncos would have offered him another deal? No, of course not. So the franchise forced Bailey to finish out the season with just one year on his contract (which is why most players/teams renegotiate when there is one year left). Now that he's finished out the year, and has had the contract pulled away from him, do you think he doesn't remember that he WAS willing to sign, but was rejected??? Not to mention having all the risk.

So he WAS willing to sign for less money, at THAT time, but I don't think that would necessarily still be the case. Now he and his agent can actually talk with other teams (something he wasn't able to do before while he was willing to sign for less).

shank
12-29-2010, 05:01 PM
I don't believe that is correct.

You are thinking of restricted free agency, which is different than unrestricted free agency. If Champ were going to be a restricted free agent, then we could tender him at the highest level, which would mean that any team who signed him would owe us two first rounders (assuming we didn't match the deal).

But Champ is going to be unrestricted. Which means we do not have first right of refusal, unless we slap the franchise tag on him. Once we do that, he is guaranteed the average of the top 5 salaries at his position (or something along those lines). But there are no restrictions on trades.

If we do trade him to another team then the next team will simply rip the franchise tag up and sign him to a longterm deal.

i thought highest RFA tender was a 1st and a 3rd. 2 firsts is an unofficial franchise tag price, most recently paid (in my memory) by the vikings when they traded for jared allen after he was tagged.

Buff
12-29-2010, 05:27 PM
i thought highest RFA tender was a 1st and a 3rd. 2 firsts is an unofficial franchise tag price, most recently paid (in my memory) by the vikings when they traded for jared allen after he was tagged.

Ravage is right, I am wrong:

There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:

An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams.

A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position in the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 05:30 PM
Ravage is right, I am wrong:

There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:

An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams.

A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position in the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag

Now that this is explained, has your opinion changed on whether or not we should franchise tag Bailey?

Buff
12-29-2010, 05:40 PM
Now that this is explained, has your opinion changed on whether or not we should franchise tag Bailey?

Well, I'm still a little unclear. Because Matt Cassel for instance was franchised by the Patriots and then traded for a 2nd round pick. So I know you can trade him for less than two first rounders.

Here's an article about the deal he signed after he was traded:


Cassel was designated as the New England Patriots' franchise player in February and signed a one-year deal that paid him $14.561 million. He was then traded to the Chiefs along with linebacker Mike Vrabel for a second-round draft choice.

Although Wednesday is the deadline for franchise players to get long-term deals, Cassel technically doesn't apply because he was traded and the team that franchised him no longer holds his rights. Still, the deadline and the start of training camp in two weeks provided both sides with incentive to lock up a long-term relationship.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4327067

Ravage!!!
12-29-2010, 05:52 PM
Well, I'm still a little unclear. Because Matt Cassel for instance was franchised by the Patriots and then traded for a 2nd round pick. So I know you can trade him for less than two first rounders.

Here's an article about the deal he signed after he was traded:

Yeah.. I'm sure you can trade the non-exclusive away for less than the 2 first rounders that is the normal compensation.

However, I don't think you do this to a player, unless you just want to screw them over. Franchise tagging him would absolutely limit the number of teams willing to negotiate for a trade.

So what you are doing is: making him play out the last year of his contract without extension by pulling out of negotiations at last minute. Then instead of signing him to a long term deal, you franchise tag him, which would either force him to play ANOTHER 1-year deal with your team or force another team to trade for him in order to even be a consideration for him.

This wouldn't exactly sit well with him, nor the rest of the players on your team if they see this is how you play ball.


I think the Broncos have to let him explore his options and find his value via FA. They can either offer him a deal up-front, match the highest offer another team is willing to give, or let him go to another team. Tagging him would be the worst thing the Broncos could do after pulling out of the last deal.

Buff
12-29-2010, 05:57 PM
Yeah.. I'm sure you can trade the non-exclusive away for less than the 2 first rounders that is the normal compensation.

However, I don't think you do this to a player, unless you just want to screw them over. Franchise tagging him would absolutely limit the number of teams willing to negotiate for a trade.

So what you are doing is: making him play out the last year of his contract without extension by pulling out of negotiations at last minute. Then instead of signing him to a long term deal, you franchise tag him, which would either force him to play ANOTHER 1-year deal with your team or force another team to trade for him in order to even be a consideration for him.

This wouldn't exactly sit well with him, nor the rest of the players on your team if they see this is how you play ball.


I think the Broncos have to let him explore his options and find his value via FA. They can either offer him a deal up-front, match the highest offer another team is willing to give, or let him go to another team. Tagging him would be the worst thing the Broncos could do after pulling out of the last deal.

Nah, that's basically the same argument silk had earlier, I don't think the Broncos owe Champ Bailey anything. They've already made him a rich man. The Broncos should do everything they can to make the team better. If that includes an eleventh hour negotiating ploy to secure a 2nd round pick then by all means they ought to do that.

You think the Patriots feel bad about getting more picks?

BroncoStud
12-29-2010, 06:00 PM
I would like to see Champ retire a Bronco - on a personal level.

But if Denver can get something for him that helps them in the long run I understand that as well. They could always franchise him, right?

DenBronx
12-29-2010, 09:19 PM
Speculation. The players union also doesn't want a 16 game season, which is playing a huge part. A "rough estimate" does not mean the same as "exactly". I don't know the numbers, just like the players union doesn't know the numbers. Tell me, why is the players union conveniently avoiding the fact that owners are losing revenue in ticket sales because people nowadays would rather stay at home and watch the game on their Hi-Def tv, while their contracts continue to go up?

The cap does not play the main factor in the entity of the business. It only plays a factor in team costs, which are a small part in how the entire business is run. If this organization, or any organization, is going to continue to blindly throw money around with no actual results, then we are a part of a fanbase that roots for a very poorly run organization.

As far Bailey goes, and I love the guy, he's part of a defense that has finished among the bottom tier of the NFL in 5 of his 7 years, along with 3 of the worst defenses in the history of our organization. IMHO, I'm almost at a point where I'm saying, this just isn't working out, and the numbers prove it, and like I said I love Bailey.

fair enough.

i too dont want to see this defense struggling anymore and if it meant giving up one superstar to get back into the top 15 so were not a laughing stock then by all means. but, just from the reports i read i have a feeling bailey really wants to stay here, even if it meant not getting a ring for awhile.

Cugel
12-29-2010, 09:44 PM
That's crazy. This is a business. The organization doesn't owe Bailey anything above the tens of millions they've already paid him.

He'll be signed or tagged... No way they just let that valuable of a player walk on down the road.

He WON'T be "tagged" unless there's a new CBA. And even then he does NOT have to sign the contract! He can refuse to sign and then the team pays him the average of the top 5 contracts at that position, (which is a BIG cap hit for ONE season), or they sign and trade him, or they let him go.

Considering this team is in a rebuilding year, they probably won't even try and re-sign him. They'll just say "thanks for the memories."

Champ might have 3 or 4 good years left and he wants to play in a Super Bowl. He'll never get that chance here in Denver with a 4-12 team that's rebuilding with a rookie/2nd year QB and a defense that needs to be rebuilt from scratch.

He's Gone people. Get used to it. :coffee:

Cugel
12-29-2010, 09:53 PM
Tell me, why is the players union conveniently avoiding the fact that owners are losing revenue in ticket sales because people nowadays would rather stay at home and watch the game on their Hi-Def tv, while their contracts continue to go up?

Oh, God! Those greedy players! And those POOR, Pitiful OWNERS! Who are "losing revenue" from ticket sales because more people are using NFL Network (for which they receive revenue)! :coffee:

Oh, and they're like Pat Bowlen whose investment in the Broncos in 1984 cost him $78 million. Today the team is worth $1.1 BILLION!

So, weep great crocodile tears for the poor guy whose investment just made over $1 billion over the last 26 years (an average rate of INCREASE OF OVER $40 million a year)!

http://blog.snappingturtle.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/mockturtle2.jpg

Yes! For EVERY SINGLE YEAR from 1984 till today, Pat Bowlen's team has been worth an average of $42 million MORE than it was the year before!

But, by all means go on worrying about "stadium revenues" as if that was all-important!

You people do know the difference between stock price and dividends right? Do you hear investors whining because they don't receive big dividends, even though the stock price increased by over 1000%! :coffee:

Only in the NFL do the owners get away with that kind of bat-S*** insane logic -- because they know most fans are stupid or ignorant enough to swallow it up without saying "Hey! Wait a minute! If you're so strapped for cash, how about selling a percent or two off your $1 billion stock portfolio?"

bcbronc
12-29-2010, 11:06 PM
[QUOTE=Ravage!!!;1169403]Yeah.. I'm sure you can trade the non-exclusive away for less than the 2 first rounders that is the normal compensation.


I didn't see anything about trading in the posted blurb. the non-exclusive just means the player can negotiate with other teams, but we'd have the right to either match OR accept the two firsts. but either way, the way I read it, we could trade Bailey for whatever we wanted.

imo you have to franchise him, even if it's just to trade him. we need all the assets we can get...even a 4th rounder is better than nothing. I think he'll be back though, seems loyal to a fault.