PDA

View Full Version : marshall doesn't have much leverage (PFT)



titan
06-15-2009, 10:55 PM
Good analysis - I didn't know about Marshall forfeiting a year of accrued service if he holds out of camp.

=========

Marshall Doesn’t Have Much Leverage
Posted by Mike Florio on June 15, 2009, 11:02 p.m. EDT

As rumors fly that Broncos receiver Brandon Marshall will continue to push for a trade, there are a couple of key points that he needs to keep in mind.

First, he’s not a quarterback. Though Jay Cutler was able to talk (or, more accurately, not talk) his way out of town, the Broncos might be more willing to tolerate a wideout who doesn’t want to be there.

Second, Marshall has no leverage.

None.

He’s signed through 2009. And while the financial penalties arising from his decision to bail on a mandatory minicamp are manageable, the consequences of a training-camp holdout would be more dire — starting at more than $90,000 for the first day and increasing at roughly $17,000 per day thereafter.

And then there’s the requirement that a player under contract report 30 days before the start of the regular season or forfeit a year of accrued service. This would prevent Marshall from becoming an unrestricted free agent in 2010, since he would have only three years, not four. (Of course, Marshall also won’t be an unrestricted free agent if he shows up and if there’s no CBA extension by next March. Still, that factor falls beyond his control; blowing his shot at unrestricted free agency due to a training-camp holdout would be on Marshall, and/or his agent.)

So even though Marshall might huff and/or puff about wanting out, he might blow his own house down if he tries to force the team’s hand by staying away from training camp.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/15/marshall-doesnt-have-much-leverage/

Tned
06-15-2009, 10:57 PM
I was under the impression he could hold out until game 10 of the season and still accrue a year of eligibility. That was the situation when Lelie did it.

Tebow4Ever
06-16-2009, 08:02 AM
I can't believe we are losing to probowl players in the same offseason.Marshall is a great reciever but no one is irreplacable.I think if chad jackson,nate swift, or even brandon lloyd can contribute 500 yards and 3-5 tds we will be fine.

Bad Intentions
06-16-2009, 09:00 AM
I can't believe we are losing to probowl players in the same offseason.Marshall is a great reciever but no one is irreplacable.I think if chad jackson,nate swift, or even brandon lloyd can contribute 500 yards and 3-5 tds we will be fine.

Ever heard of putting a space or two between sentences?

It is possible we could lose three pro-bowlers before the season starts. Not to worry though, we'll have three new ones in DJ Williams, Ryan Clady, and Chris Kuper.

Mike
06-16-2009, 09:12 AM
What did those 3 pro-bowl players amount to at the end of the season for the Broncos success?

Anyone who doesn't want to be a Bronco.... the door is that way ------>

underrated29
06-16-2009, 09:58 AM
Ever heard of putting a space or two between sentences?

It is possible we could lose three pro-bowlers before the season starts. Not to worry though, we'll have three new ones in DJ Williams, Ryan Clady, and Chris Kuper.



Who is the third one?

Nate webster?:confused:

NightTrainLayne
06-16-2009, 10:03 AM
Who is the third one?

Nate webster?:confused:

Casey Weigman.

frauschieze
06-16-2009, 10:12 AM
Who is the third one?

Nate webster?:confused:

:throwrock: I can't believe you just said that.

Ravage!!!
06-16-2009, 10:12 AM
Ohhh yeah. Its easy to replace guys like Marshall. No problem. Chad Jackson and Brandon Lloyd are easily the dominating force that Marshall is. Its easy to replace guys like that. They are just all over the league.

Mike
06-16-2009, 10:54 AM
Ohhh yeah. Its easy to replace guys like Marshall. No problem. Chad Jackson and Brandon Lloyd are easily the dominating force that Marshall is. Its easy to replace guys like that. They are just all over the league.

We all know how good Marshall is and that he wouldn't be replaced easily. We all know that the Broncos are better with him than without him. But I would be pissed if Denver offered big money and put themselves in cap hell and then the guy gets suspended because slaps his girl around or he can't perform to the level we have seen because of his hip injury. Denver needs to play this one smart.

Besides, how many SBs over the last 10 years were won because of the stud WR? A stud WR is a nice commodity, but teams win becuase of good defense and a good running game.

MOtorboat
06-16-2009, 11:01 AM
We all know how good Marshall is and that he wouldn't be replaced easily. We all know that the Broncos are better with him than without him. But I would be pissed if Denver offered big money and put themselves in cap hell and then the guy gets suspended because slaps his girl around or he can't perform to the level we have seen because of his hip injury. Denver needs to play this one smart.

Besides, how many SBs over the last 10 years were won because of the stud WR? A stud WR is a nice commodity, but teams win becuase of good defense and a good running game.

While I completely agree with you...Arizona about did it because of Boldin and Fitzgerald...

underrated29
06-16-2009, 11:07 AM
:throwrock: I can't believe you just said that.

I was going to say mike leach, but i didnt want to look like a kiss ass.

:elefant:

frauschieze
06-16-2009, 03:52 PM
I was going to say mike leach, but i didnt want to look like a kiss ass.

:elefant:

He shoulda been one. :D