PDA

View Full Version : Broncos' restricted free agents unlikely to get long-term deals


Bronco Rob
02-26-2010, 04:29 AM
Broncos' restricted free agents unlikely to get long-term deals


By Mike Klis
The Denver Post

Updated: 02/26/2010 02:52:34 AM MST


INDIANAPOLIS With virtually no incentive to do otherwise, the Broncos are expected to join all other NFL teams and avoid negotiating multiyear contracts with any of their restricted free agents.

The Broncos' restricted free agents include starting quarterback Kyle Orton, NFL sack leader Elvis Dumervil, star receiver Brandon Marshall, starting right guard Chris Kuper and pass-catching tight end Tony Scheffler.

All were hoping to hit unrestricted free agency March 5, but with owners making the no-brainer move of opting out of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), players with four and five years of NFL service are certain to become restricted free agents by March 4. Restricted as in no more than a one-year, roughly $3 million contract.

Generally speaking, fourth- and fifth-year players attract the greatest interest on the free-agent market because they have an ideal mix of youth and experience. That this group may attract no interest has those players peeved.

"I've never talked about a contract or anything like that," said Orton, who as a fifth-year quarterback could have been in line for possibly a five-year, $50 million contract. "I kept my mouth shut the entire time and waited. I've worked hard and told myself I would get my chance. Now they're taking that chance away."

The expectation is that the NFL will be flooded with restricted free agents who won't sign their tendered contracts until just before the first day of training camp this summer. And then there could be scores of training-camp holdouts.

Dumervil was asked recently what offseason changes he thought the Broncos should make to improve the team's chances for 2010.

"I don't know. I don't know if I'll be on the team," said Dumervil, who averaged roughly $400,000 a season during his initial four-year contract. "As it stands right now, I'm not on the team. If we had a game tomorrow, I wouldn't be playing. Once we figure that out, then I can start talking about the 2010 season."

It's figured out, all right, and it doesn't figure to make the Broncos' big five happy. Only one NFL restricted free agent has received a multiyear contract extension in the past six months: DeMarcus Ware of the Dallas Cowboys. Ware, an outside linebacker who had six fewer sacks than Dumervil last season, agreed to a six-year deal in October that included a $40 million guarantee.

Ware might be the last of the restricted free agents to be so richly rewarded.

The ownership labor committee met with players' union officials here Thursday morning at the NFL scouting combine, but agents contacted said no progress was made.

Don't expect any progress, as the owners have a far better deal operating under the opt-out labor rules than they would with any CBA they could negotiate.

It was generally believed that late NFL Players Association chief Gene Upshaw outnegotiated outgoing NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue during the previous labor negotiations. While the players did benefit from nearly a 60 percent take of revenues the past three years, Upshaw failed to negotiate opt-out penalties. Not only was there a lack of penalties, the owners received lucrative benefits by exercising their opt-out right.

Operating in an uncapped system for the 2010 season, teams can now release players who they view as having lopsided contracts and not take a hit on the salary cap. And, instead of paying big dollars to the dozens of quality fourth- and fifth-year players, such as the Broncos have, eligibility for unrestricted free agency was raised from four to six years of service.

The only way a restricted free agent can get a lucrative, multiyear deal is if an owner acts out of the goodness of his heart.

Good luck.

Football is an impersonal business, especially this time of the year.





http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14474300

oubronco
02-26-2010, 07:15 AM
There's going to be alot of players who are going to be pissed

The Joker
02-26-2010, 07:27 AM
I think we should give Elvis a big deal, guy has been a model pro since the day he arrived in Denver and should be a cornerstone of our D going forward.

It'd be a travesty if we let him walk.

If he wants to get paid like Ware did, then that's another story. But I can't imagine he'll feel he deserves that kind of money after what is essentially one great year.

Give him a nice 5 year deal with a low figure for 2011.

The rest, RFA all the way.

no-pseudo-fan
02-26-2010, 07:41 AM
Denver's FO just has to say that they don't know what is going to become of the CBA and they don't want to make big moves without knowing for sure.

bowtown
02-26-2010, 07:51 AM
It would be bad business to offer them long term deals with so much uncertainty. Won't stop people from whining about it though.

Garcia Bronco
02-26-2010, 08:12 AM
I wouldn't pay them either, yet.

Garcia Bronco
02-26-2010, 08:13 AM
Denver's FO just has to say that they don't know what is going to become of the CBA and they don't want to make big moves without knowing for sure.

This

_Oro_
02-26-2010, 08:26 AM
I feel bad for those guys. The window is short anyway for all pro athletes. Yeah I know they get paid to play a game but I'm talking about within the scope of the NFL. All these guys that came into the league around 2005 are getting screwed out of that one big contract chance.

gyldenlove
02-26-2010, 08:42 AM
Denver's FO just has to say that they don't know what is going to become of the CBA and they don't want to make big moves without knowing for sure.

So if the government just said, the economy is bad we are going to double all taxes it would be fine?

Man you are easy to please aren't you?

gtown
02-26-2010, 08:44 AM
Talk about a no-win situation for the team. If you choose to not negotiate any RFA contracts, the players are gonna hate management. If you choose to negotiate with only a few of the players, say Orton and Doom, the others are gonna be miffed. If you begin negotiating with all five of the RFAs then you might be taking any unnecessary financial risk that could cost you down the road. What a conundrum.

rmsanger
02-26-2010, 08:46 AM
the dude is making 400k year to play a game... I will never put a sentence together with I feel bad for him.

nickademus
02-26-2010, 08:48 AM
doom deserves to get paid, but there is absolutly no reason that denver should do anything but wait. If another team offers him a deal we can match or take the 1st and 3rd and move on, why do anything when best case is we get him for another year at 3+ million. I love doom and want him back and hopefully he doesnt get angry that his situation has gone this way he has been a pro's pro so far through his career hopefully he will gut this out and get paid when it is all done.

no-pseudo-fan
02-26-2010, 08:52 AM
So if the government just said, the economy is bad we are going to double all taxes it would be fine?

Man you are easy to please aren't you?

This only effects RFA's not everyone.

I don't think it is right, but the players should be just as mad as the NFLPA than anything.

The fact of the matter is, Denver isn't the only team taking a hard line on RFA's.

no-pseudo-fan
02-26-2010, 08:56 AM
Talk about a no-win situation for the team. If you choose to not negotiate any RFA contracts, the players are gonna hate management. If you choose to negotiate with only a few of the players, say Orton and Doom, the others are gonna be miffed. If you begin negotiating with all five of the RFAs then you might be taking any unnecessary financial risk that could cost you down the road. What a conundrum.

That's what I was trying to say, but every team is going to do the same thing.

bronco militia
02-26-2010, 09:13 AM
it's only one more year, ya big babies...go blame the jack ass's that agreed to this mess 4 years ago

SoDak Bronco
02-26-2010, 09:15 AM
When do we find out what tenders were given for the RFA? anyone know?

no-pseudo-fan
02-26-2010, 09:17 AM
When do we find out what tenders were given for the RFA? anyone know?

I believe the deadline on tender offers is next thursday

Cool Breeze
02-26-2010, 09:37 AM
4 years @ $400,000.00 = 1.6 mil (boo hoo)
probably 40mil+ guaranteed multi year contract next year?
I would sit out - Don't want a career ending injury to screw that up.
The players have options too.

With this said - if Bowlen is cash poor - Doom's value will never be higher...

eddie mac
02-26-2010, 09:42 AM
I wouldn't pay them either, yet.

Spot on Garcia and the way things are going does anyone really see a lot of players holding out when there's a good chance loads of them will be going through 2011 without any money???

eddie mac
02-26-2010, 09:44 AM
4 years @ $400,000.00 = 1.6 mil (boo hoo)
probably 40mil+ guaranteed multi year contract next year?
I would sit out - Don't want a career ending injury to screw that up.
The players have options too.

With this said - if Bowlen is cash poor - Doom's value will never be higher...


What options are those CB???

They have nothing, they are on their knees and they wont be getting up soon. Upshaw gave them a taste of the good life then pulled the rug with no get-out clauses for the players and plenty of money making ones for the owners.

The owners wont give up **** unless that 60% becomes 50 or less.

Cool Breeze
02-26-2010, 09:55 AM
At this dollar figure, I would sit out 2011.

I guess a 1st & 3rd tender offer would bring Doom in excess of 3 mil, but still - sitting out is an option.

_Oro_
02-26-2010, 10:02 AM
the dude is making 400k year to play a game... I will never put a sentence together with I feel bad for him.

Obviously you read the first sentence and stopped reading.

Within the context of the NFL they are getting screwed. Compared
to starving homeless people with cancer.... not so bad.

bronco militia
02-26-2010, 10:04 AM
Obviously you read the first sentence and stopped reading.

Within the context of the NFL they are getting screwed. Compared
to starving homeless people with cancer.... not so bad.

"I've never talked about a contract or anything like that," said Orton, who as a fifth-year quarterback could have been in line for possibly a five-year, $50 million contract. "I kept my mouth shut the entire time and waited. I've worked hard and told myself I would get my chance. Now they're taking that chance away."

boooooooooooohoooooooooooo! wahhhhhhhh!

:spit:

Kaylore
02-26-2010, 10:06 AM
At this dollar figure, I would sit out 2011.

I guess a 1st & 3rd tender offer would bring Doom in excess of 3 mil, but still - sitting out is an option.

Do you mean you would sit out this year? 2011 is going to be a lockout. Sitting out this year and then leaning on union money during the lockout is hardly the path to financial freedom. Then when you come back you'll be out football going on three years. They'll play if for no other reason than to save money for the next year.

Personally I hope this makes enough of the players pissed they put some pressure on their union representation to capitulate on issues that are affecting very few like slotting for the top fifteen draft picks.

Paladin
02-26-2010, 10:08 AM
At this dollar figure, I would sit out 2011.

I guess a 1st & 3rd tender offer would bring Doom in excess of 3 mil, but still - sitting out is an option.

3 mil versus nothing? RIIIIIIIIIGHT! Sparky, you got..........

nothing.....

peacepipe
02-26-2010, 10:11 AM
I think we should give Elvis a big deal, guy has been a model pro since the day he arrived in Denver and should be a cornerstone of our D going forward.

It'd be a travesty if we let him walk.

If he wants to get paid like Ware did, then that's another story. But I can't imagine he'll feel he deserves that kind of money after what is essentially one great year.
Give him a nice 5 year deal with a low figure for 2011.

The rest, RFA all the way.

elvis dumervil has essentially the same numbers, especially when you consider he had a tougher road playing in a 4-3 in 3 of his 4 yrs in the league. If elvis played in a 3-4 his whole career in the league he'd probably have more sacks than ware. in less time than ware took,remember this past year was elvis 1st yr at OLB & he racked up 17 sacks with less talent around him. He's earned a big contract equal to what Demarcus ware got. He'll get it to. I just hope it's us that give it to him,because wether it's us or somebodyelse he's gonna get paid big.

Everybody wants that great player,but seem to think we can get or keep that great player by lowballing there worth. If you want great players you have to dish out the dough to get or keep them.

Tombstone RJ
02-26-2010, 10:11 AM
The players union could have started negotiating a new agreement last year in order to avoid this crap. But, they didn't because they knew that their current deal is good. Now, they RFA are getting screwed and complaining about the current set up. Yah, it sucks for them but the reality of the situation is it never had to get here. They could have gone to the owners and said "we are willing to split revenue 50/50 instead of the current 60/40 and we want a long term deal yadda, yadda, yadda...." but they didn't do that.

peacepipe
02-26-2010, 10:13 AM
The players union could have started negotiating a new agreement last year in order to avoid this crap. But, they didn't because they knew that their current deal is good. Now, they RFA are getting screwed and complaining about the current set up. Yah, it sucks for them but the reality of the situation is it never had to get here. They could have gone to the owners and said "we are willing to split revenue 50/50 instead of the current 60/40 and we want a long term deal yadda, yadda, yadda...." but they didn't do that.The owners could've done the same in return, the owners signatures are on the contract as well. They are just as much to blame if not more so. The NFLPA has every justification to fight for what they got.

bronco militia
02-26-2010, 10:16 AM
The owners could've done the same in return, the owners signatures are on the contract as well. They are just as much to blame if not more so. The NFLPA has every justification to fight for what they got.

the owners voted to end the CBA...they are in no hurry to "fix" anything and have no reason to lock the players out after the uncapped year.

the union is ****ed (see 1987 NFL players strike)

oubronco
02-26-2010, 10:19 AM
The owners could've done the same in return, the owners signatures are on the contract as well. They are just as much to blame if not more so. The NFLPA has every justification to fight for what they got.

I don't see how it's more the owners fault, the owners are the ones getting the 40% and they want the 60% cause you know they own the teams

peacepipe
02-26-2010, 10:31 AM
I don't see how it's more the owners fault, the owners are the ones getting the 40% and they want the 60% cause you know they own the teams

This is the same contract they agreed to,& considering owners don't honor most contracts anyway I have no sympathy for them. I'm sure the NFLPA would gladly go to 50/50 split if contracts are fully garaunteed.

peacepipe
02-26-2010, 10:37 AM
the owners voted to end the CBA...they are in no hurry to "fix" anything and have no reason to lock the players out after the uncapped year.

the union is ****ed (see 1987 NFL players strike)

Considering how well the XFL did, that noone wants to watch sloppy football, eventually CBS,FOX,NBC & ESPN are going to realize it isn't good business to dish out billions in TV contracts. If the NFLPA is going to win you are going to see 2 yr absence of good NFL football.

Tombstone RJ
02-26-2010, 10:43 AM
The owners could've done the same in return, the owners signatures are on the contract as well. They are just as much to blame if not more so. The NFLPA has every justification to fight for what they got.

I agree. However, the owners are the ones who feel the current agreement is unbalanced in favor of the NFLPA. If the union doesn't make the first move then the owners are gonna stone wall them as they are doing now.

~Crash~
02-26-2010, 10:46 AM
There's going to be alot of players who are going to be pissed

Sounds like Dvile already is .

sixtimeseight
02-26-2010, 10:48 AM
elvis dumervil has essentially the same numbers, especially when you consider he had a tougher road playing in a 4-3 in 3 of his 4 yrs in the league. If elvis played in a 3-4 his whole career in the league he'd probably have more sacks than ware. in less time than ware took,remember this past year was elvis 1st yr at OLB & he racked up 17 sacks with less talent around him. He's earned a big contract equal to what Demarcus ware got. He'll get it to. I just hope it's us that give it to him,because wether it's us or somebodyelse he's gonna get paid big.

Ummmm.... no. Hint: you can't compare defensive players using numbers. Ware is a complete player, Dumerville is a one-trick pony. Dumerville doesn't deserve, nor will he receive Ware money.

bronco militia
02-26-2010, 10:49 AM
Considering how well the XFL did, that noone wants to watch sloppy football, eventually CBS,FOX,NBC & ESPN are going to realize it isn't good business to dish out billions in TV contracts. If the NFLPA is going to win you are going to see 2 yr absence of good NFL football.

the Tv networks are already obligated to pay the owners regardless of a strike or lockout. the owners will actually make more money if the players strike (due to lower operating costs).

~Crash~
02-26-2010, 10:55 AM
Considering how well the XFL did, that noone wants to watch sloppy football, eventually CBS,FOX,NBC & ESPN are going to realize it isn't good business to dish out billions in TV contracts. If the NFLPA is going to win you are going to see 2 yr absence of good NFL football.

You say that but I am damn close to not watch NFL because it is not near as fun as watching College football . I think you are wrong if the right league were to come in I would have no problem watching a more college approach . sorry but the NFL is getting way to high price .

~Crash~
02-26-2010, 10:58 AM
some were in the mix love of the game has been lost .

strafen
02-26-2010, 11:03 AM
I hope they come to a resolution where both parties will agree and be happy with.
Not likely to happen so, somebody is going to be hurt, unfortunately

gyldenlove
02-26-2010, 11:05 AM
some were in the mix love of the game has been lost .

Love for the game only exists when big money isn't involved. Go ask someone who plays safety for a small school in the FCS division who will never get anywhere near the NFL draft, that guy is doing it for the love of the game. NFL players? they are doing it for the money, even the good guys like Casey Wiegmann.

Look at how many football players just walk away from the game, they don't love it. How many soccer players or hockey players still play at a lower level long after they retire? almost all of them.

gyldenlove
02-26-2010, 11:06 AM
The players union could have started negotiating a new agreement last year in order to avoid this crap. But, they didn't because they knew that their current deal is good. Now, they RFA are getting screwed and complaining about the current set up. Yah, it sucks for them but the reality of the situation is it never had to get here. They could have gone to the owners and said "we are willing to split revenue 50/50 instead of the current 60/40 and we want a long term deal yadda, yadda, yadda...." but they didn't do that.

Last year the players had a contract that expired in 2013, no reason to renegotiate. It was the owners who voted to rip up the deal - the players had no part in that.

Archer81
02-26-2010, 11:07 AM
So if the government just said, the economy is bad we are going to double all taxes it would be fine?

Man you are easy to please aren't you?


Ironically...this is exactly what they are doing...


Anyways, the players recognize this could happen. Dont cry about it, because they sign a 1 year tender, play for the Broncos, new CBA comes into existance and then they can get their paydays.

:Broncos:

rastaman
02-26-2010, 11:20 AM
I wouldn't pay them either, yet.

If I were the players I wouldn't give it may all either on every play. I'd take plays off and on some Sunday's just not give it my best.

After all players play their best to earn more money Right! While the owners are deciding how to pay the players due new contracts.....the players who are affected by the CBA should decide just how hard they want to play in 2010 and 2011.

rastaman
02-26-2010, 11:25 AM
Love for the game only exists when big money isn't involved. Go ask someone who plays safety for a small school in the FCS division who will never get anywhere near the NFL draft, that guy is doing it for the love of the game. NFL players? they are doing it for the money, even the good guys like Casey Wiegmann.

Look at how many football players just walk away from the game, they don't love it. How many soccer players or hockey players still play at a lower level long after they retire? almost all of them.

Whats wrong with "Playing for the Money"......do you think NFL owners own their teams for the love of the game FIRST! or are they owners b/c of the money they can earn and increasing the value of their Corporate Investment!

rastaman
02-26-2010, 11:33 AM
You say that but I am damn close to not watch NFL because it is not near as fun as watching College football . I think you are wrong if the right league were to come in I would have no problem watching a more college approach . sorry but the NFL is getting way to high price .

College players should be paid as well! Especially in Div I AA, using the excuse of players are getting free room and board and an education is pure BS! The College Football programs are really Corporate ventures when you consider the indorsements winning HC's are given and their million plus $ contracts all generated from Corporations. Todays College Football players are indentured slaves. The T.V and Cable contracts generate millions for the athletic department of the top schools

Sorry but the Div I College Football are exploiting football players and should pay and compensate the players for the revenue they bring in.

rastaman
02-26-2010, 11:34 AM
elvis dumervil has essentially the same numbers, especially when you consider he had a tougher road playing in a 4-3 in 3 of his 4 yrs in the league. If elvis played in a 3-4 his whole career in the league he'd probably have more sacks than ware. In less time than ware took,remember this past year was elvis 1st yr at olb & he racked up 17 sacks with less talent around him. He's earned a big contract equal to what demarcus ware got. He'll get it to. I just hope it's us that give it to him,because wether it's us or somebodyelse he's gonna get paid big.

Everybody wants that great player,but seem to think we can get or keep that great player by lowballing there worth. If you want great players you have to dish out the dough to get or keep them.

bingo!

Archer81
02-26-2010, 11:42 AM
College players should be paid as well! Especially in Div I AA, using the excuse of players are getting free room and board and an education is pure BS! The College Football programs are really Corporate ventures when you consider the indorsements winning HC's are given and their million plus $ contracts all generated from Corporations. Todays College Football players are indentured slaves. The T.V and Cable contracts generate millions for the athletic department of the top schools

Sorry but the Div I College Football are exploiting football players and should pay and compensate the players for the revenue they bring in.

No one is telling these players they have to play in division I football. If they get paid to play college football, then no state or federal money should go to pay for their educations.

:Broncos:

Popps
02-26-2010, 11:52 AM
I've been saying all off-season that this thing was going to be a train-wreck. Not being able to lock up key players is a huge part of that.

rastaman
02-26-2010, 11:59 AM
Ummmm.... no. Hint: you can't compare defensive players using numbers. Ware is a complete player, Dumerville is a one-trick pony. Dumerville doesn't deserve, nor will he receive Ware money.

Dumerville would be most effective on a team surrounded by talent on Defense. Since he isn't a complete player with all the skills sets, he would be most effective feeding off talented teamates b/c when Doom is doubled teamed he's a mediocre player.

So if Doom can't get top 5 salary at his position, he would be better served trying to sign with a playoff-SB bound team thats already winning while making the same money if not a little better that the Broncos were willing to offer in the first place.

I'm sure Doom would like to experience what its like to play with a proven play off team. He can't get that in Denver right now and he's waited 4 years already.

Cool Breeze
02-26-2010, 12:02 PM
Do you mean you would sit out this year? 2011 is going to be a lockout. Sitting out this year and then leaning on union money during the lockout is hardly the path to financial freedom. Then when you come back you'll be out football going on three years. They'll play if for no other reason than to save money for the next year.

Personally I hope this makes enough of the players pissed they put some pressure on their union representation to capitulate on issues that are affecting very few like slotting for the top fifteen draft picks.

Yeah I meant 2010.
This does make sense.
I can however see a hold out. It would be awful to get an injury and not see the big bucks.

Cool Breeze
02-26-2010, 12:09 PM
3 mil versus nothing? RIIIIIIIIIGHT! Sparky, you got..........

nothing.....

I appreciate your position.
I don't know Doom's lifestyle, and it is an option.

Doom will get the big bucks - barring he doesn't get hurt.
I don't know if it will be in Denver.

sixtimeseight
02-26-2010, 12:13 PM
<table id="post2760914" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr title="Post 2760914"><td class="thead" style="font-weight: normal;" id="currentPost">http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/statusicon/post_new.gif 02-26-2010, 11:20 AM </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2"> Remove user from ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=7925)
rastaman (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/member.php?u=7925) </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1"> This message is hidden because rastaman is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).
</td> </tr> <!-- / main bar --> </tbody></table> <!-- / close content container --> <!-- / post #2760914 --><!-- post #2760920 --> <!-- open content container -->
<!-- this is not the last post shown on the page --> <table id="post2760920" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr title="Post 2760920"> <td class="thead" style="font-weight: normal;"> View Post (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2760920) http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/statusicon/post_new.gif 02-26-2010, 11:25 AM </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2"> Remove user from ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=7925)
rastaman (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/member.php?u=7925) </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1"> This message is hidden because rastaman is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).
</td> </tr> <!-- / main bar --> </tbody></table>



<!-- / close content container --> <!-- / post #2760920 --><!-- post #2760928 --> <!-- open content container --> <!-- this is not the last post shown on the page --> <table id="post2760928" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr title="Post 2760928"> <td class="thead" style="font-weight: normal;"> View Post (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2760928) http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/statusicon/post_new.gif 02-26-2010, 11:33 AM </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2"> Remove user from ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=7925)
rastaman (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/member.php?u=7925) </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1"> This message is hidden because rastaman is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).
</td> </tr> <!-- / main bar --> </tbody></table>



<!-- / close content container --> <!-- / post #2760928 --><!-- post #2760929 --> <!-- open content container --> <!-- this is not the last post shown on the page --> <table id="post2760929" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr title="Post 2760929"> <td class="thead" style="font-weight: normal;"> View Post (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2760929) http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/statusicon/post_new.gif 02-26-2010, 11:34 AM </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2"> Remove user from ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=7925)
rastaman (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/member.php?u=7925)




Jesus Christ man, calm the **** down.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Paladin
02-26-2010, 01:06 PM
I think he has a Haldol deficit....

rastaman
02-26-2010, 01:14 PM
No one is telling these players they have to play in division I football. If they get paid to play college football, then no state or federal money should go to pay for their educations.

:Broncos:

College football is nolonger an amature enterprise within itself! So why are the players considered amatures? Why do the players continue to have to player under antiquated NCAA rulings denying a players right to cash in on their celeberity an money generating talents!

The College players need legal representation/unionization representation to resolve this issue.

rastaman
02-26-2010, 01:17 PM
I think he has a Haldol deficit....

Speaking of someone who has a comon sense deficit!

Archer81
02-26-2010, 01:21 PM
College football is nolonger an amature enterprise within itself! So why are the players considered amatures? Why do the players continue to have to player under antiquated NCAA rulings denying a players right to cash in on their celeberity an money generating talents!

The College players need legal representation/unionization representation to resolve this issue.


Because they are in college. Considering the funding problems alot of schools face, making money off of their sports programs tend to be a way to bring in revenue.

As for the players themselves, they are in school to learn, not play an extracurricular game. If they are paid to play college sports, then they should not be eligible for state or federal funded tuition.

:Broncos:

HILife
02-26-2010, 01:50 PM
With next year being a possible lockout I highly expect Marshall to be back for the 2010 season. No one is going to want to trade for him give up high picks and then sign him to a large deal.

They might be able to trade for him and keep him on that 3mil restricted FA contract, but then they risk losing him next year to go along with the picks they lose this year.

Actually I really don't expect to so very many trades of ANY kind with ANY team. This only includes draft picks because no one is going to want to trade up, pay a player a lot of money then have a lockout next year.

kupesdad
02-26-2010, 03:22 PM
This is really ****ing up my retirement plan. _i_O_i_

Cool Breeze
02-26-2010, 03:27 PM
HAHA That is a bummer! Good to see you kupesdad! I hope they lock-up your son longterm.

elsid13
02-26-2010, 03:48 PM
College football is nolonger an amature enterprise within itself! So why are the players considered amatures? Why do the players continue to have to player under antiquated NCAA rulings denying a players right to cash in on their celeberity an money generating talents!

The College players need legal representation/unionization representation to resolve this issue.

That don't get cash, but the get getting a full ride, plus free food and other non-monetary benefits.

Paladin
02-26-2010, 04:10 PM
This is really ****ing up my retirement plan. _i_O_i_

LOL!!!!!

:thumbs:

eddie mac
02-26-2010, 04:37 PM
I've been saying all off-season that this thing was going to be a train-wreck. Not being able to lock up key players is a huge part of that.

TBH I dont see an issue at all Popps with regard to the Broncos own players bar Marshall and it's got nothing to do with the CBA or lack of one with him.

The only problem Denver will face is the problem rebuilding the roster/strengthening it via free agency.

McDaniels showed his aggressive streak right off the bat last year by hauling in decent/good UFA's like Goodman, Dawkins, Hill, Gaffney and Davis.

He wont be able to get as many decent vets this year but he will be able to hold onto his own young talent unless he wants them out or he gets a good bounty in exchange.

This is one of the first offseasons in a while where Bowlen's Chairmanship of the league's broadcasting committee may well pay off for his own team.

If this was a CBA year and with finances, the cap was staying the same or getting a small reduction there's no way we'd have been able to tie down all of B-Marsh, Orton, Dumervil, Scheffler and Kuper even if we'd wanted to keep all 5. For those 5 players alone you'd have been talking $60m plus in guarantees and anywhere near $40m in signing bonuses alone.

eddie mac
02-26-2010, 04:41 PM
Do you mean you would sit out this year? 2011 is going to be a lockout. Sitting out this year and then leaning on union money during the lockout is hardly the path to financial freedom. Then when you come back you'll be out football going on three years. They'll play if for no other reason than to save money for the next year.

Personally I hope this makes enough of the players pissed they put some pressure on their union representation to capitulate on issues that are affecting very few like slotting for the top fifteen draft picks.

Plus if Hampton's deal is anything to go by the agents are realising whether there's a lockout or not the players pot is going to be smaller when football starts again regardless, so some players are going to take smaller long-term deals this year or indeed just play for their tenders/tags and see how things fall.

Tombstone RJ
02-26-2010, 05:21 PM
Last year the players had a contract that expired in 2013, no reason to renegotiate. It was the owners who voted to rip up the deal - the players had no part in that.

Again, this was all part of the collective bargaining agreement. The NFLPA knew the owners had this option, right?

eddie mac
02-26-2010, 05:44 PM
Again, this was all part of the collective bargaining agreement. The NFLPA knew the owners had this option, right?

They did it to get the 62% but in doing so gave the owners this get out clause whilst screwing themselves over down the road, the road is right in front of them now.