PDA

View Full Version : Orton, Kuper and Scheffler receive tenders. (Marshall receives first-round tender!)


Requiem
03-03-2010, 12:40 PM
Just read it on the Post. (http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2010/03/03/kuper-orton-first-round-tenders-scheffler-second-round/)

Orton, a first. Kuper, a first. Scheffler, a second-round designation, not a same-round, so he gets more cash.

Marshall receives a first-round tender.

Dumervil a first and third.

Fusionfrontman
03-03-2010, 12:42 PM
Cool. Cool? Cool!

I'm not fully understanding all these tenders and such with no cap, so can someone please explain which 'Cool' reaction I should go with. Also, I like both Orton and Kuper a lot and want them back, so that should help. haha
Thanks

Requiem
03-03-2010, 12:44 PM
Fusion, the tenders are just the compensatory amount the Broncos would receive if a team is interested in signing them away from the team as RFA's for their services. We can invoke the right of first refusal, and match any offer that the other team would be willing to give to acquire the players services. Thus, if someone wanted to sign away Kuper or Orton from us, they would have to give up a first-rounder. It is likely that neither will happen. The same goes for Scheffler, but I think him moving would be more likely out of any of them.

I'm not sure how the current CBA works into all of this, but from my knowledge, that is how things operate.

jhns
03-03-2010, 12:44 PM
All of them make sense. I would rather see Kuper get a long term deal now but I also don't really understand how that all works if there is a lockout after next year. That probably a factor.

DenverBrit
03-03-2010, 12:45 PM
Is there a limit to 1st round tenders?


I believe there are two 'Franchise' tags this year for most teams.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 12:45 PM
The Broncos tender to Scheffler included roughly $600,000 in goodwill. Because Scheffler was drafted in the second round in 2006, the Broncos could have designated him as a “same round” restricted free agent, which would have given him a $1.176 million salary. Instead, the Broncos designated him as a “second round” tender which guarantees him a $1.759 million.

Interesting. Sounds like they actually want to keep him. I'm surprised.

Beantown Bronco
03-03-2010, 12:46 PM
Is there a limit to 1st round tenders?


Nope. They can give it to all RFAs if they wanted.

Casper Bronco
03-03-2010, 12:46 PM
Marshall a 1st round tender. Per Adam Schefter on ESPN Sportscenter

Requiem
03-03-2010, 12:47 PM
Is there a limit to 1st round tenders?


I believe there are two 'Franchise' tags this year for most teams.

I don't think so. At any case, if we cannot reach deals with Marshall and Dumervil by the 5th, I fully expect a first and a third tender to be applied to each of them. :thumbsup:

no-pseudo-fan
03-03-2010, 12:47 PM
I wonder why they haven't tendered BMarsh or Doom?

Fusionfrontman
03-03-2010, 12:47 PM
Requim, thank you. That is what I was figuring.
Interesting that they would want to keep Shef. Is this simply b/c he is pretty decent and cheaper than signing a TE of his 'caliber'?

Requiem
03-03-2010, 12:48 PM
Marshall a 1st round tender. Per Adam Schefter on ESPN Sportscenter

Very, very interesting. Just a first? Might be the Broncos way of trying to see how many people are willing to give up a first by signing him, and then using right of first refusal to match and then dish him for more if there is immense interest.

DenverBrit
03-03-2010, 12:48 PM
Thanks for the response guys. :thumbsup:

lostknight
03-03-2010, 12:49 PM
Hopefully, this means that Doom get's his long term contract, and we get something if/when Marshall decided to leave.

jhns
03-03-2010, 12:50 PM
Marshall a 1st round tender. Per Adam Schefter on ESPN Sportscenter

This one doesn't make sense unless they are just seeing if someone will give us a first for him. The contract that goes with this is probably not very good. I don't see our problems with Marshall going away without either trading him or paying him like a top 3 receiver.

Requiem
03-03-2010, 12:51 PM
Requim, thank you. That is what I was figuring.
Interesting that they would want to keep Shef. Is this simply b/c he is pretty decent and cheaper than signing a TE of his 'caliber'?

The value we're getting Scheffler at this year would be much less than us going out in free agency in finding a replacement. I'm actually surprised they gave him the second-round tender. They could have slapped him with the original round tender and given him 600,000 less dollars (he was a second rounder) less, but as the Post indicates, perhaps this is a gesture of goodwill and an olive branch towards better relations down the road.

strafen
03-03-2010, 12:52 PM
This one doesn't make sense unless they are just seeing if someone will give us a first for him. The contract that goes with this is probably not very good. I don't see our problems with Marshall going away without either trading him or paying him like a top 3 receiver.

I'm surprised as well they only placed a 1st round tender on him, as opposed to a 1st and a 3rd.
Basically they're saying, come and get him.

lostknight
03-03-2010, 12:52 PM
This one doesn't make sense unless they are just seeing if someone will give us a first for him. The contract that goes with this is probably not very good. I don't see our problems with Marshall going away without either trading him or paying him like a top 3 receiver.

If I'm any of these players, I am decently pissed, but it's not a personal thing. The question of if Brandon or Josh has the maturity to shut up to the media about it, is uncertain to me.

Casper Bronco
03-03-2010, 12:52 PM
Very, very interesting. Just a first? Might be the Broncos way of trying to see how many people are willing to give up a first by signing him, and then using right of first refusal to match and then dish him for more if there is immense interest.

That is what they are doing. Let someone else give him a contract. Let them set the market for him. If they decide to keep him, good. If they don't like the contract, let him go.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 12:53 PM
This one doesn't make sense...

It clearly states that they intend to get rid of him. No other logical reason.

Requiem
03-03-2010, 12:53 PM
This one doesn't make sense unless they are just seeing if someone will give us a first for him. The contract that goes with this is probably not very good. I don't see our problems with Marshall going away without either trading him or paying him like a top 3 receiver.

My initial thoughts is that Denver wants to gauge interest at teams who are willing to sign him at the first-round level of compensation. I expect them to match the offers, and then come up with a deal accordingly. If there is multiple teams interested in his services, that'd allow a bidding war to begin for him. Those are my thoughts.

In the back of my mind, us allowing him to sign with another team through the RFA process would be an easier PR thing to do than trading a player of his caliber again, especially after how divided people were in regards to the Cutler deal. Maybe that's too much speculation, but who knows. That is why we are all here. :D

TonyR
03-03-2010, 12:54 PM
Basically they're saying, come and get him.

Yup, exactly.

Requiem
03-03-2010, 12:55 PM
That is what they are doing. Let someone else give him a contract. Let them set the market for him. If they decide to keep him, good. If they don't like the contract, let him go.

Very well stated, Casper. Thanks a bunch for the info.

i4jelway7
03-03-2010, 01:06 PM
i think this means bmarsh is a goner, why not give him the highest tender? doesn't make sense

peacepipe
03-03-2010, 01:06 PM
This is exactly what it means, they are willing to unload Marshall in a trade but they won't trade for anything less than a 1st. They are not going to lowball themselves. It's a 1st or denver keeps him.

Rashomon
03-03-2010, 01:08 PM
This is exactly what it means, they are willing to unload Marshall in a trade but they won't trade for anything less than a 1st. They are not going to lowball themselves. It's a 1st or denver keeps him.

So would people be satisfied if Denver got Baltimore's 25th pick for Marshall? That is a very likely scenario.

no-pseudo-fan
03-03-2010, 01:09 PM
I don't see the point of putting just the 1st on B Marsh. I don't know if they are doing this to let B Marsh gage his worth on the open market, or just as an additional jab by not giving him the extra money which they did for Scheff.

The Game is a foot!

Beantown Bronco
03-03-2010, 01:11 PM
I don't see the point of putting just the 1st on B Marsh. I don't know if they are doing this to let B Marsh gage his worth on the open market, or just as an additional jab by not giving him the extra money which they did for Scheff.

The Game is a foot!

Seriously. I just checked and the difference in money would be essentially the same as it was with Schef.

$2.2 million for Marshall with the 1st round tender
$2.8 million if they bumped it up to the 1st and 3rd tender

Really not a big difference in the grand scheme of things. I would like to hear their justification for it.

How many teams that are interested in him enough to give up a first wouldn't still be interested if they also had to give up a third?

strafen
03-03-2010, 01:12 PM
A first for Orton? :crazy:

dbfan21
03-03-2010, 01:12 PM
I love this time of year when the activity starts to heat up and speculation runs wild!!

Let the games begin!!! :strong:

i4jelway7
03-03-2010, 01:13 PM
per adam schefter the broncos have tendered Dumervil @ the highest a 1st & a 3rd

Filed to ESPN: Broncos tendered Pro Bowl LB Elvis Dumervil at a first- and third-round level. The tender carries a $3.168 million pricetag.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-03-2010, 01:14 PM
Curious as to why they didnt tender Marshall with the highest either. But i have no clue what that could possibly mean

NFLBRONCO
03-03-2010, 01:15 PM
Curious as to why they didnt tender Marshall with the highest either. But i have no clue what that could possibly mean

Other team take him please is my guess

no-pseudo-fan
03-03-2010, 01:17 PM
Something is going on with Marshall only getting the 1st round tender. Most of the RFA WR's of other teams got the highest tender, but not Brandon.

Brandon might seriously be gone.

Rabb
03-03-2010, 01:17 PM
Curious as to why they didnt tender Marshall with the highest either. But i have no clue what that could possibly mean

I think that either they already have a dancing partner in mind (come on, we all know it happens) or they just don't think they would get a 1st and 3rd for him and want to get rid of him without another controversial and dramatic trade

I would take any pick in the 1st round this year, this is a deep draft

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 01:18 PM
Something is going on with Marshall only getting the 1st round tender. Most of the RFA WR's of other teams got the highest tender, but not Brandon.

Brandon might seriously be gone.

hello? are you surprised?

bowtown
03-03-2010, 01:18 PM
The Broncos tender to Scheffler included roughly $600,000 in goodwill. Because Scheffler was drafted in the second round in 2006, the Broncos could have designated him as a “same round” restricted free agent, which would have given him a $1.176 million salary. Instead, the Broncos designated him as a “second round” tender which guarantees him a $1.759 million.

Clearly we only did this so that when we cut Scheffler the day before the season starts, with no adequite time to find another team, it will be that much more money that he will have to then live without... a bigger fall if you will. McDaniels is SUCH a bastard to the Shanahan guys.

Rulon Velvet Jones
03-03-2010, 01:21 PM
A number of teams might balk at the 1+3 price, but for just a 1 - a good number will step up and start a bidding war. It's good to start lower and let the market set itself. It's like setting a reasonable asking price on eBay, when you know you're going to fetch much higher when all is said and done.

jhns
03-03-2010, 01:21 PM
per adam schefter the broncos have tendered Dumervil @ the highest a 1st & a 3rd

Filed to ESPN: Broncos tendered Pro Bowl LB Elvis Dumervil at a first- and third-round level. The tender carries a $3.168 million pricetag.

Now this one I really don't understand. Are we not going to sign anyone to long term contracts? Are they seeing if teams what to trade for him? Of everyone, I figured he would be the one to get locked up for a while.

Popps
03-03-2010, 01:22 PM
2 pages and no Hillis-effect conversation?

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 01:24 PM
The Broncos tender to Scheffler included roughly $600,000 in goodwill. Because Scheffler was drafted in the second round in 2006, the Broncos could have designated him as a “same round” restricted free agent, which would have given him a $1.176 million salary. Instead, the Broncos designated him as a “second round” tender which guarantees him a $1.759 million.

Interesting. Sounds like they actually want to keep him. I'm surprised.

Due to the upgrade tender rule we would only be due a 3rd rounder if we had designated him an original round tender, this way we ensure either good compensation or the ability to match any offer.

no-pseudo-fan
03-03-2010, 01:26 PM
hello? are you surprised?

a little surprised.

Because the 1st and 3rd is not set in stone. We can deal him for less.

strafen
03-03-2010, 01:26 PM
Are we perhaps setting up a blockbuster trade if we end up with a couple of extra 1st round picks?Funny people are not even talking about Orton also receiving a 1st round tender.If he's gone, are we going with a rookie as our starter?Worst case scenario is that all of our players receiving tenders be gone, and we'd need to replace them via the draft...

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 01:26 PM
Are we perhaps setting up a blockbuster trade if we end up with a couple of extra 1st round picks?Funny people are not even talking about Orton also receiving a 1st round tender.If he's gone, are we going with a rookie as our starter?Worst case scenario is that all of our players receiving tenders be gone, and we'd need to replace them via the draft...

chris simms! Ha!

bowtown
03-03-2010, 01:27 PM
Now this one I really don't understand. Are we not going to sign anyone to long term contracts? Are they seeing if teams what to trade for him? Of everyone, I figured he would be the one to get locked up for a while.

Why? There is absolutley no incentive for teams to give anyone a big contract until we know what is happeing with the CBA and 2011. How many times has that been repeated here, yet you are still confused when it actually happens?

Requiem
03-03-2010, 01:27 PM
Yeah Dragster. Packaging every pick we have to take Tim Tebow #1. Go big or go home. McDaniels plans on doing both.

bowtown
03-03-2010, 01:29 PM
Are we perhaps setting up a blockbuster trade if we end up with a couple of extra 1st round picks?Funny people are not even talking about Orton also receiving a 1st round tender.If he's gone, are we going with a rookie as our starter?Worst case scenario is that all of our players receiving tenders be gone, and we'd need to replace them via the draft...

Come on, you of all people think a team is going to make a play for Orton and give up their 1st?

strafen
03-03-2010, 01:30 PM
Yeah Dragster. Packaging every pick we have to take Tim Tebow #1. Go big or go home. McDaniels plans on doing both.

Easy there...
I didn't say anything about Tebow going in the 1st round, but the fact they didn't have to place a 1st round tender on Orton speaks volumes. While I highly doubt anybody with a sane mind would want to give up a 1st for Orton ROFL!
The question is, who are they going after?

NFLBRONCO
03-03-2010, 01:31 PM
Could they offer an 2011 #1? Or does it have to be 2010 pick?

jhns
03-03-2010, 01:32 PM
Why? There is absolutley no incentive for teams to give anyone a big contract until we know what is happeing with the CBA and 2011. How many times has that been repeated here, yet you are still confused when it actually happens?

Pretty much. You still have to keep your players happy. Just like Marshall, we are trying to get away with paying Elvis WAY below market value for elite players at the position.

Rabb
03-03-2010, 01:33 PM
Could they offer an 2011 #1? Or does it have to be 2010 pick?

I was wondering that also, but I think McD realizes, he is in a win pretty damn close to now scenario

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 01:34 PM
Could they offer an 2011 #1? Or does it have to be 2010 pick?

I think the the Tenders are guidlines....teams can agree on other compensation if a deal was to be worked out

eddie mac
03-03-2010, 01:38 PM
It has to be the original pick compensation so as an example if St Louis offered a tender to Marshall they could not trade back into the first rd and give us that, we would get pick 1 if we wanted it.

SoDak Bronco
03-03-2010, 01:39 PM
Bmarsh for a 1st round pick is like pricing your house about 5% below market value and watch the offers come in. It actually may get us more then if we had put the 1st and 3rd tender on him. Good move, now lets see who is going to nibble at the bait.

Rulon Velvet Jones
03-03-2010, 01:41 PM
Bmarsh for a 1st round pick is like pricing your house about 5% below market value and watch the offers come in. It actually may get us more then if we had put the 1st and 3rd tender on him. Good move, now lets see who is going to nibble at the bait.

Totally.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 01:44 PM
Now this one I really don't understand. Are we not going to sign anyone to long term contracts? Are they seeing if teams what to trade for him? Of everyone, I figured he would be the one to get locked up for a while.

Why would you sign a FA to a long-term deal when it's unclear whether there will even be a season in 2011?

bowtown
03-03-2010, 01:45 PM
Easy there...
I didn't say anything about Tebow going in the 1st round, but the fact they didn't have to place a 1st round tender on Orton speaks volumes. While I highly doubt anybody with a sane mind would want to give up a 1st for Orton ROFL!
The question is, who are they going after?

It's going to be funny to watch your meltdown when we don't draft a QB this year.

cutthemdown
03-03-2010, 01:45 PM
The Broncos tender to Scheffler included roughly $600,000 in goodwill. Because Scheffler was drafted in the second round in 2006, the Broncos could have designated him as a “same round” restricted free agent, which would have given him a $1.176 million salary. Instead, the Broncos designated him as a “second round” tender which guarantees him a $1.759 million.

Interesting. Sounds like they actually want to keep him. I'm surprised.

Maybe McDaniels way of saying just because you screw up, and I have to suspend you, doesn't mean you are through. He may be trying to make players understand you screw up, you talk ****, you don't buy into team you get punished, but also get a chance to redeem yourself.

Either that or they figure the higher dollar amount make it more likely they could do a sign and trade with him in a package? Who knows.

It does look like the Broncos expect to get something for any talent that leaves.

Good sign they like Kuper. He slipped last yr but it may have been unrelated to talent and more to do with nagging injury or just losing the RT and having the center not play as well.

cutthemdown
03-03-2010, 01:47 PM
Are we perhaps setting up a blockbuster trade if we end up with a couple of extra 1st round picks?Funny people are not even talking about Orton also receiving a 1st round tender.If he's gone, are we going with a rookie as our starter?Worst case scenario is that all of our players receiving tenders be gone, and we'd need to replace them via the draft...

It wont happen. Playoff teams cant even make offers until they lose players to FA. Teams don't like to give up high picks.

cutthemdown
03-03-2010, 01:47 PM
Broncos may be saying we plan to keep everyone on 1 yr deals, see how CBA goes, then decide next yr.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 01:48 PM
Why would you sign a FA to a long-term deal when it's unclear whether there will even be a season in 2011?

Anybody hear Bart Scott on ESPN Radio yesterday? He said all players are expecting, and preparing for, a lockout in 2011.

jhns
03-03-2010, 01:48 PM
Why would you sign a FA to a long-term deal when it's unclear whether there will even be a season in 2011?

Because there will probably be a season in 2012 and 2013 that I would love to have Elvis for. Anyways, like I said, it is more about keeping them happy. If they don't want to give him a long term deal, franchise him. Giving him the like 3.5 mil the tender gives him will be a slap in the face. Good luck getting him to sign here later without ripping the team off a lot more than a franchise tag would now.

broncswin
03-03-2010, 01:49 PM
Broncos may be saying we plan to keep everyone on 1 yr deals, see how CBA goes, then decide next yr.

totally agree with you cut...I think they are playing smart with these contracts:thumbsup:

strafen
03-03-2010, 01:51 PM
It wont happen. Playoff teams cant even make offers until they lose players to FA. Teams don't like to give up high picks.

This year's draft is very deep.
And you're right, I don't see that many teams wanting to give up their 1st round pick that easily, but then again, had Chicago own one this year it would've been a no-brainer for them! ;D

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 01:51 PM
Anybody hear Bart Scott on ESPN Radio yesterday? He said all players are expecting, and preparing for, a lockout in 2011.

all the players expect it because that's what the players union told them.

The owners have no reason to lock out the players

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 01:53 PM
What happened to the "first and third" tender? I'm confused.

Is this an invitation for other teams to make an offer, rather than an attempt to keep these guys?

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 01:54 PM
What happened to the "first and third" tender? I'm confused.

Is this an invitation for other teams to make an offer, rather than an attempt to keep these guys?

LOL yes...please read through this thread

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 01:55 PM
Anybody hear Bart Scott on ESPN Radio yesterday? He said all players are expecting, and preparing for, a lockout in 2011.

So are the teams. I'm expecting to see a lot of tenders and a LOT of one year deals this FA period.

Just like I've been saying all along.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 01:56 PM
What happened to the "first and third" tender? I'm confused.

Is this an invitation for other teams to make an offer, rather than an attempt to keep these guys?

/facepalm

Yes, the idea here is that we're not even going to have a team to field in '10.

/rolleyes

kupesdad
03-03-2010, 01:56 PM
all the players expect it because that's what the players union told them.

The owners have no reason to lock out the players

The owners have 5 billion reasons to lock the players out..guaranteed TV money

cmhargrove
03-03-2010, 02:05 PM
Because there will probably be a season in 2012 and 2013 that I would love to have Elvis for. Anyways, like I said, it is more about keeping them happy. If they don't want to give him a long term deal, franchise him. Giving him the like 3.5 mil the tender gives him will be a slap in the face. Good luck getting him to sign here later without ripping the team off a lot more than a franchise tag would now.

Elvis had a great year in 2009, but in order for him to get big, long term money he needs to solidify his spot by getting better against the run. I think this is a very wise decision by the team.

If he keeps his sacks over 12 and gets better against the run, lock him up long term. If he slides, and becomes a liability against the run, its time to move on for less money.

I love Elvis, but he need to improve against the run in 2010 to earn a long term deal.

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 02:08 PM
It has to be the original pick compensation so as an example if St Louis offered a tender to Marshall they could not trade back into the first rd and give us that, we would get pick 1 if we wanted it.

Original or better, Chicago could for instance trade with Jacksonville for their 1st rounder and ship it to us, they don't have to trade for their own.

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 02:08 PM
The owners have 5 billion reasons to lock the players out..guaranteed TV money

It is hardly the first time that a television contract has had that type of provision in it," Pash said. "That goes back in my experience at least to the early 1980's. More to the point, it is nothing more than a financing mechanism. The networks aren't going to hand over large amounts of money to us, and if they don't get a product [in return] tell us to go ahead and keep that money. We will have to give it back to them and take reductions about what we get from them for future years. I am quite certain that the networks will make sure that they are made whole and then some if we are not able to televise games. It is not a payment, it is a financing mechanism. It is no different than borrowing on a home equity line. You still have to pay it back."

http://news.bostonherald.com/sports/football/other_nfl/view/20100222nfl_fires_back_at_pa_chief/srvc=home&position=recent

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 02:09 PM
LOL yes...please read through this thread

Hey, dick, I made a comment. :notworthy I don't have to read through the entire thread to make a comment. Apparently, I rehashed what was commented upon before.

I thought the "first and third" were tied together, I didn't know there was so many options about how a player could be tendered.

Anyway, that's very interesting that the brain trust is looking to wheel and deal. I had no idea they could tender just a first, that opens up a few possibilities.

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 02:09 PM
It wont happen. Playoff teams cant even make offers until they lose players to FA. Teams don't like to give up high picks.

RFAs are not included in the playoff provisions, they can sign all the RFAs they want to, it is only non-waiver UFAs they are limited in signing.

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 02:11 PM
I think the the Tenders are guidlines....teams can agree on other compensation if a deal was to be worked out

A team who signs a contract with an RFA has to provide the required draft in 2010 and it has to be their own draft slot or better. So you can't trade with New Orleans for the last pick in the 1st round and use that.

Chicago therefore would have to either acquire their own 1st rounder back or trade for a top 10 pick to be able to sign anyone requiring a 1st rounder.

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 02:14 PM
/facepalm

Yes, the idea here is that we're not even going to have a team to field in '10.

/rolleyes

Are you picking on the slow guy? That's not cool. Unless the slow guy is dragster.

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 02:17 PM
Hey, dick, I made a comment. :.

LOL!

no you didn't...you asked a question with question marks and everything...:approve:

HAT
03-03-2010, 02:26 PM
chris simms! Ha!

Dude had a monster pre-season last year!

bowtown
03-03-2010, 02:27 PM
Dude had a monster pre-season last year!

It was the stuff Buff's dreams are made on.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 02:28 PM
It was the stuff Buff's dreams are made on.

Jizz and marshmallows?

HAT
03-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Unicorn Jizz

Rulon Velvet Jones
03-03-2010, 02:30 PM
Ladles full of golden, creamy Unicorn Jizz.

Archer81
03-03-2010, 02:36 PM
Wow...did not expect this thread to take such a mythical turn...


:Broncos:

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 02:45 PM
LOL!

no you didn't...you asked a question with question marks and everything...:approve:

And thanks so much for your help, nanny. :approve:

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 02:48 PM
And thanks so much for your help, nanny. :approve:

:thanku:

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 02:53 PM
A team who signs a contract with an RFA has to provide the required draft in 2010 and it has to be their own draft slot or better. So you can't trade with New Orleans for the last pick in the 1st round and use that.

Chicago therefore would have to either acquire their own 1st rounder back or trade for a top 10 pick to be able to sign anyone requiring a 1st rounder.

thanks

Starting Friday, clubs across the league have the option of signing restricted free agents to offer sheets. If one of the five aforementioned players signs an offer sheet, the Broncos would have the "right of first refusal," meaning that Denver has a seven-day period to match the offer and retain the player, or choose not to match.

If the offer isn't matched, the player would head to his new team, and the Broncos would receive the draft choice tendered for that player.

One important note: all the draft picks must be from the upcoming 2010 NFL Draft.

The last day for restricted free agents to sign an offer sheet is April 15, and the deadline for teams to exercise the right of first refusal to restricted free agents is April 21.

Hamrob
03-03-2010, 02:54 PM
I'm absolutely shocked! Only placing a 1st round tender on Orton, can only mean he is gone!

Teams will be knocking each other over to sign him to an offer sheet.

I mean...come on...the market was 2 1st's and a 3rd for a bum like Cutler.

Only a 1 for Orton....he's gone.

Right everyone??????

NFLBRONCO
03-03-2010, 02:59 PM
thanks

Starting Friday, clubs across the league have the option of signing restricted free agents to offer sheets. If one of the five aforementioned players signs an offer sheet, the Broncos would have the "right of first refusal," meaning that Denver has a seven-day period to match the offer and retain the player, or choose not to match.

If the offer isn't matched, the player would head to his new team, and the Broncos would receive the draft choice tendered for that player.

One important note: all the draft picks must be from the upcoming 2010 NFL Draft.

The last day for restricted free agents to sign an offer sheet is April 15, and the deadline for teams to exercise the right of first refusal to restricted free agents is April 21.

This answers my question earlier thanks bud.

Archer81
03-03-2010, 02:59 PM
I'm absolutely shocked! Only placing a 1st round tender on Orton, can only mean he is gone!

Teams will be knocking each other over to sign him to an offer sheet.

I mean...come on...the market was 2 1st's and a 3rd for a bum like Cutler.

Only a 1 for Orton....he's gone.

Right everyone??????


http://tinyurl.com/yk35t5u


:Broncos:

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 02:59 PM
This answers my question earlier thanks bud.

anytime

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 02:59 PM
Baltimore fans think they won the lotto today.

bronco militia
03-03-2010, 03:00 PM
I'm absolutely shocked! Only placing a 1st round tender on Orton, can only mean he is gone!

Teams will be knocking each other over to sign him to an offer sheet.

I mean...come on...the market was 2 1st's and a 3rd for a bum like Cutler.

Only a 1 for Orton....he's gone.

Right everyone??????

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4HgKvg5HwDk/Rvpt4O4yaSI/AAAAAAAAABs/WHKurjP5GUg/s1600/neckbeard-qb-watches.jpg

eddie mac
03-03-2010, 03:01 PM
Seriously. I just checked and the difference in money would be essentially the same as it was with Schef.

$2.2 million for Marshall with the 1st round tender
$2.8 million if they bumped it up to the 1st and 3rd tender

Really not a big difference in the grand scheme of things. I would like to hear their justification for it.

How many teams that are interested in him enough to give up a first wouldn't still be interested if they also had to give up a third?

The justification is that Denver will most likely let him go in return for a 1st rd pick much like the Redskins will with Jason Campbell and the Phins will with Ronnie Brown.

Hamrob
03-03-2010, 03:03 PM
I think Seattle will nibble at Marshall. Think about it. They have two #1's. The best WR in the draft is Bryant. Do you really think he's better than BMarsh? You've got Bates running the offense there...and he can get BM for just a 1? There going to have to shell out money to that 1st rounder anyway...why not Marshall?

eddie mac
03-03-2010, 03:05 PM
The Broncos tender to Scheffler included roughly $600,000 in goodwill. Because Scheffler was drafted in the second round in 2006, the Broncos could have designated him as a “same round” restricted free agent, which would have given him a $1.176 million salary. Instead, the Broncos designated him as a “second round” tender which guarantees him a $1.759 million.

Interesting. Sounds like they actually want to keep him. I'm surprised.

Whoever wrote that is way off the mark IMO.

As glydenlove stated a few days ago if Scheffler had received an original rd tender (2nd rd pick) under the terms of no CBA being in place Denver would only have received 3rd rd compensation.

That's the reason why Tony got an official 2nd rd tender.

bowtown
03-03-2010, 03:07 PM
I think Seattle will nibble at Marshall. Think about it. They have two #1's. The best WR in the draft is Bryant. Do you really think he's better than BMarsh? You've got Bates running the offense there...and he can get BM for just a 1? There going to have to shell out money to that 1st rounder anyway...why not Marshall?

It comes down to whether you want to take a chance on Bryant not working out or a chance on BMarsh always being a head case. It's not a simple decision.

Rabb
03-03-2010, 03:10 PM
Baltimore fans think they won the lotto today.

you aint' kidding

my buddy is an enormous Ravens fan and he won't stop texting me

broncosteven
03-03-2010, 03:11 PM
http://tinyurl.com/yk35t5u


:Broncos:

So I have a sexual dillema with this post.

Since Sir...81 put this up and he is gay and I am lusting after his post of Megan Fox's ass why do I feel that Sir...81 is waiting for me to get all into it then jump in behind me for a 3 way? With Megan Fox?

BTW I would only tender her a 1st because her knees are a little knobby and her right pinky is a little bigger than her left.

Back to topic: If they do get an offer for BMarsh I hope it is a team in the top 16. I don't want to see Baltimore sign him and we get a pick late.

I know BMarsh was a 4th round pick but he is in the top 2 WR's in all the nfl.

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:13 PM
This tells me Marshall is officially trade bait...

broncosteven
03-03-2010, 03:13 PM
I think Seattle will nibble at Marshall. Think about it. They have two #1's. The best WR in the draft is Bryant. Do you really think he's better than BMarsh? You've got Bates running the offense there...and he can get BM for just a 1? There going to have to shell out money to that 1st rounder anyway...why not Marshall?

So what happens if multiple teams want BMarsh? Does Denver get to decide or is it 1st come 1st served?

What if Seattle and Baltimore come knocking?

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:15 PM
So what happens if multiple teams want BMarsh? Does Denver get to decide or is it 1st come 1st served?

What if Seattle and Baltimore come knocking?

It's whoever Marshall decides to sign with

Rabb
03-03-2010, 03:16 PM
So I have a sexual dillema with this post.

Since Sir...81 put this up and he is gay and I am lusting after his post of Megan Fox's ass why do I feel that Sir...81 is waiting for me to get all into it then jump in behind me for a 3 way? With Megan Fox?

BTW I would only tender her a 1st because her knees are a little knobby and her right pinky is a little bigger than her left.

Back to topic: If they do get an offer for BMarsh I hope it is a team in the top 16. I don't want to see Baltimore sign him and we get a pick late.

I know BMarsh was a 4th round pick but he is in the top 2 WR's in all the nfl.

no, he's not

Traveler
03-03-2010, 03:20 PM
I know BMarsh was a 4th round pick but he is in the top 2 WR's in all the nfl.

Puff, puff, pass dude!

ColoradoBuff
03-03-2010, 03:20 PM
I was wondering that also, but I think McD realizes, he is in a win pretty damn close to now scenario

ya....so let's get rid of our Top 5 WR!!!

broncosteven
03-03-2010, 03:21 PM
no, he's not

Who is better beyond Fitz?

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:21 PM
I'm not sure about top 2 but I would absolutely put him in the top 5

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 03:22 PM
you aint' kidding

my buddy is an enormous Ravens fan and he won't stop texting me

Even the Chargers hit Floyd with the highest tender. Marshall is as good as gone.

Rabb
03-03-2010, 03:25 PM
Who is better beyond Fitz?

Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson for sure...Jennings, Vincent Jackson are at least on par with him

top 10 I will give you, but not even close to top 2

and for the record, I want BMarsh in Denver, I am not anti BMarsh at ALL

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:27 PM
Even the Chargers hit Floyd with the highest tender. Marshall is as good as gone.

We will see if anyone bites, but they are absolutely dangling him out there with this offer.

The MVPlaya
03-03-2010, 03:28 PM
At this point in time Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, and Calvin Johnson are clearly better than Marshall. Everyone else you can make a case for.

NFLBRONCO
03-03-2010, 03:29 PM
What about SF?

jhns
03-03-2010, 03:29 PM
Vincent Jackson are at least on par with him


Now that is just funny. Marshall is having a HOF career and is just on par with a decent WR? You need your head checked.

bowtown
03-03-2010, 03:30 PM
What about SF?

Crabtree.

The MVPlaya
03-03-2010, 03:30 PM
What about SF?

They need a QB to throw to him. Hilarious!

ColoradoBuff
03-03-2010, 03:30 PM
So long Brandon...you wanted out of Denver, here ya go!

NFLBRONCO
03-03-2010, 03:33 PM
They need a QB to throw to him. Hilarious!

They have 2 #1's they can bolster team by adding BM and Orton

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 03:33 PM
We will see if anyone bites, but they are absolutely dangling him out there with this offer.

So you think Miami is dangling Ronnie Brown with theirs as well?

Rulon Velvet Jones
03-03-2010, 03:36 PM
Even if you get multiple teams bidding for him, who is going to break the bank with an uncertain future for the league?

Aren't the Broncos in the driver's seat with this tender? They can evaluate the offers, check their bank balance and decide if it's worth it to match the price or take the best offer back.

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:37 PM
So you think Miami is dangling Ronnie Brown with theirs as well?

1st round tender to a 30 year old RB comming off his 2nd season ending injury in 3 years...

That sounds pretty safe to me...

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 03:37 PM
We will see if anyone bites, but they are absolutely dangling him out there with this offer.

Honestly it's on par with everything I see from the FO. Claim they want someone and do the opposite when it comes to action. With every other talented WR receiving the highest tender amount besides Marshall I now have to believe there is less then 25% chance he is a Bronco next year.

bowtown
03-03-2010, 03:39 PM
1st round tender to a 30 year old RB comming off his 2nd season ending injury in 3 years...

That sounds pretty safe to me...

Yep, if someone offers a 1st for Ronnie Brown, the Dolphins should take it and run like hell.

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:40 PM
Honestly it's on par with everything I see from the FO. Claim they want someone and do the opposite when it comes to action. With every other talented WR receiving the highest tender amount besides Marshall I now have to believe there is less then 25% chance he is a Bronco next year.

As good as he is, he is still a massive head case... I would put the odds closer to 50/50 that someone signs him.

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:42 PM
Yep, if someone offers a 1st for Ronnie Brown, the Dolphins should take it and run like hell.

I'll gaurantee Parcels would take about 30 seconds to take that offer.

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 03:43 PM
So you think Miami is dangling Ronnie Brown with theirs as well?

Which takes longer to have an impact a rookie RB or a rookie WR? Hmmm this is a hard on to figure out for you isn't it. It's not often you find a rookie WR that is capable of putting up Marshall like numbers in year one but on the other hand how hard is it to get a rookie RB to rush for 1000 yards?

strafen
03-03-2010, 03:43 PM
It's whoever Marshall decides to sign withYeah, but wouldn't the Broncos have to accept the deal?
For example, a team like Baltimore slated to pick 25th on the board and a team like say, Tampa slated at #3 offer their first pick to Denver for Marshall, I would think the Broncos would have to gauge their options. Do they want the #3 overall or are they better off at #25
Conventional wisdom dictates they may want to go with the higher of the two, but financially they have to be able to do afford it as well...

eddie mac
03-03-2010, 03:43 PM
It's whoever Marshall decides to sign with

Or whichever deal we decide not to match.

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 03:45 PM
Or whichever deal we decide not to match.

He can only sign 1 contract, if he signs more than 1 he would be in violation of the first one he signed.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 03:46 PM
Even if you get multiple teams bidding for him, who is going to break the bank with an uncertain future for the league?

Aren't the Broncos in the driver's seat with this tender? They can evaluate the offers, check their bank balance and decide if it's worth it to match the price or take the best offer back.

I agree with this 100%. shrug

I think the folks who are already bemoaning BMarsh's departure -- especially for "just" a first -- are being a little overdramatic.

And what happened to the people worrying that we wouldn't get a first for him? They've now become the "we're ONLY getting a first for him?!?!?!? RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" people?

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:46 PM
Yeah, but wouldn't the Broncos have to accept the deal?
For example, a team like Baltimore slated to pick 25th on the board and a team like say, Tampa slated at #3 offer their first pick to Denver for Marshall, I would think the Broncos would have to gauge their options. Do they want the #3 overall or are they better off at #25
Conventional wisdom dictates they may want to go with the higher of the two, but financially they have to be able to do afford it as well...

Marshall can't sign with 2 teams... He either signs with tampa OR Baltimore.

Then it's our call to match it or not. My guess is they won't match any offer for him.

We'll see.

Rabb
03-03-2010, 03:46 PM
He can only sign 1 contract, if he signs more than 1 he would be in violation of the first one he signed.

I think his point is, if Baltimore and Tampa both made offers and he wanted Baltimore and we matched Baltimore, he would not have that choice

eddie mac
03-03-2010, 03:47 PM
BTW the guy we gave up a 5th rounder for this year with a 7th coming back wont be back by the looks of it.

Le Kevin Smith wasn't given a tender making him a UFA.

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 03:47 PM
As good as he is, he is still a massive head case... I would put the odds closer to 50/50 that someone signs him.

No way. Instant impact. If I'm the Jets do I really think I'm going to get a better player at any position in this draft at the 29th spot? The same goes for the Ravens at the 25th spot. Hell even Houston at the 20th spot should consider it. Dre Johnson with Marshall? Good luck covering that.

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:49 PM
I think his point is, if Baltimore and Tampa both made offers and he wanted Baltimore and we matched Baltimore, he would not have that choice

That's not how it works... Marshall (if he signs his offer) then gets to shop himself to other teams. Marshall is then in the drivers seat until he accepts an offer. At that point we can match the offer or not.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-03-2010, 03:49 PM
Which takes longer to have an impact a rookie RB or a rookie WR? Hmmm this is a hard on to figure out for you isn't it. It's not often you find a rookie WR that is capable of putting up Marshall like numbers in year one but on the other hand how hard is it to get a rookie RB to rush for 1000 yards?

You really have to be a douchebag all the time? Or is it optional?

I asked a ****ing question, dumb ****. That really is hard for you to figure out, isn't it?

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:50 PM
No way. Instant impact. If I'm the Jets do I really think I'm going to get a better player at any position in this draft at the 29th spot? The same goes for the Ravens at the 25th spot. Hell even Houston at the 20th spot should consider it. Dre Johnson with Marshall? Good luck covering that.

I think it's a no brainer for the ravens... but Ozzie loves his picks.

Rabb
03-03-2010, 03:50 PM
That's not how it works... Marshall (if he signs his offer) then gets to shop himself to other teams. Marshall is then in the drivers seat until he accepts an offer. At that point we can match the offer or not.

gotcha, thank you

I really have no idea how it works (I am not being a smart ass)

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 03:51 PM
I think his point is, if Baltimore and Tampa both made offers and he wanted Baltimore and we matched Baltimore, he would not have that choice

No, he has to sign a contract with Baltimore before we can match, so he chooses which contract to sign and THEN we get the choice to match or not, but only the deal he has signed.

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 03:51 PM
BTW the guy we gave up a 5th rounder for this year with a 7th coming back wont be back by the looks of it.

Le Kevin Smith wasn't given a tender making him a UFA.

Not a huge surprise, he was injured and sucked when he wasn't.

NFLBRONCO
03-03-2010, 03:52 PM
Or Crabtree and BM

TheDave
03-03-2010, 03:55 PM
I agree with this 100%. shrug

I think the folks who are already bemoaning BMarsh's departure -- especially for "just" a first -- are being a little overdramatic.

And what happened to the people worrying that we wouldn't get a first for him? They've now become the "we're ONLY getting a first for him?!?!?!? RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" people?

I still will be a little surprised if we get a #1 for him... the people I argued with were the ones that assumed we would get what detroit got for Roy Williams. Obviously that isn't going to happen.

strafen
03-03-2010, 03:57 PM
Marshall can't sign with 2 teams... He either signs with tampa OR Baltimore.

Then it's our call to match it or not. My guess is they won't match any offer for him.

We'll see.

Totally. My point was that two teams can bid for Marshall. Whose bid would the Broncos be willing to take.
Maybe I'm wrong, isn't that how it works?

strafen
03-03-2010, 03:59 PM
No, he has to sign a contract with Baltimore before we can match, so he chooses which contract to sign and THEN we get the choice to match or not, but only the deal he has signed.I too was confused about that.
Thanks for clarifying!

TheDave
03-03-2010, 04:00 PM
Totally. My point was that two teams can bid for Marshall. Whose bid would the Broncos be willing to take.
Maybe I'm wrong, isn't that how it works?

nope... as far as I understand it

Marshall signs his RFA contract

Marshall then shops himself to other teams (we have no involvement in that)

Marshall accepts any offer he wants (again we have no involvement)

We either match said offer or not.

strafen
03-03-2010, 04:02 PM
nope... as far as I understand it

Marshall signs his RFA contract

Marshall then shops himself to other teams (we have no involvement in that)

Marshall accepts any offer he wants (again we have no involvement)

We either match said offer or not.Gotcha!

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 04:06 PM
You really have to be a douchebag all the time? Or is it optional?

I asked a dumb ****ing question. That really is hard for you to figure out, isn't it?

I fixed it for you. You asked a question trying to make it look like the Phins were not trying to protect one of their stars either. Trying to make it look like we are in the same boat as them. It's clearly not the same. One is a soon to be 29 year old RB with coming off a foot injury the other is a 25 year old WR coming off his best year as a pro. You know damn well that no one is going to go after Brown period. I have that much faith in you. One the other hand tendering Marshall at a first and a third would have really put a limit to teams going after him. I'm sure even you will agree more teams will now attempt to make a deal with Marshall knowing he is the only good WR not given the max tender.

Headless Hessian Rider
03-03-2010, 04:10 PM
I think his point is, if Baltimore and Tampa both made offers and he wanted Baltimore and we matched Baltimore, he would not have that choice
One question regarding that. If he signs the tender with Baltimore and we match that contract. Can we still trade him afterwards to Tampa?

Archer81
03-03-2010, 04:13 PM
One question regarding that. If he signs the tender with Baltimore and we match that contract. Can we still trade him afterwards to Tampa?


Yes.


:Broncos:

GoBroncos84
03-03-2010, 04:15 PM
Should have been a first and third for Marshall. Either way, I hope he stays instead of goes. But if he ends up signing elsewhere and all we get is a late first, I would be upset with the value.

TheDave
03-03-2010, 04:16 PM
I fixed it for you. You asked a question trying to make it look like the Phins were not trying to protect one of their stars either. Trying to make it look like we are in the same boat as them. It's clearly not the same. One is a soon to be 29 year old RB with coming off a foot injury the other is a 25 year old WR coming off his best year as a pro. You know damn well that no one is going to go after Brown period. I have that much faith in you. One the other hand tendering Marshall at a first and a third would have really put a limit to teams going after him. I'm sure even you will agree more teams will now attempt to make a deal with Marshall knowing he is the only good WR not given the max tender.

Is that true?

Every other wr got a 1st & 3rd tender?

Headless Hessian Rider
03-03-2010, 04:17 PM
Yes.


:Broncos:

So we're still thE stakeholder depending on what kind of poisen pill contract he might sign. :thanku:

Archer81
03-03-2010, 04:18 PM
So we're still thE stakeholder depending on what kind of poisen pill contract he might sign. :thanku:


Pretty much.


:Broncos:

strafen
03-03-2010, 04:19 PM
Should have been a first and third for Marshall. Either way, I hope he stays instead of goes. But if he ends up signing elsewhere and all we get is a late first, I would be upset with the value.

That was one of my questions.
Blatimoe has the #25 pick.
In any event, this makes it easier for another team to get Marshall.
At this point we can also consider this to be a chess match that we don't know what the Broncos strategy is at this point...

KevinJames
03-03-2010, 04:25 PM
Rumors flying about Tampa Bay wanting to trade for Marshall.

If this is true I would hope we got Eric Berry in a heartbeat even tho safety isn't really a need adding a young DB never hurts and he would start immediately next to Dawkins.

strafen
03-03-2010, 04:26 PM
This is what Xanders had to say about the offers thedered..."Tendering these restricted free agents was a step we took to solidify our roster during these uncertain times with a group of players who are valued a great deal by the Broncos," General Manager Brian Xanders said.
"Our ultimate goal as an organization remains to acquire and keep players who give us the best chance to win.
""These are all high-quality football players, and we look forward to their contributions during the 2010 season and beyond." Xanders said.
Starting Friday, clubs across the league have the option of signing restricted free agents to offer sheets. If one of the five aforementioned players signs an offer sheet, the Broncos would have the "right of first refusal," meaning that Denver has a seven-day period to match the offer and retain the player, or choose not to match.
If the offer isn't matched, the player would head to his new team, and the Broncos would receive the draft choice tendered for that player.
One important note: all the draft picks must be from the upcoming 2010 NFL Draft.
The last day for restricted free agents to sign an offer sheet is April 15, and the deadline for teams to exercise the right of first refusal to restricted free agents is April 21.

TheDave
03-03-2010, 04:29 PM
No way. Instant impact. If I'm the Jets do I really think I'm going to get a better player at any position in this draft at the 29th spot? The same goes for the Ravens at the 25th spot. Hell even Houston at the 20th spot should consider it. Dre Johnson with Marshall? Good luck covering that.

You know... the more I think about it, you might be right.

As long as the contract isn't crazy a mid to late #1 is just too tempting for a team that wants to win now.


15. New York Giants
16. Tennessee
18. Pittsburgh
19. Atlanta
22. New England
25. Baltimore
29. New York Jets

broncosteven
03-03-2010, 04:29 PM
At this point in time Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, and Calvin Johnson are clearly better than Marshall. Everyone else you can make a case for.

I forgot about Andre, Calivn has potential so that means in your book he is in the top 4, not far off top 2 or 3.

NFLBRONCO
03-03-2010, 04:34 PM
Rumors flying about Tampa Bay wanting to trade for Marshall.

If this is true I would hope we got Eric Berry in a heartbeat even tho safety isn't really a need adding a young DB never hurts and he would start immediately next to Dawkins.

Adding a great player is always a need.

Rulon Velvet Jones
03-03-2010, 04:44 PM
If Miles Austin gets the same tender, does he clear the market before Marshall?

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 04:44 PM
Is that true?

Every other wr got a 1st & 3rd tender?

I think so. I know that Malcom Floyd got the first and third tender and I'm pretty sure that Kevin Walter did as well. The people on the Ravens board where talking about it. They said that Marshall was the only WR not to get the highest tender. Maybe that meant WR's that they wanted but I think it was all of them.

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 04:58 PM
So I have a sexual dillema with this post.

Since Sir...81 put this up and he is gay and I am lusting after his post of Megan Fox's ass why do I feel that Sir...81 is waiting for me to get all into it then jump in behind me for a 3 way? With Megan Fox?

BTW I would only tender her a 1st because her knees are a little knobby and her right pinky is a little bigger than her left.

Back to topic: If they do get an offer for BMarsh I hope it is a team in the top 16. I don't want to see Baltimore sign him and we get a pick late.

I know BMarsh was a 4th round pick but he is in the top 2 WR's in all the nfl.

You want it?

strafen
03-03-2010, 05:06 PM
You want it?Damn! :crazy:

Tombstone RJ
03-03-2010, 05:07 PM
Broncos don't want Scheffler:

Scheffler was selected in the second round of the 2006 draft so a team signing him away would have to give the Broncos a second-round pick. By designating Scheffler with a “same round” tender instead of a “second round” tender, his guaranteed salary was reduced from $1.759 million to $1.176 million.

SouthStndJunkie
03-03-2010, 05:09 PM
There are going to be a lot of pissed off players all over the NFL playing on one year tender deals next year....they thought they were going to cash in via free agency.

strafen
03-03-2010, 05:11 PM
Broncos don't want Scheffler:

Scheffler was selected in the second round of the 2006 draft so a team signing him away would have to give the Broncos a second-round pick. By designating Scheffler with a “same round” tender instead of a “second round” tender, his guaranteed salary was reduced from $1.759 million to $1.176 million.

Dude, you just beat me to it.
I was going to post a reply:
Lost in th shuffle is Scheffler...
The Broncos tender to Scheffler included roughly $600,000 in goodwill. Because Scheffler was drafted in the second round in 2006, the Broncos could have designated him as a “same round” restricted free agent, which would have given him a $1.176 million salary. Instead, the Broncos designated him as a “second round” tender which guarantees him a $1.759 million.
He's got a little bit of cash. Good sign they want to smooth things over...

elsid13
03-03-2010, 05:36 PM
Scheffer is going to be traded, it just depends to who. And folks don't get your hopes up, if Denver decides to trade Marshall it might not be for a first. They would get a 1st on if another team sign him to an offer sheet, Denver could trade him for less.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 05:46 PM
Hell even Houston at the 20th spot should consider it. Dre Johnson with Marshall? Good luck covering that.

Houston has far larger needs than WR. They shouldn't even begin to consider such a thing and they won't.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 05:48 PM
Rumors flying about Tampa Bay wanting to trade for Marshall.

They've shown no inclination to spend and now they're going to go after Marshall? Another team with too many needs to make such a move, but I suppose anything's possible.

DenverBrit
03-03-2010, 05:53 PM
Scheffer is going to be traded, it just depends to who. And folks don't get your hopes up, if Denver decides to trade Marshall it might not be for a first. They would get a 1st on if another team sign him to an offer sheet, Denver could trade him for less.

I'm hoping they get a young, proven player of need in trade.

HAT
03-03-2010, 05:54 PM
Mmmmmm, McTenders.

http://www.grubgrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/tenders-roys.jpg








(not a food jack)

elsid13
03-03-2010, 05:56 PM
I'm hoping they get a young, proven player of need in trade.

I stick by the idea that will be 2nd, 4th/5th and player.

2KBack
03-03-2010, 05:56 PM
Scheffer is going to be traded, it just depends to who. And folks don't get your hopes up, if Denver decides to trade Marshall it might not be for a first. They would get a 1st on if another team sign him to an offer sheet, Denver could trade him for less.

that doesn't make a lot of sense seeing that if no one offers MArshall an offer, then he is under contract with us for a decent price this season. There is zero incentive to cave and trade for less than the value they are seeking.

DenverBrit
03-03-2010, 05:59 PM
I stick by the idea that will be 2nd, 4th/5th and player.


I would prefer to keep him. But whatever happens, it's going to be interesting

elsid13
03-03-2010, 05:59 PM
that doesn't make a lot of sense seeing that if no one offers MArshall an offer, then he is under contract with us for a decent price this season. There is zero incentive to cave and trade for less than the value they are seeking.

Is there much difference if Marshall is trade for 2nd and young player for the line and 1st when comes to value. At the end of the day it not about collect high draft picks, it about collect players that help the team win.

SpringStein
03-03-2010, 06:00 PM
They've shown no inclination to spend and now they're going to go after Marshall? Another team with too many needs to make such a move, but I suppose anything's possible.

Actually makes sense for that reason. It would cost much less to sign BMarsh than pick #4.

2KBack
03-03-2010, 06:03 PM
Is there much difference if Marshall is trade for 2nd and young player for the line and 1st when comes to value. At the end of the day it not about collect high draft picks, it about collect players that help the team win.

I suppose having an effective young player is advantageous. That said, I can't think of anyone currently available for trade that would be a better addition to our lines than potential draftees.

TonyR
03-03-2010, 06:05 PM
Actually makes sense for that reason. It would cost much less to sign BMarsh than pick #4.

That's a good point from a financial perspective, but giving up that pick with the needs they have would be criminally negligent.

gyldenlove
03-03-2010, 06:58 PM
You know... the more I think about it, you might be right.

As long as the contract isn't crazy a mid to late #1 is just too tempting for a team that wants to win now.


15. New York Giants
16. Tennessee
18. Pittsburgh
19. Atlanta
22. New England
25. Baltimore
29. New York Jets

I don't see the Giants doing it, between the good Steve Smith, Manningham and Nicks they are set with young top WRs.

Atlanta are not going to make that move, they have Roddy White, they are not going to be paying 8+ mill a year to 2 WRs - especially not with the cap being so uncertain.

Patriots? if they move Moss out, possibly, but not with Moss and Welker both around.

Jets? They would probably have to move Braylon Edwards to make it happen and I am not sure they are going to get any good offers on him.

Tennessee could if they want to spend, they don't have anything at WR, Pittsburgh are always in need of a big target, especially with Ward aging, Baltimore is the obvious choice.

Would anyone be really surprised if the Panthers came out of nowhere? Jarrett is the bust we knew he would be, Steve Smith is struggling with injuries and double teams, Muhammad is getting very old and since they seem to hitch their wagon to Matt Moore they could and would maybe try to make a play. They are losing Peppers salary so they should have some money and they have 2 top RBs, one of whom could maybe be moved going all out here:

Deangelo Williams to Houston for 1st round pick which is send to San Fransisco plus something for the Panthers own 1st rounder, then Marshall to Carolina for their 1st rounder.

mr007
03-03-2010, 07:09 PM
I can't believe we only tendered BM for a 1st. Any team with a low pick can just offer a contract with a poison pill and he's gone. Pretty silly in my opinion.

broncosteven
03-03-2010, 07:14 PM
You want it?

I think I will stick with my wife, I don't think Megan, or Sir...81 for that matter, would put up with me and all my aches and pains.

montrose
03-03-2010, 07:17 PM
No suprise on Orton or Dumervil. I wasn't sure what the staff thought of Kuper but at this point it looks as though they'd at least like another year to look at him. I honestly couldn't see any way Scheffler would be back so tendering him that high, if at all, was telling. Considering of the 200-some odd RFAs not 1 has gotten an extention, I wonder if there will be a market for guys like Scheffler on a 2nd round tender and if we might be stuck with him.

Marshall's obviously the most interesting one to me. Slapping a 1st and 3rd on him would've said we want him back and he's not going anywhere. Slapping a 2nd round or same-round would've said we don't want him and come get him. A 1st rounder tells me they're going to let the market set itself for him. It's almost as if they're indifferent to him, if he's back that's fine and if not they'll get good value for him. Just my viewpoint, but my guess is they're all back - I just don't see there being much of a market because of the CBA.

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 07:22 PM
I think I will stick with my wife, I don't think Megan, or Sir...81 for that matter, would put up with me and all my aches and pains.

Well, I won't speak for sirche81, but he might kick your ass.

Archer81
03-03-2010, 07:32 PM
Well, I won't speak for sirche81, but he might kick your ass.


I dont kick ass...I uhh...yeah. That.

And I'd have to give two thumbs down on a three way with Miss Fox. The fact she has toes for thumbs really throws me off.


:Broncos:

Tombstone RJ
03-03-2010, 07:39 PM
No suprise on Orton or Dumervil. I wasn't sure what the staff thought of Kuper but at this point it looks as though they'd at least like another year to look at him. I honestly couldn't see any way Scheffler would be back so tendering him that high, if at all, was telling. Considering of the 200-some odd RFAs not 1 has gotten an extention, I wonder if there will be a market for guys like Scheffler on a 2nd round tender and if we might be stuck with him.

Marshall's obviously the most interesting one to me. Slapping a 1st and 3rd on him would've said we want him back and he's not going anywhere. Slapping a 2nd round or same-round would've said we don't want him and come get him. A 1st rounder tells me they're going to let the market set itself for him. It's almost as if they're indifferent to him, if he's back that's fine and if not they'll get good value for him. Just my viewpoint, but my guess is they're all back - I just don't see there being much of a market because of the CBA.

Well said. Broncos are making BMarsh available but they aren't giving him away. It's absolutely possible for a team like Baltimore to give up a first and pick him up. It really won't suprise me if this is the case.

Other teams who just might need a big WR that I can think of are Cincy, maybe Pittsburgh (they have Limas Sweed but he's really not proven anything), Minnesota, Carolina, NYJ, Washington (although Shanny may not want to deal with Bmarsh), St. Louis and maybe San Fran.

All the above teams that have a lower round pick might come a callin. Hell, even a team like San Fran may be willing to let their first go.

oubronco
03-03-2010, 07:43 PM
I dont kick ass...I uhh...yeah. That.

And I'd have to give two thumbs down on a three way with Miss Fox. The fact she has toes for thumbs really throws me off.


:Broncos:

sorry dude but you wouldn't be ****ing her toes unless your one of those wierd freaky dudes

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 07:47 PM
No suprise on Orton or Dumervil. I wasn't sure what the staff thought of Kuper but at this point it looks as though they'd at least like another year to look at him. I honestly couldn't see any way Scheffler would be back so tendering him that high, if at all, was telling. Considering of the 200-some odd RFAs not 1 has gotten an extention, I wonder if there will be a market for guys like Scheffler on a 2nd round tender and if we might be stuck with him.

Marshall's obviously the most interesting one to me. Slapping a 1st and 3rd on him would've said we want him back and he's not going anywhere. Slapping a 2nd round or same-round would've said we don't want him and come get him. A 1st rounder tells me they're going to let the market set itself for him. It's almost as if they're indifferent to him, if he's back that's fine and if not they'll get good value for him. Just my viewpoint, but my guess is they're all back - I just don't see there being much of a market because of the CBA.

That's certainly a tell.

Archer81
03-03-2010, 07:48 PM
sorry dude but you wouldn't be ****ing her toes unless your one of those wierd freaky dudes


I can deal with tits and a vageen. But no way in hell can you expect me to rock the casbah with hammer thumbs Fox. Thats the line in the sand.


:Broncos:

oubronco
03-03-2010, 07:49 PM
To each their own

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 07:58 PM
I dont kick ass...I uhh...yeah. That.

And I'd have to give two thumbs down on a three way with Miss Fox. The fact she has toes for thumbs really throws me off.


:Broncos:

I figured you were kind of a kickass guy from our Colorado Springs bus station conversations. Ah well, no big deal.

broncosteven
03-03-2010, 08:06 PM
I can deal with boobies and a vageen. But no way in hell can you expect me to rock the casbah with hammer thumbs Fox. Thats the line in the sand.


:Broncos:

I will have you guys know None of Sir...81's issues are with me, just Megan Fox.

LOL

Archer81
03-03-2010, 08:11 PM
I figured you were kind of a kickass guy from our Colorado Springs bus station conversations. Ah well, no big deal.


Oh man...those were dark days. That station was ridiculously crazy. I do kick ass...i just on occassion...well yeah. :approve:

:Broncos:

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 08:19 PM
I will have you guys know None of Sir...81's issues are with me, just Megan Fox.

LOL

A little known fact is sirche81's niece is Megan Fox.

broncosteven
03-03-2010, 08:22 PM
A little known fact is sirche81's niece is Megan Fox.

Well that puts the kabash on the 3 way for sure!

bpc
03-03-2010, 08:32 PM
Here's to hoping somebody in the low 20's signs him and we draft Golden Tate. WIN!

bap454
03-03-2010, 08:41 PM
does anyone want and take a swing by explaning "the poison pill"?

broncosteven
03-03-2010, 08:44 PM
Here's to hoping somebody in the low 20's signs him and we draft Golden Tate. WIN!

His he related to Golden Richards?

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 08:53 PM
Oh man...those were dark days. That station was ridiculously crazy. I do kick ass...i just on occassion...well yeah. :approve:

:Broncos:

That bus station was surreal. I've been around quite a bit, lived in the Jim Crow South. That Colorado Springs bus station was oddly reminiscent of those days in the deep South. Must be the Kansas influence. :~ohyah!:

Archer81
03-03-2010, 08:55 PM
That bus station was surreal. I've been around quite a bit, lived in the Jim Crow South. That Colorado Springs bus station was oddly reminiscent of those days in the deep South. Must be the Kansas influence. :~ohyah!:


I didnt know until later how bad downtown colorado springs is. Which is odd, the police station HQ is 6 blocks down...crazy crazy ****. My tires got slashed there at least 4 times.


:Broncos:

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 09:17 PM
I didnt know until later how bad downtown colorado springs is. Which is odd, the police station HQ is 6 blocks down...crazy crazy ****. My tires got slashed there at least 4 times.


:Broncos:

It was apparent to me before I even turned into the parking lot that it could be an ordeal. When I see people scattering from my headlights, I know there's gonna be a problem somewhere. Then, once they were out of the lights, they came back in. Bad news.

BlaK-Argentina
03-03-2010, 10:14 PM
does anyone want and take a swing by explaning "the poison pill"?

Yes please! Someone!

Get back on topic damnit!

oldustyballs
03-03-2010, 10:26 PM
does anyone want and take a swing by explaning "the poison pill"?
Yes please! Someone!

Get back on topic damnit!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill#Sports

The interwebs iz awsum

Dagmar
03-03-2010, 10:30 PM
Yes please! Someone!

Get back on topic damnit!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill#Sports

The interwebs iz awsum

What a kick ass username!

DBroncos4life
03-03-2010, 10:30 PM
Houston has far larger needs than WR. They shouldn't even begin to consider such a thing and they won't.

Such as? Do you think the are going to get the impact that Marshall can bring from pick 20? If I was a GM I would consider Marshall for the simple fact that I KNOW what type of player I'm getting. Lets say the Jets get Nnamdi Asomugha. Darrelle Revis has proven he can shut-down any WR and he did Dre during the season. Marshall would level the playing field. It's a deep draft but the instant impact that you get from a guy like Marshall is worth looking into.

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 10:35 PM
does anyone want and take a swing by explaning "the poison pill"?

OK, It's a Steve Herndon deal. You have to sign the guy, or else you are stuck with a two year deal. Or, you're stuck with the two-year deal. :D

WTF, I don't know what they're talking about either. If it happened one time, how did it get a name?

oldustyballs
03-03-2010, 10:43 PM
What a kick ass username!

Thanks man^5

I lurk too much and don't post enough.

oldustyballs
03-03-2010, 10:45 PM
OK, It's a Steve Herndon deal. You have to sign the guy, or else you are stuck with a two year deal. Or, you're stuck with the two-year deal. :D

WTF, I don't know what they're talking about either. If it happened one time, how did it get a name?

It has happened more than once. I will post the link again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill#Sports

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 11:23 PM
It has happened more than once. I will post the link again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill#Sports

I'm not seeing it, dusty. Just a general concept. Won't amount to anything.

strafen
03-03-2010, 11:28 PM
Definitions of the poison pill on the Web:
the target company defends itself by making its stock less attractive to an acquirer wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Poison pill is a term referring to any strategy, generally in business or politics, to increase the likelihood of negative results over positive ones for a party that attempts any kind of takeover.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill
A corporate provision to combat hostile takeovers. When triggered, the poison pill allows shareholders to acquire additional shares at below market price, thereby increasing the number of shares outstanding and making the takeover prohibitively expensive. ...www.bmoinvestorline.com/EducationCentre/p.htmlAn attempt to discourage an acquisition by making it more expensive or by reducing the value of the acquired business....more on poison pillsmoneyterms.co.uk/p/
A takeover defense tactic designed to make a hostile takeover prohibitively expensive.interactive.wsj.com/documents/glos_p.htm
Poison pills are any type of defensive maneouvre which a company might try in order to protect itself against unwanted takeover bids, eg stock issues, special distributions, spin-offs and management pay-outs.www.ubs.com/1/e/gcc/bankingterms.htmlA
device designed to prevent a hostile takeover by increasing the takeover cost usually through the issuance of new preferred shares that carry severe redemption provisions.www.academyofcg.org/codes-glossary.htm

Cito Pelon
03-03-2010, 11:44 PM
Definitions of the poison pill on the Web:
the target company defends itself by making its stock less attractive to an acquirer wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Poison pill is a term referring to any strategy, generally in business or politics, to increase the likelihood of negative results over positive ones for a party that attempts any kind of takeover.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill
A corporate provision to combat hostile takeovers. When triggered, the poison pill allows shareholders to acquire additional shares at below market price, thereby increasing the number of shares outstanding and making the takeover prohibitively expensive. ...www.bmoinvestorline.com/EducationCentre/p.htmlAn attempt to discourage an acquisition by making it more expensive or by reducing the value of the acquired business....more on poison pillsmoneyterms.co.uk/p/
A takeover defense tactic designed to make a hostile takeover prohibitively expensive.interactive.wsj.com/documents/glos_p.htm
Poison pills are any type of defensive maneouvre which a company might try in order to protect itself against unwanted takeover bids, eg stock issues, special distributions, spin-offs and management pay-outs.www.ubs.com/1/e/gcc/bankingterms.htmlA
device designed to prevent a hostile takeover by increasing the takeover cost usually through the issuance of new preferred shares that carry severe redemption provisions.www.academyofcg.org/codes-glossary.htm

For general principles, that's fine.

Any meaning to the NFL? Doesn't seem so to me.

strafen
03-03-2010, 11:48 PM
So what?

Any meaning to the NFL? No.You have to understand the meaning of it, and see how it applies to the NFL.
For example:
"Poison pill is a term referring to any strategy, generally in business or politics, to increase the likelihood of negative results over positive ones for a party that attempts any kind of takeover."

Case in point...
The Cardinals tendering a 3rd round on Boldin.
So anybody who thinks Boldin is a steal for a 3rd round pick, may find out otherwise...

atomicbloke
03-03-2010, 11:50 PM
Poison Pill Example:

Let's say the Cowboys want to sign Marshall.

They offer a reasonable offer, that is not too expensive for them. But then there is a possibility that the Broncos might match the offer.

To prevent it the Cowboys add a poison pill to the above contract. The poison pill could be that Marshall will get a $5 million bonus for every NFL game he plays in the state of Colorado. The Cowboys won't play again in Denver until the 2017 season. Marshall might not be with the Cowboys till then, so in effect the poison pill doesn't really affect their contract one bit.

But it prevents the Broncos from matching it. Because matching it would mean that the Broncos have to include the same poison pill clause in their contract. Which means they will have to pay Marshall $40 million every season, since he will play 8 games in Denver every season.

Of course this is an extreme example, and would surely attract anti-trust laws. But you get the picture.

Kaylore
03-04-2010, 01:03 AM
Poison Pill Example:

Let's say the Cowboys want to sign Marshall.

They offer a reasonable offer, that is not too expensive for them. But then there is a possibility that the Broncos might match the offer.

To prevent it the Cowboys add a poison pill to the above contract. The poison pill could be that Marshall will get a $5 million bonus for every NFL game he plays in the state of Colorado. The Cowboys won't play again in Denver until the 2017 season. Marshall might not be with the Cowboys till then, so in effect the poison pill doesn't really affect their contract one bit.

But it prevents the Broncos from matching it. Because matching it would mean that the Broncos have to include the same poison pill clause in their contract. Which means they will have to pay Marshall $40 million every season, since he will play 8 games in Denver every season.

Of course this is an extreme example, and would surely attract anti-trust laws. But you get the picture.

Thank you for finally giving a real example of the poison pill. It's effectively any and all salary escalators that are rapidly hit with the team trying to keep the player but have marginal effect on the team offering the tender. Playing in a certain state is the most common one.

As for these tenders, I think they are perfect for what we're looking at here.

Dumervil's 1st and 3rd: This effectively says "hands off" since now team is going to match this kind of offer unless they're extremely desperate.

Orton's first: This is smart because it doesn't lock up Orton long term but also sends a message that we value his services and are at least somewhat endorsing him for our team. If questioned, the FO can hide behind the "well next year might not happen" excuse.

Kuper's first: I think this reflective of his ability. Even his strongest critics will acknowledge that the FO at the very least thinks he's worth protecting for one more year as the scheme transitions.

Marshall's first: This is brilliant because it dangles the fruit. A first an a third would have had a few teams consider trading for Brandon and ultimately not do so. A first means were pretty much getting a first and Marshall's gone. If he isn't, it sends a message for negotiations down the road if we want to ink him long term. I think he's gone.

Scheffler's second: This is a bit surprising considering his limited role. I took as sign that McDaniels feels he's worth more on the team than what we could trade him for.

oldustyballs
03-04-2010, 02:55 AM
I'm not seeing it, dusty. Just a general concept. Won't amount to anything.

I will copy and paste the specific part then.

In professional sports, a poison pill is a component of a contract, which one team offers a player, that makes it difficult or impossible for another team (which has the right of first refusal) to match. While it can often refer to a salary structure or clause that would affect all teams equally, it has taken on a new specific meaning of a clause that has unbalanced impact. For example, in March 2006, the Minnesota Vikings offered Steve Hutchinson, an offensive guard with the Seattle Seahawks, a seven-year, $49 million contract of which $16 million was guaranteed. This contract offer had two poison pills in it. One was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had another offensive lineman, Walter Jones, with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks' opportunity to match the contract offer.

Cito Pelon
03-04-2010, 03:28 AM
I will copy and paste the specific part then.

In professional sports, a poison pill is a component of a contract, which one team offers a player, that makes it difficult or impossible for another team (which has the right of first refusal) to match. While it can often refer to a salary structure or clause that would affect all teams equally, it has taken on a new specific meaning of a clause that has unbalanced impact. For example, in March 2006, the Minnesota Vikings offered Steve Hutchinson, an offensive guard with the Seattle Seahawks, a seven-year, $49 million contract of which $16 million was guaranteed. This contract offer had two poison pills in it. One was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had another offensive lineman, Walter Jones, with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks' opportunity to match the contract offer.

Thanks. It takes a hammer to get me to understand sometimes. It's one of my strong character points.

chrisp
03-04-2010, 04:00 AM
Poison Pills are a real possibility this offseason - it would seem that its only mutual goodwill that's keeping them out of the NFL currently, and that could all change very easily:

http://cippinonsports.com/2010/02/18/return-of-the-poison-pill/

Back in 2006 the Minnesota Vikings signed Steve Hutchinson to a seven year $49 contract with $16 guaranteed. While that seems fair, they also included a clause that would have guaranteed his entire contract if he was the highest paid lineman on his team. At that time, the Seahawks had Walter Jones, whose salary was higher and thus could not sign Hutchinson without guaranteeing his entire contract.

The Seahawks file a grievance, but the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Vikings.

The Seahawks got back at the Vikings by signing Nate Burelson to an offer sheet including a stipulation that would have guaranteed his entire contract if he played five or more games in the state of Minnesota in one season.

Now, since that off season no team has attempted to sign someone with a poison pill included, but that may change very soon.

Poison Pills are bad because they can potentially usher in a tit-for-tat game that is ultimately destructive to both teams. The Minnesota - Seattle spat indicates that it is only a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction that prevents it from being used more often. Bottom line is that arbitration ruled in favour of the poison pill, which indicates they're legal....

Paladin
03-04-2010, 09:34 AM
The First pretty much takes Chitown out of the Marshal stakes. Unless it would be next years' first and whatever else they can scrape up....

TonyR
03-04-2010, 10:18 AM
If I was a GM...

When you already have an Andre Johnson you don't target a guy like Brandon Marshall. That's just not how it works. You have limited resources and WR isn't a position where you put too much of them. Houston will not consider Marshall. The teams that do will have a clear need at the position. Why do you think Arizona, for example, is more than willing to let Boldin go? They have Fitzgerald and adequate talent behind him. You don't pay both a Fitzgerald and a Boldin, just as you don't pay a Johnson and a Marshall. It's really a very simple concept.

TheDave
03-04-2010, 10:28 AM
When you already have an Andre Johnson you don't target a guy like Brandon Marshall. That's just not how it works. You have limited resources and WR isn't a position where you put too much of them. Houston will not consider Marshall. The teams that do will have a clear need at the position. Why do you think Arizona, for example, is more than willing to let Boldin go? They have Fitzgerald and adequate talent behind him. You don't pay both a Fitzgerald and a Boldin, just as you don't pay a Johnson and a Marshall. It's really a very simple concept.

But the fact remains, you do not have limited resources this year... If you think Brandon can put you over the top this year there is nothing holding teams back. On top of that all tems get to purge some big contracts from previous years making his salary more palatable in the future.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but the rules are SIGNIFICANTLY different this season.

It's going to be interesting...

TheElusiveKyleOrton
03-04-2010, 10:32 AM
The First pretty much takes Chitown out of the Marshal stakes. Unless it would be next years' first and whatever else they can scrape up....

Can't be next year's first. All compensation (as far as I know) when it comes to tenders MUST come from this year's draft.

Beantown Bronco
03-04-2010, 10:34 AM
Can't be next year's first. All compensation (as far as I know) when it comes to tenders MUST come from this year's draft.

Teams can essentially negotiate whatever compensation they want by engineering a tag and trade instead of a simple "losing through RFAgency). Pats have done it for years with every guy they've ever tagged and traded. They've never gotten back the "textbook" draft pick they should've.

TonyR
03-04-2010, 12:21 PM
But the fact remains, you do not have limited resources this year...

Agree, but if you're going to give up a 1st for Marshall you know you're going to have to give him a lucrative deal at some point. You're not going to give up a 1 for a one year rental. So at some point, in Houston's case, you'd be on the hook for big $ to 2 WR's. And even though there is no cap does not mean there is unlimited money to spend on salary. It's a business and a prudent owner is only going to spend so much.

broncosteven
03-04-2010, 12:33 PM
Agree, but if you're going to give up a 1st for Marshall you know you're going to have to give him a lucrative deal at some point. You're not going to give up a 1 for a one year rental. So at some point, in Houston's case, you'd be on the hook for big $ to 2 WR's. And even though there is no cap does not mean there is unlimited money to spend on salary. It's a business and a prudent owner is only going to spend so much.

Unless your Oakland.

Did they sign Seymore yet?

gyldenlove
03-04-2010, 12:35 PM
Poison Pills are a real possibility this offseason - it would seem that its only mutual goodwill that's keeping them out of the NFL currently, and that could all change very easily:

http://cippinonsports.com/2010/02/18/return-of-the-poison-pill/



Poison Pills are bad because they can potentially usher in a tit-for-tat game that is ultimately destructive to both teams. The Minnesota - Seattle spat indicates that it is only a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction that prevents it from being used more often. Bottom line is that arbitration ruled in favour of the poison pill, which indicates they're legal....

It is a deterrent like nuclear weapons, most teams wouldn't use a poison pill because they know they can expect retaliation.

I do think that most teams this year deliberately tendered on the high side of what they would normally do to prevent poison pill contracts. Kuper is a good example, I think if he had reached RFA status in a normal capped year he would have been a 2nd round tender, probably the same for Orton.

There is nothing illegal about a poison pill if done right. Some teams are however harder to poison pill than others, the Florida teams are for instance harder since there are potentially so many games in Florida that you can't really do a geographic bonus, so you have to go with a highest paid position or something like that which is hard to do.

TonyR
03-04-2010, 02:51 PM
Unless your Oakland.

Did they sign Seymore yet?

Franchise tagged.

uplink
03-04-2010, 03:05 PM
i think this means bmarsh is a goner, why not give him the highest tender? doesn't make sense

I guess they want him gone, or they want him to know no team was willing to trade a 1st rounder.