PDA

View Full Version : Mike Florio: F'ing Moron


bronco militia
03-08-2010, 11:43 AM
saw this on another thread but I think it deserves its own

:welcome:

warning: you may need to punch a baby after reading

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-03-08/10-pack-cowboys-redskins-oddly-quiet-during-first-few-days-nfl-free-agency

6. Seahawks should pull an end run around the Broncos With the Seattle Seahawks flirting with Brandon Marshall, the Broncos are getting the word out, loud and clear: If the Seahawks want Marshall, they need to sign him to an offer sheet and be prepared to give up the sixth overall pick in the draft.

The position is more than a little donkey-headed, given that the Seahawks also hold the 14th overall pick in the draft, which Denver sent to them in 2008 for a second-round pick. With the Broncos essentially begging someone to sign Marshall to an offer sheet by tendering the restricted free agent at the first-round level only, the Broncos should be happy with any first-round pick they can get.

So here's what the Seahawks should do. They should communicate to a team like the Saints or the Colts or anyone who picks below No. 14 the terms they'd be comfortable paying to Marshall, and the Seahawks should offer to those teams the 14th overall pick for Marshall's contract. Then, one of the teams picking below No. 14 should sign Marshall to an offer sheet.

It would be a lot easier for the Broncos just to take the 14th overall pick and send Marshall to Seattle. But if they refuse to relent, then the Seahawks should give some other team an easy chance to upgrade to No. 14 — and to stick the Broncos with a pick a lot lower than No. 6.

broncos-rock
03-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Yep! Saw it too he's a crack smoking lawyer who obviously hates the broncos!

Garcia Bronco
03-08-2010, 11:54 AM
What people don't get is it's not what the fans, seattle, marshall, or Florio wants. It's about what the Broncos want. No on eelse is in the driver's seat

no-pseudo-fan
03-08-2010, 12:10 PM
My counter to that is this:

If I were Denver's FO and I see or hear that something strange is going on with the team that has signed Brandon Marshall to an offer sheet, I would just match it. Making all of Seattle's promises and backroom dealing completely in vain.

Denver might want to keep Brandon, and have been unsuccessful working out a deal that reflects market value in Brandon's eyes. So Denver just let's BMarsh's agent and other teams do the work, and just match it.

Tombstone RJ
03-08-2010, 12:11 PM
saw this on another thread but I think it deserves its own

:welcome:

warning: you may need to punch a baby after reading

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-03-08/10-pack-cowboys-redskins-oddly-quiet-during-first-few-days-nfl-free-agency

6. Seahawks should pull an end run around the Broncos With the Seattle Seahawks flirting with Brandon Marshall, the Broncos are getting the word out, loud and clear: If the Seahawks want Marshall, they need to sign him to an offer sheet and be prepared to give up the sixth overall pick in the draft.

The position is more than a little donkey-headed, given that the Seahawks also hold the 14th overall pick in the draft, which Denver sent to them in 2008 for a second-round pick. With the Broncos essentially begging someone to sign Marshall to an offer sheet by tendering the restricted free agent at the first-round level only, the Broncos should be happy with any first-round pick they can get.

So here's what the Seahawks should do. They should communicate to a team like the Saints or the Colts or anyone who picks below No. 14 the terms they'd be comfortable paying to Marshall, and the Seahawks should offer to those teams the 14th overall pick for Marshall's contract. Then, one of the teams picking below No. 14 should sign Marshall to an offer sheet.

It would be a lot easier for the Broncos just to take the 14th overall pick and send Marshall to Seattle. But if they refuse to relent, then the Seahawks should give some other team an easy chance to upgrade to No. 14 ó and to stick the Broncos with a pick a lot lower than No. 6.

The link you provided doesn't go to the article... I sent florio an email expressing my dissatisfaction with this article.

Archer81
03-08-2010, 12:16 PM
My counter to that is this:

If I were Denver's FO and I see or hear that something strange is going on with the team that has signed Brandon Marshall to an offer sheet, I would just match it. Making all of Seattle's promises and backroom dealing completely in vain.

Denver might want to keep Brandon, and have been unsuccessful working out a deal that reflects market value in Brandon's eyes. So Denver just let's BMarsh's agent and other teams do the work, and just match it.


Agree 100%. Denver is the one who controls this. No amount of trickeration or douchebaggery by other teams is going to make Denver give up Marshall without fair compensation.

:Broncos:

bronco militia
03-08-2010, 12:16 PM
The link you provided doesn't go to the article... I sent florio an email expressing my dissatisfaction with this article.

it works for me...scroll down to #6 on the list

Gcver2ver3
03-08-2010, 12:17 PM
My counter to that is this:

If I were Denver's FO and I see or hear that something strange is going on with the team that has signed Brandon Marshall to an offer sheet, I would just match it. Making all of Seattle's promises and backroom dealing completely in vain.



unfortunately a poison pill could wreck that plan...

no-pseudo-fan
03-08-2010, 12:25 PM
unfortunately a poison pill could wreck that plan...

Teams have an unwritten agreement on these "poison pills".

Sports writers like to add those as options in dealings, but that is to sell us. It is not going to go down like that.

chex
03-08-2010, 12:32 PM
Does Florio really think this would hold up to league scrutiny? And besides, what makes him think the bottom two teams will be willing to pay the cost of jumping close to 20 spots in the first round? Or does he think Seattle will trade out of the first round completely from 14?

jmz313
03-08-2010, 12:35 PM
Teams have an unwritten agreement on these "poison pills".

Sports writers like to add those as options in dealings, but that is to sell us. It is not going to go down like that.

Seahawks one of those teams? Or is Nate Burelson a 50 million dollar man?

DrFate
03-08-2010, 12:38 PM
Does Florio really think this would hold up to league scrutiny? And besides, what makes him think the bottom two teams will be willing to pay the cost of jumping close to 20 spots in the first round? Or does he think Seattle will trade out of the first round completely from 14?

Why would they have to pay anything? If Seattle wants Marshall but doesn't want to give up #6...

1) call the Saints
2) have the Saints sign Marshall to the same money the Seahawks want to pay
3) send Denver the #32 overall pick (a first round pick)
4) trade Marshall to the Seahawks for a 2nd and a 4th (or whatever they agreed from the beginning)


The Seahags effectively get Marshall for a 2 and 4 (I have no idea if Seattle has a 2 and a 4, but that isn't the point)

The Saints basically are trading the last pick in round 1 for a #2 and a #4 (and if the Hags have their pick in round 2, the Saints would only drop back a few spots AND pick up a #4)

cutthemdown
03-08-2010, 12:39 PM
Broncos can always match, and then say we still want to trade him.

Gcver2ver3
03-08-2010, 12:40 PM
Teams have an unwritten agreement on these "poison pills".

Sports writers like to add those as options in dealings, but that is to sell us. It is not going to go down like that.

i hope you're right...

but wasn't seattle one of the teams to do it in the 1st place?...

isn't that how they got hutchinson?...

Tombstone RJ
03-08-2010, 12:41 PM
it works for me...scroll down to #6 on the list

My bad...

DrFate
03-08-2010, 12:43 PM
Teams have an unwritten agreement on these "poison pills".

Seattle was the team that got burned by the Vikings over the Hutchinson deal

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2375444

no-pseudo-fan
03-08-2010, 12:46 PM
Seattle was the team that got burned by the Vikings over the Hutchinson deal

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2375444

They also got even with the Vikings.

That is exactly why they have an agreement, because it causes these types of fights. It would get very nasty between Front Offices, and that is very bad for business.

DrFate
03-08-2010, 12:48 PM
Seattle tried to turn it around on a tender to Burleson

"In the wake of this contract offer, similar clauses have appeared in other contract offers, including a contract offered to Vikings wide receiver Nate Burleson by the Seahawks, which, with irony fully intended, was structured as a seven year, $49 million deal. The contract given to Burleson had two vengeful poison pill clauses in response to the contract offered to Hutchinson. Firstly, it stipulated that if Burleson were to play five or more games in the state of Minnesota during any single season over the life of the contract, the entire $49 million would become guaranteed. Secondly, if Burleson were to earn more per year on average than all of his team's running backs combined, the $49 million would be guaranteed. Since the Vikings play half of their games at home in Minnesota, and their running backs combined earned less per year than the $7 million in Burleson's contract, Minnesota was unable to match it."

DrFate
03-08-2010, 12:49 PM
They also got even with the Vikings.


Well...

I don't know if they 'got even', as Hutchinson is a HOF type player and Burleson is, well, Nate Burleson...

But they did make their point, I think...

Kaylore
03-08-2010, 01:01 PM
One thing they are missing here is that NFL teams and owners are a tight-knit group. Owners don't want to be so cavalier about burning bridges with other teams because it's not good for football and it could bite you in the butt if that team has something you need down the road.

chex
03-08-2010, 01:01 PM
Why would they have to pay anything? If Seattle wants Marshall but doesn't want to give up #6...

1) call the Saints
2) have the Saints sign Marshall to the same money the Seahawks want to pay
3) send Denver the #32 overall pick (a first round pick)
4) trade Marshall to the Seahawks for a 2nd and a 4th (or whatever they agreed from the beginning)


The Seahags effectively get Marshall for a 2 and 4 (I have no idea if Seattle has a 2 and a 4, but that isn't the point)

The Saints basically are trading the last pick in round 1 for a #2 and a #4 (and if the Hags have their pick in round 2, the Saints would only drop back a few spots AND pick up a #4)

And you think the league would allow such underhandedness? And why would NO give up a first rounder to move back 8 spots and only get a 4th as a bonus? Would you do that?

DrFate
03-08-2010, 01:07 PM
And you think the league would allow such underhandedness? And why would NO give up a first rounder to move back 8 spots and only get a 4th as a bonus? Would you do that?

1) the league didn't intervene when Seattle/Minnesota started the poison pill pissing match back in the day - I don't claim to know what they might do today. Maybe there is a rule in place now. I just know it happened.
2) I'm not sure I understand your question - teams REGULARLY trade back from the end of round 1 to pick up picks later. The 4th was entirely hypothetical.

I'm not sure I agree with the 'all the owners are friends' argument, either. There was talk when Terrell Suggs was being drafted that Denver wanted to move up and take him, but Baltimore called Denver and basically 'held them' on the phone, until THEY could make the trade to move up and get Suggs. (the details escape me)

Everyone makes whatever moves they can to get an advantage.

Requiem
03-08-2010, 01:08 PM
He is a moron. Let's pop that pussy like a 4-4.

HILife
03-08-2010, 01:16 PM
i hope you're right...

but wasn't seattle one of the teams to do it in the 1st place?...

isn't that how they got hutchinson?...

LOL, wow you are way off. You got it backwards.

chex
03-08-2010, 01:17 PM
1) the league didn't intervene when Seattle/Minnesota started the poison pill pissing match back in the day - I don't claim to know what they might do today. Maybe there is a rule in place now. I just know it happened.
2) I'm not sure I understand your question - teams REGULARLY trade back from the end of round 1 to pick up picks later. The 4th was entirely hypothetical.

I'm not sure I agree with the 'all the owners are friends' argument, either. There was talk when Terrell Suggs was being drafted that Denver wanted to move up and take him, but Baltimore called Denver and basically 'held them' on the phone, until THEY could make the trade to move up and get Suggs. (the details escape me)

Everyone makes whatever moves they can to get an advantage.

I donít know if the poison pill has been officially banned, but I donít think weíve seen it since. I also donít think the league would tolerate the complete circumvention of the rule, whereas the poison pill was much more transparent. Iím also not sure if you can even trade a guy who signed an offer sheet so soon. I wonder if anyone here has clarification on it. Is it basketball that has a closed window policy on trades like this?

DrFate
03-08-2010, 01:20 PM
Is it basketball that has a closed window policy on trades like this?

The NBA has a 30 day rule - Zydrunas Ilgauskas was traded by Cleveland to the Wizards. The Wizards immediately cut him, and he is waiting until that period is up to go back to the Cavs.

(I hate the NBA trading for contracts)

Dedhed
03-08-2010, 01:28 PM
Why would they have to pay anything? If Seattle wants Marshall but doesn't want to give up #6...

1) call the Saints
2) have the Saints sign Marshall to the same money the Seahawks want to pay
3) send Denver the #32 overall pick (a first round pick)
4) trade Marshall to the Seahawks for a 2nd and a 4th (or whatever they agreed from the beginning)


The Seahags effectively get Marshall for a 2 and 4 (I have no idea if Seattle has a 2 and a 4, but that isn't the point)

The Saints basically are trading the last pick in round 1 for a #2 and a #4 (and if the Hags have their pick in round 2, the Saints would only drop back a few spots AND pick up a #4)
The only problem I see with that plan is that this isn't Madden.

Gcver2ver3
03-08-2010, 01:41 PM
LOL, wow you are way off. You got it backwards.

you're right...

they got even by getting Burleson that way...

it had been a long time, i had forgotten...(which is why i posed it as a question)...

Mediator12
03-08-2010, 01:41 PM
Why would they have to pay anything? If Seattle wants Marshall but doesn't want to give up #6...

1) call the Saints
2) have the Saints sign Marshall to the same money the Seahawks want to pay
3) send Denver the #32 overall pick (a first round pick)
4) trade Marshall to the Seahawks for a 2nd and a 4th (or whatever they agreed from the beginning)


The Seahags effectively get Marshall for a 2 and 4 (I have no idea if Seattle has a 2 and a 4, but that isn't the point)

The Saints basically are trading the last pick in round 1 for a #2 and a #4 (and if the Hags have their pick in round 2, the Saints would only drop back a few spots AND pick up a #4)


NO front office in their right mind would even consider doing that ROFL!

There are more than several steps in that type of deal and what happens if Marshall gets hurt along the way? What if the saints make the offer sheet and Marshall gets arrested before the trade? Do you think SEA still pays them the compensation and eats the contract and draft picks?

The whole process has to be reviewed by the league as well. If someone tried to trade a plyer like this after the fact, the whole thing could be voided and teams disciplined for Collusion and/or Tampering.

Great fiction though for an idiot like Florio......Hilarious!

DrFate
03-08-2010, 01:45 PM
NO front office in their right mind would even consider doing that ROFL!

Hey - I never said it would happen.

The whole process has to be reviewed by the league as well. If someone tried to trade a plyer like this after the fact, the whole thing could be voided and teams disciplined for Collusion and/or Tampering.

I suppose that is entirely possible. But you wouldn't think the Burleson contract would have ever been approved - but it was...

bronco militia
03-08-2010, 01:50 PM
florio could have said "seatle trades #6 for #15-32 and a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc..."

DrFate
03-08-2010, 01:51 PM
NO front office in their right mind would even consider doing that ROFL!

Is it less outrageous for the Seahawks to trade their #2 and #4 for the #32 overall (for example), and THEN sign Marshall to the tender?

Or does the rule say it has to be the HIGHEST round one pick surrendered?

bowtown
03-08-2010, 01:55 PM
Is it less outrageous for the Seahawks to trade their #2 and #4 for the #32 overall (for example), and THEN sign Marshall to the tender?

Or does the rule say it has to be the HIGHEST round one pick surrendered?

If they have an original 1st round pick, the rules state it has to be that one.

snowspot66
03-08-2010, 01:58 PM
unfortunately a poison pill could wreck that plan...

What team is going to write a poison pill on the behalf of another team? You're already ****ing over one team what if somebody leaves it on your doorstep?

DrFate
03-08-2010, 01:58 PM
If they have an original 1st round pick, the rules state it has to be that one.

Thanks for the clarity

colonelbeef
03-08-2010, 02:11 PM
My counter to that is this:

If I were Denver's FO and I see or hear that something strange is going on with the team that has signed Brandon Marshall to an offer sheet, I would just match it. Making all of Seattle's promises and backroom dealing completely in vain.

Denver might want to keep Brandon, and have been unsuccessful working out a deal that reflects market value in Brandon's eyes. So Denver just let's BMarsh's agent and other teams do the work, and just match it.

bingo.

Gcver2ver3
03-08-2010, 02:33 PM
What team is going to write a poison pill on the behalf of another team? You're already ****ing over one team what if somebody leaves it on your doorstep?

maybe...

i was just bringing up what a team "could" do to prevent Denver from matching...

personally, i don't see any of that scenario taking place...but since it was being discussed, i just brought up an additional potential hurdle...

Merlin
03-08-2010, 02:40 PM
the whole thing could be voided and teams disciplined for Collusion and/or Tampering.
Could you elaborate? Do you have any examples to support your claim? I honestly don't know, which is why I ask...far too often people just make statements off the cuff, but I know you rarely do.


As to Denver matching, I don't see it. McD has issues with him. All a team needs to offer is a good contract with a decent amount of guaranteed money. The contract that Denver offered him was backloaded with less guaranteed money that WR's with his stats get. Posters may piss and whine about his character and potential to get banned, but he is worth what his, and the market says he is worth more than Denver is willing to guarantee (and than McD apparently cares for).

bronco militia
03-08-2010, 02:45 PM
Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage[citation needed]. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. [1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties."[2] All acts affected by collusion are considered void.[3]

Merlin
03-08-2010, 02:49 PM
Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage[citation needed]. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. [1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties."[2] All acts affected by collusion are considered void.[3]
I know what collusion is, I practice Corporate law. My question was, can Mediator give an example of the league referring to that type of trade as collusion.

sixtimeseight
03-08-2010, 02:57 PM
ummmm a trade like that has never happened before. because it's obviously collusion.

Mediator12
03-08-2010, 03:10 PM
I know what collusion is, I practice Corporate law. My question was, can Mediator give an example of the league referring to that type of trade as collusion.

Goodell sent a letter out to teams after the "poison pill fiascos", letting teams know they were on thin ice using those kinds of tactics in the future. Every Transaction is subject to league approval, and he let it be known that if teams wrote anymore poison pill contracts they would be disciplined severely by the front office.

Also, the letter reminded teams that the league had not been enforcing the collusion and tampering part of Free agency enough in the past and they would no longer look the other way on certain transactions. The letter also went to agents warning about certain tactics they were using during FA not being approved and threatened to revoke their NFL licenses if they chose to continue operating in that way. It was a pretty straight forward letter, but I can not find a copy of it on the net right now.

bowtown
03-08-2010, 03:22 PM
From the CBA:

No Consideration Between Clubs. There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Clubís decision to exercise or to not exercise its Right of First Refusal, or in exchange for a Clubís decision to submit or not submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent or to make or not to make an offer to enter into a Player Contract with a Restricted Free Agent. If a Club exercises its Right of First Refusal and matches an Offer Sheet, that Club may not trade that player to the Club that submitted the Offer Sheet for at least one calendar year, unless the player consents to such trade.

gyldenlove
03-08-2010, 03:55 PM
There is one problem with that setup, the contract can contain no signing bonus. A signing bonus is due upon signing and must be paid by the team who signs the contract in full, so if the contract contains a signing bonus, the middle team would have to pay it, no team will do that. So they will have to make the whole thing using a roster or option bonus due a few days after signing, when the trade has occured, however such a bonus is not subject to forfeiture if the player doesn't fullfil the contract so any such bonus can not be recouped by the team in the event Marshall gets on the wrong side of the law. Also such a bonus device would clash with the 30% increase rule I believe making it impossible to give a big enough bonus.

While it is in theory possible to put together a contract that would comply with the 30% increase rule, have enough money up front to satisfy Marshall, not cost the middle team anything and contain reasons for the Broncos not to simply match it, it seems highly unlikely that such an effort would be succesful, not to mention the Seahawks would have to offer up a deal sweet enough to make another team cooperate, which is highly dubious since they would not be getting 100 cents on the dollar.

gunns
03-08-2010, 04:37 PM
"Essentially begging"? So any team that puts a first round tender on a player is "essentially begging". I don't think so. There are other players out there with the same tender that don't have the same talent and probably aren't worth a 1st. Either give it up or don't, no begging here, we'll keep him if you don't want him.

Crushisback
03-08-2010, 05:32 PM
Never happen. This said team doing the signing for the Seahawks would be on the hook for paying the big signing bonus it would take for him to sign.

Drek
03-08-2010, 07:07 PM
My big question with this:

Why would Marshall sign a deal with zero guaranteed bonus money? Because unless the Saints or whomever are willing to pay him tens of millions of dollars in order to jump a few spots in the draft he'd have to, otherwise trading him accelerates all that money and the Saints get to pony up big.

At the same time, if he did take a deal like that does anyone think the Broncos wouldn't match? They offered Marshall that exact same deal last summer, $9.5M a year multi-year deal with little up front guaranteed money. I'm sure they'd still jump at the chance to do that deal.

bronco militia
03-11-2010, 08:33 AM
Florio rehashes his trade idea:

We're aware of no impediment to such a transaction. Though there's technically a bit of collusion at work, it's the kind of collusion that the NFLPA should welcome, since it ultimately encourages player movement. In the end, the Chargers get Marshall out of the division, they move from No. 28 to No. 14 in round one, and the Chargers have the satisfaction of sticking it to an arch rival.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/11/on-marshall-seahawks-should-consider-an-offer-sheet-end-run/

be sure to read the comments