PDA

View Full Version : Possible route for Marshall to Seattle afterall - Klis


Hulamau
03-22-2010, 02:02 AM
Klis: Broncos get another idea on what to do with Marshall
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post


The Charlie Whitehurst deal with the Seahawks might be the blueprint for the Broncos in trying to deal wide receiver Brandon Marshall. (Associated Press file photo )ORLANDO, Fla. — Through an undistinguished quarterback named Charlie Whitehurst, the Broncos may have found the answer to their Brandon Marshall dilemma.

Sign him. And trade him to Seattle.

Whitehurst was the rarest of commodities this NFL offseason. Even though he has but one 13-yard completed pass in his NFL career, the San Diego Chargers' third-string quarterback not only held the clipboard long enough to became eligible for restricted free agency, he became the most sought-after RFA of the offseason.

So much for the golden age of quarterbacks.

New Orleans running back Mike Bell is a restricted free agent who recently signed an offer sheet with Philadelphia, but because he was an undrafted rookie when he joined the Broncos in 2006, there is no draft-pick compensation involved.

The Seattle Seahawks nabbed Whitehurst after surrendering the equivalent of two third-round picks to San Diego. One of those third-round picks was converted into a 20-spot swap in the second round.

The Seahawks couldn't go the offer- sheet route for Whitehurst, in part because they didn't have the required third-round pick in the 2010 draft. But Seattle would have balked even if it did have a third-rounder because that would have meant offering the unproven quarterback a contract prohibitive enough to dissuade the Chargers from matching.

Instead, Seattle worked out a more affordable two-year, $8 million contract — the going rate for top-end backup QBs — with Whitehurst. The Chargers agreed not to match in return for swapping out the second-round picks in 2010 and a third-round pick in 2011.

Instead of picking No. 60 overall in the second round this year, San Diego now has Seattle's No. 40 overall slot.

For all this to happen, the Chargers had to sign Whitehurst to his modest, one-year, $1.1 million tender. Only after Whitehurst was officially under contract could the Chargers trade him.

The Whitehurst deal is significant because the Broncos now understand how Seattle is approaching restricted free agency. The Seahawks, remember, flew Marshall, a restricted free agent, in by seaplane for a visit March 6.

Two weeks later, the Seahawks still have not submitted an offer sheet to the Broncos' star receiver. Their interest in Marshall remains. But because the Broncos slapped a first-round tender on the receiver, Seattle would have to surrender its No. 6 overall draft pick to get him.

Clearly, the Seahawks consider the No. 6 overall pick too expensive for Marshall, especially if they also have to appease him with a contract far greater than $8 million over two years. Try $50 million over five.

The Seahawks are players in the restricted free-agent market, though. Whitehurst proved that. And Seattle does have another first-round draft choice available, No. 14 overall, which it received from the Broncos in last year's draft.

The Broncos could take that pick for Marshall. Or perhaps the Broncos would take Seattle's No. 60 pick in the second round and one of their two fourth-round picks.

Not until Marshall is assured he's moving on will he agree to sign his one-year, $2.521 million tender with the Broncos.

He never signs it if it means returning to the Broncos without an ensuing trade. .................................................. ......................



Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_14720182#ixzz0itUqyZtH

chrisp
03-22-2010, 02:39 AM
Everybody seems to assume that Seattle are willing to offer #14 if only we'd accept it. As of now however there is no indication that they ARE prepared to offer this in a potential sign-and-trade.

Technically, #14 is less than we're entitled to from them, but it is still more than we could get from some other teams should someone else take him, so i can't believe a deal won't get done if Seattle are willing to offer that. So far, I get the impression they're trying to low-ball us with offers that do not include a first round pick of any description, hence the impasse.

I can't help but feel that if we're being intransigent, then that might be in part becuase we're genuinely happy to have him back,but whatever the situation, I cannot believe that no-one thought of offering the #14 before Klis suggested it.......

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 05:24 AM
Or perhaps the Broncos would take Seattle's No. 60 pick in the second round and one of their two fourth-round picks.


The #60 pick and a 4th rounder?!? For Marshall?!?

That has to be the single worst trade proposal I've ever seen.

Broncoman13
03-22-2010, 05:33 AM
It is starting to look like we aren't going to get a whole lot in compensation for BMarsh Bean. At this point, I'd be thrilled with the #14 pick. That would give us a lot of wiggle room in this draft. Spiller could easily be drafted just as we could easily move back 10-15 spots when a guy like Clausen falls.

The only thing that sucks for McD. He'd probably be pretty interested in Joe Haden at that #14 spot and that wouldn't look good for him at all.

eddie mac
03-22-2010, 05:52 AM
Klis do us all a favour and retire.

Ramathorn
03-22-2010, 06:10 AM
The #60 pick and a 4th rounder?!? For Marshall?!?

That has to be the single worst trade proposal I've ever seen.

Ditto. Thats fn robbery on seattles part. Marshall for a 1st or pay the man and sign him long term and keep him.

Baba Booey
03-22-2010, 06:13 AM
If we do Marshall for #60 and a fourth rounder someone needs to get mushroom tattoo'd

Lolad
03-22-2010, 06:23 AM
If we settle for less than a 1st rd pick we've been had

oubronco
03-22-2010, 06:26 AM
Just keep him and pay the man

Bigdawg26
03-22-2010, 06:28 AM
Marshall for 60 and a fourth rounder??? That's the silliest sh!t I ever heard. They must think we are as dumb as the seahawks in trading! Why would we give up a 6-4 230 pound 25 yr old receiver thats top 5 in the league and in the prime of his career for a late second round pick and a fourth rounder?

chex
03-22-2010, 06:30 AM
I'm sure the local media would love for us to do a trade like that, because it would give them plenty of opportunity to blast anyone and everyone involved for letting Marshall go for such a pittance. I guess thinking of things to write is tough in the offseason, so this will give them plenty to write about.

DeuceOfClub
03-22-2010, 06:54 AM
Based on recent moves, my guess is Seattle will trade their #6 pick to the Vikings for John David Booty and their #14 pick to the Giants for Jared Lorenzen.

Hamrob
03-22-2010, 07:32 AM
The #60 pick and a 4th rounder?!? For Marshall?!?

That has to be the single worst trade proposal I've ever seen.This!

Hamrob
03-22-2010, 07:35 AM
The only way that I could see us accept less than a 1st was if another player was involved. Seattle give us a guard or ILB along with the #60...outside of that...Klis is on crack!

Drek
03-22-2010, 07:51 AM
Just keep him and play the man

Fixed that for ya.

Tombstone RJ
03-22-2010, 08:07 AM
Klis is a tard. I think McD has no problem bringing Bmarsh back. It's Bmarsh who has the problem of playing for the Broncos. See yah at training camp Brandon...

Chief Macho
03-22-2010, 08:19 AM
Seriously, why can't Mcd be magnanimous and just give Marshall some money to shut him up and lets watch what happens. There isn't a deal to be made. If he screws up again it ain't the end of the world with no salary cap.

Tombstone RJ
03-22-2010, 08:21 AM
Seriously, why can't Mcd be magnanimous and just give Marshall some money to shut him up and lets watch what happens. There isn't a deal to be made. If he screws up again it ain't the end of the world with no salary cap.

He was already offered a new contract by the Broncos last year and Bmarsh said no. This ain't on the Broncos, it's all on Bmarsh.

baja
03-22-2010, 08:26 AM
That contract was an insult and Marshall would have been crazy to sign, it even with his off field issues he deserves a better deal than the Broncos offered him.

Tombstone RJ
03-22-2010, 08:31 AM
That contract was an insult and Marshall would have been crazy to sign, it even with his off field issues he deserves a better deal than the Broncos offered him.

What did the contract say, how was it structured, how much was guaranteed? I have a feeling it was pretty fair, all things considered. IMO, Bmarsh wanted to test the market to see if he could get something better. No other teams are playing and it's not like the Broncos are asking too much for him, he's definitely worth a first round pick.

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 08:34 AM
even with his off field issues he deserves a better deal than the Broncos offered him.

To this point, 31 other teams disagree with you.

baja
03-22-2010, 09:41 AM
To this point, 31 other teams disagree with you.

No, 31 other teams don't think Marshall is worth a first round pick, his proposed contract has nothing to do with the lack of an offer sheet.

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 09:46 AM
No, 31 other teams don't think Marshall is worth a first round pick, his proposed contract has nothing to do with the lack of an offer sheet.

I would argue the EXACT opposite. And recent history is on my side. Roy Williams was worth a first and a third. Deion Branch was worth a first. I could go on.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-22-2010, 09:54 AM
This reminds me of the book "The Pearl." Remember when the dude finds the enormous pearl and all the shopkeepers try to rip him off by telling him that its worthles due to its size? Same deal.

misturanderson
03-22-2010, 09:57 AM
No, 31 other teams don't think Marshall is worth a first round pick, his proposed contract has nothing to do with the lack of an offer sheet.

That's obviously not true.

If other teams weren't worried about offering him a big money contract with a lot of guaranteed money, they would be pounding down the door to get Marshall for a 1st.

Any team in the league that had any sort of need at WR would be stupid to draft a WR in the 1st over BMarsh if it weren't for the very real fear that they all have that they would give him a lot of money and he'd screw up again and get suspended. They would then be out all of that money. If another team could sign him to a RFA tender for a 1st, they would definitely do it. This situation has everything to do with contract demands and off-field issues. If those two things weren't in play, Marshall would be on another team by now, we could have probably gotten as much as a 1st and 2nd for him. It would also all be a moot point as we would be trying to keep him a bronco for life if it weren't for his contract/off-field issues.

PRBronco
03-22-2010, 09:59 AM
This reminds me of the book "The Pearl." Remember when the dude finds the enormous pearl and all the shopkeepers try to rip him off by telling him that its worthles due to its size? Same deal.

Omg spoilerz!

baja
03-22-2010, 10:03 AM
I would argue the EXACT opposite. And recent history is on my side. Roy Williams was worth a first and a third. Deion Branch was worth a first. I could go on.

No argument based on his on field play but that is not the only consideration here as we all know. Marshall is an arrest away from possably a year suspension, tough to help your team dressed in an Armani.

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 10:04 AM
No argument based on his on field play but that is not the only consideration here as we all know. Marshall is an arrest away from possably a year suspension, tough to help your team dressed in an Armani.

Huh? You were the one who took the off the field issues off the table when you made your argument.

baja
03-22-2010, 10:07 AM
That's obviously not true.

If other teams weren't worried about offering him a big money contract with a lot of guaranteed money, they would be pounding down the door to get Marshall for a 1st.

Any team in the league that had any sort of need at WR would be stupid to draft a WR in the 1st over BMarsh if it weren't for the very real fear that they all have that they would give him a lot of money and he'd screw up again and get suspended. They would then be out all of that money. If another team could sign him to a RFA tender for a 1st, they would definitely do it. This situation has everything to do with contract demands and off-field issues. If those two things weren't in play, Marshall would be on another team by now, we could have probably gotten as much as a 1st and 2nd for him. It would also all be a moot point as we would be trying to keep him a bronco for life if it weren't for his contract/off-field issues.

That is exactly my point as well. Off field considerations are keeping other teams from submitting an offer sheet for Brandon. The good news is Brandon has to know this and he knows he needs to keep his nose clean and have a monster year in Denver if he ever is to get his payday.

baja
03-22-2010, 10:10 AM
Huh? You were the one who took the off the field issues off the table when you made your argument.

How do you figure that? I said no team thought Marshall was worth a 1st. Clearly on the field he is a top 5 receiver and that is worth a first +. That leaves only off field issues that has caused teams to hold off on an offer sheet.

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 10:18 AM
How do you figure that? I said no team thought Marshall was worth a 1st. Clearly on the field he is a top 5 receiver and that is worth a first +. That leaves only off field issues that has caused teams to hold off on an offer sheet.

you said:

even with his off field issues he deserves a better deal than the Broncos offered him.

So, make up your mind. Why are the Broncos insulting him with their offer but no other team is, even if they're not offering any more?

oubronco
03-22-2010, 10:24 AM
That contract was an insult and Marshall would have been crazy to sign, it even with his off field issues he deserves a better deal than the Broncos offered him.

Exactly

Popps
03-22-2010, 10:32 AM
I'll be so happy when this is settled. I just couldn't be any more sick and tired of hearing this guy's name.

Archer81
03-22-2010, 10:33 AM
$9.5 mil a year? If Brandon thought he would get more money up front then he is sillier in the head then I thought.

:Broncos:

Mountain Bronco
03-22-2010, 11:24 AM
Its not like the Whitehurste trade was breaking new ground and made the Broncos go, oh we could do this!!! No Shiznit Sherlock, the Broncos could sign him then trade him all in one motion. Wiz kid.

Houshyamama
03-22-2010, 12:07 PM
All this speculation is retarded.

If we don't get what we want for Marshall, he'll be back in a Broncos uniform. Period.

Tombstone RJ
03-22-2010, 12:24 PM
Exactly

Not so sure you'd be willing to give the guy $20m guaranteed (for example) if you had to sign the check.

With Bmarsh's history, he's one incident away from suspension and as much as he likes to tell everyone he's learned his lessons, his actions say otherwise.

Ambiguous
03-22-2010, 12:28 PM
Posted March 22, 2010, 1:25 pm MT No Mawae in DenverBy Mike Klis View Comments
Print
E-mail
Share Share There are various reports stating the Broncos, who desperately need a center, and veteran free-agent center Kevin Mawae have expressed mutual interest in each other.

While there are various ways to characterize “interest” an NFL source told me Maewae ain’t happening in Denver. Mawae, the president of the NFL players union, is not only 39 years old, his 289-pound frame is too light for the Broncos’ new power-type blocking system. Remember, the Broncos released Casey Wiegmann, who hasn’t missed a snap since the 2001 opener, because he was considered too small at 285 pounds.

Los Broncos
03-22-2010, 12:31 PM
Doesn't sound good to me maybe we can't get much for him

Maybe we keep and pay him, hopefully he doesn't go mental and things stay cool.

Dagmar
03-22-2010, 12:32 PM
Posted March 22, 2010, 1:25 pm MT No Mawae in DenverBy Mike Klis View Comments
Print
E-mail
Share Share There are various reports stating the Broncos, who desperately need a center, and veteran free-agent center Kevin Mawae have expressed mutual interest in each other.

While there are various ways to characterize “interest” an NFL source told me Maewae ain’t happening in Denver. Mawae, the president of the NFL players union, is not only 39 years old, his 289-pound frame is too light for the Broncos’ new power-type blocking system. Remember, the Broncos released Casey Wiegmann, who hasn’t missed a snap since the 2001 opener, because he was considered too small at 285 pounds.

I think you clicked the wrong thread.

no-pseudo-fan
03-22-2010, 12:40 PM
I would take a 2nd and 4th in 2010 and a 1st in 2011.

baja
03-22-2010, 01:16 PM
you said:



So, make up your mind. Why are the Broncos insulting him with their offer but no other team is, even if they're not offering any more?

There is no conflict here. The incentive laden contract the Broncos offered marshall with almost no guaranteed money was an insult even with the off field issues and he would not sign a similar contract no matter the team IMO. That does not translate into a reason other teams have not presented an offer sheet. IMO the reason is they think they will get a better deal later closer to the draft and I think they are correct.

bigbucks24
03-22-2010, 01:17 PM
I would argue the EXACT opposite. And recent history is on my side. Roy Williams was worth a first and a third. Deion Branch was worth a first. I could go on.

Randy Moss for a 4th
Boldin for a 3rd and 4th
Edwards for a 3rd and 5th and players

IMHO
Marshall as a model citizen--two #1's
Marshall with off the field issues, on the field issues, not getting along with Head Coach, Head Coach not liking Head Case--less than a #1 and much less than most Denver fans are going to be happy with.

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 01:24 PM
Randy Moss for a 4th
Boldin for a 3rd and 4th
Edwards for a 3rd and 5th and players


Moss? 40 catches for 500 yds and 3 TDs. Those were his numbers for the season that prompted his trade. Not even remotely comparable.

Edwards? Out of 5 NFL seasons, he's only had one season on par with what Marshall has done. Another bad comparison.

broncocalijohn
03-22-2010, 01:25 PM
The #60 pick and a 4th rounder?!? For Marshall?!?

That has to be the single worst trade proposal I've ever seen.

close 2nd would be them getting Whitehurst for those other picks.

Popps
03-22-2010, 01:36 PM
Not so sure you'd be willing to give the guy $20m guaranteed (for example) if you had to sign the check.

.

There you go.

Look, it's not even up for debate. If there wasn't a big question mark floating over Marshall's head, we would have already scored a big bounty for him.

Imagine if this was Andre Johnson we were talking about. There would have been multiple offers, immediately.

Marshall is a big question mark. Someone will bite, but it's not going to but, it's not a no-brainer for any team.

cutthemdown
03-22-2010, 01:40 PM
The #60 pick and a 4th rounder?!? For Marshall?!?

That has to be the single worst trade proposal I've ever seen.

no They meant the lower of the 2 firsts, and the 60th and the 4th rounder.

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 01:43 PM
no They meant the lower of the 2 firsts, and the 60th and the 4th rounder.

Nope. The article explicitly says "the lower of the 2 firsts OR the 60th and 4th rounder".

from the article:

And Seattle does have another first-round draft choice available, No. 14 overall, which it received from the Broncos in last year's draft.

The Broncos could take that pick for Marshall. Or perhaps the Broncos would take Seattle's No. 60 pick in the second round and one of their two fourth-round picks.

BroncoSojia
03-22-2010, 01:43 PM
I would take a 2nd and 4th in 2010 and a 1st in 2011.

I'd do that in a heartbeat.

DBroncos4life
03-22-2010, 02:16 PM
I would rather have the first of the Bucs two 2nd rounders and a future 2011 pick based on playing time and performance then that Seattle offer.

bigbucks24
03-22-2010, 02:19 PM
Moss? 40 catches for 500 yds and 3 TDs. Those were his numbers for the season that prompted his trade. Not even remotely comparable.

Edwards? Out of 5 NFL seasons, he's only had one season on par with what Marshall has done. Another bad comparison.

Williams 64 catches, 838 yards and 5 TD's the year before he was traded and was on pace for 54 catches, 742 yards and 5 TD's the season he was traded.

I don't think Moss is a bad comparison as he has been considered one of the premier receivers for most of his carreer. Averaging 77 catches, 1205 yards and 12 TD's per year is a pretty good comparison. The point is there are no perfect comparisons since top 5 WR are seldom dealt.

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 02:21 PM
Williams 64 catches, 838 yards and 5 TD's the year before he was traded and was on pace for 54 catches, 742 yards and 5 TD's the season he was traded.

You do realize that pointing this out makes my case stronger.

I don't think Moss is a bad comparison as he has been considered one of the premier receivers for most of his carreer. Averaging 77 catches, 1205 yards and 12 TD's per year is a pretty good comparison.

Most of his career? Yes. But not that KEY bit of time immediately before the trade where he was clearly half-assing it, his production was terrible (nowhere near the career numbers you point out above) and many figured he was done or not worth the trouble.

NFLBRONCO
03-22-2010, 02:32 PM
I flat out don't think Denver wants BM they don't want to sign him longterm. So a draft day trade seems most likely. So no matter what we feel or what they say in public about BM I think he'll be gone. Depending on the return we'll find out how bad we want to move on.

I still think Player or players or player and a pick will be the trade.

bigbucks24
03-22-2010, 02:47 PM
You do realize that pointing this out makes my case stronger.



Most of his career? Yes. But not that KEY bit of time immediately before the trade where he was clearly half-assing it, his production was terrible (nowhere near the career numbers you point out above) and many figured he was done or not worth the trouble.

So the only thing you can base value on is the year before? No trends or career? That seems a little silly to me. I guess we'll just disagree on that one.

If Williams was truely worth a 1st and 3rd and his numbers pale in comparison to Marshalls (54 catches vs 101, 2 TD's vs. 10, 1120 yds vs 742) what do you feel Brandon's value really is? If you are going to look purely at numbers, you'd have to say twice of what Williams was worth?

I guess my problem is that if you want to say Moss was only worth a 4th becaus he was "half assing" it, then don't you have to take that into consideration when giving a value to Marshall? At the point in Moss' career when he was traded, he was averaging 79 catches, 1189 yards, 11TD's in 9 seasons. Brandon is averaging 81 catches, 1005 yards and 6TD's.

You have to reason that either the Moss trade was undervalued or the Williams trade was overvalued.

With all you (and every other GM knows) about Brandon's on the field problems, off the field problems, run it's with the HC and the HC trying to establish a culture of discipline, and Brandon's astronomical talent, what is his true value? And remember, value is what someone will pay--not what we want someone to pay.

chaz
03-22-2010, 02:47 PM
What did the contract say, how was it structured, how much was guaranteed? I have a feeling it was pretty fair, all things considered. IMO, Bmarsh wanted to test the market to see if he could get something better. No other teams are playing and it's not like the Broncos are asking too much for him, he's definitely worth a first round pick.

$9.5 mil a year? If Brandon thought he would get more money up front then he is sillier in the head then I thought.

:Broncos:


It was incentive heavy, with nearly zero guaranteed money. Yearly salary means very little when it isn't guaranteed.

chaz
03-22-2010, 02:48 PM
I would rather have the first of the Bucs two 2nd rounders and a future 2011 pick based on playing time and performance then that Seattle offer.

I think a future pick will be what makes a deal happen...although I'm not sure how happy I would be with Marshall's production depending upon Hasslebeck's back holding up/Whitehurst.

chaz
03-22-2010, 02:50 PM
I flat out don't think Denver wants BM they don't want to sign him longterm. So a draft day trade seems most likely. So no matter what we feel or what they say in public about BM I think he'll be gone. Depending on the return we'll find out how bad we want to move on.

I still think Player or players or player and a pick will be the trade.

What's the value of David Hawthorne? Seemed to play well for Lofa last year, but will be back to the bench?

Or anyone know much about the Seahawks 2nd string OL? Any up and coming guys with starting potential there?

bigbucks24
03-22-2010, 02:51 PM
Just keep him and pay the man

Does anyone think that this will really work? That if Brandon gets paid he will suddenly grow up and stop acting the way he does? And that McD is suddenly going to have a change of heart and decide that he wants Brandon on the team? Really?

Rabb
03-22-2010, 02:53 PM
Does anyone think that this will really work? That if Brandon gets paid he will suddenly grow up and stop acting the way he does? And that McD is suddenly going to have a change of heart and decide that he wants Brandon on the team? Really?

I don't

and I think McD wants him here, but he has to act like he wants to be here first

bigbucks24
03-22-2010, 02:58 PM
I don't

and I think McD wants him here, but he has to act like he wants to be here first

That part may very well be true. I doubt that McD doesn't like Brandon personally, just how he acts. It is possible that if Brandon acted like an adult, McD would selcome him back. Then again, it is obvious that McD wants to run a VERY tight ship. I think Brandon would basically have to kiss his ass.......and I don't see Brandon as that type--even with a Brink's Truckload of dough.

Beantown Bronco
03-22-2010, 03:03 PM
So the only thing you can base value on is the year before? No trends or career? That seems a little silly to me. I guess we'll just disagree on that one.

Nope. I actually did demonstrate value taking into account career and trends. All of those examples were trending downward in their trade seasons.

If Williams was truely worth a 1st and 3rd and his numbers pale in comparison to Marshalls (54 catches vs 101, 2 TD's vs. 10, 1120 yds vs 742) what do you feel Brandon's value really is? If you are going to look purely at numbers, you'd have to say twice of what Williams was worth?

Looking at purely numbers, sure. But neither I nor anyone else in the NFL does that. Too bad for us in this case.

I guess my problem is that if you want to say Moss was only worth a 4th becaus he was "half assing" it, then don't you have to take that into consideration when giving a value to Marshall? At the point in Moss' career when he was traded, he was averaging 79 catches, 1189 yards, 11TD's in 9 seasons. Brandon is averaging 81 catches, 1005 yards and 6TD's.

Moss' averages were the result of his early years. In the 3 years prior to the trade, his receptions, yards and TDs were all WAY down. He hadn't played at an elite level for years and people were really questioning if he had any desire left. And he was no spring chicken. He was 31 at time of the trade.

Was he undervalued? I think we can all say "hell yes" now. But he very easily could've gone on to do what was becomng his "usual" 50 or so catches for 700 or so yards and a handful of TDs and nobody would've been surprised.

With all you (and every other GM knows) about Brandon's on the field problems, off the field problems, run it's with the HC and the HC trying to establish a culture of discipline, and Brandon's astronomical talent, what is his true value? And remember, value is what someone will pay--not what we want someone to pay.

WAAAY more than the insulting late 2nd and 4th rounder that was proposed in the article.

Rabb
03-22-2010, 03:03 PM
my guess is McD would put up with him not kissing ass because Brandon is a game breaker

he just has to not be outwardly belligerent

oh and stop punching chicks

the funny part to me is people will begin to celebrate him not being arrested for a year...as if that is some huge milestone

bigbucks24
03-22-2010, 03:17 PM
my guess is McD would put up with him not kissing ass because Brandon is a game breaker

he just has to not be outwardly belligerent

oh and stop punching chicks

the funny part to me is people will begin to celebrate him not being arrested for a year...as if that is some huge milestone

ROFL! Not sure about sentence #1. That might have been true before last year. I think it will take some smooching to get back in his good graces.

#2 has to happen.

#3ummmmm....yeah. He needs to quit immitating Larry Johnson.

#4. We do set the bar low sometimes. Wonder if I can get a raise at work or something since I haven't been arrested in over a year?

misturanderson
03-22-2010, 03:36 PM
Yearly salary means very little when it isn't guaranteed.

That's not really true as long as there are some provisions to protect the player in the case of injuries (I'm sure you could add some sort of provision that accelerates a portion of his salary if he is cut due to injury concerns) and as long as the player keeps playing at a level that makes the team want to keep him on (which I don't think is really in question for Marshall).

He may say that he doesn't want to sign that contract because the team could cut him at any moment, but what reason would the Broncos have to cut him if he plays at a high level that he is obviously capable of playing at (and only getting better it seems)? He doesn't want to do that becasue he doesn't even know if he can stay out of trouble for long enough to make that contract offer worth it to him.

Paladin
03-22-2010, 03:50 PM
You probably could, but none of it would be guaranteed.

I guess I have some issues with the "not guaranteed" part of the 9.5 mil that he turned down. If he plays he gets paid, If he gets injured, he gets paid. If h sluffs off, he doesn't get paid. If he plays for X years, then some of the contract might get guaranteed. Plus, he can earn workout bonuses, and possible some form of roster bonus.

Few of you hold jobs that have guaranteed money. You could be released tomorrow with nothing to show but whatever is in the severance package or in your retirement fund. You won't participate in any future bonuses.

I think he lost a lot wen he didn't take that deal, and he will be paying for that decision in the near and mid-term foreseeable future........

Caligula
03-22-2010, 04:13 PM
Owners would absolutely love it if playres didn't want to play for guaranteed money. Hell... who wouldn't want to make multi-multi-multi millions off someone's name and not have to promise them pay?? What a deal!!

Marshall would be stupid. He already could have lost his career to the med-staff misdiagnosing his injury. With no guarantees, that means he could have lost the rest of his career, and the "loyal" owners would have said "sorry."

Football is the ONLY professional sport that doesn't have guaranteed contracts. Most people don't have guaranteed contracts, also don't make millions a year. Even CEO's in big companies get guarantees, and they have to be fired by a board rather than just one person.

Those that feel the NFL shouldn't give guaranteed money, or the players shoud purely work for no up-front money because "we never get it".. have never worked for any real money in their life.

Popps
03-22-2010, 05:16 PM
Marshall would be stupid. .

Too late.

meangene
03-22-2010, 05:34 PM
Hawthorne led Seattle with 117 tackles. Also, had 4 sacks, 3 interceptions and 2 forced fumbles. At 250 lbs. Just sayin...

Caveat Lector
03-22-2010, 05:43 PM
I would rather have the first of the Bucs two 2nd rounders and a future 2011 pick based on playing time and performance then that Seattle offer.

I'd take both of the Bucs 2nd rounders and call it a deal...

Drek
03-22-2010, 05:46 PM
What's the value of David Hawthorne? Seemed to play well for Lofa last year, but will be back to the bench?

Or anyone know much about the Seahawks 2nd string OL? Any up and coming guys with starting potential there?

I'd take Hawthorne and #14 in a heartbeat for Marshall.

I'd value him at about a late 2nd/early 3rd personally. He did great one season, so he's a risk to be a one year wonder, but he's young with upside that helps off-set that. For more than a late 2nd/early 3rd though we could just sign Kirk Morrison who has proven his productivity for a while in the league.

anton
03-22-2010, 06:19 PM
I'd take both of the Bucs 2nd rounders and call it a deal...

Honestly I would be fine with that deal. Josh Freeman is currently set up for failure so Marshall would be huge for us. Thurs/Fri ending with Ndamukong Suh and Brandon Marshall would be incredible.

FireFly
03-22-2010, 06:46 PM
The #60 pick and a 4th rounder?!? For Marshall?!?

That has to be the single worst trade proposal I've ever seen.

QFT

Seriously if we get LESS than a 1st I'm going to be upset. :garcia:

Donk
03-22-2010, 07:02 PM
You probably could, but none of it would be guaranteed.

I guess I have some issues with the "not guaranteed" part of the 9.5 mil that he turned down. If he plays he gets paid, If he gets injured, he gets paid. If h sluffs off, he doesn't get paid. If he plays for X years, then some of the contract might get guaranteed. Plus, he can earn workout bonuses, and possible some form of roster bonus.

Few of you hold jobs that have guaranteed money. You could be released tomorrow with nothing to show but whatever is in the severance package or in your retirement fund. You won't participate in any future bonuses.

I think he lost a lot wen he didn't take that deal, and he will be paying for that decision in the near and mid-term foreseeable future........

A football players contract is a "no Quit Contract"
Brandan can't do what I can... tell my boss to go to hell and go to work some where else for more, less or the same money.

meangene
03-22-2010, 07:14 PM
I'd take Hawthorne and #14 in a heartbeat for Marshall.

I'd value him at about a late 2nd/early 3rd personally. He did great one season, so he's a risk to be a one year wonder, but he's young with upside that helps off-set that. For more than a late 2nd/early 3rd though we could just sign Kirk Morrison who has proven his productivity for a while in the league.

Would you take a 2nd, 4th and Hawthorne? I could see that on the table.

oubronco
03-22-2010, 07:23 PM
Not so sure you'd be willing to give the guy $20m guaranteed (for example) if you had to sign the check.

With Bmarsh's history, he's one incident away from suspension and as much as he likes to tell everyone he's learned his lessons, his actions say otherwise.

I would do it no problem, you want top notch talent you have to pay for it

Caligula
03-22-2010, 07:27 PM
I would do it no problem, you want top notch talent you have to pay for it

I'm with you there. Seems so many around here thinks we can win with no top talent on the team, and simply just let them go elsewhere so we can be 'bargain hunters'

Drek
03-23-2010, 02:30 AM
Would you take a 2nd, 4th and Hawthorne? I could see that on the table.

If Seattle still had their 2nd, sure. But not with it now being San Diego's 2nd coming back.

They don't have their 3rd, if they did #60, their early 3rd, and Hawthorne would be interesting in a deep class like this. But that can't happen.

Basically, after the Whitehurst deal I don't see any way the Broncos send Marshall to them without getting a 1st in return in some capacity.

meangene
03-23-2010, 02:39 AM
If Seattle still had their 2nd, sure. But not with it now being San Diego's 2nd coming back.

They don't have their 3rd, if they did #60, their early 3rd, and Hawthorne would be interesting in a deep class like this. But that can't happen.

Basically, after the Whitehurst deal I don't see any way the Broncos send Marshall to them without getting a 1st in return in some capacity.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when they made the Whitehurst deal. Made things harder to make a deal with them involving players. If we get #14, I don't see us getting anything else from them. I would prefer Tampa's two seconds. I wonder about us giving up a 3rd straight up for Hawthorne, though.

chex
03-23-2010, 05:12 AM
I'm with you there. Seems so many around here thinks we can win with no top talent on the team, and simply just let them go elsewhere so we can be 'bargain hunters'

You mean to tell me after all of the endless discussion on this, you still believe the sentiment of people is we should get rid of him, just because?

Drek
03-23-2010, 07:19 AM
I'm with you there. Seems so many around here thinks we can win with no top talent on the team, and simply just let them go elsewhere so we can be 'bargain hunters'

I don't think there are very many people who don't want Marshall's talent on the field.

Just a lot of us are sick of the off-field/training camp/pre-season bull****. Kid needs to grow up.

The team offered him an extension that protects themselves from his immaturity. He didn't think it was fair, as is his right. But don't paint this like the team doesn't want him or Broncos fans don't want him. The team wanted to make him the #2 highest paid WR in the league under the condition that he doesn't do stupid **** anymore. They obviously WANT Marshall on the team, they just aren't willing to give him $20M+ on nothing but his word that he won't do anymore stupid ****. Makes sense since he wasn't willing to put his money where his mouth is (by taking the $9.5M a year deal with limited guarantees).

baja
03-23-2010, 07:38 AM
Does anyone know the terms of the contract Marshall was offered that he turned down?

Drek
03-23-2010, 08:26 AM
Does anyone know the terms of the contract Marshall was offered that he turned down?

Just that it was for an avg. of $9.5M a season with little guaranteed money.

But lets be honest, it could pay $15M a season, if its low on guaranteed money Marshall isn't taking it. He knows he's on his last strike with Goddell, one more off-field incident and he's likely out for the better part of a season and loses that big dollar paycheck.

chaz
03-24-2010, 12:21 PM
That's not really true as long as there are some provisions to protect the player in the case of injuries (I'm sure you could add some sort of provision that accelerates a portion of his salary if he is cut due to injury concerns) and as long as the player keeps playing at a level that makes the team want to keep him on (which I don't think is really in question for Marshall).

He may say that he doesn't want to sign that contract because the team could cut him at any moment, but what reason would the Broncos have to cut him if he plays at a high level that he is obviously capable of playing at (and only getting better it seems)? He doesn't want to do that becasue he doesn't even know if he can stay out of trouble for long enough to make that contract offer worth it to him.

Isn't that "guaranteed" money then in one sense? It didn't sound like there was any injury provision or guarantee of any kind in last summer's contract offer...and Marshall was just coming off fairly serious hip surgery so I don't blame him for turning it down at all.

misturanderson
03-24-2010, 03:04 PM
Isn't that "guaranteed" money then in one sense? It didn't sound like there was any injury provision or guarantee of any kind in last summer's contract offer...and Marshall was just coming off fairly serious hip surgery so I don't blame him for turning it down at all.

We really have no idea what that contract offer had in it other than the approximate annual salary, but I don't see why the Broncos would tell him to **** off if that's something he countered with.

I'm guessing that he and/or his agent saw that it was a contract without much guaranteed money and scoffed at it because anyone without the issues that Brandon has would be stupid to take that kind of offer. Brandon's problem is that he has his issues and he should be treated differently in contract talks as a result. He probably doesn't see it that way though.