Brandon Marshall asks to be traded from Broncos (5 Viewers)

[puckalicious]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

I believe NFL contracts are worth as much as the owner/GM does, which is not worth the paper they're written on. A team can get rid of a player at any time (with penalty, sometimes); why can't the player have the same flexibility?

 

[identikit]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".

On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

I'd sign up as a slave for league minimum.

 

[benbadman]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

if you saw the Broncos-Browns Thursday night game last year, you'd realize that with this trade request Brandon Marshall is just being a good lil brownshirt. contracts don't matter now that the kenyan commie is running the country. look at the GM bondholders, they got wiped out!!! or AIG contractually-obligated performance bonuses... LOL contracts

 

[thayman]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

I believe NFL contracts are worth as much as the owner/GM does, which is not worth the paper they're written on. A team can get rid of a player at any time (with penalty, sometimes); why can't the player have the same flexibility?

The paper they are written on is pretty much the signing bonus. Albert Haynesworth signed a deal worth over $100 million he won't ever see all of that, but he did get $41 million in guarantees.....that's an expensive piece of paper.

 

[thayman]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

if you saw the Broncos-Browns Thursday night game last year, you'd realize that with this trade request Brandon Marshall is just being a good lil brownshirt. contracts don't matter now that the kenyan commie is running the country. look at the GM bondholders, they got wiped out!!! or AIG contractually-obligated performance bonuses... LOL contracts

 

[a_troll00]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

if you saw the Broncos-Browns Thursday night game last year, you'd realize that with this trade request Brandon Marshall is just being a good lil brownshirt. contracts don't matter now that the kenyan commie is running the country. look at the GM bondholders, they got wiped out!!! or AIG contractually-obligated performance bonuses... LOL contracts

You forgot to mention Prenuptial Agreements.

 

[moleculo]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

I believe NFL contracts are worth as much as the owner/GM does, which is not worth the paper they're written on. A team can get rid of a player at any time (with penalty, sometimes); why can't the player have the same flexibility?

Then what is the point of a multi-year deal? Why bother? Why not just put everyone in the league in a 1 year contract, where they are free to come and go as they see fit? Isn't that the natural extension of this line of thinking?

 

[CaptainHook]

lol @ the people whining about the way the contracts work.

Do you have no brain?

 

[FUBAR]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

I believe NFL contracts are worth as much as the owner/GM does, which is not worth the paper they're written on. A team can get rid of a player at any time (with penalty, sometimes); why can't the player have the same flexibility?

Then what is the point of a multi-year deal? Why bother? Why not just put everyone in the league in a 1 year contract, where they are free to come and go as they see fit? Isn't that the natural extension of this line of thinking?

so the players can get more $$ in the signing bonus.

 

[Bizkiteer]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

if you saw the Broncos-Browns Thursday night game last year, you'd realize that with this trade request Brandon Marshall is just being a good lil brownshirt. contracts don't matter now that the kenyan commie is running the country. look at the GM bondholders, they got wiped out!!! or AIG contractually-obligated performance bonuses... LOL contracts

LMAO @ the ignorant!!!

 

[JamesTheScot]

I think with his off-field issues and injury, Marshall's value is probably not as high as he thinks it is.

That's the problem. His stats say he is worth a big fat signing bonus and long term deal (2nd most receptions the last two seasons) to the Broncos or a 1st and a 3rd to another team. But the off the field stuff makes anyone interested in signing or acquiring Marshal leery. I doubt anyone comes in, guns a blazing, and offers a sweet heart deal to Denver for him. Some teams will sniff around and offer a 3rd and a 4th. Or a 3rd with escalators that could make it a 2, etc. But nobody is giving the 1, much less a 1 and a 3. So do the Broncos take a decent pick with an escalator clause and dump him just to dump him? I don't know...

Denver just doesn't want to rework his contract right now and I agree that Marshall probably has unrealistic ideas of what he is worth. Can you blame Den for being leery of signing Marshall to big money with the issues in his past? Marshall is desperate to redo his contract now because he knows with Cutler gone he will not have as good a season as he has in the past.

Denver should just sit tight and give him the Chad Johnson/Anquan Boldin treatment. I don't see teams lining up to give a fair deal for this guy considering his off-the-field issues and hip injury.

I doubt anyone offers a lot for the guy when a 1st and a 3rd would probably land Boldin or Edwards who don't have the off the field issues that Marshal has. Marshal is kidding himself if he thinks teams will be lining up when they can get an equally gifted, and troubled, player in Burress for nothing more than cash. He suits up this year for Denver and he is going to struggle to get to 1K yards with Orton behind center... He knows it...

That's why I think Bowlen is playing this well. He leaves the meeting with Marshall saying he'll try and make a trade happen.He entertains offers. But if he doesn't get a good offer, he comes back to Marshall saying "Gee Brandon, we tried. But this is all that teams were willing to give up for you. We want you here more than they do. So let's sit down and work this thing out."

 

[FUBAR]

I think with his off-field issues and injury, Marshall's value is probably not as high as he thinks it is.That's the problem. His stats say he is worth a big fat signing bonus and long term deal (2nd most receptions the last two seasons) to the Broncos or a 1st and a 3rd to another team. But the off the field stuff makes anyone interested in signing or acquiring Marshal leery. I doubt anyone comes in, guns a blazing, and offers a sweet heart deal to Denver for him. Some teams will sniff around and offer a 3rd and a 4th. Or a 3rd with escalators that could make it a 2, etc. But nobody is giving the 1, much less a 1 and a 3. So do the Broncos take a decent pick with an escalator clause and dump him just to dump him? I don't know...Denver just doesn't want to rework his contract right now and I agree that Marshall probably has unrealistic ideas of what he is worth. Can you blame Den for being leery of signing Marshall to big money with the issues in his past? Marshall is desperate to redo his contract now because he knows with Cutler gone he will not have as good a season as he has in the past. Denver should just sit tight and give him the Chad Johnson/Anquan Boldin treatment. I don't see teams lining up to give a fair deal for this guy considering his off-the-field issues and hip injury.I doubt anyone offers a lot for the guy when a 1st and a 3rd would probably land Boldin or Edwards who don't have the off the field issues that Marshal has. Marshal is kidding himself if he thinks teams will be lining up when they can get an equally gifted, and troubled, player in Burress for nothing more than cash. He suits up this year for Denver and he is going to struggle to get to 1K yards with Orton behind center... He knows it...That's why I think Bowlen is playing this well. He leaves the meeting with Marshall saying he'll try and make a trade happen.He entertains offers. But if he doesn't get a good offer, he comes back to Marshall saying "Gee Brandon, we tried. But this is all that teams were willing to give up for you. We want you here more than they do. So let's sit down and work this thing out."

I'd take Marshall over Plax or Edwards, he is more talented than either. But when Boldin is supposedly available for the same or less price, Marshall isn't going anywhere unless the Broncs decide they're better off without him. Which I don't see happening.

 

[JPeso]

I'd take Marshall over Plax or Edwards, he is more talented than either. But when Boldin is supposedly available for the same or less price, Marshall isn't going anywhere unless the Broncs decide they're better off without him. Which I don't see happening.

Why is that? Boldin a more dominant player? Less off-field issues? Any less of an injury risk?

 

[twistd]

I said months ago that the Broncos should trade that head-case Marshall and be done with him and his nonsense, as it is only a matter of time before he does something really stupid again and Goodell is forced to bring the hammer down on him, but the two best offensive players wanting out of Denver simply doesn't make McDaniel or the new regime in Denver look good at all. I have a feeling that Pat Bowlen is gonna be frustrated as hell in two years when he has to fire his head coach who went 11-21 and left his team in ruins. He'll be longing for those days when he had a franchise QB and a Super Bowl-winning head coach who had proved he could win big when he had the right pieces in place.

I'd be very surprised if they won 11 games in the next two years. I'm guessing 3-13 this year, maybe 4-12. That would mean they have to win 7 or 8 games in 2010. I'm guessing the record will be closer to 8-24 for the next two years, winning three this year and five the next. I think this will be a putrid team.

 

[identikit]

I'd take Marshall over Plax or Edwards, he is more talented than either. But when Boldin is supposedly available for the same or less price, Marshall isn't going anywhere unless the Broncs decide they're better off without him. Which I don't see happening.

Why is that? Boldin a more dominant player? Yes

Less off-field issues? Yes

Any less of an injury risk? Coin flip

 

[FUBAR]

I'd take Marshall over Plax or Edwards, he is more talented than either. But when Boldin is supposedly available for the same or less price, Marshall isn't going anywhere unless the Broncs decide they're better off without him. Which I don't see happening.

Why is that? Boldin a more dominant player? Yes

Less off-field issues? Yes

Any less of an injury risk? Coin flip

I think Marshall could be as dominant as Boldin with the right QB, but Boldin is more likely to produce with a lesser QB. No stats to back that up, just something I get when I watch their games. The only advantage Marshall has right now is age.

 

[fatness]

well Brandon Lloyd was signed so at least they've got it covered if they trade Marshall

lmao, sorry bronco fans but that's funny

More on Brandon Lloyd

In the latest proof of a sucker being born every minute, first-year Broncos coach Josh McDaniels has decided to spoil his locker room chemistry by signing receiver Brandon "Laryngitis" Lloyd.

The moody, unproductive receiver was arguably the biggest bust of the Redskins' post-Jeff George era. Transfixed by Lloyd's athleticism, Dan Snyder, Vinny Cerrato and Joe Gibbs traded for him in 2006 without seemingly checking with anyone in San Francisco who could've told the Redskins' brass that he had no work ethic and was hated by his teammates, coaches and the media that covered the 49ers.

The same scenario soon unfolded in Washington, which dumped him after two worthless seasons during which he never scored a touchdown.

Lloyd, who turns 28 next month, sort of resuscitated his career last year in Chicago under offensive coordinator Ron Turner, his coach at Illinois, with 26 catches for 364 yards and two touchdowns in 11 games.

Lloyd once excused his poor play during the Redskins' ugly 2006 season by saying he played better for winners. Trouble is that he has never played for one during his seven NFL season. And with his addition, the Broncos have sealed another season out of the playoffs.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I'd take Marshall over Plax or Edwards, he is more talented than either. But when Boldin is supposedly available for the same or less price, Marshall isn't going anywhere unless the Broncs decide they're better off without him. Which I don't see happening.

Why is that? Boldin a more dominant player? Yes

Less off-field issues? Yes

Any less of an injury risk? Coin flip

I think Marshall could be as dominant as Boldin with the right QB, but Boldin is more likely to produce with a lesser QB. No stats to back that up, just something I get when I watch their games. The only advantage Marshall has right now is age.

I agree, but Marshall's steadfast committment to knuckleheadness takes away the age difference. He also had off season hip surgery, so the health comp tips to Boldin.

 

[FUBAR]

I'd take Marshall over Plax or Edwards, he is more talented than either. But when Boldin is supposedly available for the same or less price, Marshall isn't going anywhere unless the Broncs decide they're better off without him. Which I don't see happening.

Why is that? Boldin a more dominant player? Yes

Less off-field issues? Yes

Any less of an injury risk? Coin flip

I think Marshall could be as dominant as Boldin with the right QB, but Boldin is more likely to produce with a lesser QB. No stats to back that up, just something I get when I watch their games. The only advantage Marshall has right now is age.

I agree, but Marshall's steadfast committment to knuckleheadness takes away the age difference. He also had off season hip surgery, so the health comp tips to Boldin.

I agree, age matters less than "expected time left as a valuable player"

 

[moleculo]

well Brandon Lloyd was signed so at least they've got it covered if they trade Marshall

lmao, sorry bronco fans but that's funny

More on Brandon Lloyd

In the latest proof of a sucker being born every minute, first-year Broncos coach Josh McDaniels has decided to spoil his locker room chemistry by signing receiver Brandon "Laryngitis" Lloyd.

The moody, unproductive receiver was arguably the biggest bust of the Redskins' post-Jeff George era. Transfixed by Lloyd's athleticism, Dan Snyder, Vinny Cerrato and Joe Gibbs traded for him in 2006 without seemingly checking with anyone in San Francisco who could've told the Redskins' brass that he had no work ethic and was hated by his teammates, coaches and the media that covered the 49ers.

The same scenario soon unfolded in Washington, which dumped him after two worthless seasons during which he never scored a touchdown.

Lloyd, who turns 28 next month, sort of resuscitated his career last year in Chicago under offensive coordinator Ron Turner, his coach at Illinois, with 26 catches for 364 yards and two touchdowns in 11 games.

Lloyd once excused his poor play during the Redskins' ugly 2006 season by saying he played better for winners. Trouble is that he has never played for one during his seven NFL season. And with his addition, the Broncos have sealed another season out of the playoffs.

spot on. Signing of Brandon Lloyd is exactly why the Broncos will miss the playoffs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

if you saw the Broncos-Browns Thursday night game last year, you'd realize that with this trade request Brandon Marshall is just being a good lil brownshirt. contracts don't matter now that the kenyan commie is running the country. look at the GM bondholders, they got wiped out!!! or AIG contractually-obligated performance bonuses... LOL contracts

We do politics in the FFA forum. Please keep this forum to just NFL. Thanks.J

 

[TheFanatic]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

if you saw the Broncos-Browns Thursday night game last year, you'd realize that with this trade request Brandon Marshall is just being a good lil brownshirt. contracts don't matter now that the kenyan commie is running the country. look at the GM bondholders, they got wiped out!!! or AIG contractually-obligated performance bonuses... LOL contracts

We do politics in the FFA forum. Please keep this forum to just NFL. Thanks.J

No mention of the Shtick being too over the top, even for the FFA?

 

[3nOut]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

I believe NFL contracts are worth as much as the owner/GM does, which is not worth the paper they're written on. A team can get rid of a player at any time (with penalty, sometimes); why can't the player have the same flexibility?

I think people would be better off if they consider the bonus to be the 'contract' and the contract as a bonus. Players can't expect a huge signing bonus AND to get their contract modeified halfway gthrough the deal. I doubt any player would not like a contract that gave them 99.9% pof their money as an upfront bonus. For example, would you prefer a five year deal that gives $3 million a year with a $5 million bonus ($20 million total) or $3.9 million per year and a $500,000 bonus (also $20 million)? Of course you'd take that money up front. That said, what if the offer was a $20 million bonus but the salary was $1 (yes, one dollar) a year? Do they have the right to complain that they are grossly underpaid after taking the $20 million?

 

[shredhead]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

I believe NFL contracts are worth as much as the owner/GM does, which is not worth the paper they're written on. A team can get rid of a player at any time (with penalty, sometimes); why can't the player have the same flexibility?

I think people would be better off if they consider the bonus to be the 'contract' and the contract as a bonus. Players can't expect a huge signing bonus AND to get their contract modeified halfway gthrough the deal. I doubt any player would not like a contract that gave them 99.9% pof their money as an upfront bonus. For example, would you prefer a five year deal that gives $3 million a year with a $5 million bonus ($20 million total) or $3.9 million per year and a $500,000 bonus (also $20 million)? Of course you'd take that money up front. That said, what if the offer was a $20 million bonus but the salary was $1 (yes, one dollar) a year? Do they have the right to complain that they are grossly underpaid after taking the $20 million?

$20,000,005>$20,000,000

 

[shredhead]

well Brandon Lloyd was signed so at least they've got it covered if they trade Marshall

lmao, sorry bronco fans but that's funny

More on Brandon Lloyd

In the latest proof of a sucker being born every minute, first-year Broncos coach Josh McDaniels has decided to spoil his locker room chemistry by signing receiver Brandon "Laryngitis" Lloyd.

The moody, unproductive receiver was arguably the biggest bust of the Redskins' post-Jeff George era. Transfixed by Lloyd's athleticism, Dan Snyder, Vinny Cerrato and Joe Gibbs traded for him in 2006 without seemingly checking with anyone in San Francisco who could've told the Redskins' brass that he had no work ethic and was hated by his teammates, coaches and the media that covered the 49ers.

The same scenario soon unfolded in Washington, which dumped him after two worthless seasons during which he never scored a touchdown.

Lloyd, who turns 28 next month, sort of resuscitated his career last year in Chicago under offensive coordinator Ron Turner, his coach at Illinois, with 26 catches for 364 yards and two touchdowns in 11 games.

Lloyd once excused his poor play during the Redskins' ugly 2006 season by saying he played better for winners. Trouble is that he has never played for one during his seven NFL season. And with his addition, the Broncos have sealed another season out of the playoffs.

spot on. Signing of Brandon Lloyd is exactly why the Broncos will miss the playoffs.

 

[Donnybrook]

<H1 class=m5b>From Pro Football Weekly

Broncos have leverage in Marshall stalemate Posted June 20, 2009 @ 11:20 a.m.By Dan ParrWhile it appears WR Brandon Marshall and the Broncos have come to a stalemate, with each side holding its ground as the team avoids giving in to Marshall's trade demand, sources say a trade is still possible if the team receives an offer to its liking. The problem is that few teams will be willing to put together an enticing package for Marshall, who is coming off hip surgery, has a history of off-field legal issues, which resulted in him being suspended for the first game of last season, and is demanding a lucrative long-term contract, even though he'll be a restricted free agent in 2010 if the league goes to an uncapped year. Marshall already has said goodbye to the team and its fans in a blog post on his Web site, but he has little leverage over the Broncos and most likely will remain in Denver, despite his best efforts to leave.

I am going to be interesting to see who makes out better in their contract negotions: Marshall or Jennings. Jennings is taking the opposite approach by vowing not to be a distraction to the team in his negotions for a new contract. Im my experience, sqeaky wheels are usually the ones that get grease. </H1>

 

[corpcow]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

... not when the owners have the ability to terminate a contract at any point for any reason.The fact is, most NFL contracts are back-loaded. When people gave #### to TO for holding out on his 7 yr/49m contract in Philly, something like $30m came in the last 2 yrs of the contract which obviously he was never going to see. So, it's great to throw around terms like the "sanctity of contracts", and yes, the owners have clauses in the contract which allow them to terminate as I said, but I have a hard time feeling bad for the owners or teams when players hold out given the contractual dynamics in the NFL. (And please don't play the "players are overpaid and should quit whining" card either - they are nothing compared to wealthy owners, and given the short shelf-life for most NFL careers I don't fault them for trying to maximize their salary during that limited window).

 

[Pip's Invitation]

If Roy Williams can get a 1st and 3rd half way through the season than Brandon Marshall should get the same thing (younger and better) despite his off the field problems..

The Roy deal is going to screw up WR trade negotiations for a long time. The Cowboys way overpaid, so other teams with disgruntled talented WRs are going to try to get their potential trading partners to overpay too. Eventually everyone will come to realize that that deal was an outlier that can't be used as a comparison, but the market has to play out for a while before that conclusion is made.

 

[3nOut]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

... not when the owners have the ability to terminate a contract at any point for any reason.The fact is, most NFL contracts are back-loaded. When people gave #### to TO for holding out on his 7 yr/49m contract in Philly, something like $30m came in the last 2 yrs of the contract which obviously he was never going to see. So, it's great to throw around terms like the "sanctity of contracts", and yes, the owners have clauses in the contract which allow them to terminate as I said, but I have a hard time feeling bad for the owners or teams when players hold out given the contractual dynamics in the NFL. (And please don't play the "players are overpaid and should quit whining" card either - they are nothing compared to wealthy owners, and given the short shelf-life for most NFL careers I don't fault them for trying to maximize their salary during that limited window).

Again, stop thinking of the contract as the contract, but instead the BONUS as the contract.How much was TO's signing bonus? If TO knew that he would never see the last two years of his contract he should never have signed it, and not agreed to the signing bonus. Would he have been happier if there was no bonus but he got to his last 2 years? I'm not so sure becuase by that time he would consider himself underpaid compared to other receivers in the league.ETA: TO's bonus was $10 million.

 

[thayman]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".

On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

... not when the owners have the ability to terminate a contract at any point for any reason.The fact is, most NFL contracts are back-loaded. When people gave #### to TO for holding out on his 7 yr/49m contract in Philly, something like $30m came in the last 2 yrs of the contract which obviously he was never going to see.

So, it's great to throw around terms like the "sanctity of contracts", and yes, the owners have clauses in the contract which allow them to terminate as I said, but I have a hard time feeling bad for the owners or teams when players hold out given the contractual dynamics in the NFL. (And please don't play the "players are overpaid and should quit whining" card either - they are nothing compared to wealthy owners, and given the short shelf-life for most NFL careers I don't fault them for trying to maximize their salary during that limited window).

Again, stop thinking of the contract as the contract, but instead the BONUS as the contract.How much was TO's signing bonus? If TO knew that he would never see the last two years of his contract he should never have signed it, and not agreed to the signing bonus. Would he have been happier if there was no bonus but he got to his last 2 years? I'm not so sure becuase by that time he would consider himself underpaid compared to other receivers in the league.

ETA: TO's bonus was $10 million.

Why people can't understand this I'll never know.

 

[corpcow]

On one hand, the players shouldn't be treated like slaves, regardless of what the NFL contract says. If a player wants out, so be it, he shouldn't be "owned".

On the other hand, there are better ways of going about this(spouting off to the media). And the player should expect a significant hit to the wallet/negative PR hit for a year or two as a "penalty", per se.

you don't believe in the sanctity of contracts?

... not when the owners have the ability to terminate a contract at any point for any reason.The fact is, most NFL contracts are back-loaded. When people gave #### to TO for holding out on his 7 yr/49m contract in Philly, something like $30m came in the last 2 yrs of the contract which obviously he was never going to see.

So, it's great to throw around terms like the "sanctity of contracts", and yes, the owners have clauses in the contract which allow them to terminate as I said, but I have a hard time feeling bad for the owners or teams when players hold out given the contractual dynamics in the NFL. (And please don't play the "players are overpaid and should quit whining" card either - they are nothing compared to wealthy owners, and given the short shelf-life for most NFL careers I don't fault them for trying to maximize their salary during that limited window).

Again, stop thinking of the contract as the contract, but instead the BONUS as the contract.How much was TO's signing bonus? If TO knew that he would never see the last two years of his contract he should never have signed it, and not agreed to the signing bonus. Would he have been happier if there was no bonus but he got to his last 2 years? I'm not so sure becuase by that time he would consider himself underpaid compared to other receivers in the league.

ETA: TO's bonus was $10 million.

Why people can't understand this I'll never know.

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

 

[massraider]

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

Exactly.No one complains when their team cuts old vets that are under contract but aren't performing.

 

[obxlegends]

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

Exactly.No one complains when their team cuts old vets that are under contract but aren't performing.

... or better yet, are preforming.

 

[massraider]

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

Exactly.No one complains when their team cuts old vets that are under contract but aren't performing.

... or better yet, are preforming.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[obxlegends]

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

Exactly.No one complains when their team cuts old vets that are under contract but aren't performing.

... or better yet, are preforming.

I have no idea what that means.

**Spelling error in previous post. Meant to say "performing."It means teams cut vets who are performing for purely salary cap implications. So they are not abiding by the contracts and it's worse because it's 100% about money not performance.

 

[thayman]

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

So you'd rather see contracts like the NBA in the NFL?

 

[jesseasi]

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

So you'd rather see contracts like the NBA in the NFL?

For sure not. Guaranteed contracts are what have ruined MLB in my eyes. I have no problem with players breaking their contracts and holding out for more money when they feel they deserve it. Teams / Owners break contracts all the time and never fulfill their agreed obligation in the contract to pay players the money they signed for. And owners don't do this solely based on performance - they do it because of injuries, age, economic conditions, salary cap, off the field issues, and whatever else they can think of. For some reason teams and owners are shielded from any bad press when they cut players. The NFL is truly the closest thing to being paid based on performance that there is. Guy has a terrific year - they hold out - they get their pay day. Guy has a horrible year - they get cut. The only money that is guaranteed to the player is the signing bonus. And with recent players and events (Stallworth, Plaxico, Vick, Ricky Williams) - even that money isn't guaranteed. The new trend in the NFL is to back and get that signing bonus money back. I have no problem with players holding out - just as I have no problem with teams cutting players. Its good for the NFL. The NFL seems just fine and dandy right now - the NFL seems impervious to all the screw-ups that are in the league.

 

[SuperJohn96]

If Roy Williams can get a 1st and 3rd half way through the season than Brandon Marshall should get the same thing (younger and better) despite his off the field problems..

The Roy deal is going to screw up WR trade negotiations for a long time. The Cowboys way overpaid, so other teams with disgruntled talented WRs are going to try to get their potential trading partners to overpay too. Eventually everyone will come to realize that that deal was an outlier that can't be used as a comparison, but the market has to play out for a while before that conclusion is made.

I'm not so sure that was an outlier.Didn't the Bengals turn down two 1sts from the Jets for Chad Johnson? Or was that simply speculation.

ETA: Looks like it was the Redskins.

 

[TheFanatic]

This debate comes up about 3 dozen times a year here. Can we get back to BM news and take this debate elsewhere? Maybe a specific thread devoted to that? Not trying to be a doosh, but every time I see new posts in this I check in to see news about BM only to see the old debate about a contract being or not being a contract getting rehashed for about the billionth time...

 

[twistd]

If Roy Williams can get a 1st and 3rd half way through the season than Brandon Marshall should get the same thing (younger and better) despite his off the field problems..

The Roy deal is going to screw up WR trade negotiations for a long time. The Cowboys way overpaid, so other teams with disgruntled talented WRs are going to try to get their potential trading partners to overpay too. Eventually everyone will come to realize that that deal was an outlier that can't be used as a comparison, but the market has to play out for a while before that conclusion is made.

I agree that Dallas overpaid, and that it will have an impact on other negotiations. But I wonder how much impact this will have. If you remember that Dallas was the team that gave up two #1s for Joey Galloway in 2000. They really overpaid, but it didn't seem to have much impact over time. I also think that this will have more impact if Roy Williams plays well. I don't think that is a given. Galloway never had a 1000 yard season as a Cowboy. I am not sure that Williams will either. I think Williams is hugely over-rated.

 

[massraider]

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

So you'd rather see contracts like the NBA in the NFL?

How did you get that from what he said?

 

[Winning IS Everything]

This debate comes up about 3 dozen times a year here. Can we get back to BM news and take this debate elsewhere? Maybe a specific thread devoted to that? Not trying to be a doosh, but every time I see new posts in this I check in to see news about BM only to see the old debate about a contract being or not being a contract getting rehashed for about the billionth time...

I was just coming here to say the same thing.

 

[Max Power]

not real news but...

After passing on a chance to lobby for Brandon Marshall last week, Jay Cutler now sounds like he would be interested in reuniting with his former teammate.

"I played with Brandon for three years and I think he's one of the best receivers in the NFL," Cutler said. "I think he can be one of the greatest ever to play." Asked about a possible trade for Marshall, Cutler played the loyal soldier: "That's up to the guys upstairs. If we make a run at him, we make a run at him."

Source: Newport News Daily Press

 

[iSnitch]

not real news but...After passing on a chance to lobby for Brandon Marshall last week, Jay Cutler now sounds like he would be interested in reuniting with his former teammate."I played with Brandon for three years and I think he's one of the best receivers in the NFL," Cutler said. "I think he can be one of the greatest ever to play." Asked about a possible trade for Marshall, Cutler played the loyal soldier: "That's up to the guys upstairs. If we make a run at him, we make a run at him."Source: Newport News Daily Press

Non news. Of course he would love to play with the guy but I don't see how Chicago could afford him.

 

[msommer]

not real news but...After passing on a chance to lobby for Brandon Marshall last week, Jay Cutler now sounds like he would be interested in reuniting with his former teammate."I played with Brandon for three years and I think he's one of the best receivers in the NFL," Cutler said. "I think he can be one of the greatest ever to play." Asked about a possible trade for Marshall, Cutler played the loyal soldier: "That's up to the guys upstairs. If we make a run at him, we make a run at him."Source: Newport News Daily Press

Non news. Of course he would love to play with the guy but I don't see how Chicago could afford him.

I'd respect Cutler's statement a whole lot more if he was already like Brady, Warner or Favre or any other veteran that have actaully played with more than one WR corps (Brady counts because of the turnover lately in NE).

 

[massraider]

The team asked the players to not say they were happy for Marshall (after he was acquitted)? <_<

Seriously, if you were running a team, and were trying to alienate your best offensive players, what would you have done different than the Broncos this year?

 

[corpcow]

Clearly - that's why the guaranteed money is so important. That wasn't the issue though... I'm just trying to point out the double standard. If you're not going to hold it against th owner/team when they "break" the contract, you shouldn't hold it against the player either. Either the contract is sacred or it isn't...

So you'd rather see contracts like the NBA in the NFL?

I never said that. All I said is that the contracts are not guaranteed and can be broken by the owners, and therefore I don't - and others shouldn't - hold players accountable for the "sanctity of the contract".

 

[datonn]

[sigmund bloom] EEEEEEEEEEEEEE. [/sigmund bloom]

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

his value only goes up if he's traded.

 

[CBower4545]

Why was this thread bumped? Is there anything new suggesting he will be traded soon?