Marshall to Seattle...? (1 Viewer)

[n20]

Schefter added that Seattle holds the cards because if he's available for the 6th overall now then he will be April 22nd as well so they have time to figure out what they're going to do next. An interesting part of the discussion was that if Seattle only wanted to move their later 1st then they could acquire Marshall for the #6 and then get the #6 back for #14 overall in another trade to get around NFL rules.

I have seen this mentioned here and there, that Marshall could not be traded for the 14th pick.Is this correct?

I had been under the impression that he could be traded for anything, straight up, but that Seattle could not sign him to an unmatched tender, and acquire him via restricted free agency, surrendering their #6 instead of their #14 pick.

There's a big difference between acquiring a player via restricted free agency and trading for a player. Though Denver may not officially be looking to trade him, I'd think they'd be open to offers. Are they not allowed to negotiate a trade on a player with a RFA tag?

If Seattle signs the RFA offer sheet, then it has to be the team's orginal pick (i.e. the 6th pick). I am confused about Schefter's comment though, because if Denver was willing to just accept the 14th pick, then just strike up a trade and avoid going through the offer sheet shenanigans and then trading the 14th for 6th pick.

Denver can negotiate a trade with a team but they don't have to; they can just sit pat and take whatever 1st they want or have Marshall back. I'm sure Denver would love to make a trade for 14 overall and avoid all shenanigans but the ball is in Seattle's court not theirs. Does Seattle want to make a trade? That's the question.Schefter's point was that if Seattle wants Marshall right now, today for 14 overall they can make it happen by signing Marshall to a deal, having Denver refuse to match it and then giving Denver their 6 overall pick... then they would make a trade with Denver to swap 6 and 14. The league requires that when you sign a tendered player you must trade the original pick you have in that round. In this case it would be the 6th pick so very simply, the trade would could look something like this:

Marshall to Seattle for the 6th pick to Denver.

Seattle trades 14 overall and their 7th rounder to Denver for 6 overall and Denver's 7th rounder. Something like that.

It's not against league rules to trade picks but it is against the rules to compensate Denver with 14 instead of 6 right off the bat. Seattle might go through Schefter's scenario is that if they catch wind that another team is about to sign Marshall to a long term deal and they decide to pull the trigger for pick 14 overall then they can do it, that's all Schefter, Pat Kirwan and Tim Ryan were trying to say.

Bottom line is it's up to any team looking at Marshall to decide if they want to give up a 1st and that Schefter "whole heartedly believes" he will not go for less.

My question is this: if I'm a GM of a team that wants Marshall why not make a trade with New Orleans to move back to 31 overall, pick up something along the way (like a decent back up or a 3rd round pick) and then sign Marshall to an offer sending 31 overall to Denver?

There is a risk to doing it that way. Some other team with a higher draft pick might sign Marshall to an offer sheet as well or the Broncos could match the offer. Then you're stuck with the #31 overall pick and no Brandon Marshall.

Touché

 

[Topes]

Schefter added that Seattle holds the cards because if he's available for the 6th overall now then he will be April 22nd as well so they have time to figure out what they're going to do next. An interesting part of the discussion was that if Seattle only wanted to move their later 1st then they could acquire Marshall for the #6 and then get the #6 back for #14 overall in another trade to get around NFL rules.

I have seen this mentioned here and there, that Marshall could not be traded for the 14th pick.Is this correct?

I had been under the impression that he could be traded for anything, straight up, but that Seattle could not sign him to an unmatched tender, and acquire him via restricted free agency, surrendering their #6 instead of their #14 pick.

There's a big difference between acquiring a player via restricted free agency and trading for a player. Though Denver may not officially be looking to trade him, I'd think they'd be open to offers. Are they not allowed to negotiate a trade on a player with a RFA tag?

If Seattle signs the RFA offer sheet, then it has to be the team's orginal pick (i.e. the 6th pick). I am confused about Schefter's comment though, because if Denver was willing to just accept the 14th pick, then just strike up a trade and avoid going through the offer sheet shenanigans and then trading the 14th for 6th pick.

Denver can negotiate a trade with a team but they don't have to; they can just sit pat and take whatever 1st they want or have Marshall back. I'm sure Denver would love to make a trade for 14 overall and avoid all shenanigans but the ball is in Seattle's court not theirs. Does Seattle want to make a trade? That's the question.Schefter's point was that if Seattle wants Marshall right now, today for 14 overall they can make it happen by signing Marshall to a deal, having Denver refuse to match it and then giving Denver their 6 overall pick... then they would make a trade with Denver to swap 6 and 14. The league requires that when you sign a tendered player you must trade the original pick you have in that round. In this case it would be the 6th pick so very simply, the trade would could look something like this:

Marshall to Seattle for the 6th pick to Denver.

Seattle trades 14 overall and their 7th rounder to Denver for 6 overall and Denver's 7th rounder. Something like that.

It's not against league rules to trade picks but it is against the rules to compensate Denver with 14 instead of 6 right off the bat. Seattle might go through Schefter's scenario is that if they catch wind that another team is about to sign Marshall to a long term deal and they decide to pull the trigger for pick 14 overall then they can do it, that's all Schefter, Pat Kirwan and Tim Ryan were trying to say.

Bottom line is it's up to any team looking at Marshall to decide if they want to give up a 1st and that Schefter "whole heartedly believes" he will not go for less.

My question is this: if I'm a GM of a team that wants Marshall why not make a trade with New Orleans to move back to 31 overall, pick up something along the way (like a decent back up or a 3rd round pick) and then sign Marshall to an offer sending 31 overall to Denver?

But this scenario ONLY works if Denver is then willing to trade down from 6 to 14, and get next-to-nothing in return.

This scenario would require that Denver want to do that, and let Seattle know so in advance. Otherwise, Seattle would surrender (not trade) the #6 overall to Denver after Denver declined to match. Then, when Seattles asked about,you know, maybe drading back up to the #6 from the #14, Denver could tell them to go screw.

So, the RFA-Sign-And-Pick-Trade scenario requires that Seattle and Denver agree to exchange Marshall for the #14 overall.

IF that is the case, why wouldn't Seattle and Denver simply trade Marshall for the #14 ???

Is it that Seattle could only negotiate and extension in the RFA scenario and not in the trade scenario? That would make sense.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

My question is this: if I'm a GM of a team that wants Marshall why not make a trade with New Orleans to move back to 31 overall, pick up something along the way (like a decent back up or a 3rd round pick) and then sign Marshall to an offer sending 31 overall to Denver?

If an offer sheet is signed, it has to be for a team's orginal pick, so that wouldn't work.

 

[Topes]

If Seattle signs the RFA offer sheet, then it has to be the team's orginal pick (i.e. the 6th pick).

It's not against league rules to trade picks but it is against the rules to compensate Denver with 14 instead of 6 right off the bat. Seattle might go through Schefter's scenario is that if they catch wind that another team is about to sign Marshall to a long term deal and they decide to pull the trigger for pick 14 overall then they can do it, that's all Schefter, Pat Kirwan and Tim Ryan were trying to say. Bottom line is it's up to any team looking at Marshall to decide if they want to give up a 1st and that Schefter "whole heartedly believes" he will not go for less.

My question is this: if I'm a GM of a team that wants Marshall why not make a trade with New Orleans to move back to 31 overall, pick up something along the way (like a decent back up or a 3rd round pick) and then sign Marshall to an offer sending 31 overall to Denver?

Because the 31 would not be that team's original first rounder.Also, New Orleans does not have the #31. Mainly it were so.

Now, the NFL RFA rules are especially restrictive on the 8 Divisional Round Teams this year, so this might not be possible, BUT perhaps NO could surrender the #32 for the rights to Marshall,a nd then trade the rights to Marshall.

BUT, for such a scenario to work, the team acquiring Marshall from NO would likely need to have a deal arranged ahead of time. Not sure if that's even likely, if allowed.

In a world where RFAs are worth more than their tender AND the special-restrictive-uncapped-year-rules are not in place, the lower draft picks have more value than the higher ones int he RFA market.

BUT, RFA tenders are usually set at a higher value than the player's trade value. Thus, RFAs are not often signed by other teams for their tender amounts.

Brandon Marshall is a different story. I could see him being worth a low first-rounder. The market is weird. I know the Boldin argument. Marshall is better than Boldin. Boldin is a very, very good WR. Marshall is likely a very special WR. (I'd love to see him in Dallas for the #23, paired with Austin.)

 

[az_prof]

Denver claiming that they will not trade Marshall and that who wants him will need to offer the first round tender is smoke and mirrors. They are going to hang onto Marshall when the HC benched him for the last game over an injury disagreement? And they know that he will not sign if they keep him so basically they will be keeping a guy who has value now, but a guy that they don't like, and they know if they keep him they will get nothing for him later?

Hmmmmm. Me thinks she doth protest too much. Denver is trying to put up a front so that either a team does spend a high first round tender OR they come offering more than they might have otherwise. I am banking on the latter.

 

[Buffaloes]

Denver claiming that they will not trade Marshall and that who wants him will need to offer the first round tender is smoke and mirrors. They are going to hang onto Marshall when the HC benched him for the last game over an injury disagreement? And they know that he will not sign if they keep him so basically they will be keeping a guy who has value now, but a guy that they don't like, and they know if they keep him they will get nothing for him later?

Hmmmmm. Me thinks she doth protest too much. Denver is trying to put up a front so that either a team does spend a high first round tender OR they come offering more than they might have otherwise. I am banking on the latter.

I remember threads last preseason with posters saying no way Denver hangs on to him after what he pulled in training camp (punting balls, punching balls, hehe, slacking off, etc....). He went on to be the best skill position player on the team and caught his 100 balls again. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he's traded this year. They have him on the cheap right now.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

NFL Notes: Seattle Weighing Brandon Marshall Conundrum3CommentsSay Something »3/10/2010 10:30 AM ET By Chris HarryPrintAText SizeE-mail MoreChris HarryChris Harry is a Senior NFL Writer and features writer for Fanhouse.When the Denver Broncos attached a first-round tender to Brandon Marshall (and not the more expensive first- and third-round compensation price), they basically were announcing to the rest of league, "Come and get him!" Considering the number of Round 1 receivers that have been busts, a first-round draft choice to avoid investments (both organizational and financial) like David Terrell, Charles Rogers, Mike Williams, Reggie Williams, Michael Clayton and Troy Williamson seems beyond reasonable. Especially for a player with three straight 100-catch seasons -- which is nearly 100 more than the aforementioned dirty half-dozen, all high first-round selections, have combined for the last three years. The front offices of established teams that have a need at receiver and are picking late in the first round -- Cincinnati, Dallas, Baltimore or the New York Jets, for a example -- should be having the Marshall discussion. But they're talking about some statistics that don't appear on the back of Marshall's football card, also. Namely his track record as a malcontent has been well-documented in sports sections and highlights shows. And his track record for arrests on disorderly conduct, drunken driving and domestic violence issues (with two different women, by the way) have been well documented by the authorities. This risk-reward with Marshall is something teams, specifically the Seattle Seahawks, are toying with right now. The Seahawks have two first-round picks, the sixth and 14th, in the April 22 draft and they need a big-time wideout. Signing Marshall, who turns 26 this month, to an RFA offer sheet would require surrendering that sixth choice, but the Broncos might be willing to talk about a deal for the 14th (which was theirs to begin with, by the way); maybe even less. New Seattle head coach Pete Carroll, who has a reputation for dealing well with players, might provide the kind of environment conducive to keeping Marshall reigned in. The Seahawks, though, don't figure to be very good next season, and divas like Marshall don't handle losing very well. So standing pat and getting a receiver high in the draft is certainly an option. Take last year's highly touted rookie wideouts. There's got to be another a Darrius Heyward-Bey or Michael Crabtree waiting, right?

 

[az_prof]

Denver claiming that they will not trade Marshall and that who wants him will need to offer the first round tender is smoke and mirrors. They are going to hang onto Marshall when the HC benched him for the last game over an injury disagreement? And they know that he will not sign if they keep him so basically they will be keeping a guy who has value now, but a guy that they don't like, and they know if they keep him they will get nothing for him later?

Hmmmmm. Me thinks she doth protest too much. Denver is trying to put up a front so that either a team does spend a high first round tender OR they come offering more than they might have otherwise. I am banking on the latter.

I remember threads last preseason with posters saying no way Denver hangs on to him after what he pulled in training camp (punting balls, punching balls, hehe, slacking off, etc....). He went on to be the best skill position player on the team and caught his 100 balls again. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he's traded this year. They have him on the cheap right now.

Two things have changed since then:1) his contract is a year closer to being over--leaving him free and clear and Denver with nothing to show for it.

2) last season and the end of year debacle. A new HC and a star player not getting along is not unusual, but if they can't work it out then one of the two goes. They didn't work it out.

 

[Topes]

Two things have changed since then:

1) his contract is a year closer to being over--leaving him free and clear and Denver with nothing to show for it.

2) last season and the end of year debacle. A new HC and a star player not getting along is not unusual, but if they can't work it out then one of the two goes. They didn't work it out.

1) Franchise tag. Transition tag. 2) "if they can't work it out then one of the two goes" ...eventually. But, eventually, every head coach and every star player goes. No reason to suppose these two can't reach another detente.

 

[Buffaloes]

Two things have changed since then:

1) his contract is a year closer to being over--leaving him free and clear and Denver with nothing to show for it.

2) last season and the end of year debacle. A new HC and a star player not getting along is not unusual, but if they can't work it out then one of the two goes. They didn't work it out.

1) Franchise tag. Transition tag. 2) "if they can't work it out then one of the two goes" ...eventually. But, eventually, every head coach and every star player goes. No reason to suppose these two can't reach another detente.

Agreed...and all I'm saying is most people assumed there was NO WAY Marshall played in Denver last year after what happened in training camp and after he was suspended for virtually the entire preseason. Now we are hearing there is NO WAY he's with Denver after he was benched for the week 17 game. I'd rather just wait and see...