Building blocks

by BroncoCUbuffs on Nov 30, 2009 7:41 PM MST

After reading a recent quote by Marshall I found myself thinking in terms not of this year's playoffs but acquiring the building blocks of a Super Bowl contender. The curiosity is what will Marshall's trade value be if he continues producing at the level he currently is and do we even want to trade him? If we can get a top flight defensive player and a reasonably high pick, say 2nd or 3rd rounder would that be a reasonable trade? Better yet, a 1st round pick and a starting DT?

Winning games on emotion may be workable in the regular season but you better have the horses in the post season. In other words, we're a few horses short of a top flight team and are unlikely to go deep into the playoffs. Rather than pay the big bucks to a man defined by question marks I'd say trade Marshall and spend the savings on free agency pickups.

I know, I know, we're still in the regular season and in the playoff hunt but it's never too early to lay the ground work for building a solid team. In the mean time I'm enjoying the demise of the Chicago Bears and the portent of getting a top ten pick next year as well as the thought of going into KC and kicking some royal butt this Sunday.

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Lets see what Chicago has left

by Flunkie on Nov 30, 2009 8:27 PM MST reply actions

hmmmmmm

I’m not so sure. The draft is still unpredictable and I think that a receiver like Beast is hard to come by. I say we keep him unless someone throws their roster at us.

If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.

by Troy Hufford on Nov 30, 2009 8:41 PM MST reply actions

Agree and we really don't have to give him a new contract next year. Right?

It’s just a business.

by bfree2bronc on Nov 30, 2009 8:53 PM MST up reply actions

I mean, we could slap the tag on him. It's doable.

If we really want him around, we should give him a contract, though. We all know how fussy he can be if we don’t pay him. I say we either trade him or sign him. I’d rather sign him, though. That’s just me. Maybe McD and X have plans. We’ll see.

If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.

by Troy Hufford on Nov 30, 2009 9:13 PM MST up reply actions

If we trade Marshall, who becomes our new #1 WR?

A 1st round draft pick? Gaffney? McKinley? Sign an UFA like Antonio Bryant? Seriously. Who?

Even a good player like Royal is proving he is not a true #1 WR this season. Eddie is best suited for the slot.

We trade Brandon and all of a sudden, you open up a huge hole on our roster. Such a move would likely make us worse, not better. This post is not rec’d from me.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 30, 2009 9:48 PM MST reply actions 1 recs

I'm in agreement here

as long as Marshall actually wants to be in Denver. If he doesn’t, he’ll drive the asking price sky-high, and as much of a hole as it would cause not to have him, it would cause a bigger hole team-wide to have so much of our cap space tied up with one player.

I’m 100% for resigning Marshall, provided he is reasonable in his negotiations. If he isn’t, I’m very much OK with seeing what McD can do with a so-so roster in 2010 (look at what he’s done so far in 2009) and having a killer team in 2011.

"I only know as much about myself as my mind can work out under its current conditions. And its current conditions are not good." -- Zaphod Beeblebrox

by Sharpe as a Tack on Dec 2, 2009 11:21 AM MST up reply actions

deja vu

Didn’t we have these conversations in August? The reality is that we’ll have a few guys with expiring contracts. Orton, Doom and Marshall just to name a few. IMHO Marshall is a playmaker and we don’t seem to have very many on the roster right now. I read his quote too, but I’d like to see him stay a Bronco for a while. I also think the Bears will win more games this year and we’ll be happy to get a pick between 10 and 15. Finally, I’d love for them to beat KC, but we’re 1 and 16 at Arrowhead and they’ve shown they can beat ANYONE at home. We can’t overlook anyone and you may be right about the playoffs, but we are certainly on the right track!
Go Broncos!!

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
Martin Luther King Jr.

by sbsbroncofan on Nov 30, 2009 9:58 PM MST reply actions

marshall is a special player

he’s third in the NFL in receptions since 2007 behind welker and fitzgerald. That kind of a receiver does not come along every day.

I’d say the beast is definitely top 10 in the league right now, possibly top 5 in terms of players who are most dominant and have the most impact on the game from the WR position. Getting of Marshall would be getting rid of a very rare and special building block of a championship team.

Unless we draft a WR and get really lucky with him, trading Marshall probably hurts us more than it helps.

by bailey disciple on Dec 1, 2009 7:35 AM MST reply actions

It's hard to see enough benefit in getting rid of him

Regardless of off-the-field behavior, his on-field performance is not something I take lightly. What a bad-a$$, what more can you say?

Regarding the last line of the post…… I hope we kick some KC butt and Royal has a big part in it (or at least isn’t injured for the game – not to mention other injuries)

First team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! and then some, right? I think four and someone else oughtta have a 'fair' shot : )

by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Dec 1, 2009 12:09 PM MST reply actions

Tigers changing their stripes

Interesting comments all. It’s the little things that Marshall continues to exhibit that leave this troubling sense that it is his nature to make trouble for himself. Getting in Knowshown’s face, dogging it in the Ravens loss, quotes signifying a pay me or trade me mentality are all uncomfortable indicators of ongoing fundamental character issues. However much potential Marshall has the risk is too high, particularly when he taxes team coffers with something like a 60 mil contract. A top 10 pick from Chicago, a #1 and a starter from another team fills a lot more holes than the one left when Marshall leaves.

by BroncoCUbuffs on Dec 1, 2009 3:18 PM MST reply actions

I hear you

I’m still waiting for him to mature. As a good (ok, really good) player on my favorite team, he is valuable. But not to the detriment of the rest of the team.

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks

by KaptainKirk on Dec 1, 2009 4:32 PM MST up reply actions

Marshall trade?

I read alot about the decission to sign or trade Marshall. Since the CBA will not be signed before March 2010 (IMO) then Denver does not have to do anything. Marshall would become a restricted FA, meaning that Denver could match any offer or take draft pick compensation.
Are there any 2010 FA that Denver should sign? I say yes to Chris Kuper. Top quality OL should be kept in an excellent group with Clady and Harris.
Elvis Dumervil is a maybe, just because he is a pass rush specialist. If he developes well at run stuffing and outside pass coverage, then yes to a new contract.
Yes to Kyle Orton. Besides he will not break the bank. Remember he is the one that said all players are making enough money now.

by DLMyers on Dec 1, 2009 7:52 PM MST reply actions

Problem with Marshall as a "special player"

I agree that his raw talent is top-10 in the league. I agree that we could take 10 years and not hit on a WR of his caliber in the draft or FA. I agree that his on-field production this year has warranted a new contract.

Now that I’ve got the misunderstandings out of the way…

Like I say above, it all comes down to Marshall. If he truly wants to be here, he will be reasonable about his asking price. If he doesn’t, then he will run it high to compensate. If he does that and we franchise him, then we run the very real risk of this past offseason all over again— only worse. If we say “he is a special player” and then argue from that that we should do virtually everything in our power to sign him, we overlook what is likely to be the very high cost of signing him.

Scenario: Marshall doesn’t really want to be here, so he asks a high price from us. We pay it, because he is “special”. In 2010, it is an extremely high probability that he will not play all-out, which leaves us underacheiving and with a ton of cap space tied up in a player who is just collecting a check. Now the rest of our team is bad as well, since we couldn’t really pay for top-flight talent. Even in a best-case version of this where Marshall plays full-out after being paid, we are only slightly better off because the rest of our roster is still shoddy due to Marshall’s piece of the pie. If 2010 is an uncapped year, this logic follows just the same: Bowlen is quite probably strapped for cash, so replace “salary cap” with “Bowlen’s liquid assets” and you are still up chocolate creek.

It’s far too simplistic to say “We can’t afford to lose a player of his caliber — he’s special!” If he doesn’t really want to be here, we can’t afford TO sign him and could get much more by getting his value in return (i.e., high picks, a serviceable starter on another team, free cap space, etc.).

"I only know as much about myself as my mind can work out under its current conditions. And its current conditions are not good." -- Zaphod Beeblebrox

by Sharpe as a Tack on Dec 2, 2009 11:34 AM MST reply actions