Cost of a QB
Hello:
I was wondering what MHR feels the cost of signing the Broncos current QBs to long term contracts would be. Cutler might have been signed in the range similar to Phillis Rivers (to be 100 Million +) if Shanahan had still been the coach. I feel it wouldn't be a stretch to say Kyle O. and Simms would cost quite a bit less. Perhaps the potential large contract cost was another reason for the Cutler trade. Anyways, what type of long term contract do you think Kyle O. or Simms would get if they win the starting job and do well? I am guessing an eventual 4-6 year contract. A 2008 salary database is at USA Today. My guess is a 2 - 3 million year.
Do you feel that that range is probable?
Thanks
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
0 recs |
10 comments
Comments
Hard to say until after the Draft--McDaniels just might have his eye on QB.
Right now my guess would be that neither get a long term contract this year. Something might happen during the season if either Simms or Orton step up and prove highly effective in McDaniels offensive scheme.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Little, Wright, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
by Mike Clark on Apr 13, 2009 2:04 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think one of the two guys we picked up with be signed as a long term back-up
to whatever diamond in the rough QB that McXanders drafts in the later rounds. I could be wrong…probably wrong about that…trading up to get Mark Sanchez would destroy my faith in them though…
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
by Tim Lynch on Apr 13, 2009 2:50 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Mike Reilly.....I've seen him play a couple of times and he is really good
I know it was a division II school but Mike is really an accurate passer.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Little, Wright, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
by Mike Clark on Apr 13, 2009 3:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
re: Cutler's salary
I don’t think Cutler’s salary was a proximate cause of Bowlen’s decision to trade him but it was an important issue in the background.
I realize this is a contentious issue but I won’t engage in a ‘false framing’ of the issue. Cutler & Cook were undoubtedly looking at his salary possibilities, and the impetus for the trade came from C & C rather than the Broncos. I don’t doubt that the possibility of having a long, difficult contract negotiation involving Cook was in the back of Bowlen’s mind, but it was the immediate problem of having him engaging in what was essentially a holdout rather than impending negotiations that bought him a ticket out of town.
I don’t doubt that his future salary demands entered into the thinking on Cutler, but that’s a salary that a team can usually justify — as long as it’s not ridiculous. Ridiculousness is hardly out the question when Cook is involved, however.
The problem with the framing here is that it posits the Broncos trading Cutler as something they did to him, rather than vice versa. I would say that the Cook & Cutler strategy was successful at gaining what C & C wanted — a trade out of town. We’ll have to wait and see what Cutler is able to obtain as far as a contract renegotiation, if anything. Regardless, he will be up for a new contract in a few years, so we’ll have some measure of whether he truly was affordable.
I think salary was one issue in the McJay-gate issue but necessarily the dominant one, and for both sides. I don’t consider the complaints that Cutler directed at McDaniels can be taken at face value, but rather, they were part of Cook’s PR campaign, but I do think the change in coaching staff (particularly Bates) was an issue for Cutler. I also think changing offensive schemes was more threatening to Cutler than we realize.
by Colinski on Apr 13, 2009 3:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
If you believe the theory...
that Cutler-Cook had cut a deal with the previous regime (Shanahan/Sundquist/Goodmans) to re-structure his contract this year then the salary issue may have been much bigger to Jay. It may have been the elephant in the room that no one was mentioning.
There is little evidence that this was actually case, but it may have been a more immediate concern than the three years remaining would make it appear. We will probably never know for sure.
Keep Moving Forward.
by ColoradoOwl on Apr 13, 2009 3:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's possible
Stephan Fatsis tells us that:
Cook and Cutler wanted to renegotiate the quarterback’s six-year contract, which has three years left. The current deal included $15 million in guaranteed payments. Cutler was paid a $1.275 million roster bonus in 2006 and a $7.9 million option bonus in 2007. But his base salaries are, by Pro Bowl-quarterback standards, meager, and a $12 million performance bonus isn’t due until 2011.
Cutler and Cook had financial motives, but Cutler’s actual salary for 2008 was still $6,497,500 million, once incentives were added in. He certainly wasn’t poor, and the base salary number is quite misleading, although he stood to gain much more if he renegotiated. As Fatsis says:
Ted Sundquist, the Broncos’ general manager when I was with the team, told me at the time that, because of the large lump-sum, back-end payout, the contract would probably be restructured before it expires. He said Bus Cook also expected that to happen. Did Cutler and Cook manufacture their hurt feelings over McDaniels’s trade talks and the coach’s subsequent ineffectual spin in an effort to get a new contract now, or get to another city that would give them one? I don’t know. But they certainly saw an opening.
Such restructuring are common, especially for the Broncos, but the real question is whether money was an obstacle in Cutler’s relationship with the team. And it may have been, since there are a number of contracts expiring next year, which could have made it difficult to renegotiate with the team — although not impossible.
We can only speculate. What seems clear from my study of the issue is that there was an extremely credulous fan base willing to swallow the story that Cutler was somehow so offended by the fact that his name came up in trade talks that he could no longer work with McDaniels. This was a truly in-credible story, but watching news coverage last year of Green Bay fans booing Aaron Rodgers in camp gives you an idea of the potency of this form of psychological appeal. Nobody asked Favre to retire, and his un-retirement put management over a barrel cap-wise, but the fans’ anger was still directed at GB’s management and Rodgers, who’s only crime was being the backup QB and heir apparent.
The display of booing at Packer camp would not have been lost on Cook, so I don’t think there can be any doubt about whether Cutler’s behavior was an attempt to push that emotional button once again. Money was clearly one of the goals, but it may have only been incidental for Cutler, who probably would have been able to obtain a new contract whether he stayed or was traded. Cutler no longer had any attachment to the Broncos once Shanahan and Bates were gone, but he might have stayed for the right price. And positioning himself before his contract expired was important, but I get the impression he wouldn’t have been a holdout if Shanahan was still coach, so it wasn’t so much a ‘money for money’s sake’ objective as it was a money in lieu of making him happy in other ways. There’s a hint of a privileged son losing his privilege, and contract numbers were just the scorecard.
by Colinski on Apr 13, 2009 11:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for all the responses
Part of my thinking is that the Broncos can pay to upgrade the overall talent of the broncos due to having a lower cost QB. I hope that they field a good (not expecting great) team this year. If they go 8-8 or less I will be disappointed.
Victor Frankl:
What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him.
Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.
by wyoeng on Apr 13, 2009 9:03 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, they signed Simms to a 2 year deal and he’s making considerably more than the $1.XM that Orton is making… can’t recall the number, but it’s minimal. This is Orton’s contract year and if he’s any good, the stars aligned for him perfectly this year…. that offense with these players in a contract year, very nice for him.
______
Mile High Mania
by Mile High Mania on Apr 13, 2009 10:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Orton needs a new agent
Simms makes three times more than Orton? How does that work? Orton should win the starting job, unless the Broncos don’t want to redo his salary. If it’s just about the money with the Broncos, then they go with Simms. If they go with Orton, and they should, then they will have to re-work his contract(i.e. can’t have the backup making 3x the starter). What is the plan? 1. Rebuilding year and don’t care about the record. Start Simms. 2. Go with the better QB(Orton) and rework his contract. If this is the plan, I honestly don’t know why McD is publicly stated there will be a competition for the starters job. Orton clearly has the better credentials and track record. Both Simms and Orton need to learn a new offensive scheme and get familar with their teammates. The sooner a starter is named the better the team will be. Splitting reps into mid August will only set the starter and team back.
by rocko1 on Apr 14, 2009 9:23 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Timing is the reason
Simms was obtained when McD felt he needed another option at QB because he didn’t appear to like Cutler (and Kyle Orton was unavailable at the time). Later, Kyle was taken in trade with his existing contract intact (which is 1/3 what Simms was given). The Broncos will give Kyle a better contract if he does well this season. Note that Cutler did not get a new contract immediately after the trade either.
Victor Frankl:
What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him.
Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.
by wyoeng on Apr 18, 2009 8:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs






















