BMarsh to 'hawks still an option??

by MileHighMan on Mar 17, 2010 3:48 AM MDT

Scout.com are reporting that one of the reasons behind the Seahawks' recent release of starting safety Deon Grant was to save a bit of money to help with their pursuit of #15. Here's the extract:

Seattle Seahawks

Monday: Signed TE Chris Baker, signed WR Ruvell Martin, released S Deon Grant, re-signed DE Darryl Tapp, waived LS Matt Overton, waived FB Tyler Roehl.

The release of Grant is somewhat surprising since that leaves FS Jordan Babineaux and Jamar Adams as the only safeties left on Seattle's roster. Grant was signed through 2012 and carried a base salary of $4 million for 2010. A source believes the reason why the Seahawks cleared Grant's $4 million in base salary out is because they plan to sign or trade for WR Brandon Marshall.

Not so sure this isn't media types at their work trying to drum up a story. For the life of me, I can't figure out why the 'hawks need to reduce salary costs if there's no salary cap in place....

All in all, probably a non-story if you ask me, but thought I'd keep you all posted.

Happy St Patrick's Day from Northern Ireland!

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

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Denver Broncos, Seattle Seahawks

Comments

Salary Cap

With no cap in place i don’t really see the logic in that?

Or maybe i’m just a bit simple :o)

by AlleyCat. on Mar 17, 2010 5:11 AM MDT reply actions

Just because teams may have the money,

doesn’t mean they want to spend it all.

That rug really tied the room together...

by Streams Of Whiskey on Mar 17, 2010 5:53 AM MDT up reply actions

Everything I've heard

is that teams are almost going in an opposite direction beings theres no cap. It sounds like most teams are working with their own cap, just like normal.

"Vegetarians are cool. All I eat are vegetarians - except for the occasional mountain lion steak "

Ted Nugent

by Idaho Nate on Mar 17, 2010 8:26 AM MDT reply actions

No cap

can also mean there’s no cap floor as well as ceiling. Teams have budgets high or low…no limits applies in both directions.

by T.Dot_Bronco on Mar 17, 2010 7:36 PM MDT up reply actions

Marshall definitely still in their plans

They will spend big bucks to get him. $4m is too much when they can get a similar player for 2nd or 4 rd money. They will give up their 6th or 14th pick plus a player is my prediction (the closer the deal gets done to draft day, the more we will get).

by Orange and Blue on Mar 17, 2010 8:36 AM MDT reply actions

Problem is

If they go to low the Broncos will just match and in essence drive up the price, then the bargaining will really begin.

by Broncanatic on Mar 17, 2010 8:40 AM MDT up reply actions

O&B

Time will tell I guess. Half of me wants the trade to get him out of our hair, but the other half knows we need him, as he’s really our only big playmaker. The extra picks will take a while to mature and develop, and may take the sting out of losing BMarsh, but I really don’t know how it will pan out, but if I’m a GM of a team in the mid- to late-20s, I roll the dice and hope he can be the spark to put us over the hump. For that late a pick, you will certainly get no one better than BMarsh. The Seahawks have a real dilemma, because the #6 in this year’s draft opens so many doors, and offers a cornucopia (now there’s a word I didn’t think I’d use on MHR!!) of riches, but I can’t see any other team coping with that level of competition. We just need a few other teams to start putting a bit of pressure on Seattle to roll that die!! Thanks for your comments. Informative as ever my friend!

by MileHighMan on Mar 17, 2010 2:48 PM MDT up reply actions

Thats like saying they traded Senecal Wallace to Cleveland...

To free up the #15 for Brandon Marshall…..?

"Attitude reflects Leadership" Hogblog...aka KSM

by Hogblog on Mar 17, 2010 9:09 AM MDT reply actions

that's a good point,

hahahahahahhaa

by Broncos_BZ on Mar 17, 2010 9:25 AM MDT up reply actions

Don’t the Seahawks have a Billionaire as their owner?

No cap, billionaire owner, the release of an overpaid player….. these facts don’t add up to obtaining BM.

In my opinion.

by McGeorge on Mar 17, 2010 9:30 AM MDT reply actions

If that was the case, they would paid for Peppers and

Thomas Jones and others. No cap doesnt mean no thought.

by Orange and Blue on Mar 17, 2010 2:26 PM MDT up reply actions

But it does mean a cash rich team like Seattle will not cut good players in order to sign guys like BM.

Grant was overpaid so they let him walk. No relation to BM.

In my opinion.

by McGeorge on Mar 17, 2010 3:50 PM MDT up reply actions

Teams with new coaches are doing some house clearing if you will...

Shanny in Skinstown has cut a bunch, signed a bunch. Pete Carroll may be approaching it in a different way but he will get things lined up the way he wants them and releasing a player has no bearing on brandon Marshall or the Seahags for that manner.

by bfree2bronc on Mar 17, 2010 10:02 AM MDT reply actions

will hate to see him go but its time!!

i sure wish they will hurry and pull the trigger on Marsh. I dont want to see Marsh traded but we might aswell get something now before we get nothing for him next season.. and i think the seattle deal is not as good as the TB deal would be,,

by EnoreBmunSyawle on Mar 17, 2010 10:06 AM MDT reply actions

not until closer to draft day will this deal get done.

the water hasnt even got warm. It will be boiling come late April. (the GMs of other teams will be the ones in the kettle).

by Orange and Blue on Mar 17, 2010 2:28 PM MDT up reply actions

I think the fact that they let Nate Burleson go

~~-and Seneca Wallace~~-signifies that a deal for BMarsh could still be part of their thinking…

"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" -- Wimpy J. Wellington

by Broncs Cheer on Mar 17, 2010 11:20 AM MDT reply actions

They probably want to trade up and grab Eric Berry rather than spend a 1st rounder on Marshall

Although I don’t know why they would need to release a S to pick up a WR especially in an uncapped year.

by BroncoMath101 on Mar 17, 2010 11:56 AM MDT reply actions

While

I would love to hear some movement on the BMarsh front…I have a feeling this is a non story. It sounds like some people are trying to brew up some controversy but turning a non story into a big one IMO.

by Nick Cast on Mar 17, 2010 1:09 PM MDT reply actions

Happy St Patrick's Day MHM

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

by KaptainKirk on Mar 17, 2010 3:03 PM MDT reply actions

Thanks KK

Any excuse for a party huh? Pity it’s a Wednesday though. Back to the office in the morning. Still a few pints never did any harm… Cheers!

by MileHighMan on Mar 17, 2010 4:58 PM MDT up reply actions

Seattle in Trading Mood?/

I see that the Hawks have just given San Diego a 2011 3rd round pick, as well as exchanging this year’s 2nd round picks (#40 for #60), and handed a 2 year, $10m contract to the Chuggers 3rd string QB, Charlie Whitehurst. Must see something in him that none of the rest of us have had the privilege of seeing in him…. Does this rule out any other trades? Probably not, but what it does do is makes sure that the Seahawks will be keen to hang on tight to those precious first rounders they have, and they will be damned sure that they won’t be so extravagant in giving us as good a deal as I would suggest the Chuggers have just benefitted from. That’ll do me for tonight folks, have a good one…. Thanks to all for commenting.

by MileHighMan on Mar 17, 2010 5:03 PM MDT reply actions