Utah Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 going to pull this off and make it worth doing when they are over the cap by what, 5 mil. and they have a franchise tag on Wilson (I think) and they want to make a deal for Champ and they will be under the cap by the 3rd of March. I need someone to explain this to me cause it seems to be too big a stumbling block for this trade to happen. I hate the 2nd round pick also being in there. Again, I think this is too fishy of a deal for us but.........I won't cry if Portis is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagletooth Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I'm very curious as well to see how Denver plans to fit Bailey in under the cap considering their current situation. Bailey's 1st couple years will be cap friendly but, Shanny will have some maunuvering to do to pull the deal off. Completeing a long term deal for their MLB, Wilson, might be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I read somewhere that it all hinged on getting Wilson signed to a cap friendly long term deal. Plus they are going to cut Gardener. and try to get out of his signing bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 wtf ... how can a team get out of a players signing bonus unless that player retires prior to the end of the contract, similar to what happened with Barry Sanders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosko Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 There's a clause in Gardner's contract about doing what's in the team's best interest. He wasn't on many different levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalRaider Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 If this is a multi-team trade, the Broncos might settle for a ton of draft picks while Bailey goes somewhere else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by bnacpa wtf ... how can a team get out of a players signing bonus unless that player retires prior to the end of the contract, similar to what happened with Barry Sanders? When Gardner went on a Denver Radio Station blast the Coaches and FO, he violated a clause in his contract the Broncos say . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I think the Broncos have been coveting a standout CB ever since they completely miscalculated on Dale Carter. If they give up Portis, it will be for someone like Bailey. No one in the draft is going to be anything near Bailey for the CB position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagletooth Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Gardener's contract has a clause in it that protects Denver if his conduct is deemed detrimental to the team. A ruling could go either way. I would guess there is enough evidence in favor of the Broncos. I don't think Gardener's situation has any direct impact on a Champ/Portis deal. If Denver does choose to cut loose Gardener it would likely go to some sort of arrbitration process. And could likely be a somewhat long process. If a deal is already close then it would not hinge on the outcome of Denver's dealings with Gardener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 is gardner's hand healed enough to sign the release form ... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I still don't see the logic in assuming we have to ggive a #2 for a guy who has been in the league for 2 years when they will get a guy who has been in the league for 5 years and of similar caliber at his position. i.e: best in the league caliber............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 IAMBG, Denver has more leverage in the situation than we do .... we need to get rid of Bailey before March 2 more than Denver needs to shop Portis. Plus, it may be unfair, but it is slim chances that we will draft a 1,500 yard back seeing that the Redskins have never had one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 One thing that I just don't get it is the second rounder thrown in the package, only one... Is our FO that dumb??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsplayboy Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 From what I hear out here is that Wilson isnt tagged yet. His deal is 90% complete and as far as Gardner there trying to get rid of that bonus because of a bashing to the FO of the broncos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1991 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I don't really think Denver has so much leverage. Supposedly there is a lot of interest for Bailey, right? So it shouldn't be too hard to ship him somewhere in the next 10 days or whatever for a decent package. Plus Portis might cause Denver some trouble come August so I'll be theyd love to do this deal. It seems stupid for us to give up a 2nd rounder to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosko Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Gardner called Shanahan "that little man up there.":laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Bosko Gardner called Shanahan "that little man up there.":laugh: You guys should have kept signing Gardener to 1 yr deals. He seems to play his best then... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by bnacpa IAMBG, Denver has more leverage in the situation than we do .... we need to get rid of Bailey before March 2 more than Denver needs to shop Portis. Plus, it may be unfair, but it is slim chances that we will draft a 1,500 yard back seeing that the Redskins have never had one. When has Gibbs needed a 1500 yard back? We can find a back to get 1000-1200 yards. I can live with this trade if we weren't also giving up a #2. That #2 could be a starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Snagletooth 1- Gardener's contract has a clause in it that protects Denver if his conduct is deemed detrimental to the team. A ruling could go either way. I would guess there is enough evidence in favor of the Broncos. 2 - I don't think Gardener's situation has any direct impact on a Champ/Portis deal. If Denver does choose to cut loose Gardener it would likely go to some sort of arbitration process. And could likely be a somewhat long process. If a deal is already close then it would not hinge on the outcome of Denver's dealings with Gardener. The Portis trade does not hinge on problems with Gardner. Denver papers are saying they can get Champ under the salary cap. You are also forgetting one clever thing Gardener did after the incident with Shanahan. Gardener reportedly was being treated for bi-polar syndrome. If that is the case he can claim he had an untreated psychological "medical problem" all along. This might make it awfully hard for the Broncos to claim he breached any "morals" clause in his contract with any odd behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco John Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Denver hides money in players contracts by putting renegotiation clauses in them. Denver contracts always knock people's socks off... "They paid HOW MUCH for that guy?" Well, some of that money that is embedded into those contracts is money that Denver can freely get back based on these renegotiation clauses... So as I understand it, at the end of the year, Shanahan makes a list and checks it twice, ranking players in order of who will get their contracts quietly clipped in order for the Broncos to get free agents. Nobody knows just how deep this pool of hidden money is, because the contracts are obviously not disclosed for the prying eyes of the rest of the leauge. But it happens every year, when all of a sudden, out of the blue, the Broncos magically have money that it didn't look like they had before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Taco John Denver hides money in players contracts by putting renegotiation clauses in them. Denver contracts always knock people's socks off... "They paid HOW MUCH for that guy?" Well, some of that money that is embedded into those contracts is money that Denver can freely get back based on these renegotiation clauses... So as I understand it, at the end of the year, Shanahan makes a list and checks it twice, ranking players in order of who will get their contracts quietly clipped in order for the Broncos to get free agents. Nobody knows just how deep this pool of hidden money is, because the contracts are obviously not disclosed for the prying eyes of the rest of the leauge. But it happens every year, when all of a sudden, out of the blue, the Broncos magically have money that it didn't look like they had before. Well their contracts cant be too "magical." All contracts have to be submitted to the league office in New York and approved beforehand to become valid. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Taco John Denver hides money in players contracts by putting renegotiation clauses in them. Denver contracts always knock people's socks off... "They paid HOW MUCH for that guy?" Well, some of that money that is embedded into those contracts is money that Denver can freely get back based on these renegotiation clauses... So as I understand it, at the end of the year, Shanahan makes a list and checks it twice, ranking players in order of who will get their contracts quietly clipped in order for the Broncos to get free agents. Nobody knows just how deep this pool of hidden money is, because the contracts are obviously not disclosed for the prying eyes of the rest of the leauge. But it happens every year, when all of a sudden, out of the blue, the Broncos magically have money that it didn't look like they had before. I find it hard to believe that, if this is the case, they would have much success in luring free agents there. Sounds very arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by bnacpa Denver has more leverage in the situation than we do .... we need to get rid of Bailey before March 2 more than Denver needs to shop Portis. Another factor may be that, this year, there are a lot more starting CBs on the market than there are RBs. This will tend to lower the value we'd get for Champ in a trade, and lower the amount Champ can get on his contract. All that said, though, I'm still curious why a team that's (supposedly) $5M over the cap is trading a guy who's signed for the next two years at minimum wage, for a guy who's turned down a $15M bonus. [Tin-foil hat time] Maybe the Broncos are planning to trade Champ for some more draft picks. Maybe the reason Denver can get more picks for him than we can, is because the "third" team in this deal is in the NFC East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco John Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by SonnyJ I find it hard to believe that, if this is the case, they would have much success in luring free agents there. Sounds very arbitrary. We never seem to have a problem bringing free agents in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Taco John We never seem to have a problem bringing free agents in... I still find it hard to believe that the Broncos have hit on a loophole that no other team has seized on and hasn't gotten agents in an uproar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.