Holt Up a Minute

[dc.]

Har har har... Couldn't resist.

 

Just flipped on ESPN to see Torry Holt sitting there as an analyst... with the title "11 year NFL veteran, free agent" under his name.

 

I mean, I have no clue on cost, etc... but does anything know anyone about his situation?

 

Do I want to invest long-term in an aging receiver like Mason or Holt? No.

 

But would I gladly put a corps of Holt, Mason and Boldin against anyone in the league? Yes. And add in a rook (or two) to be mentored...

[papasmurfbell]

Go Ozzie do it. Also get Jackson back.

[thundercleetz]

I could not see Ozzie getting both Holt and Mason, I think Ozzie wants to add a rookie to our WR corp to develop for the future. However, Holt would be a great option should Mason not re-sign. Holt has a career YPC average of 14.5, and did not miss a beat last year with the average at 14.2. He may have lost a little physical ability, but he can still play his game at a high level.

[Guest BallTMore]

I'd take Holt as a last resort only. He is damaged goods, imo.

 

My wish list would include:

 

#1 Mason

#2 Owens

#3 Bryant

 

Word is Cincy will sign Owens or Bryant soon, if not both.

[yagersports]

I wouldn't mind Holt here at all. The guy still has something left, although I def prefer Mason because of his familiarity with Flacco and our offense.

 

You know it seems that the market may be down for Marshall.......imagine if you will a scenario in which Oz snags Marshall to pair with Boldin! I know extreeeeeeemly unlikely.....but wow!

[SpearSrai]

I wouldn't mind Holt here at all. The guy still has something left, although I def prefer Mason because of his familiarity with Flacco and our offense.

 

You know it seems that the market may be down for Marshall.......imagine if you will a scenario in which Oz snags Marshall to pair with Boldin! I know extreeeeeeemly unlikely.....but wow!

 

The Broncos apparently said they will take nothing less than a 1st for him; otherwise, they'll go into the season with Marshall on the roster. I don't know if they're being truthful or not, but if the price comes down to anything we would give up, someone else will step in and grab him first.

 

I think we all know that Mason is going to resign, and considering the fact that he and Flacco have now spent two seasons working together, that's obviously our best option. No use having to develop a chemistry with two new receivers when Flacco-to-Mason is already a successful combination. We're just giving Mason a chance to feel out the market... I don't see any way we let him get away.

[yagersports]

I'd like it very much if Mason comes back for the same reasons you mentioned.

 

However if Marshall teamed with Boldin, we could release Flacco and let my 10yr old son sign to QB lmao.

[colincac]

I think Mason will be back, I haven't heard a single thing about him going to visit anywhere else or drawing interest from any other team. He has 2 years left, max, so only contenders will look at him anyway, and they might just feel like other guys are better options....

 

I really want to grab Marshall from Denver, I think he can be had for a 2nd rounder and a future pick as opposed to a first. We add him to Boldin, grab a DB or a pass-rusher in the 1st round, and the Ravens are Super Bowl favorites. Yeah, I said it.

[ForceEight]

Guys, Marshall isn't coming here. Period.

 

That is, unless you want to lose Rice, Ngata, Gaither, etc. in a year or three. And don't even think about having the money (or presumed cap space) to extend Flacco.

 

Everyone is jumping at the chance to sign every possible player now that there's no cap. You overlook the fact that, you know, these owners aren't made of money, and are busy trying to convince the union that they don't have the money they'd like (spending too high a percentage on players) in the first place. Bisciotti was one of the loudest voices on that front a few months ago.

 

Moreover, there will eventually be a cap again if everything works out as planned. Hopefully as early as 2011. How are we going to handle having two receivers making $8 million or more per season?

 

Marshall is not coming here. Period. I will take a prop bet with anyone in the world on it.

[cravnravn]

Ive already addressed this in the WR post..He only made 3.8 mil last year, let Oz dangle him a 2 mil dollar carrot in front of him.

[yagersports]

Guys, Marshall isn't coming here. Period.

 

That is, unless you want to lose Rice, Ngata, Gaither, etc. in a year or three. And don't even think about having the money (or presumed cap space) to extend Flacco.

 

Everyone is jumping at the chance to sign every possible player now that there's no cap. You overlook the fact that, you know, these owners aren't made of money, and are busy trying to convince the union that they don't have the money they'd like (spending too high a percentage on players) in the first place. Bisciotti was one of the loudest voices on that front a few months ago.

 

Moreover, there will eventually be a cap again if everything works out as planned. Hopefully as early as 2011. How are we going to handle having two receivers making $8 million or more per season?

 

Marshall is not coming here. Period. I will take a prop bet with anyone in the world on it.

 

I agree completely....I'm just sayin imagine the possibilities. That could rival the 1999 Vikes with Moss, Carter, Reed, & Smith. Ultimately it would be too much money wrapped up in one position but it would be fun to watch.

[colincac]

I know what your are saying Force, but Boldin signed a 4 year 28 Million dollar deal, and while Marshall would probably want a little more money, I'm sure we could front-load it so it wouldn't effect the cap in future years (The Bears are paying Peppers TWENTY MILLION in 2010). I know we will also be losing the fairly large contracts of McGahee, Pryce and Reed in the near future, so I think it's possible. Granted, doing this would entirely shift our focus to being an offensive team, so I doubt it will happen, but it is certainly possible cap-wise.

[REEDPIXOFF]

I know what your are saying Force, but Boldin signed a 4 year 28 Million dollar deal, and while Marshall would probably want a little more money, I'm sure we could front-load it so it wouldn't effect the cap in future years (The Bears are paying Peppers TWENTY MILLION in 2010). I know we will also be losing the fairly large contracts of McGahee, Pryce and Reed in the near future, so I think it's possible. Granted, doing this would entirely shift our focus to being an offensive team, so I doubt it will happen, but it is certainly possible cap-wise.

 

30% rule prevents us from paying anybody big money in the first year. Bears are only able to pay Peppers that much because he made 20mil last season.

[ForceEight]

30% rule prevents us from paying anybody big money in the first year. Bears are only able to pay Peppers that much because he made 20mil last season.

Wait, what? That's not true at all.

 

I'm tired of writing it: http://forums.extremeravens.com/index.php?showtopic=1521&view=findpost&p=16416

 

And Colin, it's about more than affecting the cap. It's about keeping the appearance of money problems in view. Why do you think there's such little spending? If you exclude the teams that have a decent bankroll and need to win NOW for the future of their franchise (Lions, Bears), there has been less spending this year than any free agency period before.

 

Though they'll never admit to this collusion, the owners are fairly together in keeping down spending. Look at the Cardinals. They spent money on no one and let four of their best players go. Look at the Redskins and Cowboys, the highest bidders every year! They've signed zero players!

 

Bisciotti is absolutely part of the group that wants to keep the percentages of player salary down; there's no way in hell he'd go for Marshall after already getting Boldin (who cost less but fills the need anyway).

 

And more importantly, I don't think any owner wants to spend $200 million on player salaries in one year, regardless of a cap. This isn't baseball.

[REEDPIXOFF]

Wait, what? That's not true at all.

 

I'm tired of writing it: http://forums.extremeravens.com/index.php?showtopic=1521&view=findpost&p=16416

 

And Colin, it's about more than affecting the cap. It's about keeping the appearance of money problems in view. Why do you think there's such little spending? If you exclude the teams that have a decent bankroll and need to win NOW for the future of their franchise (Lions, Bears), there has been less spending this year than any free agency period before.

 

Though they'll never admit to this collusion, the owners are fairly together in keeping down spending. Look at the Cardinals. They spent money on no one and let four of their best players go. Look at the Redskins and Cowboys, the highest bidders every year! They've signed zero players!

 

Bisciotti is absolutely part of the group that wants to keep the percentages of player salary down; there's no way in hell he'd go for Marshall after already getting Boldin (who cost less but fills the need anyway).

 

And more importantly, I don't think any owner wants to spend $200 million on player salaries in one year, regardless of a cap. This isn't baseball.

 

I wasn't referring to the final 8 rule. The 30% rule prevents a players salary from increasing by more than 30% from 1 year to the next. This prevents us from paying Marshall 20mil in the first year of the contract like Colin suggested.

[ForceEight]

I wasn't referring to the final 8 rule. The 30% rule prevents a players salary from increasing by more than 30% from 1 year to the next. This prevents us from paying Marshall 20mil in the first year of the contract like Colin suggested.

The 30% rule only affects base salary, and it only applies to contract renegotiation. We would be offering Marshall a new contract, so that would be irrelevant.

[colincac]

I'm not even saying we should pay Marshall 20 Million next year, I was just making a point that teams can frontload the deal. Obviously, Marshall wouldn't command near that much money, but I assume we could front-load it.