Let The Whining Begin- Lance Wants Out

by Adam T on Mar 5, 2007 10:05 AM CST in News Comment 36 comments

From what I can gather hear at WCG, Lance Briggs has done much to change our opinion of him. We originally thought his greatness was partly because of playing next to Urlacher and to some extent it still may be, but he has played well and hard on his own and still succeeded when Urlacher was out. He now is looking to ruin that by whining and complaining.

In an interview Briggs has asked to either be traded or have the franchise tag rescinded and let him test the open market.

Now I am sure Briggs and his agent fell that when they say things like this:

"The Chicago Bears team? The coaches, players, city and fans? Yeah, I could stay there forever. I love it. But the Chicago Bears organization? I don't want to be there anymore. I won't play for them and I'll do everything in my power to keep from playing there."

they feel it is their way of showing good will towards the fans and towards the team in case he has to come back, but it doesn't fool anybody.

You saw Clements and Thomas cash in and you are sore about it. Sorry, dude that is how football works. The franchise tag is worth over 7 million and that ain't all that bad. The Bears still have until mid-July to work you out a long term deal. Despite what the media has been saying about the Bears and their cheapness, they have forked out some good deals for their players. You can sugar coat it all you want, you want the money and you want to be our of Urlacher's shadow.

If some team wants to pony up a couple of first rounders, than I am all for the trade, but if I am not mistaken and please correct me if I am wrong, if we rescind the franchise tag we lose it this year. True, we probably wouldn't use it, but the point is there.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Briggs

I don't blame the Bears for franchising him as it was a good business decision, but I also don't mind that Briggs is complaining about it. Although his comments should be more directed at the rules of the NFL towards their players, he does have a point.

The very entity of the franchise tag screws the player over. What if Briggs plays next year and tears his ACL in Week 14? He is going to get significantly less money and far less years from a potential new suitor whereas he couldve made bank this year, when his contract affectively ran out.

Imagine your boss telling you that despite the fact you have performed well and are good enough to move on and get more money somewhere else, you have to stay with your company in your job for another year and not make as much as you could. I don't care that he could and will be making millions of dollars (as opposed to our measley tens of thousands), dude still has a right to money he has earned.

Again, its not the Bears fault, they had the option of using the franchise tag, and they used it. More power to them. Briggs should be criticizing the NFL who treat their players like crap.

To that end, I LOVE what Jake Plummer did. Retire, then unretire and pick where you want to go.

by SouthernSlam on Mar 5, 2007 10:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The union

negotiated the franchise tag, if Briggs has a problem with it go talk to Gene Upshaw. Otherwise shut up!!!!

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Mar 5, 2007 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I am glad

to see somebody is along with my thinking.

by Adam T on Mar 5, 2007 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Flawed logic...

The opportunity to sign a long term deal is on the table. He refused it. Its not like this is his only option. As well, this is no different then where he was at this time last year. He could have signed long term and risked injury. If he blew out his knee in the Super Bowl he would be just as screwed.

It goes both ways.

by Chad on Mar 5, 2007 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Plummer...

Actually retired.

by lopey986 on Mar 5, 2007 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Briggs

I had a feeling this would happen. I really can't say that I blame him for being a little ornery. Who know what he could get on the open market. I say just pay the man and move on.

first the Rush...now the Bears.

by mike on Mar 5, 2007 11:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Whatever happened?

To the Thomas Jones posters?

by tyger1147 on Mar 5, 2007 11:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

If you won one, it will be coming

if you mean do I have any more to give away, then yes, I didn't want to stack up more until I got the other ones out.

by Adam T on Mar 5, 2007 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Jeez

He's making over seven million dollars a year to play football. He's the first player that Jerry Angelo has deemed worthy of using the franchise tag on. And he's not happy? Whatever.

by tacologic on Mar 5, 2007 11:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Posted in diaries...

I am tired of guys being made good cause they play next to the best freaking defensive player in the game then parlaying that into a big payday. Warrick Holdman and Roosevelt Colvin. Neither has played like a person worth that money.

I say if we don't get a real good deal, like a high first round pick, then let him sit on the bench and not get one dollar. If we want to be total jerks, we can keep tagging him year in and year out.

Look, Walter Jones got tagged three times before he signed a long term deal. I say we teach Rosenass a lesson.

by Chad on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:34:07 AM PST
[ Reply to This ]

by Chad on Mar 5, 2007 12:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Basically the Seahawks called Walter Jones's

bluff. Walter Jones wanted to be known as the best Left Tackle in the game and he couldn't do that holding out. He held out 3 training camps and I think one regular season game. All three years he came back and played the entire season.

Make a example out of Briggs if he is only playing football for the money then he will hold out the season and thats not the type of player you want anyway. If he truly wants to be great he will play.

Go Seahawks!!!

by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 5, 2007 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

word

by Chad on Mar 5, 2007 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I am all for that, but

I would rather have the guy line up or get some #1s for it. I would love to see what JA could do with a lot of value in picks.

by Adam T on Mar 5, 2007 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

let rosenhaus engineer a trade

get us 2 #1's, or a #1 and 2 2nds, or something along those lines. briggs is a great player, but he's not worth the money he wants. if we can't work out a long-term deal (and i doubt we can), angelo should tell rosenhaus to do his magic and get us a slew of picks. playing next to urlacher has helped him big time, and i feel you can always land a good LB in the draft, especially in the first 4 rounds.

by guy incognito on Mar 5, 2007 1:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

From what I read

a 2nd round pick is the most we can expect (at the moment).

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Mar 5, 2007 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Then

I guess Briggs is out of luck.

by Adam T on Mar 5, 2007 1:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm guessing

we might be able to get more if the trading team is able to negotiate an extension...but if he's determined to try and test the open market, his value is a lot lower in a trade.

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Mar 5, 2007 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no trade, then

but i do think we can get a pretty nice package for briggs. hell, the pats got a #1 for a good WR...and good WRs should be much less valuable than good LBs. and briggs is better than good.

by guy incognito on Mar 5, 2007 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ya but is there a team

out there right now that is in a win now mode that is in need of Briggs?

Go Seahawks!!!

by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 5, 2007 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well if you made the playoffs

but didn't get to the Super Bowl, you need to upgrade somewhere. If Briggs were made available there would be plenty of teams interested, it is more of a question who has enough to make the Bears bite.

by Adam T on Mar 5, 2007 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

i wouldnt mind gettin picks for him, i mean everytime a linebacker leaves chi they dont do as well (holdman, colvin). maybe briggs should realize how important it is to have urlacher in the middle for him. i wanted to sign him long term but if he's gonna start bitchin just cause he's not gettin his ways, we can find somebody else..
let him go and sign joey porter.

by steveo61086 on Mar 5, 2007 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Enh

I wouldn't mind seeing Briggs get his long term deal, but if he's unhappy the man has a right to speak his mind.

Check out my Chicago Bears Blog...

by dbt on Mar 5, 2007 3:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

You Go Lance

Briggs probably has 5-7 years to make as much as he can so I would be pretty pissed too if my earning potential was being quashed by my employer. Its not about long term deals-nobody ever stays the entire length of their contract. Its about what you can make per year and what kind of guaranteed money you can get via signing bonuses etc...

Before you tee off on these guys about whining try to understand the system and their brief window to earn as much as they can. You would do the exact same thing unless you don't believe in getting paid what you are worth.

"So how's the smut business Jackie?"

by JackieTreehorn on Mar 5, 2007 4:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Amen

I don't get the hostility that Briggs is getting from the local sports commentariat. The simple truth is that Briggs is getting paid less than his market value because his employer has struck a deal with all other comparable employers that restricts Briggs' ability to get paid. In practically every other non-sports industry in the country, this would be an egregious antitrust violation. Its tolerated in sports, I guess, because of the history of such restrictions and because people have no sympathy for millionaire athletes. ("You make more than me so the fact that, in a fair allocation of revenue, you should be making even more doesn't bother me.")

I'm a lawyer. If every potential client got together and agreed "We are not going to pay more than $X/hour" I'd be pissed. If, on top of that, the clients were able to say "We're going to have a draft and you are going to have to move to that client's city and only going to be able to work for the one of us we agree amongst ourselves" I'd be even more irate. Hell, I'd be filing a complaint. But in football, Briggs had no choice four years ago but to accept the Bears' initial contract offer. Now, after performing brilliantly for four years, he's still not allowed to go out and get something approximating a fairly negotiated (albeit still restricted by the ridiculous salary cap) contract because the Bears have the ability to restrict his employment to a single-year deal. It isn't fair and if I were Briggs, I'd be just as pissed. I suspect that most of you would be too.

by Landfill on Mar 5, 2007 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wah wah wah!

He is going to get a minimum of 7 million dollars to play a game. He takes no risk. All he has to do is show up and he gets paid. How can anyone take the side of these overgrown children?

by Chad on Mar 5, 2007 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Incisive Argument

Well, I suppose I could take issue with your claim that "he takes no risk" and refer you to any of the many, many stories of former players who have been literally crippled by their time with the NFL. However, I think that players pretty much know what they are getting into when they decide to chase the gridiron dream and that they should be free to assume the physical risk in return for fair compensation.

Instead, I'll try to explain to you that the fact the Briggs makes alot more money than you or me doesn't mean he is fairly paid. You claim that Briggs and company are "overgrown children" because they want to be paid more than less. Are Jerry Jones and Virginia McCaskey similarly childlike because they want to pay less than more? I don't think so. In fact, I'd argue that wanting to earn what you deserve is a sign of maturity.

What Briggs is saying is that he wants the opportunity to be paid whatever he can get from whatever prospective employer wants his services. How is that childlike? Don't you want the same thing?

by Landfill on Mar 5, 2007 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is not what I'm talking about...

When I say he takes no risk I mean to say that if he plays he gets paid. This is not the same for the McCaskey's. The team puts out millions of dollars each year with the hope of a return. The players do not do the same. If people decide one year that they do not like the Bears and don't show up and don't buy tickets and don't buy jereseys, the McCaskey's won't make any money. In fact they would lose money. They run the business. Just like you (i assume you have a regular job) and I, if we show up we get paid.

Lance Briggs, along with every other professional athlete, is vastly over paid for what they do. They should appreciate what they have. Instead they act like little children and cry poor. Poor, poor Lance. The 7 mil he will get next year is more money than most of us will see in our lifetime.

by Chad on Mar 5, 2007 6:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't get it man

If he goes to training camp and breaks his leg he gets nothing. The Bears can cut him and he is done. Now he is a free agent next year and he has lost millions of dollars because he is now an injury risk. He signs for middle of the road LB salary and plays that out for 3 years and by that time he is considered on the downside of his career and will get paid even less. The Bears are costing Briggs millions of dollars and maybe that is beans to you, but for me losing millions (emphasis on the s in millions) is a ton of cash.

Considering your career window is really short you owe it to yourself, your family, and your children's children to maximize what will most likely be a once in a generation opportunity to provide a financial foundation the likes of which have probably never been seen throughout your family's history.

It's easy for us to call them greedy because of the great sums of money they earn. However, put yourself in their shoes. You don't like your boss because you know he isn't paying you what you are worth on the job market. In addition to this, he has made it so you can't even look around to find another gig that would pay you fairly. You are forced to take what your boss says is fair and deal with it. You have no options and are basically an indentured servant to put it mildly.

So, in simpler terms, he should bitch until he is blue in the face and then breath a bit and start bitching again.

"So how's the smut business Jackie?"

by JackieTreehorn on Mar 5, 2007 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

See my comment below....

Bears are working under the rules of the last CBA that was negotiated with the union, Briggs needs to honor it. Plain and simple.

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Mar 5, 2007 5:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I get it just fine...

Injury has nothing to do with this. Any football player can get hurt at any time and lose millions of dollars. These are not guaranteed contracts so Lance could sign a 10 year 100 mil deal this offseason, get hurt in the preseason, get cut and never see but a fraction of that.

And these guys are not indentured servants. there are other places to play football, they just don't pay well.

by Chad on Mar 5, 2007 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Blah, blah, blah, blah

hire a different guy to be your union representative next time then, they're the dumbasses who agreed to franchise tags in the last CBA (or however many CBA's it goes back) and the players voted on it.

He can bitch all he wants, I don't care, but next July show up to play.

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Mar 5, 2007 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Very Persuasive

Yes, the union agreed to this arrangement and yes it is by the rules. No one is suggesting otherwise. The point is that, regardless of the union's tactics, the only reason there is this agreement is because the owners are allowed to combine in a way that restricts their employees' compensation rights. Maybe a different union rep could have gotten a marginally better deal but, so long as the owners are allowed to combine in a way that is (so far as I am aware) unknown outside the realm of professional sports, there is essentially no chance the union could get a fair arrangement.

by Landfill on Mar 5, 2007 5:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've thought of this before.

My conclusion (even if wrong) is that they are employed by the NFL as a whole. If they don't like it, they can still go work for another employer, the Canadian Football League, Arena Football League, etc.

To me, it's like the NFL is a little club of owners. If you want to be in their club, you have to play by their rules.

If they were the only professional football product out there, than I would rethink my stance. But it's not. The players CAN go look for another employer. They have chosen to work for the biggest football employer: the National Football League.

I don't know. You can probably tell me how I'm 100% wrong, but it's what gets me through.

BTW, the "indentured servant" comment is 100% wrong. Quite simply, they can leave and go do a "normal" job any time they want. Indentured servants can't.

by tyger1147 on Mar 5, 2007 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

the only reason there is this agreement is because the owners are allowed to combine in a way that restricts their employees' compensation rights.

their allowed because the players and their union agreed to it. It's really that simple. If they don't like it, don't sign the agreement. Other sports (let's say baseball) do not have franchise tags but a different set of rules because their players wanted a more open market and got it. The fact is, the NFL and it's owners have created an amazing product and the players realize if they want to be a part of it and watch the sport prosper and grow they needed to agree to certain concessions (salary caps, franchise tags, slotted bonus $$$, non-guaranteed contracts, etc) for the good of the sport.

Certain players may not like it, but it is for the good of the sport and Briggs needs to direct his wrath towards his own union, not the Bears.

Anyway,he'll probably get his wish and get traded, I don't think Lovie and the Bears care much for guys who don't want to be there.

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Mar 5, 2007 6:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You seem to be forgetting

This is the NFL, it ain't real-life. What you say makes sense in the real, work-a-day world. But this is sports Fantasyland, where 10 mil is pocket change.

What is more important, in my eyes -- is the contract guaranteed? Most NFL deals are not. (RE: Michael Vick's 10 year deal) In the past few weeks of NFL free agent frenzy, some teams have made hay -- and, in one case, kept a player, with guaranteeing cash. The Chargers kept lineman Kris Dielman, with 17 million guaranteed over the first 2 years of his six-year contract of 39 Mil. He turned down 50 million from the Seahawks.

That's the new wrinkle -- guaranteed money. Briggs, a talented player has let his jealousy of Urlacher go to his head. If he wants to go play for the Raiders or some crappy team, and lose 12 games, so be it. The Bears didn't get to the Super Bowl with selfish players.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 6, 2007 12:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs