Trade In the Works Since Season Began

by Adam T on Mar 6, 2007 7:39 AM CST in News Comment 27 comments

Here is some more information concerning the Thomas Jones trade.

The Bears and Jets had talked at some point last year about trading Jones.

A possible trade to the Colts also fell through prior to last season.

Jones asked for the trade last season. After talks with Angelo an agreement was made. If Jones gave everything he had to the Bears this year, the Bears would:

would keep an open mind and fairly explore ways to grant Jones his wish.

A deal is expected to be announced on Tuesday for Jones by the Jets barring passing a physical. It has about $12 million in guaranteed money.

While I am a Jones fan, have been for years living out here in VA, this seemed like a gentlemen's agreement. Jones played hard for us this year and had a lot to do with us beating the Saints this year. I wish him well.

On the down side, this causes the Briggs issue to flare up. You know he is going to be using Jones as an example. The Bears have said they are not surprised that Briggs went public, that has to make you wonder if Brigg is just a bad character guy. If it surprised nobody, you must have been doing something to build that reputation.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm not suprised

Briggs went public considering who his agent is.

by Peoria Matt on Mar 6, 2007 8:14 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

or should I say

surprised

by Peoria Matt on Mar 6, 2007 8:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don't remember who said it

but yesterday on the Score, they said they should just make Scott Boras the GM of the Bears as it seems he has more decision making power than anyone else. Can't say I disagree. Haven't been this disgusted with the Bears organization in a while. The more things change the more they stay the same....

by BadGuy on Mar 6, 2007 8:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Boras

Do you mean Drew RosenhASS? I thought Boras only does baseball.

by Toonderstrook on Mar 6, 2007 9:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ahhh yes

sorry.

by BadGuy on Mar 6, 2007 9:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Briggs

Amen, Cookding

by SouthernSlam on Mar 6, 2007 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

posturing

as long as NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, you will have players squawking so they can get their's. Briggs wants money, so what? Why shouldn't he make some noise. We can all pretend like we're put off by this but, realistically, if somebody put a 7 mill pile of money next to a 14 mill pile of money and said you could have the higher one if you made an ass of yourself, what would you do?
Obviously, the bears had to franchise him and it's no big deal that he's making noise about getting into a more favorable situation. It would be great if he took a huge pay cut to play here but can you really be shocked that's not happening? There's millions of dollars trading hands.
Let's just let it play out and see what happens.

by cookding on Mar 6, 2007 8:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Problem

The problem is that by going public and voicing his displeasure, he made an acceptable trade far more difficult for the Bears. You don't have much leverage when every other team knows you're dying to get rid of a malcontent who has claimed he'll never play another snap for you.

by Toonderstrook on Mar 6, 2007 9:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course

that's a problem for the Bears. Of course, the problem for Briggs is that a franchise tag could cost him millions. They both have problems. If Briggs says nothing, he may not get traded. I'm not advocating either behavior. I'm simply stating it's par for the course and wringing your hands over it is a little naive.

by cookding on Mar 6, 2007 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wringing of hands?

Who is wringing their hands? I was commenting on Briggs' lack of foresight. If you really feel that you don't want to be a part of the Bears organizaton any more and you'd like a chance to go somewhere else to play and make more money, you probably shouldn't go public how he did and force the Bears into a situation where they would get far less in return in a trade because the other 31 teams understand their dire situation. If the Bears aren't going to get crap in return anyway, they might as well hang onto him and dare him to miss out on his almost $500,000/game paycheck while "not playing" for them.

by Toonderstrook on Mar 6, 2007 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why he went public...

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=3137

Only three of the 42 players have been traded: cornerback Champ Bailey, defensive end John Abraham and wide receiver Peerless Price. NFL rules prohibit the Bears from actively seeking a trade, though they can listen to other teams that contact them to discuss a possible deal.

He had to go public.

Obviously, you could argue that teams were going to come calling anyway. But had he never said anything, reason tells me the number of teams coming calling would have been less had he stayed quiet.

The increase in interest of teams calling the Bears made public would probably offset whatever perceived damage to his value was done. The market will set his price anyway. It only takes two teams (or Tom Hicks) to both want Briggs bad enough to drive the price up.

The Bears know he'll play. Other teams do, too. His going public and saying he'll never play for the Bears again what make it harder for Angelo to trade him. No one would have believed him until he missed two or three games anyway. And by that time, his speaking about it would have been irrelevant anyway, as everyone would know exactly what was going on.

by tyger1147 on Mar 6, 2007 9:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

correction

is going public and saying he'll never play for the Bears again what make it harder for Angelo to trade him.

WHAT=WON'T

by tyger1147 on Mar 6, 2007 9:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I am speaking

to the general perception on the situation, not you directly (even though I replied to your post). I think most fans are up in arms about Briggs reaction. I can understand since it's only ugly to see people say things they don't want to play for a given team. However, it's the business. What does Briggs care about what Chicago gets in return, really? Obviously, he doesn't want to damage the situation so much that he can't get his money, but let's be clear: he only cares about getting his money. The Bears could get two roosters and a coupon to Subway for all he cares. He wants millions.

by cookding on Mar 7, 2007 7:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

He doesn't care what the Bears get in return. But if the Bears can't get anything in return, they won't even try and he'll be forced to sit out and not get paid or pay for those hated Bears.

by Toonderstrook on Mar 7, 2007 7:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

make it a coupon to Zero's

and we have a deal.

by Adam T on Mar 7, 2007 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa...

Briggs is justified in his threat. I don't think he'll be justified if actually does sit out. But threatening? I have no problem with it.
What have the Bears done to be bad in this situation? They might be dragging their feet, so to speak, but there is a lot to be done right now, and the situation with Briggs is the easiest to put off.
As many have said, I think it's an almost certainty that Briggs plays this year. If not, he loses $7 million dollars. He'll bitch and moan and may even sit out a few games, but he'll come around. And I don't think he'll be a clubhouse problem since he gets along with so many of the guys anyway.

That's all just my opinion, of course. I could be wrong, and I often am.

by tyger1147 on Mar 6, 2007 8:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Never!

Throught the history of the Franchise tag, no player has missed a game and the subsequent paycheck. They always play, no matter how hard they and their agents posture that they won't.

Let Briggs sqauwk if he wants. He'll hurt his trade value and make it tougher to move him and he'll eventually play. I wonder if Rosenhaus makes commission on his $7.2M????

When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas

by allhailmark on Mar 6, 2007 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

walter jones sat one game

by mike b on Mar 6, 2007 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That was

over three years of posturing about not playing due to getting the franchise tag, right?

by Toonderstrook on Mar 6, 2007 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I also heard

that he hurt himself by going public, since Jones is also a Rosenhaus client the Bears would be reluctant, so it doesn't look like they are letting somebody else rule the roost.

by Adam T on Mar 6, 2007 9:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Jets perspective

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/jets/archives/2007/03/why_the_jones_deal_works_so_we.php

interesting bit from the article for Jones last year...

Carries 1 to 15: 220 attempts, 942 yards, 4 touchdowns, 4.3 average per carry.

Carries 16+: 76 attempts, 268 yards, 2 touchdowns, 3.5 average.

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

by thecubreporter on Mar 6, 2007 1:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Jones deal btw

is 4 years/$12 mil guaranteed

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

by thecubreporter on Mar 6, 2007 5:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

of note

the bills are about to trade mcgahee to the ravens for a second and fifth. he's in the last year of his deal as well, iirc. he's younger, but has more injury baggage. this make me think that angelo got a little less than market value for jones.

by tomas21 on Mar 7, 2007 9:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Disagree...

McGehee has way more upside than Jones.

by Chad on Mar 8, 2007 12:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

but he has been pretty darn mediocre with the bills. perhaps with a better line/system he'll do better (as Jones did), but they were pretty equal in terms of prospects coming out of college, but McGahee has the injury history and hasn't done much in the pros. he's just younger.

by tomas21 on Mar 8, 2007 8:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I heard...

On Rosenbloom/Waddle today (Waddle was sitting in for Sean) they looked at the points system and said that the Bears got a better deal than the Bills.

I don't have time to look at the details right now, so I am just going off of what they said.

visit the mindful mission.

by big_lowitzki on Mar 8, 2007 1:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs