Bears Accuse 49ers Of Tampering

by Adam T on Feb 22, 2008 7:31 AM CST in News Comment 5 comments

Just so this gets a little front page exposure. The Bears have asked the NFL to look into the 49ers and their dealings with Lance Briggs. The NFL has rules on when you can and cannot speak to a player on another team.

Chicago and San Francisco discussed a trade in October that would have sent Briggs, a Northern California native, to the 49ers. However, the Bears' grievance claims that San Francisco held contract talks with agent Drew Rosenhaus during the season, thus interfering with a player under contract.

The 49ers' counter is that they talked to the Bears first about a possible deal, then contacted Rosenhaus and the NFL Management Council about signing Briggs to a new contract. Because Briggs was designated a franchise player by Chicago last offseason and didn't reach a long-term deal before the prescribed deadline in July, he was not eligible to sign a new contract with the Bears or any other team, even if he was traded.

San Francisco dropped the idea of trading for Briggs at that point. Briggs, who got the Bears to agree not to franchise him this offseason when he signed last year's one-year tender, is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent at the end of this month.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

in return

I was wondering what are some of the possible consequences for the 49ers if they are found guilty, and if the Bears would get anything in return?

by VAbear311 on Feb 22, 2008 8:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The only thing

I have seen is that the 49ers could lose a draft pick. I don't think the Bears get anything.

Maybe it would be fair that the Bears get the draft pick that the 49ers lose.

by Adam T on Feb 22, 2008 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm more pissed at Angelo re: Berrian

So the genius GM decided not to franchise Berrian, because he and Lovie both think that Bradley is ready to step up. What?!! The guy had all of six catches last year, and has not been able to stay on the field for an entire season so far. Idiotic business move, you franchise the guy so you can find his replacement over the course of the next season - no hit to the cap after this year, what the heck is going on in the front office over there?

by Dmac on Feb 22, 2008 9:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think that

Angelo let Berrian go because he thinks Bradley is ready to step up, that is just coach speak. You can't bash your own decisions.

We know for a fact that Angelo and the Bears have no intentions on over spending on any body. They might misjudge a player and it ends up being overspending, but they know what they have in Berrian and they deemed 7 mil for a franchise year too much for him.

by Adam T on Feb 22, 2008 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

money is better spent elsewhere

berrian is not worth the contract he wants (and will probably get). the dilemma is whether a WR worth that money becomes available - i suspect a few good ones will be cut at some point before the draft. its a big risk, but i'd rather pay someone berrian's money who is worth it. who knows, maybe other teams realize he's a good #2 and offer him crayton money, which would be fair. if that's the case, i expect him back in the fold w/ a 3-5 year deal w/ us.

by guy incognito on Feb 22, 2008 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs