LB Briggs says he won't play for Bears (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

Besides he's screwing around his teammates and it's us fans paying the contracts. How about someone negotiating for lower ticket prices as part of his contract?

You're barking up the wrong tree. Lance Briggs has nothing to do with ticket prices. If you want to get angry about the situation, you should direct that anger at the cheap Chicago ownership, not Lance Briggs. The Chicago ownership is the one screwing the team, the city and the fans, not the players. Who do you think will make more money next year, Lance Briggs or the Chicago Bears?

If a coworker was making $7 million a year and I was making 6 I wouldn't be that upset. At some point it isn't about ego and is about how much money do you really need.

To the average joe who's earning capacity is $100,000 sure you look at these guys and say isn't 7MM enough? But these guys aren't the average joe's. It's their right, to go out and make as much as they possibly can while they possibly can. Unless you're in that persons shoes you can't say what is enough. 7MM may set this guy up for life, but it certainly isn't enough to set the guy, his kids, his kids kids, and his kids kids kids up. No one in his family may ever have the opportunity to ever earn this type of money again, I say he has a duty to his family and all the future generations of Briggs to max out his earnings while he still has the ability to do so.

The Bears aren't being cheap here, they offered Briggs about 6 mil a year last year with a good signing bonus and Briggs decided that was not enough for him knowing full well that he was going to get the Franchise tag. That was Briggs choice and the Bears choice of what amount they were willing to spend. Now it is Briggs right to hold out within the rules to try and get the Bears to give in. Nobody is wrong here as of yet. I don't have any issues with Briggs trying to maximize his deal, but it is disingenuous for Briggs to say that Chicago is disrespecting him when they made him a reasonable offer that Briggs refused when he knew this was an option the Bears had. This was Briggs choice to get to where we are and he is hoping this will help his negotiation. If you are the Bears you should stick to your guns otherwise they have set a bad precedent. I think the Bears made a mistake trading Jones instead of keeping him for only 2.2 mil a year, but they felt they should deal him. I am not sure of their reasons, but to say the Bears make more than Briggs is irrelevant to the discussion

 

[Snotbubbles]

In regards to the bolded part...This is one of the issues we have in the workplace. Everyone is always worried about what other people are making. People should look at their own case and know if they are getting paid what they should be getting paid. if not, move to another company. In this case, I see Football as a company and NOBODY is leaving because they are not compensated enough. They may want to make more throughout their company, but "doing more" is very subjective. You talk to people and Briggs is anywhere from a role player to a guy who is better than Urlacher. In the business world I have employees that all see themselves better than others because they overlook their own shortcomings and focus on what they do better than the other people. reality is something very different many times.

He isn't able to move to another company. His current company has put a covenant not to compete (franchise tag) on him.

The Bears aren't being cheap here, they offered Briggs about 6 mil a year last year with a good signing bonus and Briggs decided that was not enough for him knowing full well that he was going to get the Franchise tag. That was Briggs choice and the Bears choice of what amount they were willing to spend. Now it is Briggs right to hold out within the rules to try and get the Bears to give in. Nobody is wrong here as of yet. I don't have any issues with Briggs trying to maximize his deal, but it is disingenuous for Briggs to say that Chicago is disrespecting him when they made him a reasonable offer that Briggs refused when he knew this was an option the Bears had. This was Briggs choice to get to where we are and he is hoping this will help his negotiation. If you are the Bears you should stick to your guns otherwise they have set a bad precedent. I think the Bears made a mistake trading Jones instead of keeping him for only 2.2 mil a year, but they felt they should deal him. I am not sure of their reasons, but to say the Bears make more than Briggs is irrelevant to the discussion

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the Bears are being cheap when it comes to this. They are making a financial decision that they will only allot X amount of dollars to Briggs. Anything over that amount they won't spend. They know that if he goes on the open market he will command more then what the Bears have offered, thus, instead of upping the offer they are being cheap.

 

[Christo]

You can address all of those contigencies with insurance

Ok. Even if he COULD, the question becomes why SHOULD he?

You were the one who said that he could lose money if he gets injured. I just showed that you are wrong because, if he is smart, he won't lose any money.

 

[Snotbubbles]

You were the one who said that he could lose money if he gets injured. I just showed that you are wrong because, if he is smart, he won't lose any money.

He'll lose whatever money he had to pay in premiums (which on a policy that would be upwards of 20-30M would be substantial).He'll lose interest on the insurance money while waiting for the policy to be paid AND interest on money he could have gotten in signing bonus money this year (again substantial depending on his investments). Plus, there is no way to determine his ultimate value on how much he is worth, or could be worth or how many years he could have played and at what level he would have played at. Insuring yourself for hypotheticals like that must have additional costs on the premiums.

 

[Liquid Tension]

In regards to the bolded part...This is one of the issues we have in the workplace. Everyone is always worried about what other people are making. People should look at their own case and know if they are getting paid what they should be getting paid. if not, move to another company. In this case, I see Football as a company and NOBODY is leaving because they are not compensated enough. They may want to make more throughout their company, but "doing more" is very subjective. You talk to people and Briggs is anywhere from a role player to a guy who is better than Urlacher. In the business world I have employees that all see themselves better than others because they overlook their own shortcomings and focus on what they do better than the other people. reality is something very different many times.

He isn't able to move to another company. His current company has put a covenant not to compete (franchise tag) on him.

The Bears aren't being cheap here, they offered Briggs about 6 mil a year last year with a good signing bonus and Briggs decided that was not enough for him knowing full well that he was going to get the Franchise tag. That was Briggs choice and the Bears choice of what amount they were willing to spend. Now it is Briggs right to hold out within the rules to try and get the Bears to give in. Nobody is wrong here as of yet. I don't have any issues with Briggs trying to maximize his deal, but it is disingenuous for Briggs to say that Chicago is disrespecting him when they made him a reasonable offer that Briggs refused when he knew this was an option the Bears had. This was Briggs choice to get to where we are and he is hoping this will help his negotiation. If you are the Bears you should stick to your guns otherwise they have set a bad precedent. I think the Bears made a mistake trading Jones instead of keeping him for only 2.2 mil a year, but they felt they should deal him. I am not sure of their reasons, but to say the Bears make more than Briggs is irrelevant to the discussion

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the Bears are being cheap when it comes to this. They are making a financial decision that they will only allot X amount of dollars to Briggs. Anything over that amount they won't spend. They know that if he goes on the open market he will command more then what the Bears have offered, thus, instead of upping the offer they are being cheap.

he can move to another company, the NFL is the company and he can go to any "working stiff" company or the CFL or Europe league etc...I do not believe he will earn 7.5 mil a year on the open market.

 

[Snotbubbles]

he can move to another company, the NFL is the company and he can go to any "working stiff" company or the CFL or Europe league etc...I do not believe he will earn 7.5 mil a year on the open market.

The NFL isn't the company, the Chicago Bears are the company. The NFL is the regulator of the individual companies (teams).

 

[3nOut]

Who do you think will make more money next year, Lance Briggs or the Chicago Bears?

Who do you think will be making more money next year, Microsoft or their employee of the year? Who deserves to make more?

To the average joe who's earning capacity is $100,000 sure you look at these guys and say isn't 7MM enough? But these guys aren't the average joe's. It's their right privelege, to go out and make as much as they possibly can in the NFL while they possibly can. Unless you're in that persons shoes you can't say what is enough. 7MM may set this guy up for life, but it certainly isn't enough to set the guy, his kids, his kids kids, and his kids kids kids up. No one in his family may ever have the opportunity to ever earn this type of money again, I say he has a duty to his family and all the future generations of Briggs to max out his earnings while he still has the ability to do so.

Fixed. Noone has the right to play in the NFL. They've been fortunate enough to be blessed with the talent they've been given. And yes, he does have a duty to his family. So if he doesn't like the salary he is being offered, he can go to the CFL, Arena or maybe change careers in order to feed his family.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

he can move to another company, the NFL is the company and he can go to any "working stiff" company or the CFL or Europe league etc...I do not believe he will earn 7.5 mil a year on the open market.

The NFL isn't the company, the Chicago Bears are the company. The NFL is the regulator of the individual companies (teams).

Sort of. The collective bargaining agreement is made with the league as a whole. So for certain purposes, like franchise tags, the league can be thought of as the company.

 

[Christo]

You were the one who said that he could lose money if he gets injured. I just showed that you are wrong because, if he is smart, he won't lose any money.

He'll lose whatever money he had to pay in premiums (which on a policy that would be upwards of 20-30M would be substantial).He'll lose interest on the insurance money while waiting for the policy to be paid AND interest on money he could have gotten in signing bonus money this year (again substantial depending on his investments). Plus, there is no way to determine his ultimate value on how much he is worth, or could be worth or how many years he could have played and at what level he would have played at. Insuring yourself for hypotheticals like that must have additional costs on the premiums.

Sorry, but your first post implied that the imposition of the franchise tag, along with an injury, would cost him millions in lost salary. That's just not the truth. Now you're arguing just to argue.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Sort of. The collective bargaining agreement is made with the league as a whole. So for certain purposes, like franchise tags, the league can be thought of as the company.

The NFL doesn't franchise tag players the individual teams do. The "NFL" is just a figurehead for the individual companies (teams) selected to bargain for (against the NFLPA, TV companies, etc.) and police (salary cap, valid contracts, etc.) the individual companies (teams).

Fixed. Noone has the right to play in the NFL. They've been fortunate enough to be blessed with the talent they've been given. And yes, he does have a duty to his family. So if he doesn't like the salary he is being offered, he can go to the CFL, Arena or maybe change careers in order to feed his family.

I wasn't referring to a right to play in the NFL but a right to earn as much money as he possibly can. It just didn't come out that way because I was thinking faster than I could type.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Sorry, but your first post implied that the imposition of the franchise tag, along with an injury, would cost him millions in lost salary. That's just not the truth. Now you're arguing just to argue.

It will cost him. You act like getting insurance will solve everything. It won't, because if it would then the NFL would guarentee all the contracts and just get insurance like MLB does. But they don't.

 

[Spiderman]

In regards to the bolded part...This is one of the issues we have in the workplace. Everyone is always worried about what other people are making. People should look at their own case and know if they are getting paid what they should be getting paid. if not, move to another company. In this case, I see Football as a company and NOBODY is leaving because they are not compensated enough. They may want to make more throughout their company, but "doing more" is very subjective. You talk to people and Briggs is anywhere from a role player to a guy who is better than Urlacher. In the business world I have employees that all see themselves better than others because they overlook their own shortcomings and focus on what they do better than the other people. reality is something very different many times.

He isn't able to move to another company. His current company has put a covenant not to compete (franchise tag) on him.

The Bears aren't being cheap here, they offered Briggs about 6 mil a year last year with a good signing bonus and Briggs decided that was not enough for him knowing full well that he was going to get the Franchise tag. That was Briggs choice and the Bears choice of what amount they were willing to spend. Now it is Briggs right to hold out within the rules to try and get the Bears to give in. Nobody is wrong here as of yet. I don't have any issues with Briggs trying to maximize his deal, but it is disingenuous for Briggs to say that Chicago is disrespecting him when they made him a reasonable offer that Briggs refused when he knew this was an option the Bears had. This was Briggs choice to get to where we are and he is hoping this will help his negotiation. If you are the Bears you should stick to your guns otherwise they have set a bad precedent. I think the Bears made a mistake trading Jones instead of keeping him for only 2.2 mil a year, but they felt they should deal him. I am not sure of their reasons, but to say the Bears make more than Briggs is irrelevant to the discussion

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the Bears are being cheap when it comes to this. They are making a financial decision that they will only allot X amount of dollars to Briggs. Anything over that amount they won't spend. They know that if he goes on the open market he will command more then what the Bears have offered, thus, instead of upping the offer they are being cheap.

They are paying Briggs the top 5 at his position next year, all guaranteed, and if they end up franchising him for the next two seasons, that's about $15 million in guaranteed money. Why should the Bears sign him to a long-term deal that they deem to be unreasonable or that would cost them other upcoming free agents like Tillman, Vasher, Harris, Berrian and Grossman becauase that is what will happen if you pay 2 LB's HUGE money.

Of course, he'd get offered more money if he was a free agent - that's the nature of free agency. Teams over spend because they want/need a certain player or a certain position filled.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Sort of. The collective bargaining agreement is made with the league as a whole. So for certain purposes, like franchise tags, the league can be thought of as the company.

The NFL doesn't franchise tag players the individual teams do. The "NFL" is just a figurehead for the individual companies (teams) selected to bargain for (against the NFLPA, TV companies, etc.) and police (salary cap, valid contracts, etc.) the individual companies (teams).

And within a company, an individual manager may decide to promote or fire someone or whatever. But the promotion or firing affects that person's relationship with the entire company.The decision to franchise tag someone may be made by an individual team (or an individual manager on a team), but doing so affects the player's relationship with the entire league.For many purposes, individual teams compete with one another as separate entities. For a few purposes, such as deciding on rules (e.g., whether holding should be a five yard penalty or a ten yard penalty), the league acts as a single entity. When it comes to matters contained in the collective bargaining agreement -- rules about how the NFL draft will be conducted, about draft choice compensation for free agent movement, etc. -- the league is effectively acting as a unified entity.Franchise tag rules, like NFL draft rules, fall into the latter category.There would normally be antitrust concerns if separate teams that should be competing with each other for players decide to act instead, for certain purposes, as a unified entity. But antitrust concerns are waived if the anti-competitive stuff is the subject of a collective bargaining agreement.

 

[Snotbubbles]

And within a company, an individual manager may decide to promote or fire someone or whatever. But the promotion or firing affects that person's relationship with the entire company.The decision to franchise tag someone may be made by an individual team (or an individual manager on a team), but doing so affects the player's relationship with the entire league.

I'm not really following you here. How does Chicago tagging Briggs affect his relationship with say the Philadelphia Eagles (other then the obvious ramifications of Philadelphia having to compensate Chicago to sign Briggs).

For many purposes, individual teams compete with one another as separate entities. For a few purposes, such as deciding on rules (e.g., whether holding should be a five yard penalty or a ten yard penalty), the league acts as a single entity. When it comes to matters contained in the collective bargaining agreement -- rules about how the NFL draft will be conducted, about draft choice compensation for free agent movement, etc. -- the league is effectively acting as a unified entity.Franchise tag rules, like NFL draft rules, fall into the latter category.There would normally be antitrust concerns if separate teams that should be competing with each other for players decide to act instead, for certain purposes, as a unified entity. But antitrust concerns are waived if the anti-competitive stuff is the subject of a collective bargaining agreement.

This is just a longer version of what I said earlier. The NFL is just the figure head for the individual teams. The leadership if picked by the teams to represent the teams in whole and in part. The NFL bargains for the teams for the right to tag players, but the NFL doesn't exercise that right, the teams do. So to say that the NFL tags players is inaccurate. The merely bargained for the individual teams to have the option to exercise that right. I think we are trying to say essentially the same thing but it just isn't coming out right.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And within a company, an individual manager may decide to promote or fire someone or whatever. But the promotion or firing affects that person's relationship with the entire company.The decision to franchise tag someone may be made by an individual team (or an individual manager on a team), but doing so affects the player's relationship with the entire league.

I'm not really following you here. How does Chicago tagging Briggs affect his relationship with say the Philadelphia Eagles (other then the obvious ramifications of Philadelphia having to compensate Chicago to sign Briggs).

That's exactly how. It gives Chicago certain rights with respect to Briggs that other teams must respect.

For many purposes, individual teams compete with one another as separate entities. For a few purposes, such as deciding on rules (e.g., whether holding should be a five yard penalty or a ten yard penalty), the league acts as a single entity. When it comes to matters contained in the collective bargaining agreement -- rules about how the NFL draft will be conducted, about draft choice compensation for free agent movement, etc. -- the league is effectively acting as a unified entity.Franchise tag rules, like NFL draft rules, fall into the latter category.There would normally be antitrust concerns if separate teams that should be competing with each other for players decide to act instead, for certain purposes, as a unified entity. But antitrust concerns are waived if the anti-competitive stuff is the subject of a collective bargaining agreement.

This is just a longer version of what I said earlier. The NFL is just the figure head for the individual teams. The leadership if picked by the teams to represent the teams in whole and in part. The NFL bargains for the teams for the right to tag players, but the NFL doesn't exercise that right, the teams do. So to say that the NFL tags players is inaccurate. The merely bargained for the individual teams to have the option to exercise that right. I think we are trying to say essentially the same thing but it just isn't coming out right.

Teams exercise franchise tag rights just like teams exercise draft picks. I didn't say that the NFL tags players -- nor does the NFL draft players. Teams do. But the rights that inure to individual teams by tagging players or by drafting players are bargained for by the league.I think we are saying the same thing. But the point is that Briggs can't go play for the Jets (unless the Jets are willing to compensate the Bears) because of a league rule. He can go play for the CFL, or he can get a job working for a bank somewhere. But he can't play anywhere he wants in the NFL due to an NFL rule. For this particular purpose, you can think of the NFL as the company and the Bears and Jets as branches. An accounting firm may decide to offer an employee a job on the condition that he work in the Scranton branch rather than some other branch; and the NFL may offer Briggs a job on the condition that he plays for the Bears.It's not a perfect analogy because it's still the Bears, not the NFL, that is offering him the job. But thinking of the Bears and Jets as competing entities -- like separate accounting firms who may each make employment offers to an accountant -- is not a perfect analogy either. Unlike accounting firms, the Bears and Jets are part of a larger organization whose rules decide, in some circumstances, which teams may make offers to which players, and which may not. In this sense, Briggs is not deciding between the Bears and the Jets; he is deciding between the Bears/NFL, on the one hand, and the CFL or a bank or whatever on the other.I don't think we're disagreeing. I think we're just characterizing the same thing in different terms.

 

[Ozymandias]

As they used to say in the Old West.

"The game may be crooked, but it's the only game in town."

 

[hutchins929]

To the average joe who's earning capacity is $100,000 sure you look at these guys and say isn't 7MM enough? But these guys aren't the average joe's. It's their right, to go out and make as much as they possibly can while they possibly can. Unless you're in that persons shoes you can't say what is enough. 7MM may set this guy up for life, but it certainly isn't enough to set the guy, his kids, his kids kids, and his kids kids kids up. No one in his family may ever have the opportunity to ever earn this type of money again, I say he has a duty to his family and all the future generations of Briggs to max out his earnings while he still has the ability to do so.

That's absurd. As long as you are smart with your money 7 million is plenty to support several generations. Put it in the bank and he would be able to live comfortably just off of the interest. He could spend that supporting his family and not touch his 7 Million.

 

[dparker713]

The NFL is just the figure head for the individual teams. The leadership if picked by the teams to represent the teams in whole and in part. The NFL bargains for the teams for the right to tag players, but the NFL doesn't exercise that right, the teams do. So to say that the NFL tags players is inaccurate. The merely bargained for the individual teams to have the option to exercise that right. I think we are trying to say essentially the same thing but it just isn't coming out right.

This is just not true. The NFL has an extensive revenue sharing system in place for all manner of revenue streams. Each team has individual ownership and management, but the deals in place essentially effect a transfer in owership shares between the team owners. The NFL is constructed in many respects like the large oil companies with various sub-companies. Considering the amount of revenue sharing you could make the claim that the individual owners actually own something like 69% of their own team and 1% of each of the other teams in the league. They have day to day control and can control their own franchise. They cannot dictate to other franchises alone, but as a whole the owners can set the rules other owners must abide by. Thats kinda an over simplification, but in no way could the NFL be considered a figure head. The NFL has created its own marketplace, and if Briggs wants to work in that marketplace he has to work within the bargained rules of that marketplace. Otherwise, he can seek employment in another business entity.

 

[Liquid Tension]

And within a company, an individual manager may decide to promote or fire someone or whatever. But the promotion or firing affects that person's relationship with the entire company.The decision to franchise tag someone may be made by an individual team (or an individual manager on a team), but doing so affects the player's relationship with the entire league.

I'm not really following you here. How does Chicago tagging Briggs affect his relationship with say the Philadelphia Eagles (other then the obvious ramifications of Philadelphia having to compensate Chicago to sign Briggs).

That's exactly how. It gives Chicago certain rights with respect to Briggs that other teams must respect.

For many purposes, individual teams compete with one another as separate entities. For a few purposes, such as deciding on rules (e.g., whether holding should be a five yard penalty or a ten yard penalty), the league acts as a single entity. When it comes to matters contained in the collective bargaining agreement -- rules about how the NFL draft will be conducted, about draft choice compensation for free agent movement, etc. -- the league is effectively acting as a unified entity.Franchise tag rules, like NFL draft rules, fall into the latter category.There would normally be antitrust concerns if separate teams that should be competing with each other for players decide to act instead, for certain purposes, as a unified entity. But antitrust concerns are waived if the anti-competitive stuff is the subject of a collective bargaining agreement.

This is just a longer version of what I said earlier. The NFL is just the figure head for the individual teams. The leadership if picked by the teams to represent the teams in whole and in part. The NFL bargains for the teams for the right to tag players, but the NFL doesn't exercise that right, the teams do. So to say that the NFL tags players is inaccurate. The merely bargained for the individual teams to have the option to exercise that right. I think we are trying to say essentially the same thing but it just isn't coming out right.

Teams exercise franchise tag rights just like teams exercise draft picks. I didn't say that the NFL tags players -- nor does the NFL draft players. Teams do. But the rights that inure to individual teams by tagging players or by drafting players are bargained for by the league.I think we are saying the same thing. But the point is that Briggs can't go play for the Jets (unless the Jets are willing to compensate the Bears) because of a league rule. He can go play for the CFL, or he can get a job working for a bank somewhere. But he can't play anywhere he wants in the NFL due to an NFL rule. For this particular purpose, you can think of the NFL as the company and the Bears and Jets as branches. An accounting firm may decide to offer an employee a job on the condition that he work in the Scranton branch rather than some other branch; and the NFL may offer Briggs a job on the condition that he plays for the Bears.It's not a perfect analogy because it's still the Bears, not the NFL, that is offering him the job. But thinking of the Bears and Jets as competing entities -- like separate accounting firms who may each make employment offers to an accountant -- is not a perfect analogy either. Unlike accounting firms, the Bears and Jets are part of a larger organization whose rules decide, in some circumstances, which teams may make offers to which players, and which may not. In this sense, Briggs is not deciding between the Bears and the Jets; he is deciding between the Bears/NFL, on the one hand, and the CFL or a bank or whatever on the other.I don't think we're disagreeing. I think we're just characterizing the same thing in different terms.

I think a better way to think of the NFL is to say the NFL is the company but the company has many operating divisions. Let's take FedEx as an example, they have FedEx Express and FedEx Ground and they operate separately so if someone wants to hire someone from the other company they have some rules that they follow, but they are free to hire anyone they want as long as they follow the rules (whatever they may be)

 

[Liquid Tension]

The NFL is just the figure head for the individual teams. The leadership if picked by the teams to represent the teams in whole and in part. The NFL bargains for the teams for the right to tag players, but the NFL doesn't exercise that right, the teams do. So to say that the NFL tags players is inaccurate. The merely bargained for the individual teams to have the option to exercise that right. I think we are trying to say essentially the same thing but it just isn't coming out right.

This is just not true. The NFL has an extensive revenue sharing system in place for all manner of revenue streams. Each team has individual ownership and management, but the deals in place essentially effect a transfer in owership shares between the team owners. The NFL is constructed in many respects like the large oil companies with various sub-companies. Considering the amount of revenue sharing you could make the claim that the individual owners actually own something like 69% of their own team and 1% of each of the other teams in the league. They have day to day control and can control their own franchise. They cannot dictate to other franchises alone, but as a whole the owners can set the rules other owners must abide by. Thats kinda an over simplification, but in no way could the NFL be considered a figure head. The NFL has created its own marketplace, and if Briggs wants to work in that marketplace he has to work within the bargained rules of that marketplace. Otherwise, he can seek employment in another business entity.

I think this was a good example

 

[Southside Stosh]

I wouldn't be suprised if Briggs is dealt on draft day. Despite what Angelo says, I don't think Briggs will be on the roster in 07 - unless Da Bears can't make a viable trade.