DrunkBomber Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 We only get two first rounders if someone signs him this year which nobody will. Im saying if he sits out all of next year and just walks we get nothing back for him. Unless we franchise him again, which I really dont think they would. If we can get a first day pick for him we might as well just take it and move on. If we dont trade him we are gonna end up getting nothing for him and hes just gonna waist a year of his career. Nobody wins, even if we get undervalued picks for his talent its better than nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguy79 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 an interesting game of leverage on both sides...I don't think Lance will walk from $7+mm this year. Those are big checks to pass up and he isn't the best player in the league to be pulling shots like he is. At this point I would test his word as he is probably tarnished to the point that trade offers are going to be crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 04:59 PM) That's the point I was making. If a team comes to Angelo, that's where you start. If they say, no f'in way, which they absolutely will, then what's the difference? Lance still sits. The difference is you might get a low first or a second plus a mid-rounder. You're gonna throw away two good picks just to f some guy over? No thanks. Do what's best for the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 04:20 PM) The difference is you might get a low first or a second plus a mid-rounder. You're gonna throw away two good picks just to f some guy over? No thanks. Do what's best for the team. Yeah...and...? Lance Briggs playing for the Bears is what's best for the team and the Bears gave Lance 7,200,000 reasons to do just that. It may not be best for Lance Briggs, but that's not the way the system is set up. If he'd shut up and just talk to Angelo, maybe they could have had a gentlemen's agreement, a la Thomas Jones, that he'd play under the franchise tag this year, they won't tag him again next year. But, now that he's made a total ass out of himself and is trying his damndest to make the Bears look bad...yeah, sit your a** down if you don't like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) Yeah...and...? Lance Briggs playing for the Bears is what's best for the team and the Bears gave Lance 7,200,000 reasons to do just that. It may not be best for Lance Briggs, but that's not the way the system is set up. If he'd shut up and just talk to Angelo, maybe they could have had a gentlemen's agreement, a la Thomas Jones, that he'd play under the franchise tag this year, they won't tag him again next year. But, now that he's made a total ass out of himself and is trying his damndest to make the Bears look bad...yeah, sit your a** down if you don't like it. I mean best POSSIBLE, obviously. Sure, the best thing for the Bears would be to have Briggs next year. It'd be best for the Bears if Peyton Manning was our qb, but that's not gonna happen, either. If your first objective is to teach someone a lesson, sure, franchise him this year and franchise him again next year. I prefer a competitive team, that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) I mean best POSSIBLE, obviously. Sure, the best thing for the Bears would be to have Briggs next year. It'd be best for the Bears if Peyton Manning was our qb, but that's not gonna happen, either. If your first objective is to teach someone a lesson, sure, franchise him this year and franchise him again next year. I prefer a competitive team, that's all. My first objective is putting the best team on the field. And that includes Lance Briggs. The Bears did nothing out of the ordinary or against the rules. Lance wants to go on the open market, which makes total sense. But, that's not the system. He could have shut his big yapper, played out the year, pocketed his guaranteed $7.2 mil and gone on the market next year. If not, another guaranteed $8.6 mil. I don't understand what the big deal is...that's a GUARANTEED 2 year contract worth $15.8 million dollars. That's nothing to spit on, but Lance did. So, let him sit. Tell him you fielded offers, but the Bears thought he was worth more than what was being offered. *wipes hands* Done and...done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 05:44 PM) My first objective is putting the best team on the field. And that includes Lance Briggs. The Bears did nothing out of the ordinary or against the rules. Lance wants to go on the open market, which makes total sense. But, that's not the system. He could have shut his big yapper, played out the year, pocketed his guaranteed $7.2 mil and gone on the market next year. If not, another guaranteed $8.6 mil. I don't understand what the big deal is...that's a GUARANTEED 2 year contract worth $15.8 million dollars. That's nothing to spit on, but Lance did. So, let him sit. Tell him you fielded offers, but the Bears thought he was worth more than what was being offered. *wipes hands* Done and...done. I missed the part where the Bears are guaranteeing the second year. Probably cuz it doesn't exist. Your policy ends with Lance sitting out the year and the Bears getting nothing when he signs elsewhere in 2008. Sure, he'll get less money. The Bears get NOTHING, because there's no chance we get offered two firsts. It makes the Bears a worse team than they could be. I happen to dislike that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Lance is on SC now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:07 PM) Lance is on SC now. Crap! I just turned it on as they went to commercial. What'd he say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 05:09 PM) Crap! I just turned it on as they went to commercial. What'd he say? "I'm the CEO of Lance Briggs" just about says it all. He's disappointed that it's like this but he feels he's doing the right thing. It will air again so don't worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:16 PM) "I'm the CEO of Lance Briggs" just about says it all. He's disappointed that it's like this but he feels he's doing the right thing. It will air again so don't worry. Thanks -- funny quote, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 04:57 PM) I missed the part where the Bears are guaranteeing the second year. Probably cuz it doesn't exist. Your policy ends with Lance sitting out the year and the Bears getting nothing when he signs elsewhere in 2008. Sure, he'll get less money. The Bears get NOTHING, because there's no chance we get offered two firsts. It makes the Bears a worse team than they could be. I happen to dislike that. I was only saying that IF the Bears franchised him again in 2008, that contract would be guaranteed, not that they will. And you are absolutely right, if Lance doesn't play, the Bears get nothing, except $7.2 million that they won't have to pay and whatever fines they get from him not showing. Plus, they can get either Jamar Williams or Rod Wilson some playing time. Or some free agent. Plus, if Lance wants to get paid like he thinks he should be, he HAS to play this season. Not because teams will be upset by him sitting out, but because he sat out a year. And as someone said before, even if he trains all year, it's not game play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:57 PM) I was only saying that IF the Bears franchised him again in 2008, that contract would be guaranteed, not that they will. And you are absolutely right, if Lance doesn't play, the Bears get nothing, except $7.2 million that they won't have to pay and whatever fines they get from him not showing. Plus, they can get either Jamar Williams or Rod Wilson some playing time. Or some free agent. Plus, if Lance wants to get paid like he thinks he should be, he HAS to play this season. Not because teams will be upset by him sitting out, but because he sat out a year. And as someone said before, even if he trains all year, it's not game play. So wait one second. If the Bears franchise Briggs, and he doesn't show up to play, the Bears don't have to pay him. So, the whole motivation behind making sure that teams don't franchise people 2 years in a row is that their salary goes up 20% each successive year they're franchised. So, if Mr. Briggs refuses to suit up and Rosenhaus can't find a suitable trade partner...if he's sitting out the whole season, that means that the Bears can franchise him again and have it not cost them a dime because he won't bother to show up, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 08:38 PM) So wait one second. If the Bears franchise Briggs, and he doesn't show up to play, the Bears don't have to pay him. So, the whole motivation behind making sure that teams don't franchise people 2 years in a row is that their salary goes up 20% each successive year they're franchised. So, if Mr. Briggs refuses to suit up and Rosenhaus can't find a suitable trade partner...if he's sitting out the whole season, that means that the Bears can franchise him again and have it not cost them a dime because he won't bother to show up, right? Thats relatively right but there is a loop hole where if he comes back with 6 weeks left he isnt property of the Bears anymore and they cant franchise him. Clayton was talking about it on sportscenter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 09:57 PM) I was only saying that IF the Bears franchised him again in 2008, that contract would be guaranteed, not that they will. And you are absolutely right, if Lance doesn't play, the Bears get nothing, except $7.2 million that they won't have to pay and whatever fines they get from him not showing. Plus, they can get either Jamar Williams or Rod Wilson some playing time. Or some free agent. Plus, if Lance wants to get paid like he thinks he should be, he HAS to play this season. Not because teams will be upset by him sitting out, but because he sat out a year. And as someone said before, even if he trains all year, it's not game play. "guaranteed" = not conditional on anything. So it's meaningless to say x is guaranteed, IF y etc. Then x isn't guaranteed at all. If Briggs gets a contract now, the guaranteed money is really guaranteed (as in, guaranteed now). At least $20 mil, NOW, no injury worries, no performance worries, nothing. With the franchise offer, only 7 and a half or so is truly guaranteed. That's a huge difference. As for getting someone playing time, that's nice and all, but it doesn't substitute for talent. Give me the picks. I'm just not sure about the last part. My personal belief is that he'd still outdo $8 mil in guaranteed money by sitting out a year. And Rosenhaus, who knows better than I, seems willing to risk it. Maybe because he knows that not even the stupidest NFL team would throw away that much value just to stick it to a player. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 10:38 PM) So wait one second. If the Bears franchise Briggs, and he doesn't show up to play, the Bears don't have to pay him. So, the whole motivation behind making sure that teams don't franchise people 2 years in a row is that their salary goes up 20% each successive year they're franchised. So, if Mr. Briggs refuses to suit up and Rosenhaus can't find a suitable trade partner...if he's sitting out the whole season, that means that the Bears can franchise him again and have it not cost them a dime because he won't bother to show up, right? I bet he'd play the second year, cursing all the way to the bank. Two years out of the game is too much. QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 10:43 PM) Thats relatively right but there is a loop hole where if he comes back with 6 weeks left he isnt property of the Bears anymore and they cant franchise him. Clayton was talking about it on sportscenter. Is there a link to anything talking about this loophole? Cuz looking throught the CBA franchise tag section, I can't find anything like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 09:10 PM) "guaranteed" = not conditional on anything. So it's meaningless to say x is guaranteed, IF y etc. Then x isn't guaranteed at all. If Briggs gets a contract now, the guaranteed money is really guaranteed (as in, guaranteed now). At least $20 mil, NOW, no injury worries, no performance worries, nothing. With the franchise offer, only 7 and a half or so is truly guaranteed. That's a huge difference. As for getting someone playing time, that's nice and all, but it doesn't substitute for talent. Give me the picks. I'm just not sure about the last part. My personal belief is that he'd still outdo $8 mil in guaranteed money by sitting out a year. And Rosenhaus, who knows better than I, seems willing to risk it. Maybe because he knows that not even the stupidest NFL team would throw away that much value just to stick it to a player. I bet he'd play the second year, cursing all the way to the bank. Two years out of the game is too much. Is there a link to anything talking about this loophole? Cuz looking throught the CBA franchise tag section, I can't find anything like this. I dont know, I just heard John Clayton talking about it and Lance seemed to know what he was talking about. Ill look around though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 10:35 PM) I dont know, I just heard John Clayton talking about it and Lance seemed to know what he was talking about. Ill look around though. The way I believe it works is he can sit out the first 10 weeks and come back for the last 6 weeks, to get credit for a season. If he didn't return he'd still be under contract for the following year. If he did return for the final 6 weeks The Bears would have to take him in and pay him, but they don't have to play him or even activate him for the games. Briggs will also be fined $14,000 for each day he misses of training camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) The way I believe it works is he can sit out the first 10 weeks and come back for the last 6 weeks, to get credit for a season. If he didn't return he'd still be under contract for the following year. If he did return for the final 6 weeks The Bears would have to take him in and pay him, but they don't have to play him or even activate him for the games. Briggs will also be fined $14,000 for each day he misses of training camp. But why can't they franchise him? From the CBA, Article XX: If a Franchise Player does not play in the NFL in a League Year, his Prior Team shall have the right to designate such player as a Franchise Player or a Transition Player the following League Year, if such designation is otherwise available to the Team, except that the applicable tender must be made and any 120% tender shall be measured from the Player’s prior year salary. If such a player is redesignated as a Franchise Player for the League Year following the League Year in which he does not play, the player may be designated only under Section 2(a)(i) above, except that Draft Choice Compensation of only one first round draft selection and one third round draft selection shall be made with respect to such player in the event he signs with the New Club. I'm not saying the Bears would franchise him, but I don't think he can do anything to prevent that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 05:42 PM) But why can't they franchise him? From the CBA, Article XX: I'm not saying the Bears would franchise him, but I don't think he can do anything to prevent that. Oh they totally can. I was just explaning the whole 6 weeks thing. It isn't a loophole at all. All it means is Briggs gets credit for an accrued season. The Bears can then lay the tag on him again if they choose. The only difference I beleive is now he would get the average of the top 5 salaries in the league, not just the LB position. Where as without playing those 6 weeks....it's as if the year didn't even count and he is still full property of the bears. If they franchised him again...I'm not sure, but I think it would only count as a first year franchise tag cause the previous year is void if he doesn't come back for 6 games. Either way...I still beleive there is no way Briggs sits out next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 07:25 AM) Oh they totally can. I was just explaning the whole 6 weeks thing. It isn't a loophole at all. All it means is Briggs gets credit for an accrued season. The Bears can then lay the tag on him again if they choose. The only difference I beleive is now he would get the average of the top 5 salaries in the league, not just the LB position. Where as without playing those 6 weeks....it's as if the year didn't even count and he is still full property of the bears. If they franchised him again...I'm not sure, but I think it would only count as a first year franchise tag cause the previous year is void if he doesn't come back for 6 games. Either way...I still beleive there is no way Briggs sits out next year. Thats what Im beginning to think. I see Briggs playing next year with the tag. I dont know what would happen after that though. I think it would depend on how much we have to give Harris/Berrian/Peanut and Rex. In Rex's case id like to see them sign him before next season with a contract loaded with incentives because if he has a monster year he could become very expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 08:40 AM) Thats what Im beginning to think. I see Briggs playing next year with the tag. I dont know what would happen after that though. I think it would depend on how much we have to give Harris/Berrian/Peanut and Rex. In Rex's case id like to see them sign him before next season with a contract loaded with incentives because if he has a monster year he could become very expensive. If he plays next season...here's what'll happen to Lance: And I could see them re-signing Harris, Peanut and Rex. Berrian is the easiest to replace out of those four, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) If he plays next season...here's what'll happen to Lance: And I could see them re-signing Harris, Peanut and Rex. Berrian is the easiest to replace out of those four, IMO. I dont know about Berrian. With the luck weve had with wide receivers hes definitely somebody I want to keep around. He wont be that expensive and means a lot to our offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 09:25 AM) Oh they totally can. I was just explaning the whole 6 weeks thing. It isn't a loophole at all. All it means is Briggs gets credit for an accrued season. The Bears can then lay the tag on him again if they choose. The only difference I beleive is now he would get the average of the top 5 salaries in the league, not just the LB position. Where as without playing those 6 weeks....it's as if the year didn't even count and he is still full property of the bears. If they franchised him again...I'm not sure, but I think it would only count as a first year franchise tag cause the previous year is void if he doesn't come back for 6 games. Either way...I still beleive there is no way Briggs sits out next year. I don't think a player ever gets the average of the top 5 salaries in the league. From the CBA, it seems that, the third time a player gets franchised, he gets either the average of the top 5 salaries of whichever position has the highest average for top 5 salaries (qb, I imagine), or 120% of the average of the top 5 at his position, or 144% of his prior year salary. From the CBA: Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time shall, on the date the third such designation is made, be deemed to have tendered the player a one-year NFL Player Contract for the greater of: (1) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) with the highest such average; (2) 120% of the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the player played the most games during the prior League Year; or (3) 144% of his Prior Year Salary. By way of example, a kicker designated as a Franchise Player for the third time in the 2007 League Year would have a Required Tender equal to the greater of: (i) the average of the five largest 2006 Salaries for quarterbacks; (ii) 120% of the average of the five largest 2006 Salaries for kickers; or (iii) 144% of the player’s own 2006 Salary. If the Club designates the player as a Franchise Player for the third time, the designating Club shall be the only Club with which the player may negotiate or sign a Player Contract. There doesn't seem to be anything special about the second tag, although 120% of the prior year salary could still be enormous, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 10:15 AM) There doesn't seem to be anything special about the second tag, although 120% of the prior year salary could still be enormous, obviously. Briggs's salary only goes up if he plays in at least 6 games next season. If he sits out the whole year while tagged, then he can be tagged at just about the same price next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 01:18 PM) Briggs's salary only goes up if he plays in at least 6 games next season. If he sits out the whole year while tagged, then he can be tagged at just about the same price next season. Which is what CC was saying, I think. It doesn't really count as a second tag, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.