Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 102
  1. #11
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    I find it hard to feel sympathy for anyone who has the potential to make 7.2 million dollars for playing a game for one year.

    let him go out into the world and earn any amount his education will give him and he won't make that in a lifetime.

  2. #12
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    Didn't see a new thread, thought I would just add it to this one.


    Anyone see ESPN last night or this morning.
    Briggs was on there and said he plans to sit the season if he doesn't have a long term deal.

    I have to agree with Briggs, the franchise tag is wrong.
    A player is totally being used.
    He isn't getting the assest or capital he should when he is not allowed to go out and get that signing bonus.
    As a 40 hour a week guy, you can't say anything like, "that is so much money and he should just take it and not complain," that is wrong too.
    It would be similar to if the 40 hour a week guy not getting a xmas bonus when the rest of the employees did. Even more closely similar would be if the xmas bonus was just given out in the last few days in Dec. and the management said what the heck, we are going to give you next year's xmas bonus in a few days on Jan 1st.
    You don't even have to repay it if you get sick and can't come to work the whole year.
    Oh yah, this Jan bonus check is going to be equivalent to your salary this year.
    Now tell me that you and me wouldn't be upset about this.

    The following still doesn't right all the wrongs of the tag, but it would help. The franchise tag should have a price on the teams that give the player an insurance policy that will pay the player triple the contract if he sustains an injury and can't play or get another contract of the same numbers in the following season.
    Write some sort of provision that says the money won't count against any cap figures... blah blah blah.

    I hope Briggs does sit out. LOL!


    We'd previously heard that the Bears are shopping Briggs.
    But whoever wants him has to work out a deal with the team, and a deal with the player.
    Given the contract signed by Adalius Thomas with the Pats, it's safe to say that Briggs will be looking for at least $20 million in guaranteed money, if not more.
    20 million vs 7 million the guy is getting robbed.

    The guy was paid the league minimum the last 3 years and he was a pro bowler.

  3. #13
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    "snowinapril" wrote:
    20 million vs 7 million the guy is getting robbed.

    The guy was paid the league minimum the last 3 years and he was a pro bowler.
    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
    He's only going to get $7million next year to PLAY A FRIGGING GAME for a living.


    Pathetic.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  4. #14
    Del Rio is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    881

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    I have always said this, I could care less if a player holds out.

    It's all they have.

    The NFL owns them and many times they sign them to big contracts and they never see the majority of the money. If you don't like your job and you try to transfer and they say no you're stuck here you quit.

    Same thing. He isn't going to be getting paid for the time he is out.

    It is his right and I honestly do not blame him for doing it.

    Pathetic is focusing on money. Which fans are doing. He stated himself he wants to be the leader. He wants to advance and get out of Brian Urlachers shadow. He wants a commitment from the Bears that he will be around for many years.

    Why? Probably becuase of his family, his home, his life. It isn't always about money. When you start talking millions it is probably arbitrary. You need to be happy and moving your family every year is not happiness. Taking your kids out of school every year is not happiness, not having a home is not happiness.

    The guy played great and you reward him by tagging him for one year when he said he wanted a long term secure deal that would keep him in Chicago. Screw the bears they do not deserve him.
    If you promise to be smarter, I will promise to be nicer.

    My posts are worth 6 of yours.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    999

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    The franchise tag is 'wrong'?
    ???


    The NFL Players Union agreed to it, and those players who are tagged agree to it by agreeing to abide by league-wide labor rules written into the CBA.

    The rules for tags were written into the CBA agreements over the years since labor laws related to pro sports changed in the 1970's and 1980's to allow players (Baseball; e.g. Curt Flood's case, Football, Basketball, etc. ) more freedom to determine their employers and employment situation.
    'Tags' were a compromise that allows an NFL team to protect some of the goodwill value in their franchise due to the high skill level players they developed (i.e. trained).
    Tags allow them to retain some bargaining leverage with certain players in order to preserve the opportunity for competitive equilibrium, or parity, among all the teams in the NFL.


    Because a player is put in a disadvantagous situation because he is identified by his team as a 'franchise tag player', it doesn't invalidate the legal agreements.
    IIRC, all NFL player's contracts have provisions or clauses that state they agree to abide by the CBA rules.

    If the franchise tag is 'wrong', why have the NFLPA and Owners Association agreed to continue it at each renewal of the CBA?
    When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all !

  6. #16
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    "Del" wrote:
    I have always said this, I could care less if a player holds out.

    It's all they have.

    The NFL owns them and many times they sign them to big contracts and they never see the majority of the money. If you don't like your job and you try to transfer and they say no you're stuck here you quit.

    Same thing. He isn't going to be getting paid for the time he is out.

    It is his right and I honestly do not blame him for doing it.

    Pathetic is focusing on money. Which fans are doing. He stated himself he wants to be the leader. He wants to advance and get out of Brian Urlachers shadow. He wants a commitment from the Bears that he will be around for many years.

    Why? Probably becuase of his family, his home, his life. It isn't always about money. When you start talking millions it is probably arbitrary. You need to be happy and moving your family every year is not happiness. Taking your kids out of school every year is not happiness, not having a home is not happiness.

    The guy played great and you reward him by tagging him for one year when he said he wanted a long term secure deal that would keep him in Chicago. Screw the bears they do not deserve him.
    The Bears offered him a long-term contract in April of 2006 and he rejected it.

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060830/ai_n16693175

    The 2003 third-round pick rejected a substantial offer in April, a six-year contract worth more than $33 million -- essentially what the Bears paid left tackle John Tait two years ago.
    Briggs is angry with the Bears for using an option that HIS UNION agreed to in negotiations with the NFL.
    That anger is mis-directed - he needs to be pissed off at Gene Upshaw, not the Bears.
    They are doing what is in their best interests at this point.

    I don't get why you're defending him?
    He'll make more money next year with the $7million than I will in my entire working life.


    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  7. #17
    Del Rio is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    881

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    "Purplexing" wrote:
    The franchise tag is 'wrong'?

    ???



    The NFL Players Union agreed to it, and those players who are tagged agree to it by agreeing to abide by league-wide labor rules written into the CBA.

    The rules for tags were written into the CBA agreements over the years since labor laws related to pro sports changed in the 1970's and 1980's to allow players (Baseball; e.g. Curt Flood's case, Football, Basketball, etc. ) more freedom to determine their employers and employment situation.
    'Tags' were a compromise that allows an NFL team to protect some of the goodwill value in their franchise due to the high skill level players they developed (i.e. trained).
    Tags allow them to retain some bargaining leverage with certain players in order to preserve the opportunity for competitive equilibrium, or parity, among all the teams in the NFL.



    Because a player is put in a disadvantagous situation because he is identified by his team as a 'franchise tag player', it doesn't invalidate the legal agreements.

    IIRC, all NFL player's contracts have provisions or clauses that state they agree to abide by the CBA rules.

    If the franchise tag is 'wrong', why have the NFLPA and Owners Association agreed to continue it at each renewal of the CBA?
    If the union agreeing on something makes it right then I don't want to know what wrong is. I work for the government and the union here causes more grief then good.

    Why did the Owners Association agree to it? Do you need an answer to that? It benifits the owners.

    The franchise tag effects a VERY LIMITED number of players. The Union is supposed to do what is in the best interest for the majority of players. Why would a #2 WR care about a franchise tag when it would pay him more then he would get anywhere else.

    It hurts great players who are few and far between, when it is used by a team to tag someone who is a good player who would be snapped up but not demand a lot of money it allows a team to sign the great player while still holding onto their blue collar players until next season when they can work out a deal under the cap.

    When the tag is used on a great player it limits his options his worth and wastes a year of his career.

    And like I said the Great players are the minority of the people targeted by the franchise tag, they garner the most attention but they are not the the majority. You could argue the Union is supposed to support the minority, but what they are supposed to do is protect the majority of the people who are under the higher power that controls them...

    Just because the Union approved this and the Owners did (no brainer). Does not make it right. You have 10 people voting and 7 of them are mid talent level players, with 3 of them being great big money dealers why would it NOT PASS? It is in the best interest of the mid talent mid salary player to approve this deal.

    If you promise to be smarter, I will promise to be nicer.

    My posts are worth 6 of yours.

  8. #18
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    "Del" wrote:
    I have always said this, I could care less if a player holds out.

    It's all they have.

    The NFL owns them and many times they sign them to big contracts and they never see the majority of the money. If you don't like your job and you try to transfer and they say no you're stuck here you quit.

    Same thing. He isn't going to be getting paid for the time he is out.

    It is his right and I honestly do not blame him for doing it.

    Pathetic is focusing on money. Which fans are doing. He stated himself he wants to be the leader. He wants to advance and get out of Brian Urlachers shadow. He wants a commitment from the Bears that he will be around for many years.

    Why? Probably becuase of his family, his home, his life. It isn't always about money. When you start talking millions it is probably arbitrary. You need to be happy and moving your family every year is not happiness. Taking your kids out of school every year is not happiness, not having a home is not happiness.

    The guy played great and you reward him by tagging him for one year when he said he wanted a long term secure deal that would keep him in Chicago. Screw the bears they do not deserve him.
    I agree...with the bold statement!
    ;D
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  9. #19
    Del Rio is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    881

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "Del" wrote:
    I have always said this, I could care less if a player holds out.

    It's all they have.

    The NFL owns them and many times they sign them to big contracts and they never see the majority of the money. If you don't like your job and you try to transfer and they say no you're stuck here you quit.

    Same thing. He isn't going to be getting paid for the time he is out.

    It is his right and I honestly do not blame him for doing it.

    Pathetic is focusing on money. Which fans are doing. He stated himself he wants to be the leader. He wants to advance and get out of Brian Urlachers shadow. He wants a commitment from the Bears that he will be around for many years.

    Why? Probably becuase of his family, his home, his life. It isn't always about money. When you start talking millions it is probably arbitrary. You need to be happy and moving your family every year is not happiness. Taking your kids out of school every year is not happiness, not having a home is not happiness.

    The guy played great and you reward him by tagging him for one year when he said he wanted a long term secure deal that would keep him in Chicago. Screw the bears they do not deserve him.
    The Bears offered him a long-term contract in April of 2006 and he rejected it.

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060830/ai_n16693175

    The 2003 third-round pick rejected a substantial offer in April, a six-year contract worth more than $33 million -- essentially what the Bears paid left tackle John Tait two years ago.
    Briggs is angry with the Bears for using an option that HIS UNION agreed to in negotiations with the NFL.
    That anger is mis-directed - he needs to be pissed off at Gene Upshaw, not the Bears.
    They are doing what is in their best interests at this point.

    I don't get why you're defending him?
    He'll make more money next year with the $7million than I will in my entire working life.


    =Z=
    What do I care what you make for your life, and why would I use this as justification for a guy to be happy? Just because he makes more then you he should be happy?

    If he doesnt want to play in Chicago even if it is for the reasons he stated, one of which was not wanting to be second fiddle he doesnt have to play in Chicago, his only way out is to hold out.

    It doesn't make him greedy it makes him normal. If you were as high as you could be in your job and wanted something better then it is your right to get out. Like I said he doesnt get paid for holding out. He can quit his job for a better situation for his family.

    You focus on money and that is the problem. You may have things he would like. A secure home a solid school for his kids, no traveling every other week away from his family.....and he may have something you don't 7 million dollars. What you value should have no bearing on his decisions.

    And the Union garbage is just that. He belongs to the Union by default and is in the minority being a pro-bowl member. I am a memeber of a union to, by default they do not always support my best interest. So please do not attempt to say by being a member of the Union which he has to be, that what they decide is supported by him. He may have even fought it and lost, I have done the same. Majority rules even in the Union.

    He fulfilled his contract which he signed. I have never been asked to sign something that the union approves. I have even fought many things that would benifit a certain group of union members but not myself and it passed without my approval. I also have no choice in being represented by them. Even if you do not pay dues you are represented by the union.
    If you promise to be smarter, I will promise to be nicer.

    My posts are worth 6 of yours.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    999

    Re: Briggs wants out of Chicago

    Players must honor agreements they sign.
    The CBA was signed, and is referenced in players contracts as provisions or clauses.
    If a player didn't want to honor them, there is always the CFL, or other avenues of employment open to them.
    Would the compensation be less in the CFL, or elsewhere?
    Yes, most likely so.

    Briggs could ask for $20 million per year, and a $50 million signing bonus, which is far above his market value.
    That would automatically result in him being tagged by Da Bearrrsss, who would be right in not accepting the attempted 'extortion'.
    Da Bearrrsss would do this to protect their right for compensation.
    Da Bearrrsss earned their right to compensation by scouting various players, and drafting them, or trading players or draft picks to obtain the draft pick which was used to obtain a current player.



    Briggs' estimation of his value may be far off the perception of Da Bearrrsss
    management, and perhaps the rest of the league.
    Is that a valid reason for him to not honor the CBA?
    No.
    The league may need to intervene if the two parties in the dispute cannot reach a compromise.

    The issue of risk of career-ending injury while playing for $7 million while he could get $10 million or more per season is moot.
    He can buy a disability insurance policy to cover future earnings lost due to disability from Lloyds of London, etc.
    When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all !

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-06-2009, 02:40 PM
  2. Lance Briggs returns to Bears
    By FuadFan in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-02-2008, 11:33 AM
  3. Lance Briggs crashes Lamborghini
    By Garland Greene in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-30-2007, 09:42 AM
  4. As expected, Briggs not at minicamp
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-19-2007, 10:52 AM
  5. Bear fan on Briggs situation.
    By davike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-03-2007, 02:17 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •