If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Did see it posted anywhere so i thought i post it.
POSTED 4:13 p.m. EDT, July 25, 2007
BRIGGS DEAL NOT AS CLOSE AS ADVERTISED
A league source tells us that, despite a report in the Chicago Tribune suggesting that the Bears and linebacker Lance Briggs could soon be getting together on a one-year deal, an end to the offseason-long impasse between the two sides isn't as close as suggested.
Briggs, the Bears' franchise player under the CBA, has been tendered a one-year contract that is worth $7.2 million in guaranteed money, if/when he signs it. July 16 was the deadline for working out a long-term deal, but the Tribune reported that Briggs could be signing a one-year deal soon, which would give him a big chunk of the salary as a signing bonus and a promise that the Bears would not hang the franchise tag on him in 2008.
A reader has asked whether the Bears could remove the franchise tag and then sign Briggs to a long-term deal. We suppose that it's possible, but we're not so sure that the Bears would be willing to take the risk that an unrestricted Briggs would make a beeline for the Redskins.
yet again proving why I never visit PFT or take any of the rumors I hear from there with any merit...The deal is made official pretty much immediately after they report this.
More important, the Bears have agreed that they will not use a franchise marker in 2008 on Briggs, to again limit his mobility, provided that he participates in 75 percent of the defensive snaps this season.
If Briggs gets hurt, or misses a significant amount of playing time for some other reason, he could find himself right back where he just was; tagged by the Bears.
Originally posted by njx9
i invite all of you to spam the board with moronic topics that aren't even vaguely entertaining. please.
I don't understand how Briggs was demanding more money essentially than what the Bears are paying Urlacher...granted Urlacher's contract is way under what he deserves and I understand Briggs wanted to go onto the market to get the most $$ from any team...but did he honestly think that by trying to scare the Bears by "holding out" that they would pay him more than they are paying Urlacher? Personally, for that logic alone I wouldn't try it...
Briggs deserves more money than Urlacher is making simply because the market has changed. Urlacher's contract is four years old. Urlacher makes only $6.2 million per year because his contract is so old. If Jerry Angelo offered Briggs less than $6.2 per year he probably would be laughed off the face of the Earth. You just can't compare what a contract [potentially] signed this year to one signed four years ago. The market has changed a ton in those four years.
Right, I understand that Urlacher's contract is ancient...but simply the fact that he wants to be paid more than the best player on the team just strikes me as ridiculous...but I understand it's not his fault Urlacher is greatly underpaid, but still