Briggs Mad as HELL

[XXXVII Champs]

I wish someone would insult me with $7.2 million.

Yeah, I'd be cussing all the way to the bank.

I'm sure a great many of us would like to have couple hundred grand..... should he play for that too?

[karen anderson]

I'll suit up for 7.2 million.

I'll suit up for 7.2 million.

You'd do it for a helluva lot less than that, as would a great many of us.

[cheveliar]

I'll suit up for 7.2 million.

You'd do it for a helluva lot less than that, as would a great many of us.

Give me 100 grand for being a backup...Hell I might even pay them for some real jerseys and some of them good practice shorts...

[bklynbucs11]

Its ironic that all of you ignore the point I made earlier. I'll reiterate. Lance Briggs is currently under contract with the Bears. Part of his initial contract stipulates that the Bears are allowed to use the franchise or transition tag on him - end of story. If he doesn't like it - don't sign the damn contract or put in a stipulation to prevent teams from doing this. thats allowed under contract law. So legally, his playing rights - under a contract that he WILLINGLY signed - belong to the Bears. This is NOT like a typical employment contract because there are specific duration terms. So no, he can't just walk out and seek other employment. End of story. Don't bring up the issue of "oh - free employment" its not the case. Because by the same token - Joey Galloway should probably walk out on the 5-year extension he signed with us because he's played up to more than the contract is worth in the last 2 seasons and he too is "missing his payday".

Telling me that he's missing out on a big payday is the same as saying a guy with one year left on his contract is missing out on a big payday this year. And we all know if that happened - no one would take Briggs' side.

[cheveliar]

Dude that makes no sense.  If he was currently under contract there would be no need to franchise him...

[bklynbucs11]

Dude that makes no sense.  If he was currently under contract there would be no need to franchise him...

yes it does make sense. Its a residual contract. Part of his contract obligation is that the Chicago Bears have full right to franchise him after his initial deal expires. Think about it - this equates to the same thing as having one more year left on your contract.

[cheveliar]

You might be right, I'm not a contract or cap guy.  Just sounds weird to me.  Sounds more like his contract was up.  So they have the option, to franchise him vs letting him realize his earning potential on the free agent market...I don't see how contractually he's bound to that other than through the CBA...