Briggs Mad as HELL

[DanTurksGhost]

Well, McDonald's is hiring. With some hard work, he could become crew leader and maybe get into the management training program.

[leeroybuc93]

The Bears did screw him over hard, because at 7 million a year, he is a relative bargain considering the playmaking he brings.

They screwed him by taking advantage of a provision of the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between the league and the representatives of the players?

Now, he will not make the big dollars, and he might be forced to sit until next year, in which his stock might drop as a result of one years vacay.

Forced? The only one forcing him to sit for a year would be himself. He can take the year off and get nothing, or show up for work and pick up $450,000 a week.

Generally this tag is used to buy the team more time to hammer out a contract.  The Bears have stated in no uncertain terms that they have no desire to give Briggs a long term deal.  Most teams franchise you and then pay you.  The Bears aren't doing that here.

[Boid Fink]

Well, McDonald's is hiring. With some hard work, he could become crew leader and maybe get into the management training program.

I don't get it....

[DanTurksGhost]

Generally this tag is used to buy the team more time to hammer out a contract.  The Bears have stated in no uncertain terms that they have no desire to give Briggs a long term deal.  Most teams franchise you and then pay you.  The Bears aren't doing that here.

So?

[leeroybuc93]

As for that fact that it's the team's right to franchise a guy, it's also the guy's right to be pissed about it and sit out a year.  This is still America and if someone isn't paying you what you want, you are under no obligation to work for them.

[DanTurksGhost]

I don't get it....

Meaning he has other employment opportunities available to him if he finds it too annoying to have to cash those $450,000-a-week checks.

[leeroybuc93]

I don't get it....

Meaning he has other employment opportunities available to him if he finds it too annoying to have to cash those $450,000-a-week checks.

But not in the same field which 99% of every other Americans do.

[Boid Fink]

Generally this tag is used to buy the team more time to hammer out a contract. The Bears have stated in no uncertain terms that they have no desire to give Briggs a long term deal. Most teams franchise you and then pay you. The Bears aren't doing that here.

So?

HE DOES NOT WANT TO PLAY FOR A ONE YEAR DEAL.  HE WANTS TO SET UP HIS OWN PLACE TO DOMINATE.  HE WANTS THE MONEY THAT RETREADS LIKE JOE SMITH AND MIKE JONES ARE GETTING.  Nothing wrong with that mentality.

I mean Leonard Davis gets huge checks, and job security, and he is lazy.  And hasn't been that dominating to sommand any great deal of attention.

Steinbach got his.

Clement got 80 mill, which means a guy like Briggs is worth (in this market) 100 million, IMO...

[leeroybuc93]

As for that fact that it's the team's right to franchise a guy, it's also the guy's right to be pissed about it and sit out a year. This is still America and if someone isn't paying you what you want, you are under no obligation to work for them.

Exactly. His free choice: zero or $450,000 a week.

I would take zero and then take 3 million a week the next year since there's a decent chance he gets nothing next year if he takes 450,000 this year.  You just said it's his choice, so why are people calling him greedy?  

[DanTurksGhost]

But not in the same field which 99% of every other Americans do.

I don't quite follow. Elaborate?

[DanTurksGhost]

I would take zero and then take 3 million a week the next year since there's a decent chance he gets nothing next year if he takes 450,000 this year.  You just said it's his choice, so why are people calling him greedy? 

$3 million a week? Who is going to pay him $48 million a year? Also, I'm not calling him greedy at all. Somebody else said that.

[leeroybuc93]

But not in the same field which 99% of every other Americans do.

I don't quite follow. Elaborate?

If you have a job and another company is willing to offer you more to do the same job, you have the right to leave for the better job.  Briggs does not have that opportunity.

[DanTurksGhost]

If you have a job and another company is willing to offer you more to do the same job, you have the right to leave for the better job.  Briggs does not have that opportunity.

Then he's 100% free to change to another line of work, or he could play in Canada or the AFL if he prefers to continue playing football for a living.

[Boid Fink]

Bottom line is the Bears should not have tagged him, they should have offered him money that is comeasurate with what his play brings (in this years market, he is getting shortchanged).  Now if he sits for the year, the Bears lose a huge part of the defense.  Instead of being fair, and just offering him a 3 year deal (which eases his mind, IMO), they slapped him and went against what the player wanted...

The BEars FO is stingy anyway.  Nothing new here.

Also, how many guys have the Bears tagged before?  I can't recall anyone, maybe Olin Kreutz...

[leeroybuc93]

I would take zero and then take 3 million a week the next year since there's a decent chance he gets nothing next year if he takes 450,000 this year. You just said it's his choice, so why are people calling him greedy?

$3 million a week? Who is going to pay him $48 million a year? Also, I'm not calling him greedy at all. Somebody else said that.

Clearly I was exagerating.  My point is why should he settle for less money now and possibly nothing later, when he would surely get more money later with no risk?