But he sounds like such a nice guy?

by Skin Patrol on Mar 27, 2007 11:08 AM EDT in Redskins Analysis

All apologies for making this Lance Briggs day at Hogs Haven but I've been provided a forum for my opinions and feel like utilizing that resource.

Briggs and Superagent Drew Rosenhaus explicitly stated their plan for the '07 season should the Bears fail to unfranchise tag him:

Drew Rosenhaus, Briggs' agent, said Monday at the NFL owners meetings that his client will line up for the Bears next season -- but only on a limited basis if the team refuses to remove the franchise tag it put on the linebacker. Rosenhaus said Briggs would sit out the first 10 games, then return for the final six to accrue a played season under league rules.

The maneuver apparently is an attempt to avoid sitting out the season for no pay and allowing the Bears to have the right to use the franchise tag on Briggs for two more seasons.

''That is the plan, come back and play the last six games of the season,'' Rosenhaus said.

And I'll side with Bears President Tim Phillips on this one:

''We don't have anything to say,'' team president Ted Phillips said Monday. ''We franchised him. He's going to make a lot of money. We think he's a good player, and we want him on our team. It's as simple as that from our standpoint.''

Nothing about Lance Briggs tells me that he's the kind of guy I want on my team. Either it was him essentially saying that 7+M for one year's worth of work wasn't a fair price or else vowing only to show up at the end of the season (to mitigate his injury risks, a dubious suggestion as the article points out; doesn't missing offseason workouts and training camps put him at a significantly higher risk of injury if/when he does return with his then-untested body to the field... in November?), but something tipped me off that this just isn't a guy I want representing my franchise.

My own thoughts on this subject, if they weren't made clear enough by my recent posts, were perhaps put best by Mugatu in the Cinematic Masterpiece Zoolander:

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I saw this and decided

I didn't even have the energy to post it.

by WCG @ Hogs Haven on Mar 27, 2007 2:19 PM EDT reply actions

I can see both sides here...

the Bears organization is... shall we say, frugal. For references, see Lovie Smith and Ron Rivera. They are using something provided to them (franchising of a player) in order to keep from signing the player to a long term deal. There is nothing inherently wrong with the practice, though players do not like the tag being applied to them.

Which brings me to Briggs. He sees all the money being thrown around this offseason and wants to cash in. This is again not inherently wrong. The fact he is not happy with $7+ mil guarenteed has less to do with the money than it does with his inability to cash in on a long term deal. That would provide him money for longer than a year, which can be seen as a insurance policy against injury. The worst thign that could happen for him is for him to blow out a knee or something this year, and then lose all the money he would have gotten if he had signed a long term deal. It makes sense if you look at it that way.

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of franchising in general. It allows a team to keep (read: horde) talent without paying fair market price. Yes, they pay the market price for that one year, but no legitimate free agent would sign a one year deal when he would have other, longer deals available to him. It just doesn't make financial sense when you look at the long term.

I do not see Briggs as a distraction or a bad "team" player... he's just a guy who wants to get paid according to his ability compared to everyone else in his field. Now, threatening a holdout and all that stuff... I think it's a product of him being a Rosenhaus guy. And I do not agree with that type of barganing tactic.

Play out the year, sign somewhere else, and give management the finger on the way out the door...

by TexSkins on Mar 27, 2007 5:09 PM EDT reply actions

Franchise Tag

I know players are against it, but guys get franchised every year. There is a fair compensation allowed with the Franchise Tag, and it was agreed upon by both the Owners and the Players (represented by the Union). It might be frustrating for a guy looking for a long term contract, but it is what it is. I feel like Franchise Tags afford players very fair compensation. Injuries can ruin contracts just as easily since the player will likely be cut from the team anyways, thus voiding all the millions they would make in a Long Term contract.

The substantial advantage fo a long term contract is the attendent 10-15M signing bonus, which is what Briggs is pissy about, in my opinion. He's going to settle for 7M when he feels like he could make 10-15M in one year, as signing bonuses are cut and paid to the player the day of signing.

Do I think Briggs has behaved in his own best financial interests? Nope. He's proven to 32 franchises that going to the Super Bowl isn't good enough, that 7.2M a year (which would make him the 2nd highest paid Redskin were he on our team for that amount) isn't enough, and that he's willing to screw over his team if it means getting Lance Briggs paid. That significantly lowers his value around other franchises. He would've been better off playing his ass of in '07 though making clear his frustration with the team for tagging him, and then moving on to greener pastures in '08 for a long term contract. The guy is 26 years old and will still be in a position, at 27, to make heaps of money.

He and his agent have demonstrated to me that I don't want the guy around. I don't want him around for 7 years at 33M, which is what he wouldn't play for in Chicago. I don't want him around for more than that. I don't want him around period.

I recognize the motivation of why he is doing what he is doing, I just cannot acknowledge the wisdom of it.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Mar 27, 2007 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions