Bears on Briggs Trade: Gimme gimme gimme

by Skin Patrol on Mar 29, 2007 11:46 AM EDT in Analysis Comment 0 comments

The Bears aren't talking much publicly about the possibility of trading Lance Briggs to Washington now that the team has a formal offer on the table. But multiple sources said Wednesday that a deal could happen, even as Bears coach Lovie Smith predicted that Briggs will remain with the team next season.

Nothing new here, trade might happen per multiple sources, which also means it might not. The official offer is out there, as WCG pointed out. Our only hope now is that the Bears save us by turning down the trade, but that could turn out to be a scary proposition as well... (emphasis mine):

General manager Jerry Angelo returned to Chicago from the league's annual meeting Wednesday night and is believed to be preparing a counteroffer to the Redskins' proposal of a swap of first-round draft picks that would move the Bears from No. 31 to No. 6. The Bears are thought to want a better package in exchange for a Pro Bowl linebacker that might include a combination of players or future draft picks.

As much as I hope the Bears firmly rebuke the Redskins, the possible consequence is that Washington ups the ante by throwing ~~away~~ in a few Draft picks or extra players. In other words, sweetening a deal that was already ridiculous given the team's needs.

I want to add on a point made brilliantly at War Cry! regarding the whole deal:

I, for one, hope that it doesn't happen, and not just the part about the dairy products. Briggs was a 3rd round pick (68th overall). Apparently there is all kinds of talent in this "draft" thingamabob. We should try it out sometime.

But it's so much worse than that. We traded 3 picks to the Jets (two 2nd rounders and a 6th rounder) so we could draft Rocky McIntosh. Lance Briggs (presumably) takes his spot on the weak side, meaning all three of those picks were essentially spent for a backup LB we refused to give an opportunity to despite the obvious fact that Warrick Holdman needed replacing. This trade would be damning evidence against the Redskins as Draft scouts, though give the Bears credit. Four picks wasted so we could backup someone else's 3rd round pick. Nice.

Anyone who wants to argue Free Agency over the Draft needs to remember that all Free Agents were at one point Draft picks. Why the hell would we repeatedly rob ourselves of draft picks when we know that's where Pro Bowlers come from -- considering we're pursuing one right now. You can't draft a Lance Briggs on the cheap if you don't have a 3rd round pick; we don't. Instead you have to wait in line for a few years, get him when he's developed into a 20M guaranteed (apparently) 7+M per year player, and throw in the equivalent of a 1st round pick. Free Agents are overpaid necessarily given the structure of Free Agency. Rookies are underpaid necessarily given the structure of the Draft.

Anyways, I'm hoping now that the Bears ask for so much that the trade becomes untenable for the Redskins. Then again, perhaps that would be a careful-what-you-wish-for situation; I am incapable of predicting what the Redskins would find "untenable" in a trade situation.

0 recs | Comment 0 comments