(Current) Briggs deal effectively kaput

by Skin Patrol on Apr 3, 2007 3:06 PM EDT in Redskins Analysis Comment 5 comments

Per Fox Sports (who originally broke the story):

FOXSports.com has learned that the Bears have turned down the Redskins' offer of trading the sixth pick of April's draft for Chicago's Pro Bowl linebacker and the 31st pick of the draft. Redskins sources say Bears GM Jerry Angelo has phoned Washington with his decision.
For now the deal is dead, but that doesn't necessarily mean the deal is lost for good. It appears that the main sticking point is the fact that the Bears believe the pot isn't sweet enough as is.

Jay Glazer reports on what would make the deal tenable; Da Bears want Rocky McIntosh. However:

One Redskins official said that, despite the logjam, they view McIntosh as a good young player who has too much upside to part with. Perhaps one option would be for the Redskins to include McIntosh but then ask Chicago for more as well to even it out a bit.

Qualified support of McIntosh that cannot be comforting to Rocky given this entire situation. The writing on the wall is that Briggs comes in to replace McIntosh, who took 14 weeks to take Warrick Holdman's job. If Briggs gets in this defense, nothing short of injury/death will get McIntosh on the field. Even if the team recognizes his upside, they apparently couldn't do so last year and even implicate him as trade bait this offseason. I would be flustered.

If negotiations are to continue, both teams need to head back to the drawing board. The #31 plus Briggs for #6 isn't going down. The Bears want more, the Redskins don't want to give that up. Until additional formal offers pop up, I'm treating the Lance-Briggs-to-Washington-trade as MIA.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The pot isnt sweet enough!

We'll boohoo, sounds like those guys over their in bearland need a box of tissues.

"If we trade Briggs we'll be left without a LB to take his place"

Yeah and I need a new car and while your at it can I get an extra 50K in my salary this year to.

As I stated in your "Bears want more for Briggs" piece yesterday,I dont want this guy, but if we must,we should not offer them anything else then what is on the table.He is their problem and they must find a way to get rid of him.Besides, I think I'm correct when I say if we wait a year we dont have to give anything up to get him,and he's only 26.Correct me if I'm wrong? Cuz I'm not sure.

But who cares about that Mcintosh is a promising young player with,I think awesome potential.

Essentially he could be our Briggs if we give him a chance and at virtually pennies compared to Briggs.

by Sincethebeginning on Apr 3, 2007 4:39 PM EDT reply actions

Next year

I'm pretty sure Jerry Angelo has said that Lance Briggs is not getting a long term contract in Chicago, so he would be available in free agency in '08. We're crazy to give up significant value for a 26 year old guy who will be available this time next year.

If anything good comes out of this entire fiasco, it's that Lance Briggs knows he can get paid in Washington and, perhaps if we need him at that point, we'll be in a better position to negotiate him into Burgundy and Gold come 2008.

Ideally, though, you develop the cheap talent you have in Rocky McIntosh.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Apr 3, 2007 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Next Year

If Briggs doesn't play a down this year, there is nothing that will keep the Bears from franchising him again next year.

If he plays 6 or more games, it effectively takes away one year of the franchise tag. The rules state you can franchise a player 3 times (the first two years at average of top 5 of that position, and the last at average of top 5 in the league (QB money!)).

by cltcprd on Apr 3, 2007 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions

My understanding

was that Jerry Angelo had stated publicly or else privately in his meeting with Lance Briggs that if Briggs simply showed up, played in '07, that Angelo would agree not to franchise him in '08. That would be part of getting Briggs to sign his Franchise Tag agreement (or whatever it is he's currently refusing to sign).

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Apr 3, 2007 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions

How I think it will go down.

Right, but Briggs has said he will never play another down in Chicago. Then he changed his mind and said he'll play the 6 games to count as a year towards the franchise tag. If he decides to play the entire year (at 7.2 million mind you), then Angelo will let him go as a UFA.

I think that if he does play the 6 games, the Bears franchise him again. They probably won't franchise him a third time though because QB money isn't worth it, but they aren't going to let him get away without getting anything back, especially with the way he and Drew Rosenhaus have handled it.

by cltcprd on Apr 3, 2007 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions