Thread: Lance Briggs seeks raise from Bears

JA could have avoided this if he'd agreed to flip 2011 with 2013 and then told him to go away and not ask for more. The cap difference was only $2.6mil and we have the cap room. I know all the arguements about the principal of the thing and I think Briggs has a lot of balls to ask but I can't deny that he deserves it after his string of pro bowls.

What's bothering me is this sudden frugality. WTF is up with that when we have such a huge cap excess? Is it because of the idiotic amounts we handed out to useless players like Taylor and Manu last year that all of a sudden they're over compensating?

What I'd like them to answer is the question of what they intend to do with the cap excess? If we aren't gonna sign any new talent and we're not gonna reward our own what do they intend to do with that $19-$20 mil? It doesn't carry over so it's use it or lose it.

Oh for those who didn't choose to link the poll;

Pay Now: 21%

Pay After Season: 29%

Don't Pay Period: 50%

Originally Posted by Jimmors

And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Briggs. At the time, Briggs pouted and cried, and got a FAIR deal in the extension...Bears did the right thing. But NOW, because OTHER players are getting paid more in their contracts and because the Bears have more money to throw around, Briggs should get some more money? Thats bullshit, and this is why they have contracts...so players honor them, and get paid for doing so. You cant predict what players will get paid a year, 3 years or 5 years from now, all you can do while negotiating is use what is fair value at the time. And the Bears did that.

Its bad business to simply start throwing money at a player anytime he asks for it WHILE UNDER CONTRACT. if that was how business is done, why even have contracts to begin with? Im on the Bears side on this one, because they treated him fair, even when he acted like a douche last time around to get his contract extension.

Where in that quote did I say that they should give Briggs more money Jimmors? I'll tell you where..........nowhere!

What I pointed out was that the Bears made themselves a TARGET for this demand by having a huge cap excess and the fact that it has been very well publicized. Don't you think Drew Rosenhaus can read? Don't answer that, LOL. Well we know he can count especially when it's OPM and whenever he smells money waiting to be spent somewhere he's gonna do everything he can to get his piece of it.

Answer this instead. Who engineered the Olsen trade?

Originally Posted by Jimmors

And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Briggs. At the time, Briggs pouted and cried, and got a FAIR deal in the extension...Bears did the right thing. But NOW, because OTHER players are getting paid more in their contracts and because the Bears have more money to throw around, Briggs should get some more money? Thats bullshit, and this is why they have contracts...so players honor them, and get paid for doing so. You cant predict what players will get paid a year, 3 years or 5 years from now, all you can do while negotiating is use what is fair value at the time. And the Bears did that.

Its bad business to simply start throwing money at a player anytime he asks for it WHILE UNDER CONTRACT. if that was how business is done, why even have contracts to begin with? Im on the Bears side on this one, because they treated him fair, even when he acted like a douche last time around to get his contract extension.

This entire post is you ranting all about giving Briggs more money and the line I highlighted is how you opened it by saying the Bears cap excess had nothing to do with Briggs. Of course it does. Do you really think that if the Bears were over the cap or didn't have such a huge cap excess that he and Rosenhaus would be trying to get some of it now. Come one man. You were around when this happened the last time. This is a classic Rosenhaus driven play. This time Briggs in gonna demand a trade if he doesn't get a raise and last time it was I've played my last game for the Bears.

Your post was in response to the one I made saying the Bears made a target out of themselves for just this sort of thing because they have such a huge unspent and seemingly undesignated cap excess. I never claimed that Briigs was entitled to any of it, in fact I did just the opposite but my point was and is this. If the Bears didn't have the cap excess they have there would be nothing to go after. Not much sense robbing a beggar or a vacant house is there?

That's my whole point. If you're a team with extra dough somebody is gonna try and relieve you of it.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Show me where i said that you said they should give Briggs more money, blah blah...nowhere!



And i disagree...just because they HAVE cap space, doesnt make them a "target" to spend it on players ALREADY UNDER CONTRACT. If that where the case, then ANY team with cap space is a "target." The Bears have nothing to be blamed for, nor anything to apologize for. They gave Briggs a fair deal at the time, and paid his contract, so they dont owe Briggs jack shit besides his contract money. I hope Briggs makes a big deal out of this, because he has no leverage, and hence no more money for him.

Of course they're a target and to answer the second part of your statement yes, ANY team with excess cap IS a target for players who want new deals. I never said that any player, Briggs included, deserved a new deal I only claimed that some are bound to ask or in this case demand. And no, the Bears don't need to apologize for having the excess and I never said or implied that they did but on the other hand when you got and everyone knows that you got it you can't be shocked when players come asking for it either. Especially when their agent is Drew Rosenshaus.

The whole thing is nothing more than a look at human nature. How many people in the life of a poor man ever ask him for money? But let that guy win a million dollar lottery and he's get friends and relatives coming with their hands out that he never even knew he had.

Let's get something straight ok? I'm not happy that Lance Briggs even asked and I'm sure not supporting his cause in any big way nor do I think he should get a raise but I do know why he's asking and that's what I said in my post. My daughters never bugged me much when money we tight but if I closed a big deal or made some money in the market their shopping lists were extensive. Just because you don't spend it doesn't mean they won't ask and that's why the Bears are a target. They got it.

Will this set some kind of bizarre precedent if they pay him?

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

He is pulling an urlacher. lol

Yeah he is only there's some doubt as to whether he can pull it off like Urlacher did. Here's an excerpt from another article where David Haugh talks about it. There is a validity to both positions but contract law is on the Bears side not Briggs.

I get the "two way street" part but that should be negotiated and written into the contract at the time it is signed not bargained around or complained about later. You're an adult, you have counsel, and you know what you signed so by law you have to live with it. In all likelihood that's what the courts would determine. Of course we all know about the blackmail tactics available to players who want to get around this. CJ is doing just such a thing to the Titans right now.

This could get real interesting if both sides take a hardline approach.



1. I had a conversation with a member of the Bears front office after Lance Briggs was named to the Pro Bowl for the fifth consecutive year following the 2009 season.

I suggested if Briggs kept up his string of being named an all-star every year, before long he was going to want new paper.

Before long has arrived. Briggs made it clear to the organization at the start of training camp he believed it was time for a new deal now that he’s halfway through the $36 million, six-year contract he signed in March 2008. In his opinion, he’s outperformed the contract and he wants to be paid in line with other top-salaried outside linebackers now that he’s been named to six straight Pro Bowls.

“No way,” said the front office member when I broached the subject. The reasoning? Briggs was an unrestricted free agent when he re-signed with the team, something that was as much a surprise to the player as it was the team. On the open market he had the opportunity to maximize his value. If Briggs barked for a new contract, it would be chatter that would fall on deaf ears, the source said.

We’ll see where this heads. General manager Jerry Angelo declined comment on the matter to the Tribune when asked about it before Saturday’s game against the Tennessee Titans. Vaughn McClure and David Haugh broke the story.

Basically, the big money in Briggs’ contract has already been paid. There were sizeable roster bonuses in the first three seasons totaling $11.8 million. That money has been paid. Add in the $4 million signing bonus Briggs received, and that’s nearly half the deal right there. His base salary for this season is $3.65 million. It ticks up to $3.75 million in 2012 and tops off at $6.25 million in 2013. So, he has $13.65 million in base pay remaining. Factor in annual workout bonuses of $250,000, and the total value remaining on the contract is $14.4 million. The salary cap figures for Briggs are as follows:

2011 $4,566,667

2012 $4,666,667

2013 $7,166,667

Briggs turns 31 in November. He knows the market for a free agent linebacker at 33 won’t be what he wants by the time the contract expires in 2013. So Briggs has made it clear he will demand a trade after this season if he doesn’t receive a new contract. Think it could get ugly? You bet. Remember, Briggs’ agent Drew Rosenhaus paraded his client through an owners meeting in 2007 when he was trolling for a new contract. The Bears used the franchise tag on Briggs that year although they considered trading him to the Washington Redskins in a deal that would have netted them a pick to select safety LaRon Landry. Sometimes the best trades are the ones you don’t make. (He can demand all he wants but he's under contract and if he doesn't fulfil it the new CBA levies some serious fines although how much teeth that will have remains to be seen)

One thing Rosenhaus does on occasion when his clients don’t receive contracts to their satisfaction is he urges them to play lights out and tells them they’ll go back for a new contract well before the deal is up. The players’ side of this is clear. When players aren’t performing up to standards, they’re zapped and the non-guaranteed portions of their contracts vanishes. It happened to Brandon Manumaleuna before training camp opened. It will likely happen to Chester Taylor this coming week, but more on him in a bit. Players say there should be a two-way street for when they outperform deals. (I don't disagree but that needs to be negotiated when the original deal is signed not by Rosenhaus' backdoor method)

Some players are beginning to opt for shorter contracts to ensure they get back to the bargaining table sooner. Arizona’s Larry Fitzgerald just pulled down the biggest contract ever for a wide receiver coming off a second contract that was four years in length and ensured him another bite at the apple in free agency before the age of 30.

Briggs, no doubt, will point to the Bears re-doing a contract for teammate Brian Urlacher, who was more than halfway through a nine-year contract. (Once you set a precedent it's hard to undo it or say you never do that)

''I would definitely caution anyone signing a deal that long,'' Urlacher said of the nine-year, $56.65 million contract he signed in 2003. ''It's very enticing at the time because it's a lot of guaranteed money up front, and you want to get that security. But at the same time, you don't know how you are going to play, either. You may outplay it." (Briggs could have resigned in 2008 for fewer years and then taken his shot again as a FA this or next year but instead he wanted that upfront money. This is where that Rosenhaus factor of "sign it and we'll renegotiate down the road" comes in)

Has Briggs outperformed his contract? That depends on who you ask. The Bears would say they paid him at a Pro Bowl rate. What did Briggs say at the time of the deal?

“I want to say for the first four years (2007 to 2010, counting the franchise money he received in ’07), I’ll make $28.8 million which is good because basically I’ll be making my franchise number (of ’07) each of those years,” he said.

“I got the market that I felt like I was supposed to get,” Briggs said. “Like I said, I got the market. I’m happy.”

The market has shifted, no question, and Briggs desires to be a part of that shifting landscape. But the big contracts you see for outside linebackers are for pass rushers. A lot of them play in 3-4 schemes. Briggs isn’t a pass rusher, but he plays one of the key positions in Lovie Smith’s scheme. (But is that worth the money that a guy like DeMarcus Ware gets? Those guys are paid more like DE's than LB's)

Nobody thought Briggs would return to the Bears in 2008, and the team even went after wide receiver Bernard Berrian first in free agency. Sometimes the best signings are the ones you don’t make. This situation will be interesting. With Briggs anxious to be paid, it’s reasonable to assume he’s going to do everything he can to have a bang-up season. If he waits until the offseason for the business side of things to play out, it doesn’t have to impact what happens on the field.

But know this much: This storyline isn’t going away any time soon.