Thread: Lance Briggs seeks raise from Bears

We are drafting a lot of linebackers next year.

This always seems to happen when you have a winning team. We went through the same thing after the Super Bowl in 2006.

If the Bears are offering a deal in the neighborhood of what Jamaal Charles got I think they're in the ballpark of what Forte is worth. I think the hold up here, and I've said this before, may be the amount of the guaranteed dollars and the manner in which it's paid to him. A deal somewhere around $30 mil with half of it guaranteed isn't out of line for an extension. Sure, he might get more if he was UFA but that won't happen for at least one more year and even then I doubt he'd get much more. They won't offer or agree to a deal like DWill got from Carolina.

As for Briggs, I don't know exactly how I feel about that. He was the guy we had so much trouble with after the Super Bowl. He was asking for a $60 mil deal and we offered in the mid $30's. Eventually he signed for an amount very close to what was offered when no one would even better that. He's hauled in a little over $22 mil from that deal so far and with his salary and bonuses he adds another $ 4 mil this year. So that about $26 mil total over the first 4 years or about $6.5 average annual pay and he makes an additional $10 mil total for 2012 - 2013. I kind of figured that when he agree to this deal that he was disappointed and would be back for more.

The pure fact of the matter is that Briggs has no real bargining power here and with the fines imposed on holdouts or misses OTA's as high as they are the threat of using either one as a bargaining chip is a pretty hollow threat. Should the Bears trade him if he's not happy? No, he's worth at least a 1st round pick to us but I doubt we'd get that for him and we would need that to go shopping for his replacement. What Briggs doesn't seem to understand is that the big $$$ is going to OLB's who are also great pass rushers which he is not. While I believe that he's a top five OLB in this league he'll never get paid like one because of the way he's used in this defense. I could see the Bears offering some added bonus dollars if he continues to play at a pro bowl level but I can't see them re-doing his deal with 3 years left on it. Bad precedent.

The bottom line is that if these two guys believe they're worth top five money then their agents are doing them a grave disservice if they are who's behind it. Neither is worth or going to get that kind of a deal and holdouts won't work anymore as a means of gaining leverage. Sorry guys but it ain't gonna happen if that's what you're after.

Not to blame but more to explain, part of the reasons for this is the Bears own fault. By virtue of the fact that they struck out on any higher priced FA's and spent little of their enormus cap reserve there, and because of drafting late the rookie pool was small, the Bears are left with a huge amount of unspent cap $$$ right now and apparently have no place to spend it.

I'm sure that Briggs and his agent are looking to cash in on that and if his agent is still Rosensleaze it's even more of a sure thing. Guys who ask for raises on an existing contract with 3 years yet to go have brass balls the size of an elephant. Lance Briggs is a great football player but no better today than he was 3 years ago when he agreed to this contract. Maybe Briggs is worth more but that's a topic for debate. What's not debateable is that the Bears have the right to force him to honor this deal or retire if they dont' wish to trade him or can't get fair value for him.

Is it any wonder that this comes on the heels of the Olsen trade? This is nothing more than an attempt to gain some leverage where there is none. Briggsy you don't have a leg to stand on and you're gonna lose a lot of respect from Bears fans for even bringing this up on the eve of the season when you have a deal with three years to go. Nobody put a gun to your head in order to get you to sign this contract but you did because at the time no one would pay you more. Now you want either more money or out? Yeah, good luck with that. LOL

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

Another Bear wanting a raise.

Predict who is next?

Me, I am seriously THE most underpaid Bears fan on the planet. If they won't pay me I won't watch their games. I'll be a media spectator holdout.

Briggs unpleasant diversion for Bears


Trade demand on table as he wants club to pay more in line with younger peers

Comments

David Haugh's In the Wake of the News 12:27 a.m. CDT, August 28, 2011

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Thank Lance Briggs for sparing you another round of overanalysis after the Bears' 14-13 loss to the Titans on Saturday night at LP Field.


Yes, the offense looked more efficient with Matt Forte running as if he were ready for the Falcons — and a new contract. And an improved defense did little to inspire either faith or fear.

Poll: Should the Bears give Briggs a new contract?

But suddenly and unexpectedly, the Bears face another unwelcome off-the-field issue that potentially threatens their success on it.

Lance Briggs missed his second straight game with a knee bruise, but something more ominous nags him that's unlikely to heal soon. Briggs believes he deserves a raise and wants one sooner rather than later. If the Pro Bowl linebacker doesn't get a new contract before the end of the season, the Tribune has learned he has made clear he will demand a trade. (Good Luck with that Lance. I went to a BMW dealer yesterday and demanded a new 330xi but I didn't get what I wanted either)

But until then Briggs privately has vowed to play as hard as ever, but without an extension, he will define the term disgruntled employee. Is an angry linebacker a bad thing?

Briggs' dissatisfaction, which he confirmed to the Tribune without comment, comes after weeks of hand-wringing over Forte seeking a contract extension. Briggs had hoped to wait until after Forte signed a new deal to make clear what he wanted but came forward after those talks dragged.

The result: Two weeks before the start of the regular season, two of the Bears' most valuable players face possible distractions while wondering how much the franchise truly values them. That's not ideal for a team that regards chemistry and leadership as highly as the Bears do.

This isn't just general manager Jerry Angelo's problem or coach Lovie Smith's problem. This is Halas Hall's problem. (What DO we do with the extra $$$)

This isn't likely to go away, either, because I see no way the Bears buckle to Briggs. Just as hard to imagine is Briggs backing down quietly, especially after agent Drew Rosenhaus gets involved. (This explains the pay me or trade me stance a Rosenhaus standard negotiation ploy)

We learned during Rosenhaus' 2007 Pay Lance Briggs Tour what drives 55: money. He is an elite linebacker conspiring with a shrewd businessman. It can be a potent one-two punch. (Yeah we learned that they can cave in too, just like everyone else)

But the Bears see no reason to rip up a contract with three years remaining for a 30-year-old who doesn't rush the passer, even if Briggs has made six Pro Bowls and the team has no depth at linebacker. The Bears consider the way the team front-loaded the six-year, $36 million deal Briggs signed in 2008 a fair trade-off for the linebacker's relatively modest $3.9 million base salary in 2011. (And that's the point that you and agent boy are missing. Big time rush backers get big $$$ deals and you aren't one)

But they might not realize the depths of Briggs' disenchantment.


Briggs is bothered by the perception the Bears don't take his demands seriously. Without Rosenhaus at his side, Briggs expressed his contract concerns early in training camp. According to a source, Briggs asked the Bears to flip his base salary in 2013 — when he is due $6.25 million — with this season's. Angelo basically told Briggs he signed the contract and has to live with it. Somewhere, Scottie Pippen can relate. (This is Angelo being stupid again. If that would have avoided problems do it! You have cap room......jeezus)

Briggs contends the Bears have as much as $19 million under the salary cap and he deserves a higher wage than less proven, younger linebackers flush with new money. (But if two years from now we were $19 mil over the cap will you give some back? No? I thought you'd say that)

Interestingly, when Brian Urlacher went public with unpopular demands for a new contract in 2008, the Bears eventually acquiesced. They rescinded the final four years of Urlacher's deal and signed him to a one-year, $18 million extension. (Breaking precendents comes back to haunt somtimes.

To Briggs, that established a precedent for stars he seeks to follow. To the Bears, they are entirely different situations because Urlacher never tested the free-agent market to drive up the price of his second contract the way Briggs did. Pushing the issue could force the Bears to point out that management believes, as productive as Briggs is, Urlacher's face has defined the franchise the past decade. (And that Lance, is the other point that you and agent boy are missing)

I will say this about Briggs' unexpected protest: He has more of a right to make contract demands than Forte or any other veteran in line for an extension. No other defensive player has been more consistent in recent years. At least Briggs has made a Pro Bowl. (That I'll disagree with. He has even less right since he's still got three years to go on his present deal. This isn't about whether he deserves it)

As impressive as Forte ran against the Titans and as underpaid as he might be, he needs another season averaging more than 4 yards per carry before the Bears open the vault. Forte will have to make more realistic demands before the Bears can justify providing the long-term contract security he seeks. (And I disagree with this too. He can wait but then he has every right to market himself as a FA which you just got though dinging Briggsy for Haugh. Make up you f'n mind)

In the short term for the Bears, conflicting personal agendas loom. We don't know whether all the unwanted preseason angst over finances will affect the regular-season football. But as the Bears left the Music City, they were a team still in search of harmony.


dhaugh@tribune.com
Twitter @DavidHaugh




Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune
ct-spt-0828-bears-haugh-chicago--20110828
3.33 from 6 ratings