daquix Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Much. Still totally wrong, IMO, but less over-reactive. The Bears would rather have him on their team than trade him this year. They want to get back to the SUPERBOWL. Even though he said he would sit out 10 games when the time comes who knows? The Bears can also franchise him next year, and they could threaten to do so if he sits out or perhaps they tell him they won't franchise him next year if he reports and plays all 16 games. Much as the Bills did with Clements. Sure. That could happen. But what if he does decide to sit out the 10 games? He makes over $2 million, and then goes into free agency. What do the Bears get out of it? Nothing. The Bears could decide to trade him AFTER the draft, but then they could only hope for draft picks next year or a player from another team. If the Bears want to get a couple of draft picks out of Briggs NOW, so that those draftees can make an impact THIS upcoming season, then they have to move quickly. I could'nt imagine the Bears franchising him two years in a row, after that fiasco. Pasted below is a post by someone called the "informer" on the Bears forum on the Pro Sports Daily website and he makes a ton of good points: "The problem with the Bears front office is 'if' the Bears continually place the franchise tag on Briggs, they will have to put aside ($7.2 Million -- the next two years) and then potentially put aside (the average of the TOP SALARY in the league) for Briggs. So in essence, after franchising Briggs for two years in a row, the Bears put themselves in a financial situation because they have to put aside that money knowing he COULD possibly show up to play" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Sure. That could happen. But what if he does decide to sit out the 10 games? He makes over $2 million, and then goes into free agency. What do the Bears get out of it? Nothing. The Bears could decide to trade him AFTER the draft, but then they could only hope for draft picks next year or a player from another team. If the Bears want to get a couple of draft picks out of Briggs NOW, so that those draftees can make an impact THIS upcoming season, then they have to move quickly. I could'nt imagine the Bears franchising him two years in a row, after that fiasco. Pasted below is a post by someone called the "informer" on the Bears forum on the Pro Sports Daily website and he makes a ton of good points: "The problem with the Bears front office is 'if' the Bears continually place the franchise tag on Briggs, they will have to put aside ($7.2 Million -- the next two years) and then potentially put aside (the average of the TOP SALARY in the league) for Briggs. So in essence, after franchising Briggs for two years in a row, the Bears put themselves in a financial situation because they have to put aside that money knowing he COULD possibly show up to play" I think the Bears would trade him for what they perceive to be value. They do not consider a swap of picks value. They will get what they want or keep him. Even if he sits out 10 games he would be available (and fresh ) for the streach run and playoffs. Chicago is not looking to rebuild they want to win NOW. If he is not traded by draft day, I will be very suprised if the don't keep him untill the season is over. He will not leave the Bears unless and untill they get what they want, much like San Diago and Turner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Good post. We agree on something. Well, now I can die in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I think the Bears would trade him for what they perceive to be value. They do not consider a swap of picks value. They will get what they want or keep him. Even if he sits out 10 games he would be available (and fresh ) for the streach run and playoffs. Chicago is not looking to rebuild they want to win NOW. If he is not traded by draft day, I will be very suprised if the don't keep him untill the season is over. He will not leave the Bears unless and untill they get what they want, much like San Diago and Turner. You're ignoring the very basic fact that it's just not that simple. Player personnel matters like this one tend to tear teams apart and the players ALWAYS side with the PLAYER in question. This situation is a huge distraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 This is when Marv should step in and offer the #12 overall pick for Briggs. That would be sweet if we could get him. If the Bears wouldn't take the Redskins 1st round pick then when make you think that will take ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 If the Bears wouldn't take the Redskins 1st round pick then when make you think that will take ours. it has been explained several times by various posters (true, it involves more than just a simple swap), in various threads in which you have posted. If you couldn't understand it then, what makes you think you'll understand it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 it has been explained several times by various posters (true, it involves more than just a simple swap), in various threads in which you have posted. If you couldn't understand it then, what makes you think you'll understand it now? Here The Dean, let me try and help you old buddy. Because the Bears' GM Jerry Angelo really is against picking in the top ten. There is too much guaranteed money (15-20 million) involved for his liking. Furthermore, it's apparent that Briggs is becoming a bigger problem as time goes on. If Chicago waits until after the draft, the opportunities and compensations will become more sparse. Last but not least, I do believe that Mr. Angelo kind of took a burn to the way Rosenhaus/Snyder went about creating this whole trade scenario. Sticking it to those two delightful people would be the icing on the cake. Dealing with us for a less expensive draft position and being able to retain a great compensation for Briggs without losing face would be a win win situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Here The Dean, let me try and help you old buddy. Because the Bears' GM Jerry Angelo really is against picking in the top ten. There is too much guaranteed money (15-20 million) involved for his liking. Furthermore, it's apparent that Briggs is becoming a bigger problem as time goes on. If Chicago waits until after the draft, the opportunities and compensations will become more sparse. Last but not least, I do believe that Mr. Angelo kind of took a burn to the way Rosenhaus/Snyder went about creating this whole trade scenario. Sticking it to those two delightful people would be the icing on the cake. Dealing with us for a less expensive draft position and being able to retain a great compensation for Briggs without losing face would be a win win situation. WOW, you think THAT will sink into that brick head? I hope you're right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 WOW, you think THAT will sink into that brick head? I hope you're right! But I dbout it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts