The Bears Offseason Thread

[goonys evil twin]

He probably thinks Briggs demands are unreasonable and don't fit in with his long term plan. He should reopen the negotiation based on a player's threat to hold out?

 

He should reopen negotiations based on the fact that he's a really good player who doesn't have a contract right now. We're not talking about caving in to some 2nd year player wanting to renegotiate his rookie contract.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If you think that I want them to make some sort of stand on principle, that's not what I am talking about. They aren't negotiating because they feel that his cost outweighs his value. If this is the reason they stopped negotiating then I don't see why his threat to hold out would change their minds.

 

It has to do with your assertion that they shouldn't cave to him just becasue he's talking about holding out. Franchising Briggs was the right move. Franchising without any willingness to talk longterm is just dumb. Angelo should talk because they have a valuable player whom they need and can keep with just money. And they have plenty of cap space (and that cap is just going up) to do it. Of course he'd threaten to hold out with a franchise tag. That has nothing to do with me wanting Angelo to go back to the table. I've wanted him to go back the whole time. Thinking Briggs will be cool with playing as a franchise player is an error in judgement.

[CubColtPacer]

The Bears have a lot of interesting decisions to make-they have drafted really well over the last few years, and that is going to cause the dilemma. Taking a quick look at the roster, in the next 2-3 years starters such as Briggs, Berrian, Tommie Harris, Tillman, Vasher, and Benson will all want to be compensated. The Bears won't be able to keep nearly all of them, especially since Grossman is either going to get a big deal after 1 year or 2 years if they pick up the club option or else the Bears will bring in somebody else to play QB and give them a big deal. It's going to be very interesting to watch.

 

BTW, as far as the rumored deal, it's a strange deal. For Washington, it doesn't make sense other than it's the splash that they couldn't deliver in FA this year. For the Bears, it makes sense-it's probably favorable to the Bears, but it's not an out and out steal. I do think the Bears should take this unless they decide that they want to wait to try to get something like the Patriots first round pick instead-a pick with less value, but an extra pick that could possibly fill a need.

[Chocolate Milk]

He probably thinks Briggs demands are unreasonable and don't fit in with his long term plan. He should reopen the negotiation based on a player's threat to hold out?

 

He should reopen negotiations based on the fact that he's a really good player who doesn't have a contract right now. We're not talking about caving in to some 2nd year player wanting to renegotiate his rookie contract.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If you think that I want them to make some sort of stand on principle, that's not what I am talking about. They aren't negotiating because they feel that his cost outweighs his value. If this is the reason they stopped negotiating then I don't see why his threat to hold out would change their minds.

 

It has to do with your assertion that they shouldn't cave to him just becasue he's talking about holding out. Franchising Briggs was the right move. Franchising without any willingness to talk longterm is just dumb. Angelo should talk because they have a valuable player whom they need and can keep with just money. And they have plenty of cap space (and that cap is just going up) to do it. Of course he'd threaten to hold out with a franchise tag. That has nothing to do with me wanting Angelo to go back to the table. I've wanted him to go back the whole time. Thinking Briggs will be cool with playing as a franchise player is an error in judgement.

 

Yes, probably so.

 

I do understand that they have cap space now, but there are a plethora of contracts for marquee players that are going to have to be addressed in the near future. Rex, Harris, Tillman, Vasher, Berrian to name a few. Are these players more important to the Bears success than Briggs? I would say "an improved" Rex Grossman (I think he'd have to improve some to get an extension) and Tommie Harris are. Would signing Briggs keep them from extending those players? I honestly don't know. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the Bears brass here as they have earned it with there personnel moves and cap management over the last few years.

 

This situation is upon us now. The Bears aren't going to extend Briggs and Briggs might not play for the first 10 weeks of next season. That's the way it looks. The Bears either think that they can replace Briggs or that he's too expensive to fit in with their future plans. If that's the case, then this is a great deal.

 

Obviously I'm giving a lot of credit to the Bears here. Maybe they have completely screwed this situation to holy hell. I don't think they have. Getting the number 6 pick also gives us the option to trade down and get more picks. If a player drops from the top 4, teams will want to move up to get them. Jerry likes trading down. The #6 gives us a hell of a lot of flexibility and I think it would be a huge get to acquire it.

 

Just my opinion here but I think that a single player isn't as hard to replace as many people think it is. The Pats have been dumping marquee players for years and while they might have a lull here and there, they usually are better off for it. Did losing Deon Branch hurt them last year? Maybe a little. They were still damn close to making it to the Superbowl. And oh, by the way, they have 2 first round picks this year. How did that trade work out for Seattle? Was it worth it? I doubt many Seattle fans think it was in retrospect and I think if the Bears make this deal, Redskins fans will be feeling the same way.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

The Bears have a lot of interesting decisions to make-they have drafted really well over the last few years, and that is going to cause the dilemma. Taking a quick look at the roster, in the next 2-3 years starters such as Briggs, Berrian, Tommie Harris, Tillman, Vasher, and Benson will all want to be compensated. The Bears won't be able to keep nearly all of them, especially since Grossman is either going to get a big deal after 1 year or 2 years if they pick up the club option or else the Bears will bring in somebody else to play QB and give them a big deal. It's going to be very interesting to watch.

 

This what I have been saying the last month to you crazy kids. The Bears cant CANT cant invest 120 plus million at the linebacker position with Tommy Harris, and the starting cb all due for extensions in the near future. Has nothing to do with how good Briggs is. So moving up to a top ten pick for a guy who does not want to be here is gravy, IMO. 7 million gets freed up, we draft a young impact player...

[goonys evil twin]

The Bears have a lot of interesting decisions to make-they have drafted really well over the last few years, and that is going to cause the dilemma. Taking a quick look at the roster, in the next 2-3 years starters such as Briggs, Berrian, Tommie Harris, Tillman, Vasher, and Benson will all want to be compensated. The Bears won't be able to keep nearly all of them, especially since Grossman is either going to get a big deal after 1 year or 2 years if they pick up the club option or else the Bears will bring in somebody else to play QB and give them a big deal. It's going to be very interesting to watch.

 

This what I have been saying the last month to you crazy kids. The Bears cant CANT cant invest 120 plus million at the linebacker position with Tommy Harris, and the starting cb all due for extensions in the near future. Has nothing to do with how good Briggs is. So moving up to a top ten pick for a guy who does not want to be here is gravy, IMO. 7 million gets freed up, we draft a young impact player...

 

LB is not one position. It's 3. They should invest heavily in their best defensive players.

[rawaction]

We could draft anyone @ 6. It's immaterial. The point is, Briggs is not worth nearly the 6th pick overall. If Snyder does this, he is confirmed as the biggest idiot in football.

 

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro.

 

My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help.

 

Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks.

 

If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues.

 

Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6.

[Banedon]

For what it's worth, Redskins fans are pretty much unanimous in not liking this trade possibility.

 

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194122

[Chocolate Milk]

We could draft anyone @ 6. It's immaterial. The point is, Briggs is not worth nearly the 6th pick overall. If Snyder does this, he is confirmed as the biggest idiot in football.

 

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro.

 

My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help.

 

Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks.

 

If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues.

 

Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6.

 

If Briggs stays these are still our biggest needs.

[rawaction]

We could draft anyone @ 6. It's immaterial. The point is, Briggs is not worth nearly the 6th pick overall. If Snyder does this, he is confirmed as the biggest idiot in football.

 

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro.

 

My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help.

 

Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks.

 

If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues.

 

Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6.

 

If Briggs stays these are still our biggest needs.

 

That's if you believe Briggs will sit out, which I refuse to believe. If Briggs does play, worst case, you get a LB next year or have a year to see what the guys already in camp can do.

[Soul]

We could draft anyone @ 6. It's immaterial. The point is, Briggs is not worth nearly the 6th pick overall. If Snyder does this, he is confirmed as the biggest idiot in football.

 

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro.

 

My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help.

 

Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks.

 

If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues.

 

Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6.

 

If Briggs stays these are still our biggest needs.

 

That's if you believe Briggs will sit out, which I refuse to believe. If Briggs does play, worst case, you get a LB next year or have a year to see what the guys already in camp can do.

 

In order to believe Briggs will not sit out, you also need to believe he was just spouting BS when he said he would do anything in his power to not play for the Bears.

 

I don't think I can go there. IMO, it's very likely Briggs would sit out if nothing is done. He seems like the kind of guy who means what he says.

[goonys evil twin]

In order to believe Briggs will not sit out, you also need to believe he was just spouting BS when he said he would do anything in his power to not play for the Bears.

 

I don't think I can go there. IMO, it's very likely Briggs would sit out if nothing is done. He seems like the kind of guy who means what he says.

 

My belief is he'll do what makes the most financial sense, and sitting out does not make any financial sense.

[Chocolate Milk]

We could draft anyone @ 6. It's immaterial. The point is, Briggs is not worth nearly the 6th pick overall. If Snyder does this, he is confirmed as the biggest idiot in football.

 

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro.

 

My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help.

 

Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks.

 

If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues.

 

Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6.

 

If Briggs stays these are still our biggest needs.

 

That's if you believe Briggs will sit out, which I refuse to believe. If Briggs does play, worst case, you get a LB next year or have a year to see what the guys already in camp can do.

 

Why do you refuse to beleive it? I think it's more likely than not at this point.

 

What makes next year different than this year in your senario? Next year we'd be in the same situation. You're still having a rookie fill in for Briggs and you lose Briggs for nothing. I'm not seeing the advantage there. The Bears were probably going to draft a WLB this year regardless if Briggs stays or not. They pretty much have to considering his threats to hold out.

 

Briggs is gone. The best case senario, he plays this year and then leaves. Worst case senario he sits out 10 games and never plays again for the Bears (I doubt the Bears will pop him into the lineup after sitting out the first 10 weeks.) The reality is probably somewhere in between.

[rawaction]

We could draft anyone @ 6. It's immaterial. The point is, Briggs is not worth nearly the 6th pick overall. If Snyder does this, he is confirmed as the biggest idiot in football.

 

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro.

 

My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help.

 

Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks.

 

If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues.

 

Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6.

 

If Briggs stays these are still our biggest needs.

 

That's if you believe Briggs will sit out, which I refuse to believe. If Briggs does play, worst case, you get a LB next year or have a year to see what the guys already in camp can do.

 

In order to believe Briggs will not sit out, you also need to believe he was just spouting BS when he said he would do anything in his power to not play for the Bears.

 

I don't think I can go there. IMO, it's very likely Briggs would sit out if nothing is done. He seems like the kind of guy who means what he says.

 

He's also griping about money. You don't cry about not getting paid and then turn down 7.4 million, about 900% more than he's earned in any other season. It's not like he's T.O. who had made millions when he threatened to sit out the season. He hasn't had a big payday, and there's no guarantee he'll get that payday after a season off.

 

Briggs has 2 choices if the Bears don't trade him or re-sign him. Make 7.4M this year and become the highest paid LB next year or make nothing this year and take a chance of becoming the highest paid LB next year.

[cubweiser03]

I see Briggs sitting out 10 weeks. He plays 6 weeks and is getting about $3M for that. Still a nice pay raise from 2006.

 

Patriots didnt get their 1st round pick until this year for Branch. At least under this scenario the Bears wont have to wait a year to fill that void. IF you are going to do this its better to do it now than play the who blinks first game.

[Banedon]

Ok, so lets say Briggs plays this season for the Bears. Angelo apparently told Briggs in their meeting yesterday that if Briggs would play this season, he would promise not to franchise him next season. So we still will need a LB in the draft. It's a need no matter how you look at it.

[RynoRules]

I see Briggs sitting out 10 weeks. He plays 6 weeks and is getting about $3M for that. Still a nice pay raise from 2006.

 

Patriots didnt get their 1st round pick until this year for Branch. At least under this scenario the Bears wont have to wait a year to fill that void. IF you are going to do this its better to do it now than play the who blinks first game.

 

Agreed. We are in a great bargaining position here, IMO. Snyder's ego makes decisions - go fleece him.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Make the deal, Bears.

[Soul]

In order to believe Briggs will not sit out, you also need to believe he was just spouting BS when he said he would do anything in his power to not play for the Bears.

 

I don't think I can go there. IMO, it's very likely Briggs would sit out if nothing is done. He seems like the kind of guy who means what he says.

 

He's also griping about money. You don't cry about not getting paid and then turn down 7.4 million, about 900% more than he's earned in any other season. It's not like he's T.O. who had made millions when he threatened to sit out the season. He hasn't had a big payday, and there's no guarantee he'll get that payday after a season off.

 

Briggs has 2 choices if the Bears don't trade him or re-sign him. Make 7.4M this year and become the highest paid LB next year or make nothing this year and take a chance of becoming the highest paid LB next year.

 

I understand, but it's not $7.4million guaranteed. There's no signing bonus associated with it. No long-term security. That's got to be what he's most worried about.

 

I think what Briggs would be hoping for by holding out is choice #3: hold out, cause enough stress on the situation to force a trade, then sign a long-term deal with a huge signing bonus with the new team. Just like Ogunleye did with us.

[rawaction]

In order to believe Briggs will not sit out, you also need to believe he was just spouting BS when he said he would do anything in his power to not play for the Bears.

 

I don't think I can go there. IMO, it's very likely Briggs would sit out if nothing is done. He seems like the kind of guy who means what he says.

 

He's also griping about money. You don't cry about not getting paid and then turn down 7.4 million, about 900% more than he's earned in any other season. It's not like he's T.O. who had made millions when he threatened to sit out the season. He hasn't had a big payday, and there's no guarantee he'll get that payday after a season off.

 

Briggs has 2 choices if the Bears don't trade him or re-sign him. Make 7.4M this year and become the highest paid LB next year or make nothing this year and take a chance of becoming the highest paid LB next year.

 

I understand, but it's not $7.4million guaranteed. There's no signing bonus associated with it. No long-term security. That's got to be what he's most worried about.

 

I think what Briggs would be hoping for by holding out is choice #3: hold out, cause enough stress on the situation to force a trade, then sign a long-term deal with a huge signing bonus with the new team. Just like Ogunleye did with us.

 

The $7.4M is guaranteed if he plays. If he gets hurt the first play of the preseason and never comes back, he's getting 7.4 million. No long-term security, of course, there's a lot less long-term security involved in not playing at all.

[Banedon]

More needs to come out about this. Either make it happen or make it go away. I don't handle waiting very well.... :P

[rawaction]

What do the Bears do with the 6th pick?

 

Scenarios seem to be:

 

a. They have a player targeted at the top of the draft who they expect will be there at #6 (Akobi, Landry, Willis)

 

b. They wait and see if Joe Thomas, Calvin Johnson, or even possibly Quinn slip to #6 and take him there.

 

c. They look to trade down almost immediately for more picks. I wonder if Houston would trade up to get Peterson if he is there, but they don't have much else to offer, picks-wise.

[cubbyvirus00]

Take the pick and draft an impact LB to replace Briggs, and groom that player into Urlacher when Urlacher retires.

[rawaction]

 

I think what Briggs would be hoping for by holding out is choice #3: hold out, cause enough stress on the situation to force a trade, then sign a long-term deal with a huge signing bonus with the new team. Just like Ogunleye did with us.

 

That's not his choice. He can't force anything. The Bears have to choose to trade him.

[Banedon]

If the Raiders decide to sign David Carr, and go with Calvin Johnson for the #1 pick, and chance Russell would fall to #6?

[goonys evil twin]

What do the Bears do with the 6th pick?

 

Scenarios seem to be:

 

a. They have a player targeted at the top of the draft who they expect will be there at #6 (Akobi, Landry, Willis)

 

b. They wait and see if Joe Thomas, Calvin Johnson, or even possibly Quinn slip to #6 and take him there.

 

c. They look to trade down almost immediately for more picks. I wonder if Houston would trade up to get Peterson if he is there, but they don't have much else to offer, picks-wise.

 

I would bet they wait, but eventually trade down.