DaFreak Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I can't say I really blame him...if I was looking around that team seeing other players who had 20 million, 30 million, etc. bankrolled and I was sitting there with only 3 million through 4 seasons after being a top linebacker in the NFL over the last 3, I'd want more for the long-term too. It's rough out there and you're only one serious injury from having it all taken away from you. Problem is he turned down a 6 year 33 million dollar offer from the Bears last spring....What does Lance Briggs really want..??... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I'm still amazed that people are defending this guy when he's going to be compensated at the average of the top 5 LBs to play 1 year of football. He ought to thank the Bears - they are overcompensating him for that one year and then they start all over again next year. Someone also ought to lecture this kid on the fundamentals of economics. The costs of sitting out this season extend way beyond losing just $7.5M in compensation this year. He'd never sign a contract big enough for his remaining playing days to make up for that loss by the time his playing career is over. As to the $7.5M, if he pays the government 50% of it, his agent 5% of it, and then spends $1.375M this year paying cash for a house, he could still invest the balance at a safe 6% rate of return investment and have over $300 a day free & clear to spend on himself - with no house payment - every day for the rest of his life without ever touching the principal, as well as gaining the increase in value of the residence. For "risking" playing out a one year contract for "only" $7.5M... The rest of us should be "forced" to be put into such a horrible situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hause62 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I'm still amazed that people are defending this guy when he's going to be compensated at the average of the top 5 LBs to play 1 year of football. He ought to thank the Bears - they are overcompensating him for that one year and then they start all over again next year. Someone also ought to lecture this kid on the fundamentals of economics. The costs of sitting out this season extend way beyond losing just $7.5M in compensation this year. He'd never sign a contract big enough for his remaining playing days to make up for that loss by the time his playing career is over. As to the $7.5M, if he pays the government 50% of it, his agent 5% of it, and then spends $1.375M this year paying cash for a house, he could still invest the balance at a safe 6% rate of return investment and have over $300 a day free & clear to spend on himself - with no house payment - every day for the rest of his life without ever touching the principal, as well as gaining the increase in value of the residence. For "risking" playing out a one year contract for "only" $7.5M... The rest of us should be "forced" to be put into such a horrible situation. Don't forget the hummer with spinners... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 the funny thing is briggs has beef with da bears, but he should be vocal against the NFLPA not the bears. The NFLPA negotiated an agreement they thought would benefit all the players not just a few each year who want more money. Try thinking about more than just yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) Don't forget the hummer with spinners... Okay, but a $1.275M house in cash & drive the Hummer off the lot with no car payments, either. Edited March 14, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 The NFLPA negotiated an agreement they thought would benefit all the players not just a few each year who want more money. Try thinking about more than just yourself. People also need to remember that if the players are going to get 63% of gross revenues designated directly to them along with other benefits that they have to make a few concessions, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 The NFLPA negotiated an agreement they thought would benefit all the players not just a few each year who want more money. Try thinking about more than just yourself. I don't think that whitem0nkey is arguing that there is anything wrong with the CBA. He's merely arguing that if Briggs doesn't like the franchise tag (one part of the CBA) he should be angry with the players union for accepting that provision, not the Bears for using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitem0nkey Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I don't think that whitem0nkey is arguing that there is anything wrong with the CBA. He's merely arguing that if Briggs doesn't like the franchise tag (one part of the CBA) he should be angry with the players union for accepting that provision, not the Bears for using it. Thanks for clearing that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I don't think that whitem0nkey is arguing that there is anything wrong with the CBA. He's merely arguing that if Briggs doesn't like the franchise tag (one part of the CBA) he should be angry with the players union for accepting that provision, not the Bears for using it. If Briggs is angry with a CBA that's guaranteeing him $7.2 million this season, he's a freaking idiot. How about this, Lance: You and I can switch jobs for the next 12 months. You can experience the joy of working 60 hours a week and making less than 1/10 of what you made last season. Meanwhile, I'll happily strap on your helmet and shoulder pads at training camp this summer. While I'm sure that I'll probably suffer cracked ribs and a torn ACL within the first three days, the NFL's healthcare coverage will provide me with top-notch surgeons and rehab trainers. And it'll all be worth it because, even after taxes, I'll be able to retire immediately with the equivalent of a guaranteed six-figure salary for the next 30+ years. And that's not including the tens of thousands that I'll probably make from investments. So, what do you say, Lance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 If Briggs is angry with a CBA that's guaranteeing him $7.2 million this season, he's a freaking idiot. How about this, Lance: You and I can switch jobs for the next 12 months. You can experience the joy of working 60 hours a week and making less than 1/10 of what you made last season. Meanwhile, I'll happily strap on your helmet and shoulder pads at training camp this summer. While I'm sure that I'll probably suffer cracked ribs and a torn ACL within the first three days, the NFL's healthcare coverage will provide me with top-notch surgeons and rehab trainers. And it'll all be worth it because, even after taxes, I'll be able to retire immediately with the equivalent of a guaranteed six-figure salary for the next 30+ years. And that's not including the tens of thousands that I'll probably make from investments. So, what do you say, Lance? +7.2 million Well written...I have to wonder what kind of "advice" he's getting. Is he speaking the way he really feels or is he just following the orders of his agent/financial advisor? I mean...with what he said, there is no way he comes back ot Chicago. He forced their hand and put himself in a tough spot if the Angelo does not blink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 If Briggs is angry with a CBA that's guaranteeing him $7.2 million this season, he's a freaking idiot. Thank you for expressing the opinion of someone who gets it. One of the reasons the union agreed to frachising is the guarantee of the player being paid the average of the top 5 players at that position. If that's some form of slavery or other such nonsense, sign me up for a year, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) Problem is he turned down a 6 year 33 million dollar offer from the Bears last spring....What does Lance Briggs really want..??... He and his agent (Rosenhaus) have been reportedly seeking a 9 year 63.8 million dollar contract (which, of course, is absolutely ridiculous and would obviously never happen, but is typical Rosenhaus). He may be regretting the contract that he turned down last spring now, though I'm not familiar with how that contract was structured, ie. how much was guaranteed, backloaded, etc. Edited March 14, 2007 by Crazysight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.