dabayrz

BEARS DON'T PLAN TO BUDGE ON BRIGGS?
The prevailing theory in league circles is that the Chicago Bears have decided to let linebacker Lance Briggs become an unrestricted free agent and attempt to finagle on the open market a better deal than the offer averaging $5.5 million per year with $12 million in guaranteed money that he rejected earlier this year.

Briggs, who by some accounts wants more money than Brian Urlacher got from the team, is scheduled to earn $721,600 in 2006.

Does he deserve that kind of money? Hell no, one league insider told us. For starters, an outside linebacker who wants to be paid among the elite defenders in the league needs to be able to get to the quarterback on a consistent basis.

Briggs has 2.5 sacks. For his entire career.

Another theory that is gaining popularity on the NFL grapevine is a simple litmus test based on name recognition. Or, as the case may be, number recognition.

When considering whether a guy deserves a big-money contract, the first question to ask is whether folks outside the organization automatically know his jersey number.

Peyton Manning, 18. Tom Brady, 12. Ray Lewis, 52. Brian Urlacher, 54.

Lance Briggs? Somewhere between 50 and 59. But not 54.

(Actually, Briggs wears No. 55. We had to look it up.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VASHER DOESN'T MERIT BIG MONEY, EITHER

Applying the same rule to Bears cornerback Nathan Vasher, he's still got a year or two before he's ready to get paid like he wants to get paid.

Some disagree. Ron Borges of the Boston Globe, for example, thinks that the third-year corner deserves a raise, since as Vasher's agent argues there are 130 cornerbacks in football scheduled to earn more than Vasher's base salary of $425,000 this year. But that's because Vasher's rookie contract pays him the minimum salary for 2006.

Vasher is a third-year guy, so he gets $425,000. Thus, any cornerback with four or more years of NFL service will make more than Vasher this year, regardless of relative skill.

Borges also ignores (intentionally or otherwise) the fact that Vasher received a $390,000 signing bonus when he inked (without gun to his head or knife to his nuts) a four-year contract in 2004. Since a signing bonus is advance compensation for future services, and given the league's cap rules regarding bonus allocation, Vasher is actually making $487,500 in 2006 -- and he's had $97,500 of it in his pockets for two years.

In determining whether the Bears are treating Vasher fairly, keep this in mind. His agent, who gets slurped by Borges for (insert "wow" here) pulling up a list of 2006 base salaries for corners and seeing where his client's name appears on it, could have insisted on a three-year rookie deal, which would have resulted in a lower signing bonus but a quicker path to the next payday.

Though Borges also points out that Vasher made the Pro Bowl last year, the reality is that the 2005 Bears found themselves in a crappy division in a conference currently devoid of former big-time cover guys. Throw in Vasher's high-profile 108-yard return of a missed field goal, and he's got more than enough name recognition to get to Honolulu.

Even if no one outside of Chicago knows his jersey number.

(It's 31, by the way. We looked it up.)

__________________

Duds47

Was this crap written by a kindergarten class?

They actually admitted to not knowing two pro bowl players numbers? How can this be taken seriously?


I hate crap that is intentionally misleading. How can you honestly say Vasher didn't sign his rookie contract WITHOUT a gun to his head. If you had any idea of how the slotting system works you'd know the gun analogy makes perfect sense.

Sign you predetermined contract amount or throw your career away and go back to Lubbock Texas where you can work as a gas station attendant employye..Heck, the gun sounds like a decent alternative.

__________________
Quote by Moe Syzlak: May 23, 2005

bigsexyy81

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Duds47 @ Jul 3rd ) [snapback]1608851[/snapback]</div>Good point. Either make your $425,000 that you agreed to in ink as a rookie, or go back to Lubbock Texas and make minimum wage.

Seems like he is making out pretty good to me.

__________________

Dope sig by Catalyst
This shiz makes me
Sweeeeet

Big Blue

Some guy making $425,000 to play football isn't getting any sympathy from me. Stop *****ing, play out your contract, and get paid afterwards.

mouse

LET ME GUESS, THIS IS FROM PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT?

__________________

BEAR DOWN.......... AND WHILE YOU'RE DOWN THERE.....

dabayrz

SULLIVAN RESPONDS TO OUR TAKE ON VASHER

As further evidence of the fact that people around the league actually read this here e-rag, we've heard from agent Mike Sullivan in response to our recent critique of Ron Borges' Sunday morning slurp job of Bears cornerback Nathan Vasher, who is represented by Sullivan. Among other things, Borges trumpeted Sullivan's contention that Vasher deserves a raise because there are 130 corners who will make more money than the 2005 Pro Bowler in the coming campaign. As we explained, however, the fact that rookie deals routinely provide for payment of minimum salaries in addition to the slot-driven signing bonus means that Vasher's circumstance is hardly unusual.

In an e-mail sent to us on Monday afternoon, Sullivan raised several points. First, he argued that the four-year term of Vasher's rookie deal was not negotiable. "The Bears made it clear in their first discussion with me that they were absolutely going to require a four-year deal for Nate as they did for their fourth-round pick the year before and as they have done each year since," Sullivan wrote. "So your contention that 'his agent could have insisted on a three-year deal' is simply not correct."

Fair enough, but there are other options. For example, Sullivan could have had Vasher sign the one-year tender for the rookie minimum in 2004, the one-year tender for the second-year minimum in 2005, and the one-year tender for the third-year minimum in 2006. Under this approach, Vasher would have been eligible for restricted free agency in March 2007, and would have made back all of the signing bonus that he wouldn't have gotten in 2004 and more, even if the Bears had tendered him at only the first-round level and no one else made him a long-term offer.

Of course, this approach would have required Vasher to sacrifice his signing bonus -- and to assume 100 percent of the risk that he'd suck or get hurt (see Guss Scott).

Also, and as one league insider reminded us, Vasher signed his "four years or else" deal in May 2004, more than two months before training camp opened. (We confirmed this via a Google search that led right to our own archives.) Said the source, "Why not at least fight until June or July? By capitulating in May, how hard did he really fight for the [three-year deal]? Probably the kid needed money and [Sullivan] wouldn't loan it to him."

Second, Sullivan explained that Vasher isn't trying to force a long-term deal, and Sullivan explained that he has made a proposal for a one-year extension. The extension wouldn't change the salaries in years three or four of Vasher's current deal, but the extra money to be paid in 2008 would move his average to No. 44 on the cornerback pay scale.

Said a league source in response, "He's still forgetting about the $97,500 from the signing bonus that applies to this year and next year." (He's also forgetting about the Performance Based Pay system, which funnels extra money to key contributors who aren't being highly compensated.) "Besides," said the source, "why would the Bears want to do a one-year extension? They already have the right to do so when the time comes. It's called the franchise tag."

Third, Sullivan acknowledged that "it takes extraordinary accomplishments to justify opening a contract up with two years remaining." But Sullivan believes that Vasher qualifies. "Since the 2000 draft, Nate is the only fourth-round pick to make the Pro Bowl on the original ballot. That is out of 217 fourth-round draft picks and that includes each player's entire career to this point." Sullivan also pointed out that Vasher is only the third position player since 2000 not selected on the first day of the draft to make the Pro Bowl on the original ballot in his first or second season. The other two? Tom Brady and Antonio Gates. "There is a lot of similarity between Gates and Nate," Sullivan wrote, "both in terms of team and individual performance."

Others around the league disagree. "Comparing him to Gates? Come on," said one league insider. "Gates is an impact player who led the league in receptions. Just because Vasher makes the Pro Bowl does not make him a great player. Also, [Vasher] is a product of the best defense in the NFC, at a time when there are few other high-level cornerbacks in the conference."

And regardless of what Sullivan, Borges, or anyone else thinks, Vasher's situation is a direct result of a system that ties a player's income over the first phase of his career directly to the spot at which he was drafted, regardless of how he later performs. "Rookie deals are rookie deals," said another league source. "When a player sucks, the player doesn't give back his bonus money. Sure, the team can cut the player, but the player still keeps the signing bonus. The agents and players forget about the signing bonus, but that's where much of the money comes from. The base salaries [for the rookie deals] are always low."

So what can Vasher do? Not much. He's signed for the next two years, and he likely would be jeopardizing $195,000 in paid but unearned bonus money if he breaches his contract by holding out.

Is it fair to Vasher? No. But under the current system fairness doesn't matter. If it did, guys like Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith and Johnathan Sullivan and Joey Harrington and David Terrell would be required to surrender most if not all of their signing bonuses.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTED 11:21 a.m. EDT, July 4, 2006

BEAR MARKET EXPECTED FOR BRIGGS

Regarding the ongoing contract squabble between the Bears and linebacker Lance Briggs, a league source believes that one of the reasons for the team's decision to be patient regarding an extension traces to Briggs' pre-draft reputation.

Briggs was selected by the Bears in the third round of the 2003 draft. Some teams, we're told, had removed Briggs from their boards, and there was an expectation that he'd be selected in the latter portion of day two, in which rounds four through seven unfold. Though we can't find any hard evidence that would qualify him for membership on the All-Turd Team, the source says that multiple teams regarded Briggs as a "bad dude" coming out of Arizona.

There's also a recognition in league circles that Briggs is benefiting from the "Tampa 2" defensive system that coach Lovie Smith installed two years ago.

As a result, our source thinks that the Bears are betting on a low financial demand for Briggs if/when he hits the open market.

Meanwhile, Briggs' decision to turn down a deal that reportedly included $12 million in guarantees and a $5.5 million annual average means that he now bears the risk of having his value dramatically reduced by a catastrophic injury in 2006. In this regard, Briggs might want to have a chat with Ian Gold, who lost his shot at a huge payday when his ACL went kerflooey in October of his contract year.

__________________

BULLITT

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Big Blue @ Jul 3rd ) [snapback]1608935[/snapback]</div>

****'n A !

imported_PeanutTillman

When people say Briggs cant rush the passer I remember the time when he jumped over Micheal Bennett (literally over him) on his way to destroying Culpepper after the ball was thrown.

It was a pick or Incomplete, but jumping over an NFL RB is hard to do.

__________________
Bye NFL-Fans

imported_raise_up_va

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PeanutTillman @ Jul 4th ) [snapback]1610238[/snapback]</div>Yeah this is another example of those bull**** analysts, that don't even watch the games, making conclusions about him that are not true. He doesn't get enough chances to rush the passer, that's why he has few sacks. He CAN blitz but he doesn't get to much. These "experts" should pull their head out of their statbook.

__________________
<div align="center">NFC CHAMPIONS



thanks to Pred for the sig pic</div>

O

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mouse @ Jul 3rd ) [snapback]1608963[/snapback]</div> Probably. Only "reporters" I can think of who would explain in an article that they researched a player's number.

__________________

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteelAngel @ Jun 7th ) [snapback]2019210[/snapback]</div>We regret to inform you that your country is dead because it was stupid.