adam Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 I was kind of shocked to see this today. Normally the "faces" of the franchise don't act like this. Hell, Brady took a pay cut (or at least restructured his deal) for the team. Why would the Bears extend someone with so many years remaining on his contract? There has to be more to this. Maybe he was upset that the team even considered moving him to the outside? I dunno, this just seems sort of odd coming from him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 He's signed through 2011 what the hell does he feel insecure about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted April 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 There has been "talk" of this happening for about a year now. The problem is, when Urlacher signed his deal, it was a very big one, but also one w/ a ton of years on it. Since then, the cap and contracts have soared. It is an inevitable situation when a top tier player signs a very long contract. At some point, that contract will simply not resemple the level of the player, and that is what has happened w/ Urlacher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brletich Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 There has been "talk" of this happening for about a year now. The problem is, when Urlacher signed his deal, it was a very big one, but also one w/ a ton of years on it. Since then, the cap and contracts have soared. It is an inevitable situation when a top tier player signs a very long contract. At some point, that contract will simply not resemple the level of the player, and that is what has happened w/ Urlacher. So it is back to the question...does the team owe it to the player to pay them more if they outperform their contract? I know it doesn't work in reverse...I don't really care that he wants more money, and I don't care if he skips voluntary things. If it is mandatory, then yes I would be upset. Maybe we shouold start a poll on this one...Sounds like a good way to up my post count!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 I'm basically with you on this...the moment he missed some significant team time, I will worry. Until then, this is just an unpleasant distraction... So it is back to the question...does the team owe it to the player to pay them more if they outperform their contract? I know it doesn't work in reverse...I don't really care that he wants more money, and I don't care if he skips voluntary things. If it is mandatory, then yes I would be upset. Maybe we shouold start a poll on this one...Sounds like a good way to up my post count!! 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.