bowlingtwig Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 It does seem weird that there is quite a few guys grumbling throughout the league about their contracts after a lockout when no one lost money. All I know is that if I could go for more dollars on my current job but can't since my pay is truly collectively bargained by my union. I was loyal to my last company for over a year. But I got offered a job with a substantial pay raise and more miles per week. The owner of this company got my number from my dad. I never even filled out an application before the owner called me. I took my new offer to my old company and they said they couldn't match it. So does this make me a bad guy lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 Not at all. If Briggs gets a better offer from the CFL, can he not take it? I was loyal to my last company for over a year. But I got offered a job with a substantial pay raise and more miles per week. The owner of this company got my number from my dad. I never even filled out an application before the owner called me. I took my new offer to my old company and they said they couldn't match it. So does this make me a bad guy lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 I was loyal to my last company for over a year. But I got offered a job with a substantial pay raise and more miles per week. The owner of this company got my number from my dad. I never even filled out an application before the owner called me. I took my new offer to my old company and they said they couldn't match it. So does this make me a bad guy lol If you were in the middle of a binding contact and they depended on you for the success of their business and you used a lawyer to weasle out of the the deal... Yes, you are a turd. But, I highly doubt that is the case on all counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 If you were in the middle of a binding contact and they depended on you for the success of their business and you used a lawyer to weasle out of the the deal... Yes, you are a turd. But, I highly doubt that is the case on all counts. Lets keep in mind though a binding contract should work both ways. So why is it that the owners can cut them just because they don't care for them. Doesnt seem so far to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 If you were in the middle of a binding contact and they depended on you for the success of their business and you used a lawyer to weasle out of the the deal... Yes, you are a turd. But, I highly doubt that is the case on all counts. They were depending on me for success of there business as I was one of there top drivers. I didnt have a contract and I refuse to sign any type of contract. I even refuse to go to a union for as much as that matters. For me it all came down to a better offer for both me and my family and that is what mattered the most to me. Sure I was look out for #1 but isn't that what of us do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 They were depending on me for success of there business as I was one of there top drivers. I didnt have a contract and I refuse to sign any type of contract. I even refuse to go to a union for as much as that matters. For me it all came down to a better offer for both me and my family and that is what mattered the most to me. Sure I was look out for #1 but isn't that what of us do. Not knowing you, that is what I figured. Most would do the same my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 I was loyal to my last company for over a year. But I got offered a job with a substantial pay raise and more miles per week. The owner of this company got my number from my dad. I never even filled out an application before the owner called me. I took my new offer to my old company and they said they couldn't match it. So does this make me a bad guy lol Not at all. You have the freedom to shop your talent and you found a higher bidder. Your employer and you both chose to accept the risk that comes with a "at will" position where either side can terminate the agreement at any time. Briggs too has the freedom to work anywhere he wants. He does not have to work in the NFL and he can walk away tomorrow. He chose to sign that contract and received a huge bonus for doing so (unlike you). He does take the risk that the club will decide they don't want him anymore but in that instance he walks away with that huge bonus money. What you forget is that the club accepted the risk that his performance would stay at a high level for that many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearsFan1974 Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 Not at all. You have the freedom to shop your talent and you found a higher bidder. Your employer and you both chose to accept the risk that comes with a "at will" position where either side can terminate the agreement at any time. Briggs too has the freedom to work anywhere he wants. He does not have to work in the NFL and he can walk away tomorrow. He chose to sign that contract and received a huge bonus for doing so (unlike you). He does take the risk that the club will decide they don't want him anymore but in that instance he walks away with that huge bonus money. What you forget is that the club accepted the risk that his performance would stay at a high level for that many years. AZ, you hit the nail on the head. BowlingTwig, you didn't sign a contract so for you to shop your talents and skill as a driver elsewhere is not wrong. For Briggs to do it, when he's halfway through his contract is flat out wrong. I'm not sure what kind of driver you are, but for example let's say it's delivering medical supplies. If that medical supply shipping company relied on you to fill that position as the company was about to hit it's peak season. Would you think it's ok to sit there and almost hold the company hostage until they decided to pay you more or you would go workk for a rival company? It's just bad timing. I don't like that his contract is half up and he wants more money or a trade, but to do it a week before the season is deplorable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 He makes complete sense because us fans think of this a sport 1st and foremost and then a business while the players think of it as a business 1st and foremost then they think of it as a game. Look, I don't agree with what Briggs is doing but then again look at who his agent is. You know his agent was in his ear to do this as alot of his clients do it. Lets all remember that Briggs has tried this before and was unsuccessful before. What makes you think the team will kiss his ass. You know the way we have turned out LB's in the past we wont do this. Remember we turned GB's trash LB who couldn't crack the roster into a valuable backup for many years for us(hillenmeyer) Lets also remember that other teams will keep in mind that Briggs has a history of doing this so they wont offer anything big for him at all. 1 thing I cant stand is stupid fans saying "well we pay your salary, therefore we should have a say so" This is just purely idiotic. and if you don't like something then why do we still continue to pay for the service. Judging from the fact you're still debating, you clearly don't grasp the differences being discussed. I think it's been said more than one time in this thread. Beginning of contract: -# of years - benefits player & team -bonus - benefits player -front-loaded contract - benefits player End of contract -# of years - benefits player & team -lack of bonus - benefits team -front-loaded contract - benefits team The owners can cut the players, but by the time they cut the players the owners are already at a loss. If they cut the players they don't get the benefit of the later years of productivity which are essentially promised by the player yet unfulfilled. Don't you see how that automatically puts the owners at a disadvantage? They were promised X (contract length) years of service, but only received X-Y (years of productivity) years of service. And you might counter, "they don't have to cut the players." That's correct, but now you're putting the owners in the position paying for a sinking boat. Poor investments are cut before they cost even more money than they already have. In Briggs' situation, he's already ahead on the deal. He got the length, bonus, and front-loading. The team got the promise of the length. Right now, Briggs is ahead 3-1, maybe 3-2 if you want to consider the team's option to cut, but the player is still ahead in the deal. Not to mention the fact that the team takes the greater share of the risk. To argue for Briggs just doesn't make sense when you think of it all logically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 Judging from the fact you're still debating, you clearly don't grasp the differences being discussed. I think it's been said more than one time in this thread. Beginning of contract: -# of years - benefits player & team -bonus - benefits player -front-loaded contract - benefits player End of contract -# of years - benefits player & team -lack of bonus - benefits team -front-loaded contract - benefits team The owners can cut the players, but by the time they cut the players the owners are already at a loss. If they cut the players they don't get the benefit of the later years of productivity which are essentially promised by the player yet unfulfilled. Don't you see how that automatically puts the owners at a disadvantage? They were promised X (contract length) years of service, but only received X-Y (years of productivity) years of service. And you might counter, "they don't have to cut the players." That's correct, but now you're putting the owners in the position paying for a sinking boat. Poor investments are cut before they cost even more money than they already have. In Briggs' situation, he's already ahead on the deal. He got the length, bonus, and front-loading. The team got the promise of the length. Right now, Briggs is ahead 3-1, maybe 3-2 if you want to consider the team's option to cut, but the player is still ahead in the deal. Not to mention the fact that the team takes the greater share of the risk. To argue for Briggs just doesn't make sense when you think of it all logically. My point in all of this LOYALTY. There is no loyalty in sports at all. Doesnt matter if we are talking about the players or the owners. Some how you have missed this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 My point in all of this LOYALTY. There is no loyalty in sports at all. Doesnt matter if we are talking about the players or the owners. Some how you have missed this. I hear your point, but even in your business, your employer isn't going to keep you on if you can no longer perform your job satisfactorily. Let's say you get arthritis to the point where you could no longer drive, would you expect your employer to keep paying you if you weren't able to produce anything for them? Players WANT the longer term contracts because that is what enables teams to give them so much money upfront in terms of bonuses. I totally get your point, but you can't really compare it to the rest of the business world because it's incredibly unlikely that an accountant, driver, machinist, or salesman, etc. are going to lose their ability to do their job overnight. The same can be said of other sports like baseball or basketball where contracts are guaranteed. A perfect example of this is Peyton Manning. What if his neck never recovers? He just signed a 5 year $90 million contract. Of that, roughly $26 million will be paid this year. Now if he never plays another down, should the Colts be on the hook for the remaining $64 million? Chances are he'll get his $28 million option bonus, but does it make sense for them to keep paying him for 5 more years if he can't play any longer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 I hear your point, but even in your business, your employer isn't going to keep you on if you can no longer perform your job satisfactorily. Let's say you get arthritis to the point where you could no longer drive, would you expect your employer to keep paying you if you weren't able to produce anything for them? Players WANT the longer term contracts because that is what enables teams to give them so much money upfront in terms of bonuses. I totally get your point, but you can't really compare it to the rest of the business world because it's incredibly unlikely that an accountant, driver, machinist, or salesman, etc. are going to lose their ability to do their job overnight. The same can be said of other sports like baseball or basketball where contracts are guaranteed. A perfect example of this is Peyton Manning. What if his neck never recovers? He just signed a 5 year $90 million contract. Of that, roughly $26 million will be paid this year. Now if he never plays another down, should the Colts be on the hook for the remaining $64 million? Chances are he'll get his $28 million option bonus, but does it make sense for them to keep paying him for 5 more years if he can't play any longer? So are you saying that teams have never cut/traded a player that was still playing at a high level just because the team no longer wanted to pay a high amount for the player. This is what im talking about. It happens both ways but unfortunately most only complain when the player is requesting the bigger contract. I don't like what Briggs is doing. I think its petty and stupid. I agree the McCaskey's have every right to play hard ball and tell him F off and then we look for a replacement come next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 My point in all of this LOYALTY. There is no loyalty in sports at all. Doesnt matter if we are talking about the players or the owners. Some how you have missed this. I worked for Motorola up until 2 1/2 years ago and watched over 100,000 people lose their jobs until I was finally tapped on the shoulder after 13 years. My stepfather worked for IBM for 32 years. In the early '90s they let over 200,000 employees go. Point is, there is no loyalty in business anymore. The days of someone working for 30 years with a company and retiring are over. Lance signed a contract. He received a crap load of money up front. He needs to STFU and honor his contract. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 I worked for Motorola up until 2 1/2 years ago and watched over 100,000 people lose their jobs until I was finally tapped on the shoulder after 13 years. My stepfather worked for IBM for 32 years. In the early '90s they let over 200,000 employees go. Point is, there is no loyalty in business anymore. The days of someone working for 30 years with a company and retiring are over. Lance signed a contract. He received a crap load of money up front. He needs to STFU and honor his contract. Peace completely agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 So are you saying that teams have never cut/traded a player that was still playing at a high level just because the team no longer wanted to pay a high amount for the player. This is what im talking about. It happens both ways but unfortunately most only complain when the player is requesting the bigger contract. I don't like what Briggs is doing. I think its petty and stupid. I agree the McCaskey's have every right to play hard ball and tell him F off and then we look for a replacement come next year. I disagree over your premise that we only complain about the players. Over the years I've been reading this board there has been plenty of digital ink spilled complaining how the Bears were too cheap to pay good players and that it hurt the team. I think most of us look at each individual situation and evaluate it based on player performance and pay relative to other players/teams around the league. As far as I know, nobody on this board has come out stating that Matt Forte does not deserve a new contract, including me. In fact I've seen more complaints about the Bears dragging out the process but there has been plenty of debate over what the terms of his new contract should be. Of course Forte hasn't demanded a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 So are you saying that teams have never cut/traded a player that was still playing at a high level just because the team no longer wanted to pay a high amount for the player. This is what im talking about. It happens both ways but unfortunately most only complain when the player is requesting the bigger contract. I don't like what Briggs is doing. I think its petty and stupid. I agree the McCaskey's have every right to play hard ball and tell him F off and then we look for a replacement come next year. That has rarely happened since the 2006 CBA extension. At this point, if a player is still playing at a high level, they usually get traded - which isn't voiding their contract, it's the equivalent of getting transferred to a new city by your employer. I think that any examples you may have been thinking of from the past were pre-2006 when there were "cap casualties" and the June 1st date for spreading out a cap hit for an accelerated bonus over 2 years actually had relevance. Usually the only exceptions of players playing at a high level getting released are when they get into too much trouble off the field (which is grounds for termination anywhere) or if the the team changes schemes - and again, they usually get traded. (Or there's the example of Merriweather who made the Pro-Bowl the past 2 years, but didn't study enough for the coaches liking AND got in trouble off the field) I get where you're coming from that it seems unfair that the employer has an advantage in this regard, but it's a fundamental building block of the NFL's salary cap system. It ensures that teams have the opportunity to be competitive every year by being able to shed previous bad decisions that didn't work out. If players had guaranteed contracts, the entire system would have to be reworked - and btw - the system is collectively bargained by the players union. Their theory is that if a player isn't a turd, and can play a lick, they will find a job somewhere in the league. If they can't, then they don't belong anymore. The union recognizes that there are only 1696 jobs available in the league and there are roughly 250 players drafted each year - not to mention undrafted free agents. That's a complete turnover roughly every 6 years. I suppose every player signed could be guaranteed 6 years and then be forced out of the league, but wouldn't the game suffer from that? (Yes it's taking the concept of guaranteed contracts to an absurd extreme, but I think it shines a light on how guaranteed contract just wouldn't work in the NFL.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 completely agree I agree with everyone because it is all good points being made. I happen to work with a person on my job who is 85 years old and I have worked next to that person for 9 years. So I have seen this persons skills deteriorate before my eyes,which is sad to watch its kinda like watching Gale Sayers try to chase down Alan Page In a preseason game and couldn't do it. In this instance I will refer to my co-worker as Todd Collins and say that the Bears couldn't cut him no matter how bad he sucks. Thats what I'm working with on a daily basis for no where near what Briggs has made on even his rookie contract so I will never understand what his motivation is or his reasoning for making his demands PUBLIC> In these economic times I'm sure that there are a lot of you who work with a "Todd Collins" and haven't had a raise for 4yrs but still except your lcurrent lot in life and plug on. Lance,just like when Wilbur Marshall left to the Skins,if you go don't let the door knob hit you where the good lord split you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 My point in all of this LOYALTY. There is no loyalty in sports at all. Doesnt matter if we are talking about the players or the owners. Some how you have missed this. There may not be loyalty, but it's far from a 50/50 split. I'd say the Bears' FO was pretty damn loyal when they gave Lance Briggs a massive 6-year deal that made him one of the highest paid LBs in the NFL. Even remotely siding with Briggs in this situation shows a lack of understanding of the equity of NFL contracts and negotiations, not to mention complete blindness on who is actually being disloyal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearsFan1974 Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 There may not be loyalty, but it's far from a 50/50 split. I'd say the Bears' FO was pretty damn loyal when they gave Lance Briggs a massive 6-year deal that made him one of the highest paid LBs in the NFL. Even remotely siding with Briggs in this situation shows a lack of understanding of how the NFL contracts are negotiated and structured, not to mention complete blindness on who is actually being disloyal. I think the Bears were loyal. They gave him what HE wanted and what HE felt he deserved. He wanted a front loaded contract, knowing DAMN WELL what the last 3 years of the deal HE wanted would pay out. Bottom line: BRIGGS=WHINY B!TCH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 I think the Bears were loyal. They gave him what HE wanted and what HE felt he deserved. He wanted a front loaded contract, knowing DAMN WELL what the last 3 years of the deal HE wanted would pay out. Bottom line: BRIGGS=WHINY B!TCH If u remember correctly we didn't give him exactly what he wanted. We actually gave him less because he held out and he realized there wasn't that big of a market for him at the time. I do agree though that he knew exactlywhat he was signing and he needs to shut up and play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 If the team gave him what he wanted, he'd be the owner instead of the McCaskey's! If u remember correctly we didn't give him exactly what he wanted. We actually gave him less because he held out and he realized there wasn't that big of a market for him at the time. I do agree though that he knew exactlywhat he was signing and he needs to shut up and play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearsFan1974 Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 If u remember correctly we didn't give him exactly what he wanted. We actually gave him less because he held out and he realized there wasn't that big of a market for him at the time. I do agree though that he knew exactlywhat he was signing and he needs to shut up and play Then he shouldn't have signed then...that's all I'm saying. 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.