Posts tagged LanceBriggs at FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog

Obviously, Tommie Harris is the big winner after signing a four-year, $40 million deal, but the Bears have to be pretty happy to lock up one of the most important cogs in their defense. One of the players Harris protects, middle linebacker Brian Urlacher, should be ecstatic over the news.

Not only does he have one of the league's best defensive tackles in front of him, Harris' new contract should free up some money for Urlacher to get that extension he's been bellyaching about all offseason. Cue ESPN's John Clayton:

Urlacher may end up being all right with the Tommie Harris deal because it does give the Bears room to enhance the linebacker's contract. Urlacher makes in the $7 million-a-year range and clearly needs to be the highest paid defender on the team. There could have been a camp holdout if he was going to make $3 million-a-year less cash than Harris. The fact Harris put close to $10 million of his $40 million in things he has to earn, the Bears can give Urlacher a couple million dollars-a-year more and make him the highest paid Bears defender. That deal could be worked out before camp.

So one less thing the Bears have to worry about. Hooray for progress.

I'm sorta surprised Lance Briggs didn't convene a press conference to relate the latest on Brian Urlacher, but either way, the Chicago Sun-Times' Brad Briggs writes that the Bears middle linebacker could face stiff penalties if he skips out on the team's mandatory minicamp:

While the fine can total only $8,165, more than $5.7 million is potentially at stake if Urlacher boycotts minicamp. That represents the pro-rated portion remaining on the $13 million signing bonus he received with his nine-year, $56.65 million contract extension in 2003. As in all NFL player contracts, there's specific signing bonus forfeiture language in Urlacher's contract. If he's in default by missing a mandatory activity, the club could choose to deal with him in similar fashion to the way the Denver Broncos pursued fines and forfeitures with AWOL wide receiver Ashley Lelie two summers ago.

So it's not that the Bears could fine Urlacher $5.7 million for missing minicamp, but they could seek to withhold the money for violating the terms of his contract. I can't imagine it would come to that -- or that any arbiter would side with the organization on the matter -- but symbolically, it could have long-lasting implications.

Generally, NFL players don't respond well to losing out on several million bucks they had coming their way, The team contends it doesn't negotiate with players not in camp (they extended kicker Robbie Gould after he finally decided to show up) so this could drag on for a while.

Currently, the Bears have a one-year, $18 million extension on the table, but Urlacher, "coming off neck surgery and dealing with an arthritic back", wants more.

Hopefully, Briggs will be able to shed some light on when the stalemate will end.

Lance Briggs sure does know a lot about teammate Brian Urlacher. So much, in fact, that he'd probably make a good agent after this NFL thing runs its course. Two weeks ago, Briggs informed us all that Urlacher deserved a new contract. And today, appearing on "NFL Live", Briggs brought us up to speed on Urlacher's pending vacation plans.

Briggs, who had his own contract issue with the Bears' brass in the past, says he doesn't expect Urlacher at the team's minicamp this weekend.

"He's not going to be there. I'm pretty sure he's not going to be there, and it's sad it got to this point. This should be handled behind closed doors, and all they should say is 'Brian Urlacher has a new deal,' and we move on with business."

As Hashmarks' Bill Williamson writes, Briggs is the poster dude for Bears-related contract disputes, although, in the end, he re-upped with the team after there wasn't much demand for his services (and the salary that went along with it) in free agency.

That aside, Briggs is right about one thing: this probably would've been better handled without help from the media. Ultimately, though, I don't think it'll much matter. If the Bears get close to what Urlacher wants, it'll all be forgotten as soon as the new deal is signed.

If the two sides can't reach an agreement, Urlacher may pull a "Briggs" and hold out for a while before finally showing up. Not getting a paycheck has a way of helping people make up their minds.

Rex Grossman may not be inclined to discuss Brian Urlacher's contract situation but Lance Briggs is. Freed from fathering his brood for a trip to Wrigley where he threw out the first pitch, sang "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" and delivered a plea for his linebacking brother-in-arms.

"I don't think it should be an issue. I think everybody in the city of Chicago knows what Brian Urlacher has meant and continues to mean to the city of Chicago. Whatever is going on, I believe it will be worked out. He is definitely due. He has outlived that contract, and I'm the biggest supporter of my big brother."

Color me shocked. A guy who just signed a contract that he's already unhappy with and, like Urlacher, is skipping workouts thinks that a guy who entered, willingly and alertly, into a nine-year deal should get a new one. I was really expecting Briggs to side with management in this case. Just when I thought I had all the answers, Briggsie, you changed the questions!

And, while we're at it, can we drop the what he means to the city business? If civic pride is going to play a role in these things it has to work both ways. "Well, he means so much to the city, we've got to pay him more" makes no more sense than "He should care so much about the city that he'll play for nothing." Both are silly appeals to something that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Word out of Chicago that portrayed Lance Briggs as upset about his contract with the Bears came as something of a surprise. He just signed a $36 million contract, after all, and did so under his own free will and accord. Getting upset about that is like getting mad at yourself for making a liverwurst sandwich. Shoulda thought of it before but now you've gotta deal with it.

The reason for Briggs's unhappiness may not have anything to do with his market value as a linebacker, though. He's got a lot of mouths to feed and more are coming every day. Briggs's ex-girlfriend was in court yesterday trying to get more support for their daughter. Briggs wasn't there, he was in Arizona with the mother of another daughter, but a third woman, due this summer, was there even though Briggs once denied knowing who Yesenaya Toledo was.

But, Mirabelli charged, Briggs is providing Toledo with cash, and Mirabelli said he wants perjury charges to be considered against Briggs for denying he knows Toledo. Mirabelli said he mispronounced Toledo's first name during the deposition, leading Briggs to say he didn't know that person.

Clever ploy, Mr. Briggs, but actually impregnating the woman will always come back to bite you in the rear. Perhaps his rapidly expanding family helps explain why Briggs has only completed two of 120 hours of court-ordered community service. All that diaper changing doesn't leave much time to pick up trash on the side of the highway.

Lance Briggs might not be the wisest decision maker we've ever come across. The Bears linebacker's list of poor choices started last year when he called the police and told them that his Lamborghini was stolen. Actually, he'd been in a crash and left the scene of the accident. Then he signed a contract with the Bears and, moments later, decided he was unhappy with the deal.

Anyway, his unhappiness caused him to skip offseason workouts and hang out in Arizona may be his worst decision of all. It violates the terms of the plea agreement he made after the car crash.

Briggs has been summoned to appear before Cook County Judge Earl Hoffenberg on June 19 to explain why he left Illinois without permission, a violation of the agreement he reached after pleading guilty to leaving the scene of an accident following his well-publicized Lamborghini crash on the Edens Expy. last August.

Hoffenberg also wants to know how Briggs plans to complete his 120 hours of community service -- of which he has knocked out a total of two hours -- in the next five months.

Skipping the workouts costs him $250,000, a curious move from a man who feels he's being underpaid, and could cost him much more if the judge decides to make life difficult for him. I wish I had an off-Broadway show about homeless badgers for him to invest in. It's about time for him to make another bad choice.

Lance Briggs is, simply, bonkers. And this is too absurd not to be true, I think.

Last month, Briggs re-signed with the Bears for presumably a lot less than he could've made last off-season had he avoided that whole messy holdout situation. He would end up signing his franchise tender and all that eventually got him was a six-year, $36 million contract that includes $12 million in guaranteed dough.

After thinking it over, apparently, Briggs has decided that his new deal sucks. Seven weeks after he signed it. This must be some sort of record.

With the ink just dry on Lance Briggs' $36 million, six-year contract, he's been a no-show for the first two weeks of the voluntary workouts. That's cost him a $250,000 workout bonus included in the contract. (Urlacher is missing out on a smaller $50,000 workout bonus.) Briggs' absence is less easily explained. Sources outside the team suggest he could be unhappy with his deal.

Evidently, Briggs isn't all that psyched about the six-year, $42 million ($22 guaranteed) contract the Jets gave linebacker Calvin Pace, so he's doing what any certifiably insane person would do: hold out and lose $250,000 in the process.

Isn't Drew Rosenhaus Briggs' agent? What the hell has he been doing? Shouldn't somebody be scheduling a press conference to watch Briggs do shirtless sit-ups in his front yard or something?

Oh, and the news gets worse for the Bears: Robbie Gould is missing voluntary workouts too.

Hat tip: Pancake Blocks

I'm guessing it's columns like this that prompted Brian Urlacher to quit talking to the media. In today's Chicago Tribune, David Haugh writes that Urlacher's influence in the locker room, coupled with his money-grubbing desires, could influence others to seek new contracts.

Extending contracts for key players before they expire represents a standard business practice for NFL teams that signifies respect, reward and commitment. But it has reached the point where not only do players expect those negotiations as a matter of course, they also carry unrealistic financial expectations into those talks that often leave them dissatisfied.

I'll never begrudge a player for trying to squeeze every penny he can from an organization. NFL careers are notoriously short-lived and unlike other professional sports, contracts generally aren't guaranteed.

That said, you can't have a locker room full of guys looking for more money. But I'm not sure the Bears are any different than other NFL teams: players are forever wanting to re-work existing deals. Just because Devin Hester and Tommie Harris also want new contracts doesn't mean the whole team is going to pot. Or, put differently: when Chicago misses the playoffs next season, it will have nothing to do with contract negotiations. (Well, except the one to re-sign Rex Grossman for another year.)

Just look at Lance Briggs, who spent much of last season making threats about his future with the team, and after the Bears refused to budge, Briggs signed his franchise tender, and eventually re-signed with the team for fewer bucks than he could've have a year ago if he'd skipped all the arm-waving. There's a lesson in there too, I'd think.

It's been a real bang-up offseason for the Chicago Bears. Brian Urlacher skipped minicamp and is threatening to retire, Devin Hester's unhappy, Tommie Harris turned down a deal that would make him the best-paid defensive tackle in football and they've done nothing to improve a bad offense before next week's draft. The one plus was the surprising return of Lance Briggs to the fold after the linebacker resigned with the team as a free agent.

That plus has become another negative, though, since Briggs hasn't been taking part in the offseason workout program. He's already missed too many days to earn his $250,000 workout bonus and there's no sign that he's planning to start coming into work. The Chicago Sun-Times wonders if Briggs isn't upset about his contract, especially in light of the deal that Calvin Pace got from the Jets.

Two words for Briggs if that's the case: tough turds. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to sign the contract. The market for the contract you dreamed about signing never developed. That's too bad but we all have dreams that don't come true and somehow manage to soldier on in life. And most of us don't get someone to pay us $36 million as a consolation prize.

If there's an upside to this, Briggs isn't missing much at the offseason workouts, which are voluntary. He knows the defense and knows his role in it. That's not much of an upside, though, with so many other weights dragging the team down.

If 49ers fans are looking for somebody to blame for the Lance Briggs tampering scandal, I have a name for you: Drew Rosenhaus. From the Chicago Tribune's Dan Pompei:

The controversy is believed to have started when Briggs' agent Drew Rosenhaus asked the 49ers if they were interested in Briggs in the course of a normal agent-team discussion. Many discussions followed.

A league source said when the NFL asked Rosenhaus to testify on the matter, he refused.

So that's what it takes to get Rosenhaus to quit talking: ask him to testify.

Pompei explains that the Bears were less than thrilled with the development because they wanted to use the Oct. 16 trade deadline as "an incentive for Briggs" to re-sign. With San Francisco in the mix, that become more difficult.

Evidently, the 49ers punishment -- a lost fifth-round pick; swapped third-rounders with the Bears -- would've been more severe if Chicago hadn't ultimately re-signed Briggs. Oh, and Crime Dog Goodell was apparently incensed when he first learned of the charges because "the covert discussions occurred at a time when games could have been affected."

That little nugget probably had more to do with the punishment than a claim made in this week's San Francisco Chronicle that the league punished the 49ers because they are "a fairly irrelevant team that wouldn't fight it." Particularly since not everybody was of the opinion that San Francisco was the victim here, including Goodell.