Is Briggs the Franchise? It doesn't matter

Few players at the outside linebacker position have been considered THE key to a team. Lawrence Taylor and Derrick Thomas are the exceptions that prove the rule. In general, the outside backers can have huge impacts, but their production tends to be highly related to their ability to fit in a system. Many big name OlBs have struggled to live up to their big free agent contracts (see Wilbur Marshall, Warrick Holdman, Chad Brown, etc.).

That said, the Bears are faced with a chioce on Pro Bowl OLB Lance Briggs, one of only 3 starters without a contract for next year. If he's not re-signed, Briggs will be one of the jewels of what is generally considered a weak free agent crop. He'd likely receive a deal in excess of $50 million. Moreover, the recent significant increase in the salary cap for 2007 means that several teams will have money to burn.

One flaw in the NFL system is the franchise tag. Originally intended to keep teams from losing their signature players, the franchise tag has become a tool with a much larger reach. Why you ask? First, the rule, a team may place its franchise tag on any one player. Once tagged, the player may not become a free agent but is guaranteed a salary equal to the average of the top players at his positions (top 5 in most cases). The catch is that the deal is just a one-year deal. In the Briggs case, that would mean about $7 million next season. But playing LB in the NFL is a risky proposition. While that $50+ million deal wouldn't be entirely guarenteed, at least the signing bonus would be. Taking the $7 million to play next year puts Briggs at risk never seeing his big payday. His only other option would be to sign a long-term deal with the Bears. But Briggs already took a big risking, turning down a ton of money last off-season to play out his contract. Now he could be faced with having to take that same risk again. And the real kicker is that the Bears will be getting him at a relative bargain because there just aren't many marquee linebackers available to push up that average salary.

In short, the Bears would be crazy not to franchise Briggs and they might be almost as crazy to negotiate against an inflated market for his services. In the end, Briggs will be the one taking the biggest risk, and that's why his agent won't be happy if he's tagged.

This process is failing to protect the player and may well be violating the spirit of it's original inclusion in the CBA - keeping those "franchise" guys where they belong.

Lawyers, Bonds, & Money

Yet another twist yesterday in the Barry Bonds contract saga. After the deal was announced, the commissioner's office voided based on some of the language in the deal. Officially, the commissioner's office had a problem with some language relating to personal appearances. The language in Bonds' deal contradicted that in the standard player contract which is included in the basic aggreement between the players union and the league.

This would have been a minor blip on the radar except that the Giants insisted on announcing that the deal also included language regarding cancellation if Bonds is indicted. This wouldn't have been a big deal except that Jeff Boras, Bonds' agent, decided to make a point of saying that the cancellation clause was unenforceable due to langue in the CBA. So what is it? Do contracts with language in violation of the CBA get voided or not?

Moreover, do sports really give a damn about what 3 lawyers think? Just tell of if this clown is going to play for the Giants or not. Let's not let Jeff Boras do his sales pitch for future clients through the media today.