A Long Answer To A Short Question

From a comment in a previous entry:

Scott, it sounds as if you (like SI's King) are unsympathetic toward players who act out against the franchise player designation. Or are there other reasons you think [Lance] Briggs is all about the cash?

No, that's pretty much the reason. I don't know that "unsympathetic" is the word, though. I understand why they want to be free agents and get the best deal possible. But when you sign up to be in the NFL, you have to realize that getting designated as a franchise player is a possibility. The NFLPA and the NFL set it up so the trade-off is that the franchised player gets paid the average of the top five players at his position. Franchised players act like they're being robbed at gunpoint by the team that has said they can't live without them. No, they're not. The team is restricting his mobility within the league for one year and paying him top dollar for his inconvenience. It's not so terribly dramatic. If you're unwilling to take that chance, I don't think the CFL or the Arena League have the same restrictions. Go there.

What some people forget is that Briggs does not currently have a contract with the Bears. He is not obligated at all to play for them, so I don't hold it against him if he chooses to sit out. In fact, this is exactly when holding out is appropriate. It's when players hold out because they believe they have outperformed their contracts that I lose all sympathy. Players love having it both ways. They want the security of a long-term contract, but if they have a Pro Bowl season in year two of a five year deal, they will threaten a hold-out because they don't believe they're being paid fairly for their production. Sorry, champ... one or the other. And the argument that teams can terminate the contract but players can't doesn't hold. Why? Because that very condition is part of the contract that the player signed! If he thinks there is a possibility that he will get cut before the contract is up, he should negotiate a higher guaranteed signing bonus up front and take the lower salary. If he wants to bet on himself, he should sign a short-term deal and go for the big money in free agency.

Unless he gets franchised. ;)

The fact is that players are almost never paid what they're worth at the time. Briggs was a third round pick in 2003 and was paid accordingly. Did he outperform his rookie contract? Absolutely, and he turned out to be a steal for the Bears... exactly what teams hope to do on draft day. By the same token, did the Bears get their money's worth out of Rex Grossman, who was selected 46 slots above Briggs? Hell no. So they lost on that one. Teams can only hope they have more hits than misses, then make the tough decision on who to keep when their contracts expire. This year, the Bears decided they want to keep Lance Briggs and are willing to pay him $7.2 million guaranteed. It's not such a bad thing.