Jump to content

Training camp news and discussion


JAF-N72EX
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jaquan Brisker is in a contract holdout with the Chicago Bears a day before rookies report to Halas Hall

Barring significant developments in the coming days, according to sources, Brisker’s holdout could extend past the full team’s reporting date next week and has the potential to last into August.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bears/ct-chicago-bears-jaquan-brisker-20220722-pq7thbp6ufcxxes5uakjrhaj2e-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blkwdw13 said:

Does the article say why he’s holding out. I can’t read it with the internet I have right now. 

A squabble over gtd money in year 3 . Apparently, Brisker thinks Poles is being cheap. It's not really a big deal though. Roquan did the same thing. He held out until mid August and was the last rookie in the entire draft class to sign a contract.

 

It is believed one of the main snags in contract negotiations centers around the amount of guaranteed money the team is willing to offer for the third year of Brisker’s four-year deal.

General manager Ryan Poles, with the aid of director of football administration Matt Feinstein and senior vice president and general counsel Cliff Stein, has signed 10 of the team’s 11 draft picks. But the contract standoff with Brisker could create unwanted tension and add to Poles’ administrative responsibilities as the Bears charge into camp for the first time under his watch.

The drawn-out negotiations also present another challenge for a first-time GM looking to earn credibility while taking over an organization that hasn’t established itself as a consistent championship contender in decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a good look.  

I mean what are odds you will cut a 2nd rounder in year three anyway?  You will likely stick with a 2nd rounder for three years regardless of performance.  You still have to settle with him if he is injured too bad to continue.  That will actually cost you more monetarily, but less on cap.

That leaves it likely to be moral clause language just like with Roquan.  Turns out Roquan was smart to insist on it given reports we saw this offseason on TikTok.  That could have turned for worse if accuser stayed with it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I'm not really worried about this yet but it's certainly not a good look.

The Texans really screwed everyone over when it comes to the 2nd round…especially for a team with another 2nd round safety…why would Brisker (or his agent) not use that as leverage? No doubt things get sorted out but it’s clear to see why this is happening.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let’s say worst case scenario he gets accused of rape in year 3.  

Are Bears going to cut him on spot? 

No. He may get suspended, but process will play out and he will stay on roster in meantime.

 They are arguing over saving around a million dollars in having to pay him and the long odds of that happening in first place. 

They can risk the million.  It’s peanuts.  It’s a stupid thing to take a stand over and lose valuable time.   
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

But let’s say worst case scenario he gets accused of rape in year 3.  

Are Bears going to cut him on spot? 

No. He may get suspended, but process will play out and he will stay on roster in meantime.

 They are arguing over saving around a million dollars in having to pay him and the long odds of that happening in first place. 

They can risk the million.  It’s peanuts.  It’s a stupid thing to take a stand over and lose valuable time.   
 

It’s a bigger picture issue…yes it might only be that for Brisker but what about when you then try and negotiate with the likes of Mooney and he just say a rookie get all that guaranteed money? It would instantly put Poles (and every other GM) in a really weak position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

A squabble over gtd money in year 3 . Apparently, Brisker thinks Poles is being cheap. It's not really a big deal though. Roquan did the same thing. He held out until mid August and was the last rookie in the entire draft class to sign a contract.

 

It is believed one of the main snags in contract negotiations centers around the amount of guaranteed money the team is willing to offer for the third year of Brisker’s four-year deal.

General manager Ryan Poles, with the aid of director of football administration Matt Feinstein and senior vice president and general counsel Cliff Stein, has signed 10 of the team’s 11 draft picks. But the contract standoff with Brisker could create unwanted tension and add to Poles’ administrative responsibilities as the Bears charge into camp for the first time under his watch.

The drawn-out negotiations also present another challenge for a first-time GM looking to earn credibility while taking over an organization that hasn’t established itself as a consistent championship contender in decades.

Agreed. Honestly I wonder why there would be an issue. Give the dude some guaranteed cash, at the 48th pick it isn't like you're looking at a ton.

He went 48th overall, the previous year Aaron Banks did and got

Contract Terms - 4 yr $7,073,601

Avg. Salary - $1,768,400

Guaranteed - $3,485,963

 

Is Brisker wanting $5-6 mil guaranteed? If so you can argue, but if it is $4 mil then just give it and get him on the field. We are about to have a TON of cap so if he is a dumb-dumb and has to be cut in 1-2 years then THAT is the issue - Poles drafting an idiot that high (just for the sake of the argument, not making any actual judgement). The extra $1-2 mil would be nominal in the long run.

 

Seems like a little bit of nonsense from the outside looking in, but it is only news because there is no real news. lol

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

It’s a bigger picture issue…yes it might only be that for Brisker but what about when you then try and negotiate with the likes of Mooney and he just say a rookie get all that guaranteed money? It would instantly put Poles (and every other GM) in a really weak position.

I agree it’s a bigger picture issue but not for 2nd contracts with guys like Mooney. I think the concern is if you bend for this 2nd round pick then every future 2nd round pick will push for it too, and at that point where does it stop? Does every guy they draft in rounds 2-7 next year ask for 10% over slot in guarantees?

It’s only a problem if you draft poorly and take on extra cap hits for guys you cut, and even then it’s trivial amounts, but it’s not nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

It’s a bigger picture issue…yes it might only be that for Brisker but what about when you then try and negotiate with the likes of Mooney and he just say a rookie get all that guaranteed money? It would instantly put Poles (and every other GM) in a really weak position.

I don't see a rookie contract for a safety dictating the market on extensions for a WR looking to get a 2nd contract. Besides, we're only talking about a 1 or 2 million, at best, which is chump change for guys like Mooney and Roquan-- who will be negotiating for a lot more. I can't imagine a player ever going "you only offered 19M in GTD money but I want 20 or I walk because you gave Brisker 1M". That seems like a big reach to me.

The markets for guys like Mooney and Ro are going to be dictated by the league average in whichever category or tier they are placed in (i.e Ro will get top-5 linebacker money--possibly top-3). Not because they do or don't give Brisker 1M dollars.

Now if you wanna say that caving to Brisker and paying him significantly more GTD money than other rookies and your worried that it sets a bad precedent in the future, and/or possibly even cause some friction in the locker room right now with the other rookies (particularly Gordon), then I could maybe see that as a possible and reasonable theory. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Agreed. Honestly I wonder why there would be an issue. Give the dude some guaranteed cash, at the 48th pick it isn't like you're looking at a ton.

He went 48th overall, the previous year Aaron Banks did and got

Contract Terms - 4 yr $7,073,601

Avg. Salary - $1,768,400

Guaranteed - $3,485,963

 

Is Brisker wanting $5-6 mil guaranteed? If so you can argue, but if it is $4 mil then just give it and get him on the field. We are about to have a TON of cap so if he is a dumb-dumb and has to be cut in 1-2 years then THAT is the issue - Poles drafting an idiot that high (just for the sake of the argument, not making any actual judgement). The extra $1-2 mil would be nominal in the long run.

 

Seems like a little bit of nonsense from the outside looking in, but it is only news because there is no real news. lol

 

Yeah, I didn't think this would ever be an issue anymore after rookie contracts were introduced. Granted the amount of rookie holdouts have died down a lot since then but obviously it's still happening.

I don't have anything to base this on but I'm wondering if the issue isn't so much about the amount of guaranteed money, but moreso about how much of it is fully guarenteed. Because those two things are very different based on the terms of the contract and how it's structured.

GTD money can be assigned to cover a player in 3 different categories that are labeled injury, decline, and cap. But sometimes not all 3 are covered under the GTD money (i.e if a player gets GTD money for injury only then that means he is only protected from injury and not the other two categories listed. If he's healthy and he's cut for reasons under the other two categories then the team is not responsible or contractually obligated to pay the full GTD money). Then there is fully GTD money which protects the player from all three categories listed and also includes the signing bonus. This means the team is contractually obligated to pay the player the full amount of the GTD money regardless if he's injured, declines, or if the team is in a tight on cap space they can't cut or trade him to save money. They just have to eat it.

Anyhow, back to my point about Brisker. @Madmike90 brought up a good point about the Texans rookie safety Jalen Pitre.  Pitre got a 4 year 8.9M dollar contract and 78.4% of that was fully guaranteed (7M) with 3.9M being paid in the form of a signing bonus.  Granted he was drafted 11 spots earlier than Brisker and so ofcourse he's going to get paid more. But maybe the issue with Brisker is that he wants more fully GTD money upfront (something closer to 78%) included in the contract and not just an injury clause, and they are only offering ~65%? Maybe that was the same reason Roquan held out too. It's worth noting that Ro's 18.5M dollar contract was all fully GTD so obviously he befitted greatly in holding out (Yes, was a early 1st round pick too so it's not exactly apples to apples, but I'm sure you get my point). 

Again, I have nothing to back up my theory here, but it would make more sense to me IMO.

All in all, I can see the argument for both sides --both positives and negatives. I sympathize for rookies because they don't get paid in college, they have large college debts, and they know the average lifespan of an NFL player is only about 4 years. For Brisker, 1 or 2 million may be a drop in the bucket in terms of team cap space but that's life changing money for rookies (see Tarik Cohen's story)--hell that's life changing for all of us. So I understand that it may be easy for some fans to look at Brisker and say "why hold out for a 1 or 2M" and drag him down for it. But again, 1 million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. I don't care who you are. If he gets injured in some freak incident then his career could be over, just like that. The point is, I can understand Brisker's point of view.

That's the positive. However, I can also understand the negative point as well. As I said, freak injuries can occur and he may be trying to protect his future. But every player in the history of the NFL faces the same amount risks and they take them. Some pay off, some don't. If he's as good as advertised then the extra money that he is asking for now will come back ten fold, and he will only get that money if he continues to learn and work hard at it and he can't exactly do that while sitting at home instead trying absorb as much info as he can in order to get better.

I can also see Poles and Stein's point of view as well. Stein is a vet. He's been doing this a long time. Going back as far as the Lovie era IIRC. To them, this is a business. Right or wrong. And every cent matters in the long run. More importantly, like I said above in other words, maybe Poles doesn't want to look like push over and then have agents coming to him asking for ridiculous prices in the future. We gotta remember that Poles is still new. (I know, I know, shut up everyone, I know what your thinking because I'm guilty of it too). But it's true.

However, I can see the other side as well, and you kind of touched on it. Poles drafted this guy to be future and they have a ton of cap next year so why not just pay him so that he can get to work and become the player he drafted him to be.

 

Edited by JAF-N72EX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting if Jenkins or Borom start taking any snaps at RG this week. 

If that doesn’t happen I guess the loser of Jones, Borom and Jenkins battle goes to swing tackle. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...