I wonder how the Bears proved this. I also wonder if it's going to lead to a lot more accusations by teams in the future.

It's good to know that the Patriots' offenses were approximately 4.75 times as bad as the 49ers'.

Will the NFL be publishing a handy chart for future reference? If a team wants to swap the very risky 1st overall pick for, say, the 8th overall pick, how bad of an infraction should they commit to make that happen? It needs to be 2.66 times as bad as what the Pats did -- are we talking "putting a hit out on an opposing player"? Too much? Too little? If that's about right, should the player be on the team with the 8th pick, or is that not strictly necessary?

Re 2:
Obviously what the Patriots did was 4.75 times worse. They actually had the gall to have a cameraman standing in the wrong spot! Way worse than directly tampering with another team's contract negotiations with one of their own players.

Seriously, though, I think Goddell should re-think this "punish teams with draft picks" thing. I have two issues with the precedent this sets:

(1) If too many teams start getting stripped of draft picks, it's not fair to the rookie players, especially the borderline 7th round ones. If there are 10 fewer players drafted because ten teams got punished, at least ten (and probably more) rookies are going to pay the price through smaller salaries. Of course, the NFL could do something about rookie salaries being tied to draft position, but (unfortunately) I don't see that happening anytime soon.

(2) The punishment doesn't seem big enough. The Niners lost the equivalent of a 4th round pick (although I don't buy that...I happen to think a 4th rounder is probably more valuable than a fifth and a slightly higher third round position, so this is an even smaller punishment). How many teams would be willing to knowingly take this risk given that (1) there is a chance they won't get caught, and (2) even if they know they will get caught, the lost draft picks are worth the chance to pick up a player of Brigg's ability.

In other worde, how many teams woudl swap a fifth rounder for the CHANCE to sign a player like Briggs out from every other team in the league? Say it was legal--to give up your fifth rounder for the exclusive rights to negotiate with an exceptional free agent player before anyone else could. I bet a number of teams would take that trade in a heartbeat.

If they're serious about stopping tampering, they should punish it seriously. How about--if you get caught tampering with a player, you (1) lose the right to sign that player for the life of his next contract, and (2) you get charged his cap hit every year for the life of his next contract?

As a lifelong Niner hater few things give me more pleasure than something bad happening to them but do you think they get penalized this stiffly if the Yorks were as monied/revenued up as the Krafts?

Just a thought...

"If they want to punish every team that tampers with another team’s free agents, they’ll have to cancel the entire fifth round"

And there you have it. Given that a very small number of agents represent the most coveted players, this is impossible to police. The 49ers must have done something very dumb indeed to get punished.

This isn't a very ethical stance I know, and I expect to be hearing from Will Allen about the sanctity of contracts, (and he'll have a very, very valid argument), but If you can't police it effectively, why not allow it?

3:

I believe the CBA specifies precisely how many players will be drafted. Although the Patriots' forfeit of a first round pick has shortened the first round to 31 picks, I don't think the draft is any shorter because of it. I would guess an extra compensatory pick will be awarded.

Re 3:

I'm guessing if the 49ers actually signed Briggs, and were found guilty of tampering, the penalty would have been a lot stiffer. Just a guess though.

6:
They got punished because the Bears threw a hissy fit, not because the 49ers did anything particularly egregious.

The 49ers wanted to trade for Briggs during the season, but they obviously didn't want to give up a lot to get a guy who was under a 1 year franchise tag, so they tried to negotiate a new contract. Apparently the league nixed the arrangement because franchise deals can't be renegotiated even if a player is traded, so the Niners backed out. The Bears then showed some exceptionally bad form by complaining about the contract negotiation, even though they'd been shopping Briggs.

Pretty lame.

Aaron,

That's why they shortened the draft from 12 to 7 rounds...

I never understood shortning the draft it is not like all teams don't sighn several of the undrafted guys after the draft. Why not just let them get drafted?

The biggest impact of this could be that the Bears move ahead of Baltimore in round 2. Both teams might be looking for a QB like Brohm or Flacco, there. If I were Baltimore, I would be less than thrilled with this punishment.

(1) lose the right to sign that player for the life of his next contract, and (2) you get charged his cap hit every year for the life of his next contract?

Both of those would be major no-nos from the player's union perspective. The first removes competition for services, and the second removes money from the pool which goes to players.

(2) is a huge no-no. The NFLPA would never allow something which decreases the amount of money which goes out to players.

And somehow I misread what round they swap picks in. Disregard my previous post.

JQM,

Also, who says the 49ers weren't going to draft a QB? They need one just as much as the Bears and Ravens.

I don't think this impacts the Ravens in any real way.

SJM- you are probably right pragmatically, but I like JQM's argument. This is such a weird punishment it makes you wonder what if? What if Baltimore does lose a franchise QB in this deal? I would feel slighted if I were a fan of that team and would probably develop a rather negative opinion of both Chicago and San Francisco.

Making teams swap draft picks? How does that have anything to do with the crime? They might as well have just fined the 49ers 400,000 AstroBucks.

I wonder how the Bears proved this.
The 49ers must have done something very dumb indeed to get punished.

If what PFT (linked) is reporting is true, then the Bears didn't and the Niners didn't. PFT says Rosenhaus (Briggs' agent) never testified at the hearing; the Niners, of course, denied the charges. The only "evidence" against them is the phone record of two short phone calls of the Niners to Rosenhaus during the time period that the tampering allegedly occurred. Since Rosenhaus represents players other than Briggs, including those already on the 49ers, this shouldn't be sufficient to prove tampering has taken place.

My initial reaction to the news was mostly indifference, since some punishment was likely when the league went through with the hearing. But if what PFT posted is true and this was really the only evidence required to get a conviction, Goodell is officially running a kangaroo court. I mean, what is this? Guilt until proven innocence? The precedent that has just been set is very, very unsettling.

This isn't really related to the story, but I have a different theory on the shortening of the draft. It probably helps those on the bubble players, the ones who don't get drafted in 7 rounds but are signed as undrafted free agents. For example: There's a player from East Lederhosen State, a 1-AA school, a cornerback named Saul Killts. Currently, he won't be drafted, however, following the draft there will be 3-4 teams interested in his services, and assuming a decent agent and proper examination of the situation, he can end up on the team that gives him the best chance to stick and to play. If he were instead drafted in the 10th round, he might not stick, be cut during camp, and not be able to land another job easily.

I'm with the Dino Buzzati's fan, shortening the draft is a good way to allow low-rated prospects to sign with the team they think give them the best opportunity to play, what you can't do when you're drafted (unless your name is Elway or Manning...).
Ex : you're a DB, you want to go to camp with the Pats, not the Raiders.

Re: 9 and others

"They got punished because the Bears threw a hissy fit, not because the 49ers did anything particularly egregious.
... Lame."

Replace Bears with Jets and 49ers with Pats and you have finally understood the sentiments of New England all year.

Fans still don't get that the whole thing that's been going on is more about Goodell's "new sheriff in town" act than any new or egregious transgression or "cheating" by teams.

I still don't follow how exposing all its dirty laundry in public helps the NFL. However, it is sure nice to sit back and watch all the sanctimonious fans and pundits out there squirm now that the worm has turned and it's their team's "sins" under the spotlight.

"They might as well have just fined the 49ers 400,000 AstroBucks"

Funniest thing I've read in quite awhile on FO.

Vern, you Spygated the thread! You know who else liked to Spygate unrelated threads? Hitler.

... oops!

Replace "spygated" with "hijacked" and "Vern" with 90% of the material on this site and you have you have finally understood the sentiments of non-New England NFL fans all last year.

Do Pats fans have the capacity to not talk about the Pats?

As a 9ers fan I'm ticked off. There's as much evidence for a dozen other teams violating the tampering rules, as witnessed by all the free agents that sign complicated contracts minutes after free agency opens.

I hope this comes back to bite the Bears in some nebulous "screw you, you snitch" way, such as every team in the league being hyper vigilant about Bears' tampering, so that they're at a big disadvantage in free agency.

Rrrrr.

And ditto on the Pats comments. Is the word "Patriots" anywhere in this article? You guys have half a dozen threads devoted to your cheating. Go there and gripe.

Do "X" fans have the capacity not to talk about "X"?

Most of us know a heck of a lot more about one team than any other, and everyone is more comfortable talking about, and bringing up examples relevant to something they know about.

I do worry about the precedent this sets, especially if the rumor that the NFL has no hard evidence is true and it is just a "new sherriff in town" thing.

The fundamental idea of crime and punishment in our "innocent until proven guilty" society is that, until you can prove someone is guilty, you don't punish them at all, to avoid accidentally punishing the innocent. Once you prove guilt, you throw the book at them, as a deterrent to all the other people you don't catch out there. Certain other recent punishments that have been heavily discussed, while you can argue that they are arguably too stiff (and I certainly have), at least were levied against a team that was clearly guilty and are harsh enough to discourage future offenders of repeating the offense.

However, this punishment of the Niners apparently does neither. If these rumors are true, then there ISN'T conclusive proof that the Niners are guilty of anything worse than standard operating practice in the NFL, and in any case, the punishment isn't harsh enough to deter other possible offenders from tampering.

In other words...if Goddell has PROOF that the Niner are guilty of breaking the rules and wants to crack down on it, then this punishment is way too lax. If he has no proof, then he has no business punishing them at all. Punishment shouldn't be on a sliding scale according to the likliehood that someone is guilty.

Good article by Maiocco linked on my name. Key bits:

From what I can gather, the only solid evidence against the 49ers during the hearing was a phone record of two calls the club placed to agent Drew Rosenhaus, who represents Bears linebacker Lance Briggs.

One story is that there were two "missed calls" with no voice messages. The second version - essentially corroborating the first report - was that there were two "20-second" phone calls. In other words, a 20-second phone call is a "missed call."

And,

It is my understanding the Bears complained to the league office during the season. They might have thought that it's one thing to tamper after the season but another thing when it can cause a distraction to a player and an entire team.

But there's also word floating around that the Bears started asking some prominent players in the locker room how it would be received if the club were to trade Briggs during the season. The Bears spoke to the 49ers about a trade. It is not known how serious the talks got. Personally, I don't think the 49ers were ever all that intent on acquiring Briggs. I remember one off-the-cuff exchange I had with 49ers coach Mike Nolan after the report of the trade talks.

I made some wisecrack to Nolan about looking forward to meeting Briggs on the first-day of free agency. Nolan sort of shook his head and said something along the lines of, "I wouldn't put all your eggs in that basket, if I were you."

Reading Nolan's body language -- remember, I deal with this man almost every day for five months -- and factoring in the context of our conversation, I quickly deduced that the 49ers were not as interested in him as everyone believed.

* * *

According to the NFL, the Bears never gave the 49ers permission to speak with Rosenhaus. And, from what I've learned, the 49ers never did speak with Rosenhaus. Just two missed calls. It seems the 49ers are being punished for the intent to speak with Rosenhaus.

Re 23:
Hey Einstein, the only time when you notice someone as a Pats fan is when he talks about the Pats. It is incorrect to conclude that Pats fans only talk about the Pats from this selective pool of evidence.

And here's a link to Barrows' story on the incident. Here's my favorite paragraph:

So why were the 49ers busted? The new sheriff needed to make an example of somebody. Docking the 49ers a fifth-round pick is like pulling a car over on the side of the highway. Once the other drivers see the flashing lights, they slow down to 65. McCloughan, who has been a general manager for all of three months, also makes an easy target. It’s hard to see Goodell slapping the wrist of a more venerated personnel man like, say, Bill Parcells. That’s why the Dolphins won’t suffer the same fate for their suspiciously quick signing of former 49er Justin Smiley last month.

re: 23

Hey Einstein, the only time when you notice someone as a Pats fan is when he talks about the Pats

Incorrect assumption. We all know the prominent Pats fans on this site, and the prominent 9ers fans, too. You, as a passerby, wouldn't.

At least one Niners writer thinks that this is less about a Bears' "hissy-fit" than a pattern (real or perceived) of SF front office behavior. (Link in my name.)

Let me question a few assumptions here.

1. The 49ers haven't actually publicly denied that they spoke with Brigg's agent about a contract, right? If they hadn't I would think they would make that crystal clear.

2. That Rosenhaus wasn't at the hearing doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't provide evidence via a statement to NFL investigators.

This punishment isn't about scouting for free agents in the last two weeks of February, it is because the Niners either did negotiate with Rosenhaus or gave the appearance of negotiating with Rosenhaus half way through the regular season. Goodell isn't cracking down on all the tampering, lets face it what difference does it make that teams all speak to agents in the gap between the end of the season and the start of free agency? None at all. It isn't a good thing for the league if teams start negotiating with each other's players during the regular season.

As for the perceived lack of evidence, the rumours coming out of the hearing all seem to be Niner-based and we still have no idea of what was actually said. It would be wise to consider most of the noise coming out with a pinch of salt. I wouldn't expect to hear even a peep out of Angelo about this subject ever again, it isn't his style to wash his laundry in the media.

For my mind the most egregious example of tampering this off season has to have been Justin Smiley, who left the Niners. He had a new contract agreed within about 15 minutes of the start of free agency, and seemed to appear out of a hotel room in Miami in time for an early morning press conference on the very first morning. I suspect the Niners have some people looking into evidence of tampering by Bill Parcells.

I dunno, bravehoptoad. I've been a regular reader and poster here since early 2005, and I know you've been around a while too, but I don't know who you support, while I'm a Texans fan who's repeatedly been accused of Patriot homerism. There are posters whose team's I could name - Pat's an Eagle fan, hwc a Pat, kibbles a Bronco, Sophandros a Saint, James C a Bear and Karl Cuba a '9er. But there are plenty I couldn't tell you about.

As for the incident, I heard that the real issue was that Rosenhaus then turned around and used the SF offer to demand more money from the Bears. Had he not done that, they wouldn't have cared too much, I don't think.

And as for the attack on Patriots fans... don't be a doofus. The last team to get a pick forfeited, and the only one I remember in the past 5 years, was... the Patriots!

So it was less about turning it into a Spygate thread and more about arguing the parallels. Use your head.

Yes, apologies to Pats fans. I'm just all pissed off and cranky.

re: 30

That's Maiocco. If you read his article from today, which I've linked above, you'll see he's as stumped as the rest of us.

A new Barrows article, linked in my name:

I spoke to a couple of officials on other teams about this issue. One thing I wanted to know was whether the 49ers under McCloughan and Mike Nolan have a reputation for playing loose and fast with the tampering rules. Both men said they did not, at least not any more than any other team in the league. How rampant is tampering? You need merely visit any Indianapolis area restaurant around the time of the scouting combine to get your answer.

RE: 3 & 7. The draft is always 255 picks long. After regular compensatory picks get added, they award bonus compensatory picks to teams based on record. Last year only two bonus compensatory picks were needed, so they went to Oakland and Detroit.

This actually can be bad for the players drafted with those picks. An undrafted player becomes priority free agents who can sign with any team. Since late round draft picks are longshots to make a team anyway, become able to chose the team to maximize your odds of making it is a big deal. You'll get a much lesser signing bonus (if at all), but if you make the 53-man roster instead of getting cut you've made that up.

I thought the players want to shorten/eliminate the draft.

bravehoptoad (#36) -

Right, duh, thanks. But the tone of his earlier article is so different from the one you were quoting that I didn't even think to check if it was the same writer. If Maiocco saw it coming, why does he seem so puzzled now?

37:

Isn't that basically what I said?

Herm's getting in on the fun. Hopefully this leads to the Bucs and Chiefs swapping picks in the third round.

But seriously, the biggest problem with this punishment (whether or not it's justified) is that you're not just punishing the offender but rewarding the accuser. If you reward people for making accusations, what's to stop people from claiming wrongdoing from every team and just seeing if you can get anything to stick?

re 40

No, in your original post you made it sound like the total number of picks in the draft is the same each year. Clearly this is not the case since the number of compensatory picks changes each year depending on the previous year's free agency. Futhermore, the Pats' forfeiture of their first round pick and the Niners' forfeiture of their fifth round pick does not in any way result in the creation of any addtional compensatory picks, for the Pats, the Niners, or any other team.

Justice will involve Briggs getting injured this year.

re: 43
Not true. #37 is correct.

Passerby and others…the point is…this is a story about the 49ers and Bears. It’s not about the Pats…yet 2 posts into thread, the Pats are introduced into the discussion…then later on the thread is “hijacked” again by more Pats discussion…I’m assuming by Pats fans…if not, the original point still stands.

Enough already.

Look, due to many reasons, the Pats get more coverage on this website by the writers and readers and posters of this site (and by members of the sports media, but that’s a different discussion for another time)…fine, I get it and understand it, they are the best team of the last 10 years, spygate, etc., but it still doesn’t make it any less tiresome and/or annoying for people who get tired of reading it, especially when the story has nothing to do about them.

Remember that girl in American Pie who related everything to “this one time, in band camp…” no matter what the topic was?

Bingo.

Re #25
I do worry about the precedent this sets, especially if the rumor that the NFL has no hard evidence is true and it is just a “new sherriff in town” thing.
Goodell does what he believes is the right thing for the NFL. Sometimes it's popular, like suspending Jones and Henry; sometimes, it's questioned a little more, as it seems to be here. Just SOP for Roger Rex.

And I agree with your statement that most of us write about the team we know best, because that's the thing we're most capable of speaking semi-intelligently about. I don't feel bad about doing it, because I don't think the Titans are well-represented and Fisher with his perceived level of general respect, long tenure, and seat on the Competition Committee often provides a good model/possible insight onto league-wide issues. Were I a fan of a more popular team, I'd probably try to be more circumspect; discussions about a couple teams tend to end up in a circlejerk of either solely fans of the team or fans/haters of the teams (I've noticed this most prominently with the Eagles, Patriots, Redskins (esp. cap-related), and Steelers).

So Goddell thinks this punishment is the right thing. Do others agree?

I still maintain that it is not. If Goddell does not have hard proof that the Niners are guilty (and it's unclear right now if he does or not), he has no business punishing them at all.

If tampering isn't considering anything bad, then he has no business punishing them at all.

But if he does have hard proof that the Niners are guilty, and if he does think that tampering is bad, well, he has now set the precedent that a team can feel free to tamper with another team's player--as long as they don't mind risking a 5th round pick to do so.

I, for one, wonder/think two things:

1. I think there's more evidence than has escaped thus far. Or, at least I would hope so, considering how sure the NFL is this happened to punish the Niners this way.
2. What if Briggs had ended up signing with the Niners? What would Goddell have done then? I can't imagine the Players Association would let him nullify the new contract, so there's no way the Niners don't keep Briggs. Would there be a harsher draft pick penalty if the player you tampered with signs with you rather than does not? Is that really a good decision? If this happens again and it ends up like that, Goddell might have another whole set of problems.

Norman,
Seems as though you have contributed to exactly half of all the Pats talk on this thread up to now...without bringing anything else to the discussion.

I'm just saying...

PFT is now linking to a story from the San Jose Mercury News suggesting that there were more than just two phone calls to Rosenhaus.

Not sure where to put this, but MDS had an article in NY Times supposedly concluding that the punishments show spying was 11 times worse than tampering (using the draft value chart) see link on name.

However, his math was wrong. MDS's math on the "spying is 11 times worse than tampering" is wrong.

The Pats submitted proof of spying since 2000 (Belichick's admission went back even further to Cleveland according to reports, but this was a Pats only punishment so we'll limit it to just those 7 year of notes, etc.). Counting the playoffs, thats 163 games, or 163 instances of spying that Belichick admitted to the Comissioner.

679 points of punishment for 163 instances is about 4 points per infraction. Compare to 63.5 points for the single 49ers tampering infraction and you get this conclusion - tampering is 15 times worse than spying.

Okay, I apologize... I now see the brilliance in Norman's intent to stop all Spygate parallels before they start. I thought he pre-empted it a bit, but now seeing Vern's useless blather, I see the need for it.

Henceforth, a moratorium on anything regarding the Patriots. Smart, or stupid, all is excluded from conversation.

And I forgot to mention something--- this tampering isn't only about this one incident. Thomas and Clements both had contracts in place at the beginning of free agency.

In Thomas's case, when the Patriots became interested, he didn't sign. For Clements, he signed suspiciously early.

I think the 49'ers have been doing it for years. Do the same math, dividing by the number of years they've been doing it.

The only problem is, I think almost every team has been tampering for years. The Jets were talking to Parcells while he was preparing for the Super Bowl ('96) and that sort of shenanigans has gone on since.

24:
Ha! Shows what you know about the Bears. The next time they sign a big name free agent will be the first.

25:
You're describing our legal system. This cartel is not run by the American legal system.

42:
Like a civil court case? An aggrieved party can receive restitution.

49:
The NBA voided the last year of Joe Smith's contract when there was evidence of salary cap tampering and also took several first round picks from the Timberwolves. The NBA has guaranteed contracts and that went through. I would imagine the contract would be voided and Briggs would be a FA again with some kind of timeframe where the 49ers would be barred from making an agreement with Briggs.

Cyrus-
It took you one post to violate your own rule :)

And my comment was posted purely in the fun spirit of that NY Times piece by FO guy MDS.

I guess folks ARE still too touchy about it at this point.

51#

Yeah, saw that last night. It's reassuring that there was more evidence than the phone calls (because let's face it, it was plausible to picture Sheriff Goodell dishing out punishment without much supporting evidence in the interest of making an example out of someone), but when you remove Florio of PFT's spin and Kawakami's own spin, the additional evidence is reportedly internal emails between the 49ers front office people that imply a greater importance to the attempted Rosehaus contact than the team's cover story (contacting him about Taylor Jacobs). It then seems the actual crime was not tampering, but attempted tampering because the phone calls were reportedly missed ones and the contact with Rosenhaus didn't technically take place. If this is all true, that actually makes the punishment about right, as the team has been punished for clearly having the intent of contacting Rosenhaus improperly, but with no further evidence that the contact actually took place (which as has been noted above by others, should have carried a much stiffer penalty).

Officially time to let this one go....

don't worry, chaps: the football gods will make sure karma is doled out appropriately. we'll know the moment when it comes, and that will indicate who is truly at fault in all of this.

my bet on telling moment involves roger goodell falling through lovie smith's skylight after slipping on a mcdonald's wrapper casually strewn about the roof. his surgeon will be partick willis' uncle.

I don't want to let it go. How can "attempted tampering" be a crime if we were in active negotiations with the Bears about Briggs in the middle of last season? When the Bears initiated those negotiations?

I hated Kawakami's article. It was full of self-hatred, "we all know everyone tampers, but leave it to the 49ers to be the ones to do it so badly they get caught." This argument is so irritating it makes me sputter. What made this happen is not that the 49ers were stupid, but that the Bears actually pressed a complaint. Teams don't usually do that, since they know they tamper themselves.

Maybe mactbone is right, and the Bears could afford to do this because they're never in the market for free agents anyway.

Latest from PFT linked in my name. Apparently the Bears pursued the 49ers because after Briggs learned about the failure of the trade, his play declined.

Seems like Briggs could have learned about this from his own lockerroom as much as from the 49ers.

We’ve also heard from multiple sources that the Bears proceeded with tampering charges not because they hoped to scare the Niners away from pursuing Briggs in free agency, but because the Bears believed that, once Briggs learned of the failed trade, his performance decreased dramatically.

It’s still unclear how Briggs found out about the failed trade. Some presume that his agent, Drew Rosenhaus, told him about it. Others believe that, once coach Lovie Smith told Urlacher that he’d be changing positions, word of the looming transaction inevitably got around the locker room.

Though we’ve accepted the fact that it will be impossible to determine the precise evidence that supported a finding of tampering, we’re still troubled by the fact that the Niners apparently got in trouble for attempting to work out a new contract with Rosenhaus in conjunction with a trade that would have sent a first-round pick to the Bears in exchange for Briggs’ services.

Surely, the Bears didn’t think that the 49ers would give up a first-round draft pick for the ability to rent Briggs for the balance of the 2007 season, with no guarantee that they’d retain his services for 2008. So even is the Bears didn’t formally grant the Niners permission to talk to Rosenhaus, it was at least implied that an effort would be made to get Briggs’ agreement on a new contract, especially if the trade talks were unfolding not long before the deadline for doing a deal.

Isn't the difference here between in-season and post-season tampering? Is it possible that the Briggs case has triggered a penalty because it unsettled a player while he was still playing and the Smiley case (for example) has not been punished because, while still tampering, it was tampering after the season was over, and therefore arguably less serious?

If that was the case, I can see the argument for punishment and compensation a bit better.

The latest, linked in my name, is that the 49ers were explicitly picked out for punishment by the NFL for tampering because "it had to be a fairly irrelevant team that wouldn't fight it."

"It was bound to happen - some team was going to end up as the poster boy for these rules violations," a high-ranking NFL executive said Monday during the league meetings, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And it had to be a fairly irrelevant team that wouldn't fight it."