nfoligno Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I just read that we may be negotiating w/ Harris, Hester, Gould and Anderson. Harris, fine. I think it goes no where, but the process has to begin sometime. Gould. Fine. He deserves it. I do not like the idea of looking to lock up Hester and Anderson though, and before I get ripped, let me explain why. In years past, every organization tried to identify those players on the roster who had a good chance to make a jump in development, and lock them up prior to that jump. Player gets long term security when still unproven, while the team potentially gets a bargain if the player does step up. Some would argue that is a sign the bears are cheap, but it is how EVERY team in the NFL did business, and was a key in dealing w/ the salary cap. IMHO, that is no longer a valid strategy. Think about this. Let's say we do lock up Mark Anderson now. Most likely, he is the #3 DE on the team, and while his deal may not be truly reflective of backup money, it is not going to be huge either. Now lets say he does win the starting job in the next couple years, and blows up. What happens then. I'll tell you. He hired Rosenarce to be his agent, and he seeks money reflective of his new status. If he nets 12 sacks as the starting DE, he is not going to be content to play for backup money. How about Hester. The staff has said they believe he could be a #1 WR, but does anyone think we are going to give him #1 WR money today? So we get him locked up for whatever, but if he does turn out to be the next Steve Smith, does anyone believe he will continue to play for that "bargain" deal? No, while it may have been a solid strategy once, I do not think it works any longer. It is a nice idea. Win/ win for player and team. Player gets long term security when he is not a proven commodity. On the other hand, the team gets a potential bargain if the player does make the leap to the next level. However, since it is now the norm for the player to immediately demand a new deal when their play goes to the next level, what is the point is signing players early. The player benefits from the new deal, while the benefit the team used to get is now gone. How about Alex Brown as an example. We drafted him, and re-signed him to what was viewed as a very solid contract. After 2 years of his 5 year deal, he start whining about how under-paid he is. One year later, w/ 2 more years left on that "bargain" deal, we give him more money. So I just no longer see the point in trying to lockup players early on anymore. I am not talking about proven players, who has already set a more legit market value. I am talking about trying to lockup young players before they breakout. It seems like that strategy simply no longer works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyyle23 Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I just dont know how the Bears should approach a contract with Hester, there are so many different variables in his play. Not a WR(yet), not a CB(anymore), a special teamer who isnt making tackles, but is returning kicks. Its definitely a hard situation for the Bears, they dont even know what market they should be using for comparison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I just read that we may be negotiating w/ Harris, Hester, Gould and Anderson. Harris, fine. I think it goes no where, but the process has to begin sometime. Gould. Fine. He deserves it. I do not like the idea of looking to lock up Hester and Anderson though, and before I get ripped, let me explain why. In years past, every organization tried to identify those players on the roster who had a good chance to make a jump in development, and lock them up prior to that jump. Player gets long term security when still unproven, while the team potentially gets a bargain if the player does step up. Some would argue that is a sign the bears are cheap, but it is how EVERY team in the NFL did business, and was a key in dealing w/ the salary cap. IMHO, that is no longer a valid strategy. Think about this. Let's say we do lock up Mark Anderson now. Most likely, he is the #3 DE on the team, and while his deal may not be truly reflective of backup money, it is not going to be huge either. Now lets say he does win the starting job in the next couple years, and blows up. What happens then. I'll tell you. He hired Rosenarce to be his agent, and he seeks money reflective of his new status. If he nets 12 sacks as the starting DE, he is not going to be content to play for backup money. How about Hester. The staff has said they believe he could be a #1 WR, but does anyone think we are going to give him #1 WR money today? So we get him locked up for whatever, but if he does turn out to be the next Steve Smith, does anyone believe he will continue to play for that "bargain" deal? No, while it may have been a solid strategy once, I do not think it works any longer. It is a nice idea. Win/ win for player and team. Player gets long term security when he is not a proven commodity. On the other hand, the team gets a potential bargain if the player does make the leap to the next level. However, since it is now the norm for the player to immediately demand a new deal when their play goes to the next level, what is the point is signing players early. The player benefits from the new deal, while the benefit the team used to get is now gone. How about Alex Brown as an example. We drafted him, and re-signed him to what was viewed as a very solid contract. After 2 years of his 5 year deal, he start whining about how under-paid he is. One year later, w/ 2 more years left on that "bargain" deal, we give him more money. So I just no longer see the point in trying to lockup players early on anymore. I am not talking about proven players, who has already set a more legit market value. I am talking about trying to lockup young players before they breakout. It seems like that strategy simply no longer works. The only one I disagree with is Anderson and that's because of the disparity between his first yr and last year. Hester, has been the ONLY member of this football team that has played with consistency these past 2 years. I give him the money because he's earned it. I think the Brown situation further illustrates part of your point in that the Bears resigned him early and cheaper and yes, he did come back intimating that he wanted to be traded. He lost his starting job but got it back and the Bears sweetened his pot a bit. That's OK. It gave them an opportunity to spread the money out. Better that than throwing a ton of money at a guy and then watch his production sink. With Hester, we gotta do something. Even if he does nothing more tha STs, he's worth whatever we pay him. I think he adds incredible value just being on the field. My only problem with Hester is that we don't have anyone on this coaching staff who knows how to develop talent. Drake is a freakin joke and should have been launched years ago. He must have pics of Lovie in teddy or something because he flat out sucks. Hester could be developed into one of the most prolific players in this league but he won't because our coaching staff sucks. But, either way, I'd give him the money before any of the other clowns, including Tommie Harris. Mainly because I think he wants to be here and that he is a team player and it's not just about the money for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I disagree. How many Bears players have held out and not played games because of a contract dispute? I understand your logic with all the whining players do about getting more money but in the end the only leverage they have is to not play. We just haven't seen that not even with Briggs, Vasher, and Alex Brown the two biggest malcontents last year. If they play but don't play well they lose their leverage too. I think overall the Bears are known as a team that will reward their own players for good performance and this system in general has given us decent cap room over the last few years so we can make a few moves each offseason. I just wish we'd be able to use this concept on a young OL prospect but we don't seem to be able to find those guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I like all of it. Harris and Gould are no brainers if you can get them at a fair price. Anderson is chocked full of potential and went through a sophomore slump. My bet is, he'll be back in full swing this season and the staff knows it. You don't want to pay him if he's hot. Hester is not the wildcard you think he is. One thing we do know is that he is a drawing card for the franchise. Therefore his value is far greater than just on the field. Also, he may be a future Hall of Famer. Do we really want to see him on someone else's highlight reel? One last thing; don't underestimate his current value on the field. Field position is priceless. He's the only player in the NFL that truly buys that for his team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I just read that we may be negotiating w/ Harris, Hester, Gould and Anderson. Harris, fine. I think it goes no where, but the process has to begin sometime. Gould. Fine. He deserves it. I do not like the idea of looking to lock up Hester and Anderson though, and before I get ripped, let me explain why. In years past, every organization tried to identify those players on the roster who had a good chance to make a jump in development, and lock them up prior to that jump. Player gets long term security when still unproven, while the team potentially gets a bargain if the player does step up. Some would argue that is a sign the bears are cheap, but it is how EVERY team in the NFL did business, and was a key in dealing w/ the salary cap. IMHO, that is no longer a valid strategy. Think about this. Let's say we do lock up Mark Anderson now. Most likely, he is the #3 DE on the team, and while his deal may not be truly reflective of backup money, it is not going to be huge either. Now lets say he does win the starting job in the next couple years, and blows up. What happens then. I'll tell you. He hired Rosenarce to be his agent, and he seeks money reflective of his new status. If he nets 12 sacks as the starting DE, he is not going to be content to play for backup money. How about Hester. The staff has said they believe he could be a #1 WR, but does anyone think we are going to give him #1 WR money today? So we get him locked up for whatever, but if he does turn out to be the next Steve Smith, does anyone believe he will continue to play for that "bargain" deal? No, while it may have been a solid strategy once, I do not think it works any longer. It is a nice idea. Win/ win for player and team. Player gets long term security when he is not a proven commodity. On the other hand, the team gets a potential bargain if the player does make the leap to the next level. However, since it is now the norm for the player to immediately demand a new deal when their play goes to the next level, what is the point is signing players early. The player benefits from the new deal, while the benefit the team used to get is now gone. How about Alex Brown as an example. We drafted him, and re-signed him to what was viewed as a very solid contract. After 2 years of his 5 year deal, he start whining about how under-paid he is. One year later, w/ 2 more years left on that "bargain" deal, we give him more money. So I just no longer see the point in trying to lockup players early on anymore. I am not talking about proven players, who has already set a more legit market value. I am talking about trying to lockup young players before they breakout. It seems like that strategy simply no longer works. I agree with you that Gould and Harris should be extended and we should hold on Hester and Anderson. They both have 2 yrs left on their rookie contracts - no need to move on this until sometime next yr (heck you can give them new deals during the season next yr). Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I believe anytime you can lock up a solid player into a longer contract, you do it. The market goes up every year. So to meet halfway, the team gets a decent number/years, and the player gets some guaranteed money. For Anderson and Hester. If they have monster years in 2008 before giving them extensions, then they will command much more compared to right now. Just think how much Hester would command in Free Agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 It isn't that I want these players gone, or that I do not want to re-sign them. The issue is what their contracts should be. You want to re-sign Hester. Okay, I do too. But how much. Is there even a player in the NFL to model his contract after? Would you agree we are not going to give him top tier WR money? At the same time, the staff feels that is what he could become. If he does just that, no way he is going to be happy w/ whatever deal we give him today. That is my issue. It is a nice idea to sign them early, but I just no longer see the point when we end up giving them new deals in a couple years anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I believe anytime you can lock up a solid player into a longer contract, you do it. The market goes up every year. So to meet halfway, the team gets a decent number/years, and the player gets some guaranteed money. For Anderson and Hester. If they have monster years in 2008 before giving them extensions, then they will command much more compared to right now. Just think how much Hester would command in Free Agency. I think you miss the point. My point is, if we sign them now and then they go on to have "monster years", do you think they will sit content w/ their non-monster contract? Anderson is not going to get a monster deal, yet if he takes the starting job from Brown and has a "monster year", he is simply going to start making new demands again. Ditto w/ Hester. There was a time when teams signed players before the broke out, and the players would still ride out their contracts. Today, I simply do not see that being the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I think you miss the point. My point is, if we sign them now and then they go on to have "monster years", do you think they will sit content w/ their non-monster contract? Anderson is not going to get a monster deal, yet if he takes the starting job from Brown and has a "monster year", he is simply going to start making new demands again. Ditto w/ Hester. There was a time when teams signed players before the broke out, and the players would still ride out their contracts. Today, I simply do not see that being the case. Yes I do. If that was the case, then hundreds of players would sit out every year if they played over what they felt their contracts were. Most holdouts occurred because the contracts were not even close to their production. In this case, if Anderson and Hester received modest raises from where they are at now, it would be hard for them to question that contract a year later. Now if they sign a 5 year deal, and play Pro-Bowl level for several years, then the two sides can relook the deals in a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Most holdouts occurred because the contracts were not even close to their production. Exactly. Our staff has said they believe Hester can be Steve Smith. If we re-sign him this year to a 5 year deal, and in two years he looks like Steve Smith, you think he is going to just be a good boy and play out his deal. I look at Alex Brown, and his story has become too common. I mean, two years into a new 5 year deal, he already started griping, and that was not after a pro bowl season. Now, after the 3rd year of that 5 year deal, he gets another extension. Call me crazy. I just think that if we re-sign Anderson/Hester to new deals now, we are not going to get value on those deals. For Anderson, I think we are going to have to give him starter money. Not great, but starter pay. IMHO, he is either a #3 DE, and questionable whether he is worth that starter pay. Or he takes the starter job back (which means he plays at a high level) and soon enough will seek a new deal. For Hester, he has already earned a new deal. That I am not questioning. What I would question is how we structure that deal. Does he seek a deal like Berrian just got? I just have no clue what sort of money it will take to get him to sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Call me crazy. I just think that if we re-sign Anderson/Hester to new deals now, we are not going to get value on those deals. Here's where I think you missed it. If we have these future stars locked up, we have the leverage. There is a huge difference between a player bitching with 1 year and 3 years left. As a GM, you now have time to figure out what is best for the future of team, player and cap wise. It also means a lot when you tell a player they have security within the organization and they are valued. Also, in good faith, you have already payed a little forward with the player and agent. Call it investing in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 I'd give Hester a 5 year, $15 million contract b/c as whoever said, all he does is return punts and kicks and nobody knows what he will be like as a WR yet. BTW, I like the Anderson negotiations. However, I wish we'd go after current FA's, like Jacob Bell, but I guess JA is all about addressing our guys who will be FA's next offseason or in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Hester will be twice the player Steve Smith is IF he can learn how to catch the ball. His other tools are far superior to Smith which makes his potential limitless. Supposebley I read today that Mark Bradley is the teams #1 receiver coming into next season by default. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyyle23 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Hester will be twice the player Steve Smith is IF he can learn the ball. ow to catch the ball. His other tools are far superior to Smith which makes his potential limitless. Supposebley I read today that Mark Bradley is the teams #1 receiver coming into next season by default. You should have your posting priveledges revoked. Seriously. Hester isnt even in the same sentence as Steve Smith in terms of the tools it takes to be a wide reciever. learning to catch the ball does not make him twice the player that Steve Smith is. Take off the orange and navy blue sunglasses, the above statement is borderline retarded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Where did you see the stuff on Anderson? I found where they'd like to extend Gould and Hest, but not Anderson... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 You should have your posting priveledges revoked. Seriously. Hester isnt even in the same sentence as Steve Smith in terms of the tools it takes to be a wide reciever. learning to catch the ball does not make him twice the player that Steve Smith is. Take off the orange and navy blue sunglasses, the above statement is borderline retarded Agreed! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.