They say you shouldn't give Devin Hester a present because he'll just return it, but the Bears should try anyway.  I've never seen a return man have such an impact on a team before.  The fact that teams would rather give the Bears the ball at the 40 than give Hester a chance is amazing.  He deserves a big huge extension.

only problem with this scenerio is this..   people acts like it is mandatory to change contracts if the player performs differently than expected..  but NEVER to the players loss..    all of those top 10 draft pick busts we hear about did not get told "you sucked..  we have decided that we will not release you because you might still be good someday but we also will not pay you unless to renegotiate to a much lower amount that is based on your lack of results so far"..

Hester signed a contract.   The bears have paid him what he agreed to..   He is not a free agent..   In fact, it is possible that if the collective bargaining agreement battle goes on long enough, they will end up getting an extra TWO years from him before he can leave..

Do I think his play would be worth a lot more than his salary if he was a free agent they were trying to sign ?   absolutely.

But they are under no obligation to renegotiate and if he doesn't play, this year doesn't count towards the time towards FA.

Now, I believe that the Bears should offer him more money but they should not be forced to pay him what he is worth..   any money they give him above what his contract is based on their good will, not on a requirement.

broken up for all of those who complain about having to read too much at once..

Do I think they ought to give him an offer of something like $4 million a year for the next 6 years, absolutely..  but if he gets more money than his contract entitles him to, then the Bears ought to get something extra they weren't already entitled to-- in this case, more years of him at a reasonable price (in fact, a discount) before he even gets a chance at testing the market.

But that won't happen 99 times out of 100..   players wants extra money, but are not willing to give back something like extra time at a discount.. 

Here is an example..  let's say Hester is worth $6 million a year and by some magic, we know right now that he will play exactly well enough to be worthy of that amount every single year for the next 10 years.    Right now he is earning far less than that and will be for let's say 5 more years (just to make a point, not saying that is how much time left in reality)...

He wants to renegotiate so that for those next 5 years where the team owes him far less right now..      Which is to HIS benefit, but not the teams.

Let's say the team says "ok, let's compromise..  we will rip up the contract if you sign a 10 year, $40 million deal with no opt out clauses"..  that way he gets more money now, but the team gets a discount from what they would be forced to pay once the old contract is over for the extra 5 years..    so you get 5 years that are to your advantage and we get 5 years that are to ours.

If that happened, most players would throw a fit and demand that they be paid at least $6 million a year later in the contract..

that is NOT CHANGING a contract.. that is voiding it..   in which case the player gets the freedom to go to whatever team he wants to...   

Hester is essentially holding a gun to the Bear's heads and threatening not to play.    Cutting a player cuts ties and gives the player potentially 31 other options (more if he goes and plays in one of the other football leagues)...    Hester has left the Bears with 2 realistic options (cutting him is technically an option but not a realistic one)..   Give in to his demands or call his "bluff" and let him sit out until the itch to play becomes too great while maintaining their claim to him so he can not sign anywhere else.      So it is not the same thing.

To repeat and say it more clearly..  cutting a player is not changing the contract.  Changing a contract is if a team said to a player--  "We WILL NOT CUT you and give you your freedom, but we have decided not to pay you as much.. so you can either sign a cheaper contract or we simply will not pay you anything but will retain our right to you so you can't sign with anyone else".     THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT HESTER AND OTHERS DO TO TEAMS.

Interesting that he signed that contract originally; after all, he was a 2nd round choice !

But I agree with Devin and it appears many other people here - he needs to be fairly compensated.....or else he's outta-here when this contract is up.

Bears should pay him, yes.  but it should be in a deal where both sides get something that they didn't get in the old deal which BOTH sides agreed to in good faith.   Hester deserves more money but the Bears deserve something back.. ie, more time from him at something less than full market value.

Hell, I want Hester to get more money and be happy.  I think his salary was the greatest bargain in awhile.  But I do not think it should be a 1 way street where Hester gets something more than he agreed to without giving up something extra-- which is more time committed to the Bears at a price that is below maximum dollar for what he is worth.

Frankly, he AGREED to the original deal and signed it.  If he no longer wants to live up to it, then he should have to give up something of real value (a few extra years before he gets an outrageous contract).

Bears signed him in good faith.  They are entitled to his services at that price agreed to for the length of the contract.    If he wants something more, then the Bears should get something more as well (more time at less than absolute top dollar).

I think something close to 8 year, $36 million deal is more than fair (hester gets a raise of almost 10X what he is currently making that his signature on a contract says he agreed to play in the original contract..  while the Bears get extra time and a discount on what they would have to pay him in the future if he had played out the contract in good faith rather than demanding to change it).

Just as an example.

he agreed to the contract in the first place.. he signed it.   Now he wants out of it because it turns out he is doing better than expected.   Bears should not be OBLIGATED to change a contract that is legal..

He wants to change the terms of the deal..   well, in that case, if he wants more of something than he agreed to, then the Bears should get more from him.  and the only thing he has that THEY ARE NOT ALREADY ENTITLED TO BY THE TERMS OF AN EXISITING LEGAL CONTRACT is extra time beyond the end of the contract.

Again, I would like to see him happier..  but he is no more entitled to a SINGLE DIME MORE..   just like I wouldn't be if I sold someone a painting for $240 to be paid over the next year at $20 a month  and it turned out to be worth $1000.  I sold it, and I gave it to them.  I am not entitled to go back and say "it is now worth 4X more than i thought it was.. so now you need to pay me more because I deserve it".

Hester SOLD a set amount of years of his career for a set payout.   He is not entitled to more unless the Bears are willing to change the terms. .   But they are not obligated to and if they give up more, they should get more back than they were already entitled to.  They are already entitled to his best effort every game already for the length of his contract.    If he does not report, then he is the one who is wrong for not doing what he agreed to do when he signed.

Yes, the team has more power when signing rookies..  But just because the team has more power does not make it illegal..   he did not have to play football in the NFL..  he agreed to and he agreed to do it by the rules of the NFL, which give a team the exclusive rights to the player they draft and give them all of that power.  He agreed to play for a salary that is a lot of money for most people and was IN LINE with where he was taken.    Yes, he has played better than the team hoped.   And yes, if he serves out the rest of his contract,  it is his right to try to squeeze EVERY LAST DOLLAR out of the new contract..   May I remind you that the trade off for the ADVANTAGE teams have with rookies is that if they turn into stars and serve out their contract, they then get to hire big named agents and set all 32 teams in the league against each other in a huge bidding war to artificially drive up their price--- which is MAJORLY to the PLAYER'S advantage.

AS FOR WHY THE BEARS ARE ENTITLED TO PAY HIM SO LITTLE... the fact that the Bears were able to pick such a superstar stud out of the 2nd round after so many teams passed on him and then because of that ability to spot the hidden gem were able to pay him less is GOOD BUSINESS..  They found a treasure and bought it for a cheap price.  They deserve to reap the benefits for the length of the contract (which again i repeat-- BOTH PARTIES AGREED TO AND SIGNED).   If they give up that RIGHT, then they deserve some kind of compensation.

Now, if the Bears give in and give him a new contract, I am not going to start screaming at the TV..   in fact, it would be a smart move on their part..  but just because it is the smart way to go does not mean they are REQUIRED to do it.

All of these posts by me are centered around the argument that people think that they HAVE to renegotiate.  They don't..  but it would be the smart way to go.

I do not mind him "requesting" it..   it is the sitting out which is basically refusing to abide by the terms of the deal he agreed to that bothers me so much.

If he had shown up, went about meeting his obligations and at the same time asked for the renegotation and told the media about it, I would be in his corner and my "novels" would be devoted to the many reasons why the Bears would be absolute idiots to not extend him a real good offer THIS WEEK to try to make things right in terms of their relationship with this exciting player.

I just felt the case needed to be made that all of these players who cry and demand a renegotatiation the minute someone else gets a better deal than them or they happen to have a better than expected year are in the wrong, at least in terms of whether the team is REQUIRED to do it.. 

and that sitting out from mandatory events when you have a binding contract puts THEM in the wrong in some ways because they are refusing to live up to terms THEY agreed to.  

much bigger peeve for me is for these type players...    Your $6 million a year is not suddenly an insult just because someone else just signed for $6.5 million and you think YOU are #1 in the league and him #2, instead of the other way around.  Nor should teams have to constantly play a game of bumping players salaries up in response to a signing.. folowed by that 2nd player demanding his salary bumped to be highest, which leads to the next year a demand to bump the 1st player's salary back up.

That said..  come on Bears..  Offer the guy a fair deal..  if you put up a fair offer to him and he turns it down and continues to sit out, then i will be one of the first to criticize him..   but the other writers on here are right that in a lot of non-legal ways, it is the right thing to do.

A team shouldn't have to re-do a deal in response to another signing, but you have to understand the player perspective too.  If a considerably worse player than you signs for a better contract than you have, I'd want more money too.

what he did wrong was refuse to show up..     while I agree that the Bears SHOULD offer him a contract and would be massive idiots not to, he still has a binding legal contract.      he is still a member of the team with responsibilities and obligations and HAS a contract already.  

So while I agree that he is grossly underpaid compared to what he could get on the free market, I also think that he is wrong to refuse to do the job he agreed to do, part of which is showing up to mandatory team things.

He also needs every minute, snap and chance with the QB's, WR coaches, and other things because his transition to being the best WR he can be is not done yet.    Just like the QB, WR coaches, etc.  deserve every chance to interact with him as well--   and none of those people are the ones who control the contract issue and yet he is negatively affecting them.

I will adress the cutting players issue in a moment as soon as I lose this poker tourney.. but that is different for a reason I will explain..  and it ties back to the point I keep making about tradeoffs.

oh heck yes, this guy is much worse..

but that does not change the fact that Hester is not in camp despite a binding contract and so is not living up to what he said he would do when he signed his contract..  and his absense does not just affect him, but his teammates as well.

ok..  sorry for the delay..   as it turns out, I didn't lose.. I actually won the 59 player poker tourney-- and winning took longer than I had thought the losing was going to take.

as for the cutting players point..   one difference between that and what players try to do with renegotiating..   Cutting a player GIVES THE PLAYER SOMETHING IN RETURN...

What the players get in return is the freedom to sign with one of the 31 other teams (or a CFL team or some other league if they can find one)..

So the team does not have to pay the massive salary (rules on cap hits and everything might be another novel so just rest assured I realize they exist, even if I do not claim to be an expert in them)..  BUT they lose control of that player.   Yes, sometimes they resign the player for a lesser salary, but other times they lose the player altogether..   and it is not exactly an impossibility or something that never happens to have that player come back to haunt his old team at some point.

So the player loses money..  but he gets the chance to go to a team that wants him..   he gets the chance to try to find a system that might fit him better..  he gets something back..   

now, i realize there is no guarantee he finds another team.. but for the vast majority who are still worthy of an NFL contract, someone will come knocking at some point (unless the player screws up off the field somehow badly enough to make teams shy away)...  

So yes, teams can cut players to avoid paying salaries that they feel are too high for the player's play.. or for any number of other reasons...     BUT it comes at a potential cost.

Which feeds back into my point about renegotiating-- and also why I made the point I did about the bears getting something back.

Now.. I will make a confession..  the 8 year deal example was meant mostly as some kind of extreme example and meant more as a nice solid number to make my own math easier..    I agree that 8 year deals are not a wise move most of the time...    But I still think both sides should give a little-- Hester should get paid a sunstantial amount more.. Bears ought to get an extra year or two or something comparable... and maybe tie some of the money into performance bonuses instead so that if Hester stops playing at such a high level, the team gets some relief too. 

So maybe something more like a base salary of $4 million along with performance bonuses for certain benchmarks in the return game.. and some others in the receiving stats.    So that if he busts, he still gets $4 million..  but if he performs, he can make a lot more..

Again, the $4 million thing is just off the top of my head.. I have not spent a large amount of time calculating the market value and what comparable players are getting (a little hard anyway since there is so very few comparable to him in the return game and the receiving game is still mostly unknown).

lol..    And there's a VERY simple solution. The Bears can pay him.

same could be said about giving someone money in exchange for them not releasing incriminating photos--  or giving the bully your lunch money (in case you wanted an example that is not a felony)..    in all 3 cases, someone is threatening to something if you do not give them something that they do not have a LEGAL right to.

And before y'all start yelling about how hester is not threatening to hurt someone or not committing a felony..   no (except his teammates who aren't getting reps with him and his coaches who are not getting to work with him), but he is refusing to uphold his end of a legal contract and in doing so is affecting other people..

no, the players are not complaining..  and yes, other people have held out before and is "part of the game"...   but neither changes the fact that what he is doing is depriving his QBs' of chances to get reps in with him and for the coaches to work with him on his receiving skills.

And again, I repeat that the Bears have a contract with him that they have already said they will abide by and pay him acording to that contract that he SIGNED.   

While we all agree that it is the smart thing to give him more money and we all seem to agree that if it was us we would have already worked out a deal with him before camp, they are under no obligation to do so--- while he IS under an obligation to show up to the mandatory team stuff according to a CONTRACT HE SIGNED..

I think the team is making a mistake and is being extremely foolish..  but neither  absolves Hester of his responsibility to his teammates or of having to uphold his part of a contract he agreed to.

So no.. every day he refuses to show up, it is on HIM..  he is the one refusing to uphold his end of the contract.

much shorter comment here..  this is Boldin's comment..  he is a jerk, but i agree with the sentiment about showing up, doing what is required and outworking everyone anyway..

If he isn’t traded, Boldin insisted he could put aside his anger toward the front office and play the game as he always has.

“I’m going to do everything my contract requires me to do,” he said. “If I’m supposed to be here, I’ll be here. I’ll outwork anybody on this field. I’m going to show up and be on time. I mean, I’m going to perform like Anquan. I don’t know other way.”