• join now
  • login
  • Login
7/23/08
Devin Hester Is A Chicago Bears Camp Holdout
Only Threat To Score + Underpaid = Justified Holdout


I hate NFL training camp holdouts, but every now and again there is one that's justified.

Rookies, who have yet to play a single down, holding out for that extra .2 million when they haven't earned a dollar yet in their career might be the most maddening yearly ritual in the NFL. It's never done anyone any good. Cedric Benson is a bum. Brady Quinn missed some time, and then had to watch Derek Anderson excel. JaMarcus Russell sure didn't look good in his time last season.

The other holdouts that rub me the wrong way are those made by veterans who are clearly on the downhill side of their careers, battling or hiding injuries, but use their loyalty to the city and love from the fanbase against the organization. In turn, the team almost always gives in to save face with the fans (see: Brian Urlacher).

However, every now and again a situation arises where a holdout is forgiven, if not mandatory. Devin Hester's qualifies as such.

The most electrifying return man the NFL has even witnessed, is set to make $445,000 this season, and $530,000 in 2009.

Bears play-by-play man Jeff Joniak would utter emphatically that 'Jerry Angelo, you are ridiculous.'

The Bears general manager worked out a deal with Lance Briggs this summer for six years, $36 million with $12 million guaranteed. He also wrapped up Tommie Harris for four years, $40 million, making him one of the highest paid at his position, despite not being one of the best and possessing some injury concerns. Then just this week, Brian Urlacher got what he wanted which was a one year extension on his current deal, worth $18 million, and a $6 million bonus on the spot.

All of these players are very valuable to the Chicago Bears, no doubt, but I'd argue Devin Hester has contributed more to Bears wins over the past two years than any other player.

Furthermore, after an offseason where the Bears failed to address their pressing needs at wide receiver and quarterback, the Bears are asking Hester to contribute even more on offense in addition to being the most feared return man in the game. As it stands today, Hester, despite not playing wide receiver much of last season, is likely the most talented player, if not the best wideout on the roster. That's not an endorsement of his receiving abilities, in case you were wondering.

Do you fear Marty Booker or Brandon Lloyd? I didn't think so. The Bears philosophy is to clearly keep stealing money from Hester and hope the defense returns to 2006 form.

They forgot one critical detail. Paying him what he deserves, or at the very least, half of what he should be earning.

What frustrates me the most is that Hester handled his frustrations admirably. He didn't embark on an immature media stunt like Chad Johnson. He didn't make his agent speak up on Sportscenter every night. He basically didn't complain at all, just expressed his earnest feelings, which is simply that based on my current contributions and what you're asking from me this season, the contract I signed as a rookie doesn't hold up in the current NFL market.

Most teams would fall over themselves to sign Devin Hester for $5 million a year. Allow me to repeat what he's making this season: $445,000. He's the single most underpaid player in all of sports.

Hester didn't need to say anymore than he did this afternoon:
"I'm not coming. I have to make a statement. I showed by going to [organized team activities] that I was a team player. But then, I just felt like they weren't taking it seriously that I wanted to get a new deal.

I can't go out and play this year making $445,000. Come on, man.''
Do your thing, Devin. The organization has no idea what they are doing, and you deserve better. This is one holdout I fully support.

The Bears shouldn't need a reminder of his services, but just in case, here's the complete Hester highlight reel:



P.S. That's just two seasons.
Advertisement
31 comments
Vote!
Comment!
Your votes determine top comment

7/23/08
5
Pat wrote:
That being said, most teams know that the Bears are less of a threat with their offense offense at the 40. That means they'd have to drive AT LEAST 25 yards just to get into MAYBE field goal range. And 25 yards is asking a lot from that offense.
I agree that most teams should just eliminate him from the return game, and thus, eliminating any punt return touches.

The catch here, no pun intended, is that they now expect Hester to be the big play threat on offense. If we're talking top two receiver, then he's even more grossly underpaid.

He's worth at least $1 million just to have the team kick directly out of bounds.

7/23/08
5
Much like you, I don't often side with the player. But on this one, the Bears would be crazy (and wrong) to let this go on more than a day or so. Pay the man.

7/23/08
4

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.


7/23/08
5
kantwistaye wrote:

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.

That being said, most teams know that the Bears are less of a threat with their offense offense at the 40. That means they'd have to drive AT LEAST 25 yards just to get into MAYBE field goal range. And 25 yards is asking a lot from that offense.

7/23/08
5
Pat wrote:
That being said, most teams know that the Bears are less of a threat with their offense offense at the 40. That means they'd have to drive AT LEAST 25 yards just to get into MAYBE field goal range. And 25 yards is asking a lot from that offense.
I agree that most teams should just eliminate him from the return game, and thus, eliminating any punt return touches.

The catch here, no pun intended, is that they now expect Hester to be the big play threat on offense. If we're talking top two receiver, then he's even more grossly underpaid.

He's worth at least $1 million just to have the team kick directly out of bounds.

7/24/08
1
The question is, will the Bears do anything about this? I dunno. If they feel he is worth it they might. But with the QB's they have, they better hook him up. How else will the Bears score TD's?

7/24/08
4

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.


7/24/08
0
(Edited by isucubs)

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..


7/24/08
3
"people acts like it is mandatory to change contracts if the player performs differently than expected..  but NEVER to the players loss"

Simply incorrect... people always ask for guys to get released when they're playing like crap... the NFL has non-guaranteed contracts... it happens all the time.

7/24/08
0
I don't agree with employees striking anytime in any profession, but this man is underpaid.  He is just a thing of beauty to watch.  The Bears need to pony up some money and pay the man closer to what he is worth to them.

7/24/08
0
Devin Hester deserves to be paid... He is the most electrifying kr/pr I've seen. Probably the best since i think Dante Hall, back in prime. The Bears don't got any prime time or main receivers right now besides Hester, since they lost Muhsin Muhammad. He is pretty much the face of their franchise's offense. Honestly when you think of the Chicago Bears' Offense who do you think of? I sure hope it isn't Rex Grossman, or Cedric Benson. Well anyway Devin Hester deserves to be paid because he is a main key in the Bears franchise in the future.

7/24/08
0
(Edited by isucubs)
Pat wrote:
"people acts like it is mandatory to change contracts if the player performs differently than expected..  but NEVER to the players loss"

Simply incorrect... people always ask for guys to get released when they're playing like crap... the NFL has non-guaranteed contracts... it happens all the time.
Pat wrote:
"people acts like it is mandatory to change contracts if the player performs differently than expected..  but NEVER to the players loss"

Simply incorrect... people always ask for guys to get released when they're playing like crap... the NFL has non-guaranteed contracts... it happens all the time.

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.


7/24/08
0

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.


7/24/08
0
isucubs wrote:
Pat wrote:
"people acts like it is mandatory to change contracts if the player performs differently than expected..  but NEVER to the players loss"

Simply incorrect... people always ask for guys to get released when they're playing like crap... the NFL has non-guaranteed contracts... it happens all the time.

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.

So what are you saying? The team can re-negotiate any deal they want... they are in full control.

The bottom line is, Hester is VASTLY underpaid. He has politely asked the Bears to address the issue, and they've thrown money everywhere BUT Hester. After being ignored, he has chosen to speak up in a way that they Bears will understand.

There's nothing wrong with the way Hester is going about this. He has done it in a classy way, and hasn't made a huge issue about it. He deserves more money... that's undeniable. And the Bears should be EAGER to pay him.

7/24/08
0
(Edited by isucubs)
Pat wrote:
So what are you saying? The team can re-negotiate any deal they want... they are in full control.

The bottom line is, Hester is VASTLY underpaid. He has politely asked the Bears to address the issue, and they've thrown money everywhere BUT Hester. After being ignored, he has chosen to speak up in a way that they Bears will understand.

There's nothing wrong with the way Hester is going about this. He has done it in a classy way, and hasn't made a huge issue about it. He deserves more money... that's undeniable. And the Bears should be EAGER to pay him.
Pat wrote:
So what are you saying? The team can re-negotiate any deal they want... they are in full control.

The bottom line is, Hester is VASTLY underpaid. He has politely asked the Bears to address the issue, and they've thrown money everywhere BUT Hester. After being ignored, he has chosen to speak up in a way that they Bears will understand.

There's nothing wrong with the way Hester is going about this. He has done it in a classy way, and hasn't made a huge issue about it. He deserves more money... that's undeniable. And the Bears should be EAGER to pay him.

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.


7/24/08
0
Please... tell me why on earth the Bears DESERVE more time from Hester at less than market value. They've already HAD him for two years at FAR less than market value. During his rookie salary negotiations, the Bears had all of the control. Now, Hester has proven his worth, and should be compensated accordingly.

I don't understand why you think that it would be good for anyone if Hester signed an 8 year deal at far below market value, when his value will probably increase over time, as he plays more of a role in the offense.

If Hester signed the 8 year deal you proposed, then that would put him at 10 years into his career, and potentially NEVER making what he deserves. How can you possibly justify that?

7/24/08
0
I don't think anyone, outside of QBs, will ever sign anything like an 8 year deal again, especially after seeing what happened to Brian Urlacher.  Eventually the market will go flying past your contract.  Its just not worth it.

7/24/08
0
Pat wrote:
Please... tell me why on earth the Bears DESERVE more time from Hester at less than market value. They've already HAD him for two years at FAR less than market value. During his rookie salary negotiations, the Bears had all of the control. Now, Hester has proven his worth, and should be compensated accordingly.

I don't understand why you think that it would be good for anyone if Hester signed an 8 year deal at far below market value, when his value will probably increase over time, as he plays more of a role in the offense.

If Hester signed the 8 year deal you proposed, then that would put him at 10 years into his career, and potentially NEVER making what he deserves. How can you possibly justify that?

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.


7/24/08
2
(Edited by danny_n94)
isucubs wrote:

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.

isucubs wrote:

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 dont think the Bears have to re-do his deal at all. I think it makes good football sense. He is a play maker, and the Bears are lacking that. But it comes down to how cheap the McCaskey's are gonna be. You seem to use up a lot of space, time and energy by saying the Bears dont have to renegotiate but should. Hester did sign a contract and is bound by it, but in all honesty he better get the best deal for himself while he can, the minute Chicago has no use for him he is gone. Now do you think that is fair?

7/24/08
1
I'm not going to read your entire novel, but after a quick skimming of the first few paragraphs, it's obvious that you are completely wrong. The Painting analogy was terrible. Once you sell someone a product, it is theirs. Period. If you are an employee selling your services, it's a completely different deal. He has ALREADY given them more than what they have given him. If he is vastly underpaid, then he has every right to request a renegotiation. The team showed that they are willing to do that already, with Urlacher, Harris and Briggs, so they are morally and professionally obligated to show the same courtesy to Hester.

I'm not saying they HAVE to renegotiate. Obviously, they don't, in the legal sense. He could sit out, or just play for peanuts. But in the business sense, they DO have to.

7/25/08
0
Pat wrote:
I'm not going to read your entire novel, but after a quick skimming of the first few paragraphs, it's obvious that you are completely wrong. The Painting analogy was terrible. Once you sell someone a product, it is theirs. Period. If you are an employee selling your services, it's a completely different deal. He has ALREADY given them more than what they have given him. If he is vastly underpaid, then he has every right to request a renegotiation. The team showed that they are willing to do that already, with Urlacher, Harris and Briggs, so they are morally and professionally obligated to show the same courtesy to Hester.

I'm not saying they HAVE to renegotiate. Obviously, they don't, in the legal sense. He could sit out, or just play for peanuts. But in the business sense, they DO have to.

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.


7/25/08
0

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.


7/25/08
0
So... instead of sitting out, what do you suggest he do? He has already asked the Bears nicely. He stated that in the article.

Like I (and others) have said over and over again... teams release players ALL THE TIME. They choose to back out of contracts that THEY agreed to. Hester is doing the same thing. Hester is NOT one of the guys who is claiming that $6M is an insult. If you want me to get you a list of crappy players who make 10 times what Hester is making, I can do that. He has been the team MVP for the past 2 years. He has done everything the right way, and the Bears have ignored him.

If Hester was making $6M per year, and complaining that he couldn't feed his family, I would agree with you. But this is a guy who isn't worthy of being lumped in with the other guys you're talking about. He's not demanding more money because someone else got a contract... he's asking for more because he is the heart and soul of the team, and is getting paid like a backup.

If you agree with him (which you've essentially said that you do), then why do you continue to act like he has done something wrong?

7/25/08
0
Pat wrote:
So... instead of sitting out, what do you suggest he do? He has already asked the Bears nicely. He stated that in the article.

Like I (and others) have said over and over again... teams release players ALL THE TIME. They choose to back out of contracts that THEY agreed to. Hester is doing the same thing. Hester is NOT one of the guys who is claiming that $6M is an insult. If you want me to get you a list of crappy players who make 10 times what Hester is making, I can do that. He has been the team MVP for the past 2 years. He has done everything the right way, and the Bears have ignored him.

If Hester was making $6M per year, and complaining that he couldn't feed his family, I would agree with you. But this is a guy who isn't worthy of being lumped in with the other guys you're talking about. He's not demanding more money because someone else got a contract... he's asking for more because he is the heart and soul of the team, and is getting paid like a backup.

If you agree with him (which you've essentially said that you do), then why do you continue to act like he has done something wrong?

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.

 

 


7/25/08
0
Instead of acting like Hester is wrong, you should focus your contempt on a guy like this. He just signed his money deal before last season, and is already asking out.

7/25/08
0
Pat wrote:
Instead of acting like Hester is wrong, you should focus your contempt on a guy like this. He just signed his money deal before last season, and is already asking out.

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.


7/25/08
0
isucubs wrote:

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.

I have yet to hear of anyone complaining about Hester's holdout. And there's a VERY simple solution. The Bears can pay him. They should have done it weeks ago when he asked nicely. From here on out, it's all on them. Holdouts are a part of the game... no one should be surprised or taken aback by this.

7/25/08
0

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.


7/25/08
0

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).


7/25/08
0
Pat wrote:
I have yet to hear of anyone complaining about Hester's holdout. And there's a VERY simple solution. The Bears can pay him. They should have done it weeks ago when he asked nicely. From here on out, it's all on them. Holdouts are a part of the game... no one should be surprised or taken aback by this.

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.


7/25/08
0

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.”


7/25/08
1
isucubs wrote:

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.”

dude,wtf  these novel you are typing blow. Your argument are not taking seriously cuz nobody wants to read them

 
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine.
Preview


12,798,192+
PLAY NEVER-ENDING TRIVIA
Ty Cobb
Billy Hamilton
Vince Coleman
Tim Raines
 more

TAKE A QUIZ
 more

ANSWER TODAY'S POLL
 more
PREDICT THE SCORE
MLB
NBA
NHL
Soccer
NASCAR
 more

MEET OUR FANS
Kimberly
Myka
 more