nfoligno Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 From the sound of it, negotiations are picking up. The Sun Times is reporting Harris' camp has received a new offer from the Bears. Harris was supposed to meet w/ Rosenarce to discuss the offer. The Sun Times was also showing the top 3 DT contracts Tommy Kelly, Oakland, agreed to a seven-year, $50.5 million contract in February. The deal includes $18.125 million in guarantees with $25.125 million paid over the first three years. Cory Redding, Detroit, agreed to a seven-year, $49 million contract in July 2007. The deal includes $16 million guaranteed with $20 million paid over the first three years. Kevin Williams, Minnesota, agreed to a five-year, $33.24 million extension in December 2006. The article talks about how Harris is going to want to be paid more than any on this list, and any offer from the bears below Kelly's, would likely not go over well. My question is this. Last year, Harris said he believes he should be paid in line w/ the top defensive players in the NFL. He didn't say top DTs, but defensive players. I have also read that Rosenarce is likely going to use Freeney's deal as the base to work from. Freeney signed a 6yr/ $72m deal w/ $30m signing bonus, w/ $37.72 paid out over the first 3 years. Freeney's deal blows out of the water the deals signed by the DTs, which makes this negotiation very curious. If the bears use Kelly's deal, and work up from there, while Rosenarce uses Freeney's deal, and maybe moved down, that still leaves a very large gap. Can the two sides meet in the middle, or will either side move enough to even get close? To me, this will come down to Harris' camp demands. If he truly feels he should make Freeney money, I am not sure I see this deal happening, and frankly, I am not sure we should do it. The injuries and 2nd half disappearing acts really make me question whether he should be paid in line w/ Freeney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Be prepared for a struggle. Nothing comes easy involving Rosenhaus... Hoever, I think Tommie is worth the trouble... From the sound of it, negotiations are picking up. The Sun Times is reporting Harris' camp has received a new offer from the Bears. Harris was supposed to meet w/ Rosenarce to discuss the offer. The Sun Times was also showing the top 3 DT contracts The article talks about how Harris is going to want to be paid more than any on this list, and any offer from the bears below Kelly's, would likely not go over well. My question is this. Last year, Harris said he believes he should be paid in line w/ the top defensive players in the NFL. He didn't say top DTs, but defensive players. I have also read that Rosenarce is likely going to use Freeney's deal as the base to work from. Freeney signed a 6yr/ $72m deal w/ $30m signing bonus, w/ $37.72 paid out over the first 3 years. Freeney's deal blows out of the water the deals signed by the DTs, which makes this negotiation very curious. If the bears use Kelly's deal, and work up from there, while Rosenarce uses Freeney's deal, and maybe moved down, that still leaves a very large gap. Can the two sides meet in the middle, or will either side move enough to even get close? To me, this will come down to Harris' camp demands. If he truly feels he should make Freeney money, I am not sure I see this deal happening, and frankly, I am not sure we should do it. The injuries and 2nd half disappearing acts really make me question whether he should be paid in line w/ Freeney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 From the sound of it, negotiations are picking up. The Sun Times is reporting Harris' camp has received a new offer from the Bears. Harris was supposed to meet w/ Rosenarce to discuss the offer. The Sun Times was also showing the top 3 DT contracts The article talks about how Harris is going to want to be paid more than any on this list, and any offer from the bears below Kelly's, would likely not go over well. My question is this. Last year, Harris said he believes he should be paid in line w/ the top defensive players in the NFL. He didn't say top DTs, but defensive players. I have also read that Rosenarce is likely going to use Freeney's deal as the base to work from. Freeney signed a 6yr/ $72m deal w/ $30m signing bonus, w/ $37.72 paid out over the first 3 years. Freeney's deal blows out of the water the deals signed by the DTs, which makes this negotiation very curious. If the bears use Kelly's deal, and work up from there, while Rosenarce uses Freeney's deal, and maybe moved down, that still leaves a very large gap. Can the two sides meet in the middle, or will either side move enough to even get close? To me, this will come down to Harris' camp demands. If he truly feels he should make Freeney money, I am not sure I see this deal happening, and frankly, I am not sure we should do it. The injuries and 2nd half disappearing acts really make me question whether he should be paid in line w/ Freeney. If he wants Freeney money...then sayonara Tommie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 If he wants Freeney money...then sayonara Tommie. If he wants Freeney money, I'd probably be willing to pay it, especially with the prospect of uncapped years coming up in the near future...but I don't think I'd want to pay it right now, not until I have more confidence in his recovery from injury. Use this year's cap space to try to cover the other issues, i.e. signing Hester, etc. Make Harris prove for one more year that he can stay healthy and has recovered fully from that disastrous leg injury. If he looks like he did pre-injury, give him that contract, he'll be worth it. If not, then you consider letting him walk. The Franchise tag becomes the team's friend in this case as long as they're smart enough to re-sign Hester, Gould, etc., beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I would sign him to Freeney money, but the deal would need to be cap friendly for at least a portion of the deal. The Bears have been pretty creative with their contracts recently. Also, I believe the Bears are still in their playoff window for the next few years. They need to do whatever they can to retain the solid corps of players they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 It can be made cap friendly, to some extent, but it will still have bite. Players are not simply seeking the big SB anymore. They want the big SB, but in addition, want big first three year payouts. Freeney, for example, got nearly $38m in the first three years. $30 of that was in his bonus, w/ another $8m over three years. That may not sound like much, but not long ago, a player would get a big SB, but also around $1m or so for the first few years of the deal, w/ heavy backloads written in. Berrian is another example of this, as he was making a big issue, not about the SB, but about the first 3 year payout. As for how cap friendly it will be, consider this. Freeney got a SB of about $30m on a 6 year deal. If it was a straight SB (which would be the most initial years cap friendly), then he has a $5m/yr cap hit for his bonus alone. Then there is the other $8m to factor. If that $8m were spread out $2m, $3m, $3m, his cap hit for the next three years would be: $7m, $8m & $8m. Is that the sort of cap friendly number you were thinking of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hell if I was Tommie Harris i wouldnt sign with this shit team. They obviously have no intention to contend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Ya the hell with him. We dont need lineman anyway, we need talent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Ya the hell with him. We dont need lineman anyway, we need talent wasnt sayin that dick.Berrian knew to get out, cant blame em' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Tommy has to sign a bit under the market because he's getting his deal a year early. He can certainly wait another year and see if he gets injured again, or not, and then pursue Freeney money. I just don't think given his last two seasons he'd like to take that chance, or they wouldn't be talking right now. In the end he won't get Freeney money but he'll get more than the Raider DT and it will probably be two tiered with a second roster bonus in year two or three so the Bears can get out of the deal if he's not performing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 wasnt sayin that dick.Berrian knew to get out, cant blame em' How does getting out of Chicago help Harris? We have pretty much every core player on the defense signed long term. He can be on a great defense for most of his career. I wouldnt call injury prone Berrian going to Minny with Jackson as his qb a good situation for him. If you mean strictly money wise thats one thing, but the Bears are going to open the wallet for Harris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GakMan23 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Bears | T. Harris has yet to sign extension Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:57:57 -0700 Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports Chicago Bears DL Tommie Harris has yet to sign an extension with the team. His agent, Drew Rosenhaus, was negotiating a contract extension for Harris with the Bears Tuesday, April 8 and Wednesday, April 9. It is believed the team offered Harris more than the seven-year, $50.5 million contract Oakland Raiders DL Tommy Kelly received. per PFW: TALKS BETWEEN BEARS, HARRIS BREAK OFF Posted by Mike Florio on April 10, 2008, 8:37 a.m. Discussions aimed at extending the contract of Chicago Bears defensive tackle Tommie Harris have ended for now, even as the Bears reportedly are poised to make Harris the highest-paid defensive tackle in the league (and thus in league history). Per Brad Biggs of the Chicago Sun-Times, the Bears already have offered more than the seven-year, $50.5 million deal signed earlier this year by Raiders defensive tackle Tommy Kelly. Unknown in this regard is what Harris has demanded, and where his bottom line might be. Agent Drew Rosenhaus spent two days in Chicago working on a possible new deal for Harris, and left Wednesday night without commenting. Well now we see if that clown Rosenarse is going to hold the team hostage another offseason.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 I think it would be pretty risky for Harris to wait another year. He has had some injury concerns and if he goes into this season without resigning he better not get hurt at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 I think given Harris's injury issues, that's actually a better offer than I think I would have made at this point if I were the Bears. If he wants to wait and push the team to use the Franchise tag, so be it. The Bears can just leave that offer standing and wait at this point. It worked with Briggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 If the Bears made Tommie a better offer than Kelly got in Oakland, they've done their part. Tommie Harris can think whatever he wants about being a top paid defensive player. He's not been performing at that level yet so you could even argue that as a DT, he probably is pretty far down the list stat wise when compared to other DTs and I know we play cover 2 but he IS NOT a top defensive player. The deal he was offered was fair and he should accept it. Franchise him next year and if he wants to take the risk, ok fine. I'm not even sure this guy has a full season in him anymore so let's see what he does this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 I think you're right. The Bears seem to be offering fair market price for the players they want to keep. I'm hoping this is just the dance...and that it'll all work out when a push comes to shove. I think given Harris's injury issues, that's actually a better offer than I think I would have made at this point if I were the Bears. If he wants to wait and push the team to use the Franchise tag, so be it. The Bears can just leave that offer standing and wait at this point. It worked with Briggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 I think given Harris's injury issues, that's actually a better offer than I think I would have made at this point if I were the Bears. If he wants to wait and push the team to use the Franchise tag, so be it. The Bears can just leave that offer standing and wait at this point. It worked with Briggs. Id wait, see if he gets hurt again and use the Tag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Yeah, honestly speaking, the team is in the driver's seat with Harris and Urlacher... Id wait, see if he gets hurt again and use the Tag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Id wait, see if he gets hurt again and use the Tag I think the logical move from a financial standpoint is exactly what you suggest...but I think the Bears are actually trying to do a goodwill offer here. Above the value that they ought to be offering, fair market value, for a guy who is an injury concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Any team trying to do goodwill anything with these freakin sharks is out of their mind. All that happens is someone uses it against them at the first opportunity. Offer the minimum you have to and move on. 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.