Bears sign Tommie Harris to record deal

[SportsWorld]

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?secti ... id=3453129

Cross one -- and perhaps the most pressing -- item off Chicago's 2008 offseason to-do list.

The Bears have agreed with defensive tackle Tommie Harris on a four-year extension through 2012 worth approximately $40 million, including $18 million in guarantees and $27 million over three years, according to sources familiar with negotiations. The extension makes Harris the highest-paid defensive tackle in the NFL and in history. The contract is the richest in team history.

Chicago has been engaged in negotiations with representatives for arguably their three most important players -- Harris, linebacker Brian Urlacher and wide receiver/returner Devin Hester. Urlacher, considered by many to be the face of the franchise, signed for four more seasons but would like his contract upgraded. Hester had outperformed the four-year pact he signed as a second-round pick in 2006.

[Chewie]

Good news. Now lets get Hester done.

[WEFFPIM]

Good

[Posey H8er]

I'm glad he'll be a Bear for a while.

But I'm still angry about Gould's extension. And what do people think Hester will get? He's basically only been a returner and a sub par wide receiver in the league.

[dougthonus]

Wow that's an awfully steep price to pay Harris given his injury history.

I'm happy we got the deal done, but to set the record for money given to a DT after he's been injured the past 2 years is more than I'd have wanted to do.

[dingojazz]

How can you say that is a steep price to pay? He is one of the best DT's in the league, only 25 years old, and has started 56 games in 4 years. He plays a position that is critical to the success of our defense.

I know he has had a couple of injury problems but he does play Defensive Tackle in the NFL, people are going to get banged up and miss a game or 2.

The Super Bowl would have been a different game if he were playing.

[dougthonus]

How can you say that is a steep price to pay?

If the highest contract in the history of the league to a player of his position does not qualify as 'steep' to you, then what would qualify?

He is one of the best DT's in the league

Given that he is now the highest paid DT in the history of the league, one would certainly hope so.

I know he has had a couple of injury problems but he does play Defensive Tackle in the NFL, people are going to get banged up and miss a game or 2.

He had a major injury 2 years ago, and last year he had one that he played through the whole year. Both were related to his legs and could cause further concern with injuries. His performance last year seemed hampered due to the injury to me.

[dougthonus]

Again, I'm not complaining about Harris who may be my favorite Bear. I just think paying him a record contract was a tough pill to swallow given his injury situation.

[CBS7]

I agree with doug, but I could definitely understand it. The guy is possibly THE best DT in the league when he's healthy.

Problem is he wasn't healthy all of last year after the first 3 games, at least he didn't look like it. Probably should have taken the time off. And the year before he missed 4 games and the playoffs, I believe.

[CBS7]

Anyways, its still a good move. At least he's a Bear.

[G I N T]

Wow. Didn't expect something like this... but I'd definitely rather overpay to keep him here.

[dingojazz]

Again, I'm not complaining about Harris who may be my favorite Bear. I just think paying him a record contract was a tough pill to swallow given his injury situation.

I can understand where you are coming from, I just think the market determined the price. Keep in mind that Tommy Kelly, a much inferior player to Harris, signed a 7 year deal for 50.5 million. Jared Allen got paid a 6 year deal for 72 million. I know DE's are valued differently but it just shows how much bigger contracts are getting.

Of course it's critical for Harris to stay healthy, but obviously the team felt his past injuries are not a concern and he has a clean bill of health. His more serious hamstring/knee injury was 2 years ago, and he has shown he can play when hurt.

I think he could have finished out the season last year had the team been in playoff contention.

Bottom line, it would have been a mejor headache and distraction to deal with putting a franchise tag on him, and stretching this out for 2 or 3 more years. I'm glad he's a Bear for 4 more years.

[dougthonus]

It's hard to compare a 7/50.5 or a 6/72 to Harris's deal without understanding how the contracts are loaded as well. Which years are easily voidable in those deals without hurting your cap?

Harris's deal I believe said that he had 27 million over the first 3 years, which makes it sound like the 4th year would be for 13 million and probably pretty easily voidable making the deal possibly far easier to swallow

I'm also glad he's a bear, make no mistake about that. If healthy, I'd take him over any other DT in the league I think.

[Posey H8er]

With a healthy Tommie Harris and Mike Brown we could have stopped Peyton Manning's drives in the SB and won. With a healthy Tommie Harris and Mike Brown this year we can do some damage in the NFC North.

[TNBT]

I'm a big fan of Tommie Harris, so I'm glad we have him for another 4 years. The main comment I wanted to make though regards contracts in general. I read all the time about how players have "out-performed" their current deals and want new and bigger ones. Isn't the point of a contract that it is a binding agreement between two parties? Like if one party has the right to demand more money because they think they're now worth more than they signed for, then shouldn't the team be able to demand to reduce a players contract if they perform worse than expected?