PDA

View Full Version : Looking Ahead to a Possible Contract Extension for Steelers RB Le'Veon Bell



tube517
01-19-2016, 04:17 PM
http://www.steelersdepot.com/2016/01/looking-ahead-to-a-possible-contract-extension-for-steelers-rb-leveon-bell/

ALLD
01-19-2016, 05:12 PM
They should sign him.

steelreserve
01-19-2016, 05:47 PM
I know I'll sound like a dick for saying it, but the smart business move would be to have him play out next year on his rookie deal, franchise him in 2017, and THEN work out a long-term contract (possibly before the start of 2017 in place of the tag, since I'd expect the costs for both to be about equal). That saves us between $5-10M that we could really really really REALLY use in the immediate short term.

I mean, his market value isn't getting any higher if we wait until next year to sign him; it'll be the RB max contract regardless. Might as well enjoy another year of the rookie contract structure, since that's the reason it was put in place, instead of conceding the competitive advantage you get from making a good draft pick.

86WARD
01-19-2016, 05:48 PM
I know I'll sound like a dick for saying it, but the smart business move would be to have him play out next year on his rookie deal, franchise him in 2017, and THEN work out a long-term contract (possibly before the start of 2017 in place of the tag, since I'd expect the costs for both to be about equal). That saves us between $5-10M that we could really really really REALLY use in the immediate short term.

I mean, his market value isn't getting any higher if we wait until next year to sign him; it'll be the RB max contract regardless. Might as well enjoy another year of the rookie contract structure, since that's the reason it was put in place, instead of conceding the competitive advantage you get from making a good draft pick.

This.

polamalubeast
01-19-2016, 06:02 PM
I know I'll sound like a dick for saying it, but the smart business move would be to have him play out next year on his rookie deal, franchise him in 2017, and THEN work out a long-term contract (possibly before the start of 2017 in place of the tag, since I'd expect the costs for both to be about equal). That saves us between $5-10M that we could really really really REALLY use in the immediate short term.

I mean, his market value isn't getting any higher if we wait until next year to sign him; it'll be the RB max contract regardless. Might as well enjoy another year of the rookie contract structure, since that's the reason it was put in place, instead of conceding the competitive advantage you get from making a good draft pick.

It would not be smart, since his cap hit would be higher after 2016 if the Steelers sign Bell in 2017.Signing Bell is a priority and I am confident that Bell will sign in this offseason.


If the Steelers sign Bell 45 million for 5 years (an example), his contract will be like being 6 years 46 million because of his rookie deal, so it would be between 7-8 million per year instead of 9 millions per year, if we wait a year, it could be more expensive especially if Bell has a better season than 2014, which is very possible.

Psycho Ward 86
01-19-2016, 06:23 PM
I know I'll sound like a dick for saying it, but the smart business move would be to have him play out next year on his rookie deal, franchise him in 2017, and THEN work out a long-term contract (possibly before the start of 2017 in place of the tag, since I'd expect the costs for both to be about equal). That saves us between $5-10M that we could really really really REALLY use in the immediate short term.

I mean, his market value isn't getting any higher if we wait until next year to sign him; it'll be the RB max contract regardless. Might as well enjoy another year of the rookie contract structure, since that's the reason it was put in place, instead of conceding the competitive advantage you get from making a good draft pick.

i mostly agree with this.

I might be in the minority but im more anxious to get AB a new deal. People who take AB for granted incoming...

steelreserve
01-20-2016, 02:53 PM
It would not be smart, since his cap hit would be higher after 2016 if the Steelers sign Bell in 2017.Signing Bell is a priority and I am confident that Bell will sign in this offseason.


If the Steelers sign Bell 45 million for 5 years (an example), his contract will be like being 6 years 46 million because of his rookie deal, so it would be between 7-8 million per year instead of 9 millions per year, if we wait a year, it could be more expensive especially if Bell has a better season than 2014, which is very possible.


I just don't see an appreciable difference between what his market value will be this offseason versus what it will be next offseason. He's obviously one of the best backs in the league and that's the money he'll get. Only difference is that if we sign him now, his cap hit NEXT year goes up from $600,000 and change to at least a few million. The next 1-2 years are where we really need the space badly.




i mostly agree with this.

I might be in the minority but im more anxious to get AB a new deal. People who take AB for granted incoming...


If it ain't broke, don't fix it ...

Psycho Ward 86
01-20-2016, 03:07 PM
I just don't see an appreciable difference between what his market value will be this offseason versus what it will be next offseason. He's obviously one of the best backs in the league and that's the money he'll get. Only difference is that if we sign him now, his cap hit NEXT year goes up from $600,000 and change to at least a few million. The next 1-2 years are where we really need the space badly.






If it ain't broke, don't fix it ...

He's been the best receiver in the league for 3 years and he's being outpaid by 17 other receiver

SteelerFanInStl
01-20-2016, 03:31 PM
He's been the best receiver in the league for 3 years and he's being outpaid by 17 other receiver

I agree. AB has earned every penny of his current contract and quite a bit more. The man deserves to get paid.

steelreserve
01-20-2016, 04:06 PM
He's been the best receiver in the league for 3 years and he's being outpaid by 17 other receiver


I agree. AB has earned every penny of his current contract and quite a bit more. The man deserves to get paid.


So what? If he'll play for the $10M on the deal he signed, let him play for $10M. If a guy's outperforming his contract, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A GOOD CONTRACT FOR YOU. If you re-work it, you are simply giving up the advantage you gained by having the foresight to make that deal. Just like we'd be giving it up by giving Bell a new deal a year too soon.

I mean, is the team supposed to live with all the bad contracts and relinquish the benefits of all the good ones? You don't see Lamarr Woodley or Cortez Allen volunteering to give back their signing bonuses because they underperformed horribly.

You are under no obligation to hand out money just to be nice. That's why it's a business. No apologies.

As a fan, if you ask me whether I'd rather see a couple guys make a little less than they maybe deserve, and have the $4M or $5M to go get that decent cornerback or nose tackle and win the Super Bowl - or whether I'd rather give up a shot at a championship so that everyone can be highly paid ... I don't know how to put that, except are you fucking kidding me?

The fact that, regardless of what contracts other guys have signed in the meantime, Brown is still very well paid - better than 90+% of other NFL players - removes any other remaining sympathy I might have had for his side in this situation.

Craic
01-20-2016, 04:07 PM
i mostly agree with this.

I might be in the minority but im more anxious to get AB a new deal. People who take AB for granted incoming...

It's not about taking AB for granted. It's about AB taking a risk on himself and signing a contract where the Rooneys put themselves on the line and gave a very large contract to a somewhat unproven WR at the time. Their gamble paid off. Good for them. AB got a load of money, good for him (and don't forget up-front money in signing bonuses, etc).

AB will get a new contract, probably one year before becoming a FA, just like the Rooneys do with pretty much every other player. Doing anything else sets a precedent that will open the door to multiple holdouts and posturing. Maybe that's why we've had only what, 2, maybe 3 over the last 20 or so years? Wallace, Ward, Foster . . .

plenewken
01-21-2016, 09:27 AM
So what? If he'll play for the $10M on the deal he signed, let him play for $10M. If a guy's outperforming his contract, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A GOOD CONTRACT FOR YOU. If you re-work it, you are simply giving up the advantage you gained by having the foresight to make that deal. Just like we'd be giving it up by giving Bell a new deal a year too soon.

I mean, is the team supposed to live with all the bad contracts and relinquish the benefits of all the good ones? You don't see Lamarr Woodley or Cortez Allen volunteering to give back their signing bonuses because they underperformed horribly.

You are under no obligation to hand out money just to be nice. That's why it's a business. No apologies.

As a fan, if you ask me whether I'd rather see a couple guys make a little less than they maybe deserve, and have the $4M or $5M to go get that decent cornerback or nose tackle and win the Super Bowl - or whether I'd rather give up a shot at a championship so that everyone can be highly paid ... I don't know how to put that, except are you fucking kidding me?

The fact that, regardless of what contracts other guys have signed in the meantime, Brown is still very well paid - better than 90+% of other NFL players - removes any other remaining sympathy I might have had for his side in this situation.

:clap2::amen:

Rotorhead
01-21-2016, 11:19 AM
I like the idea about waiting on Bell, honestly we will not have a better opportunity to make a SB run than next year. We won't be mortgaging our future or anything, but we need very few key pieces to complete this team as one of the most dominant in a long time. Next year is our year and in order to make a legit run we need those few pieces. Waiting a year to resign Bell gives us the cap room to take care of our few holes (starting CB being the main one and there will be several FA's). AB got the restructure he asked for (moving money to the front as guaranteed) already so he should be happy. The 2017 season is where I can see us taking several FA losses and our team will change significantly so there are several ?'s about how our team will look and how competitive it will be after next season. The time is now, and freeing up some cap room will make it happen, then that is what we need to do.

lipps83
01-21-2016, 12:40 PM
I am in the camp that Bell is not a necessity on this team. I love Bell and think he is the best back in the league, but this offense has shown that there is not a significant drop in offensive production minus Bell.

I don't want to see the Steelers paying out 10 million or whatever per year on a nice-to-have where there are areas of the team which need to be significantly upgraded, badly.

I have a feeling the Steelers will wind up paying him and will keep plugging in retread free agents in the secondary hoping one or more will be an above average contributor.

steelreserve
01-21-2016, 01:39 PM
I am in the camp that Bell is not a necessity on this team. I love Bell and think he is the best back in the league, but this offense has shown that there is not a significant drop in offensive production minus Bell.

I don't want to see the Steelers paying out 10 million or whatever per year on a nice-to-have where there are areas of the team which need to be significantly upgraded, badly.

I have a feeling the Steelers will wind up paying him and will keep plugging in retread free agents in the secondary hoping one or more will be an above average contributor.


I hear you on that, but not sure if I agree. The reality is we won't get Bell for less than $8-9M a year, but if we do keep him, we'll have to let somebody good go.

What really settles it for me is: We didn't have Pouncey for the entire year, and look how well the offense did. If you could take the same amount of money and give it to either player but not both, which one would you pick as the more impactful? To me, a running back that adds a completely new dimension to the offense is far more valuable than one offensive lineman, no matter how good he is. I'd make that trade straight-up in a heartbeat.

Maybe I'd hesitate if this season hadn't shown we can succeed despite having an average center. But it's pretty obvious the key to the line isn't Pouncey, and it isn't Gilbert or Beachum or DeCastro - it's Munchak. As long as we have acceptable talent, we'll do pretty well there.

As luck would have it, this offseason is a no-go for moving Pouncey, but if you gave Bell a new contract starting in 2017 and factor in a couple million dollars for a likely increased salary cap, look how it fits in ...

http://overthecap.com/player/maurkice-pouncey/1621

If I were Rooney/Colbert, I'd be listening to trade offers for Pouncey the second the 2016 season ended. And I'd start thinking about bringing in a lineman who can play center, either by drafting one in the middle rounds this year, signing a low-priced utility player as a free agent, or even just kicking the tires on some practice-squad guys and giving Munchak some time to work with them.

One last thing to consider - if it was strictly a Bell/Pouncey tradeoff to consider, that could be settled this coming season if one of them, especially Pouncey, picks up a serious injury and misses most of the year.

Craic
01-21-2016, 01:55 PM
I hear you on that, but not sure if I agree. The reality is we won't get Bell for less than $8-9M a year, but if we do keep him, we'll have to let somebody good go.

What really settles it for me is: We didn't have Pouncey for the entire year, and look how well the offense did. If you could take the same amount of money and give it to either player but not both, which one would you pick as the more impactful? To me, a running back that adds a completely new dimension to the offense is far more valuable than one offensive lineman, no matter how good he is. I'd make that trade straight-up in a heartbeat.

Maybe I'd hesitate if this season hadn't shown we can succeed despite having an average center. But it's pretty obvious the key to the line isn't Pouncey, and it isn't Gilbert or Beachum or DeCastro - it's Munchak. As long as we have acceptable talent, we'll do pretty well there.

As luck would have it, this offseason is a no-go for moving Pouncey, but if you gave Bell a new contract starting in 2017 and factor in a couple million dollars for a likely increased salary cap, look how it fits in ...

http://overthecap.com/player/maurkice-pouncey/1621

If I were Rooney/Colbert, I'd be listening to trade offers for Pouncey the second the 2016 season ended. And I'd start thinking about bringing in a lineman who can play center, either by drafting one in the middle rounds this year, signing a low-priced utility player as a free agent, or even just kicking the tires on some practice-squad guys and giving Munchak some time to work with them.

One last thing to consider - if it was strictly a Bell/Pouncey tradeoff to consider, that could be settled this coming season if one of them, especially Pouncey, picks up a serious injury and misses most of the year.
My first response is to run, kicking and screaming "NO, NO, NO! Neither of them!"

Then, reality sets in and my next response is to admit, both of them have missed significant time over the last few years. Bell especially. So, in reality, how much do we lose if we drop one of them? When do we draw the line between (as I've mentioned in a different way in a different thread) potentiality and productivity? There's no doubt both players are stars, and both deserve big contracts for what they can do on the field. But I'm starting to wonder if it's worth keeping both contracts.

And then . . . my third response is to again run kicking and screaming, "Don't you remember the Mahan/Hartwig fiasco!" and "How can you forget the Slow Willie, Mendenfall, Dookie, and Dwyer years?"

Conflicted? Yeah, definitely.

Rotorhead
01-21-2016, 02:05 PM
Well the idea now is we don't have to make the decision for either Pouncey or Bell for next season, we can afford to push it off one more year. We have the opportunity to win now, 2 years down the road will have significant changes due to FA so who knows. Our window is now, not many teams get to the point of making minor upgrades to make an odds on favorite to win the SB like we do. If we don't take this opportunity now it may not come up this good for another several years.

steelreserve
01-21-2016, 02:09 PM
My first response is to run, kicking and screaming "NO, NO, NO! Neither of them!"

Then, reality sets in and my next response is to admit, both of them have missed significant time over the last few years. Bell especially. So, in reality, how much do we lose if we drop one of them? When do we draw the line between (as I've mentioned in a different way in a different thread) potentiality and productivity? There's no doubt both players are stars, and both deserve big contracts for what they can do on the field. But I'm starting to wonder if it's worth keeping both contracts.

And then . . . my third response is to again run kicking and screaming, "Don't you remember the Mahan/Hartwig fiasco!" and "How can you forget the Slow Willie, Mendenfall, Dookie, and Dwyer years?"

Conflicted? Yeah, definitely.


To all of that, I'd say the difference is Munchak. I mean, two years ago we had exactly the same players and the offensive line was a piece of shit. The same players! He gives me a level of confidence that we'll probably do at least OK even if we have to replace some people. And if anyone can evaluate whether a replacement player has what it takes or not, it's probably him.

It's probably also no coincidence that we've been getting decent production out of our second- and third-string running backs while Munchak's been around. Would a guy like Toussaint be successful behind our old offensive line? Probably not; it'd be 1-yard Willie all over again.

Bottom line: As long as we have Munchak, Pouncey is replaceable. Without Munchak, the line was a mess no matter how many star players and high draft picks we had. You had five guys all playing like individual players doing their own thing, so it didn't matter how talented any of them were; the whole thing was a colossal shitfuck. Somehow he fixed that, and look at the cascading effect it's had.

We need to keep that guy no matter what it takes. If he wants a solid gold toilet installed at the 50-yard line, find a way to do it.

Count Steeler
01-21-2016, 02:19 PM
Beachum at 6-8 million would be ideal. He can play any position along the O Line and has.

Williams made it easy to think about going without Bell, but is Williams a long term answer?

Unless Bell's agent comes up with a sweet deal, let Bell prove he can play a full season, don't play him against the Bengals and let's see how the season goes.

Craic
01-21-2016, 03:28 PM
Bottom line: As long as we have Munchak, Pouncey is replaceable. Without Munchak, the line was a mess no matter how many star players and high draft picks we had. You had five guys all playing like individual players doing their own thing, so it didn't matter how talented any of them were; the whole thing was a colossal shitfuck. Somehow he fixed that, and look at the cascading effect it's had.

We need to keep that guy no matter what it takes. If he wants a solid gold toilet installed at the 50-yard line, find a way to do it.

This, I absolutely agree with. The question, however, is just how much better would the line have been with Pouncey. Does he affect the blocking schemes enough that Ben might have not gotten hurt? (not that it was necessarily the center's fault, but that by having a much better center playing, there's more help available across the line). How many of those runs that went for little yardage would have gone for more?

Again, I'm disagreeing with you on Munchak's importance. I just can't see Munchak being able to turn Hartwig or Mahan into Cody Wallace, let alone Pouncey. So there's still a level of talent necessary, and I really don't want to go searching for it across the line again.

steelreserve
01-21-2016, 03:57 PM
This, I absolutely agree with. The question, however, is just how much better would the line have been with Pouncey. Does he affect the blocking schemes enough that Ben might have not gotten hurt? (not that it was necessarily the center's fault, but that by having a much better center playing, there's more help available across the line). How many of those runs that went for little yardage would have gone for more?

Again, I'm disagreeing with you on Munchak's importance. I just can't see Munchak being able to turn Hartwig or Mahan into Cody Wallace, let alone Pouncey. So there's still a level of talent necessary, and I really don't want to go searching for it across the line again.


Oh yeah, no doubt about that. Munchak may be good, but there has to be SOME talent there to work with. I'm just thinking we'll be OK with an average player like Wallace, and since we already have one (Wallace), that's our floor. It's also important to note that I'm not advocating going with ALL average players; it definitely helps to have DeCastro and Gilbert in there playing better than that. But when we've got a hard choice to make, we can deal with losing one guy.

What Munchak can also hopefully do is recognize the next Hartwig or Mahan before we sign them, and prevent that from happening.

fansince'76
01-21-2016, 04:07 PM
Been rethinking my take on this a bit lately.

While I think Munchak is a great coach, is he really ALL that, or were his predecessors just that bad? I happen to think it's a bit of both. We've been dealing with incompetence in Munchak's current position for so long that now that we finally have someone who knows what he's doing, his competence is actually magnified.

steelreserve
01-21-2016, 05:06 PM
Been rethinking my take on this a bit lately.

While I think Munchak is a great coach, is he really ALL that, or were his predecessors just that bad? I happen to think it's a bit of both. We've been dealing with incompetence in Munchak's current position for so long that now that we finally have someone who knows what he's doing, his competence is actually magnified.


Well, whichever it is, he's improved our personnel situation significantly. Now we at least get the production out of guys that we ought to, whereas before OL was just a black hole that ate up money and draft picks. Kind of like OLB is for us now. At any rate, having that confidence counts for a lot.

lipps83
01-21-2016, 06:57 PM
Munchak doesn't account against the cap. Sign Munchak to a huge deal to stay as line coach.

Trade Bell and Pouncey this off-season. Should get a 1st for each. Draft defense with each of the 3 1st rounders. NT, S and CB instantly upgraded. NT improves OLB by default.

Win Super Bowl 3x in a row.

I like that.

Someone call the Rooney's.

Psycho Ward 86
01-21-2016, 07:29 PM
Munchak doesn't account against the cap. Sign Munchak to a huge deal to stay as line coach.

Trade Bell and Pouncey this off-season. Should get a 1st for each. Draft defense with each of the 3 1st rounders. NT, S and CB instantly upgraded. NT improves OLB by default.

Win Super Bowl 3x in a row.

I like that.

Someone call the Rooney's.

ok trade both of them? sorry but that just seems like a Chip Kelly level of crazy. By trading a player for draft picks you're essentially counting on that draft pick to match or exceed the player, or at least be so good at whatever position the draft pick plays that it more than compensates for the loss of Bell and/or Pouncey.

You dont trade young players that are arguably the best at their respective positions like that. you pay for their services and let guys like jarvis jones go. or make tough decisions like cutting Timmons since he's going to be 31 and counts for $15 million against the cap, and we have 2 solid linebackers behind him.

steelreserve
01-22-2016, 11:36 AM
Munchak doesn't account against the cap. Sign Munchak to a huge deal to stay as line coach.

Trade Bell and Pouncey this off-season. Should get a 1st for each. Draft defense with each of the 3 1st rounders. NT, S and CB instantly upgraded. NT improves OLB by default.

Win Super Bowl 3x in a row.

I like that.

Someone call the Rooney's.


While I would love that draft strategy and agree with doing whatever we can to keep Munchak, this offseason is not the time to do anything with Pouncey or Bell. Trading Pouncey would cost more dead money than we'd save this year; we wouldn't save anything until next offseason. Trading Bell while he's only costing us $600K would just be flat-out stupid.

Mojouw
01-22-2016, 11:39 AM
No team ever is going to trade a 1st round draft pick for a center or a running back.

But, Herschel Walker, and Ricky Williams! And those trades were decades ago. To get a 1st round pick for a player these days you need to dangle a young WR, LT, QB, or edge rusher.

steelreserve
01-22-2016, 12:12 PM
No team ever is going to trade a 1st round draft pick for a center or a running back.

But, Herschel Walker, and Ricky Williams! And those trades were decades ago. To get a 1st round pick for a player these days you need to dangle a young WR, LT, QB, or edge rusher.


I'm not suggesting it to be likely by any means, but - someone might do it under the right circumstances, like if they were planning on drafting a center anyway. You see a center taken in the first round about 50% of the time, so if you were planning on doing that, you might say hey, might as well pick up a known All-Pro.

Although that still means it'd be unlikely, since there'd probably only be one or two potential trade partners, and they'd have to be drafting near the end of the first round. And with Pouncey it'd be even more difficult, because you have the injury history to worry about and the big contract to consider. Honestly, if I was looking for a center, I'd probably take my chances with the draft pick; usually a center picked that high is can't-miss, and would be younger and far less expensive.

So yeah, Pouncey would probably net a second-rounder at best, more likely a mid-round pick with potential strings attached, like a 4th that becomes a 3rd if he starts 10 games, etc. In that light, we probably wouldn't do a trade anyway unless it was the ONLY way to keep Bell. And a player-for-player trade would be the better way to do it.

hawaiiansteeler
01-26-2016, 09:09 PM
Mike: Do they pay Bell next year? Last 4 teams standing didnt have a 1000 yard rusher.

Ed Bouchette: I think they will make him an offer this year, but he and his agents do not necessarily have to take it. It won't be a break-bank offer if they do.

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2016/01/26/Ed-Bouchette-s-Steelers-chat-transcript-1-26-16/stories/201601260182

86WARD
01-27-2016, 07:59 AM
I don't see Bell staying here past this contract...

SteelersProfessor
01-27-2016, 10:33 AM
I don't either. He's been beat up in this offense.

Need to go back to the Whiz/BA model: Every 3rd series, the #2 back plays, whither he gets the ball or not. Also get an exclusive 3rd down back.

This team blew it two years ago when they let Darren Sproles slip through their fingers. He also would have saved AB from punt return duty as well.

If he's released in Philly, we better get on the phone ASAP.

Born2Steel
01-27-2016, 10:38 AM
I know I'll sound like a dick for saying it, but the smart business move would be to have him play out next year on his rookie deal, franchise him in 2017, and THEN work out a long-term contract (possibly before the start of 2017 in place of the tag, since I'd expect the costs for both to be about equal). That saves us between $5-10M that we could really really really REALLY use in the immediate short term.

I mean, his market value isn't getting any higher if we wait until next year to sign him; it'll be the RB max contract regardless. Might as well enjoy another year of the rookie contract structure, since that's the reason it was put in place, instead of conceding the competitive advantage you get from making a good draft pick.

Agreed. Plus...consider how many more knee injuries can he take before he's no longer the same runner. Stretch out his rookie contract as far as you can.

tube517
01-27-2016, 11:30 AM
I don't either. He's been beat up in this offense.

Need to go back to the Whiz/BA model: Every 3rd series, the #2 back plays, whither he gets the ball or not. Also get an exclusive 3rd down back.

This team blew it two years ago when they let Darren Sproles slip through their fingers. He also would have saved AB from punt return duty as well.

If he's released in Philly, we better get on the phone ASAP.

That is still the plan, even under Haley, but it seems the way the game flow goes, they back away.

SteelersProfessor
01-27-2016, 11:50 AM
It's not even close to the same. DW barely saw the field when Bell came back, not just in touches, but lack of snaps.

Rams game was Bell's first game, they ran 63 plays. DW saw 5 snaps. Chargers? 9 snaps. Cardinals? 2 snaps. Chiefs? 10 snaps.

tube517
01-27-2016, 11:53 AM
It's not even close to the same. DW barely saw the field when Bell came back, not just in touches, but lack of snaps.

Rams game was Bell's first game, they ran 63 plays. DW saw 5 snaps. Chargers? 9 snaps. Cardinals? 2 snaps. Chiefs? 10 snaps.

Never said it was the same. I said that was the plan. Now, Haley executing that plan is a different story.