Steelers target Alejandro Villanueva for long-term deal

[pczach]

If he doesn't suffer a major injury, I believe he will be good well into his thirties. He's a very athletic big man. Guys like that generally hold up well. Plus the fact that he really should have a lot of tread on the tires from not playing a ton of football.

Remember, he hasn't been playing the position for that long. His technique is improving, and that will continue to help him improve and lengthen his career. If they're redoing his contract, then sign him to a 5-year contract through 2021. If he signs at a reasonable salary that is below top 10 dollars, they would be silly not to make it five years IMO.

[AtlantaDan]

Im on board. Although I would definitely drop the 5 year hypothetical to 3 years. Villanueva has essentially only been a starter for 1.5 seasons, and he wasnt playing well in his 1st couple of starts in both seasons. Not to mention he'll be 29 at the beginning of next season.

If he doesn't suffer a major injury, I believe he will be good well into his thirties. He's a very athletic big man. Guys like that generally hold up well. Plus the fact that he really should have a lot of tread on the tires from not playing a ton of football.

Remember, he hasn't been playing the position for that long. His technique is improving, and that will continue to help him improve and lengthen his career. If they're redoing his contract, then sign him to a 5-year contract through 2021. If he signs at a reasonable salary that is below top 10 dollars, they would be silly not to make it five years IMO.

Agree with pczach

Not that being deployed to Afghanistan is a walk in the park, but since AV was active duty military from 2010 - 2014 after graduating from West Point he arguably is not as beat up as your typical 29 year old offensive lineman.

And given that most contracts of offensive line starters go for more than three years (for reasons including amortizing the guaranteed signing bonus for cap purposes) I think a three year contract would be a non-starter for both AV and the Steelers. With a three year contract, in 2020 the Steelers then would have 3 current OL starters going to free agency. Since only the bonus along with the first year of the contract are guaranteed the Steelers could always release him if he does not meet the expected standard in the later years of the contract no matter how long it would be, with only the amortized bonus being dead money.

[Psycho Ward 86]

hmm. i guess im down with the 5 year contract with the scenarios given then. i just hope the money is backloaded heavily. i dont want the contract becoming a potential problem while Ben is still here.

[steelreserve]

If he doesn't suffer a major injury, I believe he will be good well into his thirties. He's a very athletic big man. Guys like that generally hold up well. Plus the fact that he really should have a lot of tread on the tires from not playing a ton of football.

Remember, he hasn't been playing the position for that long. His technique is improving, and that will continue to help him improve and lengthen his career. If they're redoing his contract, then sign him to a 5-year contract through 2021. If he signs at a reasonable salary that is below top 10 dollars, they would be silly not to make it five years IMO.

6-foot-9, 300-pound men are notorious for developing knee problems. It's simply a matter of math - twice as much strain on a surface area that stays the same. Also they tend to get back problems because of their height, for similar reasons. It's true that he's got a few less year of getting beat up in football games, but I would say there's just as much risk of injury as any other player.

hmm. i guess im down with the 5 year contract with the scenarios given then. i just hope the money is backloaded heavily. i dont want the contract becoming a potential problem while Ben is still here.

If they do it, I'm sure they will backload it - they do with pretty much all their long-term deals anyway. Or make some of it into option years. They'd be fools to give up any cap space they actually needed, especially since this deal is almost entirely optional on their part.

[teegre]

There's no appreciable difference between the third-best and 7th-best, it's like $12M versus $11.5M.

Figure it this way: If we paid him top-10 money, that's still over $10M a year. Say we give him a 5-year contract, that's $50M total.

Then take $9.5 million (the difference between ERFA and a top-10 lineman for 1 year) and another $7.2 million (the difference between Round 1 RFA and a top-10 lineman for 1 year), and you get $17 million - that's our potential "gift" to him by not being hard-asses. A third of the contract.

So, 5 years, $33M would be my starting point. You can then argue that he should get more because the salary cap would be expected to go up, or maybe because he might have potential to improve to a top-5 LT (although the difference between that and top-10 would be only a couple million).

Then you can argue in the other direction, that getting the deal NOW is a huge benefit to the player, because two seasons of low pay with high injury chance, followed by turning 30 at the end of your RFA year, means there would be a significant chance you'd NEVER get a big NFL contract. So that could be worth several million the other way.

Personally, I think all of that almost balances out, so something in the ballpark of 5 years, $35 million would be fair. In reality, it'll probably be closer to 5 years, $40 million. Keep in mind, that's as much as Antonio Brown.

First off... it is crazy that $500,000 per year is seen as not a significant difference. (I'd do a LOT for $500,000 )

Anyway...

If the "Top 7 money" is $11.5 million/year, for the three years that he is a free agent, that's already $34.5 million, which is only half a million less than the amount that you suggested ($35 million) for five years. Only $500,00 for two years??? That's not gonna work.

(Again, I'd take $250,000 per year!!!)

So, if we add in the $540,000 minimum for year one, plus the RFA price tag of $1.5 million, that gets us up to a minimum (IMO) of five years/$37 million.

Maxing out (the other end) would be $60 million.

SUMMATION:
Half way between $37 million and $60 million is $53.5 million. Considering that the Steelers don't have to do anything (they have leverage) five years/$50 million seems reasonable... although, I'd be perfectly fine with giving him five years/$55 million.

[Born2Steel]

That would be $48.5. Halfway between 37 and 60 is 48.5. (Had to, OCD kicked in).

[teegre]

That would be $48.5. Halfway between 37 and 60 is 48.5. (Had to, OCD kicked in).

[steelreserve]

First off... it is crazy that $500,000 per year is seen as not a significant difference. (I'd do a LOT for $500,000 )

Anyway...

If the "Top 7 money" is $11.5 million/year, for the three years that he is a free agent, that's already $34.5 million, which is only half a million less than the amount that you suggested ($35 million) for five years. Only $500,00 for two years??? That's not gonna work.

(Again, I'd take $250,000 per year!!!)

So, if we add in the $540,000 minimum for year one, plus the RFA price tag of $1.5 million, that gets us up to a minimum (IMO) of five years/$37 million.

Maxing out (the other end) would be $60 million.

SUMMATION:
Half way between $37 million and $60 million is $53.5 million. Considering that the Steelers don't have to do anything (they have leverage) five years/$50 million seems reasonable... although, I'd be perfectly fine with giving him five years/$55 million.

I mean, that's getting yourself like a 10% discount over full retail (assuming he actually is that good and stays that good, a big IF) while giving up 50% in the process. We'll give him more than the bare minimum I came up with, but I don't think it's going to be that much. If it's much over $40M, we probably messed up. Because really, if we offer that and he turns it down, what's he gonna do? Play for the minimum and then get offered the same contract next year?

I mean, he COULD play on the minimum deal and gamble that he hits it out of the park, so he gets his market value to like $12M a year instead of $8-10M. But he's already given back $8M by not signing the original deal, so it's still hard to come out ahead. If he plays himself out of our price range, then we RFA him in 2018, and it's guaranteed he wouldn't. If he blows out his knee in the meantime, the whole things goes poof.

Again, not advocating the all-out cheapo approach (if I was, I'd just say force him to play 2 years for cheap and then franchise him), but that's why there's value to the player in securing the big deal early, even if it's for a little less than your jackpot free-market maximum. That's why Brown signed his deal and why I think this is probably going to be more like 30-35% off of full market value, not 10%.

[teegre]

I mean, that's getting yourself like a 10% discount over full retail (assuming he actually is that good and stays that good, a big IF) while giving up 50% in the process. We'll give him more than the bare minimum I came up with, but I don't think it's going to be that much. If it's much over $40M, we probably messed up. Because really, if we offer that and he turns it down, what's he gonna do? Play for the minimum and then get offered the same contract next year?

I mean, he COULD play on the minimum deal and gamble that he hits it out of the park, so he gets his market value to like $12M a year instead of $8-10M. But he's already given back $8M by not signing the original deal, so it's still hard to come out ahead. If he plays himself out of our price range, then we RFA him in 2018, and it's guaranteed he wouldn't. If he blows out his knee in the meantime, the whole things goes poof.

Again, not advocating the all-out cheapo approach (if I was, I'd just say force him to play 2 years for cheap and then franchise him), but that's why there's value to the player in securing the big deal early, even if it's for a little less than your jackpot free-market maximum. That's why Brown signed his deal and why I think this is probably going to be more like 30-35% off of full market value, not 10%.

$37 million would be the minimum he'd earn if he plays for his $540,000, the RFA $1.5 million, and gets $12 million for the following three seasons.

$40 million is only $3 million more, which is less than a million per season. I don't see the Steelers offering that little, nor do I see AV taking that deal (and, IMO, he deserves more).

$9 million/season = $45 million
$9.7 million/season = $48.5 million
$10 million/season = $50 million
$11 million/season = $55 million
$12 million/season = $60 million

The bolded is the middle point, which would be a 50% discount.

Honestly, I think it will be right around that number... and I'd be very happy if it was. Of course, like I said, I'd even be fine with $11 million/season. But, this is not a charity; so, $9.5-$9.7 million is the most likely outcome.

[steelreserve]

$37 million would be the minimum he'd earn if he plays for his $540,000, the RFA $1.5 million, and gets $12 million for the following three seasons.

$40 million is only $3 million more, which is less than a million per season. I don't see the Steelers offering that little, nor do I see AV taking that deal (and, IMO, he deserves more).

Why wouldn't they, and why wouldn't he? That's locking in the $12M a year now, or a good chunk of it. (said another way: you're taking your $500,000 this year and $2-3M next year and turning them into $8M each, and you're not getting cut in the first 3 seasons.)

Otherwise, it's play for the crap salary for two years, and then hope someone is willing to pay you $12M a year, which you make sound like a sure thing but definitely isn't. There's not a better deal for him on the market. Paying him $10M a season average right now is crazy. We won't do it; there's no reason to. He's a good guy, but that would just be throwing money away. Hardball would be offering 3 years, $16M, which is all he'd get anyway. $40M for five is MORE than generous.

[AtlantaDan]

$37 million would be the minimum he'd earn if he plays for his $540,000, the RFA $1.5 million, and gets $12 million for the following three seasons.

$40 million is only $3 million more, which is less than a million per season. I don't see the Steelers offering that little, nor do I see AV taking that deal (and, IMO, he deserves more).

$9 million/season = $45 million
$9.7 million/season = $48.5 million
$10 million/season = $50 million
$11 million/season = $55 million
$12 million/season = $60 million

The bolded is the middle point, which would be a 50% discount.

Honestly, I think it will be right around that number... and I'd be very happy if it was. Of course, like I said, I'd even be fine with $11 million/season. But, this is not a charity; so, $9.5-$9.7 million is the most likely outcome.

Putting this news of Beachum signing with the Jets here with regard to what the market for left tackles is like these days

The Jets were forced to essentially guarantee Beachum 1.5 years by guaranteeing $4 million of his $8 million base salary for the 2018 season. They can get out of the other $4 million if Beachum absolutely falls flat on his face, but they're likely locked in for two years and $16 million as part of Beachum's three-year, $24 million pact.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page...gent-deals-nfl

If someone with Beachum's issues gets a three year deal at $8 million per year, seems like AV signs for north of $10 million per for a longer deal.

This signing of RT Ricky Wagner by the Lions seems to support that floor

The Lions' signing of Wagner is an indicator the league is about to catch up and treat right tackles more like the guys on the left side. It also means the Lions are moving on from Riley Reiff, their former first-round pick who played left tackle for four years before moving to the right side last year. They're reportedly paying in excess of $9 million per season, which would shatter the ceiling for the right tackle market.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page...gent-deals-nfl

[steelreserve]

If someone with Beachum's issues gets a three year deal at $8 million per year, seems like AV signs for north of $10 million per for a longer deal.

This signing of RT Ricky Wagner by the Lions seems to support that floor

Nope. That's the market for an UNRESTRICTED free agent left tackle. Villanueva is not only a restricted free agent, he's an exclusive rights free agent. There is no market.

Basically, take your $10M a year that a competent LT would get, and multiply it by the length of the contract. Then subtract $16-20M for the two years we're spotting him. More than that, and we fucked up.

[pczach]

Nope. That's the market for an UNRESTRICTED free agent left tackle. Villanueva is not only a restricted free agent, he's an exclusive rights free agent. There is no market.

Basically, take your $10M a year that a competent LT would get, and multiply it by the length of the contract. Then subtract $16-20M for the two years we're spotting him. More than that, and we fucked up.

If they do what you suggest, what is the motivation for him to sign? If they subtract $16-20 mil like you suggest, why should he sign? He could finish out his contact and wait to hit the market that will probably have a cap that is $25 million higher than it is now, plus he will have all the leverage.

I just don't see the need to go hard ass on a war veteran that is rapidly improving and turning into a pro bowl player. He was playing as well as anyone in the league at the end of the season. They just need a number that makes both parties feel good.

[steelreserve]

If they do what you suggest, what is the motivation for him to sign? If they subtract $16-20 mil like you suggest, why should he sign? He could finish out his contact and wait to hit the market that will probably have a cap that is $25 million higher than it is now, plus he will have all the leverage.

I just don't see the need to go hard ass on a war veteran that is rapidly improving and turning into a pro bowl player. He was playing as well as anyone in the league at the end of the season. They just need a number that makes both parties feel good.

The motivation is that he guarantees now that he'll make the same as the maximum he'd earn if he did what you said.

He finishes out his contract, this year and next he's made $4-5 million total. Then he's an UFA, but whoops - franchise tag. So for those keeping score, that's 3 years, $16 million, playing on a year-to-year deal for the duration and hitting free agency at age 30, both things that I'm SURE most NFL players love, especially ones who have never gotten the chance to sign a "real" contract.

Now, most 30-year-old linemen don't get 5-year contracts, much less ones that pay them top dollar for the duration. Unless it's so full of funny money that he'll never see the last couple years. But let's say he gets a deal paying an average of $12M a year. Then at the end of 5 years he will have made $40 million. That's if he becomes a top-5 left tackle and stays that way, and doesn't get hurt - all pretty big assumptions.

So I proposed paying him the 5 years and $40 million now. Explain again how that's "hard ass"? Or how he'd even have a chance of getting more money somehow else?

No, he wouldn't; if anything he'd have a 90% chance of getting LESS money, so by giving it to him up front, we'd be doing him a gigantic goddamn favor. Any questions?

For reference, "hard ass" would be 3 years, $16M, take it or leave it. And that would STILL be better than his current situation.

[AtlantaDan]

Nope. That's the market for an UNRESTRICTED free agent left tackle. Villanueva is not only a restricted free agent, he's an exclusive rights free agent. There is no market.

Basically, take your $10M a year that a competent LT would get, and multiply it by the length of the contract. Then subtract $16-20M for the two years we're spotting him. More than that, and we fucked up.

If there is no market why are the Steelers even saying they are interested in a deal rather than just pay him the minimum required?

I do not think trying to stick him with a below market deal is going to get him to the negotiating table and the market is not going to go down in future years.

AV already is indicating his life will go on just fine if he does not stay with the Steelers forever based on this January article, so their leverage might not be as great as you presume if they want to keep him. Not everyone in that locker room is a West Point grad looking at a MBA as a fallback.

In explaining his approach to his future, Alejandro Villanueva dropped the term “present value analysis.” So, yes, the Steelers left tackle sounds ready for those MBA classes. Aside from exclusive rights free agency, Villanueva is going to start post-graduate work at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business....

“I’m 28 years old. I have to understand that this is not gonna pay my bills for the rest of my life.” ...

The potential for a huge payday further down the line is certainly present for Villanueva. Whether it comes in Pittsburgh, he has “absolutely no clue.” ...

“Hopefully I can get the trust from other teams or this team to continue to play, and play left tackle in the NFL.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/s...s/201701230154

[JimHarbaugh'ssoakedtissue]

Simple come up with a decent deal for him and get it done. Will save us a lot of money down the road.

[JimHarbaugh'ssoakedtissue]

Oh and he is still improving and don't think he hit his peak yet. With his size and when he reaches his peak, He maybe a beast down the road.

[pczach]

The motivation is that he guarantees now that he'll make the same as the maximum he'd earn if he did what you said.

He finishes out his contract, this year and next he's made $4-5 million total. Then he's an UFA, but whoops - franchise tag. So for those keeping score, that's 3 years, $16 million, playing on a year-to-year deal for the duration and hitting free agency at age 30, both things that I'm SURE most NFL players love, especially ones who have never gotten the chance to sign a "real" contract.

Now, most 30-year-old linemen don't get 5-year contracts, much less ones that pay them top dollar for the duration. Unless it's so full of funny money that he'll never see the last couple years. But let's say he gets a deal paying an average of $12M a year. Then at the end of 5 years he will have made $40 million. That's if he becomes a top-5 left tackle and stays that way, and doesn't get hurt - all pretty big assumptions.

So I proposed paying him the 5 years and $40 million now. Explain again how that's "hard ass"? Or how he'd even have a chance of getting more money somehow else?

No, he wouldn't; if anything he'd have a 90% chance of getting LESS money, so by giving it to him up front, we'd be doing him a gigantic goddamn favor. Any questions?

For reference, "hard ass" would be 3 years, $16M, take it or leave it. And that would STILL be better than his current situation.

Have you seen what has happened to the Redskins by using the franchise tag for multiple years at a premium position? The cap will go up, and so will the price.....significantly.

[Psycho Ward 86]

What do big-money LT contracts mean for Steelers' Alejandro Villanueva?

http://www.espn.com/blog/pittsburgh-...dro-villanueva

Villanueva is the only Steelers' ERFA listed as inactive in those player records. Save a mysterious site glitch, Villanueva's absence suggests he either hasn't signed his tender or has no plans to sign it.

Villanueva is a 28-year-old former Army Ranger who's currently earning a graduate degree at Carnegie Mellon University. Is it worth playing another year as a tackle on one of the league's best lines for the league minimum when the rest of the starting line comprises $33.05 million of the team's salary cap?

Maybe.

[steelreserve]

If there is no market why are the Steelers even saying they are interested in a deal rather than just pay him the minimum required?

Because there's also value in it for the team to: 1) Secure the position beyond year-to-year, and 2) Use the leverage they have RIGHT NOW to get a better deal for themselves while also improving the player's situation. Emphasis on point #2.

Again - 5 years, $40 million is not "below market," it's matching the highest he could get on the open market over the next 5 years and locking it in now. You would have to be a crackhead to turn that down if you were the player. You would also have to be stupid to offer much more than that. It is literally a win-win situation for everyone, Antonio Brown situation all over again.

If we pay a $10M-average or $12M-average deal that takes effect this season, literally the only thing we are doing is throwing money away. But of course we should do that, because of a market that isn't there or because everyone is suddenly concerned that he's such a great guy.

Have you seen what has happened to the Redskins by using the franchise tag for multiple years at a premium position? The cap will go up, and so will the price.....significantly.

Right, that's why I said we can keep him for 3 years, $16 million, which implies using the franchise tag ONCE. Past that point, he's probably too pissed to play for us anymore, and if we're not already looking for the replacement for our 31-year-old left tackle, we're also fucking up.

[AtlantaDan]

Because there's also value in it for the team to: 1) Secure the position beyond year-to-year, and 2) Use the leverage they have RIGHT NOW to get a better deal for themselves while also improving the player's situation. Emphasis on point #2.

Again - 5 years, $40 million is not "below market," it's matching the highest he could get on the open market over the next 5 years and locking it in now. You would have to be a crackhead to turn that down if you were the player. You would also have to be stupid to offer much more than that. It is literally a win-win situation for everyone, Antonio Brown situation all over again.

If we pay a $10M-average or $12M-average deal that takes effect this season, literally the only thing we are doing is throwing money away. But of course we should do that, because of a market that isn't there or because everyone is suddenly concerned that he's such a great guy.

Right, that's why I said we can keep him for 3 years, $16 million, which implies using the franchise tag ONCE. Past that point, he's probably too pissed to play for us anymore, and if we're not already looking for the replacement for our 31-year-old left tackle, we're also fucking up.

I humbly submit your perspective on turning down what you define to be a reasonable offer makes that person a "crackhead" reflects both your self-definition of what makes sense and the perspective of someone who frames up what is "reasonable" based upon salaries that non-professional athletes such as you and I earn as opposed to the monopoly $$ of pro sports

We define ourselves most often by our situation compared to that of our peers (a cashier would jump at the average salary for an attorney while that attorney regards himself as underpaid) and AV looks at the deals being signed now. In addition, one perspective I think everyone shares is that if we think our employer is trying to leverage a short term advantage into their long term gain at our expense we are not buying into it if we have alternatives

And as far as throwing $$$ away, you apparently assume pro football wages are like wages for most workers in our economy and are flat going forward - compare contracts signed in 2014 to those signed in 2017 or just google Aaron Rodgers/Mike Glennon



If AV wants to buy in to a 5 year deal now (a shorter deal probably causes issues on amortizing the bonus for cap purposes for the Steelers) he does not want buyer's remorse in 2 years

[Born2Steel]

What does AV think is fair? Is his side saying what they are looking for?

[Mojouw]

Lost in all this is what is the players perspective beyond just AV? If the Steelers are viewed as doing him "dirty" by pushing a below perceived value deal down his throat - what are the long term implications of that? How do other extension candidates and future FA's allow that to impact their own decision making processes.

One of the biggest things that came out of the AB contract saga was a sense by Brown and others both in and out of the Steelers locker-room that the franchise honored its word and did right by Brown.

Believe it or not, that is important and relevant to these types of situations. Now, how do outsiders/fans quantify that? Absolutely no idea.

[zulater]

What does AV think is fair? Is his side saying what they are looking for?

Fair is what your leverage is.

[Born2Steel]

Fair is what your leverage is.

I get that. Have any numbers been released by either camp? Do we know what he is asking, and what we are offering?

[steelreserve]

I humbly submit your perspective on turning down what you define to be a reasonable offer makes that person a "crackhead" reflects both your self-definition of what makes sense and the perspective of someone who frames up what is "reasonable" based upon salaries that non-professional athletes such as you and I earn as opposed to the monopoly $$ of pro sports

What I'm saying is reasonable is simply the maximum amount that he could make in the next five years playing professional football. That's what I'm suggesting we give him, not some lowball deal. He can't make more than that if he turned it down. It'd be almost impossible.

Yes, the salary cap will probably keep going up. What will that do to the salary of a top left tackle? Raise it a million bucks? Is that $2 million - maybe an extra 4 percent of the overall contract I'd suggest - worth the risk of losing it all by playing on a series of one-year deals the next three seasons (or by being too old to get a blockbuster deal when you finally are a UFA (or by actually not improving into a top-5 left tackle after all))? I don't know anyone in his right mind who would think that's a good risk.

I mean, yes, it's correct that a market-value contract for an unrestricted free agent top-5 LT would be north of $10M a year. But that's just not what's going on here.

Lost in all this is what is the players perspective beyond just AV? If the Steelers are viewed as doing him "dirty" by pushing a below perceived value deal down his throat - what are the long term implications of that? How do other extension candidates and future FA's allow that to impact their own decision making processes.

One of the biggest things that came out of the AB contract saga was a sense by Brown and others both in and out of the Steelers locker-room that the franchise honored its word and did right by Brown.

Believe it or not, that is important and relevant to these types of situations. Now, how do outsiders/fans quantify that? Absolutely no idea.

It's hard to say. I would think that it would be viewed positively - you're paying the guy two years early - but good luck getting people to like you for doing math. But players hate playing on one-year deals, and probably hate the league minimum even more.

What it ultimately boils down to is probably how the player himself feels and what he says to his teammates. AV sounds like a smart guy with a healthy perspective on life, which is why I eventually think a deal that's fair for both sides is what will get worked out. I also don't know if he'd sign a deal he didn't think was fair. Just seems that the definition of a "fair deal" is a point of debate. In the end, only he knows.

[AtlantaDan]

Lost in all this is what is the players perspective beyond just AV? If the Steelers are viewed as doing him "dirty" by pushing a below perceived value deal down his throat - what are the long term implications of that? How do other extension candidates and future FA's allow that to impact their own decision making processes.

One of the biggest things that came out of the AB contract saga was a sense by Brown and others both in and out of the Steelers locker-room that the franchise honored its word and did right by Brown.

Believe it or not, that is important and relevant to these types of situations. Now, how do outsiders/fans quantify that? Absolutely no idea.

It's a business and you can get away with a lot if you win

New England annually screws over at least one major player on their roster other than Brady but vets line up to play for them for the chance to get a ring. Of course Belichick likes to be perceived that way - not certain if the Rooneys want to burn their public image of being a family business by going down that road

Rooneys used to have rep for being cheap when they kept losing players in the 90s but that has changed since they moved into Heinz. Only player I recall they really wanted to keep who walked since 2001 was Plaxico Burress, but that was because they were not going to pay both Plax and Hines Ward.

[teegre]

Lost in all this is what is the players perspective beyond just AV? If the Steelers are viewed as doing him "dirty" by pushing a below perceived value deal down his throat - what are the long term implications of that? How do other extension candidates and future FA's allow that to impact their own decision making processes.

One of the biggest things that came out of the AB contract saga was a sense by Brown and others both in and out of the Steelers locker-room that the franchise honored its word and did right by Brown.

Believe it or not, that is important and relevant to these types of situations. Now, how do outsiders/fans quantify that? Absolutely no idea.

About a decade ago, the Steelers released/didn't re-sign a free agent (I forget who... maybe it was the special teams guy, Sean Morey???). Anyway, during the 2008 SuperBowl hype, he did an interview. He said that he was bummed about not getting re-signed, but he also said that the Steelers had always treated him fairly, and because of that, he bore no ill will towards them. "It was business, not personal."

Morey cited the Tommy Maddox deal, saying that the Rooneys always kept their promises... which (he said) meant a lot to the rest of the players (even though there was never a promise to bring Morey back).

Anyway, to answer you question, mojouw: YES.

[86WARD]

Lee Flowers said similar

[Psycho Ward 86]

Steelers' Villanueva Gets Another $300,000 Plus in Performance Based Pay

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2017/03...nce-based-pay/

(This doesn't count additional against the cap)