Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 272

Thread: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

  1. #151
    Administrator Array title="fansince'76 has a reputation beyond repute"> fansince'76's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Gender
    Posts
    24,127

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Secondaryconcerns View Post
    whats left to negotiate though , we know what he wants and its so far out of the realm of possibility the only thing left to do is laugh at his joke of demands of self worth ....

    the deadline was to get a long term deal done before the Tag officially kicks in ...

    Ike suggests he MIGHT hold out and really make a statement ... since the tag is unsigned wondering if we can rescind it if it lingers into the season ??

    I want this team focused on winning not on what Bell is doing ..last thing we need is a distraction
    Bingo. Ben's window (and as a result, the team's window) is closing rapidly, and that's what really matters at this point.

  2. #152
    Senior Member Array title="teegre has a reputation beyond repute"> teegre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    15,076

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Craic View Post
    Yes, but that's also if the issue is straight up figures. It sounds, however, like the issue was guaranteed money. Personally, I'd rather take a 3 mill a year cut from each of those figures but be guaranteed 40 or 50 percent of it.
    That's the thing, let's assume he does indeed get injured/cut (even though I find it likely that he doesn't get at least two years of his contract)...

    Year 1, Contract: $12 million
    Year 1, No contract: $12 million

    Year 2, Contract: 0
    Year 2, No contract: 0

    Not signing doesn't help him in the least (nor does it truly hurt him). That said, if he doesn't get injured, not signing could indeed end up hurting him...

    Contract: 2 years/$30 million
    No contract: 2 years/$26 million

    SUMMATION:
    As it is now, either way, he is not guaranteed anything beyond this season. Sure, the contract does not guarantee anything beyond that first year, but it does have a lofty salary of $18 million... which would be $4 million more than his current situation. Plus, more importantly, The Rooney are like The Lannisters: they always pay their debts. (As in: there is little chance that Bell doesn't see at least the first two years of his contract.)

  3. #153
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by teegre View Post

    SUMMATION:
    As it is now, either way, he is not guaranteed anything beyond this season.
    Which IMO is in the overall best interests of the Steelers

    As was posted above, the nightmare scenario for the Steelers if Bell had signed a long time deal is a significant injury (not unlikely given Bell's history) or the Woodley scenario (get the big contract and then slack off - again not an unlikely possibility given two suspensions) that has the Steelers carrying a big signing bonus as dead money for a player that does not perform to the level of his contract

    At this point Bell has to show up for the first regular season game since the Steelers could not renegotiate his 2017 contract even if they wanted to and now still needs to play for a payout in 2018 and beyond

    And if the rumored offer by the Steelers is correct, the other players know the terms of their deals and presumably are not going to think the Steelers lowballed Bell because he could always be tagged for 2017

    My guess is Bell is gone by 2019

  4. #154
    Senior Member Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute"> DesertSteel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Arizona
    Gender
    Posts
    10,492

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    Which IMO is in the overall best interests of the Steelers

    As was posted above, the nightmare scenario for the Steelers if Bell had signed a long time deal is a significant injury (not unlikely given Bell's history) or the Woodley scenario (get the big contract and then slack off - again not an unlikely possibility given two suspensions) that has the Steelers carrying a big signing bonus as dead money for a player that does not perform to the level of his contract

    At this point Bell has to show up for the first regular season game since the Steelers could not renegotiate his 2017 contract even if they wanted to and now still needs to play for a payout in 2018 and beyond

    And if the rumored offer by the Steelers is correct, the other players know the terms of their deals and presumably are not going to think the Steelers lowballed Bell because he could always be tagged for 2017

    My guess is Bell is gone by 2019
    After 2 more years of runnng his wheels off (which I hope they do), I'm not sure he'll have much value going into his 7th year in the league. Besides that, Ben is likely gone at that point. We don't need a $15M RB with a rebuild going at QB.

  5. #155
    Ghost Poster Array title="ALLD has a reputation beyond repute"> ALLD's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Treasure Coast
    Posts
    11,371

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    If Bell was smart he would work for the extra $ with commercials and promos. My guess is he retires in 2 years and opens a weed shop in Denver to live out the rest of his days.
    All Defense!

  6. #156
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,822

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by DesertSteel View Post
    After 2 more years of runnng his wheels off (which I hope they do), I'm not sure he'll have much value going into his 7th year in the league. Besides that, Ben is likely gone at that point. We don't need a $15M RB with a rebuild going at QB.
    At that point, I love the "Hershel Walker trade" idea someone posted previously. If only....

  7. #157
    Senior Member Array title="BlackAndGold has a reputation beyond repute"> BlackAndGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,076

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Imo, Bell and the Steelers will agree on a deal after the season, or he'll get tagged, and a deal will be made then.

    Bell could get 3 years of guaranteed money(counting this years tag) in both scenarios.

    Also, the Mike Wallace comparisons are wrong. MW's on the field production(drops), or skill set(horrible route runner, just a go route option) was never worth the contract he received. Bell on the field is worth $15mil or maybe even more.
    1. Amarius Mims, OT, Georgia 2. Zach Frazier, C, West Virginia 3. Roman Wilson, WR, Michigan 3. ​Renardo Green, CB, FSU 4. Mo Kamara, OLB, Colorado State 6. Logan Lee, DT, Iowa 6.Khristian Boyd, NT, Northern Iowa

  8. #158

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by teegre View Post
    That's the thing, let's assume he does indeed get injured/cut (even though I find it likely that he doesn't get at least two years of his contract)...

    Year 1, Contract: $12 million
    Year 1, No contract: $12 million

    Year 2, Contract: 0
    Year 2, No contract: 0

    Not signing doesn't help him in the least (nor does it truly hurt him). That said, if he doesn't get injured, not signing could indeed end up hurting him...

    Contract: 2 years/$30 million
    No contract: 2 years/$26 million

    SUMMATION:
    As it is now, either way, he is not guaranteed anything beyond this season. Sure, the contract does not guarantee anything beyond that first year, but it does have a lofty salary of $18 million... which would be $4 million more than his current situation. Plus, more importantly, The Rooney are like The Lannisters: they always pay their debts. (As in: there is little chance that Bell doesn't see at least the first two years of his contract.)
    I probably should have been clearer. I was talking about which contract I would rather play under, not whether it benefits him to sign or not sign. On that note, I get him trying to force a guaranteed contract for even less money than he might make on the tag.


  9. #159
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLD View Post
    If Bell was smart he would work for the extra $ with commercials and promos. My guess is he retires in 2 years and opens a weed shop in Denver to live out the rest of his days.
    That is a problem - corporate America not wild about handing out endorsement deals to athletes who repeatedly get suspended for marijuana usage

    Companies prefer players free of off the field controversy like Peyton Manning - Ben never overcame the allegations against him as far as endorsement potential goes

  10. #160
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,822

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Just something to chew on about the $15M asking price by Bell(apparently). The tag gives him $12M, so essentially paying the 2nd best WR on the team $3M. Question; should dual threat players get paid for only one position? Bell lines up at both RB and slot WR positions. Our offense runs through Bell. Opposing defenses #1 priority is finding Bell when they line up. As tough as it is to build a dominant D in today's NFL, why not put money in elite offensive players? The RB position may not get as much value as it used to, however a player like Bell, who is not just a RB, is being under-valued. Plus without Bell, we have a RB stable of nearly zero NFL production. I understand nothing can happen as of right now. Next offseason Bell SHOULD get his $15M/year contract. With his tag already being over $14M, it would be crazy not to.

  11. #161
    Ghost Poster Array title="ALLD has a reputation beyond repute"> ALLD's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Treasure Coast
    Posts
    11,371

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    It opens the door to paying players extra who also play on STs.
    All Defense!

  12. #162
    BurghBoy412
    Guest

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    The organization really played this right in my eyes. Bell is the best back in the game but he's missed right around 30% of his possible starts. I've gotta think that is why the team wasn't willing to commit more money. Making this a "put up or shut up" year for Bell. If he can avoid suspension and injury whilst winning at least an AFC title. I believe that would give the organization the assurance that Bell is worthy of his asking price.

    Bell is willing to bet on himself. If you ask me that is a very desirable trait to have in a player. It's all on his shoulders now. Bring home the goods and get PAID. Have a lack lustre year and get the tag again.

  13. #163
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,822

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLD View Post
    It opens the door to paying players extra who also play on STs.
    No it doesn't. That's just fishing for arguments.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comment...k_against_the/- - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by BurghBoy412 View Post
    The organization really played this right in my eyes. Bell is the best back in the game but he's missed right around 30% of his possible starts. I've gotta think that is why the team wasn't willing to commit more money. Making this a "put up or shut up" year for Bell. If he can avoid suspension and injury whilst winning at least an AFC title. I believe that would give the organization the assurance that Bell is worthy of his asking price.

    Bell is willing to bet on himself. If you ask me that is a very desirable trait to have in a player. It's all on his shoulders now. Bring home the goods and get PAID. Have a lack lustre year and get the tag again.
    Yes, and I can't argue those points. It just happens to be my own opinion that Bell has already proven his worth to this team. With Bell, SB caliber team. Without Bell, probably won't win the division.

  14. #164
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,822

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Secondaryconcerns View Post
    whats left to negotiate though , we know what he wants and its so far out of the realm of possibility the only thing left to do is laugh at his joke of demands of self worth ....

    the deadline was to get a long term deal done before the Tag officially kicks in ...

    Ike suggests he MIGHT hold out and really make a statement ... since the tag is unsigned wondering if we can rescind it if it lingers into the season ??

    I want this team focused on winning not on what Bell is doing ..last thing we need is a distraction
    http://www.steelersdepot.com/2017/07...lers-no-shows/

  15. #165
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Good summation in the SI MMQB column this morning of points made in this thread

    Le'Veon Bell's quest to be paid like a No. 1 running back plus a No. 2 receiver is novel though ultimately flawed. Setting aside the fact that Bell has played just one full 16-game season in four in Pittsburgh, the durability question inherent to the position prevents any team, much less the uber-cap conscious Steelers from setting a new market for dual threat running backs. No. 2 receivers don't run between the tackles and get their legs caught under piles of bodies, which is why a solid No. 2 receiver is a better investment than your average No. 1 running back.

    https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/07/24/n...mko-guest-mmqb

  16. #166
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    Question; should dual threat players get paid for only one position?
    Yes. Unless he can line up at both RB and WR at once, he is still only one player out of 11 on the field, and as such should get paid as the highest-skilled ONE non-QB player on offense (actually a toss-up for that distinction along with Brown).

    Linebackers defend against the run and also drop into coverage sometimes. Should they be paid as much as a defensive lineman plus a cornerback? Tight ends catch passes and also block. Should a good TE be paid the same as a good offensive tackle plus a good wide receiver? No, because that would be stupid.

    Catching passes as a running back is just called doing your fucking job. Yes, he's better at catching passes than most other RBs. That just makes him a better running back, not two players.

    His argument is like the ones that divorce attorneys use for stay-at-home housewives. "A cook could make $25,000 a year, and a janitor could make $25,000 a year, and a day care worker could make $25,000 a year, and a school tutor could make $25,000 a year, and a receptionist could make $25,000 a year, and a taxi driver could make $25,000 a year; therefore my client should be compensated for $150,000 a year worth of work." Well, no - those are a bunch of $8-an-hour jobs, and doing six separate $8-an-hour jobs part-time for a total of 40 hours a week will get you $8 an hour, not $150,000.

    Same wrong line of thinking that Bell is using. He lines up at running back 75% of the time, that's 75% of the time he's NOT lining up as a receiver; why would we pay him as if it was 100%?

    About the only exception to this would be a real two-way player who could play offense and defense, or kicker and punter or something like that, and ACTUALLY fill two different positions full-time.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  17. #167
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,822

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    Yes. Unless he can line up at both RB and WR at once, he is still only one player out of 11 on the field, and as such should get paid as the highest-skilled ONE non-QB player on offense (actually a toss-up for that distinction along with Brown).

    Linebackers defend against the run and also drop into coverage sometimes. Should they be paid as much as a defensive lineman plus a cornerback? Tight ends catch passes and also block. Should a good TE be paid the same as a good offensive tackle plus a good wide receiver? No, because that would be stupid.

    Catching passes as a running back is just called doing your fucking job. Yes, he's better at catching passes than most other RBs. That just makes him a better running back, not two players.

    His argument is like the ones that divorce attorneys use for stay-at-home housewives. "A cook could make $25,000 a year, and a janitor could make $25,000 a year, and a day care worker could make $25,000 a year, and a school tutor could make $25,000 a year, and a receptionist could make $25,000 a year, and a taxi driver could make $25,000 a year; therefore my client should be compensated for $150,000 a year worth of work." Well, no - those are a bunch of $8-an-hour jobs, and doing six separate $8-an-hour jobs part-time for a total of 40 hours a week will get you $8 an hour, not $150,000.

    Same wrong line of thinking that Bell is using. He lines up at running back 75% of the time, that's 75% of the time he's NOT lining up as a receiver; why would we pay him as if it was 100%?

    About the only exception to this would be a real two-way player who could play offense and defense, or kicker and punter or something like that, and ACTUALLY fill two different positions full-time.
    No need to jump over the cliff. The context of that question has nothing to do with housewives or TEs. But since you bring up the TE, let's look back at Jimmy Graham going to appeals over should his tag be at TE or WR, because he lined up at both about evenly. His roster spot was TE so the appeal came back for TE. So, I already knew the answer. In the case of a player like Deion Sanders that played DB, WR, and returner, how do you answer that question? I already know the answer to that one too.
    Bell isn't saying pay him like both positions are equal. His RB tag puts him at $12M. He is asking for another $3M as the #2 receiver/#1 offensive weapon on the team. Not another $12M. The whole resetting the value of a RB for the entire league is just him trying to justify and get support for his asking price. I couldn't care less about that part of it. What I do care about is that he, most likely, will not be on this team after this season. If the Steelers try to tag him again next season, I'm thinking he just holds out and waits for some team to give him what he wants in 2019. I don't want to see that happen over $3M.

  18. #168
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    No need to jump over the cliff. The context of that question has nothing to do with housewives or TEs. But since you bring up the TE, let's look back at Jimmy Graham going to appeals over should his tag be at TE or WR, because he lined up at both about evenly. His roster spot was TE so the appeal came back for TE. So, I already knew the answer. In the case of a player like Deion Sanders that played DB, WR, and returner, how do you answer that question? I already know the answer to that one too.
    Bell isn't saying pay him like both positions are equal. His RB tag puts him at $12M. He is asking for another $3M as the #2 receiver/#1 offensive weapon on the team. Not another $12M. The whole resetting the value of a RB for the entire league is just him trying to justify and get support for his asking price. I couldn't care less about that part of it. What I do care about is that he, most likely, will not be on this team after this season. If the Steelers try to tag him again next season, I'm thinking he just holds out and waits for some team to give him what he wants in 2019. I don't want to see that happen over $3M.
    No player has ever held out for an entire season over the franchise tag, the amount of money you sacrifice is so large that it is almost impossible to make up in future contracts no matter how large, so it always works in the player's favor financially to play it out even if they hate it. Not to mention sitting out would SEVERELY limit your future opportunities - you would automatically be labeling yourself a literally unprecedented me-first player - so you just may not get such a big contract after all, since you are now carrying the attitude-risk tag. I don't worry about our ability to keep him on a second tag if that's what we have to do.

    The basis for his entire argument is stupid, though. Running backs catch passes. Catching as many passes as he does raises his value as a running back, that's it. And our offer to him, as well as the franchise tag value, both blow away the top salary for a running back, and are right up there with top players at other positions also. Pretty damn generous for a player that's missed almost a third of the games that have taken place during his career. Perhaps instead of "Why is the deck stacked against me?" a better question to be asking himself is "Imagine how much I could've gotten if I hadn't missed all those games?" The idea that he's somehow a victim is just a non-starter with me.

    For what it's worth, Graham's argument was a different one: "I am a receiver, not a TE, and should be paid as a receiver," to which the answer was "lol, nice try ff, if you were a receiver no way you'd be top 5."
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  19. #169

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    No player has ever held out for an entire season over the franchise tag . . .
    On top of that, it still pushes everything out a year. Instead of getting bumped to the next level the following year, you still have to come in and play at the going tag rate for that year. In short, it's nothing more than a wasted year.


  20. #170
    Senior Member Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute"> DesertSteel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Arizona
    Gender
    Posts
    10,492

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    Question; should dual threat players get paid for only one position?
    Nobody needs to get paid for both. When I was in senior management for a credit card company that was in decline, people left and their responsibilities just fell over to me. I ended up being responsible for the duties of seven people who left the company. I never got an extra dime. Now I do something else. If Bell doesn't like it, he can do something else in the real world.

  21. #171
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,822

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Craic View Post
    On top of that, it still pushes everything out a year. Instead of getting bumped to the next level the following year, you still have to come in and play at the going tag rate for that year. In short, it's nothing more than a wasted year.
    I understand. Bell has said he won't play though.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Since it seems you guys are focusing on a question out of context, let me ask a new question.

    Are the Steelers better with, or without LeVeon Bell? If you are already paying $12M, is he worthy of another $3M to keep?

  22. #172
    NFL's Dirtiest Player Array title="86WARD has a reputation beyond repute"> 86WARD's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    50,473

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Okay...so give Bell $12M and then give him $3M in receiving incentives. If he doesn't like it then he can walk. You'd be giving him what he wants if he truly thinks he's a #2 WR...if e believes in himself, he should take it.

    On the other hand, what if Bryant comes in and produces like a #2 WR. Is Bell going to accept being the 3 receiver and getting WR3 money? So $12M plus another $1M for WR3 money?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwinsgames View Post
    you are a Kenny Pickett enabler

  23. #173
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    I understand. Bell has said he won't play though.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Since it seems you guys are focusing on a question out of context, let me ask a new question.

    Are the Steelers better with, or without LeVeon Bell? If you are already paying $12M, is he worthy of another $3M to keep?

    That's exactly what we'd be doing with a second franchise tag, so yea, for one year it would be worth it.

    He's said he won't play, but guess what? He'd actually play.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  24. #174
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,179

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Ummm. So, the real world private sector and sports have basically zero comparability.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #175
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,822

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by 86WARD View Post
    Okay...so give Bell $12M and then give him $3M in receiving incentives. If he doesn't like it then he can walk. You'd be giving him what he wants if he truly thinks he's a #2 WR...if e believes in himself, he should take it.

    On the other hand, what if Bryant comes in and produces like a #2 WR. Is Bell going to accept being the 3 receiver and getting WR3 money? So $12M plus another $1M for WR3 money?
    That is the same drum I've been banging on also.(Except the 'let him walk' part) It seems to come down to the guaranteed money for Bell though. I, personally, think he is worth more than most of the rest of you do. I would offer him #1 weapon guarantee. Plus incentives laden long term contract. Look at the AP deal. Around $18M, with a large signing bonus, and incentives out the ass. I think this is the way to do Bell's contract as well.

  26. #176
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,179

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    If we want to make this kinda like the real world - it might be something like this:

    We will pay you a hiring bonus of $25 K.
    Then we will pay you a year one salary of $10 K.
    In years 2-4 we will pay you a salary of $30 K.
    At the end of your contract we will pay you a completion bonus of $75 K. That is if you fulfill the entire contract. Even 2 days short means no bonus. In two decades of contracts at our company, 3 people have received their completion bonuses. Who knows, you could be #4!

    You can never renegotiate in that 4 year period. No matter what. If you want to get paid, you have to work on those terms. Also, we can fire you at any time and the only money we owe you is your hiring bonus. Additionally, we will actively be looking for someone younger and better that will do your job for $15 K.

    C'mon! Who's takin' that deal?

    I mean I am. I've made the unfortunate decision to be an at-will college teacher. So I basically have that deal, minus the hiring bonus, minus the multi-year contract, and minus many tens of thousands. But still, who else is going to run out and sign up. It's a great deal!

  27. #177
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,179

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by teegre View Post
    That's the thing, let's assume he does indeed get injured/cut (even though I find it likely that he doesn't get at least two years of his contract)...

    Year 1, Contract: $12 million
    Year 1, No contract: $12 million

    Year 2, Contract: 0
    Year 2, No contract: 0

    Not signing doesn't help him in the least (nor does it truly hurt him). That said, if he doesn't get injured, not signing could indeed end up hurting him...

    Contract: 2 years/$30 million
    No contract: 2 years/$26 million

    SUMMATION:
    As it is now, either way, he is not guaranteed anything beyond this season. Sure, the contract does not guarantee anything beyond that first year, but it does have a lofty salary of $18 million... which would be $4 million more than his current situation. Plus, more importantly, The Rooney are like The Lannisters: they always pay their debts. (As in: there is little chance that Bell doesn't see at least the first two years of his contract.)
    That was my point earlier, sort of. The Steelers are paying Bell the franchise tags + $4 million to relinquish his control over his income for years 3-x (can't remember how many years the deal was for) of the contract. If that contract, much like AB's, was front loaded as hell; then Bell could be cut after year 3. He plays the two tag years and then hits the open market, want to bet me that he makes the $4 million + year 3 of the Steelers deal + a massive front-loaded bonus in the first year of his post-tag contract from say...the 49'ers?

    Sure it is massive gamble by Bell and his agent. But 4 million is simply not enough to buy out the prime FA years of the best overall RB in the league. I really wish it was, but it didn't work out.

  28. #178
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    If we want to make this kinda like the real world - it might be something like this:

    We will pay you a hiring bonus of $25 K.
    Then we will pay you a year one salary of $10 K.
    In years 2-4 we will pay you a salary of $30 K.
    At the end of your contract we will pay you a completion bonus of $75 K. That is if you fulfill the entire contract. Even 2 days short means no bonus. In two decades of contracts at our company, 3 people have received their completion bonuses. Who knows, you could be #4!
    That doesn't sound like the way the Bell contract was structured, though. It looked more like "we'll pay you a hiring bonus of $30K, and then it's just a regular year-to-year job like anything else."

    "Oh, and by the way, you're making twice as much as anyone else who does this job, and more than anyone has ever made doing this job in the history of the world. We just don't want to guarantee the whole five years up front because you've either called in sick or been stoned an average of two days every week; you understand, right?"

    Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me all things considered.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  29. #179
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,179

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    That doesn't sound like the way the Bell contract was structured, though. It looked more like "we'll pay you a hiring bonus of $30K, and then it's just a regular year-to-year job like anything else."

    "Oh, and by the way, you're making twice as much as anyone else who does this job, and more than anyone has ever made doing this job in the history of the world. We just don't want to guarantee the whole five years up front because you've either called in sick or been stoned an average of two days every week; you understand, right?"

    Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me all things considered.
    That is potentially what it was. We just don't know what the guarantees were. Without that piece of information, it is really impossible to tell.

    AB's deal is essentially a 3 year $49 million deal. Not the 5 year $73 million it got reported as.
    Heyward's deal works out to a 3 year $32 million deal. Not the 6 years for $59 million it looks like it is.

    Now for both, NONE of that after a signing bonus is guaranteed. The post year 3 window is just when the dead money inverts to the Steelers benefit. In other words after year 3 it is cheaper to cut the player then to pay them in terms of the salary cap ramifications.

    This is likely LESS of a big deal for AB and Heyward as WR's and DE's tend to have longer than 3 year careers. This is Bell's last contract negotiation. It all comes down to how much of that 30-42 million in the first 3 years of the deal was guaranteed. Now, no way that 100% was ever possible, but I'm guessing Bell wants 50-60% and the Steelers want 30-40%.

    Deal likely gets done this off-season all quiet like.

  30. #180
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Schefter: Steelers Not Close To Signing Bell Long-Term With Deadline Looming

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    That is potentially what it was. We just don't know what the guarantees were. Without that piece of information, it is really impossible to tell.

    AB's deal is essentially a 3 year $49 million deal. Not the 5 year $73 million it got reported as.
    Heyward's deal works out to a 3 year $32 million deal. Not the 6 years for $59 million it looks like it is.

    Now for both, NONE of that after a signing bonus is guaranteed. The post year 3 window is just when the dead money inverts to the Steelers benefit. In other words after year 3 it is cheaper to cut the player then to pay them in terms of the salary cap ramifications.

    This is likely LESS of a big deal for AB and Heyward as WR's and DE's tend to have longer than 3 year careers. This is Bell's last contract negotiation. It all comes down to how much of that 30-42 million in the first 3 years of the deal was guaranteed. Now, no way that 100% was ever possible, but I'm guessing Bell wants 50-60% and the Steelers want 30-40%.

    Deal likely gets done this off-season all quiet like.
    One would think it does.

    I don't think there's a lot standing in the way of it; a lot of my skepticism is that I'm just confused because what he is looking for and what was offered are not a hell of a lot different, and they become practically identical after he completes a year or two in either case and practically worthless if he does not. One would think any halfway competent agent could do the math and see that. Anyway, I expect you're right.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •