• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,867 Excellent

About Bayhawks

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

9,561 profile views
  1. I’m not disregarding it; I pointed it out upthread. If they make a SB run, they earn around $200K, and the money comes from the NFL, not their contract. Their team contracts are paying them for regular season games. Unless a specific contract has language for playoff performance/incentives, the players aren’t paid by their teams for playoff games. As to the nonsense ghost guy posted, he’s deliberately misrepresenting my argument. Let’s say the Ravensmake the playoffs & Collins was a big part of their success. Hes a FA next year, but he doesn’t have the established pedigree as a top-3 NFL RB. If he skipped playoff games, he’d be operating within the boundaries of the CBA, but he’d be potentially costing himself $200K (over 25% of his 2018 salary), and losing a chance to further establish himself as a successful NFL RB (thus possibly earning a bigger future contract). Bell has already established himself as a stud RB. If he skipped playoff games, he’d lose possibly $200K (less than a quarter of one game’s pay for him), but his track record as a stud RB would still ensure a huge contract next offseason. With that said, I’m done posting in this thread, so as to avoid cluttering page 1. Anyone who wishes to continue the discussion, ill do so via PM, per the request of another poster.
  2. Fair enough; while I doubt there will be much Bell news until the end of TC when he reports, I don’t think we need to keep this thread at the top of page 1 unless/untill there is some real news.
  3. Right, but the situation you’re describing involves each side having an advantage (you gain an advantage at RB, he gains an advantage at WR). With regards to the way the CBA works with salaries, tag, & contracts, the owners advantage is that they don’t give guaranteed contracts, have the tags at their disposal, etc. They benefit from those advantages. What I’ve been posting about is how, IN MY OPINION, Bell (& all players) would be justified in using their advantages that arise from the negotiated CBA. Things like refusing to play unless they are 100%, not playing in post-season, etc. The CBA allows owners to restrict FA through the use of the tags, it allows owners to cut players when they have a contract. The CBA also allows players to do the things I’ve discussed. Matuski believes the owners are right because the CBA the players negotiated allows them to do these things, but he thinks the players would be acting dishonorably and violating the spirit of the CBA if they exercised their advantages.
  4. You’ve acknowledged that the team is using the negotiated CBA to their advantage. By definition, if one side has an advantage, the other side is at a disadvantage; i.e.-it’s not equal/fair. In your opinion, there’s nothing wrong with the team using those advantages for their own self-interests (getting Bells services for less than what it would cost if he’d have been able to negotiate with any team). At the same time, in your opinion, it would be wrong for Bell to only play when his contract required it (not play in playoffs, not play if he’s not 100%), even though that would be in his own self interest. Last year, it was widely speculated that Arizona didn’t activate David Johnson off the IR when he could have played because he wasn’t quite 100%, & since the team couldn’t benefit (out of playoffs), why risk his health? Was that wrong? Because that’s what I’m discussing: Bell (not the team) deciding that he isn’t 100%, and not risking his health when he isn’t contractually obligated to. As you’ve acknowledged, your opinion is that the team should use the advantages they are given by the negotiated contract worth the players, but that it would be wrong for players like Bell to do so, because it’s dishonorable, or goes against the spirit of the contract. I’d suspect that many would agree with you, and that’s fine. It’s July, not much real football to talk about, so I’m discussing my opinion about this topic. I’m a week or two, we’ll have real football discussions & this will move to the back burner.
  5. You’re welcome to your opinion. But with that said, let’s say I am crying about this situation. Why does that bother you?
  6. Im not crying about anything. I’m just discussing this. And I’m talking about the fairness of this situation, yes. If you thought I was discussing something else, I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. I’ve said, several times, that Bell won’t do the things I’ve discussed (other than skip preseason), and I thought it was clear I was talking only about hypothetical actions, not ones that were likely. And the agreement that the OWNERS signed allowed these hypothetical situations I’m discussing to be possible. So, if your argument is that the players agreed to a system where these things (franchise tag, non-guaranteed contracts, etc) can happen, so it’s OK; then you have to say the owners agreed to a system where a player can do these other things, so it’s also OK. Finally, Its interesting that you said what I’m discussing is against the “spirit” of the agreement. (Not actually against the actual wording) I’d argue that signing players to back-loaded contracts that they’ll never see is against the “spirit” of the agreements the players signed. All that being said, you seem to be getting upset that I’m discussing this. Don’t. It’s not going to happen, and my belief that this system sucks shouldn’t impact you at all. I’m a nobody on a message board, posting my opinion about this topic. It doesn’t matter at all, in the grand scheme of things.
  7. It’s a crappy, unfair system, and it’s stacked in the favor of the billionaire owners. When these situations arise, however, often we hear about players being greedy, idiots (as ghost guy labeled Bell), or not “team players.” That’s just stupid. If you think it’s OK/fair for teams to use the system to their advantage, it’s hypocritical to fault or question ways players could do the same.
  8. His contract is for him to play, WHEN HEALTHY, in REGULAR season games. That is how the agreement works. If he’s not healthy, why should he risk his future by playing at less than 100%? Also, NFL players aren’t paid for post-season games by their contract with their team; they are paid by the league. So, if his contract with the Steelers doesn’t require him to play in the post-season games, and he’d make only around $200K for a SB run, why shouldn’t he make the smart business decision and forefinger that extra (possible) $200K in order to protect the millions he’d get in a FA contract next year?
  9. Maybe you should try actually reading the thread (or at least the posts you respond to)? My comment about being “honorable” was in direct response to someone else that implied it wouldn’t be “honorable” for Bell not to go above and beyond what his contract with the Steelers required. THAT was the point; that this is a business. Honor is irrelevant. The Steelers wouldn’t do the “honorable” thing and give Bell a contract in the event he was injured. Likewise, Bell isn’t obligated to risk injury by not playing at less than 100%, or in pre/post-season games, in order to be “honorable.”
  10. That’s not my logic; WTF are you talking about? Suspending a player without cause would violate the CBA. Nowhere did I suggest Bell should violate the CBA. Perhaps you think it’s a terrible conversation because you don’t understand it? Again, though, since it’s a purely hypothetical situation we are discussing, feel free to stop participating.
  11. This is my point. “Lacking honor?” This is football; it’s not the military, police, or a firefighter. If it’s “dishonorable” for Bell to put himself above the team, why isn’t it dishonorable for the Steelers to our themselves above Bell? (Especially when you factor in that the Steelers have countless years to make money/win, but players like Bell have a finite period of time to get paid). And I’m not suggesting that Bell “fake” an injury. I’m saying, from a business standpoint, if he’s not 100%, he shouldn’t play. Do you think if he suffers a devastating injury in the AFCC game (that has a 12+ month recovery time), the Steelers would do the “honorable” thing and offer him the same contract (prorated for 4 years: 4 years/$56M)?
  12. No, it wouldn’t. But there’s no point in arguing the point. As I’ve already posted, he won’t do that. He’d be just as justified in doing that, as NFL teams are in taking advantage of the tags to their benefit. If it’s a terrible conversation, stop participating. Soon we’ll have much more real football stuff to talk about.
  13. Maybe, but I’d bet he gets a contract where he comes out ahead in guaranteed money AND total value, when you factor in his franchise tag salary for this year (which was already a given when negotiations worth Pitt this year; although the Steelers seemed to have hoped he and his agent wouldn’t realize that).
  14. Not at all. Live near Pittsburgh, but not a born and bred yinzer. Root for the team, except when they play my team. Find it hypocritical how many people around here want to throw stones at Bell for not taking the deals they offered him, and those who suggest he will/should accept a hometown discount deal. The Steelers are/have used the salary cap system to their advantage. Why would it be “wacky” for Bell to do the same?
  15. He’ll get more in guaranteed money next year than the $10M Pitt offered. They tried to lowball him because they were the only team he could negotiate with. As others have pointed out, they took advantage of the system. As I pointed out, Bell could do the same.