Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Eminence

Le'Veon Bell

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

It would be great if his actions (coupled with Thomas’ injury making the other players open their eyes) causes teams to rethink using the franchise tag to force players to accept artificially set “markets” (not its purpose; it was supposed to help franchises keep their stars, not allow teams to keep players on their prime years at below market-value).

That which is not foreseeable is one thing, but this was eminently foreseeable. You think billionaire owners don't understand price ceilings, artificial market prices, and relative value? 

No way. This was always its intent; how it was sold is another thing entirely.  

The NFLPA has never been a picture of labor competence within sports. The baseball union has long been the gold standard for unions and market value vs. ownership; the NFLPA is always crying in its beer. 

But that's neither here nor there. There is no spilled milk when it comes to CBAs. That's what the "C" stands for. Collective. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Milkman said:

This is why I laugh when all these Steeler fan's say Bell wasn't worth what he was asking for. Let him hit free agency and then beat whatever the best offer is by $1. Guaranteed it would have been significantly higher than the amount these Steelers fan "say" Bell is worth. 

We laugh at those of you who believe he is.  All good lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steelers4Life said:

We laugh at those of you who believe he is.  All good lol.

My point still stands. The Steelers offered him significantly less than he could have gotten in the free market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

He’s searching for guaranteed money.  YOU have told us the Steelers don’t guarantee more than what 1st year; now you’re telling us that last year they did?  That doesn’t make sense.  IF they don’t guarantee past year 1, and we don’t think they guaranteed him $30M last year (they didn’t, he’d have taken that year), the $30M number is not real.  You think it counts, the Steelers think it counts, but the guy who has to make the decision thinks it doesn’t count.  What he thinks is what matters here.  

That wasn’t a legitimate offer, not on the sense of getting the job done.  And they came back in 2018 & thought “he’ll have to take it this year.”  They tried to take advantage of the franchise tag (if you prefer that terminology to they screwed him), and he turned the tables on them.  

Absolutely, he’s losing out on money by not playing.  They are losing out one of Ben’s prime years, and costing themselves a shot at another ring.  Seems like me Bell is making the Steelers pay in the trophy case, just as the Steelers made him pay on the wallet.

It would be great if his actions (coupled with Thomas’ injury making the other players open their eyes) causes teams to rethink using the franchise tag to force players to accept artificially set “markets” (not its purpose; it was supposed to help franchises keep their stars, not allow teams to keep players on their prime years at below market-value).

I'm heading out to dinner...

No, it wasn't $30M guaranteed.  But it was guaranteed if he could last 2 years.  That's pretty legit for a guy who had missed time 8 games the previous 2 years with drug suspensions.  If you dont think so, ok. Bell feels hes worth more, all the more power to him.

And Bell isn't costing the Steelers any trophies.  They haven't won with him, and they wouldnt have this year either.

Have a good night guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rockaction said:

That which is not foreseeable is one thing, but this was eminently foreseeable. You think billionaire owners don't understand price ceilings, artificial market prices, and relative value? 

No way. This was always its intent; how it was sold is another thing entirely.  

The NFLPA has never been a picture of labor competence within sports. The baseball union has long been the gold standard for unions and market value vs. ownership; the NFLPA is always crying in its beer. 

But that's neither here nor there. There is no spilled milk when it comes to CBAs. That's what the "C" stands for. Collective. 

We’re saying the same thing, in different ways.  You want to say it was sold to the players, I said it was intended to mean something other than what it became.  Why argue over semantics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steelers4Life said:

I'm heading out to dinner...

No, it wasn't $30M guaranteed.  But it was guaranteed if he could last 2 years.  That's pretty legit for a guy who had missed time 8 games the previous 2 years with drug suspensions.  If you dont think so, ok. Bell feels hes worth more, all the more power to him.

And Bell isn't costing the Steelers any trophies.  They haven't won with him, and they wouldnt have this year either.

Have a good night guys!

You have a good one also.

Question for you later, if you don’t mind:  If, Bell had signed that contract, then underperformed, and Conner hadn’t gotten hurt, but had been what many posters on this board have claimed (i.e.-as good as Bell), do you think the Steelers would have honored the rest of the $30M for the 2nd year? If the situation I presented above had played out like that, would you have wanted them to pay him the 2nd half of that $15M, when they had a comparable player on the bench for less than $1M, and they could have used the remaining $14M to shore up there D?

I think if you are being honest, you’d answer at least 1 of those questions with a “NO,” and THAT is why arguing that “almost” guaranteed money is the same as TRULY guaranteed money is impossible.

If the money is not guaranteed for real, the team can decide “nah, we’re gonna use the money someplace else,” whether it be due to injury, cap problems, maybe Ben retires & they realize they have no shot at a SB, so why pay a RB that much, etc.  That’s why only the REAL guaranteed $$ matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Milkman said:

If anything this situation has opened my eyes to just how cheap the Steelers are. They literally went from my 2nd favorite team to my least favorite team in a matter of 4 months. 

I keep thinking their mascot should be Mr. Burns from the Simpsons. 

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steelers4Life said:

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/8/18/16170064/leveon-bell-pittsburgh-steelers-contract-franchise-tag-deal

Yeah, those cheap Steelers offered him a deal in 2017 when he had missed games in 2015 and 2016 due to suspension.  It was for 5 years, $60M with $30M in the first 2 years.  He felt he was worth more THEN because he's a top RB and a top WR.

The Steelers haven't screwed him.  He's screwed himself over and over again because he feels he's worth more than he is.   

This "report" really tells us nothing.  That "$30 mill in the first 2 years" bit seems to be spin.  Why include that detail but not guaranteed money?

These emotional posts for or against Bell and Steelers are just odd.  

Bell is doing what he thinks is right for him, the Steelers did what they thought was best for them.  :shrug:

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bayhawks said:

We’re saying the same thing, in different ways.  You want to say it was sold to the players, I said it was intended to mean something other than what it became.  Why argue over semantics?

I don't want to be curt or rude, because we are saying similar things, but it's important to distinguish hardball and good faith bargaining from that which is a load of you-know-what. The owners sold the players a load, and the players, with a weak union considering their status in American culture, agreed to the stipulations. 

Otherwise a franchise tag never exists. The players never should have agreed to this. That's really my gripe. I hate market inefficiencies and the cap and the tag are certainly two of them. They're artificial ceilings that prevent true market value from ever being realized so that the owners can make a profit off of the labor of the players.

And, a caveat: We're actually disagreeing fundamentally about Bell, but we're really on the same page in certain aspects. 

That the owners aren't playing the players market value by position, in the words of Peter Griffin, really Grinds My Gears. But -- and this is a huge but -- RB is a position that has been seriously rethought. For the most part, the position isn't getting the money and Bell wants to set the standard -- it's a bit pie-in-the-sky. If the market decided, the market would decide. The owners don't need salary caps to protect them from themselves. They're billionaires. But we've already agreed to not let the market decide through the very mechanism of CBAs, which goes politically -- and here is where the political becomes inseparable from the enjoyable and social -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt was having trouble with strikes in the '30s. It's a compelled bargain between the two sides of the economic supply and demand for labor. That's a whole other story, and one that both left and right debate and both radical left and radical right argue might have been best left to private concerns. 

But let me back up and get away from politics, as this is the SP, after all: The going market rate isn't a salary shibboleth, either. Pro football has decided that running backs aren't as valuable as they once were thought to be. Couple that with the seeming fact that the Steelers have decided that the CBA (again, intrusive) in Bell's case regarding substance issues devalue his market. That a ceiling and a value is there is not proof of inequality; it's proof of the going rate for a great back. That's not semantics, that's very important.  

I hope I'm being rational and making myself clear. It's really just a lousy situation all around, but I'm more with the Steelers on this because I feel like the O and D - lines have been undervalued and unheralded so long, yet make up such a crucial part of football. The cap also hurts them, too. Why should Donald and Mack make their quid (Mack as LB, too) and have the quarterbacks and running backs make theirs. This all goes back to when I was a kid and they instituted the cap. It's a disaster for true value to ever be realized.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I don't want to be curt or rude, because we are saying similar things, but it's important to distinguish hardball and good faith bargaining from that which is a load of you-know-what. The owners sold the players a load, and the players, with a weak union considering their status in American culture, agreed to the stipulations. 

Otherwise a franchise tag never exists. The players never should have agreed to this. That's really my gripe. I hate market inefficiencies and the cap and the tag are certainly two of them. They're artificial ceilings that prevent true market value from ever being realized so that the owners can make a profit off of the labor of the players.

And, a caveat: We're actually disagreeing fundamentally about Bell, but we're really on the same page in certain aspects. 

That the owners aren't playing the players market value by position, in the words of Peter Griffin, really Grinds My Gears. But -- and this is a huge but -- RB is a position that has been seriously rethought. For the most part, the position isn't getting the money and Bell wants to set the standard -- it's a bit pie-in-the-sky. If the market decided, the market would decide. The owners don't need salary caps to protect them from themselves. They're billionaires. But we've already agreed to not let the market decide through the very mechanism of CBAs, which goes politically -- and here is where the political becomes inseparable from the enjoyable and social -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt was having trouble with strikes in the '30s. It's a compelled bargain between the two sides of the economic supply and demand for labor. That's a whole other story, and one that both left and right debate and both radical left and radical right argue might have been best left to private concerns. 

But let me back up and get away from politics, as this is the SP, after all: The going market rate isn't a salary shibboleth, either. Pro football has decided that running backs aren't as valuable as they once were thought to be. Couple that with the seeming fact that the Steelers have decided that the CBA (again, intrusive) in Bell's case regarding substance issues devalue his market. That a ceiling and a value is there is not proof of inequality; it's proof of the going rate for a great back. That's not semantics, that's very important.  

I hope I'm being rational and making myself clear. It's really just a lousy situation all around, but I'm more with the Steelers on this because I feel like the O and D - lines have been undervalued and unheralded so long, yet make up such a crucial part of football. The cap also hurts them, too. Why should Donald and Mack make their quid (Mack as LB, too) and have the quarterbacks and running backs make theirs. This all goes back to when I was a kid and they instituted the cap. It's a disaster for true value to ever be realized.  

I never said the players were smart to “buy” what they were sold by the owners; but the owners and the CBA presented the franchise tag as a way for stud players to get paid & for franchises (hence the name) to keep their star players.  That’s not what it is used for; you say the owners always meant for it to be what it is now (I don’t necessarily disagree) & the players were stupid to believe otherwise.  That doesn’t change what I originally posted: maybe this action by Bell will make some owners think twice before the apply the tag (especially a 2nd/3rd time), as they (like the Steelers) might have to deal with a smaller cap (relative to other teams) if players do what Bell is doing.  Obviously, it would be better if the players would make the NFL change when they negotiate, it would also be better if the owners would just “play fair,” but those things aren’t happening, at least not any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

Yes, they really should have; if they didn’t want to be forced to deal with the situation they find themselves in now.

The Steelers have a lot of players whose cap numbers get much bigger next year.  For instance, AB is a $22 million cap hit next season.  You can't pay everyone whatever they want.  It would be nice if they could but you have to make tough choices sometimes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

The Steelers have a lot of players whose cap numbers get much bigger next year.  For instance, AB is a $22 million cap hit next season.  You can't pay everyone whatever they want.  It would be nice if they could but you have to make tough choices sometimes.

 

Then don’t tag him; let him go where they will pay him & have $14.5M more to spend on the D.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The steelers plan was to rip off Bell, use him up on a SB run and dump him win it or lose it. They can't afford to pay him big  $ because of Ben and AB. You only have so much $ and tying up that much on 3 guys is a huge mistake. He sniffed it out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

I never said the players were smart to “buy” what they were sold by the owners; but the owners and the CBA presented the franchise tag as a way for stud players to get paid & for franchises (hence the name) to keep their star players.  That’s not what it is used for; you say the owners always meant for it to be what it is now (I don’t necessarily disagree) & the players were stupid to believe otherwise.  That doesn’t change what I originally posted: maybe this action by Bell will make some owners think twice before the apply the tag (especially a 2nd/3rd time), as they (like the Steelers) might have to deal with a smaller cap (relative to other teams) if players do what Bell is doing.  Obviously, it would be better if the players would make the NFL change when they negotiate, it would also be better if the owners would just “play fair,” but those things aren’t happening, at least not any time soon.

So the bolded -- what you say you're saying -- is that the leverage labor has is that the supply of labor simply doesn't go to work. This impinges on owner profits and allows labor to realize enough of the pie for themselves as a negotiation tactic. That's well said and how it's been for time eternal. 

We disagree about the RB position, but probably not on the surrounding stuff too deeply, and not like one would think.  

I don't even think we're arguing; I just think Bell is a bad case, and football and the level of wealth is controversial and makes people emotional about it. Bad facts make bad law, as they say.  

But one last thing: Before the collective nature of the CBA, judges would issue demands (criminal and civil injunctions) for labor to report to work at the agreed-upon price of contracts signed. Wildcat, sit-down, and other strikes ground industries to a halt as the people of America were much more labor-friendly then than now. So I pose this question: If, per the CBA, the players have agreed to terms, and this is the point of the CBA as law writ large (it got rid of judge-issued injunctions and criminal penalties for strikes, etc.) then what is required of Bell? He has ceded his rights as a functionary of the CBA and all it entails to his negotiators. This is the point I made a while back. He actually hurts labor. Labor has leverage through compulsory bargaining. It's just that the NFLPA is so lousy at it that they've bargained away these rights. 

Anyway, enough of my last interlude. I think these issues are fascinating and look to see how the transition tag that was mentioned upthread turns out.  

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rockaction said:

So the bolded -- what you say you're saying -- is that the leverage labor has is that the supply of labor simply doesn't go to work. This impinges on owner profits and allows labor to realize enough of the pie for themselves as a negotiation tactic. That's well said and how it's been for time eternal. 

We disagree about the RB position, but probably not on the surrounding stuff too deeply, and not like one would think.  

I don't even think we're arguing; I just think Bell is a bad case, and football and the level of wealth is controversial and makes people emotional about it. Bad facts make bad law, as they say.  

But one last thing: Before the collective nature of the CBA, judges would issue demands (criminal and civil injunctions) for labor to report to work at the agreed-upon price of contracts signed. Wildcat, sit-down, and other strikes ground industries to a halt as the people of America were much more labor-friendly then than now. So I pose this question: If, per the CBA, the players have agreed to terms, and this is the point of the CBA as law writ large (it got rid of judge-issued injunctions and criminal penalties for strikes, etc.) then what is required of Bell? He has ceded his rights as a functionary of the CBA and all it entails to his negotiators. This is the point I made a while back. He actually hurts labor. Labor has leverage through compulsory bargaining. It's just that the NFLPA is so lousy at it that they've bargained away these rights. 

Anyway, enough of my last interlude. I think these issues are fascinating and look to see how the transition tag that was mentioned upthread turns out.  

The NFLPA is (IMO) bad at negotiations.  The RB position is not the most effective position for this plan (I don’t personally think this is Bells plan, per se-i think it “might” be part of its outcome); a QB doing this would have been/be more impactful.  With regards to those larger labor issue you bring up, the relatively short nature of an NFL players career (especially with regards to RBs) is worth considering.  Sure, Bell could allow the NFLPA to collectively bat gains that are in his own best interests; but that wouldn’t happen in time foe him to benefit from those negotiations.

ETA-with regard to the transition tag (if that’s what you were referencing), that’s not a viable option for Pitt.  I posted a link, but the Steelers get no compensation if they use the transition tag and fail to match an offer sheet Bell signs.  It wouldn’t make sense for them to take that risk.

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, starks said:

So he will report week 7? How does this make sense from his perspective?

About a million a game will do just that, one thinks. Especially if he has to report by Week 10 to keep his contract status and he doesn't want to be traded. This sounds like an intentional leak.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Then don’t tag him; let him go where they will pay him & have $14.5M more to spend on the D.

That is what I would have preferred but the Steelers organization thought that having Bell + the few additions they made on defense was good enough.

That looks like a very bad decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

About a million a game will do just that, one thinks. Especially if he has to report by Week 10 to keep his contract status and he doesn't want to be traded. This sounds like an intentional leak.  

They are trading him. Deadline for trades is the 30th so they gotta get him in, get him in some sort of shape and finish the deal after he signs the franchise tag. I don't seem him playing 1 down for PITT. It is no longer in their best interest to put him at risk. Obviously the deal is close with some other team. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lod001 said:

They are trading him. Deadline for trades is the 30th so they gotta get him in, get him in some sort of shape and finish the deal after he signs the franchise tag. I don't seem him playing 1 down for PITT. It is no longer in their best interest to put him at risk. Obviously the deal is close with some other team. 

Pretty much and was going to post same only I don't think a deal has been made. I think this is Bell's way of letting interested parties know his intentions to help facilitate a trade.

Bottom line, like you, I don't think he'll ever play for Pittsburgh again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lod001 said:

They are trading him. Deadline for trades is the 30th so they gotta get him in, get him in some sort of shape and finish the deal after he signs the franchise tag. I don't seem him playing 1 down for PITT. It is no longer in their best interest to put him at risk. Obviously the deal is close with some other team. 

Why would Bell allow that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, menobrown said:

Pretty much and was going to post same only I don't think a deal has been made. I think this is Bell's way of letting interested parties know his intentions to help facilitate a trade.

Bottom line, like you, I don't think he'll ever play for Pittsburgh again.

I think they contacted Bell and told him, if he wants to get paid more than 6 games, he needs to get in, sign and they will ship him out to someone. Hoping it's the Colts although TENN and JAX have tough Ds..

CLE is now out because of Chubb. JETS are in play and that wouldn't be too bad. BUCS could be huge because they have no D and he can line up anywhere. Not sure they will have the $ though. HOU could be good. They can ship a pick and worthless Lamar Miller to PITT. Philly? Wowza if he goes there. No SEA, they totally suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bayhawks said:

Why would Bell allow that?

Because he can make 4 more game checks. He absolutely has to report by week 11. Use is still an issue of course. He's still taking a risk unless they just sign him and hold him out until the end of the season (an unprecedented move) and then sign him to the long term deal. There's no doubt in my mind that whoever takes him has already worked out the longterm numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBA is pretty clear to me. LeVeon can not play at all and be in a good position.

If any Franchise Player does not play in the NFL in a League Year, his Prior Team shall have the right to designate such player as a Franchise Player or a Transition Player the following League Year...If such a player is redesignated as a Franchise Player for the League Year following the League Year in which he does not play, the player may be designated only under Section 2(a)(i) above...If such a player is designated as a Franchise Player for a third time, the terms of Section 2(b) above shall apply.

Next year would be a third time being designated as the Franchise Player.  The designation would carry a one-year contract equal to the top 5 QB salaries. Yes, QB salaries. The franchise tag would not make sense.

Regarding the Transition tag, as it has been mentioned, he would be free to sign a contract with another team. Although Pittsburgh would have right of refusal, they would receive no compensation. That seems pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lod001 said:

I think they contacted Bell and told him, if he wants to get paid more than 6 games, he needs to get in, sign and they will ship him out to someone. Hoping it's the Colts although TENN and JAX have tough Ds..

CLE is now out because of Chubb. JETS are in play and that wouldn't be too bad. BUCS could be huge because they have no D and he can line up anywhere. Not sure they will have the $ though. HOU could be good. They can ship a pick and worthless Lamar Miller to PITT. Philly? Wowza if he goes there. No SEA, they totally suck.

This doesn’t make sense.

1-Bell has made it clear his maim goal is to preserve himself for FA to get a big deal

2-No team can give him a big deal this season

3-He doesn’t seem inclined to help then Steelers by allowing a trade

Considering those points, why would Bell care about getting paid for more than 6 games?  If he hasn’t cared about not getting paid for the first 4, why would he care about a couple more games pay (& a couple more games wear & tear)?

As far as the “secret” long term deal, why do you think he’d go along with that?  No team would be bound by any “under the table” deal.  If he was inclined to accept a team at their word, he’d have taken the Steelers offer, with its rolling guarantees; a “secret” long-term offer is even less of a guarantee than those rolling guarantees.

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Because he can make 4 more game checks. He absolutely has to report by week 11. Use is still an issue of course. He's still taking a risk unless they just sign him and hold him out until the end of the season (an unprecedented move) and then sign him to the long term deal. There's no doubt in my mind that whoever takes him has already worked out the longterm numbers.

He hasn’t cared about the first 4 checks, why do you think he’s suddenly gonna care about 4 more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

He hasn’t cared about the first 4 checks, why do you think he’s suddenly gonna care about 4 more?

It's not about caring. It's about getting a trade completed. PITT benefits from it and so does Bell. No, he's not helping PITT, he's helping himself to 4 extra 2018 game checks AND getting off this team. Because they are gonna trade him. There is no other reason for him to come in week 7 if he does. He has to report before the 30th for the trade to happen. 

I am basing this all on him coming in week 7: He may not even be used this year by that team. Hypothetically the Jets want him, the jets could use some OL help, the Jets are not winning anything this year. The jets lose out and get a goor OL pick. That's completely hypothetical of course.

Edited by lod001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lod001 said:

It's not about caring its about getting a trade competed. PITT benifgits from it and so does Bell. No, he's not helping PITT, he's helping himself to 4 extra 2018 game checks AND getting off this team. Because they are gonna trade him. There is no other reason for him to come in week 7 if he does. He has to report before the 30th for the trade to happen. 

I am basing this all on him coming in week 7: He may not even be used this year by that team. Hypothetically the Jets want him, the jets could use some OL help, the Jets are not winning anything this year. The jets lose out and get a goor OL pick. That's completely hypothetical of course.

Seems like you are adding 1+1 and making it equal 3, because that’s what you want to believe.

Rhe same tweet that says he’ll report during bye also says he plans to play FOR STEELERS this year.  So, we’re ignoring that & focusing on the “source” that said he’ll report during bye.  Meanwhile, Bell posted about Thomas’ injury last night that he’ll “continue to be the bad guy.”

So we have an anonymous source saying Bell will report week 7 b/c he wants to play for Steelers this year, and we take that to mean he’s been in contact with Steelers and has agreed to report so they can trade him and get something out of this; meanwhile Bell gets nothing (the game checks haven’t been important up to this point, there’s no reason to think that’s changed).  And to make this equation add up, we have to accept the anonymous source only half-way (he will report, but doesn’t actually want to play for Steelers) AND ignore Bell’s own post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. Didn’t our hero just tell Earl Thomas he was going to continue to be the bad guy? Why the sudden change of heart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bayhawks said:

Seems like you are adding 1+1 and making it equal 3, because that’s what you want to believe.

Rhe same tweet that says he’ll report during bye also says he plans to play FOR STEELERS this year.  So, we’re ignoring that & focusing on the “source” that said he’ll report during bye.  Meanwhile, Bell posted about Thomas’ injury last night that he’ll “continue to be the bad guy.”

So we have an anonymous source saying Bell will report week 7 b/c he wants to play for Steelers this year, and we take that to mean he’s been in contact with Steelers and has agreed to report so they can trade him and get something out of this; meanwhile Bell gets nothing (the game checks haven’t been important up to this point, there’s no reason to think that’s changed).  And to make this equation add up, we have to accept the anonymous source only half-way (he will report, but doesn’t actually want to play for Steelers) AND ignore Bell’s own post?

well I am speculating. However, 8 hours ago he said there's no way he's playing this year (sees what happened to Earl Thomas). 45 minutes ago there's speculation that he will report BEFORE the trade deadline. I'm putting 2+2 together and getting a trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Link

Now Fowler is saying he actually spoke to Bell, that Bell doesn’t expect to be traded, and wants to be a long-term Steeler.

This gets weirder and weirder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Man In The Box said:

Wait. Didn’t our hero just tell Earl Thomas he was going to continue to be the bad guy? Why the sudden change of heart?

Yep. Because he's getting traded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lod001 said:

well I am speculating. However, 8 hours ago he said there's no way he's playing this year (sees what happened to Earl Thomas). 45 minutes ago there's speculation that he will report BEFORE the trade deadline. I'm putting 2+2 together and getting a trade.

Yeah, this is getting crazier; supposedly he’s spoken to Bell & Bell isn’t reporting to be traded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lod001 said:

Yep. Because he's getting traded.

Except he said the opposite, according to Fowler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think a trade makes sense from the team’s perspective. What can they possibly expect in return for what can’t be guaranteed as anything other than a rental? He can’t sign a long term deal until next offseason right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bayhawks said:

 

Link

Now Fowler is saying he actually spoke to Bell, that Bell doesn’t expect to be traded, and wants to be a long-term Steeler.

This gets weirder and weirder.

That's 2 + 2 = 3. Never believe what is said. Work it out with common sense. He sits out these games for fear of over usage and/or injury costing him millions. Now he magically is possibly coming in week 7 AFTER Thomas goes out with a season ending injury and is going to go right into the situation he know jeopardizes his chances of making millions? Yeah...um...right.

Maybe the Steelers are covering a 30+ million dollar insurance policy on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Man In The Box said:

I don’t think a trade makes sense from the team’s perspective. What can they possibly expect in return for what can’t be guaranteed as anything other than a rental? He can’t sign a long term deal until next offseason right?

I believe he can sign a new deal as soon as the regular season is over. So he could sign before the playoffs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Man In The Box said:

I don’t think a trade makes sense from the team’s perspective. What can they possibly expect in return for what can’t be guaranteed as anything other than a rental? He can’t sign a long term deal until next offseason right?

Coming in now, the only thing that makes sense is because they are trying to trade him. He has to be in by the 30th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lod001 said:

That's 2 + 2 = 3. Never believe what is said. Work it out with common sense. He sits out these games for fear of over usage and/or injury costing him millions. Now he magically is possibly coming in week 7 AFTER Thomas goes out with a season ending injury and is going to go right into the situation he know jeopardizes his chances of making millions? Yeah...um...right.

Maybe the Steelers are covering a 30+ million dollar insurance policy on him.

So believe what is said when it fits one narrative, but not when it fits another?  That’s.... selective.

As far as common sense; there is nothing about this change that makes sense.  If Bell was willing to trust a team’s secret long term offer, he might as well have accepted the Steelers rolling guaranteed offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

I believe he can sign a new deal as soon as the regular season is over. So he could sign before the playoffs. 

Thanks. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m only really concerned because I own Conner everywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bayhawks said:

Then don’t tag him; let him go where they will pay him & have $14.5M more to spend on the D.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

So believe what is said when it fits one narrative, but not when it fits another?  That’s.... selective.

As far as common sense; there is nothing about this change that makes sense.  If Bell was willing to trust a team’s secret long term offer, he might as well have accepted the Steelers rolling guaranteed offer.

The only scenario that makes sense is a trade is coming. That's what I say happens so we will see in a few weeks. There is only one reason to report before the trade deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lod001 said:

The only scenario that makes sense is a trade is coming. That's what I say happens so we will see in a few weeks. There is only one reason to report before the trade deadline.

I ageee that there doesn’t seem to be another reason to report before week 10.  However, there also isn’t a reason for Bell to allow a trade; he gains nothing from a trade.

Maybe he ran out of money; I don’t know.  None of this makes sense, so if he allows a trade, o won’t be shocked, but there’s no reason that he will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bayhawks said:

You have a good one also.

Question for you later, if you don’t mind:  If, Bell had signed that contract, then underperformed, and Conner hadn’t gotten hurt, but had been what many posters on this board have claimed (i.e.-as good as Bell), do you think the Steelers would have honored the rest of the $30M for the 2nd year? If the situation I presented above had played out like that, would you have wanted them to pay him the 2nd half of that $15M, when they had a comparable player on the bench for less than $1M, and they could have used the remaining $14M to shore up there D?

I think if you are being honest, you’d answer at least 1 of those questions with a “NO,” and THAT is why arguing that “almost” guaranteed money is the same as TRULY guaranteed money is impossible.

If the money is not guaranteed for real, the team can decide “nah, we’re gonna use the money someplace else,” whether it be due to injury, cap problems, maybe Ben retires & they realize they have no shot at a SB, so why pay a RB that much, etc.  That’s why only the REAL guaranteed $$ matters.

First, I'm on record stating several things:

1. Conner is by no means as good as Bell.  Bell is a superstar, Conner can be an above average back, but the main thing Bell adds is an ability to work as a receiver. It's why he was targeting $15M+ per year with a huge guarantee LAST offseason... he's the star RB and considers himself a star WR too.

2. I completely understand why Bell made the decision he did.  It's business and don't fault him for that.  His choice, and he owns that. Just like the Steelers made their decision as a business decision in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. They aren't looking out for Bell, nor should they.  They're looking out for their own franchise and making the best decisions they can under the cap, and when the Steelers signed Brown long term, that ended the chance for Bell to sign long term. 

3. The Steelers aren't being cheap, and Bell's lack of a long term deal has everything to do with his stupidity for a few years followed by cap limitations for the Steelers.

4. I hate that the Steelers seemingly wasted the cap space, but Bell's decision to wait until the season (well after July 16th) to make his plans to skip everything clear cost the Steelers the chance to trade him and cost Bell the chance at a long term contract and a #### ton of money this year, and it cost him a year of his prime that he can no longer offer to anyone else. If nothing else, all this money that's wasted this year gives the Steelers extra space for next year, and that should come in handy.

Second, in answer to your question, yes, I believe the Steelers would've honored their commitment to him and there's nothing in their history to suggest otherwise.  The idea that Conner is as good as Bell doesn't hold water, and they would've been better off having Bell on the roster at that amount regardless. In theory, sure, they could've done whatever they wanted after year one, but it's not realistic to think they would have. I think that was a strong offer to a guy who had just served 8 games worth of suspensions the previous two years, which again is why Bell's own agent reportedly expected him to sign it.  Do you really think Gurley, Johnson, or Mack would've gotten an offer like that if they had suspensions in 2016 and 2017? Of course not.  And that's not even counting the immature BS Bell has pulled like missing the walkthrough and arriving late for the playoff game just last year. Bell has been his own worst enemy in his quest for a long term contract.

I'd say that most people understand why the Steelers didn't guarantee a guy with his history big money after 2015 or 2016.  If people want to say the Steelers should've locked him up THIS offseason, well, they couldn't even if they wanted to. And if people think they should've just let him walk out of some sense of "doing the right thing" then they're being very naïve about how the NFL works. If it's OK for Bell to make business decisions, it's OK for the Steelers too.  

Bell wants paid, and that's fine.  If you want to argue that the CBA gives too much power to the team and screws over top players, that's fine too. I won't argue the point. But as it is, the Steelers aren't being cheap, nor are they ever. They're always right up against the cap and they can't pay everyone.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steelers4Life said:

First, I'm on record stating several things:

1. Conner is by no means as good as Bell.  Bell is a superstar, Conner can be an above average back, but the main thing Bell adds is an ability to work as a receiver. It's why he was targeting $15M+ per year with a huge guarantee LAST offseason... he's the star RB and considers himself a star WR too.

2. I completely understand why Bell made the decision he did.  It's business and don't fault him for that.  His choice, and he owns that. Just like the Steelers made their decision as a business decision in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. They aren't looking out for Bell, nor should they.  They're looking out for their own franchise and making the best decisions they can under the cap, and when the Steelers signed Brown long term, that ended the chance for Bell to sign long term. 

3. The Steelers aren't being cheap, and Bell's lack of a long term deal has everything to do with his stupidity for a few years followed by cap limitations for the Steelers.

4. I hate that the Steelers seemingly wasted the cap space, but Bell's decision to wait until the season (well after July 16th) to make his plans to skip everything clear cost the Steelers the chance to trade him and cost Bell the chance at a long term contract and a #### ton of money this year, and it cost him a year of his prime that he can no longer offer to anyone else. If nothing else, all this money that's wasted this year gives the Steelers extra space for next year, and that should come in handy.

Second, in answer to your question, yes, I believe the Steelers would've honored their commitment to him and there's nothing in their history to suggest otherwise.  The idea that Conner is as good as Bell doesn't hold water, and they would've been better off having Bell on the roster at that amount regardless. In theory, sure, they could've done whatever they wanted after year one, but it's not realistic to think they would have. I think that was a strong offer to a guy who had just served 8 games worth of suspensions the previous two years, which again is why Bell's own agent reportedly expected him to sign it.  Do you really think Gurley, Johnson, or Mack would've gotten an offer like that if they had suspensions in 2016 and 2017? Of course not.  And that's not even counting the immature BS Bell has pulled like missing the walkthrough and arriving late for the playoff game just last year. Bell has been his own worst enemy in his quest for a long term contract.

I'd say that most people understand why the Steelers didn't guarantee a guy with his history big money after 2015 or 2016.  If people want to say the Steelers should've locked him up THIS offseason, well, they couldn't even if they wanted to. And if people think they should've just let him walk out of some sense of "doing the right thing" then they're being very naïve about how the NFL works. If it's OK for Bell to make business decisions, it's OK for the Steelers too.  

Bell wants paid, and that's fine.  If you want to argue that the CBA gives too much power to the team and screws over top players, that's fine too. I won't argue the point. But as it is, the Steelers aren't being cheap, nor are they ever. They're always right up against the cap and they can't pay everyone.

 

Okay (& I know you haven’t said Conner=Bell); but if the Steelers were definitely gonna honor the rolling guarantees from year 2, then why not make them real guarantees?  The only reason would be to uphold their own self-imposed “no guaranteed $$ beyond year 1” rule.  In which case, they brought all of this upon themselves.  Bell would have signed (IMO) if the $30M were really guaranteed, and if they were gonna pay it, no matter what; they should have broken their little rule & this entire debacle wouldn’t have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Espn reporting week 7 return for Bell....

God i hope they are out of the playoff picture and then run the table with Bell from like week 10 on. 

Not happening but i can still hope. 

Edited by Milkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bayhawks said:

Okay (& I know you haven’t said Conner=Bell); but if the Steelers were definitely gonna honor the rolling guarantees from year 2, then why not make them real guarantees?  The only reason would be to uphold their own self-imposed “no guaranteed $$ beyond year 1” rule.  In which case, they brought all of this upon themselves.  Bell would have signed (IMO) if the $30M were really guaranteed, and if they were gonna pay it, no matter what; they should have broken their little rule & this entire debacle wouldn’t have happened.

Because to the Steelers, it's not a negotiable rule.  They don't do it, period.  Just like for other than QBs, they don't renegotiate deals for players until they have 1 year left on their contract. The players know it, too.  It's the same rule that was applied to Antonio Brown and to Hines Ward before him.  And you know what?  It's worked very, very well for a long time.

And again, he had served a suspension in 2015 and 2016.  What in the world would make a guy like that worth a $30M guarantee the following offseason? C'mon now... look beyond the numbers and see the issues he had and the REASONS for decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.