Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Eminence

Le'Veon Bell

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

How did I say Brown wasn't as good? I said he's on pace to double his TD's from last year. I said the passing game in Pittsburgh is better this year than last year (as it is over most of the league).

The lack of reading comprehension is hilarious

Wow.  I said "another Bell supporter".  Try reading my reply before responding.  :mellow:

Share this post


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

So you lean on CBA language right up until I show you it backs up my assertion, and then once I do you start making baseless interpretations.  Believe whatever you want in that case.

Think about it logically.  There would be NO speculation on what bell would do this year ... he would sit out the entire year and simply be a FA next year knowing that the Steelers aren't going to franchise tag him for a 3rd year.  Why hasn't he simply announced that?  why has virtually NO sports writers/articles said that?  because that's not how it works.  the whole speculation about him reporting this year and when is specifically so he can AVOID doing this exact same thing again next year.

Share this post


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

Think about it logically.  There would be NO speculation on what bell would do this year ... he would sit out the entire year and simply be a FA next year knowing that the Steelers aren't going to franchise tag him for a 3rd year.  Why hasn't he simply announced that?  why has virtually NO sports writers/articles said that?  because that's not how it works.  the whole speculation about him reporting this year and when is specifically so he can AVOID doing this exact same thing again next year.

Well, it's still possible he could get his full 14.5 million this year if he signed now.

Obviously won't happen but who knows why he is doing anything he is doing.

When you win the lottery you don't need cash it all in to try and win a bigger lottery

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bryhamm said:

Think about it logically.  There would be NO speculation on what bell would do this year ... he would sit out the entire year and simply be a FA next year knowing that the Steelers aren't going to franchise tag him for a 3rd year.  Why hasn't he simply announced that?  why has virtually NO sports writers/articles said that?  because that's not how it works.  the whole speculation about him reporting this year and when is specifically so he can AVOID doing this exact same thing again next year.

That''s terrible logic and is more baseless speculation.  His plan would be to sit out and miss $14.5M entirely just so he can be assured he's not getting tagged again (when he has the exact same assurance by showing up and getting paid)?  That's what you're going with? 

5 hours ago, apalmer said:

It looks to me like this sets up a separate 3-year scheme for players who don't play. The first time a Franchise player doesn't play a year, the offer is 120% of his prior salary (i.e., the same amount offered to Bell this year). If he continues to sit out and is "redesignated" then it's as a Nonexclusive Franchise Tender (Section 2(a)(1)). If he sits out again, and is Franchised a 3rd time after not playing THEN it's under Section 2(b). Note that the provision applies to "such a player"--referring back to the discussion of a Franchise Player who doesn't play, is designated again at the 120% level, and then is redesignated under Section 2(a)(1).

And this why we have lawyers.  Because Section 2(b) is a standalone clause that Bell qualifies for - he's been designated for a third time.  Bell's lawyer will argue that this is just affirming that Section in regards to a player who never signed his first tender and is not to be mutually inclusive of all players that don't play in a season.  And this rule clearly states that the number of designations advances regardless of whether he signs the original tender or not, so those arguing "he has to sign in order for 2018 to count as the second time" have no ground to stand on.

My money is on him being a 3rd year designee next year regardless.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That''s terrible logic and is more baseless speculation.  His plan would be to sit out and miss $14.5M entirely just so he can be assured he's not getting tagged again (when he has the exact same assurance by showing up and getting paid)?  That's what you're going with? 

And this why we have lawyers.  Because Section 2(b) is a standalone clause that Bell qualifies for - he's been designated for a third time.  Bell's lawyer will argue that this is just affirming that Section in regards to a player who never signed his first tender and is not to be mutually inclusive of all players that don't play in a season.  And this rule clearly states that the number of designations advances regardless of whether he signs the original tender or not, so those arguing "he has to sign in order for 2018 to count as the second time" have no ground to stand on.

My money is on him being a 3rd year designee next year regardless.

 

I have been saying this for a month. The CBA wording is quite clear.

As far as reporters making comments about Bell's situation, I truly think they haven't read the CBA. Some claims have been even more laughably unsupported by what is actually in the CBA.

Some people (reporters) make assumptions. Others parrot the information. Suddenly it is accepted as truth while (practically) nobody actually reads the CBA. When some of us point out the actual agreement, since it doesn't match what has been accepted without evidence, the truth gets ignored.

By not revealing his intent to sit out the year, Bell is playing a game and keeping his options open. I am not saying he is playing the game well, but it makes sense that he didn't just state the plan was to sit out the entire year, as circumstances can change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheFanatic said:

So that's on Conner? Maybe, just maybe, scoring is up league wide as all the rules protecting QB's and WR's make the passing game so ridiculous for a team like the Steelers with Brown and Juju could be more responsible for the rise in offensive production. Don't believe me because you saw a stat line for one guy and another guy is still riding a 0.0 YPC for 2018? Here's a stat line for you. Big Ben threw for 4200 yards last year. This year he's on pace for 5200. Or that Brown had 9 TD's all of last year and has 8 this year after 7 games (and is on pace for 18). Conner looks great in this offense. That can't be denied. Bell would look so much better. 

Steelers will never know as he is sitting at home. 

Just saying Connor has been a more than adequate replacement and the offense has not missed a beat. Steeler fans should be happy.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

That''s terrible logic and is more baseless speculation.  His plan would be to sit out and miss $14.5M entirely just so he can be assured he's not getting tagged again (when he has the exact same assurance by showing up and getting paid)?  That's what you're going with? 

And this why we have lawyers.  Because Section 2(b) is a standalone clause that Bell qualifies for - he's been designated for a third time.  Bell's lawyer will argue that this is just affirming that Section in regards to a player who never signed his first tender and is not to be mutually inclusive of all players that don't play in a season.  And this rule clearly states that the number of designations advances regardless of whether he signs the original tender or not, so those arguing "he has to sign in order for 2018 to count as the second time" have no ground to stand on.

My money is on him being a 3rd year designee next year regardless.

 

So when was he a Non-Exclusive Franchise Player? That happens when he is redesignated the 2nd time and must occur before the 3rd time designation kicks in.  Again, this section only applies to years when he doesn't play and this is (potentially) year 1 of that. And, no, his lawyer can't ignore this section to argue that he skips to 2(b). He gets there only after he's played his 2nd year as a Franchise Player.  One of the first rules of contract interpretation is that all provisions of the contract have to be interpreted in a way to give effect to all other provisions.  Your interpretation that he can go to a third designation without ever playing under the 2nd designation reads out the section that was quoted about Franchise Players who don't play and makes it superfluous. Those two sections have different results, and the only way to interpret the contract so that both have meaning is that there are two paths:

1. Play year 1 as a FP with a salary equal to the average of the top 5 contracts at your position. Then play year 2 at 120% of the year 1 salary. Then play year 3 at the average of the top 5 QB contracts; or

2. Refuse to play as a FP and get designated the next year at 120% of the amount of the last contract you played for. Refuse to play for that get designated again under Section 2(a)(1) as a Non-Exclusive FP. Refuse to play for that and then get redesignated at the QB contract level.

You can't skip a step in either. Once you don't play a year in Option 1, you go to step one of Option 2, which is what will happen to Bell if he doesn't play this year.

Edited by apalmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Da Guru said:

Steelers will never know as he is sitting at home. 

Just saying Connor has been a more than adequate replacement and the offense has not missed a beat. Steeler fans should be happy.

 

Strictly running the football, Connor is a better fit for that offense. How anyone could think Bell would be better is hard to believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

 

My money is on him being a 3rd year designee next year regardless.

 

If true then it makes zero sense for Bell to report this season.  He would risk injury that could potentially cost him many more millions than what is left on the table for this year with no benefit in regards to his franchise tag situation.  

I don't think it matters anyway -- Assuming no major injury to Conner I find it very unlikely the Steelers would franchise Bell next season for $14.5 million.  Why go through this crap again for a player they don't need when they can use that cap space to improve the defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Da Guru said:

Steelers will never know as he is sitting at home. 

Just saying Connor has been a more than adequate replacement and the offense has not missed a beat. Steeler fans should be happy.

 

I agree completely here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, apalmer said:

So when was he a Non-Exclusive Franchise Player? That happens when he is redesignated the 2nd time and must occur before the 3rd time designation kicks in.  Again, this section only applies to years when he doesn't play and this is (potentially) year 1 of that. And, no, his lawyer can't ignore this section to argue that he skips to 2(b). He gets there only after he's played his 2nd year as a Franchise Player.  One of the first rules of contract interpretation is that all provisions of the contract have to be interpreted in a way to give effect to all other provisions.  Your interpretation that he can go to a third designation without ever playing under the 2nd designation reads out the section that was quoted about Franchise Players who don't play and makes it superfluous. Those two sections have different results, and the only way to interpret the contract so that both have meaning is that there are two paths:

1. Play year 1 as a FP with a salary equal to the average of the top 5 contracts at your position. Then play year 2 at 120% of the year 1 salary. Then play year 3 at the average of the top 5 QB contracts; or

2. Refuse to play as a FP and get designated the next year at 120% of the amount of the last contract you played for. Refuse to play for that get designated again under Section 2(a)(1) as a Non-Exclusive FP. Refuse to play for that and then get redesignated at the QB contract level.

You can't skip a step in either. Once you don't play a year in Option 1, you go to step one of Option 2, which is what will happen to Bell if he doesn't play this year.

Again, the lawyers will argue the two are not mutually inclusive, or exclusive, or whatever the legal mumbo jumbo is.  He can qualify for both - he's Non-Exclusive next year as a first-time designee that sat out and also qualifies for 2(b) as the ultra-rare guy that sits out his 2nd designated season rather than his first.  Legal documents get interpreted all the time as being written in one context but finding out later that there's an additional context that conflicts - that's why lawyers exist.  There are two valid points to be made here.  I don't pretend to know which one will win out, no one can, all I am saying is that a case can be made.

Edited by Hankmoody

Share this post


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

If true then it makes zero sense for Bell to report this season.  He would risk injury that could potentially cost him many more millions than what is left on the table for this year with no benefit in regards to his franchise tag situation.  

I don't think it matters anyway -- Assuming no major injury to Conner I find it very unlikely the Steelers would franchise Bell next season for $14.5 million.  Why go through this crap again for a player they don't need when they can use that cap space to improve the defense.

At this point, this may be true, although insurance can easily handle that.  But far more likely is that we don't know if it's true and he won't want to let the risk of it going against him change his decision, just like he hasn't let around $8M change it so far.  He's made a litany of terrible decisions and at this point he's pot committed so the best he can do is get in, get it over with, and pray he hasn't destroyed (and avoid future destruction of) his market value next year (like by faking an injury).

It will be interesting to see what they do.  One one hand, if they don't tag him they will get the 3rd round compensatory pick.  On the other hand if $14.5M is available to them, they can probably tag him and trade him for a better offer.  They can give Bell permission to talk to teams after the season ends and reach a long-term agreement so both are protected and that may be the catalyst for such a chain of events.  Bell calls NYJ, they agree on long term, the Jets give a 3rd and 5th in 2019.  Win/win/win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, apalmer said:

So when was he a Non-Exclusive Franchise Player? That happens when he is redesignated the 2nd time and must occur before the 3rd time designation kicks in.  Again, this section only applies to years when he doesn't play and this is (potentially) year 1 of that. And, no, his lawyer can't ignore this section to argue that he skips to 2(b). He gets there only after he's played his 2nd year as a Franchise Player.  One of the first rules of contract interpretation is that all provisions of the contract have to be interpreted in a way to give effect to all other provisions.  Your interpretation that he can go to a third designation without ever playing under the 2nd designation reads out the section that was quoted about Franchise Players who don't play and makes it superfluous. Those two sections have different results, and the only way to interpret the contract so that both have meaning is that there are two paths:

1. Play year 1 as a FP with a salary equal to the average of the top 5 contracts at your position. Then play year 2 at 120% of the year 1 salary. Then play year 3 at the average of the top 5 QB contracts; or

2. Refuse to play as a FP and get designated the next year at 120% of the amount of the last contract you played for. Refuse to play for that get designated again under Section 2(a)(1) as a Non-Exclusive FP. Refuse to play for that and then get redesignated at the QB contract level.

You can't skip a step in either. Once you don't play a year in Option 1, you go to step one of Option 2, which is what will happen to Bell if he doesn't play this year.

Thank you.  Maybe Hank will finally get it.

Share this post


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

 

Again, the lawyers will argue the two are not mutually inclusive, or exclusive, or whatever the legal mumbo jumbo is.  He can qualify for both - he's Non-Exclusive next year as a first-time designee that sat out and also qualifies for 2(b) as the ultra-rare guy that sits out his 2nd designated season rather than his first.  Legal documents get interpreted all the time as being written in one context but finding out later that there's an additional context that conflicts - that's why lawyers exist.  There are two valid points to be made here.  I don't pretend to know which one will win out, no one can, all I am saying is that a case can be made.

They can argue anything they want. They can argue that it doesn't apply because he owns a dog. That doesn't mean it's a winning argument.  Lawyers (or at least quality lawyers) exist to make sure contracts don't get prepared so that they can be interpreted two different ways. Courts have rules as to how contracts are interpreted, and, as I said previously, the first rule is that you have to give effect to every provision if possible.  Saying one side gets to pick which one applies doesn't do that if there's a way to apply both. Here there is a clear way to avoid that: Sign and play and go one path. Don't sign and play and get diverted to a different path.  So, no, a winning case for your interpretation cannot be made. I know that and every other lawyer knows that.

Edited by apalmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

The only one I can see is to not suck.  If he reports, plays, and performs less than Conner it might affect any contract offers from other teams.   

He has to be worried about that though.  I really think that if his motivation is to simply move on to next year and get his perceived big payday without risking injury or anything that would impact that, a mutual agreement to not sign/not tag is the best option.  

Regardless, I get your points (and others).  Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, apalmer said:

They can argue anything they want. They can argue that it doesn't apply because he owns a dog. That doesn't mean it's a winning argument.  Lawyers (or at least quality lawyers) exist to make sure contracts don't get prepared so that they can be interpreted two different ways. Courts have rules as to how contracts are interpreted, and, as I said previously, the first rule is that you have to give effect to every provision if possible.  Saying one side gets to pick which one applies doesn't do that if there's a way to apply both. Here there is a clear way to avoid that: Sign and play and go one path. Don't sign and play and get diverted to a different path.  So, no, a winning case for your interpretation cannot be made. I know that and every other lawyer knows that.

In your opinion.  Go ahead and bank on that if you must, I'm not calling this a closed case.  Drew Brees' FT case a few years ago is a prime example based on the exact same section of the CBA.  Brees won the grievance because is was his third time being tagged.  Period.  Just llike Le'Veon is being designated for a 3rd time.  Period.  NOS's argument was that the CBA "meant" the third time by the same team, but they didn't win it.  The same potential is here.

 

 

Share this post


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

In your opinion.  Go ahead and bank on that if you must, I'm not calling this a closed case.  Drew Brees' FT case a few years ago is a prime example based on the exact same section of the CBA.  Brees won the grievance because is was his third time being tagged.  Period.  Just llike Le'Veon is being designated for a 3rd time.  Period.  NOS's argument was that the CBA "meant" the third time by the same team, but they didn't win it.  The same potential is here.

 

 

The difference being that there wasn't a provision specifically covering being tagged by different teams. There is a provision specifically covering players who are tagged but don't sign and play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone has ever held out a whole year and gotten tagged again, but the widely held belief is that if he holds out the whole year, that he can be franchised again for the exact same amount. Also, if he doesn't get the 6 games, he could be franchised for the same amount.

Bell and the Steelers also disagree about the Transition tag. Bell's camp is saying that it's based on his offered contract salary (Franchise $$) but the Steelers are saying it's based on his paid salary (however many games he plays times $800k). That would be a huge difference in money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, steelers1080 said:

I'm not sure if anyone has ever held out a whole year and gotten tagged again, but the widely held belief is that if he holds out the whole year, that he can be franchised again for the exact same amount. (1)Also, if he doesn't get the 6 games, he could be franchised for the same amount.

(2) Bell and the Steelers also disagree about the Transition tag. Bell's camp is saying that it's based on his offered contract salary (Franchise $$) but the Steelers are saying it's based on his paid salary (however many games he plays times $800k). That would be a huge difference in money. 

1) This is based on the understanding that he has to play this season for a franchise tag next year to count as his "third" tag.  I disagree with the way that Hankmoody is interpreting the CBA, but I'm not legal expert enough to say he's wrong. 

IF, however, you do operate under the assumption that he needs to sign the tender to avoid the same franchise tag, the assumption that he needs 6 games to prevent being franchised at the same amount is an inaccurate conflation of 2 separate aspects of the CBA.

1-For a player to get a season to "toll" and count towards accruing a season towards FA, he must play at least 6 games.  However, this is irrelevant for Bell.  He already has 5 accrued seasons.  You only need 4 to become a UFA if not tagged or in a contract.  If Bell doesn't get 6 games this year, his 2018 season won't toll, but he'll still be a UFA if he doesn't get tagged and isn't under contract.

2-Players who have been tagged must sign by week 10 (the exact date is 11/13) in order to play at all that season.

So, it seems like these 2 points have been (erroneously) linked.  Bell has to sign by 11/13 (true) to play in 2018 and avoid getting tagged for the same amount (assuming Handmoody is incorrect) and Bell has to get 6 games for his season to toll (true).  Therefore Bell has to get 6 games to prevent being tagged for the same amount.  That is false.  If Bell signs at 3:59 on 11/13 & Pitt places him on the exempt list for 2 weeks (weeks 11 & 12) and he plays in weeks 13-17, he only gets 5 games.  His season won't toll, but he doesn't need it to, as he has already accrued enough seasons to be a UFA if not tagged/under contract.  He would have played in 2018 under the second franchise tag.  So, Pitt would either have to tag him at the QB level, or let him become an UFA.  HE DOESN"T ACTUALLY NEED TO PLAY 6 GAMES.

 

2-This is largely irrelevant.  If it happened, it would be contested by Bell/the NFLPA, but the Steelers won't do this.  Here's why:

If they transition him, he can get offers from other teams.  When he gets an offer, the Steelers get the chance to match it.  If they refuse, Bell gets the contract from the other team, and Pittsburgh gets nothing: no compensation from the other team & no comp pick.  So, if the Steelers were to try to do this, they'd risk getting nothing for all the drama they went through this year. 

 

 

 

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't pass the bar exam, so I have little to add to this conversation.  I just hope Conner keeps the job all year, and Bell never suits up.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2018 at 10:14 AM, Bayhawks said:

I don't think it was worth it for them to go through it this year; but they did.  If you're Bell, do you risk another year on the chance that the Steelers do something different in 2019 than they did in 2018?  Bell doesn't care if the Steelers "WANT" him back, he cares about the money.  He can virtually guarantee he will be a FA in 2019 by signing by 11/13.  If he signs and the Steelers struggle with the decision to play him/Conner, that's Pitt's problem, not his.  The less the play him, the less wear and tear on his body. 

What incentive does Bell have to go through with this potential "secret" agreement?

Reaching free agency without having to play a down of NFL football this season is the (pretty obvious IMO) incentive. 

That's Bell's best-case scenario at this point.

Share this post


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

In your opinion.  Go ahead and bank on that if you must, I'm not calling this a closed case.  Drew Brees' FT case a few years ago is a prime example based on the exact same section of the CBA.  Brees won the grievance because is was his third time being tagged.  Period.  Just llike Le'Veon is being designated for a 3rd time.  Period.  NOS's argument was that the CBA "meant" the third time by the same team, but they didn't win it.  The same potential is here.

 

 

If Bell had the option to sit this year out and still bump up to the QB-level tag next year, then it would be beyond obvious that's what he's doing, and this thread would be a ghost town.

And when you think about it, tagged players would be sitting out left and right if this option was available to them.

But there's a whole CBA section (that you've even quoted) that specifies the tag stays at the 120% of previous salary the following year in this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really thought that the Steelers were THAT hot on getting a potential (not certain) compensatory pick. Is that really weighing that heavily on their decision-making regarding Bell?

Share this post


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

I didn't pass the bar exam, so I have little to add to this conversation.  I just hope Conner keeps the job all year, and Bell never suits up.

Since when is that a requirement to have an opinion on a legal interpretation? ?

Share this post


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

Since when is that a requirement to have an opinion on a legal interpretation? ?

I object!  Stop badgering the witness!

Share this post


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

If Bell had the option to sit this year out and still bump up to the QB-level tag next year, then it would be beyond obvious that's what he's doing, and this thread would be a ghost town.

And when you think about it, tagged players would be sitting out left and right if this option was available to them.

But there's a whole CBA section (that you've even quoted) that specifies the tag stays at the 120% of previous salary the following year in this scenario.

ding, ding.  there would be no discussion.  no idea why hank doesn't see this.

Share this post


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

I never really thought that the Steelers were THAT hot on getting a potential (not certain) compensatory pick. Is that really weighing that heavily on their decision-making regarding Bell?

What decision-making?  The decision the Steelers made was to tag him.  My guess is they thought it would be a repeat of last year.  But once 7/15 (or whatever the exact date was) came and went, there is no more decisions for the Steelers to make.  I mean other than whether they would rescind the tag and just let him walk, but what's the point in that?  My guess is they want 6ish games from him this year AND a compensatory pick in the future when they likely lose him next off season.

Edited by bryhamm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great line from Ravens DC:

Ravens defensive coordinator Wink Martindale on absent Steelers RB Le'Veon Bell: "There are a lot of stats [since 2015] that the Steelers are actually better without him. That might be why he’s riding a jet ski down in Miami right now."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I never really thought that the Steelers were THAT hot on getting a potential (not certain) compensatory pick. Is that really weighing that heavily on their decision-making regarding Bell?

Maybe the Steelers are happy to set an example that the team is above the player? Accept the contract we offer or choose to not get paid by us at all.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82ad400f/article/mike-wallace-contract-offers-pulled-steelers-gm-says

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdown-corner/steelers-statement-mike-wallace-contract-offer-antonio-brown-060305426--nfl.html

It turned out pretty well for Antonio Brown over Mike Wallace. It's been working pretty well this season w/ James Conner... 

Edited by eNdblu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, tjnc09 said:

Wow.  I said "another Bell supporter".  Try reading my reply before responding.  :mellow:

Definitions of Another:

Quote

 

1.

used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further.

"have another drink"

synonyms:one more, a further, an additional

"have another drink"

2.

used to refer to a different person or thing from one already mentioned or known about.

"come back another day"

 

I think you went with one definition when you typed it and I read the other. As in, "Look, some other guy was saying the exact opposite of this," but I read that as, "Somebody who is also stating that the passing game is..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, if he doesn't get in there by the time limit to sign and accrue a year, he won't be coming back at all in 2018. this thread can go into hibernation until spring.

Share this post


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

FYI, if he doesn't get in there by the time limit to sign and accrue a year, he won't be coming back at all in 2018. this thread can go into hibernation until spring.

Duh. If he doesn't sign by the deadline, he's not allowed to sign after it.

Share this post


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

Bell doesn't seem to have been too concerned with deadlines this year... 

I'm leaning towards total no-show for 2018.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I'm leaning towards total no-show for 2018.

Same here. I can only guess is that they told him to stay away in exchange for not tagging him again. They save millions for a guy that they may not even use, he gets to walk and sign with the Jets for 2019.

Share this post


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

Same here. I can only guess is that they told him to stay away in exchange for not tagging him again. They save millions for a guy that they may not even use, he gets to walk and sign with the Jets for 2019.

Then again, he's a pretty cheap insurance policy for the playoffs if he's under contract for the last 6 games. Right around $5 million?

Share this post


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

Then again, he's a pretty cheap insurance policy for the playoffs if he's under contract for the last 6 games. Right around $5 million?

Yeah, even if they're not "planning on" playing him, I'd much rather have that option if Conner gets hurt than Samuels or Ridley.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

Then again, he's a pretty cheap insurance policy for the playoffs if he's under contract for the last 6 games. Right around $5 million?

True but then gotta think he would sit out the playoffs. Once he gets his 6, no reason to believe he won't revert back to his plan to save himself for 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

Then again, he's a pretty cheap insurance policy for the playoffs if he's under contract for the last 6 games. Right around $5 million?

Yeah, they can pay a guy who doesn't want to play $850,000 to show up for the game and pretend he has a cramp.   He's made it clear he wasn't willing to risk injury for $14.5 mil.  Why would he risk injury for $5 mil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doug B said:

I never really thought that the Steelers were THAT hot on getting a potential (not certain) compensatory pick. Is that really weighing that heavily on their decision-making regarding Bell?

Questions like this make me sad that most fans (even ardent fantasy players) have little respect for the complexities of running a team and how those need to be factored into cap space & draft picks. You can't fully understand today's game without understanding these dynamics.

Of course that's a huge consideration. He's almost a shoe-in to get a free 3rd round pick (at worst 4th) due to the contract size he will sign. Those picks are incredibly value to any organization but moreso to teams that have to draft and develop because they are picking late every year (those with good QBs already).

 

Edited by Phenomena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious whether Bell would pass a drug screening if he reports.  This is purely speculation, but given his time off and his history, I wonder whether that is a factor in Bell not reporting.  Purely speculation, as I say.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, socrates said:

I am curious whether Bell would pass a drug screening if he reports.  This is purely speculation, but given his time off and his history, I wonder whether that is a factor in Bell not reporting.  Purely speculation, as I say.

Think this is a valid point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ThaPenguin said:

True but then gotta think he would sit out the playoffs. Once he gets his 6, no reason to believe he won't revert back to his plan to save himself for 2019.

While he doesn't want to get injured, I think the chance for a ring trumps that fear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

While he doesn't want to get injured, I think the chance for a ring trumps that fear. 

Wrong.  Can't agree at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

Wrong.  Can't agree at all.

You're telling me a professional athlete is not interested in winning a ring? Got it.

You could argue this is all about the money, and it is, but winning a ring helps increase the paycheck, not decrease it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

You're telling me a professional athlete is not interested in winning a ring? 

I didn't say that whatsoever.

33 minutes ago, TheFanatic said:

 

You could argue this is all about the money, and it is, but winning a ring helps increase the paycheck, not decrease it. 

So does playing for 850k per week, which he is also not doing.

So, yeah, I don't agree at all when talking about Bell.

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, we have certified eye test talent evaluators here telling us Bell is better.  Those opinions are more meaningful than the DC of Pittsburgh's #1 rival.

OWINGS MILLS, Md. -- Baltimore Ravens defensive coordinator Wink Martindale isn't breathing a sigh of relief from the fact that Pro Bowl running back Le'Veon Bell has yet to report to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

"There are a lot of stats [since 2015] that the Steelers are actually better without him," Martindale said Thursday. "That might be why he's riding a jet-ski down in Miami right now."

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.