Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Eminence

Le'Veon Bell

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Now, RBs will have the leverage of sitting out and holding a large chunk of the team's cap hostage (while they sit out, the team has to keep the cap room available in case they sign).  What teams are going to be willing to eat $10M, $12M, $14M of dead cap by franchising a player who won't play for them?

Guess we'll see. The Steelers are one.

Share this post


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

Looks like it was back in March.  Link.

"I'm not going to sit out. I'm going to be in the facility Week 1," Bell said on Instagram Wednesday. "It's going to be a rerun of last year. I'm not going to camp. I'm not doing nothing else extra, OTAs, none of that. 

Okay, so in March, before the negotiations fell through, and before Gurley and DJ got their deals, he made this statement.  Then things changed, but he isn't allowed to change his thoughts?

The Steelers said they weren't considering trading Bell, then 2 weeks later, they were listening to offers and calling teams.  Are they not allowed to change their minds/plans either when circumstances change?

Share this post


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

Wait, so until 3 days ago, we were convinced that Bell HAD to sign by 11/13 or he'd be able to be tagged again in 2019 at the $14.5M tag rate, but you claim that "guys have always had this option, they were just stupid enough to exercise it?"  I'm pretty sure that at various points, I've read posts you made referencing that Bell had to sign or he could be franchised again at $14.5M.  If I'm mistaken, I will apologize in advance, but if I'm not, you can't claim that "guys have always had this option," as we didn't know this WAS an option until a few days ago.

He doesn't have to do anything next year to change the system, rather than the market.  By getting the NFL to admit that a player can sit out a year while tagged, and still advance to the next tag rate, he's changed the system for RBs.  Prior to this, if a RB gets franchise tagged twice, much of the prime of his career will be gone before he truly becomes a FA.  @Anarchy99 posted about this previously.  Now, teams will be much less inclined to franchise tag RBs (especially for a 2nd year) because they know they might be sacrificing a significant amount of their cap for a player who can just sit out a year, rest their body, and force a larger paycheck the following year (either through advancing to the next tag level, or becoming a FA).  Bell HAS changed the system for RBs, already.

You have said many times that the Steelers don't argue stuff in the media, but that's just plain false.  The inaccurate leaks about what they offered, the inaccurate leak about Bell agreeing to a deal then backing out, the constant comments last night about how Steeler FO expects Bell to report this week-they argue stuff through the media ALL THE TIME, you just choose to ignore it.  We have no named source saying Bell backed out of a deal; we have a named source saying that's not true.  You choose to believe the un-named source because it fits what you want to believe.  We have a named source saying Bell is doing what he's doing to bring value back to the RB position, and his actions are bearing that out, but you choose to dis-believe it, because it doesn't fit what you want to believe.  You're entitled to believe what you want, but stop trying to pretend that your beliefs are incontrovertible facts, especially when facts that ARE actually incontrovertible prove your beliefs wrong.

On one thing, we agree, it does speak VOLUMES that the Steelers players had so much to say about this: It speaks VOLUMES about them being crappy teammates. 

 

Players have always had the right to sit out and not sign the tender. They can take whatever chances and risk whatever they want. For a lot of reasons, they haven't been stupid enough to take it to the level Bell has, and Bell's actions did more harm than good for the perceived value of running backs. He was one of the premier RBs in the NFL and replaced more than adequately by a guy who'd had no success in the NFL before, which adds credence to the idea that RBs are extremely replaceable. He hasn't changed anything at all, the rules and the system are the same as they've always been. Teams will still tag players the same way they always have and it'll be up to the players to either sign or leave the money on the table. 

The Steelers do not discuss CONTRACT issues in the media.  And no one ever said Bell backed out of a deal. It was reported that Bell's agent thought Bell was going to sign a contract and there was an agreement with the Steelers, but Bell decided at the last minute to not sign the contract back in 2017. There was also a laughable report that he was offered $10M in guarantees for 2018 when the tag was higher, which was ridiculous to believe both then and now unless you believe the Steelers' organization is utterly incompetent. Maybe you believe that though. You want to believe that, have at it. I'm not choosing what to believe and what not to believe, I'm looking at what's realistic and what's not. 

The teammates aren't bad teammates because they spoke out. IThere was a reason for it, because it's rarely done. It speaks to the respect Bell doesn't have in that locker room for the way he's gone about his "business" by people who understand far more about the situation than any of us.

You must really hate the Steelers in order to believe some of the stuff you say you do lol.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Okay, so in March, before the negotiations fell through, and before Gurley and DJ got their deals, he made this statement.  Then things changed, but he isn't allowed to change his thoughts?

The Steelers said they weren't considering trading Bell, then 2 weeks later, they were listening to offers and calling teams.  Are they not allowed to change their minds/plans either when circumstances change?

You are always going to spin things to fit, aren't you?

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Players have always had the right to sit out and not sign the tender. They can take whatever chances and risk whatever they want. For a lot of reasons, they haven't been stupid enough to take it to the level Bell has, and Bell's actions did more harm than good for the perceived value of running backs. He was one of the premier RBs in the NFL and replaced more than adequately by a guy who'd had no success in the NFL before, which adds credence to the idea that RBs are extremely replaceable. He hasn't changed anything at all, the rules and the system are the same as they've always been. Teams will still tag players the same way they always have and it'll be up to the players to either sign or leave the money on the table. 

The Steelers do not discuss CONTRACT issues in the media.  And no one ever said Bell backed out of a deal. It was reported that Bell's agent thought Bell was going to sign a contract and there was an agreement with the Steelers, but Bell decided at the last minute to not sign the contract back in 2017. There was also a laughable report that he was offered $10M in guarantees for 2018 when the tag was higher, which was ridiculous to believe both then and now unless you believe the Steelers' organization is utterly incompetent. Maybe you believe that though. You want to believe that, have at it. I'm not choosing what to believe and what not to believe, I'm looking at what's realistic and what's not. 

The teammates aren't bad teammates because they spoke out. IThere was a reason for it, because it's rarely done. It speaks to the respect Bell doesn't have in that locker room for the way he's gone about his "business" by people who understand far more about the situation than any of us.

You must really hate the Steelers in order to believe some of the stuff you say you do lol.  

No, they couldn't take chances about sitting out.  Until 3 days ago, we all thought that if a player sat out a whole year, he would be in the exact same situation he was in before.  Sitting out gave him no leverage, only the hope that the team would just change their approach.  Doing that would have been stupid.  Sitting out to force the team to pay your more money or allow you to become a FA isn't stupid. 

The Steelers do discuss contract issues in the media, they just do it by having anonymous sources leak the info to reporters.  None of what you are posting here is facts, it is what you CHOOSE to believe becuase it suits your preconceived beliefs.

The teammates are bad teammates because they speak out.  There was no reason for it, other than that they are crappy teammates.

You must really love the Steelers to believe the stuff you post (that flies in the face of facts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are STILL rehashing Bells decision to not report.  Are you guys cutting and pasting posts from 2,3, or 4 months ago?  Or are you retyping the same things over and over again :lol: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You are always going to spin things to fit, aren't you?

Bingo.

Bell's thoughts and statements have changed multiple times to fit whatever he wants at the time, but it's always been about him. It's not about the league, and his actions have gone a long way towards proving just how replaceable even the best running backs in the NFL are. Future RBs can thank him when teams look at how easily the Steelers replaced an elite talent and use that to justify why there won't be a premium placed on the position. Congrats, Le'Veon.

 

1 minute ago, Bayhawks said:

No, they couldn't take chances about sitting out.  Until 3 days ago, we all thought that if a player sat out a whole year, he would be in the exact same situation he was in before.  Sitting out gave him no leverage, only the hope that the team would just change their approach.  Doing that would have been stupid.  Sitting out to force the team to pay your more money or allow you to become a FA isn't stupid. 

The Steelers do discuss contract issues in the media, they just do it by having anonymous sources leak the info to reporters.  None of what you are posting here is facts, it is what you CHOOSE to believe becuase it suits your preconceived beliefs.

The teammates are bad teammates because they speak out.  There was no reason for it, other than that they are crappy teammates.

You must really love the Steelers to believe the stuff you post (that flies in the face of facts).

Done with the stupid arguments that you post here. There's a reason that no one agrees with you, man. Other than probably Le'Veon himself.

Neither facts nor common sense support your reasoning behind any of it, and meanwhile the Steelers have replaced Bell with a 2nd year RB and gone 6-2-1 while getting better statistical production from the RB spot. If that helps RBs in the future, awesome.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No, they couldn't take chances about sitting out.  Until 3 days ago, we all thought that if a player sat out a whole year, he would be in the exact same situation he was in before.  Sitting out gave him no leverage, only the hope that the team would just change their approach.  Doing that would have been stupid.  Sitting out to force the team to pay your more money or allow you to become a FA isn't stupid. 

The Steelers do discuss contract issues in the media, they just do it by having anonymous sources leak the info to reporters.  None of what you are posting here is facts, it is what you CHOOSE to believe becuase it suits your preconceived beliefs.

The teammates are bad teammates because they speak out.  There was no reason for it, other than that they are crappy teammates.

You must really love the Steelers to believe the stuff you post (that flies in the face of facts).

:lmao:

 

Share this post


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

Look at the deal that Dion Lewis got, the deal that McKinnon got.  They got those deals because they were free agents, and were able to negotiate with multiple teams.

Those deals were fine deals for the level of player that Lewis and McKinnon are, but I don't think Bell is envious of either. Lewis got a $5.75 M guaranteed at signing but took on a risk of being a  cap casualty in Year Two -- the Titans can save over $2.3 M on Lewis's 2019 salary ($4 M vs. cap hit of $1.68 M) if they cut him before the 5th day of the 2019 league year. That doesn't seem to be how Bell is defining security in a contract.

McKinnon, two years younger than Lewis, got $11.7 M guaranteed at signing. His deal is structured so that the 49ers have to wait until 2020 to save money on cutting McKinnon's salary vs. cap hit. McKinnon will then be as old as Lewis is now (28). Nice deal for McKinnon, but the 49ers protected themselves, too.

For what it's worth ... many NFL teams view deals like McKinnon's as bad business, even with the built-in protections. Still, it only takes one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was curious about how teams protect themselves from onerous contracts, so I went and looked at the vaunted Todd Gurley contract. $21.95 M guaranteed at signing, and $12.55 M guaranteed on the 3rd day of the 2019 league year (early March).

Even in THAT deal, though ... in Gurley's age 28 year (2022), the Rams can cut him and recoup $800,000. In his age 29 year, Gurley can be cut and the Rams recoup $5.5 M.

Share this post


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

Bingo.

Bell's thoughts and statements have changed multiple times to fit whatever he wants at the time, but it's always been about him. It's not about the league, and his actions have gone a long way towards proving just how replaceable even the best running backs in the NFL are. Future RBs can thank him when teams look at how easily the Steelers replaced an elite talent and use that to justify why there won't be a premium placed on the position. Congrats, Le'Veon.

 

Done with the stupid arguments that you post here. There's a reason that no one agrees with you, man. Other than probably Le'Veon himself.

Neither facts nor common sense support your reasoning behind any of it, and meanwhile the Steelers have replaced Bell with a 2nd year RB and gone 6-2-1 while getting better statistical production from the RB spot. If that helps RBs in the future, awesome.

You keep bringing up Conner and how well he's done.  That's not even remotely part of what I'm talking about.  Conner has been great, better than I thought he has been.  That's not relevant to what I'm discussing. 

The Steelers thoughts and statements have changed because the situation has changed.  You, yourself, posted about this previously (how his position probably changed because of the contracts given to Gurley and DJ; I think the Earl Thomas injury played a part as well).  So bringing up a comment he made in March when he expected the Steelers to make a better offer, before the RB contracts were given to the other guys & before the injury to Thomas is just pointless.

There's a reason you keep coming back to the same points (that I'm not arguing against); I wonder why that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Those deals were fine deals for the level of player that Lewis and McKinnon are, but I don't think Bell is envious of either. Lewis got a $5.75 M guaranteed at signing but took on a risk of being a  cap casualty in Year Two -- the Titans can save over $2.3 M on Lewis's 2019 salary ($4 M vs. cap hit of $1.68 M) if they cut him before the 5th day of the 2019 league year. That doesn't seem to be how Bell is defining security in a contract.

McKinnon, two years younger than Lewis, got $11.7 M guaranteed at signing. His deal is structured so that the 49ers have to wait until 2020 to save money on cutting McKinnon's salary vs. cap hit. McKinnon will then be as old as Lewis is now (28). Nice deal for McKinnon, but the 49ers protected themselves, too.

For what it's worth ... many NFL teams view deals like McKinnon's as bad business, even with the built-in protections. Still, it only takes one.

No, those deasl were over-pays, and were regarded as such when they were given out (you note this yourself, with your last line).  But when a player is a FA, he can negotiate with more than 1 team, sometimes a team has to over-pay to get tghe guy they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet a lot of people don't look at these RB contracts all that closely -- David Johnson's contract was worth a good bit more at signing ($24.6 M) than Gurley's. Johnson had ALL of his 2018 and 2019 salary PLUS 50% of his 2020 salary guaranteed upon signing. In case of injury, 100% of his salary 2020 becomes guaranteed. On top of that, the Cardinals can't cut Johnson for salary-cap saving until his age-29 season.

Edited by Doug B
added detail

Share this post


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

You are always going to spin things to fit, aren't you?

No, but I am going to understand that a comment made before negotiations fell through, before other RBs got larger deals, and before another player suffered a serious injury while playing on a one-year deal isn't an iron-clad blood oath, and is subject to change.

Share this post


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

But when a player is a FA, he can negotiate with more than 1 team, sometimes a team has to over-pay to get tghe guy they want.

That's fine. Good teams never put any one player on a pedestal. If a player doesn't fit into the overall cap management plan, he's unwanted regardless of ability.

Share this post


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

You keep bringing up Conner and how well he's done.  That's not even remotely part of what I'm talking about.  Conner has been great, better than I thought he has been.  That's not relevant to what I'm discussing. 

The Steelers thoughts and statements have changed because the situation has changed.  You, yourself, posted about this previously (how his position probably changed because of the contracts given to Gurley and DJ; I think the Earl Thomas injury played a part as well).  So bringing up a comment he made in March when he expected the Steelers to make a better offer, before the RB contracts were given to the other guys & before the injury to Thomas is just pointless.

There's a reason you keep coming back to the same points (that I'm not arguing against); I wonder why that is?

You're saying that he did what he did to change the market for RBs because you think that's what he just said. Conner's production has EVERYTHING to do with that, because it shows even more that the premium Bell wants to be paid for isn't worth paying for a running back. If Bell is replaceable, any RB is replaceable, and Bell just emphasized that in a very public way to the entire league. Once Bell backed himself into that corner, he had nowhere else to go and now needs to find a new way to justify his hold out. Unfortunately for him, the team didn't need him and he hurt both the value of RBs and his own bank balance in the process. 

The Steelers haven't changed their stance at any point. They made what they felt was their best offer (go ahead and believe whatever report you want to, realistic or not), and when Bell didn't sign in July, they moved on. If he reported, great... they expected him to. He didn't, and they went about their business without him. IF anything changed, it was Bell's desire to report, and that may have changed when he saw Gurley's deal or Johnson's deal or Mack's deal, and that was his prerogative.  He's not comparable in reliability or age to Gurley or Mack, but that's a different debate entirely.

I didn't bring up what he said in March, but that wasn't the only time he said it, either. He didn't just sit back and try to take care of his business, he was vocal about it before his intentions changed. That's perfectly fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if those changes had at least something to do with the reaction he got from his teammates. The guys who spoke up are leaders on a largely veteran and successful team and you can be sure it took a lot for them to speak publicly about that stuff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You're saying that he did what he did to change the market for RBs because you think that's what he just said. Conner's production has EVERYTHING to do with that, because it shows even more that the premium Bell wants to be paid for isn't worth paying for a running back. If Bell is replaceable, any RB is replaceable, and Bell just emphasized that in a very public way to the entire league. Once Bell backed himself into that corner, he had nowhere else to go and now needs to find a new way to justify his hold out. Unfortunately for him, the team didn't need him and he hurt both the value of RBs and his own bank balance in the process. 

The Steelers haven't changed their stance at any point. They made what they felt was their best offer (go ahead and believe whatever report you want to, realistic or not), and when Bell didn't sign in July, they moved on. If he reported, great... they expected him to. He didn't, and they went about their business without him. IF anything changed, it was Bell's desire to report, and that may have changed when he saw Gurley's deal or Johnson's deal or Mack's deal, and that was his prerogative.  He's not comparable in reliability or age to Gurley or Mack, but that's a different debate entirely.

I didn't bring up what he said in March, but that wasn't the only time he said it, either. He didn't just sit back and try to take care of his business, he was vocal about it before his intentions changed. That's perfectly fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if those changes had at least something to do with the reaction he got from his teammates. The guys who spoke up are leaders on a largely veteran and successful team and you can be sure it took a lot for them to speak publicly about that stuff. 

The bolded doesn't make sense; what are you trying to say?

Conner's production has nothing to do with Bell's goals or actions.  You can say it does as many times as you want, but it doesn't.  If you are trying to argue that Bell will be looked at as being less valuable because Conner's doing great, that's a different topic that has nothing to do with what I'm saying (yet you keep trying to insert it into the discussion with me). 

The Steelers have changed their stance.  Prior to the negotiations this off-season, Rooney said he wanted to sign Bell to a long-term deal.  Do you think he still feels that way?  No-because the circumstances have changed:  Bell's teammates turned on him, Conner is playing great, the team rebounded from a poor start to look like a top team in the AFC.  So, the Steelers no longer wanting to sign Bell long-term is a change in their stance, but due to changing circumstances, it is an appropriate change.  Bell said he was planning to be their week 1 before the Steelers made him an offer that he felt was too low, before other RBs got deals that were for more money, and before Thomas suffered a serious injury while he was playing out a 1-year contract.  His stance changed, and it was an appropriate change.

The reaction he got from his teammates were from crappy teammates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so tired of this guy.

he and his agent played this so poorly. 

sure i am bitter that i have him in multiple redrafts BUT as a pure NFL fan it is exhausting and as a hard working middle class citizen it is disgusting to hear at $855 K per GAME he is under-paid

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why wouldn't I take him at his word?  At one point has he done anything to cause me (or anyone) to do otherwise?

He said he won't play for less than what he thinks hes worth-he hasn't.

He said he wants to bring value back to the RB position-by impacting the use of the franchise tag, he has.

He NEVER said he would be back by week 1, week 4, week 7, week 10, etc.  None of the reports that he would do so came from him/his agent.

If he was just about getting "mo money," he'd have reported the friday before their bye, because he could have gotten the roster exemption out of the way and collected more money.  

Because Bell has contradicted himself on several occasions and has proven to be a knucklehead.

Bell has made it clear he is not concerned with getting "mo money" this year, it is all about getting the "mo money" guarantee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Doug B said:

That's fine. Good teams never put any one player on a pedestal. If a player doesn't fit into the overall cap management plan, he's unwanted regardless of ability.

Lucky for Bell, there are way more bad teams (GMs) than good ones. Someone is gonna give him big $. I just hope the OL is good enough to allow him to run the way he does. He could end up a product of the PITT OL. As an owner, that has me worried more than anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lod001 said:

Lucky for Bell, there are way more bad teams (GMs) than good ones. Someone is gonna give him big $. I just hope the OL is good enough to allow him to run the way he does. He could end up a product of the PITT OL. As an owner, that has me worried more than anything.

And I think this is a VERY legitimate worry.   He is a good back so should be decent anywhere but I am not sure he is going to find an o-line and offensive scheme (and the number of touches) that he got with Pittsburgh.

Share this post


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

The bolded doesn't make sense; what are you trying to say?

Conner's production has nothing to do with Bell's goals or actions.  You can say it does as many times as you want, but it doesn't.  If you are trying to argue that Bell will be looked at as being less valuable because Conner's doing great, that's a different topic that has nothing to do with what I'm saying (yet you keep trying to insert it into the discussion with me). 

The Steelers have changed their stance.  Prior to the negotiations this off-season, Rooney said he wanted to sign Bell to a long-term deal.  Do you think he still feels that way?  No-because the circumstances have changed:  Bell's teammates turned on him, Conner is playing great, the team rebounded from a poor start to look like a top team in the AFC.  So, the Steelers no longer wanting to sign Bell long-term is a change in their stance, but due to changing circumstances, it is an appropriate change.  Bell said he was planning to be their week 1 before the Steelers made him an offer that he felt was too low, before other RBs got deals that were for more money, and before Thomas suffered a serious injury while he was playing out a 1-year contract.  His stance changed, and it was an appropriate change.

The reaction he got from his teammates were from crappy teammates. 

Conner's production has EVERYTHING to do with Bell's goals, but they had no impact on his actions. You actually believe that Bell's goal was to bring more value to the RB position, and Conner's production has caused Bell's actions to do the exact opposite. He wants to set a new market for RBs, but all he did was prove how easy it is to replace that production. It reinforces how replaceable even the elite RBs are in the right situation, and while the franchise tag as a whole may or may not be used the same way (time will tell on that), his actions do a lot to devalue the position even more than it already had been.

And no, the Steelers didn't change their stance of wanting Bell to play this year. All that changed was their ability - not their desire - to sign him. Once July 16th came and went, they were no longer ALLOWED to sign him long term. Their desires never changed - they wanted Bell to report and play and they did everything they realistically could up until the deadline to get him in there short of paying him the ridiculous contract he felt he was worth. They offered him a long term contract and they offered him $14.5M for this year alone, and neither did the trick. I know, you want to believe they offered him less than the tag when there's more realistic and equally reliable reporting that says they basically offered him what Gurley got, and that's up to you. 

Oh well, they moved on, and the decision has already proven to be the right one in everyone's opinion except yours. No one ever said that Bell couldn't change his mind.  No one will force him to do anything. But his actions had consequences, and both he and other RBs will be paying that price in the future.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Bell needed to report by tuesday to get an accrued season

Thats really the only reason I thought he was reporting.

 

Share this post


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

I thought Bell needed to report by tuesday to get an accrued season

Thats really the only reason I thought he was reporting.

The accrued-season thing is thought to completely be irrelevant now. Wouldn't surprise me for that to change somehow ... but for now, the conventional wisdom is that the accrued season doesn't matter at all.

Edited by Doug B

Share this post


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

The accrued-season thing is thought to completely be irrelevant now. Wouldn't surprise me for that to change somehow ... but for now, the conventional wisdom is that the accrued season doesn't matter at all.

yeah i just saw that. Basically it would count as a 3rd franchise tag even if he doesn't report making his paymnet at a level the Steelers probably won't pay.

 

thx

Share this post


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

And I think this is a VERY legitimate worry.   He is a good back so should be decent anywhere but I am not sure he is going to find an o-line and offensive scheme (and the number of touches) that he got with Pittsburgh.

I thought he only wanted the salary of 2 players not the touches of 2 players.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, belljr said:

yeah i just saw that. Basically it would count as a 3rd franchise tag even if he doesn't report making his paymnet at a level the Steelers probably won't pay.

 

thx

At this point it is unlikely the Steelers would want Bell at the $14.5 million cap.   Conner has made Bell expendable to the Steelers.   By not reporting Bell really did the Steelers a big favor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the part that I don't get.  And I apologize if it was posted before but I think that I've read nearly all of this thread and haven't read it.

We all seem to agree that Bell will be losing $14.5 million this year if he doesn't report.  And we all seem to agree that, unless teams disapprove of him sitting out this year, he'll get a huge contract next year if he sits out, although there is disagreement as to how big it will be.  And we all seem to agree that he would most likely get a much smaller/less lucrative deal if he were to play this year and gets injured.  So why didn't he just report and take out an insurance policy?  Sure, it's a big one but Lloyds and other companies are willing to take on that risk.  I think that Lloyd's insured David Beckham for something like $100 million.  The upside that I'm hearing is that Bell gets $30-50 million guaranteed.  And he's giving up $15 million to get there.  I'd have to imagine that a $50 million insurance contract would cost less than $15 million.  So, with that option being available, I think that him sitting out has to be viewed negatively by teams and players.

Now, with that being said, yes, he does have one less year of wear and tear.  But he's giving up $14.5 million for that.  So unless he just plans on playing one less year, he's going to get that wear and tear anyway.  So why not get it for $14.5 million as opposed to for $3-5 million at the backend of his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, belljr said:

yeah i just saw that. Basically it would count as a 3rd franchise tag even if he doesn't report making his paymnet at a level the Steelers probably won't pay.

 

thx

If the above is true, why did he just get to Pittsburgh this week, and why does the owner expect him to report next week?  And why would he come back now (presumably out of football shape) to make $855k per week (and even less in the playoff games & SB) and risk injuries?

Something doesn't add up.

Share this post


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

 

At this point it is unlikely the Steelers would want Bell at the $14.5 million cap.   Conner has made Bell expendable to the Steelers.   By not reporting Bell really did the Steelers a big favor.

Is it true that the Steelers get a 2019 addition to the salary cap for whatever portion of Bell's 2018 franchise tag money he didn't receive? I seem to remember reading that.

If that's true it's even more clear... Bell's actions didn't impact the Steelers on the field at all and puts them into an even better situation for next year and beyond.

Share this post


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

Because Bell has contradicted himself on several occasions and has proven to be a knucklehead.

Bell has made it clear he is not concerned with getting "mo money" this year, it is all about getting the "mo money" guarantee.

 

OK, fair enough.

Share this post


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

Here's the part that I don't get.  And I apologize if it was posted before but I think that I've read nearly all of this thread and haven't read it.

We all seem to agree that Bell will be losing $14.5 million this year if he doesn't report.  And we all seem to agree that, unless teams disapprove of him sitting out this year, he'll get a huge contract next year if he sits out, although there is disagreement as to how big it will be.  And we all seem to agree that he would most likely get a much smaller/less lucrative deal if he were to play this year and gets injured.  So why didn't he just report and take out an insurance policy?  Sure, it's a big one but Lloyds and other companies are willing to take on that risk.  I think that Lloyd's insured David Beckham for something like $100 million.  The upside that I'm hearing is that Bell gets $30-50 million guaranteed.  And he's giving up $15 million to get there.  I'd have to imagine that a $50 million insurance contract would cost less than $15 million.  So, with that option being available, I think that him sitting out has to be viewed negatively by teams and players.

Now, with that being said, yes, he does have one less year of wear and tear.  But he's giving up $14.5 million for that.  So unless he just plans on playing one less year, he's going to get that wear and tear anyway.  So why not get it for $14.5 million as opposed to for $3-5 million at the backend of his career.

I can't speak to why he didn't play and get an insurance policy. College kids take out insurance policies on themselves to play in single bowl games sometimes, but I don't know how that stuff really works. I think he bet on the Steelers needing him more than they did, or he's betting that a team is going to pay him a ridiculous amount of money next year that'll make the whole thing worthwhile. I wish him luck with all of that.

Again, it's been repeated that Bell doesn't look at future or rolling guarantees as worthwhile because it feels like playing on one year contracts. So, if anyone thinks that Bell is going to get $30M or more fully guaranteed in year one of his contract with the history that he has AND with teams watching Conner be at least as productive as he ever was, I think that's wishful thinking. W hen Gurley got $22M guaranteed in year one plus rolling guarantees in future years, I think Bell would be lucky to even see that much. Teams are going to look long and hard at the return they'd get for an investment that big.

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Conner's production has EVERYTHING to do with Bell's goals, but they had no impact on his actions. You actually believe that Bell's goal was to bring more value to the RB position, and Conner's production has caused Bell's actions to do the exact opposite. He wants to set a new market for RBs, but all he did was prove how easy it is to replace that production. It reinforces how replaceable even the elite RBs are in the right situation, and while the franchise tag as a whole may or may not be used the same way (time will tell on that), his actions do a lot to devalue the position even more than it already had been.

And no, the Steelers didn't change their stance of wanting Bell to play this year. All that changed was their ability - not their desire - to sign him. Once July 16th came and went, they were no longer ALLOWED to sign him long term. Their desires never changed - they wanted Bell to report and play and they did everything they realistically could up until the deadline to get him in there short of paying him the ridiculous contract he felt he was worth. They offered him a long term contract and they offered him $14.5M for this year alone, and neither did the trick. I know, you want to believe they offered him less than the tag when there's more realistic and equally reliable reporting that says they basically offered him what Gurley got, and that's up to you. 

Oh well, they moved on, and the decision has already proven to be the right one in everyone's opinion except yours. No one ever said that Bell couldn't change his mind.  No one will force him to do anything. But his actions had consequences, and both he and other RBs will be paying that price in the future.

Connor's production has nothing to do with Bell's goals or his actions.  You can keep saying otherwise, and you can keep putting it in caps, but that doesn't make it true.

Again, why are you trying to change the subject from what I posted?  I didnt' say their stance was to have him play all year, I said that Rooney said he wanted to sign Bell, long-term.  I'm positive he no longer feels that way (which will be born out if they don't franchise him or try to sign him).  That is a change in their stance, and a perfectly reasonable one, just as Bell's decision to change his stance and not report week 1 was reasonable after the Steelers offered him a below-market value contract (because they knew he had no other teams competing with them), he saw the contracts given out to Gurley and DJ, and he saw Thomas suffer a serious injury while playing out a 1-year deal.

Oh well, he refused to play for the franchise tag, and that decision has been proven right, as he will get to play for the $25M QB franchise tag in 2019 or negotiate with all teams as a true FA next offseason, sign a long-term deal with more than the $10M guaranteed the Steelers offered, and given future players (including RBs) leverage against the franchise tag.

Share this post


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

Connor's production has nothing to do with Bell's goals or his actions.  You can keep saying otherwise, and you can keep putting it in caps, but that doesn't make it true.

Again, why are you trying to change the subject from what I posted?  I didnt' say their stance was to have him play all year, I said that Rooney said he wanted to sign Bell, long-term.  I'm positive he no longer feels that way (which will be born out if they don't franchise him or try to sign him).  That is a change in their stance, and a perfectly reasonable one, just as Bell's decision to change his stance and not report week 1 was reasonable after the Steelers offered him a below-market value contract (because they knew he had no other teams competing with them), he saw the contracts given out to Gurley and DJ, and he saw Thomas suffer a serious injury while playing out a 1-year deal.

Oh well, he refused to play for the franchise tag, and that decision has been proven right, as he will get to play for the $25M QB franchise tag in 2019 or negotiate with all teams as a true FA next offseason, sign a long-term deal with more than the $10M guaranteed the Steelers offered, and given future players (including RBs) leverage against the franchise tag.

If you don't think Conner's production has an impact on Bell's supposed goals of increasing the perceived value of the RB position, OK then.

LOL I know... you're about the only person in the world who actually believes that $10M offer story. But keeping fighting that fight, man. You and Le'Veon know he wins out in the end, and that's all that matters ?

Share this post


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

When Gurley got $22M guaranteed in year one plus rolling guarantees in future years ...

At 24 years old vs. Bell at 27.

Share this post


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

If you don't think Conner's production has an impact on Bell's supposed goals of increasing the perceived value of the RB position, OK then.

LOL I know... you're about the only person in the world who actually believes that $10M offer story. But keeping fighting that fight, man. You and Le'Veon know he wins out in the end, and that's all that matters ?

Oh my.....Bell has seemingly established a precedent that if a tagged player doesn't play, he doesn't have to play again under the same tag level.  This was not the case before Bell's actions.  This means that NFL teams will be less likely to use the tag (especially a 2nd and/or 3rd time) as the salary jumps higher each time.  Players (like RBs) who are free to negotiate with multiple teams are able to get larger contracts, because more teams are competing for their services.  So more RBs at the elite level getting FA contracts instead of having to play under 1-year franchise tags will increase the value of RB contracts.  You're doing the same thing: trying to argue a point that I didn't make.  You're talking about the perception of RBs: "easily replaceable."  I'm talking about the value, i.e.-what they get paid.  It doesn't matter that the perception is RBs are easily replaced, when teams have to compete for those RBs, they get paid.  McKinnon and Lewis are two non-elite RBs who got over--paid because they happened to hit FA.  Look at the recent high-draft pick RBs; the NYG, Jax, Car all had to compete with the other teams to draft them, so they picked them high, knowing that they would be required to pay them a lot.  This, despite the fact that the perception is that RB production is easily replaceable.  6/10 highest paid RBs got their contracts through FA, when teams had to compete with each other to sign them, or via top-10 picks in the draft, where they had to compete with each other to draft them.

Competition causes higher salaries for RBs; higher salaries=more value.

If you want to continue to talk about perception of replaceable RB production, that's a different conversation.

Until there are other reports that have any basis in fact, I'll believe the one that does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a great example of how internet arguments always devolve into a mess of semantics and personal attacks.

Maybe it's time to just call it a draw and move on?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This thread is a great example of how internet arguments always devolve into a mess of semantics and personal attacks.

Maybe it's time to just call it a draw and move on?

It will all be over in about 4 days.

Either he'll sit out the year and people stop caring, or he'll come back and be his usual awesome self and people stop caring.

See Josh Gordon thread as a reference.

Share this post


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

Look at the recent high-draft pick RBs; the NYG, Jax, Car all had to compete with the other teams to draft them, so they picked them high, knowing that they would be required to pay them a lot.  This, despite the fact that the perception is that RB production is easily replaceable.

A little apples-to-oranges here -- high-draft pick RBs are expensive, but teams are getting them at age 21 or 22. Also, those draft-pick salaries are slotted ... so unless teams trade out of those picks, that's money they're going to spend anyway.

Share this post


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

Oh my.....Bell has seemingly established a precedent that if a tagged player doesn't play, he doesn't have to play again under the same tag level.  This was not the case before Bell's actions.  This means that NFL teams will be less likely to use the tag (especially a 2nd and/or 3rd time) as the salary jumps higher each time.  Players (like RBs) who are free to negotiate with multiple teams are able to get larger contracts, because more teams are competing for their services.  So more RBs at the elite level getting FA contracts instead of having to play under 1-year franchise tags will increase the value of RB contracts.  You're doing the same thing: trying to argue a point that I didn't make.  You're talking about the perception of RBs: "easily replaceable."  I'm talking about the value, i.e.-what they get paid.  It doesn't matter that the perception is RBs are easily replaced, when teams have to compete for those RBs, they get paid.  McKinnon and Lewis are two non-elite RBs who got over--paid because they happened to hit FA.  Look at the recent high-draft pick RBs; the NYG, Jax, Car all had to compete with the other teams to draft them, so they picked them high, knowing that they would be required to pay them a lot.  This, despite the fact that the perception is that RB production is easily replaceable.  6/10 highest paid RBs got their contracts through FA, when teams had to compete with each other to sign them, or via top-10 picks in the draft, where they had to compete with each other to draft them.

Competition causes higher salaries for RBs; higher salaries=more value.

If you want to continue to talk about perception of replaceable RB production, that's a different conversation.

Until there are other reports that have any basis in fact, I'll believe the one that does.

There are zero reports with any proven facts that the Steelers offered Bell only $10M in first year guarantees. Logically, it made no sense when it was reported but whatever. There are also zero reports with any proven facts that the Steelers offered Bell $20M in first year guarantees. Both have been reported at different times. However, given that the tag was $14.5M and the Steelers aren't an incompetent organization that would offer a guy less money than he's already making, one of them makes a lot more sense than the other. You can use your judgement on which one that is, and apparently your judgement on this and everything else related to Bell is different from everyone else's. And that's OK.

Like I said, if you believe that what Bell did increases the value of RBs in the NFL, I'll just disagree and move on. A player can always get a better deal as an unrestricted free agent than he can as a restricted free agent. But, what he did has an negative impact on the entire market for RBs if an elite RB can be replaced so easily. There's really no way to dispute that, but you can try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Doug B said:

At 24 years old vs. Bell at 27.

Yep. Bell isn't going to get "Gurley money" and depending on which reports you believe, he may have already turned down Gurley money just to get to this point.

Bell considers himself very, very valuable. The question is which team will agree with him after what's happened in the last few months.

Share this post


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

If you don't think Conner's production has an impact on Bell's supposed goals of increasing the perceived value of the RB position, OK then.

LOL I know... you're about the only person in the world who actually believes that $10M offer story. But keeping fighting that fight, man. You and Le'Veon know he wins out in the end, and that's all that matters ?

It's pointless trying to have a conversation with bayhawks. He is never wrong and apparently was in the room when the Steelers offered "10 million". Like I said before,  he'll sign with a bottom dweller next year because he only cares about $. Then that team will be saying, how do we get out of this horrible deal not long after. But yay for bell. Thank God the Steelers didnt cave.

Edited by irish eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Dez coming back and tearing his Achilles in his first day or two does this convince Bell to not report at all?

Share this post


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

With Dez coming back and tearing his Achilles in his first day or two does this convince Bell to not report at all?

Maybe.

If anything it might show him how silly it was to pass on 14.5 million to stay healthy when he could easily get hurt training on his own.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Heisenberg23 said:

so tired of this guy.

he and his agent played this so poorly. 

sure i am bitter that i have him in multiple redrafts BUT as a pure NFL fan it is exhausting and as a hard working middle class citizen it is disgusting to hear at $855 K per GAME he is under-paid

As a hard working middle class citizen, it's quite possible that you're underpaid.

 

If Tom Brady was making $855K per game, would he be underpaid?

Share this post


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

Maybe.

If anything it might show him how silly it was to pass on 14.5 million to stay healthy when he could easily get hurt training on his own.  

I was thinking the same thing...no training camp & trying to get back in game shape can’t be easy. LBell might think about things. 

Share this post


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

It will all be over in about 4 days.

Either he'll sit out the year and people stop caring, or he'll come back and be his usual awesome self and people stop caring.

See Josh Gordon thread as a reference.

Personally, I think he comes back and plays as a backup to Conner, keeping him rested.  That will mean neither is a stud for the remainder of the season unless the other is out.

I have ZERO intel to base that on.  Just my feeling.

Share this post


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

 

At this point it is unlikely the Steelers would want Bell at the $14.5 million cap.   Conner has made Bell expendable to the Steelers.   By not reporting Bell really did the Steelers a big favor.

No what I mean is if he doesn't  sign his tender, sits out the whole season and the Steelers want to franchise him again it will count has the third tag and that price would be qb money. So if he doesn't report he's ttechnically a rrestricted agent service wise but the Steelers won't pay. If I read it corrrectly

Share this post


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

Oh my.....Bell has seemingly established a precedent that if a tagged player doesn't play, he doesn't have to play again under the same tag level.  This was not the case before Bell's actions.  This means that NFL teams will be less likely to use the tag (especially a 2nd and/or 3rd time) as the salary jumps higher each time.  Players (like RBs) who are free to negotiate with multiple teams are able to get larger contracts, because more teams are competing for their services.  So more RBs at the elite level getting FA contracts instead of having to play under 1-year franchise tags will increase the value of RB contracts.  You're doing the same thing: trying to argue a point that I didn't make.  You're talking about the perception of RBs: "easily replaceable."  I'm talking about the value, i.e.-what they get paid.  It doesn't matter that the perception is RBs are easily replaced, when teams have to compete for those RBs, they get paid.  McKinnon and Lewis are two non-elite RBs who got over--paid because they happened to hit FA.  Look at the recent high-draft pick RBs; the NYG, Jax, Car all had to compete with the other teams to draft them, so they picked them high, knowing that they would be required to pay them a lot.  This, despite the fact that the perception is that RB production is easily replaceable.  6/10 highest paid RBs got their contracts through FA, when teams had to compete with each other to sign them, or via top-10 picks in the draft, where they had to compete with each other to draft them.

Competition causes higher salaries for RBs; higher salaries=more value.

If you want to continue to talk about perception of replaceable RB production, that's a different conversation.

Until there are other reports that have any basis in fact, I'll believe the one that does.

Not sure what you mean that was not the case before Bells actions about the tag levels.

That's exactly what the players wanted and got in the last CBA

The salary jump is because of the second and third tag from the CBA

Edited by belljr

Share this post


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

And I think this is a VERY legitimate worry.   He is a good back so should be decent anywhere but I am not sure he is going to find an o-line and offensive scheme (and the number of touches) that he got with Pittsburgh.

TEN might have the line (they did last year and still have the players). Not sure he'd fit in what Vrabel is trying to do though.

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.