Just for the poll.To a varying extent on a team by team basis.
Not sure this is new thread worthy.. we have a handful already.
And any other team IMO.It certainly did as far as the Steelers were concerned.
Then the poll needs an "it depends" option. All it takes is one team to not care about it and the answer will become no at that point.Just for the poll.
i'm not sure that it would for the Steelers because they don't give much guaranteed money anyway and structure everything as roster bonuses for each year, right? so at worst, they would eat a partial year's salary?It certainly did as far as the Steelers were concerned.
It kept the Steelers from even offering Bell a long term contract when he was still on his rookie deal. At the time when they would have been negotiating an extension Bell had been suspended twice. Instead they decided to wait for a full season of clean testing.i'm not sure that it would for the Steelers because they don't give much guaranteed money anyway and structure everything as roster bonuses for each year, right? so at worst, they would eat a partial year's salary?
The fact a team can cut a player at any time and never pay him again. All these contracts have clauses in them that can void the contract if they abuse substances, do any type of risky behavior like ride motor cycles or play basketball in the off season and get hurt.What protections, please?
No worries. I know you. I know you weren't being a jerk.That sounds wrong, though I could be really mistaken. I hope msudaisy follows that up.
Yeah, I guess, but there's a cap hit, isn't there? For years down the line, too, if the money is guaranteed. I think we need a capologist here to break down contract structures like Henry did in the Brady thread. I'm just spitballing.The fact a team can cut a player at any time and never pay him again. All these contracts have clauses in them that can void the contract if they abused substances, do any type of risky behavior like ride motor cycles or play basketball in the off season and get hurt.
And thanks, by the way, I wasn't trying to be at all.No worries. I know you. I know you weren't being a jerk.
There is a cap hit, but how is that different from what they are doing right now?Yeah, I guess, but there's a cap hit, isn't there? For years down the line, too, if the money is guaranteed. I think we need a capologist here to break down contract structures like Henry did in the Brady thread. I'm just spitballing.
I think it's way more complicated than that. According to over the cap, they've (The Steelers) saved cap money by him holding out. That seems to be the standard refrain here, too. He's got no dead cap money right now. He's not costing the Steelers a thing. If he's suspended under contract, he costs a team money.There is a cap hit, but how is that different from what they are doing right now?
I was vague, but my point is they had to save 14.5 million to pay him when he showed up. That money could be used on other players if they didn't tie it to Bell with the tag. If he was suspended it would be the same thing. Cap money tied up for a player you aren't paying and isn't playing for you.I think it's way more complicated than that. According to over the cap, they've saved cap money by him holding out. That seems to be the standard refrain here, too. He's got no dead cap money right now. He's not costing the Steelers a thing. If he's suspended under contract, he costs a team money.
I think we need a cap guy in here, but I'm almost positive this is the case, msudaisy.
Can't they use it for other players before the trading deadline, etc., or those who are involved in negotiations internally for extensions? Can't they sign free agents with that cap space?I was vague, but my point is they had to save 14.5 million to pay him when he showed up. That money could be used on other players if they didn't tie it to Bell with the tag. If he was suspended it would be the same thing. Cap money tied up for a player you aren't paying and isn't playing for you.
They offered him 30 million guaranteed when he would get almost 27 million guaranteed by using the franchise tag and almost guarantee his free agency in 2019. So 3 million extra in guarantees for 3 more years of being locked into a contract that the Steelers wouldn't redo until before the last year. (Your words in the other thread)It's ludicrous to think that they didn't hurt him.
In a long term team, Bell wanted guaranteed money that wasn't at risk of anything. He's said it any times, and if that wasn't the case, he'd have signed the offer before the 2017 season that would've given him $30M in the first two years. But during the years when the Steelers could have offered him a long term deal more to his liking, he was serving suspensions, twice. That's not going to earn you that kind of contract with the Steelers.
The Steelers made the CHOICE to offer Brown a contract in 2017 instead of Bell. Why? Because Bell had been suspended twice the previous two years and hadn't earned it. Brown had. Prior to that, the Steelers had the room to sign him but they chose not to. Once Brown signed, it was no longer a real option, but they didn't pursue that kind of deal with Bell.
They offered him 30 million guaranteed when he would get almost 27 million guaranteed by using the franchise tag and almost guarantee his free agency in 2019. So 3 million extra in guarantees for 3 more years of being locked into a contract that the Steelers wouldn't redo until before the last year. (Your words in the other thread)
They went cheap,(Cheap is a relative term here, yes 30 million is a lot of money, but in the context of everything we know, it is being cheap) whether it was because they devalue the running back, or it is the cap problems they have. It had very little if anything to do with the suspensions for possession and a missed drug test. (At least you dropped the it is because he was late for a walk through and game prep for the Jags game excuse, which according to reports was excused by Tomlin)
Also this stuff about they can only pay Ben and Brown and not afford a 3rd guy is crap. Other teams do it and Ben's cap hit isn't even that big compared to a lot of qb's. He is 23 million which ranks him some where between 7 and 11. Plus teams get cute with the cap all the time, why didn't the Steelers? Because their plan was to low ball Bell and if he didn't take the offer they would just franchise him for 2 years and run him into the ground. They tried to go cheap and it is burning them. They have a win now team, yes their defense sucks, but a good running game can help hide some of that. Ben is getting up there, Brown is 30, Bell only has a couple years left of prime and they wasted a year trying to be cheap instead of trying to manipulate the cap, like a lot of teams do.
They had almost 20 million in cap space. 14.5 for Bell and about 5 million unused. They could have easily offered a 4 or 5 year deal worth 14 or 15 million a season with 40 to 45 guaranteed and front loaded part of it so the cap was bigger in 2018 when they had 20 million in space vs. future years when they had less space.How can you be cheap when it's built into the CBA and you've maxed out your cap?
THAT CAN'T BE.
CAN I SCREAM
Other teams with qbs on rookie contracts do it.They offered him 30 million guaranteed when he would get almost 27 million guaranteed by using the franchise tag and almost guarantee his free agency in 2019. So 3 million extra in guarantees for 3 more years of being locked into a contract that the Steelers wouldn't redo until before the last year. (Your words in the other thread)
They went cheap,(Cheap is a relative term here, yes 30 million is a lot of money, but in the context of everything we know, it is being cheap) whether it was because they devalue the running back, or it is the cap problems they have. It had very little if anything to do with the suspensions for possession and a missed drug test. (At least you dropped the it is because he was late for a walk through and game prep for the Jags game excuse, which according to reports was excused by Tomlin)
Also this stuff about they can only pay Ben and Brown and not afford a 3rd guy is crap. Other teams do it and Ben's cap hit isn't even that big compared to a lot of qb's. He is 23 million which ranks him some where between 7 and 11. Plus teams get cute with the cap all the time, why didn't the Steelers? Because their plan was to low ball Bell and if he didn't take the offer they would just franchise him for 2 years and run him into the ground. They tried to go cheap and it is burning them. They have a win now team, yes their defense sucks, but a good running game can help hide some of that. Ben is getting up there, Brown is 30, Bell only has a couple years left of prime and they wasted a year trying to be cheap instead of trying to manipulate the cap, like a lot of teams do.
I seen the Lions do it with Calvin, Suh, and Stafford like 4 years ago. They made the playoffs too. The Broncos won a super bowl paying Peyton, and few other guys big money. Talib and DT maybe? Or Ward.Other teams with qbs on rookie contracts do it.
I am sure there are other examples. Those were off the top of my head. Plus it is the Lions, making the playoffs is their super bowl. I believe they made it twice. Seriously what are comparing it with? Ben is old they have a limited window anyways and most likely wasted a year away being cheap and not guaranteeing more money.once?
Check the poll results.msudaisy26 said:Nope.
The CBA has so many protections built in for the teams that if he failed another test they could void his deal.
His suspensions were for possession and missed drug tests. Stupid things that immature or young kids do. The Steelers are around him all the time. They realize he made the mistake, but has grown up.
The things that hurt Bell's contract negotiations were the limited cap room the Steelers have and the deflated running back market from previous years. Until this year Bell was the only elite back not on a rookie deal.
Because we have so many Steeler insiders here and people that are close friends with Bell and clients of his agent.Check the poll results.
ObtuseBecause we have so many Steeler insiders here and people that are close friends with Bell and clients of his agent.
![]()
![]()
This.Nope.
The CBA has so many protections built in for the teams that if he failed another test they could void his deal.
His suspensions were for possession and missed drug tests. Stupid things that immature or young kids do. The Steelers are around him all the time. They realize he made the mistake, but has grown up.
The things that hurt Bell's contract negotiations were the limited cap room the Steelers have and the deflated running back market from previous years. Until this year Bell was the only elite back not on a rookie deal.
The Steelers had to restructure some deals to get that cap space. Take a look at the cap hit of some of their stars next season: their top 6 players have a cap hit of close to $90 million. Signing Bell to a guaranteed long term deal was going to be an issue as soon as next season.They had almost 20 million in cap space. 14.5 for Bell and about 5 million unused. They could have easily offered a 4 or 5 year deal worth 14 or 15 million a season with 40 to 45 guaranteed and front loaded part of it so the cap was bigger in 2018 when they had 20 million in space vs. future years when they had less space.
Those are:This.
Any team that signs him will have multiple clauses in the contract that if he gets suspended, they will recoup a bunch of money if not be able to void the deal entirely or both.
1 - Not if he signs the contract - It's very difficult to object to a clause that you sign your name to.Those are:
- Notoriously difficult to enforce in court, should Bell sue to recoup that money
- Possibly illegal under the CBA
- Something Bell won't likely be amenable to signing
One would think the bolded is true, and it makes sense, but it's not necessarily the case.1 - Not if he signs the contract - It's very difficult to object to a clause that you sign your name to.
2 - Morals clauses are not illegal under the CBA
3 - "Listen, Leveon, if you want this much money, we need assurances you aren't going to relapse. If you can't give us assurances, that tells us you are not willing to be a professional here and don't garner this crap ton of cash we are willing to give you, but only if you bind yourself in writing to not getting suspended again."
None of this is that hard.