RB Le'Veon Bell, FA - 9.6.21 Workout For Baltimore (1 Viewer)

[ghostguy123]

Not at all. Live near Pittsburgh, but not a born and bred yinzer.  Root for the team, except when they play my team.  Find it hypocritical how many people around here want to throw stones at Bell for not taking the deals they offered him, and those who suggest he will/should accept a hometown discount deal.

The Steelers are/have used the salary cap system to their advantage.  Why would it be “wacky” for Bell to do the same?

Because it would kill his chances of a big contract.  Sure, some team will REALLY wanna shell out a ton of money for Bell when he is sitting out playoff games.  WHat's to stop him from doing the same for his new team?  This is a terrible conversation

 

[matuski]

Not at all. Live near Pittsburgh, but not a born and bred yinzer.  Root for the team, except when they play my team.  Find it hypocritical how many people around here want to throw stones at Bell for not taking the deals they offered him, and those who suggest he will/should accept a hometown discount deal.

The Steelers are/have used the salary cap system to their advantage.  Why would it be “wacky” for Bell to do the same?

Good faith versus not good faith.

They made Bell an offer, Bell chose to decline, they tagged him... this is how it works.  Nothing manipulative here.  Suggesting Bell goes the route lacking honor and good faith would be where I call him (you) out.

eta - it isn't the same.

 

[matuski]

Suggesting the franchise tag is screwing or taking advantage of a player is weird.

Much less an excuse to suggest that a player should fake an injury or arbitrarily decide not to play.  This is just poor form.

 

[Bayhawks]

Because it would kill his chances of a big contract.  Sure, some team will REALLY wanna shell out a ton of money for Bell when he is sitting out playoff games.  WHat's to stop him from doing the same for his new team?  This is a terrible conversation

No, it wouldn’t.  But there’s no point in arguing the point.  As I’ve already posted, he won’t do that.  He’d be just as justified in doing that, as NFL teams are in taking advantage of the tags to their benefit.

If it’s a terrible conversation, stop participating.  Soon we’ll have much more real football stuff to talk about.

 

[Bayhawks]

Good faith versus not good faith.

They made Bell an offer, Bell chose to decline, they tagged him... this is how it works.  Nothing manipulative here.  Suggesting Bell goes the route lacking honor and good faith would be where I call him (you) out.

eta - it isn't the same.

This is my point.  “Lacking honor?”  This is football; it’s not the military, police, or a firefighter.

If it’s “dishonorable” for Bell to put himself above the team, why isn’t it dishonorable for the Steelers to our themselves above Bell?  (Especially when you factor in that the Steelers have countless years to make money/win, but players like Bell have a finite period of time to get paid).

And I’m not suggesting that Bell “fake” an injury.  I’m saying, from a business standpoint, if he’s not 100%, he shouldn’t play.  

Do you think if he suffers a devastating injury in the AFCC game (that has a 12+ month recovery time), the Steelers would do the “honorable” thing and offer him the same contract (prorated for 4 years: 4 years/$56M)?

 

[ghostguy123]

Do you think if he suffers a devastating injury in the AFCC game (that has a 12+ month recovery time), the Steelers would do the “honorable” thing and offer him the same contract (prorated for 4 years: 4 years/$56M)?

No, that's why the idiot shoulda signed the long term deal he was offered.  That's the POINT

 

[ghostguy123]

No, it wouldn’t.  But there’s no point in arguing the point.  As I’ve already posted, he won’t do that.  He’d be just as justified in doing that, as NFL teams are in taking advantage of the tags to their benefit.

If it’s a terrible conversation, stop participating.  Soon we’ll have much more real football stuff to talk about.

I guess if the Steelers were 2-10 they should just make up a reason to suspend Bell without pay for the last 4 games, as they would (by your logic) be justified in doing so.  The Steelers would feel like he is taking advantage of them by making a million a week when they are out of playoff contention.

 

[Bayhawks]

I guess if the Steelers were 2-10 they should just make up a reason to suspend Bell without pay for the last 4 games, as they would (by your logic) be justified in doing so.  The Steelers would feel like he is taking advantage of them by making a million a week when they are out of playoff contention.

That’s not my logic; WTF are you talking about?

Suspending a player without cause would violate the CBA.  Nowhere did I suggest Bell should violate the CBA.

Perhaps you think it’s a terrible conversation because you don’t understand it?

Again, though, since it’s a purely hypothetical situation we are discussing, feel free to stop participating.

 

[Bayhawks]

No, that's why the idiot shoulda signed the long term deal he was offered.  That's the POINT

Maybe you should try actually reading the thread (or at least the posts you respond to)?

My comment about being “honorable” was in direct response to someone else that implied it wouldn’t be “honorable” for Bell not to go above and beyond what his contract with the Steelers required.

THAT was the point; that this is a business.  Honor is irrelevant.  The Steelers wouldn’t do the “honorable” thing and give Bell a contract in the event he was injured.  Likewise, Bell isn’t obligated to risk injury by not playing at less than 100%, or in pre/post-season games, in order to be “honorable.”

 

[ghostguy123]

 

[matuski]

This is my point.  “Lacking honor?”  This is football; it’s not the military, police, or a firefighter.

If it’s “dishonorable” for Bell to put himself above the team, why isn’t it dishonorable for the Steelers to our themselves above Bell?  (Especially when you factor in that the Steelers have countless years to make money/win, but players like Bell have a finite period of time to get paid).

And I’m not suggesting that Bell “fake” an injury.  I’m saying, from a business standpoint, if he’s not 100%, he shouldn’t play.  

Do you think if he suffers a devastating injury in the AFCC game (that has a 12+ month recovery time), the Steelers would do the “honorable” thing and offer him the same contract (prorated for 4 years: 4 years/$56M)?

His contract is for him to play.  He has a contract negotiated by both sides.  He was offered another contract and turned it down, so he got tagged.. this is how the agreement works.

Your hypothetical injury situation has no bearing on this.  I don't even understand this angle.  Why would any team offer an injured player a contract, this isn't part of the deal and has nothing to do with honor.

Your suggestion is in bad faith and bad form.  Nobody is 100% after week 1... why don't you argue for all of them to sit out, I mean it is in their best interest right?  Each and every player might get injured on each and every play... they should all sit out because if they get hurt they won't get another contract?

Ridiculous.  You usually aren't ridiculous.

 

[Bayhawks]

His contract is for him to play.  He has a contract negotiated by both sides.  He was offered another contract and turned it down, so he got tagged.. this is how the agreement works.

Your hypothetical injury situation has no bearing on this.  I don't even understand this angle.  Why would any team offer an injured player a contract, this isn't part of the deal and has nothing to do with honor.

Your suggestion is in bad faith and bad form.  Nobody is 100% after week 1... why don't you argue for all of them to sit out, I mean it is in their best interest right?  Each and every player might get injured on each and every play... they should all sit out because if they get hurt they won't get another contract?

Ridiculous.  You usually aren't ridiculous.

His contract is for him to play, WHEN HEALTHY, in REGULAR season games.  That is how the agreement works. 

If he’s not healthy, why should he risk his future by playing at less than 100%?  

Also, NFL players aren’t paid for post-season games by their contract with their team; they are paid by the league.   So, if his contract with the Steelers doesn’t require him to play in the post-season games, and he’d make only around $200K for a SB run, why shouldn’t he make the smart business decision and forefinger that extra (possible) $200K in order to protect the millions he’d get in a FA contract next year?

 

[Bayhawks]

It’s a crappy, unfair system, and it’s stacked in the favor of the billionaire owners.

When these situations arise, however, often we hear about players being greedy, idiots (as ghost guy labeled Bell), or not “team players.”  That’s just stupid.

If you think it’s OK/fair for teams to use the system to their advantage, it’s hypocritical to fault or question ways players could do the same.

 

[matuski]

It’s a crappy, unfair system, and it’s stacked in the favor of the billionaire owners.

When these situations arise, however, often we hear about players being greedy, idiots (as ghost guy labeled Bell), or not “team players.”  That’s just stupid.

If you think it’s OK/fair for teams to use the system to their advantage, it’s hypocritical to fault or question ways players could do the same.

It isn't about fair?  Who said anything about fair?  What would fairness possibly have to do with anything.  

First off, it will always favor the owners.  I actually thought you weren't serious the first time around on this.  Second, this is what the PLAYERS agreed to.

What the Steelers are doing is WITHIN the agreed setup and structure for player contracts and negotiations.  What you are suggesting is flat out against the spirit of all of it.  There is no hypocrisy.. one is within the negotiated deal, one is obviously not (don't care if it is fair, they agreed to this).

Crying about fairness?  C'mon man really?

 

[Bayhawks]

It isn't about fair?  Who said anything about fair?  What would fairness possibly have to do with anything.  

First off, it will always favor the owners.  I actually thought you weren't serious the first time around on this.  Second, this is what the PLAYERS agreed to.

What the Steelers are doing is WITHIN the agreed setup and structure for player contracts and negotiations.  What you are suggesting is flat out against the spirit of all of it.  There is no hypocrisy.. one is within the negotiated deal, one is obviously not (don't care if it is fair, they agreed to this).

Crying about fairness?  C'mon man really?

Im not crying about anything.  I’m just discussing this.  And I’m talking about the fairness of this situation, yes.  If you thought I was discussing something else, I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer.  I’ve said, several times, that Bell won’t do the things I’ve discussed (other than skip preseason), and I thought it was clear I was talking only about hypothetical actions, not ones that were likely.

And the agreement that the OWNERS signed allowed these hypothetical situations I’m discussing to be possible.  So, if your argument is that the players agreed to a system where these things (franchise tag, non-guaranteed contracts, etc) can happen, so it’s OK; then you have to say the owners agreed to a system where a player can do these other things, so it’s also OK.

Finally, Its interesting that you said what I’m discussing is against the “spirit” of the agreement.  (Not actually against the actual wording) I’d argue that signing players to back-loaded contracts that they’ll never see is against the “spirit” of the agreements the players signed.

All that being said, you seem to be getting upset that I’m discussing this.  Don’t.  It’s not going to happen, and my belief that this system sucks shouldn’t impact you at all.  I’m a nobody on a message board, posting my opinion about this topic.  It doesn’t matter at all, in the grand scheme of things.

 

[matuski]

Im not crying about anything.  I’m just discussing this.  And I’m talking about the fairness of Thai situation, yes.  If you thought I was diacussing something else, I’m sorry I want clearer.  I’ve said, several times, that Bell won’t do the things I’ve discussed (other than skip preseason), but I thought it was clear I was talking about hypothetical actions, not ones that were likely or possible.

And the agreement that the OWNERS signed allowed these hypothetical situations I’m discussing to be possible.  If your argument is the players agreed to a system where these things (franchise tag, non-guaranteed contracts, etc) can happen, so it’s OK; then you have to say the owners agreed to a system where a player can do these other things, so it’s also OK.

Its interesting that you said what I’m discussing is against the “spirit” of the agreement.  I’d argue that signing players to back-loaded contracts that they’ll never see is against the “spirit” of the agreements the players signed.

All that being said, you seem to be getting upset that I’m discussing this.  Don’t.  It’s not going to happen, and my belief that this system sucks shouldn’t impact you at all.  I’m a nobody on a message board, posting my opinion about this topic.  It doesn’t matter at all, in the grand scheme of things.

You have used unfair/screwed/taken advantage of as arguments against the existing structure that the Steelers and Bell are working under.

These are emotional complaints.  What I call crying.

You have made no arguments that what is happening is outside of the agreed upon framework.  Owners and Players agreed on this sequence of events.  Outside of that, it is all crying.

 

[Bayhawks]

You have used unfair/screwed/taken advantage of as arguments against the existing structure that the Steelers and Bell are working under.

These are emotional complaints.  What I call crying.

You have made no arguments that what is happening is outside of the agreed upon framework.  Owners and Players agreed on this sequence of events.  Outside of that, it is all crying.

You’re welcome to your opinion.  

But with that said, let’s say I am crying about this situation.  Why does that bother you?

 

[matuski]

You’re welcome to your opinion.  

But with that said, let’s say I am crying about this situation.  Why does that bother you?

It isn't an opinion.

Fact.  Steelers offered him a contract.  

Fact.  Bell rejected the offer.

Fact.  Steelers tagged Bell.

Unless something here was not done right, or was done against the agreed upon practices - nobody is getting screwed, nobody is getting taken advantage of, none of it is "unfair".  The business is being conducted the way it was negotiated to be conducted by both sides.  These are not opinions.

Your suggestion on how Bell should respond to business being conducted the way it is supposed to be is where my opinion comes in.  My OPINION here is that it is fairly obviously bad form, as not a single player is 100% during the season and by your standards would sit out in fear of getting hurt.  My OPINION is that this is ridiculous.

 

[Bayhawks]

It isn't an opinion.

Fact.  Steelers offered him a contract.  

Fact.  Bell rejected the offer.

Fact.  Steelers tagged Bell.

Unless something here was not done right, or was done against the agreed upon practices - nobody is getting screwed, nobody is getting taken advantage of, none of it is "unfair".  The business is being conducted the way it was negotiated to be conducted by both sides.  These are not opinions.

Your suggestion on how Bell should respond to business being conducted the way it is supposed to be is where my opinion comes in.  My OPINION here is that it is fairly obviously bad form, as not a single player is 100% during the season and by your standards would sit out in fear of getting hurt.  My OPINION is that this is ridiculous.

You’ve acknowledged that the team is using the negotiated CBA to their advantage.  By definition, if one side has an advantage, the other side is at a disadvantage; i.e.-it’s not equal/fair. 

In your opinion, there’s nothing wrong with the team using those advantages for their own self-interests (getting Bells services for less than what it would cost if he’d  have been able to negotiate with any team).  At the same time, in your opinion, it would be wrong for Bell to only play when his contract required it (not play in playoffs, not play if he’s not 100%), even though that would be in his own self interest.

Last year, it was widely speculated that Arizona didn’t activate David Johnson off the IR when he could have played because he wasn’t quite 100%, & since the team couldn’t benefit (out of playoffs), why risk his health?  Was that wrong?  Because that’s what I’m discussing: Bell (not the team) deciding that he isn’t 100%, and not risking his health when he isn’t contractually obligated to.

As you’ve acknowledged, your opinion is that the team should use the advantages they are given by the negotiated contract worth the players, but that it would be wrong for players like Bell to do so, because it’s dishonorable, or goes against the spirit of the contract.  I’d suspect that many would agree with you, and that’s fine.  It’s July, not much real football to talk about, so I’m discussing my opinion about this topic.  I’m a week or two, we’ll have real football discussions & this will move to the back burner.

 

[Steeler]

Would you guys mind taking it to PMs?  You are arguing about a hypothetical situation floated by Bayhawks that even he said has a zero percent chance of happening.

 

[Arodin]

You’ve acknowledged that the team is using the negotiated CBA to their advantage.  By definition, if one side has an advantage, the other side is at a disadvantage; i.e.-it’s not equal/fair. 

This is a fallacy.  It can be easily demonstrated as such by considering a typical FF trade.  

Say I am deep at RB, but need a replacement WR.  It would be to my advantage to trade...which requires me to find an owner who would also be advantaged by trading his WR to me for a RB.  Both sides have an advantage from the trade, and nobody is disadvantaged.  (Well, aside from the third parties in the rest of the league who now face stiffer opponents.)

Negotiating a CBA is very much like FF trading,  Both sides give up some value (rights to FA, shares of revenue, etc.) in return for values they want more.  The result is a system that allows teams to select certain players to pay at a fixed scale rather than a market rate.  I’m sure the players got something in return, like a larger revenue share, or quicker access to FA, in return.

The tag may keep Bell from being paid as much as he would without it, but the entire salary/FA structure likely looks different without the tags being part of the deal.  That has to be factored in when deciding if the cap disadvantages Bell.  And even if it does, eliminating it may well disadvantage others even more.

 

[Bayhawks]

This is a fallacy.  It can be easily demonstrated as such by considering a typical FF trade.  

Say I am deep at RB, but need a replacement WR.  It would be to my advantage to trade...which requires me to find an owner who would also be advantaged by trading his WR to me for a RB.  Both sides have an advantage from the trade, and nobody is disadvantaged.  (Well, aside from the third parties in the rest of the league who now face stiffer opponents.)

Negotiating a CBA is very much like FF trading,  Both sides give up some value (rights to FA, shares of revenue, etc.) in return for values they want more.  The result is a system that allows teams to select certain players to pay at a fixed scale rather than a market rate.  I’m sure the players got something in return, like a larger revenue share, or quicker access to FA, in return.

The tag may keep Bell from being paid as much as he would without it, but the entire salary/FA structure likely looks different without the tags being part of the deal.  That has to be factored in when deciding if the cap disadvantages Bell.  And even if it does, eliminating it may well disadvantage others even more.

Right, but the situation you’re describing involves each side having an advantage (you gain an advantage at RB, he gains an advantage at WR).  With regards to the way the CBA works with salaries, tag, & contracts, the owners advantage is that they don’t give guaranteed contracts, have the tags at their disposal, etc.  They benefit from those advantages.  What I’ve been posting about is how, IN MY OPINION, Bell (& all players) would be justified in using their advantages that arise from the negotiated CBA.  Things like refusing to play unless they are 100%, not playing in post-season, etc.  The CBA allows owners to restrict FA through the use of the tags, it allows owners to cut players when they have a contract.  The CBA also allows players to do the things I’ve discussed.  Matuski believes the owners are right because the CBA the players negotiated allows them to do these things, but he thinks the players would be acting dishonorably and violating the spirit of the CBA if they exercised their advantages.

 

[Bayhawks]

Would you guys mind taking it to PMs?  You are arguing about a hypothetical situation floated by Bayhawks that even he said has a zero percent chance of happening.

Fair enough; while I doubt there will be much Bell news until the end of TC when he reports, I don’t think we need to keep this thread at the top of page 1 unless/untill there is some real news.

 

[ghostguy123]

Come playoff time this year, 200 players will sit out cause they are in the last year of their deal, and it's in their best interest

It's very, very odd that someone could think it wouldnt hurt the future contract of a player if they sat out the playoffs when healthy enough to play.  

 

[matuski]

You’ve acknowledged that the team is using the negotiated CBA to their advantage.  By definition, if one side has an advantage, the other side is at a disadvantage; i.e.-it’s not equal/fair. 

I can't even read the rest.  I don't know how you keep starting over on this, but I've tried.

 

[Faust]

Jets will have need and cap space for 2019 run at Le'Veon Bell

 

[Arodin]

Come playoff time this year, 200 players will sit out cause they are in the last year of their deal, and it's in their best interest

It's very, very odd that someone could think it wouldnt hurt the future contract of a player if they sat out the playoffs when healthy enough to play.  

Bayhawks is apparently disregarding the fact that the players get paid for playoff games too.  It’s not as if they play out the season under contract and then decide to play in the postseason for free.

Increase in expected future earning potential frm having a ring is considerable, which also makes participation in the postseason worthwhile...

 

[Bayhawks]

Bayhawks is apparently disregarding the fact that the players get paid for playoff games too.  It’s not as if they play out the season under contract and then decide to play in the postseason for free.

Increase in expected future earning potential frm having a ring is considerable, which also makes participation in the postseason worthwhile...

I’m not disregarding it; I pointed it out upthread.  If they make a SB run, they earn around $200K, and the money comes from the NFL, not their contract.  Their team contracts are paying them for regular season games.  Unless a specific contract has language for playoff performance/incentives, the players aren’t paid by their teams for playoff games.  

As to the nonsense ghost guy posted, he’s deliberately misrepresenting my argument.  Let’s say the Ravensmake the playoffs & Collins was a big part of their success. Hes a FA next year, but he doesn’t have the established pedigree as a top-3 NFL RB.  If he skipped playoff games, he’d be operating within the boundaries of the CBA, but he’d be potentially costing himself $200K (over 25% of his 2018 salary), and losing a chance to further establish himself as a successful NFL RB (thus possibly earning a bigger future contract).  Bell has already established himself as a stud RB. If he skipped playoff games, he’d lose possibly $200K (less than a quarter of one game’s pay for him), but his track record as a stud RB would still ensure a huge contract next offseason.

With that said, I’m done posting in this thread, so as to avoid cluttering page 1.  Anyone who wishes to continue the discussion, ill do so via PM, per the request of another poster.

 

[ghostguy123]

 Bell has already established himself as a stud RB. If he skipped playoff games, he’d lose possibly $200K (less than a quarter of one game’s pay for him), but his track record as a stud RB would still ensure a huge contract next offseason.

I sure wouldnt want to sign a guy who sits out playoff games when it suits him.  What would stop him from doing that every year for the rest of his career?  Terrible

 

[Milkman]

He can just go to Cleveland and not have to worey about it. 

 

[zed2283]

IMO, guaranteed money is the only place he'll come out ahead.

Maybe, but I’d bet he gets a contract where he comes out ahead in guaranteed money AND total value, when you factor in his franchise tag salary for this year (which was already a given when negotiations worth Pitt this year; although the Steelers seemed to have hoped he and his agent wouldn’t realize that).

Can someone tell me (and I know it's probably in the thread) what was the 2017 offer from the Steelers and what was the 2018 offer?  Then we can see both and see what he gets next year.

 

[ghostguy123]

He can just go to Cleveland and not have to worey about it. 

As a Cleveland fan, you just  might be right.  Knowing you wont have to play in any playoff games might be appealing if all he wants is money.

 

[Milkman]

I'm with Bayhawks on this one. I'd be totally ok with Bell sitting out pkayoff games. I don't think he will because the competitive nature of these athletes make them want to show what they can do on the biggest stage. It's not a terrible idea though. 

 

[Godsbrother]

I'm with Bayhawks on this one. I'd be totally ok with Bell sitting out pkayoff games. I don't think he will because the competitive nature of these athletes make them want to show what they can do on the biggest stage. It's not a terrible idea though. 

It is a silly idea.  No healthy professional player is going to sit during the post season when he has a chance for a championship.  It is also the worst thing you can do to your teammates, many of whom consider each other as brothers.  Everything I have read suggests that LeVeon is a great in the locker room and loved by his teammates -- he won't quit on them.

LeVeon already showed us what he will do because he went through the same exact scenario last season.  He is going to sit out camp and the preseason and he'll show up week 1 and walk right into the starting job.   If healthy he will play every game this season and postseason.  The only thing I could see is him doing is maybe tapping out a bit more, especially if they have the game in hand, to limit his workload.  He'll play through bumps and bruises like he did last year but if he is truly injured he'll sit.  I don't think he'll fake an injury so he doesn't have to play.

The dude is super competitive and wants to prove he is the best back in the league.  He said he wants 2018 to his best season and I believe him.  

 

[Milkman]

It is a silly idea.  No healthy professional player is going to sit during the post season when he has a chance for a championship.  It is also the worst thing you can do to your teammates, many of whom consider each other as brothers.  Everything I have read suggests that LeVeon is a great in the locker room and loved by his teammates -- he won't quit on them.

LeVeon already showed us what he will do because he went through the same exact scenario last season.  He is going to sit out camp and the preseason and he'll show up week 1 and walk right into the starting job.   If healthy he will play every game this season and postseason.  The only thing I could see is him doing is maybe tapping out a bit more, especially if they have the game in hand, to limit his workload.  He'll play through bumps and bruises like he did last year but if he is truly injured he'll sit.  I don't think he'll fake an injury so he doesn't have to play.

The dude is super competitive and wants to prove he is the best back in the league.  He said he wants 2018 to his best season and I believe him.  

I mostly agree but I tend to side with the players on these situations. Bell screwed himself missing those drug tests though. Still the Steelers could have made a better offer. I hope he has a good year and gets paid. I hope the steelers offense goes to crap when he leaves but He'll probably miss them more than they'll miss him. 

 

[Godsbrother]

I mostly agree but I tend to side with the players on these situations. Bell screwed himself missing those drug tests. Still the Steelers could have made a better offer. I hope he has a good year and gets paid. I hope tge steelers offense goes to crap when he leaves but He'll probably miss them more than they'll miss him. 

I mostly agree except I am not so sure that we know the true details of the actual offer that was made.  I know what Rapoport said but neither the Steelers nor Bell or his agent confirmed it.  According to all parties they thought they were closer this year than last.

 

[ebsteelers]

if you're buying or selling whats the asking price ?

 

[ghostguy123]

So if a guy sits out in the playoffs, a team is really still going to give him a huge deal?  

 

[steelers1080]

So if a guy sits out in the playoffs, a team is really still going to give him a huge deal?  

Teams have no problem drafting stars that sit out bowl games, but I think that an NFL playoff game would be different. I bet he'd still get a big contract, but only from a lesser organization that's not in the hunt. The top NFL teams would want a player that has a competitive drive, especially when the Super Bowl is only a few wins away. 

 

[joey]

if you're buying or selling whats the asking price ?

Middle of last year, I traded Bell for Gurley in one league. (this was before Gurley WENT OFF in the fantasy playoffs, of course).

I still have Bell in another league but wouldn't consider trying to sell him now with all the uncertainty around him. If I want to get off the Bell Train, I plan on doing it early in the season (when hopefully Bell is on his usual points-per-game league leading pace) and try to sell him then.

Right now I think you'd be selling low.

 

[Bfrahm3]

So if a guy sits out in the playoffs, a team is really still going to give him a huge deal?  

Yes because he would be sitting it out because he doesn't have the long term deal. Now I think we all know that unless he is coming back from a injury there's no chance he sits out a playoff game

 

[Faust]

Mike Tomlin wants Le'Veon Bell to be in better shape than 2017

 

[Faust]

The $15M question: How will Le'Veon Bell do in free agency?

 

[Faust]

Le'Veon Bell heads to camp ... with personal footwork coach

 

[Milkman]

Hope for no soft tissue injuries this year. 

 

[Faust]

Was Le'Veon Bell wise to turn down Steelers? Teams that make most sense for his future, according to oddsmakers

 

[Faust]

Temper expectations for Le'Veon Bell's first few weeks of 2018

 

[Tanner9919]

temper expectations with L. Bell for the entire 2018 season..look up the history of guys coming off 400+ touches in the year following..it's not good. have a peek at D. Murray, he was never the same after his big year.many others are the same way. Steelers worked him to the bone last year. 

 

[Milkman]

Yeah I'm a little concerned as well. Still think he'll finish top 10. 

 

[Godsbrother]

I completely understand why Bell hasn't reported yet but after tomorrow night's preseason game I think he might as well, assuming he plans on signing in time to play week 1.

At this point the risk for injury is minimal since he won't play in the 4th season anyway.  Might as well sign, get the cash for 2018, and begin working out with the team instead of on his own.   It is in both his and the team's best interest to get off to a good start.