RB Le'Veon Bell, FA (14 Viewers)

[menobrown]

Here is the quote Bayhawks was alluding to about the agent saying nothing is guaranteed after the first year.  He does also say that Rap's report was false.  This was before the $10mil part came out so hard to tell if that's what he's alluding to (IE it wasn't really $33mil guaranteed) or if more of it than just that was false.

The most important element of it is the guarantee,” Bakari said. “You couple that with the traditional way in which Pittsburgh does it’s deals, which, at the end of the day, nothing’s guaranteed after the first year.”

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/17/agent-reported-offer-to-leveon-bell-not-accurate-but-its-about-guarantee-anyway/

So if the Steelers really guarantee nothing past year one why did last year Bell's agent think he had agreed on a deal with the Steeler's until Bell nixed it? Why was that structure good enough last year but not this year? 

I flat don't believe they tried to offer him $10m guaranteed and you should not either.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

So if the Steelers really guarantee nothing past year one why did last year Bell's agent think he had agreed on a deal with the Steeler's until Bell nixed it? Why was that structure good enough last year but not this year? 

I flat don't believe they tried to offer him $10m guaranteed and you should not either.

Well I have no idea and again it comes down to reporting on whether or not he thinks he had agreed to a deal because the agent very vehemently denied that report: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-steelers-bell-contract-20170818-story.html

I don't think Pitt not guaranteeing anything past year one is something we have to trust Rappaport on.  That seems to be common knowledge around the league and has been reported on for other existing Pitt contracts (IE Antonio Brown) as well.

 

[ghostguy123]

Was Mack?

yeah, I am pretty sure Mack was under contract.  

As for Bell (or any player signed under the franchise tag).......................nevermind.  The Browns traded for Landry then re-signed him to a long term deal.  So yeah, if a team trades for Bell I guess they can extend him????

Unless they passed the date to do so.  Who knows.

 

[Bayhawks]

Was Mack?

Thanks and  I see no place where his agent said no guarantees existed in year two. All I'm seeing is not enough guarantees or fully guaranteed and of course that's the reason he did not sign.  If they tried to insult him wtih a $10M signing bonus when he was already guaranteed almost $15M I'd find that offer insulting and I don't think the negotiations went that direction.

Yes, Mack was.  

Again, find the Sirius interview.  His agent said there was no guaranteed money past year 1.  Rapaport also reported that, as did the article posted above.  You want to pretend it’s not true, go right ahead.  Doesn’t change the fact that it did happen.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yes, Mack was.  

Again, find the Sirius interview.  His agent said there was no guaranteed money past year 1.  Rapaport also reported that, as did the article posted above.  You want to pretend it’s not true, go right ahead.  Doesn’t change the fact that it did happen.

The Sirius interview is here: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/17/agent-reported-offer-to-leveon-bell-not-accurate-but-its-about-guarantee-anyway/

Again, I don't think there is really any doubt on whether or not Pitt actually guarantees any money beyond year one.  There are multiple reports from multiple sources for multiple contracts saying that excepting Big Ben, they do not.  Here is a report from 2017 regarding Antonio Brown's contract which was structured the same way.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/17/agent-reported-offer-to-leveon-bell-not-accurate-but-its-about-guarantee-anyway/

"The practical guarantee at signing is $19.910 million, along with either $13.875 million more in 2018 (total of $33.875 through two years) or a quick path to the open market if they choose not to pick up his roster bonus next year. He’ll add another $15.125 in 2019 — or he’ll get an early trip to the market if the Steelers opt not to pay the $2.5 million roster bonus."

 

[menobrown]

yeah, I am pretty sure Mack was under contract.  

As for Bell (or any player signed under the franchise tag).......................nevermind.  The Browns traded for Landry then re-signed him to a long term deal.  So yeah, if a team trades for Bell I guess they can extend him????

Unless they passed the date to do so.  Who knows.

Yea Mack was the 5th year option.

So point is that Bell can't improve his pay next year. Right?

 

[ghostguy123]

So point is that Bell can't improve his pay next year. Right?

I am not sure what you are asking.

My question is whether or not a team can sign Bell long term if he were to sign his tag and then be traded.

 

[Bayhawks]

I am not sure what you are asking.

My question is whether or not a team can sign Bell long term if he were to sign his tag and then be traded.

Pretty sure they could not.  IF he signed the tag, then was traded, Tran can’t negotiate with him until after season.

 

[menobrown]

Well I have no idea and again it comes down to reporting on whether or not he thinks he had agreed to a deal because the agent very vehemently denied that report: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-steelers-bell-contract-20170818-story.html

I don't think Pitt not guaranteeing anything past year one is something we have to trust Rappaport on.  That seems to be common knowledge around the league and has been reported on for other existing Pitt contracts (IE Antonio Brown) as well.

It's true Pittsburgh does not guarantee money past year except of course rookie deals which require it.

But when you guaranteed someone so much upfront it can essentially guarantee the next year.  You can't give someone a $30M signing bonus and eat the cap space the next year by cutting them and accelerating the cap hit.

Where I don't agree with the numbers being provided is that the Steeler's tried to offer him $10M in total guarantees on a new deal and the main reason I don't think that to be true is because I think that would be insulting the "feel good" vibe Bell put out would when the contract numbers stopped would not have been put out by him.

Now this is just conjecture on my part, but I think since that time the Gurley, Mack and Donald deals have sort of upset Bell.

Not wanting to beat a dead horse, last thing I'm going to say I just don't think they tried to lowball him with $10M guarantees but like I said even if they offered $30M I'd have turned it down were I Bell as I think if he avoids injury he beats $15M in guarantees next year.

 

[Bayhawks]

Yea Mack was the 5th year option.

So point is that Bell can't improve his pay next year. Right?

Landry’s deal was (IIRC) before the July deadline to work out a deal.

 

[menobrown]

I am not sure what you are asking.

If Bell can financially benefit from holding out, which he can't.

 

[ghostguy123]

Landry’s deal was (IIRC) before the July deadline to work out a deal.

Yeah that's what I was thinking.  After a certain date NOBODY can renegotiate with a tagged player.  

 

[Bayhawks]

It's true Pittsburgh does not guarantee money past year except of course rookie deals which require it.

But when you guaranteed someone so much upfront it can essentially guarantee the next year.  You can't give someone a $30M signing bonus and eat the cap space the next year.

Where I don't agree with the numbers being provided is that the Steeler's tried to offer him $10M in total guarantees on a new deal and the main reason I don't think that to be true is because I think that would be insulting the "feel good" vibe Bell put out would when the contract numbers stopped would not have been put out by him.

Now this is just conjecture on my part, but I think since that time the Gurley, Mack and Donald deals have sort of upset Bell.

Not wanting to beat a dead horse, last thing I'm going to say I just don't think they tried to lowball him with $10M guarantees but like I said even if they offered $30M I'd have turned it down were I Bell as I think if he avoids injury he beats $15M in guarantees next year.

So you’re saying it’s true Pitt doesn’t guarantee money past year 1, all reports say the only guaranteed money in year 1 was the $10M signing bonus, but you don’t believe that?  Is it hard to drive at night with those black & gold glasses on?

 

[ghostguy123]

If Bell can financially benefit from holding out, which he can't.

I would think no, he can't.

He can only mitigate risk.

 

[ghostguy123]

So you’re saying it’s true Pitt doesn’t guarantee money past year 1, all reports say the only guaranteed money in year 1 was the $10M signing bonus, but you don’t believe that?  Is it hard to drive at night with those black & gold glasses on?

Wouldnt it be weird for them to have offered Bell a deal for less guaranteed money than the tag?  

I don't believe a report that says that because it makes no sense.

 

[menobrown]

So you’re saying it’s true Pitt doesn’t guarantee money past year 1, all reports say the only guaranteed money in year 1 was the $10M signing bonus, but you don’t believe that?  Is it hard to drive at night with those black & gold glasses on?

No I don't believe they tried to offer someone guaranteed to make about $15M only $10M to sign long term. His agent used  the word "essentially" or something right? That's because when you guarantee a ton upfront you don't cut in year two due to acceleration. 

Last post for real but I'll be clear. No I don't believe they honestly tried to offer him about $5M less in guarantees then signing the tender would provide. No way.

 

[menobrown]

Wouldnt it be weird for them to have offered Bell a deal for less guaranteed money than the tag?  

I don't believe a report that says that because it makes no sense.

What I've been trying to say

 

[matuski]

If Bell can financially benefit from holding out, which he can't.

He mitigates risk by holding out.  Which could benefit him financially.

Best case - play, don't get hurt, make all the money.

Hold out - play less, don't get hurt, make less this year, make all the money.

Worst case - play or hold out, make money this year, get hurt, lose out on all the money.

 

[Bayhawks]

No I don't believe they tried to offer someone guaranteed to make about $15M only $10M to sign long term. His agent used  the word "essentially" or something right? That's because when you guarantee a ton upfront you don't cut in year two due to acceleration. 

Last post for real but I'll be clear. No I don't believe they honestly tried to offer him about $5M less in guarantees then signing the tender would provide. No way.

You’re just hiding your head in the sand.  His agent DID NOT say “essentially” or something like that.  He said “nothing’s guaranteed after the first year.”

Theres nothing ambiguous there; you just refuse to acknowledge facts.  The Steelers, because they know Bell couldn’t negotiate with anyone else, offered him a bad deal.  He refused.  End of story.  You want to pretend that there is more there, but there isn’t.

 

[Saboo]

If Bell only intends on playing the minimum amount of games to count as a full season + the Steelers have no intention of paying him long term, they would be foolish not to trade him now + get something for him.

If Conner starts the season and the Steelers think he has talent I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Bell is dealt sooner rather than later. This relationship just doesn’t seem to work for either side.

 

[Bayhawks]

If Bell only intends on playing the minimum amount of games to count as a full season + the Steelers have no intention of paying him long term, they would be foolish not to trade him now + get something for him.

If Conner starts the season and the Steelers think he has talent I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Bell is dealt sooner rather than later. This relationship just doesn’t seem to work for either side.

They can’t trade him; he’s not under contract.  Until he signs the tag, he can’t be traded. After he signs, neither the Steelers it another team can negotiate a new contract.

 

[BassNBrew]

He mitigates risk by holding out.  Which could benefit him financially.

Best case - play, don't get hurt, make all the money.

Hold out - play less, don't get hurt, make less this year, make all the money.

Worst case - play or hold out, make money this year, get hurt, lose out on all the money.

Well he could probably put 2 million of the tag money into an insurance policy that would fully protect him.  He could also sell shares of himself and collect the bulk of the money now.  That would actually be kind of cool because then the general public would be setting his market value.

 

[BoltNlava]

I think I know what you're getting at here and I agree with it.  You're saying that they've adapted to his running style, are playing sort of a contain on the edge and  breaking him down in the middle, right?

yes, could have been clearer.

 

[[icon]]

 for today... 

 

[rockaction]

yes, could have been clearer.

Figured that. I started to see that adjustment last year as I had Bell rostered and plugged in and starting every week on my main fantasy team.  

 

[ghostguy123]

Not there at team meeting.

 

[Soulfly3]

Meetings are at 9 am in Pittsburgh and #Steelers RB Le’Veon Bell is not present at the facility, I’m told. Wednesday of game week.

 

[Wrigley]

Per Rappoport

Meetings are at 9 am in Pittsburgh and #Steelers RB Le’Veon Bell is not present at the facility, I’m told. Wednesday of game week.

damnit

 

[ponchsox]

Yikes.

 

[Soulfly3]

James Connor drafters are smiling

 

[[icon]]

Reason 38589 I hate fixed roster leagues. 

4RB Capped PPR league with Connor sitting out there on the wire, but stable of Kamara, Gordon, R Freeman, Thompson has no roster room for speculative Connor grab.  

 

[irish eyes]

They should just revoke the franchise tag and say so long. Roll with james conner, sick of this idiot.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Per Rappoport

Meetings are at 9 am in Pittsburgh and #Steelers RB Le’Veon Bell is not present at the facility, I’m told. Wednesday of game week.

damnit

Yeah, now I'm worried.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

They should just revoke the franchise tag and say so long. Roll with james conner, sick of this idiot.

He would probably like that since he could then get a team like San Fran or Washington (or others) to throw a big contract at him instead of waiting until next year.

I think the hate shown to these players trying to maximize their earnings under a system that's generally unfair to them is hysterical. I suppose everyone here doesn't try to get paid what they thin they are worth?

 

[ghostguy123]

If he sits out games, how does that affect the salary cap for this year and next?

 

[NeverEnough]

He would probably like that since he could then get a team like San Fran or Washington (or others) to throw a big contract at him instead of waiting until next year.

I think the hate shown to these players trying to maximize their earnings under a system that's generally unfair to them is hysterical. I suppose everyone here doesn't try to get paid what they thin they are worth?

He was offered 70 mil. Are any other current top of the line RBs making that?

 

[Football Jones]

If you're a Bell owner who missed out on Conner, go get Jaylen Samuels. I like him better than Conner long-term.

Don't believe the talk about how Samuels can't play RB. This cat is a natural runner with really good feet & his pass-catching chops are off the charts.

I don't know how fast he can pass Conner. It may not be until next season, but Samuels is well worth a roster spot with Bell looking iffy.

This is a RB: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfQZRZrs3Eg

 

[rockaction]

He would probably like that since he could then get a team like San Fran or Washington (or others) to throw a big contract at him instead of waiting until next year.

I think the hate shown to these players trying to maximize their earnings under a system that's generally unfair to them is hysterical. I suppose everyone here doesn't try to get paid what they thin they are worth?

The refusal to sign someone to even the most minimal of guarantees, while totally acceptable under the CBA, is a joke when it comes to actual fairness, and, to borrow a term from the left, wage justice. 

The contractual power is simply lopsided toward the owners, and holding out is the only way to use one's leverage as a player. Do I like it? No. Does it seem that those of questionable character tend to go that route, for whatever reason? Yes. 

But let's not weep tears for the poor, poor owners here, many of whom have already made their billions and continue to fleece both taxpayers and players in the form of publicly-funded stadiums and structurally unfair pieces of binding paper. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He was offered 70 mil. Are any other current top of the line RBs making that?

Surely you're smart enough to realize that the guaranteed part is all that matters?

 

[rockaction]

He was offered 70 mil. Are any other current top of the line RBs making that?

This has been done ad nauseam in these threads. There were no guarantees in that contract, only a ten-fifteen million signing bonus. It was way below market. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This has been done ad nauseam in these threads. There were no guarantees in that contract, only a ten-fifteen million signing bonus. It was way below market. 

and he was already guaranteed that under the Franchise Tag.

 

[menobrown]

If he sits out games, how does that affect the salary cap for this year and next?

Steelers gain about $855K per game in cap this year.

Also something I did not know until yesterday. If he reports they can apply for a roster exemption and if granted they can put him on the exemption list for two weeks and actually not play or pay him. The not paying him part I was not aware.

Also should he choose to breeze in right in time to accrue his 6 games the Steelers can't use the roster exemption to try and prohibit him from hitting his 6 games, in case anyone was wondering.

 

[TheWinz]

Yeah, now I'm worried.

There are 4 types of FF'ers right now...

- The guy who owns Bell and not Conner - puckered up tighter than Cameron Frye's butthole right now

- The guy who owns both - trying to look at the bright side (hey, maybe Bell gets traded and I have 2 RB1's)

- The guy who owns neither - chilling on couch, secretly laughing at Bell owner

- The guy who owns Conner and not Bell - running down to the gas station to buy some lotto tickets

 

[rockaction]

and he was already guaranteed that under the Franchise Tag.

That's pathetic. Look, I don't really love Le'Veon Bell. I don't like the off-the-field stuff, I worry about his fitness and knees, and I honestly don't like how he runs as an RB. Plenty of reasons to have this as an excuse to load up on him for my own personal reasons. But I won't. Because it seems to me the next CBA needs to address caps, guarnantees, etc. 

And I just have no sympathy for the owners. Usually -- being a conservative -- I think the rich create great wealth and that the capital provided by the rich enriches us with jobs, standards of living, food, drink, and entertainment that is off the maps for human history. 

But these guys? They're billionaires over and over who cry poor to the public so that they can regressively tax the populace for their Sunday palaces and then proceed to get even richer off of some poor schlub paying an extra .001% tax on his cigarettes.   

#### that. Let Le'Veon stick a bit in their craw for all I care. Neither the fans, players, nor owners all really care about each other, anyway, or things would be so different, from in-game concussion protocols, to discipline, to fandom. You name it. The love of all this speaks to the remarkability of  and its athletic feats, not to some greater good, though one can argue that we see a God-given grace in athletes, etc...

 

[msudaisy26]

The refusal to sign someone to even the most minimal of guarantees, while totally acceptable under the CBA, is a joke when it comes to actual fairness, and, to borrow a term from the left, wage justice. 

The contractual power is simply lopsided toward the owners, and holding out is the only way to use one's leverage as a player. Do I like it? No. Does it seem that those of questionable character tend to go that route, for whatever reason? Yes. 

But let's not weep tears for the poor, poor owners here, many of whom have already made their billions and continue to fleece both taxpayers and players in the form of publicly-funded stadiums and structurally unfair pieces of binding paper. 

I can't like this post enough. I have never completely understood why fans side with teams and owners/management over the players. 

Fans seem to think he is making millions, he should be happy and go out there and do his job and take a hometown discount for the team. All while the team is making billions, isn't putting their health on the line and will make a profit no matter how bad they are at their jobs. Example is the Ford family. 

 

[ponchsox]

I play the Bell owner week one who just happened to be my best man in my wedding. I grabbed Conner off waivers on Monday. I’m a ####. 

 

[ghostguy123]

Steelers gain about $855K per game in cap this year.

Also something I did not know until yesterday. If he reports they can apply for a roster exemption and if granted they can put him on the exemption list for two weeks and actually not play or pay him. The not paying him part I was not aware.

Also should he choose to breeze in right in time to accrue his 6 games the Steelers can't use the roster exemption to try and prohibit him from hitting his 6 games, in case anyone was wondering.

So they can save a lot of cap room for 2019 while still getting Bell for the stretch run and the playoffs (maybe  )?

 

[rockaction]

I can't like this post enough. I have never completely understood why fans side with teams and owners/management over the players. 

Fans seem to think he is making millions, he should be happy and go out there and do his job and take a hometown discount for the team. All while the team is making billions, isn't putting their health on the line and will makeca profit no matter how bad they are at their jobs. Example is the Ford family. 

Thanks, msudaisy. When it comes to sports, it often confuses me that fans are so quickly to line up and side with management, especially in the NFL. 

Baseball, well... I get that. That needs a corrective back to the owners. But football needs a massive corrective of bargaining power and real power back to the players, especially in a sport where the shelf life of a player is so brief and the educational sacrifices meant to get to the tiny shelf life so great. It doesn't add up to a good future for a lot of them, and the stories you hear, from high school onward, are often disheartening and sad.  

 

[menobrown]

I can't like this post enough. I have never completely understood why fans side with teams and owners/management over the players. 

Because fans are more intelligent then they are often credited and understand how much money there is to go around. Fans don't mind players getting paid, they just tend to not like players getting paid who don't deserve it. Thus fans tend to not like guarantees so much as many of us like to see players earn it year to year, much like the rest of us.

 

[msudaisy26]

I play the Bell owner week one who just happened to be my best man in my wedding. I grabbed Conner off waivers on Monday. I’m a ####. 

I only have Bell in one league and just this week I tried to grab Connor from another owner. His response " I have had Connor on my taxi squad for 3 years just in case Bell got hurt" 

I just replied with an okay, I knew I couldn't win.