Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I suppose it's nice to try to keep core players on the roster . . . but that doesn't help improve the talent level of the team. It just means the same players stick around but for more money. Not sure that is a long-term recipe for success or the best way to stay competitive. Not saying that they should run out an overpay for a top tier free agent, but adding some new bodies to offset their losses is probably advisable.
I am not saying the Steelers are going to do it, just that it is an option. The NFL salary cap and CBA rules are very nuanced so lots of things that may appear to be problematic can be worked out.
Thanks. So for this to work out he has to remain clean/sober/healthy for another 4 months. Maybe longer depending on the language in whatever future deal he signs.
This isn't that complex. You keep assuming things again. You have no idea how (likely) much they are willing to pay Bell. You also have no idea how "massive" the offer sheet is going to be or how "likely" they would be able to trade him. You also don't know that they think it's a "risk" they have to keep him. Again, they are here to win games. Good players make that easier. Keeping good players off opponents' rosters in the process makes that even easier.
Well @Anarchy99seems to think I’m interpreting the CBA incorrectly & they would still get a comp pick if they refused to match an offer sheet. If he’s correct, I think your scenario is more likely. If not, I’d be shocked if Pitt risks losing all compensation for losing Bell to move the likely 3rd roundpick from 2020 to 2019
He's correct. The section you quoted is part of Article 10, which deals specifically with the various Tags. Confirmed in Article 1, Definitions:
Ultimately you may be right on this one, but it looks like the rules (or the interpretation of the rules) may have changed recently. According to Over The Cap (the foremost unofficial authority on compensatory picks) posted the following . . .
LINK
With that being the case, doesn’t that preclude the scenario you are proposing; where the Steelers transition Bell & make it known that they will accept a trade of draft pick(s) towt Bell wall? Since Draft Pick Compensation isn’t allowed & that means picks between clubs?
No, it's a trade. Once they match the offer sheet it's a contract and the player is no longer a Transition Player as defined in section 10. That clause is to differentiate it from the Nonexclusive Franchise designation, which does carry Draft Pick Compensation.
Maybe I’m confused about what you are suggesting Pitt might do; I’m reading it as you think they could place the transition tag on him but let other teams know that they will match an offer sheet then trade him for a draft pick. Is that correct?
Healthy, of course.
OK; that would require Bell to consent to the trade. I don’t see why he’d do that, to help out the Steelers. Based on how the situation played out between the two sides, I don’t see why he’d want to help them get more compensation for his services.
What a fantastic article and what I tried to present in my first post in this thread a page or so back.
The 2016 change allowed comp picks to be traded.
According to the link @Anarchy99posted, transition tagged players no longer qualify for comp picks. As I said before, if that’s the case, I don’t see Pitt taking that risk.
Not saying the system isn't broken but I'm not sure the franchise tag is Exhibit 1A that it is. As with any union / CBA scenario, it's one of a thousand issues and bargaining chips that are given (or taken) by one side or the other. In relative terms, how many players are suffering under the cruel injustice of the franchise tag? Not many and most have earned (or will yet earn) at a level the average player can only dream about.
Excellent post. The franchise tag may not be fair but it affects so few players and even fewer players are tagged twice. I have a feeling there are more pressing issues to address in the CBA for most players.
Not top 10 half of the league. Borderline top 10 RB in a third of the league. Back to arguably RB#1 on a handful of teams.
This is very true. At most, you could have 32 players per year impacted by the franchise tag. The NFLPA has, and will likely continue to, prioritize issues that impact a much higher percentage of the players when negotiating with the NFL.
Minimal. I can't imagine many or even any other players would sit an entire year like he just did especially when he just gave up 14.5 million guaranteed in hope's of maybe 30 million guaranteed.
Do you (or does anyone) have a link to the NFL's/Pittsburgh's concession on this point? I thought that it just got leaked to the NFL Network but that there was no official position on this. In the absence of an official position I don't think that the NFL can be bound. There are rumors all the time that don't come true, i.e. Josh Gordon sitting out the beginning of a game; Bell reporting week 1, week [insert any number], etc.
It was reported by NFL network, which is owned by the NFL. I'm not sure how legally binding that would be, but I'm sure that if this situation were to go before a court, a player's lawyers would argue that the media representative of the NFL reporting this, and not being "corrected" by the NFL is binding.
Agreed, there has been no precedent set here. Not yet anyway.
The NFL isn't under obligation to correct any/every piece of bad information that the media puts out there. C'mon.
The NFL owns the NFL network; it's not ESPN reporting it, or CBS, it's the NFL themselves. C'mon.
That's not relevant. And the NFL Network isn't "the NFL themselves".
If he gets pulled over speeding, and they do a field sobriety test and find he's drunk/high - don't you think that would affect his ability to obtain a new high level deal? Has nothing to do with NFL testing.
Folks that think Bell made the right move by sitting out 2018 tend to cite that he avoided injury this season so that he could make more money in the future. If we are going to play the injury game, what happens if Bell has a devastating injury in 2021 and cannot play any longer? He only gets the guaranteed amount of the 2019 contract and will never make up the 2018 paycheck of $14.5.
Point taken. I was thinking more narrowly about the league's substance policy, but you're right.
Well the counterpoint to that is that he already "made up" for the 2018 paycheck of $14.5 when he signed for more than $14.5 in guaranteed $$$ in early 2019.
Not to get "political" but at the core of this is the fact that NFL players as a whole don't fit the union "model" very well. Sure there are many issues that affect them equally and that they care about collectively but unions live and die by solidarity and the fact that some of these guys drive to work in a Bentley and others show up in a 2014 Camry is a huge problem for collective bargaining.
It takes account of the fact that his next contract guarantee is expected to be larger than the $14.5M guarantee he had in front of him this season.
He sat out this season so that he could avoid that career-ending injury in order to get a larger paycheck in the future. I understand the reasoning but don't agree with it since you cannot predict the future though. He could have a career-ending injury in 2021 and not get to collect all of that big contract that he sat for and may have not been injured in 2018.
By signing his tender and playing the 2018 season he would have gotten $14.5 million -AND- the next contract guarantee.
He'll defnitely get the money he seeks if he signs with one of the also-rans of the league. That's why they're also-rans because they can't manage their caps or their free agent signings.
I disagree, and I think a court would too, if the NFL tried to "back-track" from this report. As I posted previously, I'd assume that Bell's agent got this information first-hand, as well, before they decided not to report by 11/13.
