Bell contract 2018

[VigilantZombie]

6 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

Why do you think Sammy Watkins is $4M more valuable than Bell?

Because of the position he plays and more so, i dont. Sammy Watkins was over paid.  WRs will always be paid more than RBs however.

[VigilantZombie]

8 hours ago, Chieferific said:

I'm probably in the minority but if they're relying on Connor to carry the load it's not gonna be pretty. They will need to be a Passing Offense instead of a Balanced one. He's a better story then a player imo. I do agree they shouldn't pay his demands but what is the purpose of using Bell sparingly? Is it out of spite hoping his lack of playing time will reduce his demand/money? If so, that's petty. Use him as much as it takes to win a Super Bowl. Imo anyways. 

I gotta believe theyd also use Jaylen Samuels

[Dcash4]

2 hours ago, wwhickok said:

Because of the position he plays and more so, i dont. Sammy Watkins was over paid.  WRs will always be paid more than RBs however.

So value to your team has nothing to do with it? Just what position you play? Because..Sammy Watkins is overpaid, but it's cool...he's a receiver. 

You were very adamant that Bell needs to "bring down his asking price to $12M"...yet here is a guy getting $16M a year in which Bell out performed him at his own craft.....as a receiver....Sammy Watkins, who is receiver, is worse at being a receiver....than LeVeon Bell....who should be ashamed for asking for $15M....because he is a running back  

Honestly, does anyone think any of that makes sense? 

 

[Chieferific]

2 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

So value to your team has nothing to do with it? Just what position you play? Because..Sammy Watkins is overpaid, but it's cool...he's a receiver. 

You were very adamant that Bell needs to "bring down his asking price to $12M"...yet here is a guy getting $16M a year in which Bell out performed him at his own craft.....as a receiver....Sammy Watkins, who is receiver, is worse at being a receiver....than LeVeon Bell....who should be ashamed for asking for $15M....because he is a running back  

Honestly, does anyone think any of that makes sense? 

 

I think your'e creating a dispute that isn't there. I don't want to speak for @wwhickok but I'm betting he wouldn't want to sign Sammy to $16 Million a year either. Just because 1 team is dumb enough to sign him for that doesn't mean the Steelers should base their offer on what another player at another position signed for with another team. Is Bell more valuable then Watkins? No doubt in my mind but neither deserves $16 Million a year (Imo). Ideally they would have extended him in the first couple of years of his Rookie deal but I think the suspension and injuries (tho I think the injuries are overblown) prevented that. He kept performing at an elite level and basically played himself out of Pittsburgh. He's confident he can get $15 Million a year (so am I) so he isn't gonna sign for less. It's disappointing but I understand both sides. 

[VigilantZombie]

8 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

So value to your team has nothing to do with it? Just what position you play? Because..Sammy Watkins is overpaid, but it's cool...he's a receiver. 

You were very adamant that Bell needs to "bring down his asking price to $12M"...yet here is a guy getting $16M a year in which Bell out performed him at his own craft.....as a receiver....Sammy Watkins, who is receiver, is worse at being a receiver....than LeVeon Bell....who should be ashamed for asking for $15M....because he is a running back  

Honestly, does anyone think any of that makes sense? 

 

Chief pretty much summed up my opinion. Sammy Watkins ISNT more valuable to me but to a desperately WR needy team he was. Bell plays in a league that has significantly decreased the value of rb's. In a league with a much bigger cap i might not have an issue paying bell 16M but the reality is that money would cripple the ability to continue to improve our defense. He MIGHT get the money he wants from someone else. I dont think he will but he might. But its also easier to find rbs in a passing lg than it is wrs that was my point about watkins.

[turtle28]

This is like the Kirk Cousins situation was for the Redskins for 3 years. As much as it sucks, the Steelers should trade Bell if he won’t sign his long term deal.

Which, it seems he won’t, and why should he? 

It’s a crappy long term offer without enough guaranteed money like the Redskins tried to offer Kirk last offseason.

So, the best thing for the Steelers to do is to trade Bell to an NFC team for a 1st round pick and maybe more right now while they control his rights - something the Redskins should’ve done for two years - holding on to a good to elite player who’s eventually going to leave and only getting back a compensatory (late) 3rd round pick doesn’t make sense at all.

Teams in the NFC who could use Bell:

1. Packers

2. Bucs

3. 49ers

4. Seahawks 

5. Lions

6. Redskins (not likely after the Cousins scenario)

If I was Colbert/Tomlin, I’d start shopping Bell to these teams right now because it’s very unlikely Bell is a steeler long term.

[3rivers]

3 hours ago, turtle28 said:

This is like the Kirk Cousins situation was for the Redskins for 3 years. As much as it sucks, the Steelers should trade Bell if he won’t sign his long term deal.

Which, it seems he won’t, and why should he? 

It’s a crappy long term offer without enough guaranteed money like the Redskins tried to offer Kirk last offseason.

So, the best thing for the Steelers to do is to trade Bell to an NFC team for a 1st round pick and maybe more right now while they control his rights - something the Redskins should’ve done for two years - holding on to a good to elite player who’s eventually going to leave and only getting back a compensatory (late) 3rd round pick doesn’t make sense at all.

Teams in the NFC who could use Bell:

1. Packers

2. Bucs

3. 49ers

4. Seahawks 

5. Lions

6. Redskins (not likely after the Cousins scenario)

If I was Colbert/Tomlin, I’d start shopping Bell to these teams right now because it’s very unlikely Bell is a steeler long term.

Too bad you aren't tomlin or colbert   The problem is you aren't and even if we got a RD1 pick, we might draft another jarvis or dupree, just a waste.  We might as well try to win with Bell but if that happens they will probably think he was the reason why and sign him for $20M per. 

[jebrick]

Bell can't be traded for less than 2 1st round picks per the cba so sop that dream.  Green Bay is about to give Rodgers 30M per year.  They are not signing him. The Bucs do not have the cap space now to sign him and their cap gets lower next year.  The Seahawks just drafted Penny in the 1st.  The Lions drafted Johnson in the 2nd. 

 

The 49'er or the Raiders might but the Raiders need to pay Mack and some of their other players.

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, 3rivers said:

Too bad you aren't tomlin or colbert   The problem is you aren't and even if we got a RD1 pick, we might draft another jarvis or dupree, just a waste.  We might as well try to win with Bell but if that happens they will probably think he was the reason why and sign him for $20M per. 

You’re missing the point. The point isn’t if they might draft a bust with the pick/picks they get back or that they could win when/if Bell plays this year, it’s that trading him now is better than only getting a 3rd round comp pick back in return.

[turtle28]

57 minutes ago, jebrick said:

Bell can't be traded for less than 2 1st round picks per the cba so sop that dream.  Green Bay is about to give Rodgers 30M per year.  They are not signing him. The Bucs do not have the cap space now to sign him and their cap gets lower next year.  The Seahawks just drafted Penny in the 1st.  The Lions drafted Johnson in the 2nd. 

 

The 49'er or the Raiders might but the Raiders need to pay Mack and some of their other players.

I’m pretty sure teams could agree to different terms if it’s a trade. If Bell signs with someone else and then the Steelers don’t match, then  the Steelers get back two firsts in return, but that’s a different situation than a trade. I don’t think a team has signed a franchised player to a contract after their original team slapped the franchise tag on them since Sean Gilbert and the Redskins/Panthers 20 plus years ago. The Redskins got two Panthers first round picks because they signed Gilbert after the Redskins franchised him.

[jebrick]

Bell can't sign with someone else because the Steelers put a exclusive franchise tag on him.  That is why he is not shopping around.  The Steelers can't trade Bell because he is not under contract.  THey could negotiate with another team but Bell would still have to sign his tender for him to be traded.

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, jebrick said:

Bell can't sign with someone else because the Steelers put a exclusive franchise tag on him.  That is why he is not shopping around.  The Steelers can't trade Bell because he is not under contract.  THey could negotiate with another team but Bell would still have to sign his tender for him to be traded.

Well yes, so he could be traded. He could sign the tender and then the Steelers could trade for less than two firsts, that’s my point. Not saying it will happen, but the Steelers should consider it and talk to Bell and his agent if they’d want to do that.

[AFF]

Still think Bell to the Colts at draft woulda been perfect...a 2nd and a 3rd could’ve gotten it done...IMO.

 

IIRC, they still have a ton of cap room and with Luck returning, woulda solved their RBBC issues they might have this year.

[turtle28]

4 hours ago, AlanFanecaFan said:

Still think Bell to the Colts at draft woulda been perfect...a 2nd and a 3rd could’ve gotten it done...IMO.

 

IIRC, they still have a ton of cap room and with Luck returning, woulda solved their RBBC issues they might have this year.

If I’m the Steelers I wouldn’t trade Bell in the conference.

[AFF]

8 hours ago, turtle28 said:

If I’m the Steelers I wouldn’t trade Bell in the conference.

They wouldn’t have the defense to make it too far anyways...they were however one of the few, if not the best matchup, in terms of cap room and draft capital this past draft to match up perfectly.