Pittsburgh/Bell Situation

[ET80]

3 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

He’s doing all he can do in negotiations. It’s not like OBJ where the clear hold up is just attitude or behavior - the Steelers just don’t want to pay him that much, period. And given the RB shelf life, they really have all the leverage.

Wait... what? This is a guy who is on his 2nd strike for the drug policy, has been suspended twice IIRC. He's got a torn MCL from about three years ago that is also a concern. 

There is plenty of reason to be cautious in regards to investing a ton of money in Bell. I actually think that's why we haven't seen this issue resolved - if it was some stupid Instagram pics and fights with a kickers' net, this would have been done a while ago. 

It's not, however.

[DontTazeMeBro]

43 minutes ago, 11sanchez11 said:

But at the same time isn't this the team's perspective? Why should I (the NFL team) pay you so much when I am unlikely to receive ROI because of wear and tear, injuries, your unwillingness to dominate touches still. You're one of the highest paid players in the NFL because the incredible amount of touches you get, it seems pretty important that you are able and willing to do that.

I don’t necessarily think the Steelers are wrong either. But a couple years ago they gave Bell the ball against Buffalo like 40 times or some obscene number in a game they won easily. The fact that they aren’t even trying a little bit to limit the wear and tear on him makes me sympathize more with Bell 

[Bobikus]

2 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

Making him play on the franchise tag again through his age 27 season is the "smart" move for the Steelers.

The fact that you can franchise a RB twice, after giving him over 430 touches his last tag year is legal per the CBA, but totally unfair to the player. 

The Steelers O-lineman look really bad IMO for antagonizing Bell for looking out for himself.

 

Yeah, this situation is really a result of how bad the current CBA is for RBs. If Bell played 16 games this season the way the Steelers use him, he'd be 27 with 1900 career touches when looking for that second contract, and if he gets injured this season that would destroy his value on the market.

[Bobikus]

26 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

He’s doing all he can do in negotiations. It’s not like OBJ where the clear hold up is just attitude or behavior - the Steelers just don’t want to pay him that much, period. And given the RB shelf life, they really have all the leverage.

A team can control a RB for 6-7 years (depending on if they’re a first rounder or not) at a reasonable, non-committal deal. If a guy comes in at 21-23, he’ll be 27-30 by then. It sucks, but it’s the nature of the position combined with a hole in the current process. 

I think teams shouldn’t be able to franchise a player for consecutive years.

Rookie contracts should be 3 years and consecutive tags shouldn't be a thing.

[Broncofan]

The tag's original purpose was to allow a window for teams to try and get an extension done with a player coming off their rookie deal (the only guys worth long-term extensions).  So while the tag can be applied for multiple years, this was NEVER the explicitly stated intent.   The fact that multiple tags are being applied shows how much of a weapon this is for teams to avoid any future long-term commitment (3 is the max practical max to cap years, you can't increase 20 percent, 20 percent and 44 percent that often except for QB, no way Bell is getting a 44 percent raise on 14.4M next year).  

The NFLPA's in awful shape - for most CBA negotiations, this might be #1 or #2 to address - I think it's not even in the top 3 (guaranteed $ in 2nd contracts going up, better health/medical post-career, and trying to get players to FA sooner are bigger priorities overall, along with re-evaluating their share of the pie, and what constitutes the pie, given different revenue streams are now present).   SMH.

But simple answer - no way the tag should be applied more than 1x.   It's been subverted from its original intent to provide a window for teams to negotiate in good faith with players to retain them.   Now it's a risk-management tool that's team-friendly.  

[VigilantZombie]

2 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

Making him play on the franchise tag again through his age 27 season is the "smart" move for the Steelers.

The fact that you can franchise a RB twice, after giving him over 430 touches his last tag year is legal per the CBA, but totally unfair to the player. 

The Steelers O-lineman look really bad IMO for antagonizing Bell for looking out for himself.

 

I completely DISAGREE with this. The Steelers made him a more than fair offer. He has rejected multiple offers and as such got tagged. RB isnt the only position that can be tagged twice and i have not heard the outcry when other teams have done it. 

What the Olinemen said, they had every right to say. Bell has no issue running his mouth to the media and airing his dirty laundry via rap songs. What are they supposed to do? Beg him to come back? I think not. He has put himself above the team and when he does come back he doesnt deserve to start. He should be the #3 RB.

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 hours ago, Forge said:

I'm really hoping that in the next cba, they increase the consecutive franchise tag to 150% rather than 120%. I think that is fair. Will leave teams very unlikely to franchise anyone twice. 

They should (best case) remove it, but since the union sucks, a better-than-nothing scenario  would be to restructure it so that in order to offer the franchise tag, the team needs to offer the player a contract with at least 3 years of franchise tag value fully guaranteed or something like that. So the Steelers would have to have offered Bell at least $33M guaranteed last year, and $44.5M guaranteed this year in order to actually tag him.

The public intent was so teams would have the ability to sign their best players long term. It was never (publicly) meant as a way to string players along, but that's how it is being used.

[Forge]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

They should (best case) remove it, but since the union sucks, a better-than-nothing scenario  would be to restructure it so that in order to offer the franchise tag, the team needs to offer the player a contract with at least 3 years of franchise tag value fully guaranteed or something like that. 

The public intent was so teams would have the ability to sign their best players long term. It was never (publicly) meant as a way to string players along, but that's how it is being used. That way, the Steelers wouldn't be able to tag Bell while only offering him a marginal amount in guaranteed money.

I'm okay with removing it altogether as well. Especially since the deadline date to re-sign a franchise player is asinine and makes no real sense to me. Let them negotiate throughout the season. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

7 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

The tag's original purpose was to allow a window for teams to try and get an extension done with a player coming off their rookie deal (the only guys worth long-term extensions).  So while the tag can be applied for multiple years, this was NEVER the intent.   The fact that multiple tags are being applied shows how much of a weapon this is for teams to avoid any future long-term commitment (3 is the max practical max to cap years, you can't increase 20 percent, 20 percent and 44 percent that often except for QB, no way Bell is getting a 44 percent raise on 14.4M next year).  

The NFLPA's is awful shape - for most CBA negotiations, this might be #1 or #2 to address - I think it's not even in the top 3 (guaranteed $ in 2nd contracts going up, better health/medical post-career, and trying to get players to FA sooner are bigger priorities overall, along with re-evaluating their share of the pie, and what constitutes the pie, given different revenue streams are now present).   SMH.

But simple answer - no way the tag should be applied more than 1x.   It's been subverted from its original intent to provide a window for teams to negotiate in good faith with players to retain them.   Now it's a risk-management tool that's team-friendly.  

I 100% agree with your post, but would caveat that the public argument for the franchise tag was to allow teams to keep their best stars. Realistically for the owners, it was always about reducing the risk of overpaying a player and delaying FA for star players.

They do the same thing with the draft. Publicly, it was about competitive balance. Really, it's about salary suppression.

[wackywabbit]

8 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

I completely DISAGREE with this. The Steelers made him a more than fair offer. He has rejected multiple offers and as such got tagged. RB isnt the only position that can be tagged twice and i have not heard the outcry when other teams have done it. 

What the Olinemen said, they had every right to say. Bell has no issue running his mouth to the media and airing his dirty laundry via rap songs. What are they supposed to do? Beg him to come back? I think not. He has put himself above the team and when he does come back he doesnt deserve to start. He should be the #3 RB.

I don't think any position should be allowed to be franchised twice, but RBs clearly have a shorter career and peak than other players so it's just worse. If you can't reach an agreement with a player more than a year after their original contract expires, they should be allowed to see what their value is in free agency. 

The O-lineman are "supposed" to not say anything insulting their teammate. Bell has every right to "put himself above the team". The team put 430 touches (and associated collisions) on his body without giving him a long term deal or giving him the opportunity to get a long term deal elsewhere.

[Broncofan]

4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I 100% agree with your post, but would caveat that the public argument for the franchise tag was to allow teams to keep their best stars. Realistically for the owners, it was always about reducing the risk of overpaying a player and delaying FA for star players.

They do the same thing with the draft. Publicly, it was about competitive balance. Really, it's about salary suppression.

Yeah, the NFLPA wasn't smart enough to see the potential pitfall.    Agreeing to 2 years of a 20 percent increase should have raised a warning sign - why did they need a 2nd year of the status quo?  Make it a 44 percent increase, and then teams have more incentive to treat the 1st tag as the real window to get a deal done.  Now, they can play the string for 2 more years, at which time the optics for an extension are more manageable for teams to walk away, meanwhile telling fanbase "we tried" (they didn't - WAS being example A, and PIT, while making a genuine effort last year, this year was a farce of a negotiation).

The owners sold the public and the NFLPA swampland - the NFLPA were the ones on the hook, unlike the public.  The fact the players roasted Bell, and worse, the NFLPA rep was the one leading the charge, shows just how inept the NFLPA is.   SMH they don't have a shot of getting real change done if they can't even get behind Bell.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, Broncofan said:

The fact the players roasted Bell, and worse, the NFLPA rep was the one leading the charge, shows just how inept the NFLPA is. 

He shouldn't be a union rep anymore for the Steelers for comments like that. When you take on that responsibility, that means you need to be siding with the players in contract disputes, and to publicly rip the guy is to weaken the position of the union you represent. The other players, it is what it is. But the union rep doing that is next level.

[VigilantZombie]

3 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I don't think any position should be allowed to be franchised twice, but RBs clearly have a shorter career and peak than other players so it's just worse. If you can't reach an agreement with a player more than a year after their original contract expires, they should be allowed to see what their value is in free agency. 

The O-lineman are "supposed" to not say anything insulting their teammate. Bell has every right to "put himself above the team". The team put 430 touches (and associated collisions) on his body without giving him a long term deal or giving him the opportunity to get a long term deal elsewhere.

The Oline is just supposed to act like what he is doing is fine? Not so much.

They have ran the offense through Bell and up until he wanted an outtageous amount of money it hasnt been an issue. 

I dont disagree with what youre saying about the CBA. Having said that Putting yourself above the team as though you are the team, imo, is never acceptable. At this point the only thing Bell is hurting is his own value.

[Broncofan]

4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

He shouldn't be a union rep anymore for the Steelers for comments like that. When you take on that responsibility, that means you need to be siding with the players in contract disputes, and to publicly rip the guy is to weaken the position of the union you represent. The other players, it is what it is. But the union rep doing that is next level.

Yeah, Foster should know WAY better. 

It's telling that the guy backing off statements today is Decastro.  Not even Foster now.   SMH.  The NFLPA is a mess.

[VigilantZombie]

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

He shouldn't be a union rep anymore for the Steelers for comments like that. When you take on that responsibility, that means you need to be siding with the players in contract disputes, and to publicly rip the guy is to weaken the position of the union you represent. The other players, it is what it is. But the union rep doing that is next level.

I see two sides to that coin and on one side if a player is wrong, he is wrong.  In this case i believe Bell is wrong. And its a teammate that this individual is supposed to be able to depend on.

On the other side, he couldve explained his feelings is more objective way. But the fact that every seems to be making Bell the victim is pretty ridiculous.