Le'Veon Bell -Farewell Miami

[Soko]

If I’m an elite player in my prime, why would I sign an up-front deal that doesn’t do much for me in the third year and beyond?

It’d be a great deal for Pittsburgh if he signed it. Don’t blame them for not caving in, especially if they had any idea Conner would be what he’s been. But it wasn’t a very good deal for Le’Veon. 

[Matts4313]

33 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I wasn't responding to you. But I'd wager that I'm the only one with practical experience here. Feel free to review the terms of the deal. These two articles do a solid job of explaining why it's a bad offer:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/7/18/17585956/leveon-bell-contract-steelers-offer-guaranteed-money-free-agency
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/18/steelers-made-leveon-bell-an-offer-he-couldnt-accept/
I'm happy to go into more detail after work. But the gist is that the Steelers offer was a PR move. They gave him the same sort of deal that SF gave Kaepernick. Expecting a top player to accept that sort of deal is unreasonable. It's a bad offer.

That article is dated. I provided a more recent article showing different numbers. On top of that, you will attempt to measure this in technical aspects as its your job. I am going to counter with practical knowledge and common sense. We wont get anywhere. 

IF there was $45m of a $70m contract that was going to be paid over the first 3 years split between various bonuses and salary, its fair to say the $45m is gtd in a practical sense. The only way is doesnt get paid is most likely due to him getting suspended. Otherwise they arent going to cut him and incur a $10-20m dead cap charge for him to play elsewhere.

And I know you werent talking to me. 

[Matts4313]

19 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

If I’m an elite player in my prime, why would I sign an up-front deal that doesn’t do much for me in the third year and beyond?

It’d be a great deal for Pittsburgh if he signed it. Don’t blame them for not caving in, especially if they had any idea Conner would be what he’s been. But it wasn’t a very good deal for Le’Veon. 

Back loading a contract literally makes him more likely to be cut than a front loaded on the Steelers offered. Your logic is backwards. Front loading it gives him big bucks early and allows him to attempt to renegotiate in the final years. Its exactly what happened to Julio this year. 

[Soko]

11 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Back loading a contract literally makes him more likely to be cut than a front loaded on the Steelers offered. Your logic is backwards. Front loading it gives him big bucks early and allows him to attempt to renegotiate in the final years. Its exactly what happened to Julio this year. 

Oh yeah, does it literally? 

Anyway, doesn’t answer my question. Why, at a position that traditionally doesn’t age well, would I take a deal that offers little protection after the first year or so? Where the money is distributed matters because it makes it more or less likely for me to be cut before I see the whole contract.

Bringing up other elite players that took team friendly deals doesn’t prove that it was a good offer for Bell. Just that other elite players (at different positions) take team friendly deals.

[Matts4313]

4 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Oh yeah, does it literally? 

Anyway, doesn’t answer my question. Why, at a position that traditionally doesn’t age well, would I take a deal that offers little protection after the first year or so? 

Bringing up other elite players that took team friendly deals doesn’t prove that it was a good offer for Bell. Just that other elite players (at different positions) take team friendly deals.

Front loaded deals arent team "friendly"; but they are fiscally responsible. And the protection after the "first year or so" is that his signing bonus money would accelerate and create a large dead cap hit. Additionally, roster bonus money is normally attributed to the first day of the league year (in march) along with workout bonuses over the summer and a GTD salary as of the first game of the year. Along with significant GTD money if he were injured.

Also, front loading the contract the way they did led to $12-13m salaries at the end of the contract with the proration of the bonus money as a detriment to cutting him. He would have been considered cheap 4 years from now - - meaning they would be less likely to cut him.

[Soko]

7 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Front loaded deals arent team "friendly"; but they are fiscally responsible. And the protection after the "first year or so" is that his signing bonus money would accelerate and create a large dead cap hit. Additionally, roster bonus money is normally attributed to the first day of the league year (in march) along with workout bonuses over the summer and a GTD salary as of the first game of the year. Along with significant GTD money if he were injured.

Also, front loading the contract the way they did led to $12-13m salaries at the end of the contract with the proration of the bonus money as a detriment to cutting him. He would have been considered cheap 4 years from now - - meaning they would be less likely to cut him.

We have no idea what the dead cap hit would have been. If the deal was essentially $20M guaranteed via signing/roster bonus in 2018, then that’s roughly $20M-$25M guaranteed over a 4 year span.

That’s not much, and if they’re roster bonuses, then there’s no protection for Bell.

So for the third time, why would I take a deal like that if I were Bell?

[Matts4313]

6 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

We have no idea what the dead cap hit would have been. If the deal was essentially $20M guaranteed via signing/roster bonus in 2018, then that’s roughly $20M-$25M guaranteed over a 4 year span.

That’s not much, and if they’re roster bonuses, then there’s no protection for Bell.

So for the third time, why would I take a deal like that if I were Bell?

You arent following along. 

$20M signing bonus. 

Year one salary + any other bonus GTD

This alegedly got him to ~$22m in GTD money

----------------------------------------------------

Year two it would cost them a min of $16m in dead money. Which no team would do.

So now his year 2 salary + and other bonus is GTD

This got him to $33m in GTD money

--------------------------------------------------

Year 3 it would cost them $12m in dead money to cut him, which it is super unlikely any team would do.

This got him to $45m in GTD money, which means there woud have been no cap savings at all to cutting him.

He likely also had all $45m GTD against injury. 

 

So again, $45m GTD and $70m total. His salaries the last two years would have been $12.5m vs $8m in total prorated bonus. So again, he would have been cheap and likely to earn that money. 

[Soko]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

You arent following along. 

$20M signing bonus. 

Year one salary + any other bonus GTD

This alegedly got him to ~$22m in GTD money

----------------------------------------------------

Year two it would cost them a min of $16m in dead money. Which no team would do.

So now his year 2 salary + and other bonus is GTD

This got him to $33m in GTD money

--------------------------------------------------

Year 3 it would cost them $12m in dead money to cut him, which it is super unlikely any team would do.

This got him to $45m in GTD money, which means there woud have been no cap savings at all to cutting him.

He likely also had all $45m GTD against injury. 

 

So again, $45m GTD and $70m total. His salaries the last two years would have been $12.5m vs $8m in total prorated bonus. So again, he would have been cheap and likely to earn that money. 

Not all guarantees are the same. Look at Gurley’s contract - seems like a lot, but those figures are, for the most part, only guaranteed after the start of the the upcoming league year. 

If the second ~half of that $45M guaranteed are as such, then they’re not in Bell’s pocket at the point of signing. 

I think it’s you not following along.

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

I think it’s you not following along.

Im following along. Without seeing the contract, I cant say what all the GTD money was and how it was structured. It could have been GTD for everything except suspension (which is smart). 

But no matter what it said technically, logically the first 3 years and $45m were GTD. 

And even if you dont like that answer - at least you can recognize that Bell would likely have a chance to sign elsewhere and recoup if he was cut early in the contract.

The issue was the contract for $14m/yr and Bell wanted $17-20m a year. Thats the only reason Bell didnt sign. 

[Soko]

5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Im following along. Without seeing the contract, I cant say what all the GTD money was and how it was structured. It could have been GTD for everything except suspension (which is smart). 

You aren’t. Because this:

5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

But no matter what it said technically, logically the first 3 years and $45m were GTD. 

Really isn’t the case. If Gurley’s deal and reports are anything to go off of, there’s nothing concrete other than $20M in year 1 to go off of. Meaning no long term security.

5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

And even if you dont like that answer - at least you can recognize that Bell would likely have a chance to sign elsewhere and recoup if he was cut early in the contract.

Not if he gets hurt and his career is over.

5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

The issue was the contract for $14m/yr and Bell wanted $17-20m a year. Thats the only reason Bell didnt sign. 

Cool. 

So for the fourth time, why would I sign a deal like that if I’m an elite player in my prime?

[Matts4313]

Just now, Yin-Yang said:

Not if he gets hurt and his career is over.

All big contracts have major injury protections. This isnt a real concern.

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

Cool. 

So for the fourth time, why would I sign a deal like that if I’m an elite player in my prime?

Because he is really really dumb if he thinks he gets that.

2 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

If Gurley’s deal and reports are anything to go off of, there’s nothing concrete other than $20M in year 1 to go off of.

Tell me if Gurley gets cut next year. Or the year after.

In fact, show many and "Largest contract ever for the position" that doesnt get at least the first few years paid.

[Soko]

22 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

All big contracts have major injury protections. This isnt a real concern.

Like which ones?

Here’s a quote from the link you posted:

“While it was publicly reported as a $60 million deal that included $45 million guaranteed, the reality of Gurley's contract is that the actual guarantees are worth just $21.95 million. The bulk of the remaining guarantees come in the form of roster bonuses and injury guarantees after 2019 and the Rams can still cut him at any point to avoid paying him significant portions of the deal.

Pittsburgh reportedly were offering Bell a $10 million signing bonus and ALSO a $10 million roster bonus in 2018, according to Florio. When added to the minimum base salary they could have paid him as per league rules, Bell would have been guaranteed $20.79 million in year one alone. A suggested cash flow of $47 million over the first three years of the deal sounds credible, given that would equate to around $13 million in 2019 and 2020 and likely made up of roster bonuses and a large base salary as the Steelers have done with other star players on the roster.”

 

Quote

Because he is really really dumb if he thinks he gets that.

Bell is dumb if he expects a contract that isn’t a year-to-year, up-front contract? What a bum!

Quote

Tell me if Gurley gets cut next year. Or the year after.

In fact, show many and "Largest contract ever for the position" that doesnt get at least the first few years paid.

Here we go, more “prove me wrong, with qualifiers” BS. Don’t know what else I expected, tbh.

If Gurley gets a career ending injury, he doesn’t see $45M dollars. And even if it was fully guaranteed at signing, I’d want it spread out over the length of the contract so that they have incentive not to cut me later in the deal. 

[Matts4313]

7 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Like which ones?

Bell is dumb if he expects a contract that isn’t a year-to-year, up-front contract? What a bum!

Here we go, more “prove me wrong, with qualifiers” BS. Don’t know what else I expected, tbh.

If Gurley gets a career ending injury, he doesn’t see $45M dollars. And even if it was fully guaranteed at signing, I’d want it spread out over the length of the contract so that they have incentive not to cut me later in the deal. 

Quote

This year, the top 20 first-round draft picks received contracts that are totally guaranteed for skill and injury. 

^^^ From 2016

Quote

Farmer: An injured player gets paid for as long as he's unable to play, no matter what his contract says. A team can't release an injured player until he's cleared. 

Quote

He’s getting $21 million up front, and roster and base salaries that are guaranteed for injury in 2019, 2020, and (partially) in 2021.

----------------------------------------------------------

 But the devices used by Roc Nation make the money fully guaranteed, as a practical matter.

Todd Gurleys contract.....

Quote

He is practically assured of remaining in Chicago through the 2021 season. Mack's entire 2020 base salary and almost all of his 2021 base salary are guaranteed for injury at signing. 2020 becomes fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2019 league year (early next March) while the 2021 money is fully guaranteed in March 2020.

^^^^  Great breakdown on how you can have rolling guarantees. 

 

[CKSteeler]

The Steelers attempted to structure the Bell deal the *exact* same way they do every other core player's they sign, outside their QB deals. It was not a PR move. Saying no top player would sign is just bogus because they have a number of top players who sign contracts just like the one they offered him. They rarely have any issue signing any of their top players. There was Wallace, and there was Bell.

By the same metrics people use to attack the Bell offer, Antonio Brown must have been stupid to sign his deal. He only got $19 million guaranteed at signing. That was only half of Beckham's!

The argument here is that the Steelers might have dumped Bell after, what, one year of his contract? Something they've never done before with one of their core guys? Or after year 2?

[jrry32]

2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

That article is dated. I provided a more recent article showing different numbers. On top of that, you will attempt to measure this in technical aspects as its your job. I am going to counter with practical knowledge and common sense. We wont get anywhere. 

Matts, unless you worked in the league or for/as an agent, you don't have practical experience. I do.

Quote

 

IF there was $45m of a $70m contract that was going to be paid over the first 3 years split between various bonuses and salary, its fair to say the $45m is gtd in a practical sense. The only way is doesnt get paid is most likely due to him getting suspended. Otherwise they arent going to cut him and incur a $10-20m dead cap charge for him to play elsewhere.

And I know you werent talking to me. 

 

It is still a terrible deal. There are many ways it doesn't get paid (claiming that its guaranteed in a practical sense could not be further from the truth). For example, if Bell came out in 2018 and played poorly, they could cut him after the season. They eat $8 million and save around $7 million against the cap (based on the numbers from your article). Any deal that doesn't offer protections beyond Year 1 is a terrible deal for a star player. There's no upside for them and all the upside in the world for the team. If Bell outplays his contract, the Steelers come out winners. On the other hand, if Bell doesn't perform up to it, the Steelers can cut him at any time after Year 1. What is Bell getting out of the deal? The second he starts to decline, he's out. On the other hand, he can test FA and try to get a deal that will protect him into Year 3.

From a business standpoint, the Steelers made a bad offer. They made the sort of offer you make to a guy you're not quite sold on but don't want to let walk at that point in time (i.e., a Kaepernick contract). It's a year-to-year deal that protects the team. Bell might not do better on the open market, but odds are that he's not going to do much worse.