Le'Veon Bell -Farewell Miami

[DigInBoys]

 

11 hours ago, kramxel said:

I maybe going on a ledge here, but doesn't he need an accrued season to go into FA? Or just because he didn't sign the tag he's already going to be a FA next season?

Kind of confused on this one.

 

This article has an excellent breakdown on the contract dynamics:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-whats-next-for-leveon-bell-and-the-steelers-including-seven-potential-suitors-for-the-rb/

[Matts4313]

9 hours ago, 3rivers said:

good point because right now the league has quite a few capable RB's that will keep getting better.  Still, lower the QB salary, set a ceiling for them, and then let the RB's have 1 year less on their rookie deals and have incentive as well as a higher base salary.   Don't worry, the person handing off to the RB will still get about 10X what the RB is 

 

8 hours ago, Pool said:

I think it'd be interesting if players were paid based on what tier they were in of their respective position. For example, top 5 positional talents get tier 1 money at 10m/yr whether you are a RB, QB,DE etc tier 2 gets 8m/yr etc.  I think the logistics make this completely unrealistic but I think it's asinine that the best o lineman gets paid less than the worst QB's. Just an interesting thought I had and I look forward to all of you telling me how dumb it is.

The problem is anything you do to lessen QB salaries also lessens parity. Could you imagine the Packers or Saints if their QBs didnt have ridiculous salaries? It would be unfair for the rest of the league. Its one of the reasons that the Pats are so successful (their QB is willing to take less). 

Greedy/great QB's gives the rest of the league a chance at competing with a more complete roster. 

[Soko]

11 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

The Steelers offered him a pretty healthy front loaded 5yr/72M deal in 2017 with 30M of that paid out through the first 2 years (2017 & 2018) and 42M in the next 3 years. That would've been the most APY by a running back in history (12M).  

Adrian Peterson would like a word with you.

11 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

This makes zero sense. He has made a total 12M since the start of 2017. (An average of 6M a yr now, assuming he sits the rest of the year and I don't think I need to argue that part, right?) He has had several knee surgeries, two suspensions, is now (rightfully) being looked at as a selfish locker room cancer by his own peers, has sat entire year and now he is expecting teams to pay him MORE in the FA market than the Steelers offered him this past year AND in 2017?  GTFO.

Bell played himself and will look even more foolish and selfish when it's all said and done. 

Several knee surgeries?

And nah, if I were an elite workhorse, I wouldn’t hop into a contract that doesn’t protect me down the road. You can disagree with it and say take whatever money you can get because you’re taking a risk by leaving it, but it absolutely wasn’t the stupid move. 

The stupid move was making it a drama (team mates included). Holding out and not taking a team friendly deal though? Nah.

[Broncofan]

Just so it's a little more balanced - DEN obviously has no dog in this show, interesting take...

 

[VigilantZombie]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

Just so it's a little more balanced - DEN obviously has no dog in this show, interesting take...

 

I get why Bell did what he did.  I think it could've played out more maturely and professionally all around.

[Broncofan]

3 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

I get why Bell did what he did.  I think it could've played out more maturely and professionally all around.

Yeah, there's no argument there.  To commit to return 2x, and then back out, it's a bad look.  I just think it's overblown how ppl are saying teams are going to stay away.  Bell clearly wants the security and the $.  Frankly, almost every player gets that.  And every FO gets that, too.   A team that provides that won't need to worry about his motivation.    

I don't think PIT's offer esp. this year was in good faith, and they own that.   But I don't think they deserved the treatment they got from Week 2 onwards, either.  It seems like the moral of the story is don't let a relationship get as broken as it did between Bell and PIT this year.   And on that, both sides are hardly blameless here.   Even the NFLPA isn't blameless - for their reps to call out Bell literally sabotaged all of their own efforts.  And the fact they couldn't get the ruling on Bell's 3rd year tag status until the last week before the Nov. 13 deadline, it calls into question both the NFLPA & Bell's agent's true qualifications here.   That should have been stuff they knew about months ago - and presented to PIT as the worst case option.  Not the way it went down this past week.

[VigilantZombie]

23 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Yeah, there's no argument there.  To commit to return 2x, and then back out, it's a bad look.  I just think it's overblown how ppl are saying teams are going to stay away.  Bell clearly wants the security and the $.  Frankly, almost every player gets that.  And every FO gets that, too.   A team that provides that won't need to worry about his motivation.    

I don't think PIT's offer esp. this year was in good faith, and they own that.   But I don't think they deserved the treatment they got from Week 2 onwards, either.  It seems like the moral of the story is don't let a relationship get as broken as it did between Bell and PIT this year.   And on that, both sides are hardly blameless here.   Even the NFLPA isn't blameless - for their reps to call out Bell literally sabotaged all of their own efforts.  And the fact they couldn't get the ruling on Bell's 3rd year tag status until the last week before the Nov. 13 deadline, it calls into question both the NFLPA & Bell's agent's true qualifications here.   That should have been stuff they knew about months ago - and presented to PIT as the worst case option.  Not the way it went down this past week.

The ONLY reason I think teams could 'stay away' in terms of giving him the kind of money he wants is because they aren't really going to want players to keep doing this.

[Dr LBC]

14 hours ago, 3rivers said:

CBA was pathetic but the players agreed to it because they were desperate and they don't do whats best in the long run. RB's should be UFA in a year less time than the other players since their shelf life is much less.  The RB's really got a bad deal on that last agreement. The franchise tag is also a fail when they can be applied more than  once to a player.  

Then consider how QB's can't get hit, play much longer and are getting paid much more than others.  It doesn't seem fair the direction the league has been in and could be going. 

Pathetic is hyperbolic (yay FF!).  It didn't favor star players and the highest-earning players.  Surprise!  The strongest voting block among the men comprising the NFLPA membership isn't the bigger earners, it's the guys who have about a 3-4 career - and realize it - and care about little more than maximizing their earning potential for that limited time they're going to have in the league before they (and those like them) get replaced.  This is why certain discipline, substance, and such issues don't really get changed unless it's the ownership side of the table that want them changed... because the largest voting block in the union is already disciplined in their behavior and regimented, because they have to be in order to maintain employment (they don't have the luxury of being paid "too much to not give a second chance" or having talent "irreplaceable enough to not merit a second chance").

The biggest issue is that this also creates a scenario wherein the impetus to real changes that would benefit the players is pretty much built into the system - they would need to strike to achieve this and, beyond that too many players aren't responsible enough with their money to voluntarily take a season off without pay, you're also asking the largest voting block in the union's membership to forfeit 20-25% of their likely career/earning-livelihood (yes, they wouldn't put the wear and tear on their bodies, but there would be another round of incoming rookies from college to dilute the employee pool).

With that in mind, what you're suggesting about RB's hitting the market sooner isn't realistic in any actual labor negotiation, because the RB's would simply be outvoted - players at other positions aren't going to concede what would be necessary (ultimately money - a portion of their money) in order to get ownership to concede to that particular demand.  It would end up so low on the list of demands it would be slashed off in the first week.

[3rivers]

1 hour ago, The LBC said:

With that in mind, what you're suggesting about RB's hitting the market sooner isn't realistic in any actual labor negotiation, because the RB's would simply be outvoted - players at other positions aren't going to concede what would be necessary (ultimately money - a portion of their money) in order to get ownership to concede to that particular demand.  It would end up so low on the list of demands it would be slashed off in the first week.

how wouldn't the other players vote in favour of the RB's getting a better deal? If I was a QB or OL, I would have no issue with our RB getting a better deal especially since it's proven they by far have the most physical wear and tear and careers that are years less. The rookie contract RB is only one possibly 2 players on the team and not many teams , so why can't the league accommodate them or try to? Think of possibly half the leagues starting RB's might benefit from this, bell would have from the start and maybe he wouldn't have held out and missed the season . 

[JAF-N72EX]

4 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Adrian Peterson would like a word with you.

Oh excuse me. The 2nd highest APY by a running back in history, behind only a future 1st ballot hall of famer and one of the greatest of all time. 

Point still stands. 

Oh and.....

As a pure new contract the numbers would put Bell at $12+ million a year over a five year timeframe. That would be the largest APY for a running back since Adrian Peterson’s $14 million and change contract a few years back.  From a new money standpoint the Bell metrics would surpass Peterson’s on the frontend numbers. They would also obliterate any recent veteran contract. Here are the 2 and 3 year comps:

 

Player	2 Year	3 year
Bell	$30,000,000	$42,000,000
Peterson	$29,280,000	$41,280,000
McCoy	$21,050,000	$27,300,000
Martin	$15,000,000	$21,750,000
Miller	$14,000,000	$19,750,000
Ivory	$12,500,000	$18,500,000

So not only is this offer pretty incredible by today’s standards, but historically it’s also pretty solid.

Like with Cousins we can also factor out the fact that he was set to already earn $12.1 million on the year to determine what he is earning purely in new money in the first two years of a new contract. Again these numbers would paint things in a pretty solid light and represent a small raise over Peterson’s numbers, which seem to be a baseline used in the offer.

 

Player	1 Year	2 Year
Bell	$17,880,000	$29,880,000
Peterson	$17,780,000	$29,280,000
McCoy	$16,000,000	$21,050,000
Martin	$8,000,000	$15,000,000
Miller	$8,500,000	$14,000,000
Ivory	$7,500,000	$12,500,000

 

But yeah, the Steelers tried to low-ball this guy big-time.

5 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Several knee surgeries?

And nah, if I were an elite workhorse, I wouldn’t hop into a contract that doesn’t protect me down the road. You can disagree with it and say take whatever money you can get because you’re taking a risk by leaving it, but it absolutely wasn’t the stupid move. 

The stupid move was making it a drama (team mates included). Holding out and not taking a team friendly deal though? Nah.

This isn't about what you or anyone else might think you would do in his situation. It's easy to make this assumption from an arm chair.

Secondly Bell is an injury risk and a suspension risk. Cousins’ position is more or less injury and age proof for a second contract. Bell’s is a high risk position and his history is terrible. He’s had multiple knee injuries  and been suspended twice. Another injury and suspension is just going to hurt his value. From the standpoint of a suspension he would also stand to lose 1/17 ($712,941) for each week suspended. If he signed a long term deal with a signing bonus he would lose 1/17 of a much lower base salary and just 1/17^th of 1/5^th of his overall bonus paid in 2017.

..........

Pittsburgh is also one of the stronger organizations when it comes to honoring contracts regardless of guarantees. The only team that is probably better in this regard is the Bengals, who often have even less favorable payment terms. The contract structure in Pittsburgh also helps since the cost to cut is high early on. This is how the league used to operate and Pittsburgh is one of the few who still does this way.

https://overthecap.com/thoughts-leveon-bells-contract-offer/

 

 

[3rivers]

5 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

The stupid move was making it a drama (team mates included). Holding out and not taking a team friendly deal though? Nah.

if he was good for his word, none of this would have happened. All he had to do was back up his word, and he failed on that finally for the 3rd time . They were all wrong at the beginning then later it was more bell because why say you are going to report then don't. He taunted his teammates, they retaliated. A good old school coach would have had control over this, but in 2018 with tomlin, this is what happened. 

The RB doesn't need to make a friendly deal, he is the one that by far has the most wear and tear so they should get paid so they say, but how much is debatable . 

This is over with for now, see in the spring if they transition tag him, which I am not familiar with entirely but it sounds as though they will have a chance at that and more drama of course.  

[Dr LBC]

2 hours ago, 3rivers said:

how wouldn't the other players vote in favour of the RB's getting a better deal? If I was a QB or OL, I would have no issue with our RB getting a better deal especially since it's proven they by far have the most physical wear and tear and careers that are years less. The rookie contract RB is only one possibly 2 players on the team and not many teams , so why can't the league accommodate them or try to? Think of possibly half the leagues starting RB's might benefit from this, bell would have from the start and maybe he wouldn't have held out and missed the season . 

Because they don't break it down by positional pay.  And if there's a concession made for one particular position in terms of an earlier window then you're going to get people arguing that "well, ___ position also has a higher incidence of X injury so they should get an earlier window too and so on and so on."  These things always get considered in collective bargaining sessions - and it's why you see different classifications of labor often hesitant to let their more trade-specific union be absorbed by a larger, broader-spectrum union wherein they might have more perceived power and leverage as a whole, but the unique bargaining position of their particular trade is diminished as a result.  RB's don't have the voting block to prevent a majority vote for ratification by themselves.

You're trying to look at this from an idealistic viewpoint when that's not what reality is.  The simple reason of why the other players would vote in favor of it is that it diminishes their (the other positions') earning potential (i.e. their take-home) for no actual benefit to themselves.  And for the majority of NFL players (start adding up those guys who will never be anything more than a depth player or a ST guy, and they know it... it's A LOT) who are there to earn as much as they can for the limited time that they can before they're deemed replaceable, they're absolutely going to vote in their own individual self-interest.  If your peers happen to benefit that's great because it more than likely means that bit of business is going to go through all the easier, but they're not going to sacrifice their families welfare and future for a pper unless they're getting something greater in return than "feeling good about a buddy being able to 'get his.""

[Soko]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Oh excuse me. The 2nd highest APY by a running back in history, behind only a future 1st ballot hall of famer and one of the greatest of all time. 

Point still stands. 

Oh and.....

As a pure new contract the numbers would put Bell at $12+ million a year over a five year timeframe. That would be the largest APY for a running back since Adrian Peterson’s $14 million and change contract a few years back.  From a new money standpoint the Bell metrics would surpass Peterson’s on the frontend numbers. They would also obliterate any recent veteran contract. Here are the 2 and 3 year comps:

 

Player	2 Year	3 year
Bell	$30,000,000	$42,000,000
Peterson	$29,280,000	$41,280,000
McCoy	$21,050,000	$27,300,000
Martin	$15,000,000	$21,750,000
Miller	$14,000,000	$19,750,000
Ivory	$12,500,000	$18,500,000

So not only is this offer pretty incredible by today’s standards, but historically it’s also pretty solid.

Like with Cousins we can also factor out the fact that he was set to already earn $12.1 million on the year to determine what he is earning purely in new money in the first two years of a new contract. Again these numbers would paint things in a pretty solid light and represent a small raise over Peterson’s numbers, which seem to be a baseline used in the offer.

 

Player	1 Year	2 Year
Bell	$17,880,000	$29,880,000
Peterson	$17,780,000	$29,280,000
McCoy	$16,000,000	$21,050,000
Martin	$8,000,000	$15,000,000
Miller	$8,500,000	$14,000,000
Ivory	$7,500,000	$12,500,00

But yeah, the Steelers tried to low-ball this guy big-time.

Never said he was low-balled. 

And stop pretending like a historic contract really means anything significant (not historic in APY though). Elite players almost always reset the market. It should be expected that the newest high-end player will get more than most of his predecessors, if not break the top. 

It’s almost as if another skills player with an injury history that also gets labeled a distraction just got a historic deal this past  summer... (FYI I know he did it the “right way” and didn’t hold out, only highlighting the size of the deal).

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

This isn't about what you or anyone else might think you would do in his situation. It's easy to make this assumption from an arm chair.

Secondly Bell is an injury risk and a suspension risk. Cousins’ position is more or less injury and age proof for a second contract. Bell’s is a high risk position and his history is terrible. He’s had multiple knee injuries  and been suspended twice. Another injury and suspension is just going to hurt his value. From the standpoint of a suspension he would also stand to lose 1/17 ($712,941) for each week suspended. If he signed a long term deal with a signing bonus he would lose 1/17 of a much lower base salary and just 1/17^th of 1/5^th of his overall bonus paid in 2017.

Try and understand: you’re justifying why Pittsburgh didn’t offer him a better contract. ITT, I said I don’t blame them for not caving into his demands. So cut out the clutter. I’ve seen the justifications for Pittsburgh’s contract offer (and largely agree with them).

What I’ve yet to see is justification for calling Bell an idiot for turning it down. As an elite player, in his prime at a position that traditionally doesn’t age well, why should he purposefully accept a deal that doesn’t offer him protection specifically in the years that he really needs it?

Incoming “because it’s the best he’ll get”. We’ll see about that this offseason.

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

..........

Pittsburgh is also one of the stronger organizations when it comes to honoring contracts regardless of guarantees. The only team that is probably better in this regard is the Bengals, who often have even less favorable payment terms. The contract structure in Pittsburgh also helps since the cost to cut is high early on. This is how the league used to operate and Pittsburgh is one of the few who still does this way.

https://overthecap.com/thoughts-leveon-bells-contract-offer/

Bell, or any player, shouldn’t care about that. He should just accept a deal that he doesn’t like because that’s just how Pittsburgh usually does it? That’s BS. I guess workers should accept contracts they don’t like because a company just always does it a certain way? Please.

[Soko]

3 hours ago, 3rivers said:

if he was good for his word, none of this would have happened. All he had to do was back up his word, and he failed on that finally for the 3rd time . They were all wrong at the beginning then later it was more bell because why say you are going to report then don't. He taunted his teammates, they retaliated. A good old school coach would have had control over this, but in 2018 with tomlin, this is what happened. 

I agree with you. 

3 hours ago, 3rivers said:

The RB doesn't need to make a friendly deal, he is the one that by far has the most wear and tear so they should get paid so they say, but how much is debatable . 

Agreed as well.

3 hours ago, 3rivers said:

This is over with for now, see in the spring if they transition tag him, which I am not familiar with entirely but it sounds as though they will have a chance at that and more drama of course.  

To my understanding, yes, they can still try and handcuff him to the team and I believe they have the power to keep him either on the roster or out of football. But I don’t think Pittsburgh will do that as not only are the optics terrible but the team doesn’t need the distraction/drama anymore. All it’d accomplish is sticking it to Bell, which IMO isn’t worth the trouble it’d bring.

[JAF-N72EX]

6 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Never said he was low-balled. 

Yet your argument (among others) have been largely based on "they didn't offer him enough money"???

6 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

And stop pretending like a historic contract really means anything significant (not historic in APY though). Elite players almost always reset the market. It should be expected that the newest high-end player will get more than most of his predecessors, if not break the top. 

AP's contract was over 7 years ago DURING the new CBA agreement! How is that NOT significant to now? Just stop.

Also, AB had no problem signing his extension while being the best in the league at his position.

6 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

t’s almost as if another skills player with an injury history that also gets labeled a distraction just got a historic deal this past  summer... (FYI I know he did it the “right way” and didn’t hold out, only highlighting the size of the deal).

I'm glad you recognize that though. But that's called cherry picking. So who else???

6 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Try and understand: you’re justifying why Pittsburgh didn’t offer him a better contract.

That's not what I am arguing or "trying to justify". You're way off.

6 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

What I’ve yet to see is justification for calling Bell an idiot for turning it down. As an elite player, in his prime at a position that traditionally doesn’t age well, why should he purposefully accept a deal that doesn’t offer him protection specifically in the years that he really needs it?

Has he not been causing all of this turmoil for money? Yes or no? 

6 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Bell, or any player, shouldn’t care about that. He should just accept a deal that he doesn’t like because that’s just how Pittsburgh usually does it? That’s BS. I guess workers should accept contracts they don’t like because a company just always does it a certain way? Please.

You are either clearly being obtuse here (which is what I think at this point) to save face and/or don't understand the entire concept here..

It's all laid out for you. Right there.

Quote

I guess workers should accept contracts they don’t like because a company just always does it a certain way? Please.

Oh boy. This is another arm chair argument but I'll bear with it.

Did I hear from others that this company takes care of it's employees? Does that company have good track record of keeping their end of bargain on contracts? Did I just watch another one of my close friends (AB) sign with said company?