Le'Veon Bell

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

I know this is a Steeler argument, but....................

I can understand Bell's feelings..............he publicly said that if Sammy Watkins is worth $16M a year, then he (Bell) is worth $50M. As crazy as it may be, I have to agree with him. Bell is 10x more productive than Watkins, Cooks and most of the WR that making $15M or more. The NFL positional scale is trulyscrewed up when Nate Solder an OT is getting $15M and the Steelers are offering Bell $8M. I'm sorry, just doesn't make sense.

I'm hoping the Steelers brak the stupid NFL Positional mold and see fit to pay him his true value and worth.

Steelers offered him $14-15M or higher. But those are numbers leaked by media and not the FO or Bell's agent. Bell's agent said this morning on SiriusFM radio that the reported numbers aren't accurate.

We completely understand his plight. The market is very screwed up right now. But the RB position has been marginalized in today's passing NFL. The fact remains that you can find decent marginal RB production (~1500yds) per season by younger & cheaper prospects, which constrains the RB market. That of course depends on the O-line of course. But with PIT having a top 3 O-line, they could easily find that marginal production. You can't find that with O-lineman, specifically. And WRs are often a product of their QB, but not in the top echelon of the group. Cooks & Watkins numbers are inflated due to the market, which only further skews that market. Simply put, they got overpaid.

I think in a few years we will see the RB market increase drastically. The salary cap is ever increasing, and with it, the players' contracts. But that will also depend on what teams view as priority. If more & more talented RBs like Bell, Gurley, Zeke, etc come about then the market will inflate.

 

[Bridgeburner]

I know this is a Steeler argument, but....................

I can understand Bell's feelings..............he publicly said that if Sammy Watkins is worth $16M a year, then he (Bell) is worth $50M. As crazy as it may be, I have to agree with him. Bell is 10x more productive than Watkins, Cooks and most of the WR that making $15M or more. The NFL positional scale is trulyscrewed up when Nate Solder an OT is getting $15M and the Steelers are offering Bell $8M. I'm sorry, just doesn't make sense.

I'm hoping the Steelers brak the stupid NFL Positional mold and see fit to pay him his true value and worth.

This is valid when you think about it like this. And I have looked at it at that angle too. But the reality is that the market for RB is what it is and doubling it for someone seriously hurts your team. Even if it's fair, that's not what the market dictates and to compete, you have to place the market as a team.

 

[BigKen]

Sad part is that Levon is more than a running back. He's also a dependable 5th wide receiver.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I can understand Bell's feelings..............he publicly said that if Sammy Watkins is worth $16M a year, then he (Bell) is worth $50M. The NFL positional scale is trulyscrewed up when Nate Solder an OT is getting $15M and the Steelers are offering Bell $8M. I'm sorry, just doesn't make sense.

I'm hoping the Steelers brak the stupid NFL Positional mold and see fit to pay him his true value and worth.

I would dbl check that Steeler offer.

As far as the production...a lot of it is Bell, but some of it is the players around you.

Position...I'm pretty comfortable with the Steelers offer for a RB...if anything I would like to see them change their signing bonus + 1st yr of the contract as the only guarantees, but the until the players truly fight for guaranteed contracts, the teams are going to continue to milk the current CBA.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Fingers crossed the FA market goes stagnant next offseason and it brings Bell back down to earth a little. But I could see a handful of teams making a play at him if their current group doesn't pan out: TB, MIA, BUF, NYJ, WAS, SEA, IND, OAK, ARI, DET

The cap space projections next year are pretty favorable for a lot of teams. IMO Bell shouldn't have any problem finding offers.

It's a risk they were willing to take...either way he's going to get a nice deal, and on that end he deserves it.

 

[Psych-Ward]

As far as the production...a lot of it is Bell, but some of it is the players around you.

^^^^^^^^^
This

There are so many playmakers on this offense that teams must pay attention to that allow him to get one guy covering him.
If he goes to a team where there are possibly 2 playmakers.....it's pretty easy to key in on and shut down 2 guys.
Playing Pittsburgh you have to watch, Ben, Bell, AB, Juju.....used to be Bryant, and Ben always looking for a big TE....that 6 guys you're spreading you D thin.....

 

[ATL96Steeler]

^^^^^^^^^
This

There are so many playmakers on this offense that teams must pay attention to that allow him to get one guy covering him.
If he goes to a team where there are possibly 2 playmakers.....it's pretty easy to key in on and shut down 2 guys.
Playing Pittsburgh you have to watch, Ben, Bell, AB, Juju.....used to be Bryant, and Ben always looking for a big TE....that 6 guys you're spreading you D thin.....

Exactly, and there are more that don't get used enough...I really hope Fichtner spreads it around even more. You don't have to be a star (JJ, Nix, Grimble, Conner) to make plays on this team...just make the plays when they go to you. If you know they are going to you, i.e. you're in the game plan in certain situations, I think you're more likely to be ready...jmho

 

[Psych-Ward]

Exactly, and there are more that don't get used enough...I really hope Fichtner spreads it around even more. You don't have to be a star (JJ, Nix, Grimble, Conner) to make plays on this team...just make the plays when they go to you. If you know they are going to you, i.e. you're in the game plan in certain situations, I think you're more likely to be ready...jmho

It's unfortunate, but Bell is going to find this out the hard way.
He's not going to end up on a team stacked with talent, and he's going to get the short end of the stick.

It won't be long he'll be the next one begging to come back, when he leaves the Burg.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

I would dbl check that Steeler offer.

As far as the production...a lot of it is Bell, but some of it is the players around you.

Position...I'm pretty comfortable with the Steelers offer for a RB...if anything I would like to see them change their signing bonus + 1st yr of the contract as the only guarantees, but the until the players truly fight for guaranteed contracts, the teams are going to continue to milk the current CBA.

You get fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL with how players get hurt, and you are only asking for a decade of hell if you sign the wrong guys to long term deals and they get hurt. Small market baseball teams get screwed by those big deals and they guy either doesn't perform once they get paid or they become injury prone. No contract should be guaranteed in the sports world, at least not 100%. I like the signing bonus deals the NFL does. Players gets some guarantees and insurance through those bonuses, still gives the teams an out if something happens while not drastically killing their cap for the next 5 years.

What makes the NFL so great is the parity, every year, every team stands a chance, even the crappy Browns. You start guaranteeing contracts to players 100%, then you are going to lose that parity because a team like the Steelers who has 3 great players like Ben, Brown and Bell, if they sign those guys to mega deals, can't afford to bolster the rest of their team due to those contracts, and then 1 or more of those players gets hurt and is out for a season, or stops performing for whatever reason, then you are left to wait out that guaranteed contract so you can rework your team a bit.

These guaranteed contracts are ruining baseball in my opinion, I don't want to see it happen to the NFL as well.

 

[Ewa PGH Fan]

So this fool is gonna sit out til the regular season starts again. After his slow start to the season last year, you'd think he rethink that strategy. Maybe play a preseason game or two to shake off the rust before the regular season starts. He never learns, just keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

You get fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL with how players get hurt, and you are only asking for a decade of hell if you sign the wrong guys to long term deals and they get hurt. Small market baseball teams get screwed by those big deals and they guy either doesn't perform once they get paid or they become injury prone. No contract should be guaranteed in the sports world, at least not 100%. I like the signing bonus deals the NFL does. Players gets some guarantees and insurance through those bonuses, still gives the teams an out if something happens while not drastically killing their cap for the next 5 years.

What makes the NFL so great is the parity, every year, every team stands a chance, even the crappy Browns. You start guaranteeing contracts to players 100%, then you are going to lose that parity because a team like the Steelers who has 3 great players like Ben, Brown and Bell, if they sign those guys to mega deals, can't afford to bolster the rest of their team due to those contracts, and then 1 or more of those players gets hurt and is out for a season, or stops performing for whatever reason, then you are left to wait out that guaranteed contract so you can rework your team a bit.

These guaranteed contracts are ruining baseball in my opinion, I don't want to see it happen to the NFL as well.

I was anti-guaranteed contracts for a long time, and on principal alone I still am so I agree with the overall tone of your post. But...being the lone pro sports league without it basically sets the stage for guys holding out and wanting reworked deals (like Julio Jones). As much as I don't like to see it, I don't blame Julio and the players that are out performing their current deals.

The parity argument is somewhat outdated...MLB with no salary cap, and mostly fully guaranteed contracts have had HOU ('17) KC ('15) STL ('11 & 06) FL ('03) all win the WS. CHI is not really a small market, but we know how long it took the Cubs to win one, and the Sox have one as well.

What guaranteeing salaries will do imo, is bring the contract values down to real market value instead of these inflated contracts that teams and players know will not be fulfilled. The real reason Bell turned down 5/70m was the guaranteed funds didn't line up with what he wanted.

There are some caveats that can be added to make the model work better for the NFL...teams should still be able to cut players. If cut, and not resigned by another team, only a percentage of your contract (say 60% for players with less than 4 years service, 70% 4 yrs to 8 yrs, dropping down 50% for players with 8+ yrs service. Secondly, allow teams to amortize the remaining monies due players cut for lack of performance. They can do something similar for injured players, maybe if a player has a career ending injury they don't have to count them towards the cap.

Again...I'm with you I'd rather not see guaranteed contract in sports period, but that's not where we are. If a star actor gets $20 mil per movie...if the movie busts, there's no guarantee that $20 mil will be offered on the next one, if there's a next one.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

I was anti-guaranteed contracts for a long time, and on principal alone I still am so I agree with the overall tone of your post. But...being the lone pro sports league without it basically sets the stage for guys holding out and wanting reworked deals (like Julio Jones). As much as I don't like to see it, I don't blame Julio and the players that are out performing their current deals.

The parity argument is somewhat outdated...MLB with no salary cap, and mostly fully guaranteed contracts have had HOU ('17) KC ('15) STL ('11 & 06) FL ('03) all win the WS. CHI is not really a small market, but we know how long it took the Cubs to win one, and the Sox have one as well.

What guaranteeing salaries will do imo, is bring the contract values down to real market value instead of these inflated contracts that teams and players know will not be fulfilled. The real reason Bell turned down 5/70m was the guaranteed funds didn't line up with what he wanted.

There are some caveats that can be added to make the model work better for the NFL...teams should still be able to cut players. If cut, and not resigned by another team, only a percentage of your contract (say 60% for players with less than 4 years service, 70% 4 yrs to 8 yrs, dropping down 50% for players with 8+ yrs service. Secondly, allow teams to amortize the remaining monies due players cut for lack of performance. They can do something similar for injured players, maybe if a player has a career ending injury they don't have to count them towards the cap.

Again...I'm with you I'd rather not see guaranteed contract in sports period, but that's not where we are. If a star actor gets $20 mil per movie...if the movie busts, there's no guarantee that $20 mil will be offered on the next one, if there's a next one.

However, as an actor, after every single movie, you are having to re-negotiate a new contract. Players do not do year to year contracts. If the salaries were 100% guaranteed, but only one year deals like say an actor gets for one movie, I am good with that. Problem is, there would be way too much management from an owner/GM to resign an entire team at the end of each year.

While I can agree with some of what you are saying, I just think your comparison between an actor and athlete is way off. Each new movie is a new contract. Players get these long term deals, and with salary cap restrictions and market budgets those carrying money into future years to offset the loss now would only bankrupt small market teams like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. We do not have the same revenue that the New Yorks, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago markets do. So while the cap would be the same, small market teams have so much less to fund their organization outside that league wide shared salary cap.

Why was Bell not getting a huge signing bonus / guaranteed contract? Because that signing bonus, while amortized over say 5 years, he gets that money up front, now. IT only counts against the cap in 5ths, but he gets the whole bonus right now, or split into two years sometimes. Pittsburgh ownership may not have that kind of cheddar to just drop anymore than what they were offering at the time due to financial restraints.

The NFL has done such a wonderful job of creating an equal playground for each team/city that people forget that small market teams are still going to struggle handing out these massive signing bonuses up front, because they have to draw from their account all at once instead of over several years like a salary would be.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

However, as an actor, after every single movie, you are having to re-negotiate a new contract. Players do not do year to year contracts. If the salaries were 100% guaranteed, but only one year deals like say an actor gets for one movie, I am good with that. Problem is, there would be way too much management from an owner/GM to resign an entire team at the end of each year.

While I can agree with some of what you are saying, I just think your comparison between an actor and athlete is way off. Each new movie is a new contract. Players get these long term deals, and with salary cap restrictions and market budgets those carrying money into future years to offset the loss now would only bankrupt small market teams like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. We do not have the same revenue that the New Yorks, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago markets do. So while the cap would be the same, small market teams have so much less to fund their organization outside that league wide shared salary cap.

Why was Bell not getting a huge signing bonus / guaranteed contract? Because that signing bonus, while amortized over say 5 years, he gets that money up front, now. IT only counts against the cap in 5ths, but he gets the whole bonus right now, or split into two years sometimes. Pittsburgh ownership may not have that kind of cheddar to just drop anymore than what they were offering at the time due to financial restraints.

The NFL has done such a wonderful job of creating an equal playground for each team/city that people forget that small market teams are still going to struggle handing out these massive signing bonuses up front, because they have to draw from their account all at once instead of over several years like a salary would be.

You're missing the point I made about the actor I think...more or less noting that even outside of sports entertainment, deals are not always guaranteed. I would rather not see guaranteed contracts.

On your small market comment...maybe 20 yrs ago, but not today. Most of the revenue for every NFL team comes from the TV contracts, gate, and licensing. The TV money is split evenly, the gate is up to each team...winning matters.

Yes, Jerry Jones opened up new revenue streams with his stadium contracts, corp luxury boxes et al, but every owner has that same opportunity. Jones also gets all (or the lionshare) of the stadium concessions, parking, etc because he owns the stadium. When ownership relies on public funded or city owned stadiums naturally the municipalities have to get a ROI too. The cap (which I'm all for) keeps the playing field level for every team.

The team operating costs outside of the player salaries have never been the same. Aside from scouting, most have very little to do with winning football games. I think that one reason Mike Brown lagged behind so long on building an indoor practice facility, he likely saw it more as a convenience for the coaching staff than offering any real impact on Ws.

It's highly unlikely that the marketing VP in NY will make double what the same position in ATL gets paid. That doesn't happen in other sectors I don't think it happens in the NFL either. The team chef for the NYG, might make 20-25% more than the team chef in CIN or PIT. The bottom line on that end, Jerry Jones has more revenue coming in, but he also has bigger expenses going out.

Bell...the Steelers have along standing policy on guarantees...only the signing bonus and the 1st yr of the new contract are guaranteed. Now, they have their ways of securing more guaranteed funds for their top players that continue to play at a high level. We talked about Browns deal a while back...his deal was restructured to create more cap space...essentially taking large chunks of his future money and converting it to a bonus (said bonus is then prorated over the remaining years of the contract)...Ben has been restructured several times as have many of the top players on the team...the Steeler way if you will.

In short...the small market, large market debate doesn't hold much water today with the billions the league is profiting and seeing how many titles the Cowboys have won in the last 20 years. Every team can afford to guarantee contracts. I'm not saying the NFL model is broken, but I don't think the current model is ideal.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

You're missing the point I made about the actor I think...more or less noting that even outside of sports entertainment, deals are not always guaranteed. I would rather not see guaranteed contracts.

On your small market comment...maybe 20 yrs ago, but not today. Most of the revenue for every NFL team comes from the TV contracts, gate, and licensing. The TV money is split evenly, the gate is up to each team...winning matters.

Yes, Jerry Jones opened up new revenue streams with his stadium contracts, corp luxury boxes et al, but every owner has that same opportunity. Jones also gets all (or the lionshare) of the stadium concessions, parking, etc because he owns the stadium. When ownership relies on public funded or city owned stadiums naturally the municipalities have to get a ROI too. The cap (which I'm all for) keeps the playing field level for every team.

The team operating costs outside of the player salaries have never been the same. Aside from scouting, most have very little to do with winning football games. I think that one reason Mike Brown lagged behind so long on building an indoor practice facility, he likely saw it more as a convenience for the coaching staff than offering any real impact on Ws.

It's highly unlikely that the marketing VP in NY will make double what the same position in ATL gets paid. That doesn't happen in other sectors I don't think it happens in the NFL either. The team chef for the NYG, might make 20-25% more than the team chef in CIN or PIT. The bottom line on that end, Jerry Jones has more revenue coming in, but he also has bigger expenses going out.

Bell...the Steelers have along standing policy on guarantees...only the signing bonus and the 1st yr of the new contract are guaranteed. Now, they have their ways of securing more guaranteed funds for their top players that continue to play at a high level. We talked about Browns deal a while back...his deal was restructured to create more cap space...essentially taking large chunks of his future money and converting it to a bonus (said bonus is then prorated over the remaining years of the contract)...Ben has been restructured several times as have many of the top players on the team...the Steeler way if you will.

In short...the small market, large market debate doesn't hold much water today with the billions the league is profiting and seeing how many titles the Cowboys have won in the last 20 years. Every team can afford to guarantee contracts. I'm not saying the NFL model is broken, but I don't think the current model is ideal.

I can see a lot of that. Good response. I just see that owners that live in big markets profit considerably more due to merchandising and what not. Otherwise, all franchises would be valued at the same value. Like you, I don't like guaranteed contracts, and I hope the league never allows that to occur. It would be the beginning of the end. I like things the way they are right now.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I can see a lot of that. Good response. I just see that owners that live in big markets profit considerably more due to merchandising and what not. Otherwise, all franchises would be valued at the same value. Like you, I don't like guaranteed contracts, and I hope the league never allows that to occur. It would be the beginning of the end. I like things the way they are right now.

Good points as well on your end.

The part that I don't really agree with is it would be the beginning of the end....keep the cap in place and the play on the field should be very similar to what is is now...what would go away are contracts like the Rams just gave Cooks. 5/$81m/$50m...if the Rams had to guarantee this contract...it would be a lot lower. In that regard, I don't like the way things are.

In terms of the revenues per team...you're right large market teams generate more, but look at that link and see how it translates to championships.

NFL revenue by team 2016 | Statistic

As long as they keep the cap in place...it doesn't really matter how much more revenue the large market teams make. Secondly, if you take DAL and NE out of the equation, the bulk of the teams are in a similar revenue position. Once OAK gets out of that dump of a stadium in Oakland Alameda, they will start to climb.

Enjoyed the chat.

 

[Yo Tee]

Source: Rams, Gurley agree to record RB deal

How do you think this compares to the contract that Bell was offered? $45 mil guaranteed, $12 mil a year. Also, do we know the 100% legit numbers that Bell turned down?

 

[SteelersPride]

Source: Rams, Gurley agree to record RB deal

How do you think this compares to the contract that Bell was offered? $45 mil guaranteed, $12 mil a year. Also, do we know the 100% legit numbers that Bell turned down?

bell only had 10m guaranteed

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

bell only had 10m guaranteed

Doubt that is correct.

 

[SteelersPride]

Doubt that is correct.

it was a rolling guarantees

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

it was a rolling guarantees

Source?