Le’Veon Bell has now forfeited $6.84M from his 8 weeks away

[Sgt. Largent]

OK he is dumb because he will never make up that money. He supposedly sat out mainly to get more guaranteed, but in doing so he gave up almost $15 million guaranteed money.

So did he avoid the injury risk - sure. However, he will never get this earning back

I wonder the same thing I wondered when Earl got re-injured. Does he have a nagging injury that he think will become an issue and that is why he needs the long term contract so bad that he is willing to sit out? I still believe Earl knew he had never healed properly and that is why he got so pissed when he got re-injured because he "should have known".

Separately - other teams won't worry about his willingness to play, but they will worry that he sat for a year and they will also start wondering if he was a "system RB". When some unknown guy steps in and performs as good then was it the RB or the system? Like the old Denver RBs that never did anything elsewhere (not worth their money)

You bring up Earl, which is a good comparison for what Bell did.

To take Bell's side, Earl by playing this year cost himself a LOT of money.........assuming we would have eventually traded him to a team that would have given him an extension. That's 20-30M or more of guaranteed money by not playing and not getting injured.

Now Earl has to go the Richard Sherman route, shorter 2-3 year deal with incentives to get even half the money.

That's in essence what Bell is gambling on, that once he hits free agency perfectly healthy that a team is going to give him more guaranteed money, and therefore making up what he lost this year by not signing his tender.

So really no one can say he did the wrong or right thing until we see what happens next year. If no one gives him the contract he thinks he's worth? He did the wrong thing. If someone gives him a monster contract with most of it guaranteed? Then he was right not playing.

 

[mikeak]

OK he is dumb because he will never make up that money. He supposedly sat out mainly to get more guaranteed, but in doing so he gave up almost $15 million guaranteed money.

So did he avoid the injury risk - sure. However, he will never get this earning back

I wonder the same thing I wondered when Earl got re-injured. Does he have a nagging injury that he think will become an issue and that is why he needs the long term contract so bad that he is willing to sit out? I still believe Earl knew he had never healed properly and that is why he got so pissed when he got re-injured because he "should have known".

Separately - other teams won't worry about his willingness to play, but they will worry that he sat for a year and they will also start wondering if he was a "system RB". When some unknown guy steps in and performs as good then was it the RB or the system? Like the old Denver RBs that never did anything elsewhere (not worth their money)

You bring up Earl, which is a good comparison for what Bell did.

To take Bell's side, Earl by playing this year cost himself a LOT of money.........assuming we would have eventually traded him to a team that would have given him an extension. That's 20-30M or more of guaranteed money by not playing and not getting injured.

Now Earl has to go the Richard Sherman route, shorter 2-3 year deal with incentives to get even half the money.

That's in essence what Bell is gambling on, that once he hits free agency perfectly healthy that a team is going to give him more guaranteed money, and therefore making up what he lost this year by not signing his tender.

So really no one can say he did the wrong or right thing until we see what happens next year. If no one gives him the contract he thinks he's worth? He did the wrong thing. If someone gives him a monster contract with most of it guaranteed? Then he was right not playing.

There is a big difference that I think you missed

Earl is under contract. Earl HAD to play this season. He could never have sat out the full season since then he would have had to play for Seattle next year

Bell got franchise tagged a second time. He doesn't have to play under it yet if he gets tagged again next year it will count as the third. So Bell never had to play with the risk of injury

Big difference in the approach as Earl basically said - I am going to have to play may as well go all season long

I do agree on your last sentence though and I should have held back in my original post. I do find it highly unlikely that he will make up money lost / get enough additional guaranteed to make it worth it, but it will be super interesting if he does. It will set a blueprint for future players getting tagged

 

[Sgt. Largent]

There is a big difference that I think you missed

Earl is under contract. Earl HAD to play this season. He could never have sat out the full season since then he would have had to play for Seattle next year

Correct, I meant more the holdout and come back in week 10 for Earl to make his last year technically count. Might have still gotten injured, but less games = less likely.

The sentiment is still true, Earl getting hurt is exactly why Bell isn't playing. He's not going to risk getting injured and not getting to his next big extension vs. getting half or all of a one year franchise salary.

Again, we'll see.

If I was to bet? I'd bet Bell's free agency value isn't as high as he and his agent think it is. Not for the diminished RB market on a pain in the ass twice suspended RB. Just too easy to draft or acquire a much cheaper effective running back, as Connors proved.

 

[mrt144]

He has already turned down more money than anyone will ever offer him again so I wouldn’t call him a genius. He is on record several times demanding 15 million per year 5 years and he turned down a deal that would have paid 43 over three years and 20 the final two years of a five year extension. My question is what is the cost to the Steelers for a guy who refuses to show up? What are the Steelers obligations and impact on their cap?

There's some point where the marginal utility of money diminishes and he's is plausibly in that zone already. If you look at it from the perspective of having made his already this changes the dynamic to where he can hold out for it to be worth it to him to play football again.

Even if Bell's perception of his value is more orthodox and he couches it in terms of his value to a team it still might not be the worst thing in the world to walk away now. Lord knows I can make 65k a year stretch.

 

[brimsalabim]

There is a big difference that I think you missed

Earl is under contract. Earl HAD to play this season. He could never have sat out the full season since then he would have had to play for Seattle next year

Correct, I meant more the holdout and come back in week 10 for Earl to make his last year technically count. Might have still gotten injured, but less games = less likely.

The sentiment is still true, Earl getting hurt is exactly why Bell isn't playing. He's not going to risk getting injured and not getting to his next big extension vs. getting half or all of a one year franchise salary.

Again, we'll see.

If I was to bet? I'd bet Bell's free agency value isn't as high as he and his agent think it is. Not for the diminished RB market on a pain in the ass twice suspended RB. Just too easy to draft or acquire a much cheaper effective running back, as Connors proved.

But he was offered a big money big extension and he still turned it down.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

There is a big difference that I think you missed

Earl is under contract. Earl HAD to play this season. He could never have sat out the full season since then he would have had to play for Seattle next year

Correct, I meant more the holdout and come back in week 10 for Earl to make his last year technically count. Might have still gotten injured, but less games = less likely.

The sentiment is still true, Earl getting hurt is exactly why Bell isn't playing. He's not going to risk getting injured and not getting to his next big extension vs. getting half or all of a one year franchise salary.

Again, we'll see.

If I was to bet? I'd bet Bell's free agency value isn't as high as he and his agent think it is. Not for the diminished RB market on a pain in the ass twice suspended RB. Just too easy to draft or acquire a much cheaper effective running back, as Connors proved.

But he was offered a big money big extension and he still turned it down.

No they didn't, they tendered a franchise tag offer. The Steelers and Bell tried to come to terms on an extension for two years, and couldn't agree, so the team franchised Bell.

 

[MD5eahawks]

Apparently he's seeking quite a bit of money. With big guarantees that would make it front loaded.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...lers-leveon-bell-wants-more-than-17m-per-year

 

[Mad Dog]

no way Leveon Bell gets close to that and this season has proven that RBs are easily replaceable commodities. Star RB's are typically luxuries. It's the OL, QB and offensive system that determine offensive production.

Rams are amazing with Gurley, but if they had a league average back and 10 million more to spend on D, they'd probably be even better.

 

[brimsalabim]

There is a big difference that I think you missed

Earl is under contract. Earl HAD to play this season. He could never have sat out the full season since then he would have had to play for Seattle next year

Correct, I meant more the holdout and come back in week 10 for Earl to make his last year technically count. Might have still gotten injured, but less games = less likely.

The sentiment is still true, Earl getting hurt is exactly why Bell isn't playing. He's not going to risk getting injured and not getting to his next big extension vs. getting half or all of a one year franchise salary.

Again, we'll see.

If I was to bet? I'd bet Bell's free agency value isn't as high as he and his agent think it is. Not for the diminished RB market on a pain in the ass twice suspended RB. Just too easy to draft or acquire a much cheaper effective running back, as Connors proved.

But he was offered a big money big extension and he still turned it down.

No they didn't, they tendered a franchise tag offer. The Steelers and Bell tried to come to terms on an extension for two years, and couldn't agree, so the team franchised Bell.

You are not correct. The tag came after he rejected the deal. It was reported that he turned down at least two deals.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...-monstrous-70-million-deal-from-the-steelers/