The Le'Veon Bell Tolls ... To the Ravens

[jetsfan5757]

Let me start this off with the Franchise Tag should only be usable on a player ONCE in his career. The second year they should be forced to make a deal.

Now about Bell specifically... He is delusional. He thinks he is the second coming of Jesus. He doesn't view himself as just a RB, but someone who is the best player in football. He completely overvalues himself at a position that simply isn't of that much value relative to QB and arguably WR. He has been suspended twice, and suffered foot and MCL injuries in the past. And he wants 90 million dollars. Good luck with that. Here are the Starting Running Backs of the last 10 superbowl winning teams:

2018 Ajayi
2017 Blount
2016 Hillman/Anderson
2015 Vereen
2014 Lynch
2013 Rice
2012 Bradshaw
2011 Jackson
2010 Thomas
2009 Parker

Teams don't need high profile RBs to win Superbowls. As has been said before in this thread, the time value of money means that 14.5 million is worth more now than in the future. Also he could have gotten insurance. He will get signed, but it will be much less than if he had played this season. As for his fantasy value, I'd still say he has 3-4 very good years left I'd assume. If he goes to the right team, he might go back to being a top 5 RB, though I am not sure that will ever happen again.

I'm not saying the Steelers were wrong for not paying him. I am saying that somebody else would have paid him if he was free to negotiate with other teams. And I am saying that the Steelers preventing him from being able to do so is crap. It's not a fair system.

[Bot101]

Im siding with Bell. I despise the franchise tag.

[Ice]

I find it a bit ironic how many of you hate the Franchise Tag.

In the earlier CBA it was only allowed to be used one time. THE PLAYERS UNION AGREED to THE FRANCHISE TAG RULES.

This was not an oversight by the players union as some of you obviously think; This was by design.

Ask yourself why they did this? The owners certainly like the lever for one single player annually if needed but make no mistake the players union knew exactly what they were doing. Bottom line, this tool drives up market value for the collective annually. Each position has an average salary and annually when a Tag is used it drives up the market value by design for the next player.

Plenty of players have benefited from this practice by getting paid well above market price when they didn't play to elite status but hundreds more have benefited through the years as market price per position has increased as a result of the practice.

On a side note, My Guess is the Players Union are not happy at all with Bell. He not only didn't exercise the richest contract in history for 2018 at the position but showed ownership that paying a RB vast amounts isn't really necessary if you have a young talented price.

To put into some perspective, Conner will earn 641K this year and his entire contract is 3.71 Million. Bell walked away from $855,000 weekly.

So Bell in just 5 WEEKS would have made more than Conner in 4 YEARS.......

[ArrylT]

Could of would of should of is why F tag players buy huge insurance policies.

Sorry but walking away from close to 15 million dollars because you may get injured simply isn't very smart. Bell wanted huge money, The Steelers would pay huge money for one year. Negotiating contracts in good faith is something none of us really know but you seem to be assuming its all on ownership here. No way that is true but teams like the Steelers and Patriots in particular are pretty smart in how they pay players.

Bell should get a good contract but it will probably be closer to Johnson's if he is lucky. He has been out the game for a year and isn't getting any younger. Further, some teams will run away with concerns of love of money over love of game. That is just basic business risk reward.

BTW, for those interested. The Colts and Jets have way more money next year than anyone else with both being over 100 million available. The Texans are 6th in cap space at 68 plus million.

Probably a 3 horse race between these teams.

Thinking Bell would like the Texans best personally.

Ah wasnt David Johnson gone for basically a year in 2017?

Yes, yes he was. Injured 1st game of 2017.

Despite that, despite DJ having a lesser 'track record' of proven production and despite not being required to do so - DJ was still under contract for 2018 and they could have franchised tagged in 2019 - Arizona still gave David Johnson almost 32 million guaranteed.

DJ will be 27 in December
Bell will be 27 in February.

Bell will obviously be fresh and have no injuries.

So no I don't think it is unlikely that he gets a similar contract to DJ or Gurley.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/278 ... bleep#slide2

1. David Johnson, Arizona Cardinals - signed to long term contract
2. Le'Veon Bell, Pittsburgh Steelers
3. Jay Ajayi, Philadelphia Eagles - IR
4. Tevin Coleman, Atlanta Falcons
5. Ty Montgomery, Green Bay Packers - traded

Mark Ingram II, Latavius Murray, LeGarrette Blount, Corey Grant, C.J. Anderson and T.J. Yeldon add to the available options.

Apart from Ingram & Coleman & Yeldon - there is not going to be much competition in the 2019 FA market & if the 2019 rookie class for RBs is 'weak' as rumoured its actually a pretty favorable situation for Bell to enter as a UDFA.

[hotrod]

How does a top 4 deal at worst not benefit the player? If that's the worst case scenario for the player, that isnt terrible. I agree that it benefits the team as well. But this isnt all bad for the player. Again, if you are the highest paid player at your position for a year, how do you not benefit from that? Period.

Gurley 40 mil guaranteed.
David Johnson 30 mil guaranteed.

Had Bell played this year under the tag, the Steelers would have run him into the ground because they have no obligation past this season. Their exposure is greatly reduced. Bell possibly could have a devastating injury greatly reducing his potential future contract or even his career.

Is it good to get paid 15 mil for one year? Yes. Is it to the player's advantage? No way.

Period.

^^This

The franchise tag is anti-capitalism at its best; an employee with no rights to negotiate his value and an employer holding him hostage. The player's union made a mistake by accepting it in the first place. Bell may or may not get the guaranteed money he wants next year but I credit him for taking his stance against the tag.

[ArrylT]

^^This

The franchise tag is anti-capitalism at its best; an employee with no rights to negotiate his value and an employer holding him hostage. The player's union made a mistake by accepting it in the first place. Bell may or may not get the guaranteed money he wants next year but I credit him for taking his stance against the tag.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2527 ... l-thinking

According to that article I think it was because most players are not affected by the Franchise tag so they didnt realize the implications of what they agreed to.

[jetsfan5757]

I find it a bit ironic how many of you hate the Franchise Tag.

In the earlier CBA it was only allowed to be used one time. THE PLAYERS UNION AGREED to THE FRANCHISE TAG RULES.

This was not an oversight by the players union as some of you obviously think; This was by design.

Ask yourself why they did this? The owners certainly like the lever for one single player annually if needed but make no mistake the players union knew exactly what they were doing. Bottom line, this tool drives up market value for the collective annually. Each position has an average salary and annually when a Tag is used it drives up the market value by design for the next player.

Plenty of players have benefited from this practice by getting paid well above market price when they didn't play to elite status but hundreds more have benefited through the years as market price per position has increased as a result of the practice.

On a side note, My Guess is the Players Union are not happy at all with Bell. He not only didn't exercise the richest contract in history for 2018 at the position but showed ownership that paying a RB vast amounts isn't really necessary if you have a young talented price.

To put into some perspective, Conner will earn 641K this year and his entire contract is 3.71 Million. Bell walked away from $855,000 weekly.

So Bell in just 5 WEEKS would have made more than Conner in 4 YEARS.......

They agreed to it because they were in danger of being locked out. And many probably didn't understand implications or care for the few. The franchise tag in no way makes the players more money. If it raises the average salary or higher salaries for a given position, that just means that it has the opposite effect for other positions. It doesn't "drive up market value fort the collective". The players get a percentage (48.5?) of revenues. That's it. No more, no less. The tag doesn't change that...

[jenkins.math]

Bro, you are either really stubborn or all sorts of (synonym for not smart). Maybe you're still in middle school, in which case I would also apologize. I try hard not to be insulting but c'mon!

Bell should EASILY have been a top 5 or top 1 paid RB. It's not like that is some great benefit they bestowed upon him. Not sure why he should be SO happy about getting that... What sucks is getting a guarantee of only 1 year and not 2 or 3 times that 1st year salary. That multi year guarantee, by the way, this is what I referred to in an earlier post when I said he should get 2 to 3 times the franchise tag and he watched other people get it. I was not talking about a 1 year 40 or 45 million dollar contract!

The tag sux. It is a way of owners "owning" players, not letting them negotiate a fair contract. There is no need for it if owners want to compensate their players fairly because in that case the team and player would agree on a salary. Sure, every once in a while a player would leave for another team for less or equal money, which is why I understand the RFA rights for players in their first 4 years. The tag extends beyond that. It is only needed if owners want to force players to play for them on deals that are either below market or offer no long term security.

Oh the classic I don't agree with you so clearly I'm either young or less intelligent that you. You have to love the internet and their keyboard warriors!

You are taking an extremely one sided and short sighted approach to the entire situation. Let's look at the entire situation here and compare to David Johnson and Todd Gurley with their guarantees. Since that seems to be everyone's sticking point.

David Johnson got 3 years with 31.8 million guaranteed. Let's use 32 million for the sake of easier numbers.

Todd Gurley got 4 years with 45 million guaranteed.

Lev Bell was offered a 5 year contract for 70, of which really only 2 years at 33 million was guaranteed. So we will use those figures: 2 years 33 million.

So at the very same age as David Johnson, he is getting an extra million for 1 less year of service. Please enlighten us folks that are less intelligent than you how David Johnson got some better deal and Lev Bell is getting shafted.

Todd Gurley is 2 years younger than Lev Bell. If you take into account Lev Bell's franchise tag last season of 12.1 million plus the 2 year extension at 33 million in guarantees, then the Steelers would have committed over 45 million in guaranteed money to Lev Bell in 3 years, where it is taking Todd Gurley 4 to get that money. So virtually get the same amount of money in 3 years compared to Gurley's 4. My middle school education may be a bit hazy, but that appears to favor Bell again.

Now bet on yourself. Had Lev Bell signed his franchise tender and played, he would have earned just under 27 million these last 2 seasons. To equal Gurley's contract extension, all he would have to do is sign a contract that offered him 18 million in guaranteed money over the next 3 seasons. That's 6 million per season. You don't think he was getting that?

[Ice]

I find it a bit ironic how many of you hate the Franchise Tag.

In the earlier CBA it was only allowed to be used one time. THE PLAYERS UNION AGREED to THE FRANCHISE TAG RULES.

This was not an oversight by the players union as some of you obviously think; This was by design.

Ask yourself why they did this? The owners certainly like the lever for one single player annually if needed but make no mistake the players union knew exactly what they were doing. Bottom line, this tool drives up market value for the collective annually. Each position has an average salary and annually when a Tag is used it drives up the market value by design for the next player.

Plenty of players have benefited from this practice by getting paid well above market price when they didn't play to elite status but hundreds more have benefited through the years as market price per position has increased as a result of the practice.

On a side note, My Guess is the Players Union are not happy at all with Bell. He not only didn't exercise the richest contract in history for 2018 at the position but showed ownership that paying a RB vast amounts isn't really necessary if you have a young talented price.

To put into some perspective, Conner will earn 641K this year and his entire contract is 3.71 Million. Bell walked away from $855,000 weekly.

So Bell in just 5 WEEKS would have made more than Conner in 4 YEARS.......

They agreed to it because they were in danger of being locked out. And many probably didn't understand implications or care for the few. The franchise tag in no way makes the players more money. If it raises the average salary or higher salaries for a given position, that just means that it has the opposite effect for other positions. It doesn't "drive up market value fort the collective". The players get a percentage (48.5?) of revenues. That's it. No more, no less. The tag doesn't change that...

Not so,

The better players at each position negotiate off the top tier salaries. Not sure you think lock out is what you you think. If the players won't play anyway the lock out provides business protections from operations. The Players get 48.5 of revenue but the owners are on the hook for all expenses from lease payments to the clean up crew.

If anyone thinks an army of lawyers didn't know what they were doing is not a logical argument. Tags ensure better player will be compensated at a high level for that position.

Business is not a democracy or a socialist system at all. The better players and more important positions get the lions share of that revenue. The tag ensures to floor rises for guards and safeties just as it does for QB'sa. If Cousins in the earlier example is tagged a 3rd time his one year contract will be north of 40 million.

You don't think he loves the tag given his leverage is better? You don't think that number will assist in driving the market price?

This is an 8 plus BILLION dollar industry and growing. Looking at it from a 32 player max player perspective is simply not the best way to view it. We can hate the Tag for Bell but see the benefit for Cousins as an example.

BTW for anyone that thinks its only the NFL owners benefit from tags the simple test is how many times is it used. In 2017 only 7 teams exercised a F-Tag. last year only 5 teams used the Tags.

If it was so one-sided all 32 teams would use it.

Players that benefited from the Franchise tag in 2017

Chandler Jones LB AZ
Kawaan Short DT Panthers
Melvin Ingrim LB Chargers
JPP DE Giants
Cousins QB Washington 120% of 16 salary at 23,943,600

Bell was also tagged in 2016 and played for 12, 120 Million. His 2018 Tag would have 120% of that.

2018 Tags Only 5.

This year Players who benefited from the F Tag

D. Lawrence Cowboys 17,143,000 Now in a position to break the bank since he is proving not to be a one hit wonder

Ziggy DE Lions. 17,143,000 Lions gambled on his injury riddled season in 2017 and career. appear to have lost as Ziggy isn't worth anything close to that salary. This is like stealing money from the Lions.

Lamarcus Joyner F Tag 11.287 Million. Team was hoping for a bounce back year from Joyner but to date only 39 tackles. Looks like the Rams lost here and lost Watkins in the process.

Kyle Fuller DB Bears. T Tag Looks like a loss for the Bears given only 22 tackles and 11 pass defensed for the year. He does have 4 interceptions but at 12 plus Million not elite performance. This tag helped him get a 56 million dollar contract. He isn't worth it IMO.

Bell tagged but passed on 14 plus Million which was a 120% raise from 2017.

The Bottom line when one actually analyze the Tags it is obvious the risk cuts both ways and more players may actually benefit than the teams in recent history.

Some think it's horrible but the use of 5 times last time with 1696 players on active rosters it is a very small thing. Makes for good conversation but in the grand scheme it is evident the tag is a two way street. I certainly don't feel sorry for players like Ziggy that can get 17 Million to prove he can stay healthy or if Bell can get 14 plus million and choose to walk away.

The facts are getting in the way of reality when one thinks the players will win an argument for doing away with the tag. Players like Lawrence or any of the above listed outside of maybe Bell are winning big time because of the tag system.

Thinking the owners are winning in a landslide is fantasy.

[jetsfan5757]

Bro, you are either really stubborn or all sorts of (synonym for not smart). Maybe you're still in middle school, in which case I would also apologize. I try hard not to be insulting but c'mon!

Bell should EASILY have been a top 5 or top 1 paid RB. It's not like that is some great benefit they bestowed upon him. Not sure why he should be SO happy about getting that... What sucks is getting a guarantee of only 1 year and not 2 or 3 times that 1st year salary. That multi year guarantee, by the way, this is what I referred to in an earlier post when I said he should get 2 to 3 times the franchise tag and he watched other people get it. I was not talking about a 1 year 40 or 45 million dollar contract!

The tag sux. It is a way of owners "owning" players, not letting them negotiate a fair contract. There is no need for it if owners want to compensate their players fairly because in that case the team and player would agree on a salary. Sure, every once in a while a player would leave for another team for less or equal money, which is why I understand the RFA rights for players in their first 4 years. The tag extends beyond that. It is only needed if owners want to force players to play for them on deals that are either below market or offer no long term security.

Oh the classic I don't agree with you so clearly I'm either young or less intelligent that you. You have to love the internet and their keyboard warriors!

You are taking an extremely one sided and short sighted approach to the entire situation. Let's look at the entire situation here and compare to David Johnson and Todd Gurley with their guarantees. Since that seems to be everyone's sticking point.

David Johnson got 3 years with 31.8 million guaranteed. Let's use 32 million for the sake of easier numbers.

Todd Gurley got 4 years with 45 million guaranteed.

Lev Bell was offered a 5 year contract for 70, of which really only 2 years at 33 million was guaranteed. So we will use those figures: 2 years 33 million.

So at the very same age as David Johnson, he is getting an extra million for 1 less year of service. Please enlighten us folks that are less intelligent than you how David Johnson got some better deal and Lev Bell is getting shafted.

Todd Gurley is 2 years younger than Lev Bell. If you take into account Lev Bell's franchise tag last season of 12.1 million plus the 2 year extension at 33 million in guarantees, then the Steelers would have committed over 45 million in guaranteed money to Lev Bell in 3 years, where it is taking Todd Gurley 4 to get that money. So virtually get the same amount of money in 3 years compared to Gurley's 4. My middle school education may be a bit hazy, but that appears to favor Bell again.

Now bet on yourself. Had Lev Bell signed his franchise tender and played, he would have earned just under 27 million these last 2 seasons. To equal Gurley's contract extension, all he would have to do is sign a contract that offered him 18 million in guaranteed money over the next 3 seasons. That's 6 million per season. You don't think he was getting that?

Bro, you can disagree with me all you want. I've never insulted anyone before for that. I actually think you might be only the second person I have ever insulted on this forum.

I lost it with you because you were so stuck on how lucky he was to get 1 year of high pay for a running back that he should be happy with that. That's all you wanted to talk about and that you were refusing to see the injury risk and long term implications. You were just dismissing them like it didn't matter. You also refused to acknowledge how the tag system is in fact unfair to these players. When you did mention the risk, you (I think this was you) compared RB (where injury risk is far higher, especially a 400 touch RB like Bell) to a QB in Kirk Cousins, even after we saw what happened to Earl Thomas... Happy to see here that you are at least looking into the longer term impacts. Let's see how this goes:

Agree with using 32 for DJ's guarantee, but not fine with the numbers you cited for Bell. He was only guaranteed 10 million, his signing bonus, that's IT. If he got injured in camp, for example, that's all he got.

IF he stayed healthy and played 2 years he would have gotten 33 million over 2 years, stayed healthy for 3 years: 45 million. But none of it was actually fully guaranteed except the original 10 million signing bonus, which was less than Freeman, McCoy and other RBs got for their contracts.

The whole point of Bell's holdout was to get guaranteed money and be protected against injury. Tell me how this deal was supposed to make him feel comfortable? He would have been better off playing under the tag than signing that deal because the tag was 14.5 million this year and around 20 million next year = 35 million total, as opposed to 33 million under the new contract.

Pittsburgh's offer was a slap in the face. Less than the franchise tag is worth without any additional security. Why on Earth would he sign it? Why shouldn't he be offended? Why shouldn't he hold out?

Next point: I'm not taking the 1st franchise tag into consideration because that wasn't Bell's choice. It was Pittsburgh's choice. Also, he already had that money. That's not new money. That's not "I'll show up to work tomorrow and risk injury because this organization has guaranteed me future income whether I get hurt or not" money.

Gurley next: Gurley got 21 million at signing. Double what Bell got, no waiting. He get's to invest it, make money off it, spend it, whatever, right away. It's true that Gurley gets "only" 40 million in his first 3 years, as opposed to Bell's 45, but Bell only gets his if he stays healthy and on the team. Also, Gurley was under contract on his rookie deal when he signed this contract, for 2 more years I think. They didn't have to do that deal then. They paid the man early, 21 million on signing. That is called long term security and that is what Bell wanted...

I'm sorry bro, but the way I still see it, the whole situation wasn't fair to Bell. He was at risk to lose everything every year.

I apologize for being a jerk and will keep my cool in the future.

[Ice]

The offer was no more a slap in the face than Bell wanting QB money. Its called negotiation.

While Bell is great and touches the ball a ton, he does get injured. He does get hit way more than any QB who touches the ball every single snap.

The offer while is certainly viewed as a slap in the face to some, is not a contract. The reality is contract negotiations broke off. Bell lost Millions. The Steelers lost Bell but in reality the Steelers don't seem to have suffered much. The team is winning and has come together in the locker room. The Steelers also have saved 14 plus million in the process they would have payed regardless of what Bell did had he signed his tender.

Bell is the only one who chose to walk away from 14 plus million GUARANTEED dollars.

That was his right and his choice.

On a side Note*

The Earl Thomas situation was completely different. He was actually under a contract he signed this year. He didn't like the contract because he was to make 8.5 million this season with a 10 plus million cap hit.

While injuries happen given its a violent game, his situation was nothing like Bell's. Thomas was trying dictate a new deal while under contract. Thomas will be 30 next season.

[jenkins.math]

Agree with using 32 for DJ's guarantee, but not fine with the numbers you cited for Bell. He was only guaranteed 10 million, his signing bonus, that's IT. If he got injured in camp, for example, that's all he got.

IF he stayed healthy and played 2 years he would have gotten 33 million over 2 years, stayed healthy for 3 years: 45 million. But none of it was actually fully guaranteed except the original 10 million signing bonus, which was less than Freeman, McCoy and other RBs got for their contracts.

Gurley next: Gurley got 21 million at signing. Double what Bell got, no waiting. He get's to invest it, make money off it, spend it, whatever, right away.

According to Adam Schefter, Ian Rappaport, and others, Bell's contract was guaranteed for 2 years and for 33 million dollars upon signing. While his signing bonus may have been 10 million, it doesn't change the fact that he was receiving 33 million dollars for 2 years regardless of his health or what happened to him. Quit using the 10 million dollar signing bonus as his only guarantee. That simply isn't true when the best in the business have consistently reported it was 2 years and 33 million guaranteed upon signing. If Bell is hung up on getting everything in one lump sum from day 1, that is an entirely different discussion.

Honestly, it really shouldn't matter when these guys get it. It's the fact that they are guaranteed to get it. Whether I get it now, next week, next year, whatever. Bell can't make some argument that he is holding out over guaranteed money, when he was getting it. He just didn't get it how he wanted. Plain and simple. 75% of NFL players are bankrupt within 3 years of their final game, so if he wanted all that money to invest it makes sense. However he would be in the extreme minority if that was his plan for needing all that on day 1.

Take out what he just got then. 2 years and 33 million guaranteed for this season and next is the real offer. He hits the market at 28 and all he needs to do is get a 2 year deal worth 12 million in guaranteed money. Barring injury he probably gets that easily. As long as it wasn't a career ender freak injury (Bo Jackson hip), he could tear his ACL and someone will take a chance on him at 2 years 12 million. Jerick McKinnon just got 20 million. If he produced and was healthy, the Steelers probably ride him in year 3, which is now 3 years and 45 million.

Again, Bell could have easily eclipsed the money Gurley got. He may have needed to do it with multiple contracts and multiple teams, but he had a fairly clear and obvious path to 45 million in guaranteed money from the NFL over the next 4 seasons, which is exactly what Todd Gurley got.

[jetsfan5757]

Agree with using 32 for DJ's guarantee, but not fine with the numbers you cited for Bell. He was only guaranteed 10 million, his signing bonus, that's IT. If he got injured in camp, for example, that's all he got.

IF he stayed healthy and played 2 years he would have gotten 33 million over 2 years, stayed healthy for 3 years: 45 million. But none of it was actually fully guaranteed except the original 10 million signing bonus, which was less than Freeman, McCoy and other RBs got for their contracts.

Gurley next: Gurley got 21 million at signing. Double what Bell got, no waiting. He get's to invest it, make money off it, spend it, whatever, right away.

According to Adam Schefter, Ian Rappaport, and others, Bell's contract was guaranteed for 2 years and for 33 million dollars upon signing. While his signing bonus may have been 10 million, it doesn't change the fact that he was receiving 33 million dollars for 2 years regardless of his health or what happened to him. Quit using the 10 million dollar signing bonus as his only guarantee. That simply isn't true when the best in the business have consistently reported it was 2 years and 33 million guaranteed upon signing. If Bell is hung up on getting everything in one lump sum from day 1, that is an entirely different discussion.

Honestly, it really shouldn't matter when these guys get it. It's the fact that they are guaranteed to get it. Whether I get it now, next week, next year, whatever. Bell can't make some argument that he is holding out over guaranteed money, when he was getting it. He just didn't get it how he wanted. Plain and simple. 75% of NFL players are bankrupt within 3 years of their final game, so if he wanted all that money to invest it makes sense. However he would be in the extreme minority if that was his plan for needing all that on day 1.

Take out what he just got then. 2 years and 33 million guaranteed for this season and next is the real offer. He hits the market at 28 and all he needs to do is get a 2 year deal worth 12 million in guaranteed money. Barring injury he probably gets that easily. As long as it wasn't a career ender freak injury (Bo Jackson hip), he could tear his ACL and someone will take a chance on him at 2 years 12 million. Jerick McKinnon just got 20 million. If he produced and was healthy, the Steelers probably ride him in year 3, which is now 3 years and 45 million.

Again, Bell could have easily eclipsed the money Gurley got. He may have needed to do it with multiple contracts and multiple teams, but he had a fairly clear and obvious path to 45 million in guaranteed money from the NFL over the next 4 seasons, which is exactly what Todd Gurley got.

Bell could have gotten his money under the Steelers offer if he stayed healthy, no question. But he wanted guaranteed money, not if he stayed healthy money, precisely because he gets 400 touches and risks his body. He didn't want 45 mil on day one, but a signing bonus that was higher than what McCoy and Freeman got would have been reasonable...

You mentioned Rappaport and Schefter. Check out the article below. It lays out the timeline of the whole situation. Tweets from Schefter and Rappaport included. Rappaport definitely not saying what you are once he had all the details.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/7/18/ ... ree-agency

[jetsfan5757]

Honestly, it really shouldn't matter when these guys get it. It's the fact that they are guaranteed to get it. Whether I get it now, next week, next year, whatever. Bell can't make some argument that he is holding out over guaranteed money, when he was getting it. He just didn't get it how he wanted. Plain and simple. 75% of NFL players are bankrupt within 3 years of their final game, so if he wanted all that money to invest it makes sense. However he would be in the extreme minority if that was his plan for needing all that on day 1.

FWIW, Bell likely won't be one of those 75%. He saved so that he could make this move... Smart planning.

[jetsfan5757]

Not so,

The better players at each position negotiate off the top tier salaries. Not sure you think lock out is what you you think. If the players won't play anyway the lock out provides business protections from operations. The Players get 48.5 of revenue but the owners are on the hook for all expenses from lease payments to the clean up crew.

If anyone thinks an army of lawyers didn't know what they were doing is not a logical argument. Tags ensure better player will be compensated at a high level for that position.

Business is not a democracy or a socialist system at all. The better players and more important positions get the lions share of that revenue. The tag ensures to floor rises for guards and safeties just as it does for QB'sa. If Cousins in the earlier example is tagged a 3rd time his one year contract will be north of 40 million.

You don't think he loves the tag given his leverage is better? You don't think that number will assist in driving the market price?

This is an 8 plus BILLION dollar industry and growing. Looking at it from a 32 player max player perspective is simply not the best way to view it. We can hate the Tag for Bell but see the benefit for Cousins as an example.

BTW for anyone that thinks its only the NFL owners benefit from tags the simple test is how many times is it used. In 2017 only 7 teams exercised a F-Tag. last year only 5 teams used the Tags.

If it was so one-sided all 32 teams would use it.

Players that benefited from the Franchise tag in 2017

Chandler Jones LB AZ
Kawaan Short DT Panthers
Melvin Ingrim LB Chargers
JPP DE Giants
Cousins QB Washington 120% of 16 salary at 23,943,600

Bell was also tagged in 2016 and played for 12, 120 Million. His 2018 Tag would have 120% of that.

2018 Tags Only 5.

This year Players who benefited from the F Tag

D. Lawrence Cowboys 17,143,000 Now in a position to break the bank since he is proving not to be a one hit wonder

Ziggy DE Lions. 17,143,000 Lions gambled on his injury riddled season in 2017 and career. appear to have lost as Ziggy isn't worth anything close to that salary. This is like stealing money from the Lions.

Lamarcus Joyner F Tag 11.287 Million. Team was hoping for a bounce back year from Joyner but to date only 39 tackles. Looks like the Rams lost here and lost Watkins in the process.

Kyle Fuller DB Bears. T Tag Looks like a loss for the Bears given only 22 tackles and 11 pass defensed for the year. He does have 4 interceptions but at 12 plus Million not elite performance. This tag helped him get a 56 million dollar contract. He isn't worth it IMO.

Bell tagged but passed on 14 plus Million which was a 120% raise from 2017.

The Bottom line when one actually analyze the Tags it is obvious the risk cuts both ways and more players may actually benefit than the teams in recent history.

Some think it's horrible but the use of 5 times last time with 1696 players on active rosters it is a very small thing. Makes for good conversation but in the grand scheme it is evident the tag is a two way street. I certainly don't feel sorry for players like Ziggy that can get 17 Million to prove he can stay healthy or if Bell can get 14 plus million and choose to walk away.

The facts are getting in the way of reality when one thinks the players will win an argument for doing away with the tag. Players like Lawrence or any of the above listed outside of maybe Bell are winning big time because of the tag system.

Thinking the owners are winning in a landslide is fantasy.

I hear your arguments, but I agree to disagree. Fact is, we will never know what Chandler Jones, Kawaan Short, Ingram, or JPP could have gotten if they were allowed to hit the open market. The tag robbed them of that opportunity. People who get tagged, get a max salary for 1 year, and end up not being that good, may have benefited from the tag. However, maybe they didn't. We don't know if they would have gotten a longer term contract at less than the tag salary but with more guaranteed money, for example, if they were able t hit the open market. Or maybe they went to a team where they felt they fit the scheme better, had a good year, and then signed a higher contract because of it. You're right that it does occasionally benefit the player, but let's not pretend that's always the case either...

You're also right that the tag isn't used much because the players do benefit from a very high salary, but that doesn't mean that it's not still in the owners favor to be able to use it or even to threaten to use it. The owner slaps the tag on a player and immediately avoids a bidding war. Not sure how that is fair or how I would want that as a player. The team can offer a contract that is less than the player would get on the open market but more guaranteed money than the tag, and a player might sign it because of the threat of the tag.

I really don't think it's in the players' favor. But we can agree to disagree...