Jump to content

Le'veon Bell Contract Structure - GREAT job


Doggin94it

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Yeah, the "did he lose out by not playing on the tag" debate misses a whole dimension of his decision (the risk of playing and the impact of another year on the market)

But "did he lose out by not signing the Steelers' July 2018 offer of 5 years, 70M, 33 guaranteed"? Um ... hell yes. He ended up getting less, and with about the same total guarantee.  That's not really debatable

My understanding is that contract offer from Pittsburgh had only $10MM guaranteed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 hours ago, Jetmech said:

 


There seems to be an assumption by some talking heads that if Bell played last year he would not have been offered a large contract due to the amount of touches he gets with the Steelers. Who knows...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We'll never know. But after a year off, with fewer touches and no injuries, he got less than he'd hoped. 

Also lost in the assumptions is how much Gurley's injury impacted Bell's offers. I'd say that did more damage than anything in terms of him replicating that deal. Totally understandable for a few teams that may have been interested get spooked instead and think whoa what if that happened to us and we're on the hook for another $30MM for a damaged-goods RB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

My understanding is that contract offer from Pittsburgh had only $10MM guaranteed.

Not per reports (see above). Signing bonus was 10m and it had rolling guarantees of up to 33m.  

 

He also had 9.5m in first year salary that he'd obviously have earned - meaning his year one take would've been almost as much as his total guarantees in this deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Not per reports (see above). Signing bonus was 10m and it had rolling guarantees of up to 33m.  

 

He also had 9.5m in first year salary that he'd obviously have earned - meaning his year one take would've been almost as much as his total guarantees in this deal

So even in the report you quoted that's just $10MM fully guaranteed as I said. 

The "up to $33MM" likely means guarantees that he gets if he's still with the team. For example, on the 5th day of the next season, the salary becomes guaranteed. That's counted in guarantees, but these rolling guarantees aren't truly guaranteed money. 

The very point is if he messed up his knee badly, or if there was a locker room problem, or if the team just decided to go in another direction for less money, the team had the option of dumping him after 1 year. If the team didn't want to retain that option of backing out, they simply would have guaranteed more and he'd have signed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doggin94it said:

Not likely. He'll still be getting paid top of the market money, so what would the point of holding out be? Definitely nothing worth forfeiting the reporting bonus for

One thing I've learned is that it's really hard to predict where market will go. Ever-increasing salary cap and if another bag gets a big deal and resets things... could see Le'Veon sitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

So even in the report you quoted that's just $10MM fully guaranteed as I said. 

The "up to $33MM" likely means guarantees that he gets if he's still with the team. For example, on the 5th day of the next season, the salary becomes guaranteed. That's counted in guarantees, but these rolling guarantees aren't truly guaranteed money. 

The very point is if he messed up his knee badly, or if there was a locker room problem, or if the team just decided to go in another direction for less money, the team had the option of dumping him after 1 year. If the team didn't want to retain that option of backing out, they simply would have guaranteed more and he'd have signed it.

He would’ve pocketed $21M last year if he signed that deal. Maybe $10M was the guarantee, but his first year’s salary was also pretty much 100% guaranteed. 

As for an injury last year, I’d imagine that the contract would’ve included injury guarantees. They almost all do. So his second year of $15M was also all but guaranteed. Either he was coming back healthy, or getting his salary in rehab. 

He lost money sitting out that he’ll never recoup. Simple as that. He underestimated how much walking away would hurt his brand, and overestimated (like most observers) what his market would be this year. A player of his caliber not becoming the highest-paid player at his position in open free agency is a major loss for him and his agents. That shouldn’t’ve happened. I wasn’t a fan of signing him, but it’s hard to complain too much at the number the Jets got him for. I hope it serves as a chip on his shoulder and he’s determined to earn every single incentive in his contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, slats said:

He would’ve pocketed $21M last year if he signed that deal. Maybe $10M was the guarantee, but his first year’s salary was also pretty much 100% guaranteed. 

As for an injury last year, I’d imagine that the contract would’ve included injury guarantees. They almost all do. So his second year of $15M was also all but guaranteed. Either he was coming back healthy, or getting his salary in rehab. 

He lost money sitting out that he’ll never recoup. Simple as that. He underestimated how much walking away would hurt his brand, and overestimated (like most observers) what his market would be this year. A player of his caliber not becoming the highest-paid player at his position in open free agency is a major loss for him and his agents. That shouldn’t’ve happened. I wasn’t a fan of signing him, but it’s hard to complain too much at the number the Jets got him for. I hope it serves as a chip on his shoulder and he’s determined to earn every single incentive in his contract. 

Most were talking about not playing under the franchise tag as his real screwup. Had he gotten injured then, there is nothing in year 2.

I don't know how much he was going to pocket in year 1 or if there was going to be a second lump bonus if he was still on the team in year 2. 

If he was going to get it anyway, then why would Pittsburgh bother getting cute with it instead of just getting it banged out? Seems they wanted to retain the ability to dump him after 1 year without it being prohibitive. All it'd take is one down season statistically and that might get the team to back out of kicking in more guarantees on day x of the second season. Then he wouldn't be getting a $15MM/year deal from someone else this year anyway.

Like I just wrote in another thread, so long as he isn't preventing them from signing a veteran on the OL or at WR, I'm good with gifting this player to Darnold. I don't see the Jets winning a SB in 2019 or 2020 anyway, and the line in the sand for me would have been a 3rd guaranteed season (or Revis-like 3rd season where only an outright lousy 2nd season would get him cut). Plus they'd likely have kept Crowell plus added a veteran 3rd down back for millions more as well. 

I think the biggest damage to his earning was not him damaging his own brand, but rather the Gurley injury just 1 year into his own similar extension (shortly before the FA period began, no less). It highlights just what a team risks with what is effectively a 3-year guarantee for a RB with plenty of carries/touches under his belt already. I think that gave multiple teams cold feet as to how much they'd pony up for a veteran RB with his own injury history, even if he's not old himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think the biggest damage to his earning was not him damaging his own brand, but rather the Gurley injury just 1 year into his own similar extension (shortly before the FA period began, no less). It highlights just what a team risks with what is effectively a 3-year guarantee for a RB with plenty of carries/touches under his belt already. I think that gave multiple teams cold feet as to how much they'd pony up for a veteran RB with his own injury history, even if he's not old himself.

I agree that Gurley’s injury was likely a factor, but I think the league’s overall disinterest in him was mostly on him. He thumbed his nose at the system. That doesn’t play well well with the men in power. The Jets interest might’ve backfired on him, too, with other teams just not being interested in getting involved in a bidding war with a desperate Maccagnan and his deep cap pockets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, slats said:

I agree that Gurley’s injury was likely a factor, but I think the league’s overall disinterest in him was mostly on him. He thumbed his nose at the system. That doesn’t play well well with the men in power. The Jets interest might’ve backfired on him, too, with other teams just not being interested in getting involved in a bidding war with a desperate Maccagnan and his deep cap pockets. 

The big problem wasn't in holding out per se. More likely it was that he teased he would show up and then didn't. 

Could be, with regard to the Jets. Except bidding wars with the Jets hadn't stopped teams of late, though. Mostly they steal the players away for the same or less money even after the Jets were involved; we had deep cap pockets last year, too. 

If someone wanted him for $15MM/year I don't think they'd have shied away from bidding because the Jets were also bidding. Anyone interested in a high priced player has to figure there's a bidding war for such an in-demand player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Most were talking about not playing under the franchise tag as his real screwup. Had he gotten injured then, there is nothing in year 2.

I don't know how much he was going to pocket in year 1 or if there was going to be a second lump bonus if he was still on the team in year 2. 

If he was going to get it anyway, then why would Pittsburgh bother getting cute with it instead of just getting it banged out? Seems they wanted to retain the ability to dump him after 1 year without it being prohibitive. All it'd take is one down season statistically and that might get the team to back out of kicking in more guarantees on day x of the second season. Then he wouldn't be getting a $15MM/year deal from someone else this year anyway.

Like I just wrote in another thread, so long as he isn't preventing them from signing a veteran on the OL or at WR, I'm good with gifting this player to Darnold. I don't see the Jets winning a SB in 2019 or 2020 anyway, and the line in the sand for me would have been a 3rd guaranteed season (or Revis-like 3rd season where only an outright lousy 2nd season would get him cut). Plus they'd likely have kept Crowell plus added a veteran 3rd down back for millions more as well. 

I think the biggest damage to his earning was not him damaging his own brand, but rather the Gurley injury just 1 year into his own similar extension (shortly before the FA period began, no less). It highlights just what a team risks with what is effectively a 3-year guarantee for a RB with plenty of carries/touches under his belt already. I think that gave multiple teams cold feet as to how much they'd pony up for a veteran RB with his own injury history, even if he's not old himself.

I can't speak to what other people were doing, but you and I were talking about the 5/70 contract offer.  He lost money by not taking it, plain and simple.

As for why Pittsburgh got cute, this is how they structure all their contracts, and they didn't want to set a precedent of moving off of that.  I think they were dumb as well, but there you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Most were talking about not playing under the franchise tag as his real screwup. Had he gotten injured then, there is nothing in year 2.

I don't know how much he was going to pocket in year 1 or if there was going to be a second lump bonus if he was still on the team in year 2. 

If he was going to get it anyway, then why would Pittsburgh bother getting cute with it instead of just getting it banged out? Seems they wanted to retain the ability to dump him after 1 year without it being prohibitive. All it'd take is one down season statistically and that might get the team to back out of kicking in more guarantees on day x of the second season. Then he wouldn't be getting a $15MM/year deal from someone else this year anyway.

Like I just wrote in another thread, so long as he isn't preventing them from signing a veteran on the OL or at WR, I'm good with gifting this player to Darnold. I don't see the Jets winning a SB in 2019 or 2020 anyway, and the line in the sand for me would have been a 3rd guaranteed season (or Revis-like 3rd season where only an outright lousy 2nd season would get him cut). Plus they'd likely have kept Crowell plus added a veteran 3rd down back for millions more as well. 

I think the biggest damage to his earning was not him damaging his own brand, but rather the Gurley injury just 1 year into his own similar extension (shortly before the FA period began, no less). It highlights just what a team risks with what is effectively a 3-year guarantee for a RB with plenty of carries/touches under his belt already. I think that gave multiple teams cold feet as to how much they'd pony up for a veteran RB with his own injury history, even if he's not old himself.

Agree with this take. 

Also, Steelers were using him up. Teams don’t care about players future. He took a stand and came out the other side with $25 million in the bank. Not exactly chopped liver.

His talents are perfect for Sam at this point in his career. I’m thrilled he’s a Jet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doggin94it said:

I can't speak to what other people were doing, but you and I were talking about the 5/70 contract offer.  He lost money by not taking it, plain and simple.

As for why Pittsburgh got cute, this is how they structure all their contracts, and they didn't want to set a precedent of moving off of that.  I think they were dumb as well, but there you are

He lost money by not taking it only if Pittsburgh agreed to keep paying him and if his career length would have been the same after adding in another season. The Steelers surely suspected it was a worse contract than he'd get elsewhere, which is why they exclusive-tagged him so no other team could even talk to him. 

Set what precedent? A guarantee is a guarantee, and if they're truly guaranteeing it what difference does it make? They were willing to lose a player they badly wanted to return, at that money, over getting cute with language that you claim doesn't mean anything anyway because they really do agree to pay it no matter what? The other obvious difference with his position and others is a RB is less likely to play out such a high-dollar second contract at the same playing level throughout, whether it started last year or this year. 

It was also not really the same as other contracts with precedent already set (e.g. Antonio Brown) who got more in SB than breaking it up in to salary. It may seem like semantics when it's the same $, but a larger SB reduces the likelihood of cutting the player early due to the sudden acceleration of a cap hit. Larger SB makes the rolling guarantee far more likely to hit (an $8MM dead cap figure is large, but it's far less than keeping the player if he had a down season 1). While I'll fully contend salary/SB/RB dollars are the same, a lower SB leaves the clear opening for the Steelers to decide Conner wasn't a bad option for the $ savings, and then let Bell hit FA with his playing reputation lowered. 

Further, the report was the Jets supposedly offered him multiple different contract structures and this is the one he chose. We wouldn't know which ones were rejected. For all we know there was also a shorter one with more guaranteed and/or a longer one with less guaranteed (or with more per season but less in total).

Thing is the devil is in the details with this stuff and the only one we get to truly see all details are ones that are actually signed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, PCP63 said:

How can you argue that having a basic contingency is NOT a good thing? Blows my mind how short sighted that mindset is. 

I'm not displeased at the contract or it's potentially favorable terms if it goes south.

My observation is that of all the things we SHOULD be thinking about and excited about the day an elite RB is signed.....cutting him early for cheaper because he bombs is not really it.

Signing Bell is only great if he plays well.  If he doesn't and we cut him early, there is nothing, repeat NOTHING, "great" about that.

If you don't get that (and from the multiple buttfumbles, I presume you don't) so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dcat said:

Guaranteed money breakdown by Albert Breer:

Through Year 1: Steelers $19.5M, Jets $14.5M
Through Year 2: Steelers $33.0M, Jets $26M
Through Year 3: Steelers $45.0M, Jets $39.5M

... Not much to argue here. Pittsburgh's offer was better. 

** this is the guaranteed dollars**

 

Maybe he wanted out of Pittsburgh, much like Brown? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll never know. But after a year off, with fewer touches and no injuries, he got less than he'd hoped. 
Also lost in the assumptions is how much Gurley's injury impacted Bell's offers. I'd say that did more damage than anything in terms of him replicating that deal. Totally understandable for a few teams that may have been interested get spooked instead and think whoa what if that happened to us and we're on the hook for another $30MM for a damaged-goods RB?


Yeah there seems to be two theories with Bell. Gurley’s injury may have but it could be a precedent thing. Maybe teams didn’t want to feed the guy who didn’t sign the tag. Bell is different than AB although I believe both didn’t like the Big Ben faction their.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For as bad as Macc has been with drafting players, over the last few years he's been great at negotiating and structuring contracts (with the exception of Tru) that give us quick outs that don't crush our cap moving forward if the player doesn't pan out.

Of course, this causes lots of roster turnover every year, but he's got to start hitting on some of these players...right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://deadspin.com/leveon-bells-jets-deal-is-a-good-reminder-guarantees-a-1833262186

The Le’Veon Bell contract saga, two years and three negotiating cycles in the making, finally concluded just after midnight today. Bell will play for the Jets, for a reported $52.5 million across a max of four years, with a max value of $61 million, and guarantees totaling $35 million. There are a lot of unknown specifics that will trickle out in due time to paint a clearer picture, but there’s already enough of a rough sketch available to indicate Bell did indeed get some—though certainly not all—of what he had hoped by sitting out the 2018 season and forfeiting the $14.5 million he stood to earn on the franchise tag.

Most of the criticism of Bell’s Jets deal tends to focus on the figures mentioned above, which appear to be lower than what he had turned down last summer from the Steelers. But there’s one other figure to consider that significantly changes the way this deal can be contextualized: Per NFL Media’s Aditi Kinkhabwala‏, Bell will receive $28 million fully guaranteed. [Update (March 14, 3:08 p.m. ET): More precise details are now available. Per NFL Media’s Tom Pelissero, Bell is actually set to receive $25 million fully guaranteed. That figure has likewise been update elsewhere in this story.] This is an important detail. Let’s unpack what it means.

 

It can be tricky to analyze and compare deals based on incomplete information. The NFL scoop enterprise is notorious for tossing out contract figures that frequently mask or spit-shine a contract’s true value, depending on the sourcing. In a league without fully guaranteed deals, and with a bevy of permissible accounting gimmicks that allow teams to manipulate a hard salary cap that includes no exceptions for players, contracts are rarely what they seem when they’re initially reported. More often than not, the reported details can even be contradictory—especially when it comes to offers, rather than actual agreements. Because contracts are in writing and can be viewed and even passed on to reporters.

This is worth keeping in mind when assessing reports of the Steelers’ final offer to Bell last summer, at the conclusion of the franchise tag’s bargaining window. The numbers most frequently bandied about—five years, $70 million—are completely irrelevant in context, since most of that was not guaranteed, which meant Bell was never likely to see much of it. Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Bell stood to collect a guaranteed $33 million “in the first two years,” with $45 million in earnings in the first three. This at least begins to get us somewhere—but it still stops short of revealing the offer’s true value. There’s a semantic difference at work here, but it can be significant.

What Bell sought—and what more and more players are coming to understand they need to seek—was fully guaranteed money. But full guarantees are not the same as injury guarantees: The former is money a player will collect no matter what, while the latter protects the player in the event of a catastrophic injury that keeps him from playing during the year in which the injury guarantee applies. Bouchette’s report of a guaranteed $33 million in the first two years makes no mention of whether that amount is full or for injury—or whether there’s a trigger that vests any guaranteed money into Year 2. Now look at this tweet from NFL Media’s Ian Rapoport, from July 2018:

 

 

So: The only full guarantees totaled $10 million—or $4.5 million less than Bell stood to make on the franchise tag. This is in keeping with the way the Steelers traditionally draw up their contracts, with the signing bonus as the only full guarantee, and almost always only in the first year. In this context, Bell’s refusal to sign becomes a bit more understandable. But notice that reference to a “rolling guaranteed structure.” This gets us back into murky waters.

A rolling guarantee is a guarantee that vests on a specific date, typically some time around the start of the league year in March, which for 2019 happens to be today, March 13. The contract Todd Gurley signed with the Rams last July, which Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio was first to break down in total, is a perfect example—and not just because Gurley and Bell are comparable players. Gurley’s deal includes $45 million in guarantees, which seems like a lot! But $21.95 million of that ($21 million signing bonus, $950,000 in 2018 base salary) was fully guaranteed at signing. However:

 

Guaranteed for skill, injury, and cap is the way full guarantees are characterized in the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement. And based on this, Bell got a pretty sizable full guarantee at signing.

This is where the rolling guarantees enter the picture. Let’s piece together how they definitively add up for Gurley.

  • For 2019, Gurley has $5 million in salary guaranteed for injury at signing that becomes fully guaranteed on the third day of the league year, which is this Friday.
  • For 2020, Gurley has a roster bonus of $7.5 million payable on the third day of the league year, but guaranteed for injury at signing and fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2019 league year (again, this Friday). Also, Gurley has a 2020 base salary of $5.5 million that’s guaranteed for injury at signing and fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2020 league year.
  • For 2021, Gurley has a $5 million roster bonus payable on either the third day of the league year or the day of the first game, depending on whether there’s a work stoppage. That bonus is guaranteed for injury at signing and fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2020 league year.

In sum, Gurley got $45 million in injury guarantees, at signing, that extend until 2021. As of this Friday, Gurley stands to have $34.5 million of the deal fully guaranteed because of the way those full guarantees roll out: $21.95 million at signing, the $5 million in 2019 salary, and the $7.5 million 2020 roster bonus to be paid next March. Had Gurley completely crapped out last year and been cut before Friday, all he would have received was the $21.95 million. If he’s still on the roster by the third day of the 2020 league year, he will have $45 million in full guarantees (the $34.5 million, the $5.5 million in 2020 base salary, the $5 million roster bonus to be paid in 2021). And if Gurley is still with the Rams in 2021, he stands to collect another $4 million in non-guaranteed base salary. The deal becomes much more team-friendly after that. All told, Gurley got a great deal that’s front-loaded with lots of injury protection along with three years’ vesting of full guarantees—no small thing considering he reportedly has arthritis in his knee.

Now let’s go back to the rolling guarantees Bell was reportedly offered by the Steelers. There were no reports of Bell’s offer having been structured in the way Gurley’s is, with $45 million guaranteed for injury at signing, only to vest into full guarantees totaling $33 million by Year 2, and $45 million by Year 3. Absent that information, it’s not possible to know exactly how much protection from risk Bell was offered at signing. (The same goes for the $42 million in the first three years Bell acknowledged having turned down in 2017.) But $25 million in full guarantees at signing is the highest among running backs on a non-rookie contract, trailing only Giants RB Saquon Barkley’s $31.2 million, which he got for being the No. 2 pick in the draft.

There was another reported 2018 offer for Bell. In October, Florio reported that the Steelers proposed paying him up to $47 million in the first three years, with $20 million in effective guarantees: a $10 million signing bonus, plus a $10 million roster bonus to be paid shortly thereafter. Bell effectively would have collected $20 million simply by signing, considering it was unlikely the Steelers would have cut him sometime between when he signed and whenever that roster bonus came due. The risk for Bell? No full guarantees beyond Year 1. Had his production slipped considerably, the Steelers would have been free to cut him after one season without any consequence. Florio had two other points to emphasize:

The cash flow beyond the initial $20 million still isn’t known, and neither is the amount that would have been guaranteed for injury only.

[...]

The duration and structure of the contract beyond 2020 also would be a factor. If Bell had collected $47 million over the first three years, what would he have gotten in 2021 and 2022, if it were a five-term package?

Here’s where it becomes possible to begin to compare the contours of the offer Bell turned down from the Steelers with the one he accepted from the Jets. Bell had played on the franchise tag for $12.1 million in 2017, and he refused to play on a second one for $14.5 million because he would have had zero guarantees beyond that. But to make it worth his while, he would have had to secure a deal that would have paid him at least $33 million in the first two years, or $45-47 million across the first three—the equivalent of the offer he reportedly turned down. Even without knowing the exact parameters of his Jets deal, it’s pretty clear that at four years, $52.5 million, he’s not getting that: There have been no reports of Bell getting a significant portion of that amount front-loaded. There’s also still no ignoring that $25 million in full guarantees, though. It reset the running back market, and it’s money Bell will collect no matter what.

By hitting the open market, with multiple teams bidding on him, as opposed to just the Steelers, Bell thought he could do better in average annual value than the $14-15 million he turned down. He just ran headlong into the harsh reality faced by running backs in today’s NFL, and to a pay scale that continues to limit players’ earning potential based on the positions they play.

Bell is an extraordinary talent capable of carrying the ball and catching it: From 2013 through 2017, he had 1,541 touches, second only to the Bills’ LeSean McCoy (1,571), who had played in 13 more games during that same span. Bell can line up all over the formation, and in most years he was the Steelers’ second-best receiver. As a result, he made a push for positionless compensation, but that’s something NFL teams continue to refuse to do.

Teams viewed Bell as a running back, and they view running backs as replaceable. It’s a vicious cycle. The growth of spread offenses at football’s lower levels has led to a surplus of running backs with dual-threat ability. And in a salary-capped league with a draftee pay scale that locks in up to four years of serious cost control, teams simply find it more efficient to invest in younger backs with less wear on their tires. The production the Steelers received last season from James Conner and Jaylen Samuels—even if neither was anything close to being as efficient as Bell, on a per-play basis—only seemed to reinforce this perception. Gurley’s arthritis—perhaps attributable to his similarly heavy workload—also probably didn’t help Bell’s negotiating position.

Multiple reports indicated there wasn’t a big market for Bell, that at the price point at which he ultimately signed, the Jets were largely bidding against themselves. The Jets entered this offseason with a ton of cap space they’re eventually required to spend, and they badly needed a playmaker to complement their young quarterback, Sam Darnold. They seem to have accomplished that, without getting carried away. Bell had a year off to rest his body, but he also lost out on the $14.5 million he’d have collected on the tag. He took a risk, and while he got less than the Steelers were willing to give him, he at least appears to have gotten some of the security he sought instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Warfish said:

I'm not displeased at the contract or it's potentially favorable terms if it goes south.

My observation is that of all the things we SHOULD be thinking about and excited about the day an elite RB is signed.....cutting him early for cheaper because he bombs is not really it.

Signing Bell is only great if he plays well.  If he doesn't and we cut him early, there is nothing, repeat NOTHING, "great" about that.

If you don't get that (and from the multiple buttfumbles, I presume you don't) so be it.

Agree 100%. Being a glass half full guy I'm focused on the upside. There was no more valuable thing we could do for Sam this offseason than get him a Bell to play with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...