OT: Steelers go all-in

[pittdan77]

Yeah, but neither of these moves hampers their ability to contend beyond this year or next.

What will drive that is having a franchise QB. I would count on Ben playing 3-4 more years. And, of course, after he retires the Steelers will be like every other team in needing to find their Franchise QB or face being, at best, a .500 team.

Now, if they really went all-in it would mean they went out and spent big money on a few FAs, made splashy trades mortgaging future picks, and structured Brown's or Bell's contracts to really backload, that would signal them thinking they only had a year or two left of a window. However, it seems likely they are looking at it as if they have at least 3 years to continue to contend. Personally, I am not sure which makes the most sense and it probably depends on your goals.

Structuring Bell and Brown to lower cap numbers that explode in 2018 or 2019, while giving similar deals to Hightower, Buoye, and Trumaine Johnson to shore up the defense would tell me they were "all-in". If they actually keep the franchise tag on Bell, it says the exact opposite to me and that is they are structuring so they keep their window open as long as they possibly can.

You're not wrong. I, like you, just look at Ben and know he's on the clock. I don't think it's 3-4 years though. They seem to think that they have what it takes in the young defense. I don't know that I agree but we'll find out.

The franchise tag on Bell is sort of a weird problem for them. He has little to know reason to do a deal now unless the numbers are huge because next year, his tag number skyrockets (see Kirk Cousins). I don't think he's worth that kind of long term money because RB's have such a short shelf life anymore.

 

[Pitt79]

The team is valued in the middle of the pack so it's not considered a "garbage" type franchise that can't earn money. He's keeping the salary in the bottom 5-10 because despite his net worth being over a billion dollars, he can and the fans eat it up.

Nutting won't sell because the franchise provides steady income and balances what have to be a steady decline in his newspaper revenues (he sells newspapers in WV....a state with a below average literacy rate).

This is what I'm talking about, an EGO DRIVEN owner might use some of his billions from his other enterprises to boost salaries so he can be seen on TV holding the World Series trophy and boast about how HE won it.

 

[Swervin27]

And it's all random BS, he gets penalties and other guys do worse and don't. I know in other sports and other football leagues, celebration isn't a penalty and NOBODY CARES.

not sure I fault the nfl for trying to keep some sort of decorum to celebrations. You let it go, players will go further and further with it. a bit silly I agree but I see why they are doing it.

Honestly, I just accept that we will probably get a penalty when he scores and just hope we get a kickoff where we can tackle the returner before he gets to the 30. 15 yards on the kickoff isn't the end of the world, i'll take it if it means AB scored 6 points just before.

 

[Pitt79]

I don't think he's worth that kind of long term money because RB's have such a short shelf life anymore.

So just tag him for the years Ben is here, if Ben retires, don't tag him and he can test the market.

 

[pittdan77]

This is what I'm talking about, an EGO DRIVEN owner might use some of his billions from his other enterprises to boost salaries so he can be seen on TV holding the World Series trophy and boast about how HE won it.

Yeah, Nutting seems more than okay to count his profits and as long as the slobbering throngs keep showing up and apologizing for his crappy penny pinching, he's not going to change a thing.

 

[Pitt79]

not sure I fault the nfl for trying to keep some sort of decorum to celebrations. You let it go, players will go further and further with it. a bit silly I agree but I see why they are doing it.

So what? The USFL allowed celebrations, Arena Football allows it, if they embrace it and let it go, it just becomes FUN and nobody cares. They could even market it and sell a celebration video, most people under 50 wouldn't care, they are used to it.

 

[pittdan77]

So just tag him for the years Ben is here, if Ben retires, don't tag him and he can test the market.

It's the same math in the second year as the first (average of top five or 120% raise, whichever is higher). The average was higher this year and will put him at $14 million (?). Next year, he'd already be close to average of top five so he'd go to $17 or so. That's way too much unless he's going to put up huge all purpose numbers and score 30 TD's.

 

[Swervin27]

So just tag him for the years Ben is here, if Ben retires, don't tag him and he can test the market.

I agree, tag him, run him to he literally falls from exhaustion or gets injuried, then let him test the market after we got his best years. Rbs have 4-5 good years usually, he's already had 2 knee injuries. We got his best years even if he is with another team in'18.

 

[Swervin27]

So what? The USFL allowed celebrations, Arena Football allows it, if they embrace it and let it go, it just becomes FUN and nobody cares. They could even market it and sell a celebration video, most people under 50 wouldn't care, they are used to it.

I don't really disagree with this. nfl takes itself too serious, we are literally talking about a game where big guys run into each other for 3 hours. Im with you.

 

[Pitt79]

It's the same math in the second year as the first (average of top five or 120% raise, whichever is higher). The average was higher this year and will put him at $14 million (?). Next year, he'd already be close to average of top five so he'd go to $17 or so. That's way too much unless he's going to put up huge all purpose numbers and score 30 TD's.

Why is it too much? I'd be OK with maximizing talent for the last years of Ben and worry about the cap later after Ben is gone. Even if you can manage the cap well, I can't see good years in the immediate aftermath of Ben, why pinch pennies to go 7-9 instead of 5-11?

 

[Jpripper88]

You're not wrong. I, like you, just look at Ben and know he's on the clock. I don't think it's 3-4 years though. They seem to think that they have what it takes in the young defense. I don't know that I agree but we'll find out.

The franchise tag on Bell is sort of a weird problem for them. He has little to know reason to do a deal now unless the numbers are huge because next year, his tag number skyrockets (see Kirk Cousins). I don't think he's worth that kind of long term money because RB's have such a short shelf life anymore.

His number won't increase that much in the 2nd year vs. a balanced 4 or 5 year contract. However, the 3rd year is where it goes crazy. The problem is, if he plays this whole year out on the tag, then next year there is little to no incentive to do a deal with him because you are backed against that 3rd tag year escalation if you tag him a 2nd time and you can't get consideration for the 1st tag year in the deal. However, Bell has his injury and suspension history to worry about, along with a rapidly declining RB market. The money just isn't out there for RBs.

I think we just might disagree on what this signals, but if they really do think the window is just a couple years, I hope they do plan that way and sign some difference making defensive FAs. Hell, if they think 2 years is the max, I might actually plan to keep the tag on Bell this year and tag him as non-exclusive next year. You can easily make it fit and still have basically the same team, but replace Bell, if someone wants to give up 2 1sts for him in 2018, or keep him that 2nd year and blow it all up in 2019.

 

[Jpripper88]

So they operate just like Nutting? They don't put extra into pursuit of winning. We will agree to disagree.

No, they operate within the structure of making a profit. They could make a slightly bigger profit, but their situations allow them to be competitive AND make big profits. Nutting does not have the same built in luxuries of either the salary cap structures in the NBA and NFL or the gross revenue possibilities of a franchise like the Yankees. Like it or not, these franchises are still huge money making ventures, not just toys to throw dollars at.

 

[Jpripper88]

It's the same math in the second year as the first (average of top five or 120% raise, whichever is higher). The average was higher this year and will put him at $14 million (?). Next year, he'd already be close to average of top five so he'd go to $17 or so. That's way too much unless he's going to put up huge all purpose numbers and score 30 TD's.

This year he will be at max of $12.4M and next year 120% of that or $14.9M.

 

[Pitt79]

No, they operate within the structure of making a profit. They could make a slightly bigger profit, but their situations allow them to be competitive AND make big profits. Nutting does not have the same built in luxuries of either the salary cap structures in the NBA and NFL or the gross revenue possibilities of a franchise like the Yankees. Like it or not, these franchises are still huge money making ventures, not just toys to throw dollars at.

Dallas Mavericks? Players had luxury locker rooms and accomodations? So Cuban didn't budge within the budget of what the team alone could spend and used none of his non team money on that franchise?

 

[Jpripper88]

Dallas Mavericks? Players had luxury locker rooms and accomodations? So Cuban didn't budge within the budget of what the team alone could spend and used none of his non team money on that franchise?

Yeah, the NBA has a revenue structure where owners make money hand over fist. The NBA revenue structure isn't quite as even as the NFL, but it is pretty close and blows MLB out of the water. Even if you just go by operating income they averaged more than $10M annually the past decade, while their franchise value tripled.

 

[Pitt79]

Yeah, the NBA has a revenue structure where owners make money hand over fist. The NBA revenue structure isn't quite as even as the NFL, but it is pretty close and blows MLB out of the water. Even if you just go by operating income they averaged more than $10M annually the past decade, while their franchise value tripled.

All I'm saying, is if a rich guy owns a team, and wants to win, and has disposable income, can't he use his own money to build a champion, beyond the team's actual revenue? Like a regular person loves golf, makes no money on it, but invests thousands of dollars playing every year just because he can afford to do it and not go bankrupt?

 

[Swervin27]

All I'm saying, is if a rich guy owns a team, and wants to win, and has disposable income, can't he use his own money to build a champion, beyond the team's actual revenue? Like a regular person loves golf, makes no money on it, but invests thousands of dollars playing every year just because he can afford to do it and not go bankrupt?

good question. I bet it's harder done than said though. maybe pull a Cuban and hook the players up with private jets and all kinds of perks but to invest your own discretionary income into the operational budget?

 

[Pitt79]

good question. I bet it's harder done than said though. maybe pull a Cuban and hook the players up with private jets and all kinds of perks but to invest your own discretionary income into the operational budget?

But why can't you, if you're so inclined?

 

[Jpripper88]

All I'm saying, is if a rich guy owns a team, and wants to win, and has disposable income, can't he use his own money to build a champion, beyond the team's actual revenue? Like a regular person loves golf, makes no money on it, but invests thousands of dollars playing every year just because he can afford to do it and not go bankrupt?

He could, but they generally do not, especially not over the long run. It is a business. MLB can fix their sport, if they want to.

 

[Swervin27]

But why can't you, if you're so inclined?

lol, I don't know, you probably can. Im sure if Nutting was sick of Delpanther killing him every day on this board, and he wanted to go out and sign a 4th pitcher but needed 15 mil a year and we were at our budget now, he could go and write the dude a check. I cant see why not..

Im sure once you incorporate your business, you have that divide but buccos are not an Inc. so sure, why not. No different than a small business owner using his personal debit card to buy materials. Curious if you can expense it come tax time..

 

[pittdan77]

This year he will be at max of $12.4M and next year 120% of that or $14.9M.

Thank you. I was guessing. That's still a lot for a RB.

 

[Jpripper88]

Thank you. I was guessing. That's still a lot for a RB.

A ton. Even for the best in the game, that is a lot to spend on RB in total, let alone 1 guy.

 

[pittdan77]

But why can't you, if you're so inclined?

In the NFL, that would be a cap hit. Not sure about the NBA.

MLB can fix their sport, if they want to.

It's not broken. Teams just chose to compete at the highest level or not. Yeah, some clubs make more. But that doesn't explain how St. Louis, Cleveland, or KC competes.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...e-long-cons-of-lew-wolff-and-many-many-others

 

[pittdan77]

Well, Harrison is locked down. 2-years, $3.5 million.

Defense fixed, LOL.

 

[raleighpanther]

Just joining this conversation now. I saw yesterday that the Steelers have twice as much money committed to the offensive side of the ball than the defensive side.

That...is not...good.

 

[Pitt79]

Just joining this conversation now. I saw yesterday that the Steelers have twice as much money committed to the offensive side of the ball than the defensive side.

That...is not...good.

Was in good when they spent twice as much on defense and Cowher, Kordell and the Bus would fail in the AFCCG every other year?

 

[pittdan77]

Just joining this conversation now. I saw yesterday that the Steelers have twice as much money committed to the offensive side of the ball than the defensive side.

That...is not...good.

The defense is pretty young and they don't have to tie up a ton of money there, yet.(Harrison is an outlier, of course)

 

[raleighpanther]

Was in good when they spent twice as much on defense and Cowher, Kordell and the Bus would fail in the AFCCG every other year?

No, that was not good either. My point was not that they should be spending 2-to-1 on defense, rather, you need to have somewhat of a balance. 55/45 either way is fine, but not 70/30.

 

[Jpripper88]

In the NFL, that would be a cap hit. Not sure about the NBA.



It's not broken. Teams just chose to compete at the highest level or not. Yeah, some clubs make more. But that doesn't explain how St. Louis, Cleveland, or KC competes.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...e-long-cons-of-lew-wolff-and-many-many-others

I'm actually an Indians fan, but they basically have to be perfect to have a few years of a chance. And one or two bad signings and they are dead to rights. KC didn't contend for 20 years and it is likely going to be a long time before that happens again. It isn't the same in any of the other major sports. And that article linked really just highlights "city/market" size with ability to spend 4 times the competition. Those two things don't really equate, even though they correlate some. It is all about fanbase and how much public money supports them.

There would still be areas the richer teams could outspend (coaches, scouting, etc.) teams who struggle with TV and gate income and who rely on revenue sharing to make a profit. MLB is broken compared to the other sports and they have taken a step with bonus/draft spending, but their luxury tax setup doesn't come close to closing the gap between haves and have nots. Of course, the MLBPA has the strongest Union and don't want to give in to what will lead to at least some initial deflation of salaries.

 

[mehinpgh]

I think franchising Bell this year and next year is the way to go...run him til the wheels fall off, just like they did with Willie Parker, then let him go elsewhere for his 7th-9th year where is production will be severally decreasing...it is like a 2 year, $30m contract that you can wipe out almost 60% of if his production falls off or a 3rd knee injury or 3rd drug offense happens. This guy is not an angel so he earned the lack of a long term deal.

 

[Jpripper88]

No, that was not good either. My point was not that they should be spending 2-to-1 on defense, rather, you need to have somewhat of a balance. 55/45 either way is fine, but not 70/30.

The New England Patriots (right now) are slated to spend 61.5% of their payroll on offense, 31.5% on defense, and 6.4% on special teams, with the rest dead money. For the Steelers it is 65.9% offense, 32.3% defense, and 1.3% ST, with the rest dead money. The Falcons: 60.4%, 34.7%, and 5%.

 

[steel_curtain]

The New England Patriots (right now) are slated to spend 61.5% of their payroll on offense, 31.5% on defense, and 6.4% on special teams, with the rest dead money. For the Steelers it is 65.9% offense, 32.3% defense, and 1.3% ST, with the rest dead money. The Falcons: 60.4%, 34.7%, and 5%.

-40% of the Superbowl Winners had a top 2 defense in the league. 5 of those Teams were Steelers teams.

-Id rather trade Brown and Bell for star defensive players. Steelers are breaking past tradition loading up on offense that will never beat New England. Only Elite defense beats New England.

 

[Jpripper88]

-40% of the Superbowl Winners had a top 2 defense in the league. 5 of those Teams were Steelers teams.

-Id rather trade Brown and Bell for star defensive players. Steelers are breaking past tradition loading up on offense that will never beat New England. Only Elite defense beats New England.

Past tradition doesn't matter. What matters is how the game is played today. The Steelers will still have to scheme and play better on defense, but the game is not dominated by defenses like it was in decades past.

I'm sure you think Bell sucks, though. He ran a 4.6 40. He would be the slowest player on our Offensive Line.

 

[steel_curtain]

Past tradition doesn't matter. What matters is how the game is played today. The Steelers will still have to scheme and play better on defense, but the game is not dominated by defenses like it was in decades past.

I'm sure you think Bell sucks, though. He ran a 4.6 40. He would be the slowest player on our Offensive Line.

-In the last 7 years, 3 Superbowl Champions had a Top 2 defense. The Steelers had the #1 defense in the NFL in 2008.

-In the last 15 years, 7 Superbowl Champions had a Top 2 defense. 6 of them had the #1 defense in the NFL.

-Ill take Aaron Donald and JJ Watt all day over those 2. All dam day.

 

[BradlyPitt]

The Ravens are 3-8 vs Brady.

2 of those wins are in the playoffs, and the ravens gave them all they could handle when they played in the 2014 playoffs when the pats won their 4th super bowl

if the steelers get back to the super bowl, they need to hope somebody knocks off the pats just like in 2005, 2008, and 2010

 

[Jpripper88]

-In the last 7 years, 3 Superbowl Champions had a Top 2 defense. The Steelers had the #1 defense in the NFL in 2008.

-In the last 15 years, 7 Superbowl Champions had a Top 2 defense. 6 of them had the #1 defense in the NFL.

-Ill take Aaron Donald and JJ Watt all day over those 2. All dam day.

That would cost you more in guaranteed money for just Watt.

So half the time? Meanwhile, about half the time there was a top 5 offense in the Super Bowl and this year it was #1 vs. #3.

 

[Pitt79]

No, that was not good either. My point was not that they should be spending 2-to-1 on defense, rather, you need to have somewhat of a balance. 55/45 either way is fine, but not 70/30.

At this point it's fine, because a good amount of the D players are on cheaper first contracts. And who's to say they don't sign some D free agents, they really should, and work the contracts for a huge 2-3 year run, then blow out the salary cap right after Ben leave, since it's a QB league and not a team sport.

 

[Pitt79]

if the steelers get back to the super bowl, they need to hope somebody knocks off the pats just like in 2005, 2008, and 2010

If it happens that way, I'm just as happy, It matters to me to win the Super Bowl, no matter how or why, not to beat the Patriots.

 

[Pitt79]

-40% of the Superbowl Winners had a top 2 defense in the league. 5 of those Teams were Steelers teams.

-Id rather trade Brown and Bell for star defensive players. Steelers are breaking past tradition loading up on offense that will never beat New England. Only Elite defense beats New England.

Typical Yinzer! LOL, it's no 1975, you need offense just as much, Cowher had top defenses and would never win until he got a real QB. Beating NE is not the goal, the goal is to win the Super Bowl, whether you beat NE on the way or not.

You're right, "PAST tradition" as in THE PAST

 

[Pitt79]

I LAUGH AT people who act like a Super Bowl isn't worth as much just because you "didn't beat NE". NE is the best, RIGHT NOW, but won't be forever. This will end. Steelers will always have an argument as best dynasty with 4 in 6 years, NE was 5 in 15. And Steelers also have an argument as 2nd best during the NE Era (2 of 3 in 6 years), and still have SIX, and nobody else does, And it's not like Ben and the Steelers never beat the dynasty era Patriots, 2004, 2008 and 2011 they did, so it's not written in stone that it can't happen again.