In Questionable Move, Steelers Place Transition Tag On OT Max Starks

The Pittsburgh Steelers have placed the transition tag on offensive tackle Max Starks, guaranteeing him a one year salary equal to the average of the ten highest paid players at his position in 2007, which amounts to $6.895 million for the coming League year. With the transition tag, the Steelers are entitled to no compensation if Starks leaves, but have 7 days to match any contract offered to him.

This move is highly questionable for two reasons, the first being the amount being offered to Starks. After being a starter for 2 out of the last 4 years, Starks lost his starting right tackle job to Willie Colon this past season. When left tackle Marvel Smith, who the Steelers are already paying a good amount to, went down with an injury, Starks filled in admirably for him the last 3 weeks. So will the Steelers really be able to keep three starting caliber offensive tackles? We'll see.

The other reason this move is questionable is the use of the transition tag itself. The transition tag means that the team is comitting nearly as much as the franchise tag, yet receives no compenstation if the player signs with another team. If they had simply placed the franchise tag on Starks (at $7.455 million, or roughly $500k more), the Steelers would be entitled to two future 1st round picks if another team were to sign him away.

The only real logical explanation for the Steelers' use of the transition tag is to demonstrate its innefectiveness, and to get the league to finally address the so called "poison pill" loophill that is currently allowed by the NFL's collective bargaining agreement. By using a 'poison pill' incentive system in a player contract, another NFL team can effectively steal away an opposing player by creating a contract that would be impossible or impractical for the player's original team to match, rendering the transition tag effectively worthless. For example, in 2006 the Minnesota Vikings offered guard Steve Hutchinson a 7-year $49 million contract, and included a stipulation that would guarantee the entire deal in the event that Hutchinson was not the highest paid player on the team's offensive line in any given year of the deal. Seattle, which already had highly paid offensive tackle Walter Jones on the roster, was essentially unable to match the deal without guarteeing all $49 million to Hutchinson. In retaliation, Seattle signed restricted free agent wide receiver Nate Burleson, whom Minnesota had previously given a RFA tender, to a 7-year $49 million contract that included a clause to fully guarantee the deal if Burleson plays at least 5 games in Minnesota in any year of the deal. The deal was basically a 4 year $14 million contract, but with a bunch of escalators and the clause that made Minnesota essentially unable to match.

At the time of those two deals both NFL commisioner Paul Tagliabue and NFLPA president Gene Upshaw agreed that the use of a 'poison pill' loophole was "not in the spirit" of the collective bargaining agreement, and that something needed to be done about it. However, on March 20 2006 'special master' (arbiter) Stephen Burbank heard arguments from the respective parties and ruled that it was legal under the terms of the current CBA. The NFL nor the NFLPA did anything to address it during the last round of CBA negotiations either, but that could quickly change during the next round of negotiations, especially if the Steelers lose Starks in a similar fashion.