The Pittsburgh Steelers tend to not overpay to keep their own players, but today they came to terms with franchise quarterback Ben Roethlisberger on an 8-year $102 million contract that will probably keep him with the team for the rest of his career (motorcycle accidents notwithstanding). The deal includes roughly $36-38 million in guaranteed money, depending on whose reports you read, and places him among the league's highest paid players, with a $12.75 million a year average. That can buy a lot of motorcycle helmets and/or reconstructive surgery.
After being drafted in the 1st round of the 2004 NFL Draft out of Miami (of Ohio), Big Ben took over the reigns of a team searching for a leader since the departure of Terry Bradshaw, and was named the NFL's Offensive Rookie of the Year. He then helped lead Pittsburgh to their first Super Bowl victory in 26 years, when the Steelers defeated the Seattle Seahawks 21-10 in Super Bowl XL, becoming the youngest starting quarterback to win a Super Bowl. In 4 seasons Roethlisberger has started 55 games, thrown for 11,673 yards, 84 touchdowns, and 54 interceptions, good for a career passer rating of 92.5. He is coming off his best statistical season, throwing for a franchise record 32 touchdowns and only 11 interceptions, while generating a 104.1 quarterback rating.
Showing posts with label pittsburgh steelers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pittsburgh steelers. Show all posts
Monday, March 3, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Steelers Sticking With Real Grass & Less Torn ACLs
The Pittsburgh Steelers have announced they will continue to use natural grass at Heinz Field moving forward, due to concerns about the players' safety, per the comments of Executive Director of Stadium Development Jimmie Sacco and Steelers team chairman Dan Rooney.
"In 2006 the NFLPA voted Heinz field the league's second-worst playing surface," according to The Sporting News.
There was a general outcry for the Steelers to install weather resistant Field Turf after the November 26 2007 3-0 victory against the Dolphins, in which the field was a soggy mess after a week of local high school playoff games and the Pitt college game the day before. The trend has been to install Field Turf at stadiums used for a variety of events with high traffic, but nothing can replace the look and feel of real natural grass, which conjures up memories of the NFL legends running through muddy fields from yesteryear.
"In 2006 the NFLPA voted Heinz field the league's second-worst playing surface," according to The Sporting News.
There was a general outcry for the Steelers to install weather resistant Field Turf after the November 26 2007 3-0 victory against the Dolphins, in which the field was a soggy mess after a week of local high school playoff games and the Pitt college game the day before. The trend has been to install Field Turf at stadiums used for a variety of events with high traffic, but nothing can replace the look and feel of real natural grass, which conjures up memories of the NFL legends running through muddy fields from yesteryear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
