Analysis: Twitter doesn’t hold back on Le’Veon Bell’s Jets contract |
Breakfast With Benz

Analysis: Twitter doesn’t hold back on Le’Veon Bell’s Jets contract

Tim Benz
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Steelers running back Le’Veon Bell before playing the Jaguars Saturday, Jan. 14, 2018 at Heinz Field.

Reviews are in on Le’Veon Bell’s new contract with the New York Jets. And they aren’t pretty for the former Steelers running back.

The basics are that Bell agreed to a four-year deal with the Jets that is reportedly worth somewhere between $52 million and $61 million, with $35 million guaranteed.

As you may recall, the Steelers offered Bell a five-year deal worth $70 million before last season. NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport outlined that failed offer as a $10 million signing bonus, totaling $33 in guarantees over the first two years and $45 over the first three years.

While analyzing this news, keep in mind, Bell turned his nose up at a $14.54 million franchise tag to play last year. So he left the money on the table, plus he ditched a year of his career in his prime to make an extra $2 million in guaranteed cash before the end of 2019.

By the end of 2020 — before a potential work stoppage — he could have made more in Pittsburgh. That’s if things had gone well playing with a good offensive line, Ben Roethlisberger and Antonio Br … uh, well, JuJu Smith-Schuster.

Furthermore, remember, it was Bell’s goal to rewrite the financial ceiling for NFL running backs. But, when Todd Gurley did so first back in July, that’s when Bell refused to play on the franchise tag.

Gurley got $45 million on an extension with the Rams. Adisa Bakari, Bell’s agent, said “something exceptional had happened,” before keeping Bell out of camp in July. It’s believed he was referring to Gurley’s deal and likely other large agreements that were settled around that time with defensive stars Khalil Mack and Aaron Donald.

So Bell’s goal adjusted to at least replicate that number. In the end, he’ll make $10 million less in guaranteed money, as well as leaving the $14.54 tag money behind.

Is that “exceptional,” Adisa?

Geez. Bell might have to pull a little money out of the jet ski fund to make ends meet now, huh?

Twitter seemed unimpressed with Bell’s new contract after a year of hype waiting for an alleged blockbuster.

CBS Sports’ Will Brinson said, this is a “Big L” for Bell. Ripped his contract. Questioned his decision making. And even dissed his new rap album!

Now that was harsh.

Many were also quick to throw a few old quotes from Bell back in his face about the idea of playing for the Jets during last year’s absence.

The Jets contract may have performance bonuses and things of that nature to cook up the numbers. But that shouldn’t matter in the analysis since Bakari, has long held the stance that guarantees are all that matter. So I don’t want to hear anything about incentives.

Plus, to catch Gurley, they’d have to be pretty “exceptional” bonuses, right?

Some tried to provide a little sympathy for ol’ Le’V.

I don’t feel sorry for him and never will. You can say he just got bad advice from a bad agent, but the way he acted along the way offsets any sympathy I would’ve had.

After playing the victim card, taking jabs at the team on Twitter after bad games, the snarky rap lyrics, the bait and switch about reporting last year, and the Martin Luther King quote, forget it. I’m not apologizing for enjoying a little schadenfreude here.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.