As Jets start dishing out contracts, could Le’Veon Bell be next? |
Breakfast With Benz

As Jets start dishing out contracts, could Le’Veon Bell be next?

Tim Benz
Steelers running back LeVeon Bell gets away from the Jets’ Sheldon Richardson in the second quarter Sunday, Oct. 9, 2016 at Heinz Field.

As the pain of the Antonio Brown saga fades, we wait to see where Le’Veon Bell may wind up. Everyone wants to see if his odyssey to free agency pays off the way that he thought it would.

Of course, Bell wants us to think that teams are falling all over themselves trying to sign him.

Defensive end Cam Heyward may have exposed that post for something else.

Conor Hughes of The Athletic says Bell should sign Tuesday.

Although the market may not be what Bell wanted.

New York is the team I’ve thought would be the most interested in Bell the whole time.

Why not, right? The Jets are signing everyone else. But can they make the cap number work given how much money they spent on linebackers C.J. Mosley and Anthony Barr?

On top of that, Jamison Crowder got a $28 million ($17 million guaranteed) contract to go to Gang Green.

What really has people buzzing about the Jets is that Bell apparently deleted that tweet he had previously sent, stating that $60 million wasn’t enough to sign with the Jets.

Maybe he has a different opinion now that a linebacker went there for $58 million.

I have maintained for months that it would be hard for the Jets to pass on an opportunity to land either (or both) Brown or Bell. How could they avoid it? The Giants have Saquon Barkley and Odell Beckham Junior. This was their chance to land at least one guy to match that pair.

But much like Steelers fans may be rooting against A.B. in Oakland, they may be rooting against Le’Veon’s money.

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.