Roster Exemption

If he shows up and if they tag him next year and if it’s considered the third tag designation, then...

Section 2. Required Tender for Franchise Players:
(b) Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time shall, on the date the third such designation is made, be deemed to have tendered the player a one-year NFL Player Contract for the greater of: (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) with the highest such average; (B) 120% of the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year; or (C) 144% of his Prior Year Salary.

Section 4. Required Tender for Transition Players:
(a) Any Club that designates a Transition Player shall be deemed on the first
day of the League Year following the expiration of the player’s last contract to have automatically tendered the player a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the Cap Percentage Average of the ten largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the [Player’s] position ; or (B) 120% of his Prior Year Salary, whichever is greater.

(e) For the purposes of this Article, “Salary” means the total of the Paragraph 5 Salary (reduced proportionately if the contract is entered into after the first regular season game), roster and reporting bonuses, pro-rata portion of signing bonus, and other payments to players in compensation for the playing of professional football for the applicable year of the player’s most recently negotiated Player Contract, except for performance bonuses other than roster and reporting bonuses.... “Prior Year Salary” means the Salary (as defined in this Subsection) for the last League Year of the player’s most recently negotiated Player Contract.​

The CBA doesn’t limit his tender to only a multiple of what he’d make in 2018. The 120%/144% figure certainly would be the greatest if taken from his original 2018 tender. But the language is clear that it prorated down as he misses more and more games.

 

For the transition tag, yes, it’s the greater of:
(a) 120% of Bell’s 2018 salary—he’s missed eight weeks. If he shows up tomorrow, he’d make $8.5mm; the week after, $7.6mm; the week after but by the 13th, $6.8mm. 120% of those numbers are $10.2mm, $9.1mm, and $8.1mm, respectively.

or

(b) the average cap hit of the top ten 2018 RB salaries—last year, it was $9.6mm. Should be higher, and the cap will go up, too. Call it $10-11mm.

 

I understand your post just fine. You're simply wrong, just as you are wrong in saying that is a proper use for grieve.

The Steelers would be playing by the rules to tag him again in that instance. There is no risk of them being forced to pay him more money at that point. Bell would have no grounds.

Also, the proper way to explain your opinion of my behavior would be ****ing rude, not ignorant. I get that people use ignorant as shorthand for ignorant of manners, but just because a word is misused in that way often does not make it correct. It's like when people say they could care less about something. The correct way to put it is that you couldn't care less. That people screw it up often doesn't make the former any less idiotic.

 

This is a high stakes negotiation where both sides need to know what cards they hold and what power they hold. Bell is a great player and I'm all for his right to negotiate hard to earn more money. But ultimately if you're going to play hardball you have to know what cards you are holding.

So if Bell doesn't sign and show up for the rest of the season, then I totally agree with you about tagging him again next year. But it's not out of spite or vindictiveness; it's because:

1. They can. They are allowed to tag him as their Franchise Player by the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement that the NFL and the Players Association agreed to. Sure, it may be unfair that a team can get the NFL's top player at a position for about the same salary as the NFL's 3rd best player at that position (that is, the average of the top 5 salaries at that position), but those are the rules - why should the Steelers not do what the rules allow and get a player for a bargain if they can?
   
2. Why would the Steelers risk letting Bell play for an opponent that they might face when they can easily prevent it? What if they just release him and he goes to the Ravens? No sense allowing that.
   
3. Just releasing him would set a poor precedent and a poor example to other players, by rewarding Bell for holding out when he actually had fewer cards than he thought. It will just encourage other players to do the same thing to the Steelers in the future.

Summary: If Bell doesn't show up this year, it's neither vindictive nor spiteful for the Steelers to tag him again next year.