worlids rejects long term offer

[FordFairLane]

This is what I think we did wrong with Woodley. We gave him all that money up front and then continued to drop his cap by giving him more bonus money. The raiders gave him a deal they can get out of NEXT year if he doesn't perform. That's the only way he stays in shape and on the field. I feel with Worilds injury history as a back up, the Steelers are not prepared to make that mistake again. I am 100% fine tagging Worilds and giving him one year deals if he wants too much up front money making it hard to cut him. I'd rather give him 9.7 million and make him produce 10+ sacks this year or leave and get less money in a contract and then tag him and give him 11.5 and again make him get 10+ sacks next year and then have him walk at 28 and get a 3rd round pick for him than have him get 30 million guaranteed and have him in sweat pants the next 2-3 years.

 

[deljzc]

I haven't even broached the subject that maybe I approach Woodley about a salary cut. Even a couple million off of his original $8.5 million is a win for Woodley and would have provided the Steelers an option vs. the transition tag or Worilds rejecting a long-term offer.

But nope. Let's just cut Woodley and all our leverage with Worilds before we have to. That makes a ton of sense.

 

[insaniti]

Here's the issue.

Cutting Woodley did nothing for our cap. You save this year, but you eat $8.8 million next year. The real savings on Woodley vs. the cap really doesn't happen until 2016. If I keep him one more year, my dead money on Woodley get's pushed out into 2016.

Worilds cap number under MY plan is $3 million, not $9.75 million.

Again, if Worilds is your starter for just THREE seasons (2014-2016), and really does anyone here NOT think that is going to happen now, I am spending LESS money keeping Woodley for 2014 ($8 million) + Worilds for his first three seasons ($23 million). That's getting 4 total seasons of OLB availability for $31 million.

The Steelers are EASILY heading in that direction with just Worilds now between 2014-2016. EASY. They are already $9.75 million there.

My Cap numbers:

Keep Woodley in 2014, cut him in 2015: $13.59 - $5.59 - $2.99

Keep Worilds 2014-2016, cut him in 2017: $3.00 - $4.20 - $8.20 - $3.20 - $4.40

Steelers Cap numbers:

Woodley : $5.59 - $8.58

Worilds (keep Worilds 2014-2017, cut him in 2018): $9.75 - $3.60 - $9.60 - $5.80 - $1.80 - $1.80
(project to a 5-year, $45 million w/ $13 million SB under the tag next year).

Really explain to me the difference in cap dollars and their effect on us long term?

Looks a lot like YOUR draft plan, hopes, dreams, and what ifs. There's no guarantee you could have signed Worilds last year for what you are saying. You put out these plans that are always hindsight and question the FO at every step. Like your plans are always guaranteed to work. I'm not saying the FO is faultless and does everything the right way. But if you were in their position, YOUR plans would get questioned just as much as you are questioning theirs. It's all just speculation, unfortunately you treat it as fact and that is the only way it COULD GO!

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I haven't even broached the subject that maybe I approach Woodley about a salary cut. Even a couple million off of his original $8.5 million is a win for Woodley and would have provided the Steelers an option vs. the transition tag or Worilds rejecting a long-term offer.

But nope. Let's just cut Woodley and all our leverage with Worilds before we have to. That makes a ton of sense.

As I recall, Woodley and his agent said a salary cut wasn't going to happen. They had nothing to gain by it. My opinion has always been to cut Woodley and eat a partial cap hit rather than pay him 100% to play in 60% of the games. To me it's a wash. They're paying him full salary to take up a roster spot and miss 40% of the games, historically, because he'd never get hurt enough to go on IR, just enough to miss several games a year.

 

[deljzc]

Every single one of my recommendations is made because is offers CHOICES. What the Steelers did and the order they did them in offers LESS choices.

You can try and say I spin the what ifs to my advantage, but I am basing every decision off past history and facts.

No one wants to admit this is NO DIFFERENT than Max Starks. It's the exact, same, ******* thing. Down to the dotted i's and crossed t's. It's the same ******* story just told in 2014 rather than 2008.

The Starks debacle ended with the team OUTRAGEOUSLY overspending on a mid-to-low tier left tackle that caused thorns in the side of our salary cap for 3-4 seasons.

If the team wants Worilds, Tombert should ******* do their job, evaluate the talent correctly and pay him. This wishy-washy **** with transition tags and uncertainty and not knowing the market is bullshit management practices, plain and simple. It just goes to show how little they know about this roster and their 2-year plans (if there even is a ******* 2 year plan with Colbert at the helm).

I am starting to lean towards this team completely sitting on their hands with Cortez Allen as well. And you'll be doubting my "what if" plans about Allen just like you're doubting me about Worilds.

**** 'em. Colbert sucks and I KNOW IT. I don't care if you guys know it yet. You will. Colbert is a glorified scout that should have been fired this off-season.

You want a good ******* what-if? The fact the Steelers DIDN'T fire Kevin Colbert this off-season, when they had the chance, will more negatively impact our next 5-7 years than any transition tag or ******* contract to Worilds, Pouncey, Allen or Roethlisberger.

 

[ark steel]

I guess, you are also assuming that Worilds would have signed that discounted offer. I don't know that there is any indication that he would have.

The Max Starks "debacle" kept Max around for more money (more than what I thought he was worth), but, eventually, resulted in stabilizing an OL to, at least, average and, in part, got them to two Super Bowls, unless I am remember my timing incorrectly.

 

[Bigappleyinzer]

I guess, you are also assuming that Worilds would have signed that discounted offer. I don't know that there is any indication that he would have.

The Max Starks "debacle" kept Max around for more money (more than what I thought he was worth), but, eventually, resulted in stabilizing an OL to, at least, average and, in part, got them to two Super Bowls, unless I am remember my timing incorrectly.

I agree,

I think everyone knows that the Max Starks negotiations were far from ideal. But its really hard to sit here and gripe about it when it led to 2 trips Super Bowls. I can understand being pissed about it if we had struggled during those years- but now its kind of nitpicking after the fact.

 

[TDX27]

So, has anyone heard if Worilds finally practiced today at mini-camp?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Here's the issue.

Cutting Woodley did nothing for our cap. You save this year, but you eat $8.8 million next year. The real savings on Woodley vs. the cap really doesn't happen until 2016. If I keep him one more year, my dead money on Woodley get's pushed out into 2016.

Worilds cap number under MY plan is $3 million, not $9.75 million.

Again, if Worilds is your starter for just THREE seasons (2014-2016), and really does anyone here NOT think that is going to happen now, I am spending LESS money keeping Woodley for 2014 ($8 million) + Worilds for his first three seasons ($23 million). That's getting 4 total seasons of OLB availability for $31 million.

The Steelers are EASILY heading in that direction with just Worilds now between 2014-2016. EASY. They are already $9.75 million there.

My Cap numbers:

Keep Woodley in 2014, cut him in 2015: $13.59 - $5.59 - $2.99

Keep Worilds 2014-2016, cut him in 2017: $3.00 - $4.20 - $8.20 - $3.20 - $4.40

Steelers Cap numbers:

Woodley : $5.59 - $8.58

Worilds (keep Worilds 2014-2017, cut him in 2018): $9.75 - $3.60 - $9.60 - $5.80 - $1.80 - $1.80
(project to a 5-year, $45 million w/ $13 million SB under the tag next year).

Really explain to me the difference in cap dollars and their effect on us long term?

My issue with your plan isn't really that you want to keep Woodley, (though I feel that wasn't an option for the Steelers considering their then current situation). My issue is that your whole plan is contingent on signing a guy that showed absolutely nothing to that point. A guy who's only flashes came half a season after you're saying he should have been given a long term deal. At a time that James Harrison was still on the team.

Cortez Allen is not the same situation. He has shown something far before his contract year - we gave Lewis up in part because he was waiting in the wings. If they sit on their hands and don't lock him up immediately then get in a debacle with him I will give you the credit for pointing out how stupid the FO was in handling him.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I guess, you are also assuming that Worilds would have signed that discounted offer. I don't know that there is any indication that he would have.

Agree 100%.

The Max Starks "debacle" kept Max around for more money (more than what I thought he was worth), but, eventually, resulted in stabilizing an OL to, at least, average and, in part, got them to two Super Bowls, unless I am remember my timing incorrectly.

Although I agree that they overpaid Max for some strange reason and Tomlin sat him on the bench for a while, he was their only O lineman who started in all three of their last SB's. Second, he was still better than any LT they've had at that time or since. In a salary cap league you've got to ask "Is Player X worth the money?" but at the same time you've got to ask "Do we have anyone better than Player X?" For Worilds and Starks that answer is No on both counts.

 

[jitter77]

I hated starks for a while till the year he came off the streets. The oline was instantly better and he was cheap then. I believe we got a couple really cheap years out of him which kinda balanced the original debacle. As for Worilds I dont know what they could have done. I would have kept Woodley for another year and tried to work out a deal with worilds. Before he got the tag he may have been willing to take less $$, but no one knows for sure.

 

[ark steel]

I didn't see a business/football reason to release Woodley when we did. I wasn't against the release, but I don't know why it couldn't have been done later. Maybe Worilds is more amenable to a contract when Woodley is still here as a possibility or, if Worilds is hurt before the season (seems already dinged up) we still Woodley having around. At this point, I wonder if Worilds current 'ding' is a contract sprain rather than whatever they are saying.

If it turns out we didn't need him, Woodley could have been release sometime before his pay was guaranteed.

I could be misunderstanding the process and the June 1 cuts, though.

 

[jitter77]

I didn't see a business/football reason to release Woodley when we did. I wasn't against the release, but I don't know why it couldn't have been done later. Maybe Worilds is more amenable to a contract when Woodley is still here as a possibility or, if Worilds is hurt before the season (seems already dinged up) we still Woodley having around. At this point, I wonder if Worilds current 'ding' is a contract sprain rather than whatever they are saying.

If it turns out we didn't need him, Woodley could have been release sometime before his pay was guaranteed.

I could be misunderstanding the process and the June 1 cuts, though.

I would have kept woodley simply for depth alone. They are counting on a guy who played a good half season and cant stay healthy and a 2nd year player who showed nothing his first year. Like I said before even if worilds plays like an all pro he can be double/triple teamed because they have no one proven whatsoever on the other side. At least with woodley still here if JJ stinks it up woodley provides at least a threat of being good.

 

[Litos]

Del what's your plan with Cortez Allen? I say offer him something a bit under what Lewis got from the saints

 

[FordFairLane]

Del would offer him a signed Roethlisberger jersey and a year supply to KFC and he'd sign on the dotted line!

I'm joking Del don't get mad.

 

[freak]

i have faith in moats

 

[insaniti]

No one wants to admit this is NO DIFFERENT than Max Starks. It's the exact, same, ******* thing. Down to the dotted i's and crossed t's. It's the same ******* story just told in 2014 rather than 2008.

The Starks debacle ended with the team OUTRAGEOUSLY overspending on a mid-to-low tier left tackle that caused thorns in the side of our salary cap for 3-4 seasons.

We might have over spent on Max, but that was because Max was smart enough to see what they were trying to do. But there is a HUGE difference between Starks and Worilds. In Starks the FO saw something while the coaching staff did not. Both the FO and the coaching staff see's something in Worilds. Also, we will never know if they offered anything to Worilds last year because he was a relatively unknown back up that wasn't going to make any news if he turned down an offer of any kind. I have a hard time believing that he would have accepted a smaller deal last year when he made it clear the only way he was staying THIS year was if he was the starter.

It's easy to make choices after the fact

 

[Superman]

My understanding with Worilds is that he had 10 sacks over his first three years. I know better, now, than to mention his tackles total, so ....

During his first three seasons, Worilds looked incompetent and did not give the feeling that he'd be anything more than what he was - a part-time oft-injured role player capable of stepping in at times, but couldn't be counted on to hold down the job and would be easily replaced. A tease, really.

Last season he stepped it up and it appeared the proverbial light may have come on for him. Though he still seems incapable of shaking the injury bug. We chastise players here for having injuries, and thus far, Worilds has seen his fair share of the hot tub. Nine injuries over the course of three seasons in a part-time role. Nearly as many injuries as sacks.

Year Week NFL Team Injury Status Injury
2010 2 Pittsburgh Steelers Doubtful shoulder
2010 17 Pittsburgh Steelers Questionable knee
2011 5 Pittsburgh Steelers Out quadriceps
2011 6 Pittsburgh Steelers Out quadriceps
2011 7 Pittsburgh Steelers Questionable quadriceps
2011 8 Pittsburgh Steelers Out quadriceps
2012 1 Pittsburgh Steelers Probable wrist
2012 8 Pittsburgh Steelers Probable illness
2013 17 Pittsburgh Steelers Questionable abdomen

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I didn't see a business/football reason to release Woodley when we did. I wasn't against the release, but I don't know why it couldn't have been done later. Maybe Worilds is more amenable to a contract when Woodley is still here as a possibility or, if Worilds is hurt before the season (seems already dinged up) we still Woodley having around. At this point, I wonder if Worilds current 'ding' is a contract sprain rather than whatever they are saying.

If it turns out we didn't need him, Woodley could have been release sometime before his pay was guaranteed.

I could be misunderstanding the process and the June 1 cuts, though.

The Steelers released Woodley as a favor to Woodley. It would be very rude to let a guy sit down and wait while you determine his fate when he could be soliciting his services on the open market. Do business like that and no player is going to want to work with you.

 

[keslerclan]

While I would not have used the tag on Worilds, I understand why they did it. The drought of available talent and the 'thin' draft might have influenced the decision just like it did with Starks, IMO.

In reality, the Starks deal(s) really didn't end up as bad as it could have. Starks played for the following $ starting in 2007.
2007 - 1.85 million (started 4 games due to injuries)
2008 - 6.9 million (trans. tag) (started 11 games)
2009 - 5.4 million (Franchised in Feb, signed 4yr/26mil in June '09) (started 16 games)
2010 - 6.4 million (started 7 games until injured) (released in off-season)
2011 - 690k (+ 2 mil dead money from former deal) (started 12 games after being brought back to replace J.Scott in Oct)
2012 - 825k (+2 mil DM) (started all 16 games)

It really wasn't as bad as history and bad reporting make it sound. WORILDS is an entirely different scenario though. IMO.

This off-season saw the few veteran pass-rushers available as FAs sign contracts in the 7-10 million per season range while some average FAs signed in the 4-7 million range. Worilds thinks he's in the first group and the FO thinks he might be in the second group. He will have this year to fetter out which group he belongs with. Next year offers NO solace either as very little talent will be available in FA at the position. I'm sure Worilds and his agent are betting on this as well.

As a team we can hope he has a tremendous year and franchise him next year (it is unlikely he, unlike Starks will sign a reasonable long-term deal before taking the Franchise money). IF he has a great year, he will only have 2 options, take the Franchise tag and play it out again or sign a long-term agreement with the team.
If he doesn't have a great year...he is still likely to get an offer similar to what he would have this past off-season due to the 'talent drought'.
If he should get hurt or have an unproductive season...he is likely to get a one-year 'prove-it' contract at best.

If I am advising him, I tell him he has too much to risk injury-wise to let his career ride on 10 million dollars. I would advise him to sign a contract which puts him in the second tier which guarantees at least 10 million and then he can at least afford the option of insuring his value as a player. My guess is he is betting on the former and that he is once again a commodity in a shallow market.

Obviously, the FO and coaching staff had no reason to believe he had a high value until the end of this past season. If he had stayed on the right-side, splitting time w a rookie, he wouldn't have had a high value. It didn't end up that way after he showed promise on the left. Sure, in retrospect, he should have been signed BEFORE last season started at a moderate salary (and he might have even signed it) BUT coming off a career 8 games at LOLB, he thinks he is the master of the universe now and wants an 7-10mil per year contract. He isn't worth it.

Problem is, there is nobody to 'draft' next year (that I can see) that will replace a 3-4 OLB with even 'average talent'. I guess we could make a play for one of the 2 big names in Houston or Okafor (if they don't re-structure this year or get tagged themselves. THIS is the shared dilemma we put ourselves in with Starks (trying Scott and then Adams as back-up plans) and now with Worilds. The market offers no solutions to the problem we created when we kept Woodley over Harrison. We can band-aid the situation now by bringing Harrison back to start (which would motivate him into signing a decent contract too, IMO) and put Jones/Worilds on the left side. It gives us some injury flexibility and some of the leverage we gave away with the tag.

 

[ark steel]

The Steelers released Woodley as a favor to Woodley. It would be very rude to let a guy sit down and wait while you determine his fate when he could be soliciting his services on the open market. Do business like that and no player is going to want to work with you.

Pay me what they paid Woodley and you can be as rude to me as you want. If the players think of it as a business, why can't the owners. If periods gets hurt, Woodley stays and picks up his paycheck. If worilds doesn't get hurt, Woodley is cut and I'd bet, STILL gets quickly signed and a nice paycheck.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Pay me what they paid Woodley and you can be as rude to me as you want. If the players think of it as a business, why can't the owners. If periods gets hurt, Woodley stays and picks up his paycheck. If worilds doesn't get hurt, Woodley is cut and I'd bet, STILL gets quickly signed and a nice paycheck.

The longer you sit in free agency, the more your asking price decreases. (It's no coincidence the big producers like Ware got snapped up early). As teams get their guys, demand decreases, and the dollar value offered drops. What kind of contract do you think Woodley would have been offered if he were released 2 weeks ago instead of two months ago? Do you think Worilds would be itching to sign with us after seeing something like that? How you treat people matters, even if those people are millionaires.

 

[ark steel]

The longer you sit in free agency, the more your asking price decreases. (It's no coincidence the big producers like Ware got snapped up early). As teams get their guys, demand decreases, and the dollar value offered drops. What kind of contract do you think Woodley would have been offered if he were released 2 weeks ago instead of two months ago? Do you think Worilds would be itching to sign with us after seeing something like that? How you treat people matters, even if those people are millionaires.

Based upon who he was, that he learned under Lebeau and what he has produced in the past, I don't think Woodley's contract is signficantly different.

Worilds doesn't seem itching to sign, now, and we are over a barrel. I'd rather not him not have us over a barrel. Would having Woodley still around make him LESS itchy to sign? The fact that Woodley got a huge contract and he was unable to play isn't exactly the way you should treat your employer either. It's not like he didn't cash those checks when hurt.

Do you honestly think that if JJ Watts got released 2 weeks before the season, he wouldn't get snapped up immediately and paid a ton of money? No, I'm not comparing Woodley to Watts, just pointing out that it matters who you are and what you have prodcued as it does when you are available.

 

[deljzc]

Does Woodley's fulfillment of his contract to date demand respect?

You don't think if I am ownership and I get Woodley in a room and say... "The last three seasons we've paid you $36 million dollars. Do you think you've earned that? That is why we are going to play hardball with your contract this year and not release you on March 1st. We need the flexibility to release you up to and including September 1st because that is what is best for the Steelers right now. We also might approach you for a significant pay cut during this time frame."

 

[FordFairLane]

^^
This I agree with. You don't cut your bargaining chip for no good reason. Yes, they were trying to be nice and let Woodley get another overpaid contract but for the Steelers they should have waited to lock up Worilds or until June 1st. They could have at least said unless you sign we will just keep Woodley also and you two have to fight for the starting job. Worilds would have to know that "if" Woodley stayed healthy he had a very good chance of winning the starting job and if he stayed healthy for the season yes you pay a guy 9.7 million to sit on the bench but he's not increasing his value there either. Would have helped keep some leverage in the Steelers back pocket.

But I still say I don't want Worilds to sign a long term deal with too much up front money. Dude is ALWAYS hurt so I almost prefer him starting this year and seeing what he can do and how many games he plays. If he does great, yes we have to franchise him next year. But if he ends up with 8 sacks in 16 games then you let his *** walk knowing you aren't stuck with an overpaid OLB which probably can be replaced with a draft pick or Arthur Moats next year for a lot less.