starks signed for what???

by steelerark on Apr 19, 2008 11:07 PM EDT

Well, I've been outta town for a week and a half, haven't been near the internet at all. I get back, and the first thing on espn.com is this...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3354694

So, they sign him for almost 7 million??? Does anyone else scratch their head at this? This seems like an awful lot of money to pay a guy that lost his starting job last year.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yes

The signing is bad BUT he has no signing bonus. He can be traded or cut with no penalty. Can use him to move up in the draft.

by jason97673 on Apr 19, 2008 11:29 PM EDT 0 recs

front-office

can also still pull the transition tag. even with him having it signed already. i remember reading this a while back, but i'll double check.

by TheMostViolentTeam on Apr 20, 2008 1:39 AM EDT 0 recs

we have

until sometime in July to rescind the tag. he then wouldn't be under contract for us and thus we'd lose him as a player. but him signing the tag really doesn't mean much

by TheMostViolentTeam on Apr 20, 2008 1:49 AM EDT up 0 recs

I think

I don't think they can rescind the tag once he's signed. They can cut or trade him but once he has signed it's now a contract, not a tag anymore.

by cgolden on Apr 21, 2008 8:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

Can we still negotiate a longer deal?

Or if Starks plays for us in 08 he'll get $6.9?

by maryrose on Apr 20, 2008 9:40 AM EDT 0 recs

That's the question

It would seem that other than that question, nothing has changed at this point, really.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Apr 20, 2008 10:05 AM EDT up 0 recs

The FO wants to negotiate a long tern deal with Starks and reduce his cap number off the 6.9 million.
That will happen if they don't get a couple OL next weekend. I can't see the Steelers paying Starks almost 7 million to be the RT or LT next year.

When You Run The Ball Good Things Happen

by 5020 on Apr 20, 2008 10:02 AM EDT 0 recs

Starks

Accoring to Ed Bouchette of Pitt. Post Gazette..."the 1 year contract is guaranteed even if Steelers cut Starks."

The Steelers want to sign him to a longer term deal to reduce his cap figure...

If he doesn't sign a longer term deal, I believe he gets $$$6.9M...I can't believe we are going to pay him that...

Someone mentioned the Steelers being able to pull the offer until July...Does that still stand even if Starks signs the 1 year deal?...

by SteelerMike on Apr 20, 2008 9:07 PM EDT 0 recs

He's signed

Once he's signed the contract, they can't just pull the offer anymore.

by cgolden on Apr 21, 2008 8:14 AM EDT up 0 recs

yeah

steelers really if you think about it had no choice here, if they want to trade up in the first round they need quality players to be able to do that without trading away some stars. Now from the outside looking it i feel we are in a bad situation and hopefully it will get cleaned up before its to late. I never never question the FO but, some things ring bells this year, along with some great signings, i never count them out till draft day. starks signing makes me ill a little bit anyone else feel this way. We are already close to the cap, why waste 6.9 million on a injury prone guy when we could went after some players in the FA that are young and have some room to grow, and are not injury prone.

* till next time wave those towels proud

by LiveinDCbutsteelerfanbyheart on Apr 21, 2008 9:45 AM EDT 0 recs

plus he

is not even guaranteed to start this year, 6.9 million on a back up geez.

* till next time wave those towels proud

by LiveinDCbutsteelerfanbyheart on Apr 21, 2008 9:47 AM EDT up 0 recs

Starks

I'd argue that the $6.9 million guarantees that he's a starter in '08.

by cgolden on Apr 21, 2008 9:56 AM EDT up 0 recs

agreed

but thats not the Tomlin mind set to make camp competitive, and keep people working hard. If someone is fighting for a spot that they know they will not get, why try. Only exception would be QB and SS, and one WR ward. I honestly think that even though the other positions are pretty set, if someone wows the coaches someway shape or form, that player should be on the field regardless. Now coach got to think, ok this other guy is better than starks but we are paying him 6.9 million so we have to start him. Thats BS and i know thats a direction the NFL is going but i dont like it. If a player shows that they are better and that they will help the team better by starting over someone making more money, they should start. But money talks will always win over talent and skill. IMO

* till next time wave those towels proud

by LiveinDCbutsteelerfanbyheart on Apr 21, 2008 10:05 AM EDT 0 recs

Starks starting

I don't think that does guarantee that he starts. If he think he's got it wrapped up and slacks off, he will get a one-year bonus contract, and then next year, he'll be lucky to get a minimum contract. And, if someone else steps up and beats him out, the team is only out the one-year money. The cap numbers won't change this year, so if someone beats him out this year, you know he's gone next year.

Also, as has been mentioned the FA signings so far have seemed to reflect a cooperation between the FO and Tomlin. So, based on that, I expect that Starks signing here is also agreed to by both. Again, if he doesn't step up this year, he's gone. If he does step up, then we'll try to lock him up with a good contract sometime this year.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Apr 21, 2008 10:36 AM EDT 0 recs

I wish I was smart enough

To understand why this whole Starks thing isn't a total fiasco. Last year he gets beat out by a guy who plays Starks' position, out of position, and mediocre at that; then signs for a top-10 NFL lineman's salary? Now he's the second highest- paid player on the team?

Surely between now and the start of the season something will make sense to me. I'm not being sarcastic.

by maryrose on Apr 21, 2008 2:48 PM EDT 0 recs

Is it worse than Mahan or Simmons?

Both were signed for less per year, but if cut, would have a higher cap hit this year. I know we've gone over this before, but isn't the problem with cutting a player that their cap hit for that year will from base salary+prorated bonus to all-bonus-remaining? So, it's not great that Starks is getting nearly $7M for this year, but it would be worse if we signed him to a 6 year, $30M deal with $20M guaranteed, because then if we cut him after this year, our cap hit next year would be something like $17M.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Apr 21, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

Comparing this to worse decisions

Isn't making me feel alot better. We could have had Justin Smiley for five years at $5M per, only $9M guarenteed for the life of the contract (assuming he'd take the same offer from the Steelers).

I'm guessing no one would give Starks $30M, $20M guarenteed, over six years. Couldn't we have done a three-year deal for $15M with $7 guaranteed? That same $7M is what we are going to drop this year, plus we would have at least another couple years at a decent price if he does have a good season.

It seems to me that the only way we can make out here is if he has a monster season, somehow justifying a top-10 salary, and then he walks for the rainbow. A guy we sent to the bench is now a top-10.

If you're Max Starks now, there's no way you sign for long-term and water down your Christmas present. You take the $7M, play your butt off and then put yourself on the market.

I'm really struggling with this.

by maryrose on Apr 21, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up 0 recs