ShareThis Page
Steelers must win the salary cap guessing game |

Steelers must win the salary cap guessing game

| Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:00 a.m

Time to break up the Steelers.

Well, not exactly.

They did finish 16-2.

Rule No. 1 in the salary cap era, however, is to stay a step ahead of the grim reaper, who invariably snatches his share of veteran players each year and saddles their teams with suddenly bad investments.

Dead money.

It’s always best to nudge a player out the door a year too early rather than a year too late. There is no place for sentimentality, none for loyalty, not even after a team wins 16 of 18 games.

It’s a guessing game, and the guess here is that neither Jerome Bettis nor Jeff Hartings is likely to approximate his success of last season.

Which means that the Steelers should give each man a choice: Stay at a drastically reduced rate or feel free to test the market, which opens March 2.

Bettis realizes that the Steelers won’t keep him at his current cost — $5.48 million against the cap. He should be asked to play for about $1 million again.

As for the 32-year-old Hartings, he is a $5.478 million hit, and his ravaged left knee is a time bomb. If he isn’t amenable to a 75-percent pay cut, then it’s time for Chukky Okobi to step front-and-center.

Veteran defensive end Kimo von Oelhoffen ($2.975 million) also should be asked to take a cut or be released. Tight end Jay Riemersma ($1.58 million) and cornerback Chad Scott ($4 million-plus) shouldn’t even get the pay cut option.

The numbers are simply too high with all those players. Cheaper, younger, adequate replacements are available in all spots except defensive end, a position the Steelers should address in the draft or free agency.

Money must be freed so that the team can pursue a free agent or two, sign their own restricted free agents (Chris Hope, Larry Foote, etc.) and lengthen Hines Ward’s deal.

The Steelers already made one wise decision when they indicated Tuesday that wide receiver Plaxico Burress will be free to test the market. Slapping him with the franchise tag would have meant counting him more than $7 million against the cap next season.

Burress played well last season but not well enough to warrant that kind of money.

And as director of football operations Kevin Colbert said, wide receiver generally is the most plentiful position out there.

All kinds of players can be found in all kinds of places, and size is not a prerequisite to success. The New England Patriots are proof. David Givens, David Patten, Troy Brown and Deion Branch all were drafted in rounds 2-8. None is going to play center for the offseason basketball team, either.

The Steelers will need to supplement Ward and Antwaan Randle El with a third receiver. They’ll have plenty of options.

It’s never wise to mortgage your future on 20-something players who haven’t been entirely dependable. Burress and linebacker Kendrell Bell fit that description. Bell, also an unrestricted free agent, believes he’s going to break the bank, and he might be right.

If he’s wrong, perhaps the Steelers can work out a reasonable deal with him. Jason Gildon re-signed one year under a similar scenario.

Meanwhile, it might not be such a bad idea to try to bring back either Oliver Ross or Keydrick Vincent, although Vincent appears to be a goner, for sure.

It’s amazing that so many people assume that Kendall Simmons and Max Starks will outclass Ross and Vincent on the right side of the offensive line. It might happen, but that latter two must have been doing something right last season, and neither Simmons nor Starks has much of a track record.

Categories: News
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.