What if Troy Polamalu Retires?

Good morning,

A bag full of Ask Ed questions today:

--- YOU: I was confused on SI’s statement that the Steelers are continuously in cap trouble as well. One callout they made is that the Steelers basically keep restructuring contracts, which just snowballs the problem continuously into later years. Are the Steelers unique in the amount of contracts they restructure on a yearly basis, or do a lot of other teams use this as a standard cap management technique as well? Like Dick Lebeau I find it hard to believe that Omar Khan suddenly went from genius to idiot overnight.

ED: There was a time when it seemed as though everyone BUT the Steelers were doing these things, and then the Steelers joined the rush to restructure. Now, it seems as though restructuring contracts has gone out of favor around the league yet the Steelers continue to do it. I never thought it was wrong and the Steelers were in a unique position of having one of the best NFL teams in the 21st century and they wanted to keep it together. It resulted in two Super Bowl wins and one more visit. And they have not bottomed out as many teams do after a good run. If bottoming out means consecutive 8-8 records, I think every franchise in the league would take that.

They managed to stay competitive during those two down seasons also, in the running for playoff berth right until the end of each. They have not had a losing record since 2003. So, I think they took the right path with restructuring and now that the salary cap climbed $10 million this year and is expected to do so again in 2016, they have more breathing room and can try to reload, so to speak.

--- YOU: Out here in Seattle, there's a UW player named Shaq Thompson. Proj. round 1 or maybe 2. if available would the Steeler's think about drafting him with the idea of using him in as an RB in a couple of games while Bell sits out his suspension. Ok you can't stop laughing Multi-talented player but might not fit anywhere,

ED: You have the rounds correct in which Thompson is projected, but he’s projected as an outside linebacker and not a running back. I know he ran pretty well last year in a two-way performance rarely seen in football anymore. In fact, he won the Paul Horning Trophy as college’s most versatile player in 2014 after he also rushed for 456 yards on 61 carries (7.5 average). I could see him ultimately take some snaps on offense in the pros but he would not be a replacement to start for Le’Veon Bell.

--- YOU: I totally agree w/ you, that you can find an OLB in the 2nd or 3rd RD (especially this year), but if the Steelers get a chance to get a top flight CB in RD 1, they have to pull the trigger.

ED: I agree.

--- YOU: I really should stop being surprised by this, but it’s almost shocking how bad the Steelers’ cap situation is every year at this time. Last year Pittsburgh had to waive goodbye to receiver Emmanuel Sanders (who had a terrific season with the Broncos); this year it could be outside linebacker Jason Worilds. Teams should be in the business of keeping their best young talent, not having to allow it to walk out the door. A year ago, the Steelers placed the transition tag on Worilds to keep him, and now they have to let him hit the market. This isn’t smart business. Neither is annually restructuring contracts (Marcus Gilbert, Maurkice Pouncey and Mike Mitchell so far this year), which only pushes the cap damage down the road, meaning the Steelers will always be tight against the cap.

ED: Before I say, See Above, there was no way that Emmanuel Sanders was going to return to the Steelers in 2014. They had already signed Antonio Brown to a big contract and they weren’t going to give another to Sanders, which is what it would have taken to keep him. I think they’ve done alright by themselves at that position without Sanders. On the one hand, you want them to keep Worilds and Sanders, yet on the other you decry their cap situation and do not want them to restructure others.

They tried to sign Worilds last year; he would not take their multiple-year offer and he won’t again this year. If they had put the tag on him, THAT would have been cap foolish because he would get $11.7 million, chewing up all their space and more. And when did Jason Worilds become the next Lawrence Timmons? The Steelers are expected to sign three more of their current players to long-term extensions this year: Ben Roethlisberger, Cam Heyward and Kelvin Beachum. That is part of keeping your good players on the team. You can’t keep them all, though.

Remember that while they were mounting their 21st century run to five AFC championship games and three Super Bowls, they lost players to free agency such as Plaxico Burress, Nate Washington, Antwaan Randle-El, Alan Faneca and many more. See Above.

--- YOU: Hey Ed, From what I understand cutting Troy would save the Steelers about 6 mil in salary and would lose 4.5 mil in dead money or if they make him a June 1st cut 2.25 mil over the next two years. But I've heard a couple people say that if he would retire it would help them out more. Is that true? If so, what is the difference between getting cut and retiring?

ED: There is no real difference. If a player retires, all of his future pro-rated salary bonuses count in the year he retires. However, technically, if a player retires with years left on his contract and he was paid a signing bonus previously, the team can go to arbitration to get the pro-rated portions of the signing bonus back from the player. If they did, that amount would come off their salary cap. That is why you see more veterans choose to be cut rather than retire if they have years left on their contracts.

However, I am sure that if Troy Polamalu wanted to retire, the Steelers would agree not to try to get any money from his signing bonus left, even though it would be $4.5 million that is pro-rated over the next two years. If they cut him, there is no issue; he gets to keep it anyway and it also counts on their cap – either all this year (before June 1) or $2.25 million this year and $2.25 million next year (after June 1).

--- YOU: At some point, do the Steelers need some taller CBS--and even Safeties--to deal with the bigger NFL WRs? There seems to be a distinction drawn between CBs who are 6'0" and above and their shorter colleagues. The Steeler roster, right now, has several shorter DBs.

ED: Finding tall cornerbacks is like finding tall receivers – if they have all the other tools, they will be drafted higher. Everyone is looking for the kind of cornerback you are talking about – six feet, 6-1 who can fly, makes plays on the ball and can tackle. Those come at a premium and they don’t come often, especially when you pick at No. 22 in the first round.

--- YOU: Not long ago, I think it was Bob Smizik who stated that there was no telling how many Super Bowl's Cowher would have won if he'd had Ben as his QB in the mid-90's. This brings me to ask you which team would have been stronger, the mid-90's team that fell short in several championship games and one SB, with Ben at QB, or the ones he led to the two most recent SB wins? I'm tempted to lean towards those 90's teams, but what say you?

ED: Put Ben in his prime on those ‘90s teams and I think they would have won two Super Bowls and maybe gone to three. That is how many they won and went to in the 21st century. I call it a draw. Both had great defenses, both had good running games and both had good receivers. Even if they had beaten San Diego in that ’94 AFC championship game, I think they would have lost to San Francisco in the Super Bowl. They might have beaten Dallas with better quarterback play in Super Bowl XXX and I think if they had beaten John Elway and Denver in ’97 -- as they should have had they stayed with running Jerome Bettis and not put the ball in Kordell Stewart’s hands near the end of the first half -- they would have won the Super Bowl that year. There also was the matter of ’01 and ’04, when they lost to the Patriots at home in the AFC title games. Ben, of course, was a rookie in the latter and did not play well.