Starks hopes to make impact.

[BURGH86STEEL]

It is only a one year deal and better to have some insurance than none.

...But it's a helluva lot to pay out just for a possibility, isn't it?.... Didn't Faneca only want 7mil or so? (...and yea, he wanted a long-term deal)... At either rate, as long as he actually produces this season, I won't have any issue with it.

Well I do not have to worry about paying the money. I do not sign the checks. I guess my concern is that they put together the best team possible. Most times they get the moves right and sometimes they do not. Outside of wanting a long team deal, I do not know Faneca's demands from the organization. Cannot speak on that one. If they had the opportunity to draft a top tackle in the draft, maybe things would be different. I guess they felt they were not going to get a shot at one and gave Starks that deal. They were correct in their thinking. If Starks is not on the team, who would be the best option at both tackle spots? Good tackles are hard to find and that is why they did not have a chance to draft one in the draft.

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

Also, wasn't there some kind of clause in the transition tag where the Steelers could drop him without paying him at some point? Maybe I'm not remembering that right, but I thought the big bucks were not automatically his until some point in time.

Thanks for any help on this...

...Sorry... Can't help 'ya on this one bro. Other than some sort of incentive-laden clause, that's news to me.

Looked some stuff up, looks like Steelers could have withdrawn the transition tag until sometime this April, but it's too late now that he signed it...

[url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/21/steelers-should-have-withdrawn-starks-tender/"]http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/ ... ks-tender/[/url]

[Flasteel]

It is only a one year deal and better to have some insurance than none.

...But it's a helluva lot to pay out just for a possibility, isn't it?.... Didn't Faneca only want 7mil or so? (...and yea, he wanted a long-term deal)... At either rate, as long as he actually produces this season, I won't have any issue with it.

Well I do not have to worry about paying the money. I do not sign the checks. I guess my concern is that they put together the best team possible. Most times they get the moves right and sometimes they do not. Outside of wanting a long team deal, I do not know Faneca's demands from the organization. Cannot speak on that one. If they had the opportunity to draft a top tackle in the draft, maybe things would be different. I guess they felt they were not going to get a shot at one and gave Starks that deal. They were correct in their thinking. If Starks is not on the team, who would be the best option at both tackle spots? Good tackles are hard to find and that is why they did not have a chance to draft one in the draft.

This is exactly how we should all be viewing the situation in my opinion. It's not our money and the quid tied up in that tender never prohibited us from re-signing Faneca or any other free agent. Granted it doesn't make a great deal of sense to pay a guy that amount of money and not have him even start, but hopefully a long-term contract will be done before the season begins. I've been an out-spoken supporter of Starks and believe he's a far better tackle than Willie Colon, especially when he's in shape (which by all accounts it appears he's in the best shape of his career), so I'm thrilled that we didn't lose him. As long as Marvel Smith stays healthy, I say that Starks will win his job back...time will tell, but I'll stand by my prediction 'til the bitter end.