Should Steelers' Mike Adams Have Deferred Bonus?
May 12th, 2012 by CraigSteelers
On Wednesday, the Steelers signed 2nd round draft pick Mike Adams to a four year deal. Along with his four year deal came a $1.01 million signing bonus. Captain Toupee, aka ESPN’s Jamison Hensley, writes that there was speculation that Adams would forego the bonus in a gesture that he will remain drug free. Here’s Hensley’s quote:
"There had been speculation that Adams would defer a signing bonus to show he could remain drug-free. Adams reportedly tested positive for marijuana at the NFL combine in February."
How would deferring a signing bonus show that you will remain drug free? Was there some sort of talk that he was going to use that bonus to buy drugs, and therefore, by not taking the money showed that he wasn’t going to? Maybe I’m getting caught up on semantics, but how is it that deferring a signing bonus shows good faith not to partake in illegal actions in the near or distant future? Maybe deferring would be a sign to show that he is committed to playing for the Steelers and that it was an act of good faith that he just wants to play football.
But not the former.
The question this morning is, do you think Mike Adams should have deferred his signing bonus? Was he wrong in not doing so? Would it have been wrong to defer? I leave the floor open…
Should Mike Adams have deferred his signing bonus?
No - the team offered it and it was his to take. It's up to him to decide what to do with that money. (68%, 63 Votes)
Yes - it would have been a good gesture and showed he really is committed to the Steelers (32%, 29 Votes)
Total Voters: 92