8667748_web1_ptr-Tomlin-120523
Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin speaks to T.J. Watt during the Cardinals game Sunday Dec. 3, 2023 at Acrisure Stadium.
The Pittsburgh Steelers and disgruntled outside linebacker T.J. Watt still have a lot of ground to cover on contract renegotiations, according to ESPN’s Adam Schefter.
“They’re far apart right now, and there have been other teams that have mulled the idea that maybe they would approach the Pittsburgh Steelers about a trade,” Schefter said on ESPN Radio’s “Unsportsmanlike” Tuesday morning. “The Steelers have zero intention of trading him, but something has to give. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, ‘We want to keep this guy’ that badly and then be far apart in the contract.”
If there is no signing or no extension, could Watt hold out from training camp or even the regular season?
“That’s a long way away. I’m not ready to say anything like that right now on July 8,” Schefter said (at 17:30of this link). “If we get to Aug. 8 and it’s still not resolved, that becomes a little bit more interesting. And if it gets to Sept. 8, that’s a big problem. But there’s a lot of time to work these things out, and even though the sides might be far apart right now, I still think that somehow, with his importance to that franchise, they’ll figure out a way to get this done at some point in time. If not, other teams are waiting.”
Let’s hold off on the trade and hold out calisthenics for now, because Schefter is right. Those potentials are both well down the road.
In terms of the alleged sizable gap in negotiations, though, I have to wonder: If both sides are still so far apart, what are they still arguing about? And how do they expect either side to significantly come down from their stance on the debate?
• First Call: Dak Prescott heaping praise on George Pickens; WR or safety debated as Steelers' weakest position
• Royals walk it off in 9th vs. Pirates, who lose 5th straight game
• Tim Benz: Load management for Paul Skenes heightens 'whipped-puppy syndrome' for some Pirates fans
Myles Garrett reset the edge defender market back in March when he inked a four-year, $160 million contract with the Cleveland Browns. That deal featured $123.5 million in guarantees, including $88.8 million fully guaranteed.
If the Steelers are well below any of those numbers, they might as well just tell Watt that he’s not getting an extension and he should just play out his deal and be ready for a franchise tag or free agency in 2026. After all, Watt isn’t going to settle for anything less than Garrett.
Meanwhile, if Watt is asking for significantly more than that — or, is essentially trying to negotiate what he thinks Micah Parsons may get from Dallas before the Cowboys offer it, then the Steelers should say the same thing because that would be a ridiculous ask from Watt.
Parsons is only 26 and in the prime of his career. Watt is 31, has had injury issues in multiple seasons, and faded significantly at times late last year.
So, if the chasm between ownership and Watt’s representatives is related to either of those extremes on July 8, what have they been arguing about since March 9? If there’s still a significant gap on either of those two fundamental fronts, then, yeah. To Schefter’s other points, a trade or a long holdout may be looming.
I suppose it’s possible that this report by Schefter lends credence to what his ESPN colleague Jeremy Fowler said at the end of June, when he reported on 93.7 The Fan that the holdup between the two sides was likely about the guarantee language.
“That is my sense. Don’t hold me to that, but that is certainly my sense,” Fowler said. “If I had to look back at the deal, Myles Garrett’s deal was a classic win-win, I thought, for both sides, because Myles got what he wanted, but the Browns also had some escape hatches in that deal.”
To an extent, that’s encouraging. It also backs up a theory that I’ve repeatedly stated on our “MaddenMonday” podcasts. It’s that Watt doesn’t need more guaranteed money than Garrett, a higher annual average and $1 more than the $160 million Garrett got.
He just needs one of the three to soothe his ego so that he can say — in one way, shape or form — that he got “more” than Garrett.
Either in guarantees, AAV or the total dollar amount.
But if it’s narrowed down to just guaranteed dollar language, does that qualify as still “far apart?” I’m not doubting Schefter’s reporting. I’m just wondering how that’s something neither side has budged on for four months.
Then, if that’s true, why should we so readily believe that both parties will “figure out a way” to get this done eventually?
Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at tbenz@triblive.com or via X. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.