Pittsburgh Steelers' Ulterior Motives Behind Max Starks' Transtion Tag

Don't expect the Minnesota Vikings-created poison-pill clause to have any bearing on the situation, though. This is not the first move in offering him a long-term deal. It's simply the team saying Starks' value is commensurate with a third-round pick in this year's draft.

The Seahawks transition-tagged Steve Hutchinson with embarrassing results in 2006. By trying to save money, they gave him the transition tag—which gives an average of the top 10 highest-paid players at his position—instead of his stronger, more expensive older brother, the franchise tag - which pays an average of the top five at that position. Theoretically, they used the transition tag to buy themselves some more time to work out a long-term deal.

Players who have been designated with a franchise or transition tag have the right to explore free agency, but their teams get the right of first refusal if they sign an offer sheet with someone else. If they choose not to sign that offer sheet, they are entitled to a third-round pick in lieu of the transition-tagged player, and two first-round selections for the franchise-tagged player.

You might remember the saga of Hutchinson. The Vikings signed Hutchinson to an offer sheet that was worth $49 million over seven years. One clause in the contract stated that if Hutchinson was not the highest-paid offensive lineman on the team, the remainder of his contract was guaranteed.

The contract, in principle, paid Hutchinson less than what tackle Walter Jones had just signed with Seattle, meaning, if the Seahawks matched the deal, all $49 million of that offer would have been guaranteed. The poison-pill clause was born.

Seattle flipped out, taking the issue to the league, stating the actions of the Vikings and Hutchinson's agent basically render the tags null and void. If a team can throw in a clause like that, what's the point of a team even using it in the first place?

Let's just ignore the fact Seattle didn't offer an extension for Hutchinson, and simply wanted to pay the league's best guard the average of the 10 highest paid at that position—not a very expensive position at the time—and just look at that last part.

"What is the point of a team even using the transition tag in the first place?"

That's a good question. Did the Steelers use the transition tag on Starks because they want to keep him around in hopes of negotiating a long-term deal, which is the tag's specified purpose?

No. They are using a defensive tag on Starks, meaning they don't particularly want him, but they want to defend their asset. The Rooneys are capitalists. Just because they don't think a long-term deal with Starks is in their best interest, that doesn't mean a contract around $7 million a year isn't Starks' market value. If someone else wants to give him that much money, the Steelers are fine with it. But if they can get a third-round pick in this April's draft for it, then they're happy.

That's the reason they transitioned Starks instead of franchising him.

It would have been too much to ask for two first-round picks, which is what the Steelers would have received if they franchised him and someone was to sign him to an offer sheet the Steelers didn't want to match. There's no way another team would essentially trade two first-round picks and take on a likely seven-year, $49 million deal for Starks.

A team is likely to bite at offering Starks a smaller deal if it only has to give up a third-rounder, though.

Starks, a 6-foot-8, 345-pounder, is certainly alluring. He has shown flashes of the ability of a solid right tackle throughout his career. He lost his starting job to second-year man Willie Colon this past season, but there have been whispers of moving Colon to right guard (some say he's better suited there) and keeping Starks on the outside. That would push starting right guard Kendall Simmons possibly to center, a position he's practiced at in the past, and it's a position the Steelers had struggles with in 2007.

Or, they may move Simmons to left guard to fill the spot likely vacated by All-Pro Alan Faneca. Don't expect Pittsburgh to slap the franchise tag on Faneca, either, mostly because that would cause Faneca to hunt down members of the team's upper management. Players don't generally consider the franchise tag a good thing because it doesn't give them a long-term deal.

With a deep tackle draft, though, it's uncertain if anyone will buy the Steelers' bait. Nothing against Starks, but he was a third-round pick himself. The Steelers have prided themselves on not overpaying veterans, and while that sometimes gets misconstrued as simply NOT paying veterans, upper management believes firmly in the development of younger players. Right or wrong, win or lose, that's the foundation of the team.

The Steelers franchised OLB Jason Gildon back in the day, but have not used that tag since. Starks is their first transition tag.

In Faneca's case, he wants that long-term deal, and it seems to be what he won't get in Pittsburgh. He's set to hit the free-agent market on Feb. 29, and no reports have come out that the two sides have started up negotiations again.

It's interesting to note that the Bengals slapped the franchise tag on right tackle Stacy Andrews, meaning the transition tag the Steelers gave Starks is going to be more attractive for teams in the market for a veteran tackle. In other words, Cincinnati is going to be stuck giving its backup tackle a one-year deal worth over $8 million.

No poison pull needed. The Steelers are simply asking another team to give up a third-rounder for Starks. We'll find out around Feb. 29 if anyone takes the bait.