Getty Images

As the holdout of Steelers running back Le'Veon Bell officially extends into the regular season, it’s important to understand what the Steelers can and cannot do at this point.

The Steelers can rescind the franchise tender at any point before Bell signs it. They reportedly will not do that, no matter how many yards James Conner gains in Bell’s absence, this Sunday or beyond.

The Steelers can offer Bell more money to entice him to sign. Yes, despite the many labor-deal experts on social media and elsewhere who insist that it’s $14.54 million (minus $855,000 for Week One) or nothing, the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits a multi-year contract after mid-July, but it does not prohibit terms other than those contained in the franchise tender.

Don’t take my word for it, as if you ever would. Here’s Article 10, Section 2(k) of the CBA: “Any Club designating a Franchise Player shall have until 4:00 p.m., New York time, on July 15 of the League Year (or, if July 15 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the first Monday thereafter) for which the designation takes effect to sign the player to a multiyear contract or extension. After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year.” (Emphasis added.)

If, as agent Adisa Bakari recently said, Bell has concerns about his workload during what most likely will be his last year with the Steelers (a third franchise tag would require the Steelers to offer Bell the quarterback franchise tender), the Steelers can address those concerns by offering Bell more money for 2018. Or, if the Steelers want to directly address Bell’s concerns, the Steelers could fashion a package of incentives based on playing time, carries, catches, yards, etc.

There’s no way to keep the Steelers from getting full use out of Bell if/when he shows up, but there is a way to make it worth the risk Bell will be taking as it relates to his post-2018 contract. That said, there’s no reason to think the notoriously stubborn Steelers would consider something like that, no matter how fair it could be, to both sides.

The Steelers have a habit of dictating terms to players that go above and beyond the rules of the CBA. They apply artificial deadlines for contractual negotiations. They won’t negotiate during the regular season. They won’t fully guarantee payments beyond the first year of a contract. They won’t re-do deals with more than one year remaining (unless they will, when the player is as good as Antonio Brown).

The Steelers did indeed break their own rules for Brown. The Steelers twice deviated from their “no new contract” mantra with the star wideout, pushing money forward when he had three years and then two years left on a team-friendly deal. They did it because Brown is a great player.

So is Bell. Which means that the Steelers should consider thinking outside the box, if they want to get Bell back in the fold.

Until then, Bell seems to be willing to stay away. Which continues to compel many fans and some in the media to chastise Bell for an allegedly nonsensical holdout. But if it’s OK for the Steelers to refuse to budge as to the possibility of paying Bell more, why isn’t it OK for Bell to refuse to budge?

The Steelers created this problem by exercising their rights under the CBA to keep Bell from the open market by applying the franchise tag. Bell is merely exercising his own rights under the CBA by staying away. Both sides can exercise their mutual right to negotiate a one-year contract that would pay Bell something that better reflects his value and his eventual use, especially after a quartet of players who like Bell are among the best in the sport recently received contracts that will pay them accordingly.