Everything we had heard indicated Ben Roethlisberger wants to come back for one more run in 2021, and that much was confirmed today by Steelers owner Art Rooney II. However, Rooney made clear it’s far from a done deal on Pittsburgh’s end. 
Rooney said they can’t do it at Big Ben’s current salary, and that Ben knows that, per Mark Kaboly of The Athletic (Twitter link). Roethlisberger is currently set to have a $41.2MM cap hit for next season, which is obviously out of sync with the state of his play down the stretch this past campaign. “I think we’d like to see Ben back for another year if that can work, but as we’ve said, there’s a lot of work to be done to see if that can happen. There may need to be decision to be made for that to happen,” Rooney said cryptically, per Brooke Pryor of ESPN.com (Twitter link).
It sounds like Roethlisberger is going to need to take a significant pay cut, or at least alter his contract to add non-guaranteed years that would reduce his 2021 cap hit, if he wants to play another season in Pittsburgh. As for a potential successor, Rooney said “I think when you look at our room, we’ll have to add somebody to the room this offseason. We’ll look at all the opportunities we have to do that,” Pryor tweets.
Roethlisberger returned from elbow surgery this past year and initially led the team to an 11-0 record, but the offense completely unraveled in the second half as Big Ben was unable, or unwilling, to consistently push the ball down the field.
Roethlisberger isn’t the only key member of the organization who has his future up in the air, as GM Kevin Colbert is on a year to year arrangement and has flirted with retirement. That being said, Rooney did say as of right now he believes Colbert will be running the front office in 2021, Pryor tweets. “I feel like Kevin is going to come back, but who knows,” he said.
Rooney acknowledged the team is in a tough cap situation, especially with the cap expected to fall next year due to COVID-19 related revenue losses. What exactly will happen with Roethlisberger, 39 in March, seems uncertain, but at least we know for sure now that he isn’t retiring.
Rooney made it sound like the team isn’t exactly thrilled to be running it back, but in all likelihood this will end with Roethlisberger and the team agreeing to an altered contract, and we’ll see Big Ben under center come Week 1.
Haha his dead money hit if they cut him is $22.25MM. Ben holds the cards, make that $$
$22 mil hit better than $41 mil hit.
Still have to pay another QB though on top of that 22m. If they want a decent one, it’d probably cost them more altogether.
They already have them on roster.
Who? Rudolph can play some of the games, sure, but he hasn’t shown yet that he is a guy you have confidence in as a franchise guy. Haskins has a non-guaranteed deal for a reason. Dobbs is…well, let’s just say I don’t see him doing much long term. Someone will be brought in at some point, this year or next.
It was nice of the Steelers to create a roster opening in Washington for Ben by signing Haskins.
They had a roster opening in Washington even when Haskins was on the team.
Why would the Team With No Name want an expensive, old, washed-up QB?
We’re talking about a team owned by Daniel Snyder remember.
LOL! Haskins was already off of the Washington roster. That is why the Steelers were able to sign him…..smh….
You didn’t get the joke
I hope the people who are chastizing Deshaun Watson take note of this story. You all pull the “he signed a contract and needs to honor it” card, here is an owner demanding that a player not honor the contract they both signed.
Owners cut players and void contracts constantly, but when a player makes a demand or is unhappy, you all never fail to chastize them.
Truth
I 100% agree. If they believe Watson should honor his contract no matter what, they should be on Ben’s side here. It’s the same thing.
Hate to agree, but…
What are some examples of teams “voiding contracts constantly”?
Teams are not contractually required to do anything that is not stipulated in the contract, right? I believe players know this BEFORE they put pen to paper.
The entire concept of a non-guaranteed contract is that ownership can void the contract whenever they like for almost any reason. Contracts are voided constantly.
If you’d like a specific example, of which there are many, look at Earl Thomas.
My point here is that players seem to be the only ones that take flak when they have an issue with the contract they sign. When owners do it–far more often than the players do, btw–they face little scrutiny.
That’s not what “voiding” really means but I get your point. Teams only have to honor what they are contractually obligated to honor. In Watson’s case and others, players are allowed to complain of course but let’s not pretend that such is part of the contract.
It actually is. Voiding a contract means it’s no longer applicable. If a owner cuts a player, the contract goes too. There may be a penalty, but it’s still voiding
To be fair, Rooney never demanded it. He spoke to the reality of the situation. They can’t afford Ben at his current rate.
The counter argument would be that if quarterbacks didn’t demand so money, they wouldn’t have to be in these situations. I get your point, and I agree with some of it, but there’s no clear cut good guy, bad guy in these types of things. Teams don’t honor contracts because players don’t, and players don’t honor them because teams don’t. Players demand huge amounts of money because they don’t trust teams to pay out, and teams cut players because they want to save money. Nobody is innocent….certainly not agents who create these scenarios for their own gain and further complicate the player-team dynamic.