Actually, if I were Josh Bell and really wanted to be an asshole, I'd find a sleazeball attorney and sue the Packers for breach of contract.
And here's what I as the sleazeball attorney would argue:
When a team puts a player on injured reserve, that has a particular meaning under the contract that they and Bell already agreed to. Namely, that people on IR are there (and therefore a member of the team) until either the team cuts him or until they reach a
mutually-agreed-upon settlement. The "agreed upon" is key: You don't unilaterally get to change the contract. You can "settle" if both parties agree to give up something that the contract entitles them to (in effect replacing the old contract with a new contract called "the settlement"). But the Packers can't decide to add a new contract restriction without that settlement.
Given that every other person put on IR and for whom no injury settlement was reached (Finley, Barnett, et al) was given a ring, I would argue that that means Bell should get one, too. He wasn't required to take an injury settlement any more than Nick Barnett was. So what if that pissed the Packers or his teammates off? That's exactly part of the reason why "breach of contract" is a remedy at law -- to prevent the person with more bargaining power from backing out on something they already agreed to except as provided under the specific terms of the contract.
To me, that's not even sleazy lawyering. It's Contract Law 101.
The harder argument would be getting specific performance (i.e., getting an actual ring). Courts don't like to do that in breach of contract cases unless there is something unique about what has not been performed. While Super Bowl ring-wearers are a rather exclusive club, the courts would do whatever it could to avoid that and just award money damages of whatever it cost to make Bell whole. Say the market value of a superbowl ring.
Which is where the real sleazy lawyering comes in. If I were a sleazy lawyer, I'd tack on a claim for punitive damages, citing bad faith, intentional causing of emotional distress, etc.. etc. It's sleazy because its just a technique for being a nuisance and getting a settlement more to your liking. It's used because, well, it can work. Especially if the other side has a pristine reputation that any sleazy lawyer worth his salt knows how to drag through the mud in ways that hurt said reputation.
Aren't you glad I'm not a sleazy lawyer? 🙂
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)