PDA

View Full Version : Wallace frustrated with contract status...



SteelHead
05-29-2012, 08:23 PM
http://triblive.com/sports/steelers/1879654-85/wallace-taylor-wants-mike-contract-million-steelers-agent-football-free

By Mark Kaboly (mkaboly@dailynewsemail.com)
Tribune-Review

Published: Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 7:22 p.m.
Updated less than a minute ago

Steelers receiver Mike Wallace hasn’t spoken publicly about his contract situation in the past four months.
The same can’t be said about cornerback Ike Taylor after spending the Memorial Day weekend in Las Vegas with his teammate.
Taylor said during his weekly show on TribLive Radio today that Wallace is frustrated with contract negotiations and he wants to be at offseason practices but also wants what he believes he is due.
“There is a lot of frustration with Mike right now,” Taylor said. “He wants to be here. ... But at the same time he wants his paper.
“Mike feels like he outperformed his last contract. But he’s dealing with a monster, and that’s the Pittsburgh Steelers … they are not going to let you dictate to them on how you feel.”
Wallace has yet to sign his first-round restricted free agent tender that would guarantee him a $2.16 million raise for this season, bringing his salary to $2.742 million. He missed the fourth consecutive voluntary practice yesterday and isn’t expected to attend offseason workouts, including mandatory minicamp next month.
Wallace could not be reached for comment.
Taylor said he told Wallace he would like to see him show up at the practice facility mostly because new offensive coordinator Todd Haley’s system is being installed.
Wallace is seeking a long-term extension. He reportedly was looking for Larry Fitzgerald-type money — $120 million over eight years.
Wallace has until June 15 to sign his tender before the Steelers could reduce their offer to 110 percent of his $580,000 salary last year. Wallace also could hold out until Nov. 12 and still be credited with an accrued season, making him an unrestricted free agent next year.
“Mike is going to be a Pittsburgh Steeler for years to come,” Taylor said. “(But I told him), at the end of the day: Football doesn’t need you; you need football.”


LOVE THE ADVICE IKE IS GIVING THE KID. HOPEFULLY IT SINKS IN SOON. I JUST DON'T GET IT....GET PAID MILLIONS TO PLAY FOOTBALL AT A CONSISTENT CHAMPIONSHIP LEVEL FOR ONE OF THE BEST ORGANIZATIONS IN SPORTS HISTORY OR GET PAID MILLIONS BY PERENNIAL LOSERS WHO CONSISTENTLY OVER PAY AND END UP SHIPPING YOU TO A NEW CITY ANYWAY.

steelz09
05-29-2012, 08:27 PM
I agree.

Great advice by Ike.

I understand what Wallace is doing....it's a business move. I'm just happy the Steelers won't budge and overpay for a guy like Wallace. I

RuthlessBurgher
05-29-2012, 08:41 PM
I thought Ike was dumb as a stump? :p

squidkid
05-29-2012, 09:01 PM
i'm kinda getting tired of it already.
mike if you really want to be here, then be here
mike, maybe you shouldnt have signed that rookie contract 3 years ago that way you wouldnt have 'outperformed it' and you wouldnt feel like your 'due' now
i hope the steelers slap the june 15th tender on him on june 15
if wallace holds out until nov 12th before returning to this team, i wish bad luck to him

Oviedo
05-29-2012, 09:13 PM
Wallace can quit his b!tching and suffer through his $2.7M offer while his agent negotiates with the Steelers. He can show he wants to be here by being here and learning the new offense.

Staying away won't make the Steelers come to you moron. Study the history of past free agents. The Steelers win and you lose playing the game you are playing.

Slapstick
05-29-2012, 09:39 PM
As Ike said, he's up against a monster...

Crash
05-29-2012, 11:06 PM
So ike refers to his employer as "a monster". Nice.

And you guys DON'T think he's dumb?

Chadman
05-29-2012, 11:53 PM
Presonally, Chadman doesn't care if Ike is dumb or not. He plays good football, he seems a decent guy- can't blame him for not being the brightest bulb- that'd be genetics.

Mike Wallace- this 'hate' he gets is misguided. Suggesting he shouldn't have signed his rookie contract because it didn't match the output he gave for 3 years...when he signed it, he hadn't performed at all. Guess what- 3 years later HE HAS outperformed that rookie contract. His return to the Steelers in value is massively in favour of the Steelers. Why shouldn't he demand to get well compensated? This is his career- and once it's gone, his earning capacity goes with it. So the fact he wants to get 'top dollar' right now is neither a bad thing, or the wrong thing. Will he get what reports suggest he's chasing? Probably not. But to 'hate' him like some seem to on here, simply because he feels his value is higher than our collective view, is unfair. And kinda dumb.

Like Ike.

Crash
05-30-2012, 12:53 AM
Wallace is still a restricted free agent. Like I said, it's amazing how many of the same people who backed Hines during his holdout have turned their backs on Wallace.

Chadman
05-30-2012, 01:35 AM
Wallace is still a restricted free agent. Like I said, it's amazing how many of the same people who backed Hines during his holdout have turned their backs on Wallace.

Hines had a proven track record. Some people think Wallace's 3 years of success are not a proven track record. Not sure why.

Wallace doesn't even have a signed contract for everyone to get all huffy about. If he was signed, then fair enough. It's not like he can take his bat & ball & play elsewhere this season.

The anger directed at Wallace is kinda foolish. Everyone else can seek the best deal possible, but if the general concensus is that 'he's not as good as he says he is', then he 'should' sign a contract for less than he feels he's worth?

If that's the case, every boss in the world will use the 'you're not as good as you think' line in wage negotiation.

Employee- Boss, I think I'm worth $50 a week more.
Boss- You're not as good as you think.
Employee- You're right Boss. In fact, I think I should get less than I had last time after this conversation.
Boss- Deal. Now- go do more than is expected of you. And no complaining! I have guys from other companies I need to bring in on inflated wages to entice them here, and I can't have you whining that you got stiffed in contract negotiations.
Employee- Ok Boss, you're right.
Boss- I know. By the way- you start at 6am now, not 7am. Get out.

Va Steelr
05-30-2012, 05:05 AM
:p :p :p I think Chadman has been standing outside my office eavesdropping !!!

Slapstick
05-30-2012, 08:50 AM
So ike refers to his employer as "a monster". Nice.

And you guys DON'T think he's dumb?

Not dumb so much as correct...

The Steelers are very much a monster in these types of contract disputes...and they know it...we all do...

steelblood
05-30-2012, 09:07 AM
So ike refers to his employer as "a monster". Nice.

And you guys DON'T think he's dumb?

Do you like anyone or anything about this team (besides Ben)? You just seem to hate so much about the team. If it makes you miserable, why watch?

Djfan
05-30-2012, 09:40 AM
I have mixed feelings on this issue. He really won't lose much (barring injury) if he signs and lets the team/agent stuff work out over the year. But, based on the Steelers way he is risking much. He might just not be here next year, and there is no guarantee that he ends up with Denver or the cheats. He may end up in St. Louis or something horrible.

Walk the Hines Ward path, Wallace. It will pay off.

Sugar
05-30-2012, 09:56 AM
I can understand how Mike would be very frustrated. Remember, though, that he is not making noise in the media- that's on Ike.

The Steelers have gotten Mike's production on the cheap for three years and are looking to continue and I can't blame them for that. I also can't blame Mike for not allowing them to profit from the situation to his detriment until he absolutely must. This is not amateur football (yay team!).

feltdizz
05-30-2012, 10:00 AM
Wallace has every right to feel frustrated.. and the Steelers have every right to milk his production on the cheap.

Oviedo
05-30-2012, 10:01 AM
Simple questions:

1. Does Mike Wallace have any real leverage? Answer: No
2. Are the Steelers following the rules that Mike Wallace's union agreed to? Answer: Yes
3. Will the Steelers cave to imaginary pressure from Mike Wallace by his not being present? Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Therefore one must conclude that Mike Wallace's absence accomplishes absolutely nothing except having him fall behind learning the new offense.

flippy
05-30-2012, 10:08 AM
Every day Mike is away is more opportunity for Manny Sanders. If he can stay healthy, I think Sanders can be a better all around WR.

I like Mike. But the Steelers won't be hurting without him. We can roll with Brown, Sanders, and Cotchery. We've won SuperBowls with Ward, ARE, and Cedrick afterall.

RuthlessBurgher
05-30-2012, 10:39 AM
Simple questions:

1. Does Mike Wallace have any real leverage? Answer: No
2. Are the Steelers following the rules that Mike Wallace's union agreed to? Answer: Yes
3. Will the Steelers cave to imaginary pressure from Mike Wallace by his not being present? Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Therefore one must conclude that Mike Wallace's absence accomplishes absolutely nothing except having him fall behind learning the new offense.

He could come in and break his foot like Hakeem Nicks. :stirpot

Sugar
05-30-2012, 10:48 AM
Simple questions:

1. Does Mike Wallace have any real leverage? Answer: No
2. Are the Steelers following the rules that Mike Wallace's union agreed to? Answer: Yes
3. Will the Steelers cave to imaginary pressure from Mike Wallace by his not being present? Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Therefore one must conclude that Mike Wallace's absence accomplishes absolutely nothing except having him fall behind learning the new offense.

Simple question: Why should Mike Wallace allow the Steelers additional time to use his services on the cheap when he doesn't have to? He's been training. He has the playbook. He can be ready with a minimum of time to prepare with the team, if needed.

Oviedo
05-30-2012, 10:59 AM
He could come in and break his foot like Hakeem Nicks. :stirpot

If he worried about getting a boo boo he needs to find another career.

Suggs got hurt working out on his own in an unstructured environment. Isn't that what Wallace is claiming to do? Maybe Wallce should sit on the couch and eat bon bons so he doesn't risk injury of any type.

I'd watch that going out to the store or dinner somewhere too. Real chance of a car accident. Probably statistically higher than getting hurt working out in shorts.

The not wanting to risk injury is a BS excuse.

Oviedo
05-30-2012, 11:02 AM
Simple question: Why should Mike Wallace allow the Steelers additional time to use his services on the cheap when he doesn't have to? He's been training. He has the playbook. He can be ready with a minimum of time to prepare with the team, if needed.

Really? Is he training on learning how to run better routes? Is he training on how to use his body to better shield the defender? Is he training to better highpoint the football? Those are his major weaknesses all of which Antonio Brown and Manny Sanders probably do better than him right now. Who is teaching him all these things?

There is maintaining fitness which I'm sure he is doing but he is no way training on what he needs the most to really be worth the money he wants.

Lebsteel
05-30-2012, 11:09 AM
Really? Is he training on learning how to run better routes? Is he training on how to use his body to better shield the defender? Is he training to better highpoint the football? Those are his major weaknesses all of which Antonio Brown and Manny Sanders probably do better than him right now. Who is teaching him all these things?

There is maintaining fitness which I'm sure he is doing but he is no way training on what he needs the most to really be worth the money he wants.
Well said, Ovi! :Clap

RuthlessBurgher
05-30-2012, 12:18 PM
Since when are voluntary OTA's the end-all and be-all of preparing onesself for the season? Where was the outrage in past seasons when Troy Polamalu (who was under a signed contract, unlike Wallace) chose to train with Marv Marinovich in California instead of working out with his teammates at the Steeler HQ on the South Side?

Crash
05-30-2012, 12:24 PM
These are voluntary activities.

Later next month they are having a mandatory mini-camp.

That's when the fun starts.

steelnavy
05-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Simple question: Why should Mike Wallace allow the Steelers additional time to use his services on the cheap when he doesn't have to? He's been training. He has the playbook. He can be ready with a minimum of time to prepare with the team, if needed.

Wallace is the one that is frustrated, not the Steelers. He is missing out on the comeraderie with his teammates and he is missing out on learning the new plays with his new coach (reading a book by yourself is NOT going to prepare you like doing the real thing). Please tell me what in the heck he is gaining out of this? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

flippy
05-30-2012, 12:37 PM
It's not like Wallace is going to learn to be faster. That's his game. Speed. He can pretty much show up whenever and will be fine.

steelnavy
05-30-2012, 12:42 PM
Since when are voluntary OTA's the end-all and be-all of preparing onesself for the season? Where was the outrage in past seasons when Troy Polamalu (who was under a signed contract, unlike Wallace) chose to train with Marv Marinovich in California instead of working out with his teammates at the Steeler HQ on the South Side?

Was Troy trying to learn a brand new defense at the time? NOPE
Does Wallace need to learn a brand spanking new offense? And does he need to improve on some technique so he is not a one trick pony? YES

BIG DIFFERENCE!

steelz09
05-30-2012, 12:43 PM
Wallace is the one that is frustrated, not the Steelers. He is missing out on the comeraderie with his teammates and he is missing out on learning the new plays with his new coach (reading a book by yourself is NOT going to prepare you like doing the real thing). Please tell me what in the heck he is gaining out of this? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

He is hurting the team and himself. The team will suffer if his productivity dips because of lack of knowledge in regards to the playbook. Speaking of "book", that same dip in productivity will hurt his checkbook next year.

Slapstick
05-30-2012, 12:49 PM
I have no problem with a player not under contract declining to attend voluntary activities...I really didn't have a problem with a player under contract declinig to participate...

But, Wallace really doesn't gain anything from this except, perhaps, an added measure of protection from injury...and even that is debatable...

Another poster says that he denies the Steelers the use of his services at the bargain rate...okay...but he still doesn't gain anything...an d, really, he isn't denying the Steelers anything...

It's always a bad situation...

I would hope that he at least signs the tender and shows up for the mandatory minicamp...

Crash
05-30-2012, 01:01 PM
He's not signing that tender until camp ends IMO.

RuthlessBurgher
05-30-2012, 01:09 PM
Was Troy trying to learn a brand new defense at the time? NOPE
Does Wallace need to learn a brand spanking new offense? And does he need to improve on some technique so he is not a one trick pony? YES

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Was Troy under contract? YES
Is Wallace under contract? NO
Are OTA's voluntary? YES

Ghost
05-30-2012, 01:52 PM
Seems as if signing the tender with a raise that gets him to $2,742,000 for next year is a lot better option than when the Steelers can franchise him in 2 weeks and actually lower his season salary to $1,218,000 (as that's 110% of last's year salary and all they are required to do). A 110% raise is a good deal - An additional $1,524,000, which is the current offer is great. And he's nowhere near Fitzgerald's talent level. There's not a coach or GM in the NFL that would take MW over LF.

papillon
05-30-2012, 02:07 PM
There's not a coach or GM n the NFl that would take MW over LF.

...If the coach or GM wants to keep his job. Now, if he's looking to get fired and collect severance he would trade the Steelers Fitz for One-Trick straight up. :)

Pappy

Sugar
05-30-2012, 02:22 PM
There is maintaining fitness which I'm sure he is doing but he is no way training on what he needs the most to really be worth the money he wants.

Who's to say he's not already worth the money? If you believe he wants to be paid like Fitz (which I don't), then he might not be. He is certainly worth more than the cut-rate the Steelers have tendered.

At the end of the day, the team has him in a bad position. He doesn't need to reward them for it as if to say it's OK.

phillyesq
05-30-2012, 02:45 PM
Who's to say he's not already worth the money? If you believe he wants to be paid like Fitz (which I don't), then he might not be. He is certainly worth more than the cut-rate the Steelers have tendered.

At the end of the day, the team has him in a bad position. He doesn't need to reward them for it as if to say it's OK.

He's probably worth between Stevie Johnson and DeSean Jackson. The argument can certainly be made that Wallace is a better player than Jackson, but Jackson had one more year in the league, and was given a franchise tender (as opposed to the UDFA tender). Years of service, and the corresponding leverage that goes with that service time, are a component of determining a player's value.

Oviedo
05-30-2012, 03:15 PM
Who's to say he's not already worth the money? If you believe he wants to be paid like Fitz (which I don't), then he might not be. He is certainly worth more than the cut-rate the Steelers have tendered.

At the end of the day, the team has him in a bad position. He doesn't need to reward them for it as if to say it's OK.

The team doesn't have him in a bad position or isn't using him. The team is following the process that Wallace's union agreed to. It's pretty simple and Wallace knew exactly what the options were.


Once again, the question is can Wallace win a test of wills with the team. Let me help you answer it--No! Perhaps we should ask some previous free agents their opinions.

RuthlessBurgher
05-30-2012, 03:41 PM
He is certainly worth more than the cut-rate the Steelers have tendered.

There wasn't a higher tender offer available this year. In the past, there was a higher RFA tender (which required 1st and 3rd round compensation from another team) but that was done away with in the latest CBA. The Steelers' "cut-rate" tender was the highest possible tender that any team could possibly give an RFA. That's not a slight.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
05-30-2012, 04:30 PM
At this point, this is much ado about nothing. The only thing we do not know is the state of long-term contract negotiations, and good for both sides for keeping that out of the media.

Aside from that IMO both sides have conducted themselves properly.

Wallace:

Not under contract so no obligation to attend workouts
Missed workouts are optional anyway
Has not aired his grievances in the media - that was Ike and there was nothing inflamatory in what he said

Team:

Tendered him as an RFA and waited out the offer period
No negative comments in the media

The only real question here is the value of him coming in and learning the new system, enabling him to have as much success as possible in 2012. Failure to do so will both affect the team's success and his own ability to put up big numbers. Poor numbers hampers his chances at cashing in big on his next contract. But then again, he is abiding by the terms of the CBA and reducing his risk of season ending injury.

I would like to see him return ASAP, but since he is not holding out under contract I can't begrudge him the right to do what he sees as his best option.

grotonsteel
05-30-2012, 04:49 PM
Have Steelers even offered him a contract yet? Maybe Steelers might want to see more from Mike Wallace especially after last 8 games and PO last season?

Sugar
05-30-2012, 05:04 PM
There wasn't a higher tender offer available this year. In the past, there was a higher RFA tender (which required 1st and 3rd round compensation from another team) but that was done away with in the latest CBA. The Steelers' "cut-rate" tender was the highest possible tender that any team could possibly give an RFA. That's not a slight.

I wasn't saying that the Steelers were responsible for the number. Rather, I was saying that for what he is worth, the number is "cut-rate."

ter1230_4
05-30-2012, 05:07 PM
I am not particularly impressed by Wallace's handling of the situation. He received the highest tender that a RFA can receive. The Steelers and Wallace are trying to negotiate a long term contract which is SOP for a player the Steelers want to keep that has only one year left before he can become an unrestricted free agent. Any contract that is negotiated will have to take into consideration the fact that Wallace is only entitled to receive $2.472 million this season, and will have to reflect each side's perception of what Wallace would be worth next year if he hit the open market. The Steelers also generally require some discount from the maximum potential market value, because they're not Dan Snyder and have no intention of paying like him. If Wallace really thinks that he is worth Fitzgerald money, then there is no hope for a long term contract. Wallace refusing to attend OTA's and minicamp will have absolutely no impact on what the Steelers will pay him on a long term contract, and neither would holding out of training camp. But it could very well have a negative impact on his performance this year, particularly with a brand new offense being installed. The only reason for Wallace to stay away is to keep alive the threat that he could hold out until November and still be credited with a full season. And I find that very selfish and unimpressive.

Contrast what Wallace is doing to how Lamar Woodley handled his contract situation two years ago. As you may recall, that was the uncapped season and Woodley was going into the final year fof his rookie contract. Woodley was going to make a pittance ($550K?), but because of the bizarre rules of the uncapped year the Steelers couldn't sign him to a long term extension withount paying a $40 million signing bonus. Woodley kept his mouth shut, fully participated in all activities, and had an outstanding season, all while playing for peanuts. Then he signed a long term contract with the Steelers without waiting to become a free agent, and although he received a hefty contract there is little doubt he could have gotten more by participating in the free agent market. The bottom line is that Lamar Woodley wanted to be a Pittsburgh Steeler and remain a Pittsburgh Steeler. And for that I'll always give Woodley the benefit of the doubt. This year we will find out whether Mike Wallace wants to be a Pittsburgh Steeler and remain a Pittsburgh Steeler.

Sugar
05-30-2012, 05:07 PM
The team doesn't have him in a bad position or isn't using him. The team is following the process that Wallace's union agreed to. It's pretty simple and Wallace knew exactly what the options were.


Once again, the question is can Wallace win a test of wills with the team. Let me help you answer it--No! Perhaps we should ask some previous free agents their opinions.

I would agree that the team isn't using him, because he isn't allowing them to at this point. However, they have him in the precarious position of either playing for under what he is worth or not playing at all. Perhaps that is not considered a "bad position" to you, but that's my intended meaning.

You already said that he can't win a test of wills, which further enforces my position that the kid is going to be stuck unless the Steelers end up offering a fair deal despite their advantages. I'm hopeful that will be the case since they've said publicly and repeatedly that he is in their long-term plans.

phillyesq
05-30-2012, 05:15 PM
I would agree that the team isn't using him, because he isn't allowing them to at this point. However, they have him in the precarious position of either playing for under what he is worth or not playing at all. Perhaps that is not considered a "bad position" to you, but that's my intended meaning.

You already said that he can't win a test of wills, which further enforces my position that the kid is going to be stuck unless the Steelers end up offering a fair deal despite their advantages. I'm hopeful that will be the case since they've said publicly and repeatedly that he is in their long-term plans.

His worth is defined by more than his skills/production. A large component of his worth is based on service time and the FA rules that are in place. The Steelers could easily cut his tender if they choose to on June 15 (I think that is the date). The Steelers, if they choose, can control Wallace for this season and next for roughly $12 million. So if he wants a long term deal, he should take more up front, with smaller total numbers on the backend. Otherwise, he can wait and take the risk of injury and/or decline in performance.

squidkid
05-30-2012, 05:49 PM
can the fans here that are supporting wallace by saying the steelers are not offering him fair market value and want to continue to pay him at a cutrate please inform me as to what dollar amount has the organization actually offered wallace, thus inturn making him frustrated?

Sugar
05-30-2012, 06:42 PM
can the fans here that are supporting wallace by saying the steelers are not offering him fair market value and want to continue to pay him at a cutrate please inform me as to what dollar amount has the organization actually offered wallace, thus inturn making him frustrated?

We don't know what he's being offered. We do know what the tender is and that is not fair value for his skills/production. That is all that has been offered publicly. Hopefully, the Steelers will offer the kid a fair amount if they truly see him as being important to their future plans (as they keep saying).

squidkid
05-30-2012, 09:41 PM
We don't know what he's being offered. We do know what the tender is and that is not fair value for his skills/production. That is all that has been offered publicly. Hopefully, the Steelers will offer the kid a fair amount if they truly see him as being important to their future plans (as they keep saying).

it is fair market value. the cba that wallace and his union agreed to, deemed that a player in his position would be offered 2.4 million next year if he didnt sign a new contract that the 2 sides could both agree on.
its no different than the amount offered to another player that never played one down during the same period of time as wallace. that player would also be offered 2.4 million next year. should/would that player say he underperformed his contractr and be willing to give most of it back?

Sugar
05-30-2012, 10:13 PM
it is fair market value. the cba that wallace and his union agreed to, deemed that a player in his position would be offered 2.4 million next year if he didnt sign a new contract that the 2 sides could both agree on.
its no different than the amount offered to another player that never played one down during the same period of time as wallace. that player would also be offered 2.4 million next year. should/would that player say he underperformed his contractr and be willing to give most of it back?

First of all, we don't know that Wallace ever agreed to it. My understanding is that the Steelers players were lopsidedly against the latest CBA. For reasons you stated, he is seeking a different offer because he has shown himself to be far better than the lowball rate the tender stipulates. We don't have to worry about a mythical someone who underperformed because we have a real person who has overperformed on his rookie deal.

Crash
05-30-2012, 10:16 PM
The Steelers were the ONLY team to vote against the CBA.

BURGH86STEEL
05-30-2012, 10:17 PM
it is fair market value. the cba that wallace and his union agreed to, deemed that a player in his position would be offered 2.4 million next year if he didnt sign a new contract that the 2 sides could both agree on.
its no different than the amount offered to another player that never played one down during the same period of time as wallace. that player would also be offered 2.4 million next year. should/would that player say he underperformed his contractr and be willing to give most of it back?

Wallace is worth more then 2.4 million.

squidkid
05-30-2012, 10:24 PM
Wallace is worth more then 2.4 million.

wallace's union says otherwise

BURGH86STEEL
05-30-2012, 11:20 PM
wallace's union says otherwise

Wallace is a kind of a "victim" of the circumstances that were agreed upon. That's because Wallace isn't the norm for a 3rd round pick. Not many 3rd to 7th round picks find themselves in Wallace's situation. A majority of 3rd to 7th round picks don't last with the teams where they were drafted. Very few 3rd round picks play as well as Wallace.

Walled would had been paid a lot more then 2.4 million if he had reached free agency.

Oviedo
05-31-2012, 07:52 AM
Wallace is a kind of a "victim" of the circumstances that were agreed upon. That's because Wallace isn't the norm for a 3rd round pick. Not many 3rd to 7th round picks find themselves in Wallace's situation. A majority of 3rd to 7th round picks don't last with the teams where they were drafted. Very few 3rd round picks play as well as Wallace.

Walled would had been paid a lot more then 2.4 million if he had reached free agency.

Sorry, but Mike Wallace is far from a "victim." If he keeps playing the ridiculous game he is playing, he could become a victim of his own stupidity. Not smart failing to learn the new offense being installed during a critical contract year that could make all the difference in your future. He is creating the perfect environment for Antonio Brown and Manny Sanders to have exceptional years as they master the offense which could lead to Wallace taking a step back statistically and demonstrate to the Steelers that they can do well without him and his excessive salary demands.

Ghost
05-31-2012, 08:32 AM
Wallace is a good player and his speed is certainly amazing but he is not a once in a generation type player by any means. I have full confidence the Steelers will offer him the appropriate amount based on how they judge his talents, how they can spread out the salary to not cripple the cap, and whether or not they deem his demands to be reasonable. I hope he's here for many years stretching the field but if he truely wants Fitzgerald money then no thanks.

Eich
05-31-2012, 08:36 AM
Wallace is a kind of a "victim" of the circumstances that were agreed upon. That's because Wallace isn't the norm for a 3rd round pick. Not many 3rd to 7th round picks find themselves in Wallace's situation. A majority of 3rd to 7th round picks don't last with the teams where they were drafted. Very few 3rd round picks play as well as Wallace.

Walled would had been paid a lot more then 2.4 million if he had reached free agency.

But at the same time, if he's as good as he thinks he is (like Fitz good), then why didn't a single team offer him something as a restricted free agent?

Receivers of Swan's era have to be shocked that in today's game, a 3rd year reciever like Wallace (who hasn't really accomplished anything yet and is just coming off a disappointing end to a season) could be so disappointed by earning $2.4M for playing a single season. Yeah - he's played better than other $2.4M receivers but how about waiting your turn for a big payday?

Oviedo
05-31-2012, 09:21 AM
Wallace is a good player and his speed is certainly amazing but he is not a once in a generation type player by any means. I have full confidence the Steelers will offer him the appropriate amount based on how they judge his talents, how they can spread out the salary to not cripple the cap, and whether or not they deem his demands to be reasonable. I hope he's here for many years stretching the field but if he truely wants Fitzgerald money then no thanks.

You've captured my thoughts with your statements. No way do I want to invest $10M+ is a single WR. That is a cap albatross that will hurt the team. Just look at the recent long term contracts for players that the team has signed. They didn't do any of those player wrong. It was a balance between team needs and players desires.

If Wallace's desire is to be paid among the Top 5 receivers in the game then it is my desire that the Steelers let him walk. WRs are very much a commodity in the NFL. They aren't franchise QBs and shouldn't be paid anywhere near what the QB's get for 5-7 touches a game.

Sugar
05-31-2012, 09:31 AM
wallace's union says otherwise

Wallace's Union is wrong if they indeed say that. It seems to me that the tender was set up in a generic circumstance though, not counting the production that a player has. While I don't advocate paying big paper to unproven talents, Wallace has shown that he is, indeed, one of the best in the league and should be compensated.

People keep throwing out "Fitz." Do we indeed know that he demands that kind of money or was that another rumor that people keep recycling?

squidkid
05-31-2012, 10:35 AM
Wallace's Union is wrong if they indeed say that. It seems to me that the tender was set up in a generic circumstance though, not counting the production that a player has. While I don't advocate paying big paper to unproven talents, Wallace has shown that he is, indeed, one of the best in the league and should be compensated.

People keep throwing out "Fitz." Do we indeed know that he demands that kind of money or was that another rumor that people keep recycling?

wallace has had numerous opportunities to squash the 'rumor' that he wantewd 'fitz money' but he didnt. if he truly didnt say that, and he has obviously felt alot of hatred toward him based on that statement, why would nt he come forward and vehemently deny it?

Chadman
05-31-2012, 11:40 AM
wallace has had numerous opportunities to squash the 'rumor' that he wantewd 'fitz money' but he didnt. if he truly didnt say that, and he has obviously felt alot of hatred toward him based on that statement, why would nt he come forward and vehemently deny it?

Why would he? Who does he have to justify himself to?

Us?

You think we are THAT important?

Sugar
05-31-2012, 11:56 AM
wallace has had numerous opportunities to squash the 'rumor' that he wantewd 'fitz money' but he didnt. if he truly didnt say that, and he has obviously felt alot of hatred toward him based on that statement, why would nt he come forward and vehemently deny it?

There is no winning in getting defensive about it. The team knows what his requirements are, he doesn't have to do anything for public consumption. He hasn't done anything for the public in any of this, it's all been third parties that have said things, not Mike.

IMO, that's the right way. You don't negotiate your deal in the press unless you have to.

squidkid
05-31-2012, 11:58 AM
Why would he? Who does he have to justify himself to?

Us?

You think we are THAT important?

i never said he had too and i dont think we are that important to him(just as i dont think i need to treat him like he is that important). the wallace supporters are saying he has received alot of negativity based on the report that he wanted 'fitz' money. all i said was that if wallace didnt want the negative talk, all he had to do was deny it. besides, he must have felt the need to justify himself because he immediately tweeted 'dont believe everything you read'

RuthlessBurgher
05-31-2012, 12:20 PM
i never said he had too and i dont think we are that important to him(just as i dont think i need to treat him like he is that important). the wallace supporters are saying he has received alot of negativity based on the report that he wanted 'fitz' money. all i said was that if wallace didnt want the negative talk, all he had to do was deny it. besides, he must have felt the need to justify himself because he immediately tweeted 'dont believe everything you read'

Isn't it a denial if he tweets "don't believe everything you read" immediately after the reports came out with him supposedly demanding a Fitzgeraldesque contract?

squidkid
05-31-2012, 12:55 PM
Isn't it a denial if he tweets "don't believe everything you read" immediately after the reports came out with him supposedly demanding a Fitzgeraldesque contract?

not at all.
it's a sneaky way of fooling some people into believing he never said it. why didnt he tweet 'that's a lie. i never asked for fitz money'.
it also could mean, 'dont believe everthing you read but you can bet your arse you can believe this. i do want fitz money'

Sugar
05-31-2012, 12:59 PM
not at all.
it's a sneaky way of fooling some people into believing he never said it. why didnt he tweet 'that's a lie. i never asked for fitz money'.
it also could mean, 'dont believe everthing you read but you can bet your arse you can believe this. i do want fitz money'

Why doesn't he just tweet all of his contract demands and then we can all know what's going on?

RuthlessBurgher
05-31-2012, 01:07 PM
Why doesn't he just tweet all of his contract demands and then we can all know what's going on?

I'm signing up for the Omar Khan twitter feed. :p

squidkid
05-31-2012, 01:51 PM
Why doesn't he just tweet all of his contract demands and then we can all know what's going on?

that would be nice

BURGH86STEEL
05-31-2012, 02:29 PM
Sorry, but Mike Wallace is far from a "victim." If he keeps playing the ridiculous game he is playing, he could become a victim of his own stupidity. Not smart failing to learn the new offense being installed during a critical contract year that could make all the difference in your future. He is creating the perfect environment for Antonio Brown and Manny Sanders to have exceptional years as they master the offense which could lead to Wallace taking a step back statistically and demonstrate to the Steelers that they can do well without him and his excessive salary demands.

It's not a game for Wallace. There are millions of dollars at stake and it is his career. It's not going to matter if he doesn't learn the new offense if they can't reach a contract agreement. He will be a lame duck player for the Steelers for one season. This season isn't going to make or break Wallace's career unless he's injured. There are 3 seasons worth of pretty good play in Wallace's favor. Teams know what he is or isn't capable of at this point of his career. If Brown and Sanders excel if Wallace is absent so be it. Wallace has to live with the repercussions. Those two excelling won't stop another team from pursuing Wallace based on his ability and production. Players need to fight off competition every season so that nothing new.

I keep hearing about Wallace's excessive salary demands when no now one can say for certain what Wallace requested or what the Steelers offered.

BURGH86STEEL
05-31-2012, 02:38 PM
wallace has had numerous opportunities to squash the 'rumor' that he wantewd 'fitz money' but he didnt. if he truly didnt say that, and he has obviously felt alot of hatred toward him based on that statement, why would nt he come forward and vehemently deny it?

Wallace wrote something to the effect "don't believe everything you hear" Was that not good enough?

Oviedo
05-31-2012, 03:02 PM
It's not a game for Wallace. There are millions of dollars at stake and it is his career. It's not going to matter if he doesn't learn the new offense if they can't reach a contract agreement. He will be a lame duck player for the Steelers for one season. This season isn't going to make or break Wallace's career unless he's injured. There are 3 seasons worth of pretty good play in Wallace's favor. Teams know what he is or isn't capable of at this point of his career. If Brown and Sanders excel if Wallace is absent so be it. Wallace has to live with the repercussions. Those two excelling won't stop another team from pursuing Wallace based on his ability and production. Players need to fight off competition every season so that nothing new.

I keep hearing about Wallace's excessive salary demands when no now one can say for certain what Wallace requested or what the Steelers offered.

If another team wants to pay Wallace $9-10M then good for them. I don't want it to be the Steelers. First, because we can't even next year unless we yet again restructure more contracts and push problems one more year into the future. But also because that is excessive for a single WR.

The 5 highest paid WRs and what happened last year:

1. V. Jackson, $11M, Team missed play offs, Ranked #44 in receptions with 60
2. W. Welker, $9.5M, Team in Super Bowl, Ranked #1 in receptions with 122
3. R. Bowe, $9.44M, Team missed play offs, Ranked #10 in receptions with 81
4. B. Marshall, $9.3M, Team missed play offs, Ranked #10 in receptions with 81
5. S. Holmes, $7.75M, Team missed play offs, Ranked #62 in receptions with 51 (remember how many thought losing him would really hurt us)

If you look at the highest paid WRs then it seems only one of the top 5 made a difference for his team. The others got lots of money but no results. WRs, like RBs, are a commodity in today's NFL. They are easy to get. Wallace was ranked #26 in catches last year with 72 catches, heck there were 2 TEs in the top 5. IMO, being ranked #26 in receptions last season does not earn you a Top 5 money contract. Especially when your team appears to be ready to run more this upcoming season. Just because other teams have overpaid for WRs doesn't mean we should because of some notion of "market value." Most of the teams that have paid those big dollars for WRs are LOSERS or marginally successful because they screw up their cap for a guy who may get 6-7 touches per game.

Wallace would be replaced. I don't think Wallace set his value and won't until we see whether his late season swoon last year was an illusion or the real Mike Wallace.

squidkid
05-31-2012, 03:02 PM
Wallace wrote something to the effect "don't believe everything you hear" Was that not good enough?

read 5 posts above for your answer

RuthlessBurgher
05-31-2012, 03:49 PM
we can't even next year unless we yet again restructure more contracts and push problems one more year into the future.

Casey Hampton, Larry Foote, and Will Allen come off the books at the end of this season. None of them will likely be re-signed because we have McLendon & Ta'Amu to replace Hampton, Sylvester & Spence to replace Foote, and Allen really wasn't worth anything in the first place (a 4th safety who never sees the field on defense and is supposed to be a special teams stalwart except I never see him making any plays on special teams either). That frees up a few bucks right there.

Sugar
05-31-2012, 03:53 PM
The 5 highest paid WRs and what happened last year:

1. V. Jackson, $11M, Team missed play offs, Ranked #44 in receptions with 60
2. W. Welker, $9.5M, Team in Super Bowl, Ranked #1 in receptions with 122
3. R. Bowe, $9.44M, Team missed play offs, Ranked #10 in receptions with 81
4. B. Marshall, $9.3M, Team missed play offs, Ranked #10 in receptions with 81
5. S. Holmes, $7.75M, Team missed play offs, Ranked #62 in receptions with 51 (remember how many thought losing him would really hurt us)

If you look at the highest paid WRs then it seems only one of the top 5 made a difference for his team.

Well, you also have to look at who was throwing to those guys. You have Tom Brady and then??? A WR is one kind of weapon on the field. All of those receivers are very talented, but a bullet is only as good as the guy firing the gun.

I have a feeling that all of this will be much ado about nothing in a couple months. That said, I respect Wallace's position and support his wanting to do better for himself after honoring that rookie contract that he completely outplayed.

Oviedo
05-31-2012, 04:25 PM
Casey Hampton, Larry Foote, and Will Allen come off the books at the end of this season. None of them will likely be re-signed because we have McLendon & Ta'Amu to replace Hampton, Sylvester & Spence to replace Foote, and Allen really wasn't worth anything in the first place (a 4th safety who never sees the field on defense and is supposed to be a special teams stalwart except I never see him making any plays on special teams either). That frees up a few bucks right there.

And on the horizon we need to retain Pouncey, Antonio Brown, whoever starts opposite Ike Taylor, etc. Obviously except for Pouncey none of those guys are going to be hugely expensive but they will merit decent raises. Pouncey will likely get Top 3 money for NFL Centers.

Crash
05-31-2012, 04:26 PM
I think Brown can earn HUGE money. He's more complete than Wallace, has better hands, and is also a top flight returner.

Oviedo
05-31-2012, 04:30 PM
Well, you also have to look at who was throwing to those guys. You have Tom Brady and then??? A WR is one kind of weapon on the field. All of those receivers are very talented, but a bullet is only as good as the guy firing the gun.

I have a feeling that all of this will be much ado about nothing in a couple months. That said, I respect Wallace's position and support his wanting to do better for himself after honoring that rookie contract that he completely outplayed.

I agree the thrower is a big part of the equation and Wallace had a great franchise QB throwing to him and only ranked #26 in receptions. We couldn't replace that for less than $9-10M?????????

Crash
05-31-2012, 04:31 PM
He's a deep threat despite what he says. Unless he comes in and shows a more rounded game he's not getting the money he wants from this team.

He can either compromise and take less to stay and win, or he can be the mega-paid WR on a team like Jacksonville.

His choice.

Sugar
05-31-2012, 05:02 PM
I agree the thrower is a big part of the equation and Wallace had a great franchise QB throwing to him and only ranked #26 in receptions. We couldn't replace that for less than $9-10M?????????

In Wallace's case, he wasn't the only major weapon on the field either. However, his deep threat presence allowed others to get their touches.