PDA

View Full Version : Mike Wallace wants to be paid like Vincent Jackson, not Larry Fitzgerald



hawaiiansteel
07-28-2012, 09:09 PM
Wallace wants to be paid like Vincent Jackson, not Fitzgerald

Posted by Evan Silva on July 28, 2012

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/mike-wallace-pic.jpg?w=157

Matt Barrows of the Sacramento Bee published a story in late March stating that Steelers unsigned restricted free agent receiver Mike Wallace was targeting Larry Fitzgerald money in long-term contract talks. The widely held immediate reaction was that Wallace had overvalued himself. Fitzgerald signed an eight-year, $120 million contract last August. His deal included $50 million guaranteed.

On Friday night, however, Alan Robinson of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review wrote that Wallace’s asking price is more in line with the five-year, $55.555 million contract signed by Bucs receiver Vincent Jackson during the spring. Jackson’s deal contains $26 million guaranteed.

And that’s a big difference.

Fitzgerald’s average annual value is $15 million, whereas Jackson’s is a more affordable $11.1 million. And Jackson got a lot less of his value guaranteed.

So while common perception has continued to be that Wallace wants to be paid like Fitz, his monetary demands may not be quite so exorbitant. Wallace is entering his age-26 season and commands heavy defensive attention even when he isn’t catching passes, opening up the field for others. Jackson and Fitzgerald do the same, but they are both 29.

The Steelers are expected to listen to trade offers for Wallace, and Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has “guessed” that he might only cost a fourth-round pick. If the monetary price has come down, too, then perhaps a team looking for a playmaker will be willing to pay those costs, and the receiver nicknamed “60 Minutes” will be playing ball in a different locale in 2012.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

Snatch98
07-28-2012, 09:21 PM
I don't find that to be a unreasonable number honestly. He's worth that sort of contract and I hope we pay him.

JDSteeler
07-28-2012, 10:12 PM
Snatch98...Ur way off!!

Wallace is all but gone. He aint a STEELER!!

The Steelers reaction from Rooney, to Colbert, to MT, confirm the height of displeasure
they are harboring for him at this time.

I think, no, I know Wallace is SCARED!!! He finished the 2nd half of last season averaging less than
5 receptions for 60 yards per game. (that's a guess, but I think I'm close), and I believe he wants to
be paid before everyone finds out he"s really not THAT GOOD!!!!!!!!

And it appears he doesn't care if he's a STEELER or not, and that fine...its a business.

Wallace and his dumb@$$ agent are holding out, knowing that the past hold-outs
have gotten nowhere until they report to the team.

Wallace just watched Brown sign a contract right under his nose. Wallace looks
as dumb as a bag of rocks!

Let this selfish, little b!tch find another QB as good as Ben...

I'm done with him on or off the team!! If he"s on this team, it's just for 2012,
and then he's gone!!!

FU Wallie!!!

JD

BradshawsHairdresser
07-28-2012, 10:28 PM
Well, I'd like to see Wallace return, if even for a year or two. With him playing, I think our receiving corps is the best in the league.

Do I think he'll return? I'm feeling less optimistic by the hour.

Can't blame the Steelers for their position, but I can't be too hard on Wallace either. If he was already under contract, that would be another story.

Bottom line, I think the Steelers will be OK even if he doesn't come back. But I sure hope he does.

My advice would be, "Mike, get your butt into camp. At this point, I can't see how you improve your position by continuing to hold out."

Sugar
07-28-2012, 10:31 PM
I don't find that to be a unreasonable number honestly. He's worth that sort of contract and I hope we pay him.

I'm with you on this one. Hopefully, they get a deal done. While the Steelers can win without him, they are a better team with him.

Slapstick
07-28-2012, 10:46 PM
I'd rather have him report and deactivate him if he's not going to play than trade his rights for a 4th round pick...

Slapstick
07-28-2012, 10:48 PM
Also, Jackson's contract is set up rather strangely and not in a way that the Steelers can duplicate...

Jackson's $26 million guaranteed is ALL SALARY in the first two years, because the Bucs have SO much cap space...afte those two years, there is no prorated signing bonus, so he can be cut without penalty...

RuthlessBurgher
07-28-2012, 11:11 PM
Also, the total worth of Jackson's contract is $55,555,555. For those of you counting at home, that would be ocho cincos. :p

RuthlessBurgher
07-28-2012, 11:13 PM
Snatch98...Ur way off!!

Wallace is all but gone. He aint a STEELER!!

The Steelers reaction from Rooney, to Colbert, to MT, confirm the height of displeasure
they are harboring for him at this time.

I think, no, I know Wallace is SCARED!!! He finished the 2nd half of last season averaging less than
5 receptions for 60 yards per game. (that's a guess, but I think I'm close), and I believe he wants to
be paid before everyone finds out he"s really not THAT GOOD!!!!!!!!

And it appears he doesn't care if he's a STEELER or not, and that fine...its a business.

Wallace and his dumb@$$ agent are holding out, knowing that the past hold-outs
have gotten nowhere until they report to the team.

Wallace just watched Brown sign a contract right under his nose. Wallace looks
as dumb as a bag of rocks!

Let this selfish, little b!tch find another QB as good as Ben...

I'm done with him on or off the team!! If he"s on this team, it's just for 2012,
and then he's gone!!!

FU Wallie!!!

JD

Wow...compared to you, squidkid comes off as Wallace's best friend. JD is FROOOOOTHING AT THE MOUTH LIKE A CRAZED DOG awfully early this season.

flippy
07-29-2012, 04:01 AM
Why would we trade him for a 4th when we could get a 3rd when he leaves after next season anyways?

Oviedo
07-29-2012, 08:28 AM
Why would we trade him for a 4th when we could get a 3rd when he leaves after next season anyways?

I wouldn't trade him for anything less than a #2. Let him come in late and then wear his a$$ out and have him run a whole lot of routes across the middle. I would put as much wear on those tires as we can and then let him go out and try to sell that. IMO it will also expose that he isn't the WR he has been made out to be just as JD Steeler said and his price will come down significantly.

JDSteeler
07-29-2012, 10:20 AM
Wow...compared to you, squidkid comes off as Wallace's best friend. JD is FROOOOOTHING AT THE MOUTH LIKE A CRAZED DOG awfully early this season.

I wouldn't say that I'm quite there yet, but I can feel my dislike for Wallie building up!!!! LOL!!

JD

steelz09
07-29-2012, 10:41 AM
Yea.... trading for a fourth. why? I wouldn't take less than a 2nd if we're talking draft picks only.

Personally, I still think a deal might get done. Just a hunch. It's a tough call though. The thing that sucks is if Wallace gets a contract and Sanders does extremely well, you can pretty much guarantee that Sanders will NOT get a new contract. There would be too much money invested in WRs.

Or, do you roll the dice with Emmanuel Sanders and let Wallace walk next year? From a skill perspective, I'm ok with that but Sanders hasn't proven he could stay healthy for an entire season. The Steelers might just wait it out. That seems to make the most sense IMO.

squidkid
07-29-2012, 11:18 AM
this makes no sense at all. a fourth round pick? c'mon, we will get a third when he leaves anyways.
let him sit out until whenever, use him for the time he is here, and franchise him next year if he doesnt have a change of heart about his value or how he values this organization. maybe he will see the light and sign a longterm deal with us. some humility and maturity may set in.
oh, and just for you ruth, wallace can eat a bag of crap.;)

RuthlessBurgher
07-29-2012, 11:24 AM
just for you ruth, wallace can eat a bag of crap.;)

:lol: Well played, sir.

steelz09
07-29-2012, 11:26 AM
This 4th round talk makes me think of the Santonio trade. Granted, his Twitter comments dug his own grave in Pittsburgh and I understand that the FO just wanted to "wash their hands" of the situation but still... why give up a talent like that for so little. The Raiders, Redskins, Eagles, etc should be on speed dial for situations like that. Why settle for something too low? These guys are good players and are young. The Pats seem to get 1st round picks for washed up players...

squidkid
07-29-2012, 11:41 AM
This 4th round talk makes me think of the Santonio trade. Granted, his Twitter comments dug his own grave in Pittsburgh and I understand that the FO just wanted to "wash their hands" of the situation but still... why give up a talent like that for so little. The Raiders, Redskins, Eagles, etc should be on speed dial for situations like that. Why settle for something too low? These guys are good players and are young. The Pats seem to get 1st round picks for washed up players...

someone will get hurt in camp or the preseason and be desperate for a wr. sit tight and wait for the phone to ring.

SidSmythe
07-29-2012, 12:33 PM
I'd Only Take a 1st round pick, nothing less.
Other than that, let him play this season and hopefully help us win another ring.
If he goes, we'd get a 3rd...or we could sign him to an extension.

flippy
07-29-2012, 12:37 PM
Jackson had to sit out a season to get his payday. Makes sense Wally's following his footsteps.

steelz09
07-29-2012, 02:30 PM
Jackson had to sit out a season to get his payday. Makes sense Wally's following his footsteps.

I don't know if it makes sense but it worked for Jackson. Don't you think as a competitor and an NFL player, Wallace would rather be playing the game this year rather than watching it on the TV especially in the prime of his career?

It's not like Wallace didn't have any offers. He could play 1 year for us for close to 3 million (oh, the horrors). Or, he could have had job security and guaranteed money by signing a 5 year, 50 million dollar contract and he turned that down. The ball was in his court and he chose not to pursue either.

squidkid
07-29-2012, 02:34 PM
I don't know if it makes sense but it worked for Jackson. Don't you think as a competitor and an NFL player, Wallace would rather be playing the game this year rather than watching it on the TV especially in the prime of his career?

It's not like Wallace didn't have any offers. He could play 1 year for us for close to 3 million (oh, the horrors). Or, he could have had job security and guaranteed money by signing a 5 year, 50 million dollar contract and he turned that down. The ball was in his court and he chose not to pursue either.

one would think, but obviously his desire to make X amount of dollars is more important to him.