PDA

View Full Version : Steelers Offered Wallace $7 million Per Season...



phillyesq
02-20-2013, 11:00 AM
... according to Peter King.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130219/peter-king-nfl-franchise-tag/

I thought that Stevie Johnson was a decent comp for Wallace due to the fact that he was not a UFA, and he got a bit more than that.

phillyesq
02-20-2013, 11:13 AM
And for more on Wallace, here is a report that he will be Miami's top target:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-dolphins/fl-omar-kelly-dolphins-0220-20130219,0,5495647.story

I hope that Wallace gets a huge deal. The more he is paid, the better chance the Steelers have of getting a third round comp pick.

Mister Pittsburgh
02-20-2013, 11:31 AM
I hope that Wallace gets a huge deal. The more he is paid, the better chance the Steelers have of getting a third round comp pick.

I fully agree. And the same goes for Keenan Lewis...if we aren't going to come to an agreement with him I hope someone pays him a lot. Mendenhall as well.

If we could somehow pry those two second round picks, plus a 3rd or 4th from Miami, for our pick at 17 I would jump for joy.

Steelhere10
02-20-2013, 01:30 PM
Yep blame Wallace when the Steelers low balled him, but Fat boy get A60 million dollar deal. What happened to the alleged 10 million per.

Sugar
02-20-2013, 01:40 PM
If Wallace can make up to $5 Mil more per year AND work in a tax friendly state like FL he would be crazy to even talk to the Steelers anymore. Sure, the 'phins will probably not sniff a playoff game in the next 5 years, but you never know...

Oviedo
02-20-2013, 01:40 PM
Yep blame Wallace when the Steelers low balled him, but Fat boy get A60 million dollar deal. What happened to the alleged 10 million per.

Or perhaps despite the "man love" from some fans the organization realized that Wallace has a very perishable skillset given one injury eliminates pretty much the only thing he does excel in and that is run fast.

Perhaps because they are in close contact with him day in and day out they sensed that maybe he was a prima dona who if he didn't get his way would "lose focus" or put and give less than full effort.

Or perhaps they made it very clear that they would not negotiate if he held out and got the sense despite everyone in the world knowing how they do business he would do exactly the opposite of what they asked him to do.

Or perhaps they were simply using standard negotiating tactics of establishing a base from which to negotiate from however when Wallace did exactly what they told him not to do and not show up negotiations could not continue.

After what they saw in 2012 I think they were pretty much right on the money.

papillon
02-20-2013, 01:43 PM
The article interviewed a GM and asked if he would pay Wallace like Vincent Jackson (55mil for 5 years, 26 guaranteed) and his response was not even close. Now we can debate what he means by not even close, but a 35mil for 5 years, 15 guaranteed I think would fall into the not even close category. Inferring from that the Steelers probably offered Wallace a good contract that he eschewed for greater riches (he wanted Jackson money and this guy is saying no way). It only takes one loose cannon to overpay for a guy, so Wallace will probably come out of it with 9-10 mil per year contract, because someone will be willing to take a chance.

What will be interesting is if Wallace doesn't get anything better than 7mil per year for 5 years, what he will do?

Pappy

Oviedo
02-20-2013, 01:49 PM
The article interviewed a GM and asked if he would pay Wallace like Vincent Jackson (55mil for 5 years, 26 guaranteed) and his response was not even close. Now we can debate what he means by not even close, but a 35mil for 5 years, 15 guaranteed I think would fall into the not even close category. Inferring from that the Steelers probably offered Wallace a good contract that he eschewed for greater riches (he wanted Jackson money and this guy is saying no way). It only takes one loose cannon to overpay for a guy, so Wallace will probably come out of it with 9-10 mil per year contract, because someone will be willing to take a chance.

What will be interesting is if Wallace doesn't get anything better than 7mil per year for 5 years, what he will do?

Pappy

Don't think his ego would let him make less than Brown. I think that the internal rivalry is part of Wallace's problem and always have.

supersteeler
02-20-2013, 01:51 PM
How do we know Kings information is accurate?.... about 7 mill a year

They gave Antonio Brown a 5yr. deal woth 42.5 million, if you divide that by 5 thats 8.5 mill a year. I would think they offered Wallace something similar to that.

papillon
02-20-2013, 01:57 PM
How do we know Kings information is accurate?.... about 7 mill a year

They gave Antonio Brown a 5yr. deal woth 42.5 million, if you divide that by 5 thats 8.5 mill a year. I would think they offered Wallace something similar to that.

We don't have any way of knowing what was offered. I'm only taking what I read in the article and extrapolating the information and making some inferences from that information. I tend to agree with you that they probably offered him at least Antonio Brown money. On the other hand, maybe they saw something in Antonio that indicated that he's a better all around receiver and he was worth more, again, we don't know, but its fun to try and figure it all out. :p

Pappy

phillyesq
02-20-2013, 02:35 PM
We don't have any way of knowing what was offered. I'm only taking what I read in the article and extrapolating the information and making some inferences from that information. I tend to agree with you that they probably offered him at least Antonio Brown money. On the other hand, maybe they saw something in Antonio that indicated that he's a better all around receiver and he was worth more, again, we don't know, but its fun to try and figure it all out. :p

Pappy

We don't know and likely never will, but it would be interesting to see. I'd have to think they offered Wallace more than Brown, especially since Brown had 1 year left on his rookie deal and could have been retained for the tender amount this year.

Gus
02-20-2013, 03:24 PM
I love that we signed Antonio, but really we had him under contract for last year at less than $1 million. Basically, we signed him for a 4 year extension at $10.4 million. We could have signed him this off season for the same deal he signed last year and got an extra year out of the deal. I generally have faith in the front office, but I don't like these kind of deals.

Also, I'm not one of the many who think Omar khan is a genious. He has kept the team together by mortgaging the future. Unfortunately, it has now caught up with us.

Northern_Blitz
02-20-2013, 03:39 PM
Talking about contracts on a $/year basis in the NFL is useless.

In a league where you can be cut at the drop of a hat, you really need to look at signing bonus and distribution of $$$ to understand if a contract is good.

For example two 3 year contracts:

--------------Contract 1-------Contract 2
Bonus----------$15M------------$10M
Year1-------------5M---------------5M
Year2-------------6M---------------7M
Year3-------------7M--------------11M
----------------------------------------
Total------------$33M------------$33M
Total/year-------$11M------------$11M

Same on a $/year basis. But contract 1 is way better if you get cut. I think agents don`t point this stuff out to their clients too much because they get paid on the total value of the contract, not the amount that actually gets paid to clients. I`d guess that there is a big different in the NFL.

Chadman
02-20-2013, 06:56 PM
Or perhaps despite the "man love" from some fans the organization realized that Wallace has a very perishable skillset given one injury eliminates pretty much the only thing he does excel in and that is run fast.

Perhaps because they are in close contact with him day in and day out they sensed that maybe he was a prima dona who if he didn't get his way would "lose focus" or put and give less than full effort.

Or perhaps they made it very clear that they would not negotiate if he held out and got the sense despite everyone in the world knowing how they do business he would do exactly the opposite of what they asked him to do.

Or perhaps they were simply using standard negotiating tactics of establishing a base from which to negotiate from however when Wallace did exactly what they told him not to do and not show up negotiations could not continue.

After what they saw in 2012 I think they were pretty much right on the money.


So if 2012 is proof they got Wallace right, is it also proof they got Brown wrong?

Oviedo
02-20-2013, 08:55 PM
So if 2012 is proof they got Wallace right, is it also proof they got Brown wrong?

Why, because he got hurt? That's like saying they made a mistake with Ben because he got hurt last year and then wasn't 100% after that. Do you think Brown was 100% when he came back. How many big returns were called back because of penalties. Something Wallace seemed in capable of doing despite his supposed otherworldly speed. They signed the more complete player as Brown's over 2,000 yards in combined yardage proved in 2011. They signed the player they wanted long term and it will prove to be the right decision.

Chadman
02-20-2013, 09:01 PM
Why, because he got hurt? That's like saying they made a mistake with Ben because he got hurt last year and then wasn't 100% after that. Do you think Brown was 100% when he came back. How many big returns were called back because of penalties. Something Wallace seemed in capable of doing despite his supposed otherworldly speed. They signed the more complete player as Brown's over 2,000 yards in combined yardage proved in 2011. They signed the player they wanted long term and it will prove to be the right decision.


Or.... the Steelers signed a guy based on 1 year's production, then after signing watched his production & impact dip significantly, while mental errors & ball control issues arose in his game.

2 sides of every coin.

And if you are going to use the "Wallace could get injured & therefore isn't worth the contract money" line, you can't absolve Brown because he... got injured.

birtikidis
02-20-2013, 09:55 PM
Browns overall performance would have been much more impressive if there weren't so many penalties on special teams. I got to the point where I didn't want him to try to return anything

Sugar
02-20-2013, 11:12 PM
Why, because he got hurt? That's like saying they made a mistake with Ben because he got hurt last year and then wasn't 100% after that. Do you think Brown was 100% when he came back. How many big returns were called back because of penalties. Something Wallace seemed in capable of doing despite his supposed otherworldly speed. They signed the more complete player as Brown's over 2,000 yards in combined yardage proved in 2011. They signed the player they wanted long term and it will prove to be the right decision.

Because of the teams investment in Brown, I hope your right. So far, the jury is definitely out.