PDA

View Full Version : Big Ben on Wallace: Steelers will miss him, Dolphins are lucky



hawaiiansteel
04-05-2013, 04:01 PM
Big Ben on Wallace: Steelers will miss him, Dolphins are lucky

Posted by Michael David Smith on April 5, 2013

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/wallaceroethlisberger.jpg?w=250

Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger thinks the Dolphins are going to get their money’s worth from their five-year, $60 million contract with receiver Mike Wallace.

Roethlisberger told TheFinsiders.com that Wallace is a complete receiver, and much more than just a deep threat with great speed.

“Mike is way more,” Roethlisberger said. “It’s to Mike’s credit. Mike is really focused on becoming a better receiver. So he’s focused on his route running. He’s focused on running out-routes, and curl-routes, and in-routes and doing all the little things that’s required to become a great wide receiver. That’s why he, to me, is one of the best in the league, because he not only has that speed – he can run by anybody – but he can run routes and he can get open. That’s why we’re going to miss him, and the Dolphins are lucky to have him.”

Roethlisberger added that Wallace will be a strong presence in the Dolphins’ locker room.

“He’s a great teammate, obviously a great player, but I thought he was even better off the field. Just a great guy, great teammate. Miami is very lucky to have him because he’s a great player,” Roethlisberger said.

Wallace will need to be every bit as great as Roethlisberger says he is to be worth the money the Dolphins are paying him.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/05/big-ben-on-wallace-steelers-will-miss-him-dolphins-are-lucky/

Sugar
04-05-2013, 04:13 PM
I saw this earlier on nfl.com and just can't wait to see how people spin this one. :rolleyes:

Captain Lemming
04-05-2013, 04:22 PM
Two rings w/o Wallace, zero with.
Not really concerned,
Ben cried what we less Burress go and won championships without him.

But Ben makes Sportcenter highlights way more with Wallace, so I guess it's a big loss. :)

ramblinjim
04-05-2013, 04:29 PM
Losing a 1000 yard receiver that is starting to come into his own is never easy but he was just at a number that Steelers couldn't pay. I'm sure that the FO would have loved to have had him back too.

williar
04-05-2013, 04:47 PM
I actually agree with Ben. However, I wish he would have went on to explain how an offense can look so damn pathetic with Wallace, Brown, Sanders and Cotchery.

Captain Lemming
04-05-2013, 04:51 PM
Top salaried receivers are simply overpaid period.

Cardinals had two receivers excellent receivers when we played them in the SB.

Kept the better one and gave elite money and has no ring, on a team with deteriorating talent.
They let the lesser one go and he and his reasonable salary excelled in the playoffs and just won the SB.

Wallace aint no Fitz and the fins aint gonna do jack squat.

Dolphins take a 15 mil cap hit next year for the "privilege" of having Wallace on their roster.
Wallace wanted the big bucks and he got his. I got no hate for him, that is his priority.

But the fins are stupid.

Before agreeing with Ben, do any of you wanna screw our cap like that?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1567256-miami-dolphins-will-regret-mike-wallaces-giant-contract-for-years-to-come

supersteeler
04-05-2013, 05:09 PM
I'll miss him too, but we can't cry over spilled milk. The Steelers have to find ways to replace what he did for us over the years it might just be in a different way.

No worries Ben, you still have the great Spaeth, Paulson and CO., plus your 600 Yrd. back who needs oxygen after two runs. Gilbert got your back and the Steelers will focus on the defense in the draft, you'll be alright son!

phillyesq
04-05-2013, 05:15 PM
I saw this earlier on nfl.com and just can't wait to see how people spin this one.


Yeah, the article came from a Dolphins blog. Of course Ben was going to say nice things about Wallace.

Mister Pittsburgh
04-05-2013, 06:57 PM
I won't miss him. He better run by people cause if anyone is near him on any other route than the go route he won't make an effort. Ben should thank Wallace for two or three of his interventions this past year.

Sugar
04-05-2013, 11:46 PM
Yeah, the article came from a Dolphins blog. Of course Ben was going to say nice things about Wallace.

That's what I was thinking too. There are Steelers fans that I know that will think it's some kind of coded way of Ben talking down the FO or something. In reality, he was just saying some nice things about a friend.

JDSteeler
04-05-2013, 11:48 PM
Stop the BS Ben...we all saw what Wally was about, and he has no hands...

Wally will be exposed as a fraud...he just stole 60m from the fish...

Can't wait until Wally shows up in Pittsburgh!!!!!

JD

Big Ern McCracken
04-06-2013, 07:08 AM
I actually agree with Ben. However, I wish he would have went on to explain how an offense can look so damn pathetic with Wallace, Brown, Sanders and Cotchery.
Amen brother!!

aggiebones
04-06-2013, 08:28 AM
"Mike is really focused on becoming a better receiver. So he’s focused on his route running. He’s focused on running out-routes, and curl-routes, and in-routes and doing all the little things that’s required to become a great wide receiver."

So then why was he such a pu$$y last year. We all know he's talented. But he was a big reason for our collapse last year.

supersteeler
04-06-2013, 12:14 PM
I actually agree with Ben. However, I wish he would have went on to explain how an offense can look so damn pathetic with Wallace, Brown, Sanders and Cotchery.

So if our offense was pathetic with two of of our TD' leaders Wallace and Miller plus the above, how will it be without Wallace and Miller for part of the season.





Stop the BS Ben...we all saw what Wally was about, and he has no hands...
Wally will be exposed as a fraud...he just stole 60m from the fish...

Can't wait until Wally shows up in Pittsburgh!!!!!

JD

Check the Stats on dropped passes by all NFL receivers, there are several that had more drops than Wallace.

DBR96A
04-07-2013, 03:20 AM
I actually agree with Ben. However, I wish he would have went on to explain how an offense can look so damn pathetic with Wallace, Brown, Sanders and Cotchery.

Because the running game was worthless, and Roethlisberger suffered a freak injury to his throwing shoulder/rib, and he had to come back earlier than recommended because the team was suddenly down to its third-string QB, and opposing defenses took away all the short receiving options and forced the passing game to become more vertical, which didn't work because a) Roethlisberger was scattershot playing through said throwing shoulder/rib injury, and b) the offensive line suddenly dealt with a litany of injuries themselves late in the season. Death by a thousand cuts. Not to mention the fact that some of the players weren't good fits for Todd Haley's system, which requires versatile WRs who can run more than just "go" routes consistently well (sorry, Mike Wallace), and athletic offensive linemen who excel at "zone" blocking (sorry, Max Starks and Willie Colon).

NorthCoast
04-07-2013, 09:34 AM
Because the running game was worthless, and Roethlisberger suffered a freak injury to his throwing shoulder/rib, and he had to come back earlier than recommended because the team was suddenly down to its third-string QB, and opposing defenses took away all the short receiving options and forced the passing game to become more vertical, which didn't work because a) Roethlisberger was scattershot playing through said throwing shoulder/rib injury, and b) the offensive line suddenly dealt with a litany of injuries themselves late in the season. Death by a thousand cuts. Not to mention the fact that some of the players weren't good fits for Todd Haley's system, which requires versatile WRs who can run more than just "go" routes consistently well (sorry, Mike Wallace), and athletic offensive linemen who excel at "zone" blocking (sorry, Max Starks and Willie Colon).

This.

Fix the run game and there will be no need to worry about the pass offense regardless of who is playing WR. Teams are more and more building their defense to stop the pass. This is the time to find a RB (and OL) that can make them pay.

Captain Lemming
04-07-2013, 01:25 PM
Check the Stats on dropped passes by all NFL receivers, there are several that had more drops than Wallace.

Is that a SERIOUS reply? "there are several receivers" who dropped more passes? Really?
You are suggesting that all but a few receivers have worse hands than Wallace? THAT is a defense?
He is getting PAID the big bucks for THAT?

He forced the Fins to to give him a deal that counts 14 mil against the cap next year.

I am not saying we are better without him.

I am saying that we are better without him if we have to PAY HIM what he wanted. We trade ONE talented receiver for a reduction in our overall talent. It happens every time.

ANYONE who was FOR signing him, would YOU pay that and DESTROY any hope of keeping other talent for years to come?

Please tell me WHAT TOP PAID RECEIVER HAS WON A SB IN RECENT YEARS PERIOD? It does not happen.

Elite receivers are overpaid to the detriment of their teams. Wallace aint even elite.

I gave you the example earier-

Two Card receivers one got paid, one moved on and got a "reasonable" contract.

The "elite" guy's team is WORSE.
The lesser receiver has a ring.

YOU CANNOT COMPETE WITH STUPID OWNERS WHO OVERPAY RECEIVERS AND WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. PERIOD.

Anyone who thinks we should have given Wallace what he wanted, please prove me wrong by citing examples of the last time signing a receiver to a big contract led to a championship? Rice or Irvin? 1990s? Last DECADE? Zero.

Shawn
04-07-2013, 04:00 PM
A QB makes receivers, not the other way around. Brady made Deion Branch look all world. When was the last time a WR made a QB? Ben will throw for 4000 yards+ this season without Wallace. I would rather spend he money shaping up our D.

Eich
04-08-2013, 12:12 PM
A QB makes receivers, not the other way around. Brady made Deion Branch look all world. When was the last time a WR made a QB? Ben will throw for 4000 yards+ this season without Wallace. I would rather spend he money shaping up our D.

I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with such a blanket statement in all cases. The QB is certainly the more important position to have a franchise player in. But I think Anquan Boldin helped make Flacco more than the other way around.

That said, we did win a ring with Hines, Cedric Wilson and Randel El. And we can win another without Wallace. I hope that Antonio turns out to be our next Hines Ward. Big shoes to fill despite the fact that a certain board member always referred to Hines as a "dime a dozen" receiver.

Captain Lemming
04-08-2013, 12:48 PM
I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with such a blanket statement in all cases. The QB is certainly the more important position to have a franchise player in. But I think Anquan Boldin helped make Flacco more than the other way around.

That said, we did win a ring with Hines, Cedric Wilson and Randel El. And we can win another without Wallace. I hope that Antonio turns out to be our next Hines Ward. Big shoes to fill despite the fact that a certain board member always referred to Hines as a "dime a dozen" receiver.

Arizona had two receivers.
When they had the SAME QB, NOBODY put Boldin anywhere near Fitz in terms of talent.Z
"IF" the receiver makes the QB, what is the problem with Zona?

All of a sudden EVERYBODY want a Boldin.

True boldin made great catches, in traffic. No different than Swann back in the day. Does that mean Bradshaw gets no credit?

But the dude has been a Raven for three seasons, and NEVER made Flacco a great QB.

Flacco was just as inaccurate as ever WITH Boldin during most of his time as a Raven.
Boldin was always a strong, physical, player. He could not fix Flacco the scrub, just as the superior Fitz cant fix the scrubs he deals with today.

Truth is, Flacco got hot,for a handful of games. That was the difference with this run.

As Steeler fan we are haters, we just have a hard time giving Flacco the credit he deserves.

feltdizz
04-08-2013, 01:01 PM
As Steeler fan we are haters, we just have a hard time giving Flacco the credit he deserves.

Bingo... .

Captain Lemming
04-08-2013, 01:03 PM
Arizona had two receivers.
When they had the SAME QB, NOBODY put Boldin anywhere near Fitz in terms of talent.Z
"IF" the receiver makes the QB, what is the problem with Zona?

All of a sudden EVERYBODY want a Boldin.

True boldin made great catches, in traffic. No different than Swann back in the day. Does that mean Bradshaw gets no credit?

But the dude has been a Raven for three seasons, and NEVER made Flacco a great QB.

Flacco was just as inaccurate as ever WITH Boldin during most of his time as a Raven.
Boldin was always a strong, physical, player. He could not fix Flacco the scrub, just as the superior Fitz cant fix the scrubs he deals with today.

Truth is, Flacco got hot,for a handful of games. That was the difference with this run.

As Steeler fan we are haters, we just have a hard time giving Flacco the credit he deserves.

Ben has had two receivers of superior natural talent. Burress and Wallace.
Neither contributed to his two rings.

Brady had ONE receiver who might ne the most talented of all time.
Brady had ridiculous NUMBERS with Randy Moss in his prime.

But the likes of Troy Brown, not Randy Moss contibuted to his 3 rings.

Good receivers help, but I find no correlation in this decade between "great" individual receiver talent and winning.

The best formula is a stable of very good receivers ala GB winning SB team, than giving megabucks to one extreme talent

Oviedo
04-08-2013, 01:12 PM
Ben has had two receivers of superior natural talent. Burress and Wallace.
Neither contributed to his two rings.

Brady had ONE receiver who might ne the most talented of all time.
Brady had ridiculous NUMBERS with Randy Moss in his prime.

But the likes of Troy Brown, not Randy Moss contibuted to his 3 rings.

Good receivers help, but I find no correlation in this decade between "great" individual receiver talent and winning.

The best formula is a stable of very good receivers ala GB winning SB team, than giving megabucks to one extreme talent

$$$$ the key is having LOTS of weapons that fit your offense not a prima dona who gets lots of media attention because that is only one player. That is why I don't think we miss Wallace as much as fans are hoping so they can claim they were right. Thgrows to players like Wallace are not high probability of success throws. How probability of success throws are short to mid range where you have WRs who can get yards after the catch, move the chains and consume time off the clock as you wear down the opposing defense which makes them less effective late in the game.

Captain Lemming
04-08-2013, 01:39 PM
$$$$ the key is having LOTS of weapons that fit your offense not a prima dona who gets lots of media attention because that is only one player. That is why I don't think we miss Wallace as much as fans are hoping so they can claim they were right. Thgrows to players like Wallace are not high probability of success throws. How probability of success throws are short to mid range where you have WRs who can get yards after the catch, move the chains and consume time off the clock as you wear down the opposing defense which makes them less effective late in the game.

This answers why NE never entered the Wallace sweepstakes.
Everybody said he is the missing piece there.
But word was out Wallace wanted all the bank he could get and NE doesnt play that game.
Heck they got Moss at a bargain.

Smart teams dont compete with stupid teams for elite receiver talent.

Boldin just got overpaid, as did Wallace, as did Megatron, as did Fitz, so on and so forth. Welker walks and it aint no big deal.

NE signed Brandon Lloyd to a three year deal worth 12 mil last year when people thought they might go after Wallace as a restricted free agent.
Wallace got 11 mil AS A SIGNING BONUS, before his annual salary. He makes as much this year as Lloyd does through the course of his 3 year deal.
Wallace gets 30 mil total in his first two years. And has the dropsies.

The Fins screwed up their cap royally.

That is why the fins are the Fins and the Pats contend annually.

Pro-Wallace people, you cannot view this in a vacuum.
The question is not whether you would like to have Wallace, it is WOULD YOU WANT TO PAY WALLACE.

NJ-STEELER
04-08-2013, 07:50 PM
A QB makes receivers, not the other way around. Brady made Deion Branch look all world. When was the last time a WR made a QB? Ben will throw for 4000 yards+ this season without Wallace. I would rather spend he money shaping up our D.

usually yes

but whats rivers done without his 6'5 deep threat where he would chuck the ball into his vicinity and he's make a play on it. he also doesnt have a in his prime 6'5 elite downfield TE

Chadman
04-08-2013, 07:55 PM
ANYONE who was FOR signing him, would YOU pay that and DESTROY any hope of keeping other talent for years to come?


Can't speak for everyone, but Chadman wants to just point out that his argument FOR Wallace was always tied in with the argument AGAINST signing Brown.

Given that the 'reports' suggest the Steelers were close to agreeing a deal with Wallace but the numbers were out as far as guarenteed money goes, and the 'reports' suggest the Steelers offer in 2012 was not that much different financially to the one that Antonio Brown signed, Chadman would say that the Steelers signed THE WRONG WR.

Brown is going to cost the Steelers upwards of $6.5m in 2013. In 2014 he's up near $9.5m. There simply is not any evidence, AT ALL, that Brown is worth near that money. More concerning is that he regressed AFTER being paid. Wallace regressed as a result of not being paid. Wallace's body of work is far superior to our new #1 WR, yet we let him walk & keep the guy that has never exceeded him. That doesn't make sense, and compared to paying Wallace a couple of million more, is a bad business decision.

Another point to make on Wallace, as a "Pro-Wallace" guy, Chadman always took exception to hearing that Wallace was 'stupid' or 'dumb' to not accept the offer the Steelers gave him. Wallace & his agent always contested he was worth more. And the open market suggests he was right. It wasn't stupid, or dumb. He knew his worth in the NFL, and got paid like it. Signing for less than you are worth for a team is stupid & dumb, because regardless of how good you are, or how successful you've been- the team does not always show the same kind of loyalty. Ask James Harrison.

In the end, the Steelers could have paid Wallace in 2012, not even at the expense of Brown (who would be on a RFA tender this season- same cost as Sanders), and the WR corp would not require any addition through the upcoming draft.

Brown smiles a lot & seems a nice guy. He's also the same guy that went to the media & said there was internal strife at the Steelers, which has been refuted by his GM. Wallace has never publicly complained about his contract treatment or complained about his team mates. The hate toward Wallace on this board is at times comical. Even in his 'bad year' in 2013, he outperformed the board favourite Brown. Chadman is, as yet, to find anyone to say the Steelers need to upgrade from Brown, yet everyone wanted to upgrade from Wallace. The logic was baffling. Still is.

Don't wish Wallace any bad luck- Chadman hopes he has a fine career. But, as some posters would want you to believe, Chadman doesn't hope Wallace succeeds & Brown fails just to justify his position. But at this point, it's safe to say that Chadman has great concerns about the strength of the WR's currently in Pittsburgh.

Slapstick
04-08-2013, 08:21 PM
That doesn't make sense, and compared to paying Wallace a couple of million more, is a bad business decision.

In the end, the Steelers could have paid Wallace in 2012, not even at the expense of Brown (who would be on a RFA tender this season- same cost as Sanders), and the WR corp would not require any addition through the upcoming draft.


I normally respect your opinion, but this is kind of garbage...

Wallace wanted a deal like he got in Miami...he wasn't getting that from the Steelers...end of story...

Also, just because Wallace got the money that he wanted, it does not mean that he (or ANY WR) is actually worth that much money...which is, I believe, Lemming's point...

Chadman
04-08-2013, 08:35 PM
I normally respect your opinion, but this is kind of garbage...

Wallace wanted a deal like he got in Miami...he wasn't getting that from the Steelers...end of story...

Also, just because Wallace got the money that he wanted, it does not mean that he (or ANY WR) is actually worth that much money...which is, I believe, Lemming's point...


There were reports Wallace wanted "top 10'" money, and there were reports he was close to signing but the sticking point was the guarenteed money. Believe what you prefer, but had the Steelers & Wallace been able to agree on the guarenteed portion of the contract offer- he would have signed.

As to if he is 'worth' the money he is on- market forces decide that. Is Ben worth $100m? Is Flacco worth more? If Flacco had gone into FA, would he be worth more than what he signed for? Obviously Wallace & his agent had some idea what HE was worth in FA. You can't say he isn't worth it, if there were people willing to pay it.

Chadman understands Lemming's point that he doesn't believe WR's are worth that kind of money. That's ok, not going to dispute that. But if we are about to argue that Wallace isn't worthy of the money in his contract, surely we can argue the worth of the guy the Steelers did pay.

Sugar
04-08-2013, 09:21 PM
Chadman understands Lemming's point that he doesn't believe WR's are worth that kind of money. That's ok, not going to dispute that. But if we are about to argue that Wallace isn't worthy of the money in his contract, surely we can argue the worth of the guy the Steelers did pay.

I've wondered about this too. So many people want to talk about how AB was the more "complete" WR, but that didn't seem to translate into much. I just hope that AB can handle the big boy pants this year, because the Steelers will need him to.

Captain Lemming
04-09-2013, 02:02 AM
Can't speak for everyone, but Chadman wants to just point out that his argument FOR Wallace was always tied in with the argument AGAINST signing Brown.

Given that the 'reports' suggest the Steelers were close to agreeing a deal with Wallace but the numbers were out as far as guarenteed money goes, and the 'reports' suggest the Steelers offer in 2012 was not that much different financially to the one that Antonio Brown signed, Chadman would say that the Steelers signed THE WRONG WR.

Brown is going to cost the Steelers upwards of $6.5m in 2013. In 2014 he's up near $9.5m. There simply is not any evidence, AT ALL, that Brown is worth near that money. More concerning is that he regressed AFTER being paid. Wallace regressed as a result of not being paid. Wallace's body of work is far superior to our new #1 WR, yet we let him walk & keep the guy that has never exceeded him. That doesn't make sense, and compared to paying Wallace a couple of million more, is a bad business decision.

Another point to make on Wallace, as a "Pro-Wallace" guy, Chadman always took exception to hearing that Wallace was 'stupid' or 'dumb' to not accept the offer the Steelers gave him. Wallace & his agent always contested he was worth more. And the open market suggests he was right. It wasn't stupid, or dumb. He knew his worth in the NFL, and got paid like it. Signing for less than you are worth for a team is stupid & dumb, because regardless of how good you are, or how successful you've been- the team does not always show the same kind of loyalty. Ask James Harrison.

In the end, the Steelers could have paid Wallace in 2012, not even at the expense of Brown (who would be on a RFA tender this season- same cost as Sanders), and the WR corp would not require any addition through the upcoming draft.

Brown smiles a lot & seems a nice guy. He's also the same guy that went to the media & said there was internal strife at the Steelers, which has been refuted by his GM. Wallace has never publicly complained about his contract treatment or complained about his team mates. The hate toward Wallace on this board is at times comical. Even in his 'bad year' in 2013, he outperformed the board favourite Brown. Chadman is, as yet, to find anyone to say the Steelers need to upgrade from Brown, yet everyone wanted to upgrade from Wallace. The logic was baffling. Still is.

Don't wish Wallace any bad luck- Chadman hopes he has a fine career. But, as some posters would want you to believe, Chadman doesn't hope Wallace succeeds & Brown fails just to justify his position. But at this point, it's safe to say that Chadman has great concerns about the strength of the WR's currently in Pittsburgh.

Chadman, your points are always ased on the "assumption" that Wallace wanted "a little" more than Brown got. Some say he wanted Fitz money too. We have no idea what his demands were.
This we do know- The Steelers offerred Wallace "first". They "settled" for Brown.
Wallace signs and Brown would never get paid.

The only reason they locked Brown up early was WALLACE wanted more than the Steelers would dish out to a receiver.
Browns value went from "we'll deal with it when we have to", to we might have NOBODY at the position. THAT IS WHY BROWN GOT PAID.

You assume his demands were "close" to what Brown got? You cite years two (6.5 mil) and three (9.5 mil) of Browns deal. Wallace will make more than that 17.5 mil in ONE SEASON (2014). That is followed by cap hits of 12.05, 13.65, and 13.65

You can say he wanted "just a little more" than Brown got, others say he wanted Fitz money.
What we know is "what he got" and if you want to be mad with the team we can assume that this was at least the number he was looking for. We now have a figure.
Do you want ONE RECEIVER counting SEVENTEEN MILLION against the cap next year? 12 million plus against the cap EVERY YEAR save for ONE YEAR?

The Steelers never picked Brown over Wallace. Wallace wanted more than the Steelers or any smart team would give him and priced himself out of our team.

You argue that, Wallace DID get paid big bucks despite what his haters said. Who cares.

That aint my beef, I'm not surprised at all he got paid. I dont hate him for it.

Wallace aint the stupid one, anybody who pays Wallace that kind of coin is stupid because it will HINDER success dues to the cap hit.

If you want to honestly defend Wallace as a Steeler, say loud and clear "yes I would have signed him to THAT deal." Dont play with imaginary scenarios that have have no basis in reality.

If not, you have no case whatsoever to be critical.

Captain Lemming
04-09-2013, 02:18 AM
There were reports Wallace wanted "top 10'" money, and there were reports he was close to signing but the sticking point was the guarenteed money. Believe what you prefer, but had the Steelers & Wallace been able to agree on the guarenteed portion of the contract offer- he would have signed.

As to if he is 'worth' the money he is on- market forces decide that. Is Ben worth $100m? Is Flacco worth more? If Flacco had gone into FA, would he be worth more than what he signed for? Obviously Wallace & his agent had some idea what HE was worth in FA. You can't say he isn't worth it, if there were people willing to pay it.

Chadman understands Lemming's point that he doesn't believe WR's are worth that kind of money. That's ok, not going to dispute that. But if we are about to argue that Wallace isn't worthy of the money in his contract, surely we can argue the worth of the guy the Steelers did pay.

I'll admit I was disappointed with Brown and Wallace last year.

But would I RATHER pay Brown than give Wallace more than "our entire receiving roster" will get next year.

Captain Lemming
04-09-2013, 02:44 AM
There were reports Wallace wanted "top 10'" money, and there were reports he was close to signing but the sticking point was the guarenteed money. Believe what you prefer, but had the Steelers & Wallace been able to agree on the guarenteed portion of the contract offer- he would have signed.

No need to guess, what did it take for him to sign? Top 3 money.

Top 10 money would be an insult, after all he is capable of having a 2000 yard season if he does say so himself. :)

Slapstick
04-09-2013, 06:22 AM
There were reports Wallace wanted "top 10'" money, and there were reports he was close to signing but the sticking point was the guarenteed money. Believe what you prefer, but had the Steelers & Wallace been able to agree on the guarenteed portion of the contract offer- he would have signed.

As to if he is 'worth' the money he is on- market forces decide that. Is Ben worth $100m? Is Flacco worth more? If Flacco had gone into FA, would he be worth more than what he signed for? Obviously Wallace & his agent had some idea what HE was worth in FA. You can't say he isn't worth it, if there were people willing to pay it.

Chadman understands Lemming's point that he doesn't believe WR's are worth that kind of money. That's ok, not going to dispute that. But if we are about to argue that Wallace isn't worthy of the money in his contract, surely we can argue the worth of the guy the Steelers did pay.

Market forces do not decide how much something is "worth"...they decide how much money someone is required to pay for something...that is capitalism...

When shopping for a car, I may have to pay thousands more for a Lexus than I would for a Honda Accord...but, when comparing the two side-by-side, the Lexus may not be "worth" the thousands of extra dollars required...it may be in my best interest to buy the Honda and be able to use the money in my budget for other things down the road...

Chadman
04-09-2013, 09:15 AM
Market forces do not decide how much something is "worth"...they decide how much money someone is required to pay for something...that is capitalism...

When shopping for a car, I may have to pay thousands more for a Lexus than I would for a Honda Accord...but, when comparing the two side-by-side, the Lexus may not be "worth" the thousands of extra dollars required...it may be in my best interest to buy the Honda and be able to use the money in my budget for other things down the road...

You're talking 'value for money' which is, essentially, a perspective.

Wallace's worth is several millions of dollars. The market set the number. If there had been no market for Wallace, he'd have signed for significantly less, his worth being whatever number he would have signed for.

Now, it could be argued he'd be better value for money on a significantly lower contract number..

Your Lexus/Honda example is a good one. The 'worth' of the Lexus, in real dollars, is more than the Honda. Why? It's more desirable, more popular, people are willing to pay it's worth. But the Honda might provide better bang for the buck. But it's worth will still be lower.

Chadman
04-09-2013, 09:53 AM
Chadman, your points are always ased on the "assumption" that Wallace wanted "a little" more than Brown got. Some say he wanted Fitz money too. We have no idea what his demands were.
This we do know- The Steelers offerred Wallace "first". They "settled" for Brown.
Wallace signs and Brown would never get paid.

The only reason they locked Brown up early was WALLACE wanted more than the Steelers would dish out to a receiver.
Browns value went from "we'll deal with it when we have to", to we might have NOBODY at the position. THAT IS WHY BROWN GOT PAID.

You assume his demands were "close" to what Brown got? You cite years two (6.5 mil) and three (9.5 mil) of Browns deal. Wallace will make more than that 17.5 mil in ONE SEASON (2014). That is followed by cap hits of 12.05, 13.65, and 13.65

You can say he wanted "just a little more" than Brown got, others say he wanted Fitz money.
What we know is "what he got" and if you want to be mad with the team we can assume that this was at least the number he was looking for. We now have a figure.
Do you want ONE RECEIVER counting SEVENTEEN MILLION against the cap next year? 12 million plus against the cap EVERY YEAR save for ONE YEAR?

The Steelers never picked Brown over Wallace. Wallace wanted more than the Steelers or any smart team would give him and priced himself out of our team.

You argue that, Wallace DID get paid big bucks despite what his haters said. Who cares.

That aint my beef, I'm not surprised at all he got paid. I dont hate him for it.

Wallace aint the stupid one, anybody who pays Wallace that kind of coin is stupid because it will HINDER success dues to the cap hit.

If you want to honestly defend Wallace as a Steeler, say loud and clear "yes I would have signed him to THAT deal." Dont play with imaginary scenarios that have have no basis in reality.

If not, you have no case whatsoever to be critical.




Ok, a couple of things.

Firstly, there was a few reports, or if you prefer- speculated reports- that the Steelers & Wallace were close to a deal, but the sticking point was the guarenteed money portion of the deal. If we are willing to assume the "Wallace wants top 10 money" speculated reports are potentially correct, then the reports saying Wallace was close to signing a deal must be equally as relevant.

Now, again, reports say that the money being talked about was similar to Brown's eventual contract. Most likely, it was more. But regardless- it's just a way of potentially putting a value from the Steelers on the position. Now, whatever the potential Wallace/Steelers deal was, financially, must have been somewhat acceptable if it is true Wallace was close to signing. this means- and this is the important part- that what Wallace wanted, and what the Steelers were willing to pay, were not THAT far apart. Particularly if, as Chadman said earlier, the sticking point wasn't the overall contract value, but the guarenteed money side of the deal.

So the first part of Chadman's belief/argument is this- if the two sides were close, then YES, Chadman would have been happy having Wallace sign 'for a little bit more' than what the Steelers had him valued at. Why? Because he made the team better (2012 season was marred by ill feeling & not a true indication of the impact he had the previous seasons with the Steelers, despite still having more yards than the new #1 WR).

The 2nd part of Chadman's belief/argument is this- if Brown is worth $48m to the Steelers, Wallace is worth more than that. Why? Because he has evidence on his side. Brown is, to this point, a one year wonder. Wallace has 3 solid to very good seasons, plus 2012, to his resume. So if Brown is a $48m type of guy, then Wallace is a $55m type of guy. (Just plucking numbers- don't use this as evidence against Chadman's argument).

If Wallace had simply been allowed to walk, and Brown had signed a contract in keeping with his production, or Heaven forbid- been allowed to play on his RFA tender in 2013- then Chadman wouldn't have an argument outside of "wish we could have kept Wallace". But the Steelers WERE willing to pay up big for a WR. And if the choice was Brown's $48m compared to either a 'similar' deal for Wallace, or something upwards of $55m- then Chadman would take Wallace over Brown. Better player, better resume, bigger impact.

Fact is- if they had paid Wallace instead of Brown, the WR's in 2013 would be.. wait for it... Wallace, Brown & Sanders. It would have given the Steelers an additional 2 years to evaluate Brown's level of play, and therefore his actual value as a WR. At this point- can anyone guarentee that Brown is a better WR than Sanders? Because guess what- next season, there's still not a lot of additional cap room, Sanders won't be a RFA, and Brown will be costing $9.5m or so. So the team is now tied to Brown, regardless of his level of play, and if 2013 is like 2012, Brown's value is more around a quarter of his cap hit.

The structure of the Miami deal for Wallace is all over the place, and not one that Chadman would support given the Steelers roster structure. But the overall cap value of Wallace at Miami is probably not that far over where Chadman would have gone to. Particularly as the Steelers have proven they were willing to go so high for Brown.

Now, some people seem to want to take the whole Wallace contract thing personally, and get quite upset talking about him. Not sure exactly where the level of hate is coming from, but so be it. All Chadman wants people to consider is that, if you are willing to claim Wallace's deal was unrealistic, that his demands were insane & the Dolphins screwed themselves- then consider what the Steelers have done with Brown & put it in perspective. At least Wallace is a proven deep threat that has a track record of making plays over his career. There is the very real chance that in 2014, the Steelers are left with an overpaid former 6th round possession WR, who's contract is going to be eternally restructured.

Chadman
04-09-2013, 09:58 AM
Market forces do not decide how much something is "worth"...they decide how much money someone is required to pay for something...that is capitalism...

When shopping for a car, I may have to pay thousands more for a Lexus than I would for a Honda Accord...but, when comparing the two side-by-side, the Lexus may not be "worth" the thousands of extra dollars required...it may be in my best interest to buy the Honda and be able to use the money in my budget for other things down the road...

Better example- if the #1 Fullback in the Draft is the greatest run blocking FB of all time, an absolute can't miss prospect who will give years of solid production to his future employer, will he get drafted over the raw, fast, inexperienced, amazing athlete at WR that played for the biggest college, stands 6'4" 200lbs & runs a 4.20?

No?

That's because the game changing WR is 'worth' more than the reliable FB, even though the 6th round FB might give better value..

feltdizz
04-09-2013, 10:01 AM
You're talking 'value for money' which is, essentially, a perspective.

Wallace's worth is several millions of dollars. The market set the number. If there had been no market for Wallace, he'd have signed for significantly less, his worth being whatever number he would have signed for.

Now, it could be argued he'd be better value for money on a significantly lower contract number..

Your Lexus/Honda example is a good one. The 'worth' of the Lexus, in real dollars, is more than the Honda. Why? It's more desirable, more popular, people are willing to pay it's worth. But the Honda might provide better bang for the buck. But it's worth will still be lower.

All it takes is one team... it's not like Wallace had 4 or 5 teams fighting over his services and driving up the price. The Phins outbid the Phins... that doesn't mean he is WORTH that much.

Slapstick
04-09-2013, 11:31 AM
You're talking 'value for money' which is, essentially, a perspective.

Wallace's worth is several millions of dollars. The market set the number. If there had been no market for Wallace, he'd have signed for significantly less, his worth being whatever number he would have signed for.

Now, it could be argued he'd be better value for money on a significantly lower contract number..

Your Lexus/Honda example is a good one. The 'worth' of the Lexus, in real dollars, is more than the Honda. Why? It's more desirable, more popular, people are willing to pay it's worth. But the Honda might provide better bang for the buck. But it's worth will still be lower.

Of course it's a perspective...it's difficult to establish true "worth" in a closed market with only 32 possible buyers...relative worth can only be established, and the Dolphins established that Mike Wallace was worth more to them than any other team...and, there are several factors that can drive this, including salary cap, stadium attendance, etc....

As for the Lexus, people are willing to pay the price, but that does not necessarily reflect "worth"...

Slapstick
04-09-2013, 11:34 AM
Better example- if the #1 Fullback in the Draft is the greatest run blocking FB of all time, an absolute can't miss prospect who will give years of solid production to his future employer, will he get drafted over the raw, fast, inexperienced, amazing athlete at WR that played for the biggest college, stands 6'4" 200lbs & runs a 4.20?

No?

That's because the game changing WR is 'worth' more than the reliable FB, even though the 6th round FB might give better value..

Unfortunately, that's not a better example...

You are comparing apples (WR) to oranges (FB)...in this case, your premium draft pick is spent primarily on the position and not the player...

My comparison would have been better if I had used a Toyota Camry instead of a Honda Accord...

Chadman
04-09-2013, 11:50 AM
Unfortunately, that's not a better example...

You are comparing apples (WR) to oranges (FB)...in this case, your premium draft pick is spent primarily on the position and not the player...

My comparison would have been better if I had used a Toyota Camry instead of a Honda Accord...

You're probably right....

Slapstick
04-09-2013, 11:57 AM
The bottom line is this:

We can choose to second guess the Steelers' FO all we want...

At this point, it will be up to Antonio Brown to justify the contract that the Steelers signed him to...based upon last year, I can understand the trepidation...

It is also up to Mike Wallace to justify the contract that the Dolphins signed him to...personally, I don't care one way or the other, but based upon last year and the second half of 2011, there should be quite a bit of trepidation on the part of the Dolphins and their fans...

Sugar
04-09-2013, 12:34 PM
"Fair price- It's not what you say, it's what the market will bear." - Leonard Smalls (His friends call him Lenny)

feltdizz
04-09-2013, 12:54 PM
So were Jamarcus and Darius wworth what the Raiders paid for them?

Is the market REALLY deciding the price when only 1 team makes a crazy offer?

B&GinNC
04-09-2013, 01:04 PM
I read somewhere that Wallace actually took LESS money from the Dolphins than what Minnesota offered. He was the biggest prize in free agency in terms of offensive weapons. Kind of like this year's draft... very few sure fire stars, but SOMEBODY'S got to go first. Wallace was in the right place at the right time, and he had a smart agent who put him there.

feltdizz
04-09-2013, 01:08 PM
I read somewhere that Wallace actually took LESS money from the Dolphins than what Minnesota offered. He was the biggest prize in free agency in terms of offensive weapons. Kind of like this year's draft... very few sure fire stars, but SOMEBODY'S got to go first. Wallace was in the right place at the right time, and he had a smart agent who put him there.

I didn't know the Vikes offered him money... thanks for the heads up. Kind of changes the whole "one team offered him money" argument I was using. Well, upon further inspection I'm gonna say the Vikes deal is bull #@$t. The only one on record is Mike's Dad... and since he signed an hour after FA started I doubt they really had a hard offer from MN.
I heard weather played a big part in his decision to head south

Captain Lemming
04-09-2013, 02:09 PM
You're talking 'value for money' which is, essentially, a perspective.

Wallace's worth is several millions of dollars. The market set the number. If there had been no market for Wallace, he'd have signed for significantly less, his worth being whatever number he would have signed for.

Now, it could be argued he'd be better value for money on a significantly lower contract number..

Your Lexus/Honda example is a good one. The 'worth' of the Lexus, in real dollars, is more than the Honda. Why? It's more desirable, more popular, people are willing to pay it's worth. But the Honda might provide better bang for the buck. But it's worth will still be lower.

Yes, let's follow this thinking. The one element missing is a "budget".

Most people would need to give up other so much for a Lexus that THEY DONT DO IT.

I would liken Wallace more to a Porsche. Crazy Fast, yet too expensive for a typical family

Given the average budget, MOST PEOPLE are better served getting a Camry or Accord, which is why no Lexus or Porsche model come close to the the sales of the Camry.

Everyone in the NFL is on the same fixed "budget".

Just like a Porshe to a family with a limited fixed income the sacrifices to all other areas on life.

With sacrifices everywhere else your overall quality of life is less, but you have a fast car.

You never get to go on vacation (the SB) because your budget was blown on one fast shiny car.

Captain Lemming
04-09-2013, 02:17 PM
"Fair price- It's not what you say, it's what the market will bear." - Leonard Smalls (His friends call him Lenny)

Very true.
The market sets the price of certain comic books at 1 million dollars.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7320818/Batman-beats-Superman-early-comic-book-sell-for-more-than-1m.html

Just because the "market" will bear it, doesnt mean it is the best use of funds.
Never in the 2000s has paying a receiver like a QB been worth the investment if the goal is to win a championship.

That is why Wallace got paid by the Fins not us.

Slapstick
04-09-2013, 02:45 PM
"Fair price- It's not what you say, it's what the market will bear." - Leonard Smalls (His friends call him Lenny)

Exactly.

Now, whether or not you get your money's worth from that fair price is another matter entirely...

ikestops85
04-09-2013, 03:44 PM
I didn't know the Vikes offered him money... thanks for the heads up. Kind of changes the whole "one team offered him money" argument I was using. Well, upon further inspection I'm gonna say the Vikes deal is bull #@$t. The only one on record is Mike's Dad... and since he signed an hour after FA started I doubt they really had a hard offer from MN.
I heard weather played a big part in his decision to head south

It was widely reported that the Vikes made the best offer but Wallace wanted the warm climate ... hence the signing with the Fins. I think I also heard there was a third team in the bidding but it was also in a cold climate so Wallace didn't really care.

I don't have a problem with what Wallace got paid. I would have loved to have kept him on the team but we couldn't afford him. What I have a problem with is so many bashing the guy's talent. He's got it ... loads of it. Why hate on the guy just because he got paid what he thought he would?

So if the question is whether Wallace was worth that much then I have to say "No". But then I don't think Troy is worth what we are paying him, or Woodley, or Timmons, or Ike, or Brown. I don't even think what they will pay Ben in his next contract will be worth it. What teams are slowly ending up with are a few superstars and the rest of the team are scrubs because that is the only way to work everything with the salary cap.

When one player ends up eating 15 - 20% of your salary cap like some of the QBs or even receivers in the league do it throws everything out of whack. The Steelers are usually pretty good about staying out of that game until the last few years. We would never make anybody the highest paid for his position then we started doing it for Troy and Harrison. That seemed to open the floodgates as we handed out big contracts to Ike, Woodley, Timmons, Brown and even Miller.

As much as I would hate it, because I like all those players I've mentioned, I think we need to start letting some of these guys go even if they are in their prime. We need to build as a team ... not as individual players. Work for signing a team full of average to above average players instead of one with some stars and the rest of them scrubs.

Sugar
04-09-2013, 03:48 PM
Just like a Porshe to a family with a limited fixed income the sacrifices to all other areas on life. With sacrifices everywhere else your overall quality of life is less, but you have a fast car. You never get to go on vacation (the SB) because your budget was blown on one fast shiny car.

The family that has a Porsche has an everyday vacation. :D

Captain Lemming
04-09-2013, 03:52 PM
Firstly, there was a few reports, or if you prefer- speculated reports- that the Steelers & Wallace were close to a deal, but the sticking point was the guarenteed money portion of the deal. If we are willing to assume the "Wallace wants top 10 money" speculated reports are potentially correct, then the reports saying Wallace was close to signing a deal must be equally as relevant.

Now, again, reports say that the money being talked about was similar to Brown's eventual contract. Most likely, it was more. But regardless- it's just a way of potentially putting a value from the Steelers on the position. Now, whatever the potential Wallace/Steelers deal was, financially, must have been somewhat acceptable if it is true Wallace was close to signing. this means- and this is the important part- that what Wallace wanted, and what the Steelers were willing to pay, were not THAT far apart. Particularly if, as Chadman said earlier, the sticking point wasn't the overall contract value, but the guarenteed money side of the deal.

Where do these "leaks" come from?
Whether it is the Steelers or Wallaces camp "leaks" serve a purpose.
To "spin" public opinion.
They are meaningless....what does "close" mean specifically?
Until a signature is on the dotted line, this means nothing.

We KNOW one thing and one thing only:
WE KNOW WHAT IT TOOK FOR WALLACE TO SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE.
It aint close to what Brown got.


So the first part of Chadman's belief/argument is this- if the two sides were close, then YES, Chadman would have been happy having Wallace sign 'for a little bit more' than what the Steelers had him valued at.
But we dont KNOW what that number is Chadman. What was the Steelers "value" for Wallace?
If that I "a little more than Brown, I'm with you. We BOTH think that DID offer a little more than Brown. But we dont know.
What I do know is what it took for him to sign, and I DONT want to pay THAT.


The 2nd part of Chadman's belief/argument is this- if Brown is worth $48m to the Steelers, Wallace is worth more than that. Why? Because he has evidence on his side. Brown is, to this point, a one year wonder. Wallace has 3 solid to very good seasons, plus 2012, to his resume.

Again you just specualated that we DID offer Wallace more so what is the problem?


So if Brown is a $48m type of guy, then Wallace is a $55m type of guy. (Just plucking numbers- don't use this as evidence against Chadman's argument). If Wallace had simply been allowed to walk, and Brown had signed a contract in keeping with his production, or Heaven forbid- been allowed to play on his RFA tender in 2013- then Chadman wouldn't have an argument outside of "wish we could have kept Wallace". But the Steelers WERE willing to pay up big for a WR. And if the choice was Brown's $48m compared to either a 'similar' deal for Wallace, or something upwards of $55m- then Chadman would take Wallace over Brown. Better player, better resume, bigger impact.

I believe this is the core flaw in your logic and my only point that MIGHT sway you.
Do you realize that Browns deal is LONGER than Wallace's?
You are looking at the total sizes of the deals, not the cost per season.
They are not close my friend.

Wallace makes 12 mil average, Brown is at 7.1

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/miami-dolphins/mike-wallace/

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/antonio-brown/

Browns deal aint nothing special, Wallace is top three.
Unless we make a free agent splash we will pay less for ALL THE RECEIVERS ON OUR TEAM than Wallace gets in 2014.


Fact is- if they had paid Wallace instead of Brown, the WR's in 2013 would be.. wait for it... Wallace, Brown & Sanders. It would have given the Steelers an additional 2 years to evaluate Brown's level of play, and therefore his actual value as a WR. At this point- can anyone guarentee that Brown is a better WR than Sanders? Because guess what- next season, there's still not a lot of additional cap room, Sanders won't be a RFA, and Brown will be costing $9.5m or so. So the team is now tied to Brown, regardless of his level of play, and if 2013 is like 2012, Brown's value is more around a quarter of his cap hit.

Yes, and if Wallace had signed we would have that.
We can fantasize all we want about what could have been. That is what Colbert tried to do.
Wallace chose to pursue a deal that makes him a top 3 paid receiver.
Wallace wanted to get his fair market value, the market overvalues talented receiver so he went elsewhere
THAT is why we dont have what you describe. It was Wallace's choice.
Pretending he would have signed for millions less annually doesnt change that.


The structure of the Miami deal for Wallace is all over the place, and not one that Chadman would support given the Steelers roster structure. But the overall cap value of Wallace at Miami is probably not that far over where Chadman would have gone to. Particularly as the Steelers have proven they were willing to go so high for Brown.

But as I have proven Brown deal is not anywhere near Wallace so the premise is flawed.
The only thing we "know" Wallace would accept is what he got.


Now, some people seem to want to take the whole Wallace contract thing personally, and get quite upset talking about him. Not sure exactly where the level of hate is coming from, but so be it. All Chadman wants people to consider is that, if you are willing to claim Wallace's deal was unrealistic, that his demands were insane & the Dolphins screwed themselves- then consider what the Steelers have done with Brown & put it in perspective. At least Wallace is a proven deep threat that has a track record of making plays over his career. There is the very real chance that in 2014, the Steelers are left with an overpaid former 6th round possession WR, who's contract is going to be eternally restructured.

Steeler fans want what is best for the Steelers so they have no love for players who leave their beloved team for more money. Kinda easy to understand really.
For many players it's a job, period. OK by me that is reality.

This is my impression, which is fine:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc

But just as some fans have unrealistic expectations of players, others imagine players to be more charitable than they are because they like the player.

Nothing I have seen Wallace actually "DO" tells me that he was not gonna go for his full market value. Perhaps weather played a part too. In your 20s a single millionaire in Miami? Pretty sweet deal.

Captain Lemming
04-09-2013, 04:13 PM
The family that has a Porsche has an everyday vacation. :D

Nice.
If The Fins goal is to be on ESPN highlights all the time.....every week is a Superbowl with Wallace. :)

Chadman
04-09-2013, 06:15 PM
Arguing 'absolutes' against 'speculation' is giving Chadman a headache.

Yes, Wallace is overpaid by the Dolphins. Yes, Brown is overpaid by the Steelers.


I believe this is the core flaw in your logic and my only point that MIGHT sway you.
Do you realize that Browns deal is LONGER than Wallace's?
You are looking at the total sizes of the deals, not the cost per season.
They are not close my friend.

Wallace makes 12 mil average, Brown is at 7.1


This, however- was a good point.

Sugar
04-10-2013, 09:46 AM
Steeler fans want what is best for the Steelers so they have no love for players who leave their beloved team for more money. Kinda easy to understand really.
For many players it's a job, period. OK by me that is reality.

You've made several good points. However, I wouldn't try to tell other fans who they love. I've been a fan of the Steelers since I was able to know what football was. I've followed the team and pulled for them during a lot of dry years as well as the good ones. I love talking about the team are reading about the latest going on. That said, it chaps me a bit to have another fan telling me in essence what players I can and cannot like. Yes, I want to see the Steelers win. I also appreciate what Mike Wallace has done here and have an affinity for him as a player whether he plays for Pittsburgh or not. It's the same with James Harrison or any of my favorite players that leave the team. I don't lose my love for those players because of the economics of the game.

Captain Lemming
04-10-2013, 06:48 PM
You've made several good points. However, I wouldn't try to tell other fans who they love. I've been a fan of the Steelers since I was able to know what football was. I've followed the team and pulled for them during a lot of dry years as well as the good ones. I love talking about the team are reading about the latest going on. That said, it chaps me a bit to have another fan telling me in essence what players I can and cannot like. Yes, I want to see the Steelers win. I also appreciate what Mike Wallace has done here and have an affinity for him as a player whether he plays for Pittsburgh or not. It's the same with James Harrison or any of my favorite players that leave the team. I don't lose my love for those players because of the economics of the game.

You miss my point.
I was addressing the question about why many fans hate players who move to greener pastures.
I AGREE WITH YOU myself, as a fellow fan who doesnt hate a player for leaving.
Heck I dont blame anybody for doing that especially if they got WAY MORE money.
As I said it's their job, given the opportunity I might do the same.
I know not all fans resent players who leave, I should have been more clear.

Here is my personal POV. Not expecting agreement just my POV.

I personally dont wish departing players success either.
Not out of resentment towards them.
Even when I disagree (see the threads I posted saying we must sign Harrison) I "hope" our team made the right choice.
Just as I expect no loyalty from players who move on, I feel no feelings of loyalty toward players.

It is like when I want our team to draft someone, and they draft someone I dont like instead.
I want to be wrong, I want the guy I preferred to fail.

I HOPE that Steeler choices are vindicated whether or not I agreed with them.

I would LOVE for Miami to regret the day they signed Wallace because he did not live up to expectations.
No hate personally for Wallace.
My perfect scenario is that an underperforming Wallace makes big bank at the expense of a rival team with a HUGE smile on his face. :)

Heck I appreciate Santonios SB performance big time. He didnt even walk he was traded. Still I DONT want to see him excel, not out of resentment, I want the Steeler to be right.

I feel no sense of loyalty or affection for individual players. I do enjoy what individual players do to help the Steelers succeed.

When they move on, my feelings for them remain on the B&G jersey they took off.