Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: does this change anyones opinion of wallace now?

  1. #21
    I agree 100%

  2. #22
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Spaghetti View Post
    squidkid-

    please show me one fan that is "hoping wallace gets 10-14 million per year". At least try and be factual instead of pulling stuff out of your backside.

    most rational fans want the steelers to retain wallace somewhere near the 9 million per year mark. You, on the other hand, seem to want to throw a tantrum and make wild exaggerations.

    the steelers are a better football team with mike wallace. Sorry you can't see that.
    its been reported that the steelers offered 10 million per year. he turned it down. numerous fans are siding with wallace stating that he should get as much money as possible. so, if 10 million isnt enough for wallace to sign for and fans are still supporting him for holding out, it shows to me that some fans want him to make more than 10 million. 10-14 million is more than 10 million.
    wallace does make this team better, at a decent price. wallace doesnt make this team better if we arent able to sign other playhers that could help us. how can you not see that?

  3. #23
    Hall of Famer Sugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,009
    I really don't care how much Mike Wallace makes, but I would rather see him with the Steelers than not. Can they win without him? Sure, they absolutely can. However, they will be a better team with him than without him. I have no problem with him or the team. It's business and each side has their agenda.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar View Post
    I really don't care how much Mike Wallace makes, but I would rather see him with the Steelers than not. Can they win without him? Sure, they absolutely can. However, they will be a better team with him than without him. I have no problem with him or the team. It's business and each side has their agenda.
    I am one of those Steelers fans that is really unhappy with Mike Wallace. If money is the most important thing in his life and he wants to get the most possible, I don't have any problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is that he is completely ignoring the fact that he IS NOT AN UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT. He's only been in the NFL for three years, and is a restricted free agent. That's just the way the system works. The Steelers have acted in good faith throughout the process of negotiating with Wallace, as exemplified by the fact that they declined to reduce the tender by $2 million as they were entitled to do. And how does Wallace respond? By refusing to sign the tender and holding out. And let's face it, the only purpose to holding out is to threaten that you're not going to show up until week 10. Does that sound like a team player to anyone? So Wallace has done everything but act in good faith.

    Contrast the actions of Wallace with those of a real Pittsburgh Steeler, Lamar Woodley. Two years ago Wodley was in the final year of his initial contract and scheduled to make $500,000. Because of the restrictions involved with the uncapped season, the Steelers were absolutely precluded from signing Woodley to any kind of reasonable extension. So Woodley was stuck playing for $500,000 that year. And what did Woodley do? He kept his mouth shut, showed up at the start of camp, played his ass off, helped get the Steelers to the Super Bowl, and got paid. Woodley wanted to be a Pittsburgh Steeler, Mike Wallace does not. I wouldn't trade Wallace, I'd let him stew. If he wants to show up for the final 6 games, then don't franchise him next year and take the 3rd round pick in 2014. The Steelers are bigger than Mike Wallce.

  5. #25
    Hall of Famer Sugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,009
    The Steelers are indeed bigger than Mike Wallace. That said, the Steelers have been around since 1933 and will be around for the foreseeable future. Mike Wallace will get a maximum NFL career of 10ish years. He's got to get all he can, while he can.

  6. #26
    Administrator steelz09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar View Post
    The Steelers are indeed bigger than Mike Wallace. That said, the Steelers have been around since 1933 and will be around for the foreseeable future. Mike Wallace will get a maximum NFL career of 10ish years. He's got to get all he can, while he can.
    And that's fine too but if he wants more than what the Steelers think he's worth (rumor: 10mil/year) then he can play for someone else. Quite frankly, for over 10 million a year, I hope he does play for someone else. That is plenty for a one-trick poney.

  7. #27
    Legend hawaiiansteel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hawaii 5-0
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by ter1230_4 View Post
    If money is the most important thing in his life and he wants to get the most possible, I don't have any problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is that he is completely ignoring the fact that he IS NOT AN UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT. He's only been in the NFL for three years, and is a restricted free agent. That's just the way the system works.
    $$$$$$$$$$

  8. #28
    Hall of Famer Sugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,009
    Quote Originally Posted by steelz09 View Post
    And that's fine too but if he wants more than what the Steelers think he's worth (rumor: 10mil/year) then he can play for someone else. Quite frankly, for over 10 million a year, I hope he does play for someone else. That is plenty for a one-trick poney.
    I guess it just depends on how much you value that trick.

  9. #29
    Hall of Famer SteelCrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,756
    The 50 million dollar contract Wallace was offered and he refused was probably back end loaded just like Brown's and that is why Wallace turned them down. Ed Bouchette and many others believe the Steelers will not offer any more contracts to Wallace, even if he signs the tender, because of Brown's new contract. Does everyone else agree?

  10. #30
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCrazy View Post
    The 50 million dollar contract Wallace was offered and he refused was probably back end loaded just like Brown's and that is why Wallace turned them down. Ed Bouchette and many others believe the Steelers will not offer any more contracts to Wallace, even if he signs the tender, because of Brown's new contract. Does everyone else agree?
    Right here right now I don't agree with Bouchette at all. Let's see where we are in a week or so. Brown signed the back loaded deal for a reason, otherwise why not offer him more money up front? I would wager they make another play at Wallace before the season starts unless something shakes out from the woodwork indicating otherwise in the near future.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •