Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: Big Ben on Wallace: Steelers will miss him, Dolphins are lucky

Threaded View

  1. #29
    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/pittsburg...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:



    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.
    Last edited by Captain Lemming; 04-09-2013 at 04:07 PM.

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
  •