Wallace officially a no-show; Steelers suspend negotiations

[hawaiiansteel]

Ed: Trading Wallace Best for Both Sides

SATURDAY, 28 JULY 2012 WRITTEN BY ED BOUCHETTE

Good morning,

It makes more sense than ever for Mike Wallace to sign his one-year tender, get into training camp and play the entire 2012 season. After all, it is his final dress rehearsal for his next employer for 2013.

The Steelers did more than sign a good, young receiver when Antonio Brown committed to them through the 2017 season. They lowered the kaboom on Wallace. There was little chance they were going to give into Wallace’s contract demands before they signed Brown; there is no chance now.

That doesn’t mean a multiple-year contract is no longer available to Wallace. It very well could be. But the number offered by the Steelers before AB would likely be reduced dramatically, that is if negotiations even resume with Wallace on a multiple-year deal.

A sign-and-trade remains a possibility, but the Steelers do not like to go that route because it might set a precedent for a player or players to force trades similarly in the future. However, a trade technically can happen and the scenario would look like this: The Steelers give another team or teams permission to talk to Wallace to try to work out a deal. If they do, Wallace would sign his one-year tender with the Steelers, who then would trade him to the other team.

What could they get for Wallace at this point? No team apparently was willing to give up a first-round draft choice for him when he was a restricted free agent, so why would they do it now? Santonio Holmes, remember, brought them only a fifth-round pick. I’m guessing with Wallace, it could be a fourth-rounder.

Do you do that trade? I think the Steelers have reached a point that they might. They now view Wallace as a potential distraction – not his holdout, but if he ever ends it. He not only slumped in the second half of last season, but so did his attitude and they would assume if he had to sign the one-year deal and was unable to get a longer deal from the Steelers to his satisfaction, that attitude would not improve this season.

This looked to be the most ill-advised holdout since Franco Harris in 1984, and the fallout from that. However, Harris was at the end of the road and the Steelers were willing to give him one final season – they even put him on the cover of their press guide that year, an honor they almost never do for a player or coach. Wallace is only in his fourth season.

If the Steelers do trade Wallace over the next month or so, the holdout could be seen as a victory for the player because he will have gotten big money, only elsewhere. If that happens, the Steelers will have lost one of the league’s best big-play receivers. However, they really never had a choice because they were never going to pay Wallace the kind of money he wanted and it appears he was not going to accept much less.

I’ve written here and said it on radio and TV since the spring that I thought they never would come to a long-term deal with Wallace, that he would have to sign the one-year tender, play this season and enter free agency next March. I did not think a trade could happen. Wallace could try to encourage a trade by not reporting to training camp, and the Steelers could do nothing and let him sit. But once the season begins, if he continues to hold out, neither side gains anything.

The only good way out of this for both sides would be for the Steelers to trade Mike Wallace.

[URL]https://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/117381-ed-trading-wallace-best-for-both-sides[/URL]

[steelz09]

If the Steelers want to trade Wallace, I would want a current player such as a S or nothing less than a 2nd round pick

[hawaiiansteel]

Doubts grow that Mike Wallace has a future in Pittsburgh

Posted by Michael David Smith on July 28, 2012



What does the long-term contract extension for Steelers receiver Antonio Brown mean for the future of the Steelers’ other starting receiver, Mike Wallace?

It may mean Wallace and the Steelers have no future together.

After Brown signed his deal, Steelers beat writer Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote that there won’t be a new deal for Wallace. In other words, the Steelers are telling Wallace that his options are to sign his one-year tender and play this season for $2.7 million, or not to play at all.

If Wallace does sign that one-year tender, he’d become an unrestricted free agent a year from now. At that point, the Steelers could use the franchise tag to keep him, but Bouchette writes that there’s “no way” the Steelers will franchise Wallace. In other words, the Steelers have pretty much resigned themselves to getting one more year out of Wallace, and then letting him move on.

But will they even get another year out of Wallace? Not necessarily, according to Gerry Dulac of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, who writes that the Steelers could trade Wallace in training camp.

That one is harder to picture. First of all, a trade would only happen if there’s a team out there willing both to meet Wallace’s contract demands and to give up compensation that the the Steelers are willing to accept. But if Wallace is really looking for Larry Fitzgerald money, as has been reported, there’s probably not a team out there willing to meet his contract demands. And it’s not clear whether any team is willing to give up the kind of compensation the Steelers would accept: We know no team is going to give up a first-round pick for Wallace because any team could have had him for a first-round pick at any time during the offseason, and no team signed him to an offer sheet. A team might tempt the Steelers with an offer of a second-round pick, but the Steelers could just decide they’d rather have one more year of Wallace’s services, especially considering that the Steelers would get a compensatory pick if Wallace leaves in free agency next year.

In other words, there aren’t many options for Wallace right now. His best bet seems to be signing the tender, having another strong season, and hoping unrestricted free agency goes better for him next year than restricted free agency went for him this year.

[URL]http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/28/doubts-grow-that-mike-wallace-has-a-future-in-pittsburgh/[/URL]

[Oviedo]

If the Steelers want to trade Wallace, I would want a current player such as a S or nothing less than a 2nd round pick

I agree. We don't need to drag this Wallace nonsense into Week 10. Make him a final offer and if he balk find a trading partner.

[squidkid]

I agree. We don't need to drag this Wallace nonsense into Week 10. Make him a final offer and if he balk find a trading partner.

i would have to assume the steelers already let wallace and his agent know that this is their final offer and if he chooses not to sign it, or sign the tender and report to camp, that their would be no further talks and the deal would be pulled.
this organization seems to have the track record of doing things the right way and being fair to the players that deserve it. sometimes too loyal. i dont think wallace needs another 'fina' final offer. he had his chance.

[RuthlessBurgher]

I understand the Steelers not negotiating with Hines until he reported to camp. Hines was under contract but still did not show up to Latrobe, so the team would not negotiate with a player who was in violation of the parameters of his contract.

Same thing with Mike Meriweather...he was under contract, didn't show, negotiations stopped, he sat out a year and was traded.

It makes sense not to negotiate with guys currently under contract who don't show up for camp...you don't want to set that precedent.

But that isn't the case with Mike Wallace. He is not violating his contract by not showing up. He does not have a contract. It's a unique situation and fundamentally different from Ward and Meriweather. Why not continue to work out a contract with a guy who currently does not have a contract?

[squidkid]

I understand the Steelers not negotiating with Hines until he reported to camp. Hines was under contract but still did not show up to Latrobe, so the team would not negotiate with a player who was in violation of the parameters of his contract.

Same thing with Mike Meriweather...he was under contract, didn't show, negotiations stopped, he sat out a year and was traded.

It makes sense not to negotiate with guys currently under contract who don't show up for camp...you don't want to set that precedent.

But that isn't the case with Mike Wallace. He is not violating his contract by not showing up. He does not have a contract. It's a unique situation and fundamentally different from Ward and Meriweather. Why not continue to work out a contract with a guy who currently does not have a contract?

i would agree if thats what was done in the past but it isnt. everybody knows that. wallace and his agent should not have been surprised by this. wallace doesnt have a contract because he chose not to have one. if the steelers gave wallace their 'best' offer and wallace still chose not to accept it, why should the steelers break tradition and continue to negotiate. a new precedent would be set for players to control the negotiations. players and agents have all offseason to work out contracts, this time should be set aside for the team and preparing for the season, not one individual.

[RuthlessBurgher]

i would agree if thats what was done in the past but it isnt. everybody knows that. wallace and his agent should not have been surprised by this. wallace doesnt have a contract because he chose not to have one. if the steelers gave wallace their 'best' offer and wallace still chose not to accept it, why should the steelers break tradition and continue to negotiate. a new precedent would be set for players to control the negotiations. players and agents have all offseason to work out contracts, this time should be set aside for the team and preparing for the season, not one individual.

The precedent is not caving in to players who are currently under contract but violate the provisions of that contract by not showing up to camp. Wallace is not violating anything...he is not under contract. He is not a hold out because he is not signed to any deal.

Saying that negotiating with an unsigned Wallace while camp is going on is breaking the past precedent of not negotiating with a signed Ward or a signed Meriweather until they ended their camp holdouts is almost like saying that Colbert and Khan negotiating a deal with Max Starks after week 4 breaks the precedent that the Steelers have to not negotiate contracts after the regular season starts.

The precedents are that the Steelers will not negotiate extensions for anyone under contract who is not in camp, and will not negotiate extensions for anyone at all once the regular season begins. If the Steelers can negotiate with the unsigned unrestricted free agent Max Starks in the midst of the season without that setting a new precedent, they should be able to negotiate with the signed restricted free agent Mike Wallace in the midst of camp without setting a new precedent.

[Slapstick]

The precedent is not caving in to players who are currently under contract but violate the provisions of that contract by not showing up to camp. Wallace is not violating anything...he is not under contract. He is not a hold out because he is not signed to any deal.

Saying that negotiating with an unsigned Wallace while camp is going on is breaking the past precedent of not negotiating with a signed Ward or a signed Meriweather until they ended their camp holdouts is almost like saying that Colbert and Khan negotiating a deal with Max Starks after week 4 breaks the precedent that the Steelers have to not negotiate contracts after the regular season starts.

The precedents are that the Steelers will not negotiate extensions for anyone under contract who is not in camp, and will not negotiate extensions for anyone at all once the regular season begins. If the Steelers can negotiate with the unsigned unrestricted free agent Max Starks in the midst of the season without that setting a new precedent, they should be able to negotiate with the signed restricted free agent Mike Wallace in the midst of camp without setting a new precedent.

To me (and the Steelers) that's just splitting hairs...

Camp has started and the team is preparing for the season...Mike can't play for anyone else this year, so they expect him to be there...

[Oviedo]

The precedent is not caving in to players who are currently under contract but violate the provisions of that contract by not showing up to camp. Wallace is not violating anything...he is not under contract. He is not a hold out because he is not signed to any deal.

Saying that negotiating with an unsigned Wallace while camp is going on is breaking the past precedent of not negotiating with a signed Ward or a signed Meriweather until they ended their camp holdouts is almost like saying that Colbert and Khan negotiating a deal with Max Starks after week 4 breaks the precedent that the Steelers have to not negotiate contracts after the regular season starts.

The precedents are that the Steelers will not negotiate extensions for anyone under contract who is not in camp, and will not negotiate extensions for anyone at all once the regular season begins. If the Steelers can negotiate with the unsigned unrestricted free agent Max Starks in the midst of the season without that setting a new precedent, they should be able to negotiate with the signed restricted free agent Mike Wallace in the midst of camp without setting a new precedent.

I think the Steelers are setting a new precedent-"when we tell you we aren't going to talk if you don't show up we mean it!"

Wallace has overplayed his hand and over estimated hi value to the Steelers. There are two options:

1. Wallace comes to camp and the Steelers start to talk again.
2. Wallace stays away and nothing happens.

It's up to Wallace whether #1 or #2 happens.

[squidkid]

The precedent is not caving in to players who are currently under contract but violate the provisions of that contract by not showing up to camp. Wallace is not violating anything...he is not under contract. He is not a hold out because he is not signed to any deal.

Saying that negotiating with an unsigned Wallace while camp is going on is breaking the past precedent of not negotiating with a signed Ward or a signed Meriweather until they ended their camp holdouts is almost like saying that Colbert and Khan negotiating a deal with Max Starks after week 4 breaks the precedent that the Steelers have to not negotiate contracts after the regular season starts.

The precedents are that the Steelers will not negotiate extensions for anyone under contract who is not in camp, and will not negotiate extensions for anyone at all once the regular season begins. If the Steelers can negotiate with the unsigned unrestricted free agent Max Starks in the midst of the season without that setting a new precedent, they should be able to negotiate with the signed restricted free agent Mike Wallace in the midst of camp without setting a new precedent.

starks was/is a UFA. wallace is a RFA. its not the same. the steelers didnt own the rights to starks or any other UFA that they would be trying to sign.
once again, i am sure the steelers were clear on their intentions well before wallace decided not to sign and show up to camp.
the steelers have been saying for the longest time that wallace was a top priority, that they wanted to sign him long term. they took the high road and didnt reduce his tender when they could have. its is reported that they offered wallace a 10 million a year deal. what else could/should they have done to make this deal happen except possibly give wallace another 2-4 million per year that was reported he wanted earlier?
what has wallace done or said that has lead you to believe that he has tried as hard as the steelers to make it happen?
i'm not sure what you do for a living, but if you are the boss or you are the employee, and a deal was on the table and both parties knew that the deadline to accept the offer was on X day, and X day passed by, why should either side be suprprised and why should the boss extend it?

[hawaiiansteel]

starks was/is a UFA. wallace is a RFA. its not the same. the steelers didnt own the rights to starks or any other UFA that they would be trying to sign.

I agree, that is the key difference here. Starks was free to sign and play for any other NFL team, Wallace can only play for the Steelers this season as they own his rights.

[hawaiiansteel]

Steelers camp is anything but quiet

Originally Published: July 28, 2012
By John Clayton | ESPN.com


LATROBE, Pa. -- No training camp opened with the explosions that the Pittsburgh Steelers' did, and it had nothing to do with the storms that circled Latrobe, Pa.

The first lightning bolt came in the morning, when it leaked that Jimmy Haslam, a minority owner, was negotiating to buy Randy Lerner's majority shares of the Cleveland Browns. A Steelers owner buying the Browns? Tweeted one loyal Twitter follower, "haven't the Steelers owned the Browns for years?"

Later that day, Browns president Mike Holmgren confirmed the negotiations and higher-ups in the Steelers organization said the transaction was well along and should happen, pending NFL owners' approval.

In the second bombshell, Antonio Brown potentially aced out Mike Wallace for the franchise's long-term wide receiver deal. Wallace, an unsigned restricted free agent, had turned down the Steelers' $9 million-a-year offer.

Like most teams staring at a tight salary cap for the next several years, the Steelers faced a predicament keeping good young players. Wallace could be an unrestricted free agent next year. Brown and talented receiver Emmanuel Sanders are restricted free agents next year and potential free agents in 2014.

Agent Drew Rosenhaus slipped into town Friday and worked a five-year, $42.5 million deal for Brown. Brown's new $2.24 million cap number doesn't kill Wallace's bid for a long-term deal, but it might make it hard for the Steelers to keep him. By lingering on the Steelers' offer and then holding out, Wallace jeopardized his long-term future in Pittsburgh.

The Steelers are now more than $16 million over next year's cap, which might make it hard to franchise Wallace. Mike Tomlin wants to keep both receivers, but at least the Steelers secured Brown.

[URL]http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp12/story/_/page/claytoncamp120728/nfl-five-observations-pittsburgh-steelers-training-camp[/URL]

[Oviedo]

Steelers camp is anything but quiet

Originally Published: July 28, 2012
By John Clayton | ESPN.com


LATROBE, Pa. -- No training camp opened with the explosions that the Pittsburgh Steelers' did, and it had nothing to do with the storms that circled Latrobe, Pa.

The first lightning bolt came in the morning, when it leaked that Jimmy Haslam, a minority owner, was negotiating to buy Randy Lerner's majority shares of the Cleveland Browns. A Steelers owner buying the Browns? Tweeted one loyal Twitter follower, "haven't the Steelers owned the Browns for years?"

Later that day, Browns president Mike Holmgren confirmed the negotiations and higher-ups in the Steelers organization said the transaction was well along and should happen, pending NFL owners' approval.

In the second bombshell, Antonio Brown potentially aced out Mike Wallace for the franchise's long-term wide receiver deal. Wallace, an unsigned restricted free agent, had turned down the Steelers' $9 million-a-year offer.

Like most teams staring at a tight salary cap for the next several years, the Steelers faced a predicament keeping good young players. Wallace could be an unrestricted free agent next year. Brown and talented receiver Emmanuel Sanders are restricted free agents next year and potential free agents in 2014.

Agent Drew Rosenhaus slipped into town Friday and worked a five-year, $42.5 million deal for Brown. Brown's new $2.24 million cap number doesn't kill Wallace's bid for a long-term deal, but it might make it hard for the Steelers to keep him. By lingering on the Steelers' offer and then holding out, Wallace jeopardized his long-term future in Pittsburgh.

The Steelers are now more than $16 million over next year's cap, which might make it hard to franchise Wallace. Mike Tomlin wants to keep both receivers, but at least the Steelers secured Brown.

[URL]http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp12/story/_/page/claytoncamp120728/nfl-five-observations-pittsburgh-steelers-training-camp[/URL]

"Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"

Brilliant move to secure Brown.

[hawaiiansteel]

Wallace’s future uncertain after Brown signs big deal

By Alan Robinson
Published: Saturday, July 28, 2012



Antonio Brown took the money and ran. Mike Wallace apparently will take what’s left, if there’s any left at all.

Training camp wasn’t even a week old before the Steelers started playing economic hardball, responding to a Wallace holdout that has clearly angered them by giving a big-money deal to Brown, Wallace’s wide receiver running mate.

The Steelers’ surprise move to lock up Brown through 2017 with a $42.5 million contract was a preemptive strike to make sure they don’t go through a potentially distracting holdout with their other starting receiver next season.

General manager Kevin Colbert declined to discuss Wallace’s absence during a Saturday news conference in which Brown related the excitement of being given such a contract after making only two touchdown catches and starting three NFL games.

Coach Mike Tomlin’s update on the Wallace holdout was only one word longer: “None.”

Brown, whose emergence as a downfield threat began about the same time as Wallace’s production began falling off last season, signed for the same money the Redskins gave free agent Pierre Garcon. The difference is Garcon caught 16 touchdown passes while averaging 61 catches per season the last three years with Indianapolis.

“He’s a young guy, and it’s only going to get better the more he plays, we anticipate,” Colbert said. “Antonio is one of our hardest workers, and he’s never going to be satisfied.”

With the Steelers already projected to be $15 million over next year’s salary cap, there are questions whether they could fit in another expensive wide receiver’s contract even if Wallace signs his $2.742 million tender, reports to camp and attempts to reopen contract negotiations. Wallace is believed to want a deal worth at least $50 million.

Wallace still has some options; he can become a free agent even if he plays only the final six regular-season games. The Steelers have options, too; they could deal Wallace under a sign-and-trade scenario in which he signs the tender and is immediately dealt.

None of Wallace’s teammates have complained yet about his absence becoming a distraction.

“The man’s trying to do what’s best for his family, and I’m going to try to support him,” nose tackle Casey Hampton said. “So I’m not going to say what I feel like he should do or anything like that. … But we’d love to have him in camp.”

Brown said, “When Mike gets here, we’ll embrace him.”

Brown is the only receiver in NFL history with 1,000 receiving and 1,000 return yards in a season, but Tomlin doesn’t seem as willing to risk using such an expensive talent as a full-time return man again this season.

“We’ve not closed the door on that, but we are looking at some young, promising guys,” Tomlin said.

What the Steelers still aren’t looking at is Mike Wallace, and no one seems to know when he will return again, either.

[URL]http://triblive.com/sports/steelers/2289804-85/wallace-brown-season-steelers-mike-contract-receiver-antonio-deal-million[/URL]