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

[Captain Lemming]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"Fair price- It's not what you say, it's what the market will bear." - Leonard Smalls (His friends call him Lenny)

[feltdizz]

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]

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]

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